hoard of silver coins from Carystus

Robinson, David M. (David Moore), 1880-1958
Numismatic Notes and Monographs
American Numismatic Society
New York
Worldcat Works




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


Table of Contents




A hoard of ninety-two silver coins, all covered with a thick purplish incrustation, recently came into my collection from a European dealer. The coins were cleaned with considerable difficulty; 1 the Euboean stater, no. 1 in the catalogue, resisted every effort to remove the incrustation; two Athenian tetradrachms (nos. 79 and 80, Plate VI) have been left uncleaned to aid the identification of other coins which originally belonged with this hoard, if there be any such. The dealer said that he had bought the coins from a peasant who claimed that he had seen them dug up on the slopes of Mt. Ocha, above the modern Carysto (after 1833 called Othonupolis and now Palaechora) and that this constituted the total collection. I have been unable to get any further information about the precise spot on Mt. Ocha, whether they were found in a grave or near the primitive temple mentioned below. It is certain, however, in view of contents of the hoard, that they came from the site of the ancient Carystus. This is the fourth hoard 2 known to have come from Carystus, but only the second to contain Carystian staters from the period before 197 b.c. One, found in 1860, had fifteen; the present hoard has thirty-seven.

Carystus was an important city situated at the southern end of Euboea, at the foot of Mt. Ocha (1404 m. high) 3 where there stands what has been interpreted as the oldest hypaethral temple, one dedicated to a nature-goddess later identified with Hera. 4 Persians under Datis and Artaphernes landed at Carystus in 490 b. c. 5 In honor of their opposition to the Persians and because they were free to plow their land again, the Carystians, after Marathon, dedicated a bronze bull to Apollo at Delphi. 6 But in 480, the Carystians lent aid to Xerxes 7 and Herodotus 8 even says that there was a rumor, which is untrustworthy, that Onetes, son of Phanagoras, a Carystian, betrayed the Greeks at Thermopylae, for which later the Carystians were never forgiven. 9 Carystus was the only city which did not for a long time join the Delian League, according to Geyer, 10 although Besnier 11 says, "Elle fit partie de la confédération maritime d'Athènes." But, about 472 b. c., according to Thucydides, I, 98 and Herodotus, IX, 105, Carystus, without the rest of Euboea, fought the Athenians, came to an agreement, and was finally forced by Cimon to join the League. Up to 451 it paid a tribute of 7½ talents, then until 425, 5 talents. 12 Attic cleruchs evidently 13 reduced the tribute, giving the Carystians more preference. Carystus joined the revolt of 446, 14 but was recovered in 445. From 442–439 Carystus is absent from the full panel. It, however, remained faithful to Athens. In 415–414, the Carystians, according to Thucydides, VII, 57, 4, were φόρου ὑποτελεῖς and in 411 Carystus became a member of the Euboean confederation. Three hundred Carystians joined the service of the Four Hundred at Athens, 15 but they did not have a good reputation. They were considered to be sensualists, though gentlemen. 16 They were a pre-Hellenic people of savage manners, according to Thucydides, VII, 59. In 377 Carystus joined the second maritime confederacy with Athens 17 and, to judge from this hoard, was at that time striking her own coins for the first time since the early fifth century. Later she came under Boeotian and then Macedonian influence. After the expedition of Timotheus in 357, the Athenians were reinstated at Carystus, but by 350 Euboea was detached from the Athenian alliance, the tyrants in the various cities being, in the main, adherents of the Macedonian party. By 338 Carystus was under Macedonian domination along with the rest of Euboea and Greece. In the Lamian war Carystus helped Athens (323–322). In 313 she declared herself independent, after having been held by Cassander; ultimately she again fell under the power of Macedon, was conquered before 265 by Alexander, son of Craterus, and finally lost the last vestige of independence. During the third century she sent offerings to Apollo at Delos, as we know from inscriptional evidence. 18 How Carystus fared during her periods of independence, with whom she traded, what were her reasons for starting an issue of coinage and then stopping it, all these things are unanswered questions, since she was a rather unimportant city-state and did little to change the course of history. In fact, the whole of Euboea never played a very large part in the affairs of Greece, after the early period, and had no historian to give that island immortality; therefore there must be considerable conjecture in any attempt at explanation of the issues of the coins of any and all Euboean cities.

Carystus was always prosperous because of the Carystian plain 19 which was very fruitful, even producing famous nuts. 20 It was fertile and a good place to breed cattle; so a cow appropriately occurs on the coins of Carystus, as on those of practically all the cities of Euboea, a canting type for that land of fine cattle. Thus the staters of Carystus present the rather rare phenomenon of a double punning type: the obverse bearing that of the island and the reverse that of the city. The attitude of the Carystians toward the two will be touched upon in the discussion of the staters themselves. The harbor had good fish; 21 the town produced pottery, specializing in a cooking dish called κάκκαβος by Athenaeus, V, 169f. Carystus was rich in minerals: copper, bronze and asbestos, Καρύαστιος λίϑος 22 It was very famous for the marble called cipollino, a white marble with green veins, much used by the ancients to beautify their buildings. 23 I saw on my visit traces of many ancient quarries on Mt. Ocha and elsewhere near Carystus. It produced many well-known men: Glaucus the athlete, celebrated by Simonides; Diocles the Physician; Aristonicus, the lyre-player and σφαιριστής the ball-player of Alexander; Apollodorus, a comic poet; Diocles, a rhetorician; Antigonus, a biographer and artist; another Antigonus who in the third century b. c. wrote a Collection of Marvels; still another Antigonus, a poet of the Augustan age. 24

Of the ninety-two coins of the hoard the largest portion is from Euboea, a total of 76: of the remaining sixteen, six are Athenian tetradrachms with the caricatured owl of the fourth century; two are staters from Elis; four are tetradrachms, and three, drachmas of Alexander; and the last one is a rare tetradrachm of Antiochus Hierax. They have been catalogued chronologically, with the exception that the coins of Athens and of Elis have been placed after the Euboean drachmas, although they were probably contemporaneous. This actually disturbs the order very little and serves to leave the Euboean coins, the most important group in the hoard, together in the catalogue.

Milne in his Greek and Roman Coinage (pp. 92–97) discusses the differences between two main classes of hoards, domestic and mercantile, which in summary form are as follows. Mercantile hoards are predominantly local with no preference for staters; they may contain a marked proportion of worn coins (the contents of the till) or of freshly minted pieces (cash drawn for a definite purpose). Domestic hoards normally contain the best coins in circulation and the largest denominations readily available. The proportion of badly worn coins is smaller than in casual finds representing ordinary currency. Many domestic hoards contain earlier worn pieces and then fresh ones, indicating the time that the hoard was started and its subsequent growth. Such hoards are only accumulated when economic conditions are fairly stable. If there has been depreciation of the currency, the operation of Gresham's law (which Gresham did not invent) makes the "best" coins in circulation the older heavier ones; consequently the appearance of the coins in a domestic hoard is dependent on financial and economic conditions.

Further differences in the two types of hoard, not mentioned by Milne , must also be considered. A mercantile hoard can be presumed to contain a large proportion of currency in common use at a given moment when some circumstance prompted the secretion of the money. In such a case comparative wear would give an indication of comparative dating of the coins, but an indication merely, since it is obviously impossible to trace the wanderings of an individual coin, and since foreign coins would tend to show more wear than local ones. Take for instance the hoard from Siphnos published by Newell 25 which contained, among others, seventeen Athenian coins all but one of which (a tetradrachm) were much more worn than the coins of Siphnos itself, which were at least as early as, if not earlier than, the Athenian pieces. The Siphnos hoard, like the one under discussion, is neither clearly mercantile according to Milne's definition nor clearly domestic. Indeed it is unlikely that most hoards can be so sharply delineated unless they appear in recognizable contexts in the course of excavations. However, a domestic hoard, the "proverbial stocking," to quote Milne , would contain coins covering a greater range of years (cf. for example the third, fourth and fifth Dura hoards, the last of which ranges in date from 49–20 b.c. to 256–7 a.d.) 26 and of varying degrees of wear, depending (a) upon the financial condition of the country or city — i.e. whether or not there was a depreciation of the currency at any time, (b) upon the financial condition of the hoarder, and (c) upon whether the coin was of local or foreign origin. Obviously a comparatively poor person would save whatever coin he could: a drachma or a tetrobol might well mean considerable scrimping; a wealthier person could exercise some discrimination in what coins he saved. Therefore, to argue from wear on hoard coins it must be demonstrated either that all the coins were withdrawn from circulation at once and stored away, and a distinction made between local and foreign currency, or that the hoarder had a historical rather than a financial interest in the coins. If he had two pieces of equal value, he may be supposed to have put away the better looking, if it weighed more. It seems fallacious to assume that the thrifty souls of antiquity, whose savings we come upon from time to time, were coin collectors in the modern sense, seeking to possess only the most beautiful of coins. This is not to say they were not cognizant of beauty: who would dare say that of a Greek ? But, in a domestic hoard, even more than in a mercantile one, cash value, or bullion value, that is weight, is to be taken as the determining factor in the selection of coins to be saved.

Our hoard has more characteristics of the domestic than of the mercantile hoard. Of the ninety-two coins fifty-one are staters or tetradrachms; forty-one are drachmas. Sixteen pieces are not of the island and of the remaining seventy-six, thirty are not of Carystus. Milne's statement that such a hoard contains "normally the best coins in circulation and the largest denominations readily available" is not at all restrictive. We have no way of knowing what are normally the best coins in circulation; in city states where the mint operated somewhat fitfully, the best coins of the year preceding an issue by the mint would not be in such good condition as the best coins in a year in which the mint operated. The "largest denomination readily available" would depend more on the financial condition of the hoarder than on the coins in circulation. The fact that this hoard ranges in date from the end of the fifth century to the second half of the third and contains but ninety-two coins is clear proof that it was not the saving of a wealthy family. Surely private financial and economic considerations determined the deposition of each coin in the hoard. It is, indeed, rather surprising, but not impossible, that the family savings were kept more or less intact over so long a period of time, although of course there is no way of knowing how often some coins were withdrawn to meet an emergency.

Disregarding the "foreign" coins in the hoard, the seventy-six Euboean pieces show signs of wear which preclude the possibility of judging relative chronology from wear. The Euboean stater, no. 1, is in very good condition; it might even be described as fine. It is the earliest coin in the hoard and obviously saw little circulation before being put away. Of the thirty-seven Carystian staters, 6% are very worn, 17% are worn and 40% are somewhat worn. The chart shows the distribution of the three groups of Carystian staters (see below for the classification), the Carystian drachmas and the Euboean drachmas, with symbols and without. In summary form these are the figures:

Carystian staters: 6% very worn; 17% worn; 40% somewhat worn.

Carystian drachmas: 12% very worn; 62% worn; 25% somewhat worn.

Euboean drachmas: 17% worn; 60% somewhat worn.

So we see nearly all the Carystian drachmas not well preserved; 77% of the Euboean drachmas more than slightly worn; 63% of the Carystian staters more than slightly worn.

Fine Very Good Good Slightly Worn Some-what Worn Worn Very Worn
  staters 1 3 4 5 16 6 2
  short ethnic 1 3 3 4 8 4 1
  full ethnic     1 1 2    
  monogram         4 2 1
  drachmas         2 5 1
  drachmas 1 2 1 2 17 6  
  lyre   1 1   5    
  Silen mask         2    
  cantharus 1 1   2 5 1
  grapes           1  
  no symbol         3 3  
  dolphin         2 1  

The pattern which emerges in the staters shows that those with the short form of the ethnic (Group I, the earliest issue) include 47% in slightly worn, or better, condition, while the other two later groups have no specimen as good as some of those in Group I. This is a contradiction of Milne's statement that the early coins of a domestic hoard are more worn than the later entrants into it, a contradiction whose force is enhanced by the Euboean stater no. 1; on the other hand, the very small proportion of very worn coins (6%), as well as the number of staters in contrast to the Carystian drachmas, do not allow the term mercantile to be applied to this hoard. It must be concluded that the period during which the early staters were struck, or perhaps a few more years, was a period of comparative prosperity for the family, when they were able to put away twenty-five staters. This is confirmed by the dies, since there is evidence of heavy striking in this series; surely private prosperity is in most cases at least closely associated with civic prosperity. If large numbers of these coins appeared on the market in quick succession, it must have been at a time of considerable prosperity when the family could save a large proportion of its income. The later staters were struck more lightly, for there are fewer die links; the inference is that times were less prosperous and there was less money in circulation; the family was able to save fewer and these in poorer condition.

Moreover, without considering the possible application of Gresham's law that good money tends to be driven out of circulation by bad, it is revealing to note that the 'somewhat worn' staters have a high average weight.

      Group I   Group II   Group III
  Condition   (Numbers and weights, average)
  Fine 1. 7.22        
  Very Good 3. 7.15        
  Good 3. 6.52 1. 7.18    
  Slightly Worn 4. 6.85 1. 7.29    
  Somewhat Worn 8. 7.03 2. 6.25 4. 6.59
  Worn 4. 6.64     2. 6.65
  Very Worn 1. 6.95     1. 5.90 (chipped)

There can be no question but that the weight of the coin was the determining factor in its entrance into the hoard. Ancient methods of minting being what they were, it is not surprising that a person interested in putting away as much value as possible would lay more stress on weight than on appearance. Groups II and III do not show so clearly the importance of weight as a determining factor (their small number, 12, makes them less valuable as evidence), but they do show that it is not always the earliest coin that is the most worn. There can be no question about the chronological order of these Groups of staters: fabric, style and technique all combine to place Group I sometime about 377–371 and the other two Groups at least as late as 323, if not 313.

Turning to the other large group of coins in the hoard, the thirty Euboean drachmas, no. 45, which is a unicum has been excluded from the tabular survey on p. 8. The remaining thirty-one are grouped according to symbol in a relative chronology discussed in detail below. It is based on the quality of the style; the development of the coiffure from the coins of Evaenetus and his followers, widely adopted in Greece after 368, and the influence of the sculptural style through the latter half of the fourth century, as well as the deterioration of inspiration, not of an individual artist, but of numismatic art as a whole in the third century. While it is true that any stylistic argument may be considered subjective, yet generally recognized trends of style in related arts cannot be ignored. The existence of the British Museum coin (see below p. 4), in style closely related to those of Syracuse, is sufficient to make it clear that Euboea was in the area affected by these trends in style. No. 45 and the British Museum coin show the early stage before any symbol was used; nos. 66–71, also without symbol, occur much later in the series when the political situation did not warrant the addition of symbols to the type. The disparity between the early coins without symbol and nos. 66–71 shows clearly that they could not have been struck contemporaneously.

Turning back to the chart on p. 8, the similarity of the "wear pattern" of the drachmas to that of the staters is apparent. There are more of the earlier coins in better than "somewhat worn" condition than of the later ones. As with the staters, weight here is the determining factor in the entrance of a coin into the hoard.

group fine very good good slightly worn- some-what worn worn very worn
Lyre 3.30 3.32 3.65
Silen 3.12
Cantharus 3.30 3.70 3.32 3.76
3.20 3.11(b) 3.36
Grapes 3.15
None 3.30 3.25
3.35 3.17
Dolphin 3.48 3.16
Average 3.25 3.30 3.32 3.40 3.33 3.29
Average weight of total: 3.31

Those weights marked (b) indicate coins which chipped in cleaning, because of the crystalization of the metal. The one coin with the cantharus symbol, weighing 3.70 (no. 55) is the only one of high weight in better than "somewhat worn" condition; this is balanced by no. 63, a "worn" coin, weighing 3.76. It is evident that too little attention has been paid to weight as contrasted with wear in the study of domestic hoards. The coin in best condition from the point of view of the hoarder is the coin that weighs the most, not the one which looks the most beautiful. This principle should also operate in the case of mercantile hoards, since, except for purely local currency which had a token value rather than a value determined by the metal content, weight would be of prime importance. All other factors aside, weight, which is accurately measurable, as contrasted with degrees of wear, the determination of which is bound to be somewhat subjective, is tangible evidence on which to rely; weight must be considered before drawing conclusions about dates from the amount of wear on coins, particularly in dealing with domestic hoards such as this. For a further instance of a later coin which is more worn than an earlier one, see the Elean staters, nos. 81–82, pp. 56–57, and Plate VI.

Therefore, in assigning relative and suggesting definite dates for Carystian and Euboean coins, greater reliance has been placed on such factors as fabric, technique, style and historical probability than on the wear of coins within the hoard. Particularly in this hoard, where the earliest and the latest coins of the ninety are the best preserved, any reliance on wear in determining dates is like to building one's house upon the sand.

Euboea, Stater

1. Unadorned head of Nymph r., in fine style.

Rev. Bull (or heifer?) with tilted head, standing r. on exergual line; traces of circular border; above Ẹ ΥB

Wt. (uncleaned) 13.85 grms. (cleaned) 13.85 grms. 0.028 m. and 0.022 m. ↑ ↓ Fine.

It is generally stated 27 that a federal coinage, on the Aeginetan standard, probably struck at Eretria, was begun after 411 when Euboea recovered her freedom. The types were a recumbent bull on the obverse and the head of the nymph on the reverse with the inscription. The standard was changed to the Attic about the time that Eretria allied herself again with Athens, in 378 or earlier; the types were changed to those of this coin. Cf. Grose, Mc Clean Coll. II, pl. 205, 6; Babelon, Traité, pl. CXCVII, 20–22. An unpublished coin in the Newell collection (wt. 16.36 grms.) and Münzen und Medaillen, Basel, Sale Catalogue, VIII, 1949, no. 820 (wt. 16.42 grms.) are from the same obverse die as the hoard coin, and probably from the same reverse. The same reverse is also used on the Berlin coin, Traité p. 195, no. 171a pl. 197, 20.

The style of the nymph's head, 28 unadorned by fillet, earrings or necklace, simplex munditiis, bears a startling resemblance to the bronze head found in the Athenian Agora in 1932. Homer Thompson 29 after careful study has dated that head ca. 430 b.c., giving as the terminus ante quem 413 b.c. when the profile head on the Syracusan tetradrachms developed a softness of outline which the Agora head does not have. The coiffure of the nymph on the hoard coin is not exactly like that of the bronze head; while the hair is pulled up to the top of the head, it has been done rather loosely, so that the hair waves naturally away from the face. The profile is marked by the same right angle of chin and neck as on the Agora head. The head on the Mc Clean coin (which has a different form of the inscription on the reverse) is not so delicate, although the hair shows some influence from the Syracusan tetradrachms of Evaenetus. It is surely later than this head.

The weight of this coin presents a problem. The Attic standard is variously given: by Head, H.N. 2 p. xlviii, as 17.49, with whom Gardner, History of Ancient Coinage, p. 156 agrees; by Seltman, Greek Coins, p. 42, as 17.00 grms. I should prefer to set the figure at 17.44 grms. which is 1/125 of the royal mina of 1090 grms. In any case the Attic standard must be above 17 grms. Of the six Athenian tetradrachms in the hoard, the two uncleaned specimens weigh 17.31 and 17.45 grms. (nos. 79 and 80); the cleaned specimens, (nos. 75–78), all of which are worn, weigh respectively 16.50, 16.50, 16.40, and 16.31 grms. Such Euboean tetradrachms of Attic weight as I know have the following weights recorded: Mc Clean, no. 5704, 16.59 grms., three in the Newell collection, 16.36, 16.32 and 16.95 grms., three listed by Babelon, Traité, pp. 195–6, 16.10, 16.45, 17.01 grms., the Basel coin mentioned above, 16.42 grms., Naville, 16 (1933), 1180, 16.51 grms. There can be no question but that these coins are struck on the Attic standard. Turning to the hoard coin, we have the extant weight of 13.85 grms., which is far too light for a tetradrachm on the Attic standard. Furthermore, this is the only coin in the hoard from which it was impossible to remove the heavy incrustation. The other coins, in the cleaning, shed this rather heavy layer, which flaked off with a tooth pick. Five Carystian staters were weighed before and after cleaning, with the results given below. The norm for these coins, on the Macedonian standard, is 7.29–7.36 grms.

Uncleaned Cleaned Percentage of loss
8.15 6.85 15 plus
8.05 6.95 13 plus
8.00 7.11 11 plus
8.15 6.65 18 plus
7.85 6.70 14 plus

The average loss is 14 % and the range represented by these coins, taken quite at random, goes from more than 18 % to more than 11 %. Two of the drachmas, one of Carystus and one of Eretria, suffered a loss of slightly over 4 % of the weight in cleaning. The diameter of the Euboean stater is 0.002 m. larger than the average for the Carystian staters; this means that the Euboean coin has a slightly larger surface area for corrosion and that more than 14% loss could be assumed from cleaning, provided it were possible to remove the incrustation, which has hitherto resisted three separate efforts at cleaning the coin. After each attempt the coin was weighed and its weight remained 13.85 grms. But, to take as a conservative figure 14%, the weight loss would be 1.91 grms, which subtracted from 13.85 would leave 11.94 grms., as the cleaned weight of the coin, a figure which is probably too high, since 14% is conservative. The Euboean staters of Aeginetan weight, of which I know the weights are as follows: 11.94, 11.92, 11.45 (all from Babelon, Traité, pp. 193–194), Newell collection, 11.45 grms. The figures for the Carystian staters indicate that about 14% was added to the norm for the denomination by incrustation. If 14% be added to the norm for the Aeginetan stater (ca. 12.60 or ca. 12.14 grms.) the weight is 14.24 or 13.72 grms., in the former case only .39 grms. more and in the latter .13 grms. less than the weight of the hoard coin, which although in fine condition was probably not fresh from the mint. Therefore, in spite of the fact that certainly the obverse die and possibly the reverse die were used for Attic weight tetradrachms (cf. the references to the Newell and Basel coins above), this coin is an Aeginetan stater and provides the connecting link between the staters and the tetradrachms, proving that the type was changed before the standard. This change probably took place near the beginning of the fourth century (cf. note 27).

End Notes

For the chronology see Head, H.N.2, 362, and Gardner, History of Ancient Coinage, 365. These disagree as to the date of the introduction of the Attic standard, Head giving 378 and Gardner 394. The occurrence of this coin in the hoard gives more weight to Gardner's date.
Babelon, Traitè des monnaies grecques et romaines, 2ème Partie, Tome III, (hereinafter cited simply as Traité) 195–6, cites Mahler, Journ. Int. d'Arch. Num. 3 (1900) 194–196 for the suggestion that this head is a copy from a head of "Apollo" in the Louvre, with replicas in Dresden and Naples. He dates the coin ca. 400 B.C.
H. Thompson in HSCP, Supplement 1 (Athenian Studies Presented to William Scott Ferguson) 196–198.


Staters on the Macedonian standard, norm: 7.29–7.36 grms.

Group I

2. Cow standing r., head turned back, with kneeling, suckling calf, on broad irregular exergual line. Damage to die at cow's r. hoof and exergual line.

Rev. Κ А above and P Υ Σ to r. of cock poised to crow, r. Artist 1. 30

P 1 A 1 Wt. 6.69 grms. 0.0245 m. ↑ ↑ Somewhat worn.

3. 31 Die of 2. Cow's forefoot and exergual line confused.

Rev. Similar to 2 and possibly the same die. Artist 1.

P 2 A 1 Wt. 7.22 grms. ↑ ↑ Fine

4. 32 Die of 2. First break extends to l. forefoot; second appears at calf's l. foreleg and body.

Rev. Die of 3.

P 2 A 1 Wt. (uncleaned) 8.15 grms. (cleaned) 6.85 grms.

0.0232 m. ↑ ↓ Somewhat worn.

5. Die of 2. First break extends below exergual line; second obscures calf's upper leg and body.

Rev. Similar to 2. Artist 1.

P 3 A 1 Wt. 6.10 grms. 0.0225 m. ↑ ↘ Good.

6. Die of 2. Die in condition of no. 5.

Rev. Die of 5.

P 3 A 1 Wt. 7.22 grms. 0.021 m. ↑ ↘ Somewhat worn.

7. Die of 2, in same condition as nos. 5 and 6.

Rev. Die of 5.

P 3 A 1 Wt. (uncleaned) 8.05 grms. (cleaned) 6.95 grms.

0.0231 m. ↑ ↘ Very worn.

8. Die of 2. First break damages l. leg; second little changed.

Rev. Die of 5.

P 3 A 1 Wt. (uncleaned) 8.15 grms. (cleaned) 6.65 grms.

0.023 m. ↑ ↘ Worn.

9. Die of 2. First break obscures both forelegs; second extends farther down calf's leg.

Rev. Similar to 2. Artist 4. 33

P 4 A 1 Wt. (uncleaned) 8.00 grms. (cleaned) 7.11 grms.

0.0244 m. ↑ ← Good.

10. 34 Die of 2, in same condition as no. 9.

Rev. Similar to 2. Artist 3.

P 5 A 1 Wt. 6.90 grms. 0.0222 m. ↑ ↖ A Very good.

11. Die of 2. First break obscures forelegs higher; second extends into body of calf.

Rev. Similar to 2. Artist 3.

P 6 A 1 Wt. 6.36 grms. 0.0242 m. ↑ ↑ Good.

12. Die of 2. First break extends farther below exergual line; second slightly larger.

Rev. Similar to 2. Break visible on body just above r. leg. Artist 1.

P 7 A 1 Wt. 7.29 grms. 0.0242 m. ↑ ← Somewhat worn.

13. Die of 2. Die in condition of no. 12.

Rev. Die of 12. First break slightly larger; second at center back. P 7 A 1 Wt. 7.00 grms. 0.0225 m. ↑ → Somewhat worn.

14. Die of 2. First break slightly retouched at forelegs; second little changed.

Rev. Die of 12. First break slightly larger; second extends into field. P 7 A 1 Wt. 7.13 grms. 0.0225 m. ↑ ↘ Slightly worn.

15. Die of 2. First break reaches dewlap; second reaches exergue.

Rev. Similar to 2; tail feathers and rear claw of r. foot different from P 1 and P 2. Artist 1.

P 8 A 1 Wt. 6.90 grms. 0.0245 m. ↑ ↖ Slightly worn.

16. 35 Similar to 2. Die damaged slightly at cow's l. hind foot.

Rev. Similar to 3, but letters in different position. Artist 1. P 9 A 2 Wt. 6.39 grms. 0.0236 m. ↑ ↘ Slightly worn. (broken)

17. Die of 16. Damaged area mostly off flan.

Rev. Die of 10.

P 5 A 2 Wt. 6.88 grms. 0.023 m. ↑ ↑ Very good.

18. Die of 16. First break obscure; second at cow's r. forefoot.

Rev. Die of 10.

P 5 A 2 Wt. 7.68 grms. 0.024 m. ↑ ↖ Very good.

18a. Die of 18.

Rev. Die of 10.

P 6 A 2 Wt. 7.15 grms. 0.025 m. ↑ ↑ Somewhat worn.

19. Die of 16. First break off flan; second little larger than on 18.

Rev. Similar to 2. Artist 3.

P 10 A 2 Wt. 7.00 grms. 0.0227 m. ↑ ↑ Slightly worn.

20. Die of 16. First break extends to calf's r. forefoot; second toward cow's l. forefoot.

Rev. Die of 12. Both breaks larger.

P 7 A 2 Wt. 6.91 grms. 0.0222 m. ↑ ↓ Somewhat worn.

21. Die of 16. First break reaches exergual line; second off flan.

Rev. Die of 12. Both breaks larger.

P 7 A 2 Wt. 7.40 grms. 0.0222 m. ↑ ↑ Somewhat worn.

22. First break obscures exergual line and legs of both animals; second break enlarged.

Rev. Die of 15.

P 8 A 2 Wt. (uncleaned) 7.85 grms. (cleaned) 6.70 grms.

0.022 m. ↑ ↓ Worn (very?)

23. Die of 16. First break widens exergual line over calf's hoof; second obscures both forefeet and exergual line.

Rev. Die of 15. (Possibly traces of restriking.)

P 8 A 2 Wt. 6.45 grms. 0.0225 m. ↑ ← Worn.

24. 36 Similar to 2, but exergual line narrow and regular.

Rev. Same type as 2, but cock less soigné.

P 11 A 3. Wt. 6.92 grms. 0.0228 m. ↑ ↙ Somewhat worn.

25. Similar to 24.

Rev. Similar to 2. Condition of coin prevents positive identification with a known die; it seems to be in the style of the third artist.

P 12 A 4 Wt. 6.78 grms. 0.022 m. ↑ ↖ Worn.



Group II

26. 37 Cow and calf as on 2, on exergual line which is heavy but not so irregular as on A 1 and A 2.

Rev. ΚА above and PΥΣ TІΩΝ to r. of cock.

P 13 A 5 Wt. 6.07 grms. 0.024 m. ↑ ↑ Somewhat worn.

27. Die of 26.

Rev. Die of 26.

P 13 A 5 Wt. 7.18 grms. 0.0242 m. ↑ ↑ Good.

28. Die of 26.

Rev. Die of 26.

P 13 A 5 Wt. 7.29 grms. 0.0232 m. ↑ ↑ Slightly worn.

29. Similar to 26.

Rev. Die of 26.

P 13 A 6 Wt. 6.43 grms. 0.0219 m. ↑ ↑ Somewhat worn.

30. 38 Similar to 26, except for narrower exergual line and dotted circular border.

Rev. image above and ΚАP ΥΣTІΩΝ to r. of cock.

P 14 A 7 Wt. 6.09 grms. 0.0245 m. ↑ ↓ Somewhat worn.

31. Die of 30.

Rev. Die of 30.

P 14 A 7 Wt. 7.45 grms. 0.0238 m. ↑ ↓ Somewhat worn.

32. Similar to 30, but without dotted circular border.

Rev. Similar to 30, but with monogram image

P 15 A 8 Wt. 6.69 grms. 0.023 m. ↑ ↓ Worn, broken.

33. Die of 32.

Rev. Die of 32.

P 15 A 8 Wt. 6.62 grms. 0.0232 m. ↑ ↓ Worn.

34. Die of 32.

Rev. Die of 32.

P 15 A 8 Wt. 5.90 grms. 0.0222 m. ↑ ↓ Very worn, broken.

35. Similar to 32.

Rev. Similar to 32.

P 16 A 9 Wt. 6.24 grms. 0.022 m. ↑ → Somewhat worn.

36. Die of 35.

Rev. Similar to 35, but cock's legs longer.

P 17 A 9 Wt. 6.59 grms. 0.023 m. ↑ → Somewhat worn.

36a. Die of 36.

Rev. Similar to 36.

P 18 A 9 Wt. 6.42 grms. 0.023 m. ↑ → Somewhat worn.

Die Sequence


Drachmas on the Macedonian standard, norm: 3.64–3.68 grms.

37. Head of Heracles r., in lion skin.

Rev. ΚАP above bull reclining l. No club visible in field below. P 1 A 1 Wt. 3.65 grms. 0.014 m. ↑ → Very worn.

38. Similar to 37.

Rev. ΚАPΥ above bull reclining l; in field below, club.

P 2 A 2 Wt. 3.02 grms. 0.0159 m. ↑ ↑ Worn.

39. Similar to 37.

Rev. Die of 38.

P 2 A 3 Wt. 3.56 grms. 0.0169 m. ↑ ← Worn.

40. 39 Similar to 37.

Rev. Similar.to 38.

P 3 A 4 Wt. 3.40 grms. 0.016 m. ↑ ↑ Somewhat worn.

41. Similar to 37.

Rev. Similar to 38.

P 4 A 5 Wt. 3.30 grms. 0.0158 m. ↑ → Worn.

42. Similar to 37.

Rev. Die of 41.

P 4 A 6 Wt. 3.51 grms. 0.0161 m. ↑ ↓ Somewhat worn.

43. Similar to 37.

Rev. Similar to 38, but club longer.

P 5 A 7 Wt. (uncleaned) 3.71 grms. (cleaned) 3.55 grms.

0.0164 m. ↑ → Worn.

44. Similar to 38, slightly larger and details of mane dissimilar.

Rev. Similar to 38.

P 6 A 8 Wt. 3.35 grms. 0.017 m. ↑ → Worn.

  P1 P2 P2 P3 P4 P4 P5 P6
  37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
  A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8

These thirty-seven staters and eight drachmas of Carystus represent the largest group in the hoard, and nearly half the total number of coins in it. While it is not possible, of course, to draw final conclusions from such a number, these pieces do suggest a more definite chronology than has been given to the fourth century coinage of Euboea; together with the Euboean drachmas (nos. 45–74) they help to clarify the numismatic history of the island.

Leaving the drachmas out of account for the moment, the fabric and mint technique of the staters makes it possible to arrive at a relative chronology for them. Head and Babelon 40 have already suggested a considerable interval of time between the minting of the staters with the short ethnic (nos. 2–25) and the others; Head was not aware of the existence of the variety with the complete ethnic but no monogram. For convenience those with the short ethnic, nos. 2–25, are called Group I, those with the complete ethnic, nos. 26–29, Group II, and those with complete ethnic and monogram, nos. 30–36, Group III. They show some differences of size and weight, the former of which is emphasized by the fact that on the first Group the cow is always slightly too large for the flan. Curiously enough, as the flans grew larger the cows grew smaller. Below are the differences in weight and size.

Group Weight (without lightest) Diameter Range of greatest frequency.
  I 6.97 grms. 0.0229 m. 0.0222–5 m.
  II 6.96 grms. 0.023 m. 0.024 m.
  III 6.84 grms. 0.0231 m. 0.0231 m.

Since Groups II and III are more like one another than Group I, their weights also have been averaged: 6.90 grms. As Group II and III total only eleven coins as contrasted with the twenty-four in Group I, it is perhaps unsafe to say more than that Group I coins are at once heavier and smaller than the others. They are thicker and the reverse, if not actually scyphate, is at least deeply saucer-shaped, indicating the use of a circular punch very little, if any, larger than the die. The result of this difference in shape is apparent on the coins: the reverses of Group I are in many cases almost unworn, while the obverses are badly rubbed (cf. nos. 3, 9, 10, 11, 17–19); in the other Groups the wear is more nearly the same on both sides. The dies in Group I are all loose; in Group II the dies are fixed in the upright position; of the third Group, nos. 30–34 have the dies reversed and nos. 35–36 have the punch die at a right angle. At first glance it would seem then that the catalogue order should be changed, since Group II has the normal position for fixed dies. But, there is no real difference between having the dies fixed upright or in reverse, for the stresses on them are identical, at least on dies with such types as these. The real advance comes in nos. 35 and 36, where placing the punch die at a right angle to the anvil insures that the long axes of the dies are in the same direction, with a resultant distribution and equalization of pressure in use which would prolong the life of the dies. Therefore, from the point of view of technique and fabric, it appears that Group I is the earliest and that some time elapsed between it and the two subsequent Groups, which probably succeeded one another closely.

In the catalogue the order of the coins is the result of the observation of the growth of die breaks, each of which is recorded; the use of anvil die A 1 before A 2 is proved by the growth of the breaks on punch die P 7. In no. 12 it shows only the lower break; nos. 13 and 14 show the upper break as well, in a sufficiently advanced form to presuppose considerable use between nos. 12 and 13. Nos. 20 and 21, which show P 7 with A 2, show both breaks larger than on any of the coins with A 1. The other two punch dies used with both anvils (P 5 and P 8) have no discernable damage and their position in the se- quence is based, as is that of all the other dies, on the growth of breaks in the anvil dies. Either this issue of Carystian staters was very heavy or the two anvil dies were used over a long period. If the latter were the case, we might reasonably expect to find great individual variety in the punches and fewer coins from the same dies in the hoard. Possibly also there might be differences in wear, although that is a minor consideration in such a hoard as this. However, there is little variety in the punch dies, not more than can be attributed to individual artists working simultaneously; the type of the cock is homogeneous and in considerable contrast to that of the later staters. In the case of P 2, P 3, P 5, P 7 and P 8 we have from two to five coins from the same die. It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that, whatever the occasion for the commencement of this issue, a demand for large numbers of coins was felt and was met by such coins as these in the hoard. In the case of nos. 24 and 25, each of which has both punch and anvil dies unconnected with the others (cf. note 36) we may infer that production slackened off after the first demand for currency was satisfied. This inference from the hoard is confirmed by such published specimens as are known to me; there are only two coins, those mentioned in note 41, from the dies of no. 24 and none, so far as I have been able to determine, from the dies of no. 25.

The dies present another anomaly, or perhaps tend to refute a statement which has gone unchallenged. The punch die, because of the pressure exerted directly upon it, is presumed to have worn out faster than the anvil. 41 Here we have ten punch dies, with only one (P 7) showing signs of wear, used with two anvil dies, both of which show some damage in their earliest use in the hoard (nos. 2. and 16) and an increasing amount with the changing punch dies. The increase has been noted in the catalogue. The reason for such a state of affairs is not clear, but may possibly be set down to local patriotism. The obverse type, bovine as was customary in Euboea, pointed less directly to Carystus than did the cock on the reverse. The later use of the complete ethnic and then an additional monogram on the reverse are further indications that to the people of Carystus the reverse type was the more important. For the obverse then, as long as they had the cow, her battered state was of no concern, but the cock had to be in prime condition.

Though many etymologies have been given for the name Carystus, 42 evidently the Carystians thought of the cock κᾶρυξ, the herald of the dawn, as at Himera in Sicily. 43 It was their symbol and παράσημoν, their actual coat of arms. Κηρύσσω or Καρύσσω was often used of the cock's crowing, and at Carystus there was a cult of Hermes Κῆρυξ Aristophanes alludes to the connection onomatopoetically. 44 It is not surprising then that the reverse type for Carystian staters is a cock, a local canting type, adopted as early as the end of the sixth century. On the early coins 45 the cock is a good barnyard denizen; on the fourth century staters the cock comes of pedigreed stock. Those coins with the short ethnic have a plump, lusty, spirited bird, poised to crow, a proper pose for such a canting type. The staters with the complete ethnic have a very elegant bird, but he is slim and sleek, emulating the eagle of the Elean staters dated after 323 b.c., in the erectness of his stance. He has lost to elegance much of the vigor and belligerency of his predecessor.

On the ten dies used with the first Group of staters, it is possible to see the work of three or four artists. 46 The first artist, who is not the most gifted, made three dies used only with A 1 (P 1, no. 2; P 2, nos. 3 and 4; P 3, nos. 5–8), one die used with both anvils (P 8, nos, 15, 22, 23) and one die used only with A 2 (P 9, no. 16). These five dies have such minor differences that it is difficult to distinguish them: possibly P 1 is the same as P 2, but the letters K and A seem to be slightly higher on P 1; P 8 differs from P 2 chiefly in the angle of the rear talon of the right foot, best seen on no. 15; P 9 is differentiated from P 3 only in the cross bar of the A and the spacing of the K and A. Artist 1 was possibly the main workman, since he made half the extant dies. The second artist made only one die appearing in the hoard; it is P 7 (nos. 12, 13, 14, 20, 21) where the cock has unusually long wattles. This is the only punch which is damaged; by means of it the order of use of A 1 and A 2 has been determined. The third artist is the most individual of the lot; three dies which are used with both anvils are certainly assignable to him, possibly two others. P 5 (nos. 10,17,18), P 6 (no. 11) and P 10 (no. 19) have a cock with short wattles and slightly opened mouth, in an aggressive pose which is enhanced by the roughened appearance of his feathers. The effect seems to have been produced by the use of the drill only slightly masked. He also used the drill in making the letters, connecting the dots (depressions in the die) by thick lines; the Κ often appears as Κ, not a rare form generally, but confined to Artist 3 on the Carystian pieces. He may also have been the artist of P 4 (no. 9) and of SNGL, III, 1782; these show the same use of the drill, but the pose of the bird is different: there is a shallow curve from the tip of the tail, along the back and up the neck, while P 5, P 6, and P 10 have no curve between neck and back and a rather sharp angle between back and tail. It is hard to tell whether one pose is characteristic of one artist or whether the same artist varied the stance of his bird. At least they are closely related; in the catalogue the maker of P 4 has been called Artist 4. The maker of P 11 perhaps is Artist 1, but the only specimen from this die in the hoard (no. 24) does not show the arrangement of the tail feathers which Artist 1 uses elsewhere. It is in his rather pedestrian style. No. 25 is worn, and damaged on the reverse; it is possible that the die is the same as one of the others, but the condition of the coin does not warrant a final attribution. Since the anvil die is unique, it is probable that the punch should be considered a new one.

The anvil dies lack the individuality of the punches. It is possible that one artist made the first three: A 1 and A 2 particularly are closely alike in pose and proportions, while A 3 differs but slightly. A 4 is in a rather different style and more like the obverses of staters nos. 26–36. Despite the apparent indifference of the Carystians to the condition of the anvil die, the type is of considerable interest.Through-out Euboea's history, the main types were always bovine, obviously canting. 47 The early coins with the cow scratching herself, the bull standing, the bull or cow reclining, the filleted bull's head, all are clearly appropriate to the land of fair cattle. Carystus, at the end of the sixth or the beginning of the fifth century, used a variant form and re-used it again in the fourth century on the staters. It is the old motif used in MiddleMinoan III; 48 Gardner 49 says of it, "The types of the obverse, a cow suckling a calf, seem to refer to the early settlement of the island (Corcyra) from Euboea, that being the ordinary type of Carystus and referring to the worship of the Mother-Goddess." But in a note he adds: "There are, however, doubts whether this story of Euboean colonization is historic." Chronologically it is difficult to see how the coins of Corcyra, which bear this type at least as early as the middle of the sixth century 50 are derived from Carystian coins of the end of the sixth or the beginning of the fifth century. On the other hand, among the early, ill-assorted coinages of the Thraco-Macedonian area in the sixth century, 51 the type occurs in two forms, one with the cow facing left, the other with the cow facing right. The Corcyraean coins use both forms. The northern coins are variously assigned with insufficient surety, since the mass of that coinage has not received the attention it deserves. However, the two versions of the type in the north are used on coins of two different weight standards: the type facing left appears on coins which are Attic didrachms; the others are on the standard which developed later into the Macedonian. There are, of course, other bovine types in the north, but this is the only one which spread as far as Corcyra on the west and Carystus on the south. Lack of exploration and excavation in the Balkans leaves us quite ignorant of the early culture of that area, but some Minoan artifacts have been found. 52 It seems quite probable, in view of the dates involved and the fact that Carystus struck coins of this type on the Macedonian standard in the fourth century, that the type, or motif, survived from Minoan times in the north; it was borrowed from there by Corcyra in the sixth century and somewhat later by Carystus. Possibly the statement of Thucydides 53 that the Carystians were a pre-Hellenic people may be taken to suggest that there was some survival in the town of Minoan culture, or he may have known the source of this coin type. The existence of a primitive temple of "Hera" may mean that the Mother-Goddess worshipped here from Minoan times changed only her name with the coming of the Olympians. 54 One detail of the type of the staters is the heavy, irregular, exergual line, which must be meant to represent the rough surface of the ground, such as occurs on the Minoan plaque cited in note 48 and in other contexts on many Minoan paintings, and even vases. This 'pictorial' treatment of the exergual line is clear on A 1 and A 2, but is lacking on A 3 and A 4; this is one reason for doubting that one artist made more than the first two dies. The staters with the complete ethnic retain it slightly reduced, but it is missing from those with the monogram. Its survival into the fourth century in Carystus gives weight to the words of Thucydides just quoted, since it more than hints that something of Minoan tradition remained there. The device is not used on coins with this type issued elsewhere. Its appearance is a mystery, but there can be no doubt of its source. 55

The eight Carystian drachmas, nos. 37–44, in fabric and technique closely resemble the staters with the abbreviated ethnic. They are rather thick and the reverse is almost scyphate. No. 37 is possibly the earliest, but is separated by no great interval of time from the others. The inscription on the reverse has only the first three letters ΚАP of Carystus, and there appears not to be a club below the recumbent animal. Other and better specimens may, however, show that it is part of the type as it is on the others. The style of the remaining seven is homogeneous 56 and but slightly better than that of no. 37. Six punch dies and eight anvils furnish few dies links, although the British Museum coin mentioned in note 39 adds another. The chief significance of these eight drachmas in the hoard is to confirm its domestic nature: either they are slightly earlier than the staters and entered the hoard before them, or they are contemporaneous and entered the hoard in small numbers because of the availability of the staters, and the inferential prosperity of the family at the time.

The use of the head of Heracles on the obverse, the relegation of the island canting type to the reverse and the complete abandonment of the local canting type should have some significance. Possibly in the fourth century there was an increased interest in the cult of Heracles and the temple mentioned in late inscriptions was really begun at that time. It is tempting to see a connection with the north in the appearance of Heracles on the drachmas at a time when the Macedonian kings were using that type for the obverse of their staters, but there is nothing to justify it. More reasonably, in view of the increasing importance of Thebes and Boeotia in the first third of the fourth century, it may be associated with Boeotian types.

The attention paid to Euboean coins has been something less than profound; hence the dates given are conjectural and there are discrepancies. Gardner 57 says, "either at the time of the Peace of Antalcidas, 387 b. c., or at that of the Congress of Delphi, 369 b. c. (sic), the cities of Chalcis, Carystus and Histiaea resumed the issue of civic coins... Carystus also struck didrachms on the same standard." Head, followed by Babelon, 58 dates those staters with the short ethnic ca. 369?–336 (Group I) and those with the monogram (Group III) ca. 313–265. Now the Peace of Antalcidas had guaranteed autonomy to the cities of Greece, but the amount which resulted therefrom is problematical. Certainly, not until the Congress at Delphi in 368 was there much actual freedom. The first half of the fourth century saw a series of shifting alliances: part of the time Euboea was the ally of Athens, toward whom she could not have felt particularly loyal, after the treatment she had received at the hands of Athens during the fifth century. By 377 Euboea was in alliance with both Thebes and Athens and moving gradually toward the former. 59 Athens had had friendly relations with the Chalcidic League, culminating in the renewal of an alliance in 375; 60 these relations were seriously disturbed by the alignment of Athens with Macedonia in 371–370. 61 From 368–358 Athens was trying to regain Amphipolis, a course of action which could only further alienate the League. We know nothing of efforts on the part of the Chalcidic League to enlist southern support against Athens, although she was friendly with Thebes. In 371 occurred the battle of Leuctra, after which until 358 Euboea was a dependency of Thebes. From their fabric it is clear that the Carystian drachmas in the hoard and the staters of Group I are contemporaneous with each other and slightly earlier than the drachmas of Chalcis, Histiaea and the Euboean drachmas such as are in the hoard, all of which from their obverse type must be dated after 368. 62 Therefore it is probable that Carystus started striking these coins sometime between the Peace of Antalcidas and the battle of Leuctra. Prior to 387 the autonomy of states was not guaranteed; after 371 it is doubtful that Carystus would have begun to strike coins on any other standard than the Aeginetan which prevailed in Boeotia. Possibly 379 to 377 may be taken as the approximate date of the commencement of the issue. The fact that in the record of the Athenian Amphictyony at Delos Carystus is in arrears for interest on loans during the period from 377–373 (cf. note 27) may be construed as evidence that the city needed help in the undertaking of the issue of coinage. The very heavy first issue, attested by the worn obverse dies and the plurality of reverses, shows an immediate need for large numbers of coins. The standard itself which was chosen for these coins is also an indication that the time of the starting of the issue is shortly after 379.

For the standard on which these coins were struck Gardner, in the passage cited in note 57, has the term 'reduced Attic'; Babelon 63 implies the same, whereas Head 64 is in doubt whether it is a degradation of the Attic standard or "its formal abandonment and the adoption of the standard of the coins of Philip of Macedon." The weight norms as given by Gardner are 3.60–3.80 grms. for the drachma; the Macedonian standard, used by the Chalcidic League since its inception about 432, and by Philip of Macedon after 359, is 7.29–7.36 grms. for the didrachm (the Carystian stater) and 3.64–3.68 grms. for the drachma. The close correspondence between these weights and those given by Gardner makes it superfluous to call the standard of the Carystian, as well as other Euboean, coins 'reduced Attic.' 65 The fourth century saw the use of many standards beside the Attic, possibly in a spirit of rebellion against the Athenian currency decree of the fifth century, of which I found a copy at Aphytis and still date 438–423 b. c. 66 The Aeginetan was used throughout central Greece; the Persian was being used by the Macedonian kings before Philip; Damastion 67 began its series of coins on a standard which is at present nameless; the Chian-Rhodian held sway in the Aegean: all these in addition to the afore-mentioned Macedonian, which, by 359, was influential enough to cause Philip 68 to change to it from the Persian when he started his long series of coins.

It is significant that the Chalcidic mint increased its production of tetradrachms in 379 and the years immediately following, 69 after its defeat by Sparta had made it necessary for the League to secure from outside sources foodstuffs and other materials for normal life. The agricultural areas of Greece, Boeotia and Euboea, would be the most likely and easiest sources of the things the Chalcidic League needed. While, so far as I know, Boeotia never abandoned the Aeginetan standard, it is clear that Carystus, and the other cities of Euboea as well, adopted the standard of the Chalcidic League: in the case of Carystus probably very soon after 379. The production of the League mint between 379 and ca. 376, under Asclepiodorus, seems to have been exclusively tetradrachms (cf. note 69), a comparatively short time, but one during which coins for foreign trade, i.e. the larger issues, were the paramount necessity. The Euboean cities, Carystus and later Chalcis, Histiaea and Eretria, provided the small change, in drachmas, and Carystus struck didrachms as well. This denomination was never used by the League, but local conditions probably made its issue advisable. The curious circumstance that no coin of the League, or of Philip of Macedon, is in the hoard is not a telling argument against the use of the Macedonian standard in Euboea; no coin of Chalcis or Histiaea, nor of Boeotia, all of which are nearer Carystus than Macedonia or Chalcidice, entered the hoard either, so the argument ex absentia is without force.

Since the coinage of Chalcis, Histiaea and the Euboean drachmas struck at Eretria started after 368 (see below) and continued, at least intermittently, until about the middle of the third century, 70 it is likely that the presence of the earlier of the thirty Euboean drachmas in the hoard indicates that coinage ceased at Carystus not long after 368. The fabric of the Euboean drachmas is later than that of the Carystian pieces, where the drachmas and Group I staters both are markedly scyphate and the dies not fixed. There are no Carystian pieces similar in fabric to the Euboean, until the latter part of the fourth century. Group III has already been dated as late as 313 and after (cf. p. 30) and possibly Group II is as late. I should prefer to date it nearer 323, since the eagles on the Elean staters most closely resembling the elegant cocks on those pieces are dated about that time. 71 A domestic hoard such as this tends to be composed mainly of local coins, whatever the denomination; the reason for the intermission of Carystian coins is unknown, unless it lies in the fact that after 348 all Euboean towns but Carystus were independent. 72 No self-respecting Carystian would save coins from a city a hundred-or-so miles away if his hometown were issuing coins. The Euboean drachmas fall into seven groups, which are discussed below; not all of these precede the staters of Groups II and III. However, from 368 the Euboean drachmas, those of Histiaea until 340, and those of Chalcis, seem to be the only coins struck in Euboea, although the Carystian pieces undoubtedly continued to circulate, until Carystus again struck staters in the last quarter of the fourth century. Such coins as the family was able to save during that time would be these drachmas, the earlier of which are quite well-preserved showing signs of little circulation before entering the hoard, and the more worn Carystian staters, such as nos. 8, 21, 22, and 25. It is not impossible that the Athenian tetradrachms (nos. 75–80) also entered the hoard at this time. However, their worn condition and their lack of definite date would permit them to have entered the hoard at almost any time prior to its final abandonment.

The real problem of this hoard is the relation of the Carystian and Euboean pieces to one another, and the matter of their dates. As has been pointed out above, the evidence of wear is contradictory to the accepted dates, fabric, style and technique in the case of the Carystian staters. As will be seen below, the evidence of wear in the case of the Euboean drachmas is likewise contradictory to the fabric, style and technique not only of the drachmas themselves, but of the coins of Chalcis and such other fourth and third century Greek coins as offer legitimate parallels. Therefore, since wear in this hoard is a broken reed on which to lean, no reliance has been placed on it in determining the relative chronology of the Euboean drachmas.

End Notes

For an explanation of the artists designated, see the discussion following the catalogue.
This coin is now in the possession of Mr. Gans.
From the same pair of dies as Grose, Mc Clean Coll. 2, 5655, pl. 203, 18.
The same artist made the reverse die of SNGL, 2, no. 1782, pl. 33, which is also used there with A 1.
From the same pair of dies as BMC Cent. Greece , 101, 7, pl. 18, 6.
From the same pair of dies as BMC Cent. Greece , 101, 6, pl. 18, 5.
I am informed by Prof. William Wallace that this coin is from the same pair of dies as Naville 17 (Oct. 3,1934) no. 460 and also a coin in the Stadtbibliothek, Winterthür, which he had considered "suspicious" until the hoard coin appeared.
From the same pair of dies as Paris, Traité, 179–180, no. 153, pl. 196, 11.
From the same pair of dies as BMC Cent. Greece , 102, 13, pl. 18, 11.
BMC Cent. Greece , 101, 8, pl. 18, 7, is from the same obverse die (A 4), but the reverse die is P 2, adding another die coupling.
BMC Cent. Greece , 101–102; Traité, 177–178 and 179–182.
Cf. Seltman, Greek Coins, 21 and Milne , Greek and Roman Coins, 46.
ĸάρυoν nut; Fick, Bezz. Beitr., 23, 226; κάρ, head, rock, Grasberger, Stud. z. griech. Ortsnamen, 114; or perhaps even an Asia Minor root as in Caryanda.
Dicaea in Macedonia also used that type, although the majority of her types were borrowed from Eretria.
Ecclesiazousae, 30–31:
ὁ κῆρυξ ἀρτíως
ἡμῶν προσιóντων δɛύτɛρoν κɛκóκκυκɛν
as we were coming
The herald for a second time crowed.
An epigram of Antipater of Thessalonika (Anth. Pal. 5, 3) says:
Ὂρϑρος ἔφη, Xρυσíλλα, πἀλαι δ’ἠῷος ἀλέτωρ κηρύσσων φϑονɛρὴν Ἠριγένειαν ἄγει.
Cf. Seltman, Greek Coins, pl. 11,4, and BMC Cent. Greece , pl. 18, 1.
On the matter of an artist's style, as contrasted with the style of a given period, see the exellent article by C. H. V. Sutherland, "What Is Meant by "Style" in Coinage?" in ANS Mus. Notes 4 (1950) 1–12.
Cf. Head, HN 2, 355ff.; Geyer, Euboia, 106ff.; Friedländer, ZfN 8, 10. Bull scratching itself with hoof, Traité, 2, 2, pl. 32, 14; bull's head, BMC Cent. Greece , pl. 18, 2, 9; Num. Chron. (1898) pl. 19,7; cow suckling calf, BMC Cent. Greece , pl. 18,1, 5, 6,11,12; Trait'e, 2, 2, pl. 32, 15, and 2, 3, pl. 196, 11–12; other in the Weber Coll. (no. 3332), Copenhagen SNG 3, nos. 415–416, Ward, Greek Coins, pl. 12, 496, not from die of BMC Cent. Greece , pl. 18, 6 as there stated, but from no. 5, with short ethnic (i. e., no. 16 in the hoard); SNGL, 3, no. 1782 and many others.
Cf. the plaque in Evans, Palace of Minos , 1,511, fig. 367; Seltman, Greek Coins, 69, and pl. 11,4; Bossert, Alt-Kreta, 224, 229. For the cow and calf as an Asia Minor symbol of a nature goddess, cf. Curtius, AZ (1855) 3ff.; the relief over the door on the west side of the 'Harpy' Tomb is illustrated in Lawrence, Classical Sculpture, pl. 29a and discussed by Head, BMC Cent. Greece , lv. Cf. the terra cotta plaque from Olynthus and my detailed discussion of motive in Olynthus 14, 227–228.
Gardner, Hist, of Anc. Coinage 138–9.
Cf. Seltman, Greek Coins, 70 and Grose, Mc Clean Coll. 2, pl. 189, nos. 15–18.
Cf. Gaebler, Die Antiken Münzen Nord-Griechenlands, 32, pl. 26, nos. 12–15 and Copenhagen SNG Macedonia, 1, pl. 11, nos. 460–462.
Casson, Macedonia , Thrace and Illyria , 134–136.
Thuc. 7, 59.
Cf. note 3.
G. M. A. Richter, Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks (1950) 32, points out the concrete symbolism in Greek Art: the pebble for the beach, the fish for the sea, the growing plant for the meadow, etc. These coins with a heavy irregular exergual line indicate perhaps the meadow, by a different device, or perhaps the barnyard.
The statement of Head, BMC Cent. Greece , lx, on the style of the Heracles head, is in a comparison of the head on coins of the early fifth century with those similar to the hoard pieces. There is no appreciable advance in style within the latter group.
Gardner, Hist, of Anc. Coinage, 366.
See note 40.
Traité, 170, quoting Curtius, Hist, grecq. 5, 255. For the close similarity of fabric between the Carystian pieces and those of Thebes issued after 378, cf. BMC Cent. Greece , pl. 15, nos. 1–10 with the hoard coins.
Dittenberger, Sylloge 3, 143; IG II2 36; West, History of the Chalcidic League, 108, has proposed the year 375/4 for the date of this decree.
Dittenberger, Sylloge 3, 157; IG, II2, 102.
Cf. BMC Cent. Greece , xv, xvii–xviii, for the time of the Congress at Delphi as the occasion when the influence of the Syracusan coins was most likely to have been considerable.
Traité, 171–172.
BMC Cent. Greece , lxi.
Milne , Greek and Roman Coins, 81, speaks of the reduction of standards because of the re-use of already coined silver, wear plus minting costs bringing about the issue of coins of less weight than the original norm of the silver acquired. This seems unrealistic, except where the coin is used only as local, and therefore token, currency, for the intrinsic value of the coin determined its popularity; it is questionable whether even local currency would have a face value above its intrinsic value, except at a much later period. In the case of the Euboean coins, we have the tetradrachms on the Attic standard issued early in the fourth century; these show weights no lower than those of the Athenian tetradrachms. We do not know the source of Euboean silver; it may possibly have come from Attica, as the nearest place. If so, it could have come as well in the form of bullion as in the form of struck coins. The Euboean tetradrachms were accompanied by some drachmas, which also have normal weights for Attic drachmas. It is much more probable that there was a change of standard in Euboea about 379, for Carystus at least, and about 368 for the Euboean Confederation coins and possibly those of Chalcis and Histiaea as well, from the Attic to the Macedonian.
AJP 56 (1935) 148–157; Tod, Greek Historical Inscriptions, no. 67; JHS 69 (1949)105.
Cf. May, The Coinage of Damastion (1939) v, 12ff., 15, 32, 99.
The explanation that Philip chose that standard to make it fit with the Attic standard on which gold was struck seems weak; it is more likely that he saw the relation between the two standards, in the two metals, and chose the Attic for his gold, since he had for commercial and economic reasons been led to adopt the Macedonian standard for his silver.
Cf. Olynthus , 9, The Chalcidic Mint, 157.
This is apparent from the stylistic development. Most authorities give the date 265, when Alexander, son of Craterus, ruled Euboea, as marking the end of Euboean coinage until the time of Flamininus, 197. That coinage is beyond the bounds of this hoard.
Cf. Seltman, Temple Coins of Olympia, pl. 6, the reverses used with CB, CD, and CE. Seltman dates these obverses 363–343, which seems too early; Babelon is more nearly right in dating them 323–300.
CAH VI, 232.

Euboea, Federal Coinage, Mint probably Eretria

Drachmas on the Macedonian standard, norm: 3.64–3.68 grms.

45. Head of nymph r., in very poor style.

Rev. ΥƎ above bull's head l., in very poor style. 73 Unique dies. Wt. 3.47 grms. 0.015 m. ↑ ↖ Somewhat worn.

46. 74 Head of nymph r., with earrings and fillet tied at neck, with ends hanging; lips firmly closed.

Rev. Ε Υ above filleted bull's head r.; in r. field, lyre.

P 1 A 1 Wt. (uncleaned) 3.81 grms. (cleaned) 3.65 grms.

0.0159 m. ↑ ↑ Somewhat worn.

47. Similar to 46, but ends of fillet tied in bow and lips parted.

Rev. Similar to 46.

P 2 A 2 Wt. 3.50 grms. 0.0161 m. ↑ ↑ Somewhat worn.

48. Die of 47.

Rev. Similar to 46.

P 3 A 2 Wt. 3.58 grms. 0.0158 m. ↑ ↑ Somewhat worn.

49. Similar to 47.

Rev. Die of 48.

P 3 A 3 Wt. 3.70 grms. 0.0165 m. ↑ ↑ Somewhat worn.

50. Die of 49.

Rev. Die of 47.

P 2 A 3 Wt. 3.32 grms. 0.0161 m. ↑ ↑ Very good.

51. Die of 49.

Rev. Die of 47.

P 2 A 3 Wt. 3.30 grms. 0.0158 m. ↑ ↑ Good.

52. Similar to 46, but fillet ends tucked under.

Rev. Similar to 46.

P 4 A 4 Wt. 3.29 grms. 0.0153 m. ↑ ↑ Somewhat worn, broken.

53. Head of nymph l., with simple coiffure bound by fillet, and earrings.

Rev. Ε Υ above filleted bull's head r; in r. field, Silen mask.

P 5 A 5 Wt. 3.12 grms. 0.0178 m. ↑ ↑ Somewhat worn.

54. 75 Similar to 53.

Rev. Similar to 53.

P 6 A 6 Wt. 3.25 grms. 0.0169 m. ↑ ↑ Somewhat worn.

55. Head of nymph l., with hair curved softly back from face, low on the neck and bound by a fillet, a few loose curls escaping.

Rev. ΕΥ above filleted bull's head with hairy ears, r; in r. field, cantharus.

P 7 A 7 Wt. 3.70 grms. 0.017 m. ↑ ↑ Slightly worn.

56. Die of 55.

Rev. Die of 55.

P 7 A 7 Wt. 3.32 grms. 0.0161 m. ↑ ↑ Somewhat worn.

57. 76 Similar to 55, but much finer.

Rev. Die of 55.

P 7 A 8 Wt. 3.30 grms. 0.017 m. ↑ ↑ Fine.

58. Similar to 55.

Rev. Die of 55.

P 7 A 9 Wt. 3.36 grms. 0.0169 m. ↑ ↑ Somewhat worn.

59. 77 Die of 58.

Rev. Similar to 55, but bull's ears not hairy and handle of cantharus different.

P 8 A 9 Wt. 3.41 grms. 0.0165 m. ↑ ↑ Somewhat worn.

60. 78 Die of 57.

Rev. Similar to 59, but cantharus nearer ear.

P 9 A 8 Wt. 3.20 grms. 0.0165 m. ↑ ↑ Very good.

61. Die of 57.

Rev. Die of 60.

P 9 A 8 Wt. 3.11 grms. 0.0169 m. ↑ ↑ Slightly worn, broken.

62. Similar to 58, slight double chin.

Rev. Similar to 59, but bull more melancholy.

P 10 A10 Wt. 3.34 grms. 0.017 m. ↑ ↑ Somewhat worn.

63. Die of 62.

Rev. Similar to 62.

P 11 A 10 Wt. 3.76 grms. 0.016 m. ↑ ↑ Worn.

64. Die of 62.

Rev. Similar to 62.

P 12 A 10 Wt. 3.41 grms. 0.016 m. ↑ ↑ Somewhat worn.

65. Head of nymph l., with hair simply waved back from face to low chignon.

Rev. Ε Υ above filleted bull's head r; in r. field, bunch of grapes.

P 13 A 11 Wt. 3.15 grms. 0.0165 m. ↑ ↑ Worn.

66. 79 Head of nymph in style of 65.

Rev. Ε Υ above filleted bull's head r; no symbol.

P 14 A 12 Wt. 3.30 grms. 0.017 m. ↑ ↑ Somewhat worn.

67. 80 Die of 66.

Rev. Similar to 66.

P 15 A 12 Wt. 3.25 grms. 0.0172 m. ↑ ↑ Worn.

68. Die of 66.

Rev. Similar to 66, but shorter muzzle.

P 16 A12 Wt. 3.35 grms. 0.018 m. ↑ ↑ Worn.

69. Similar to 66.

Rev. Similar to 68.

P 17 A13 Wt. 3.32 grms. 0.0162 m. ↑ ↑ Worn.

70. Similar to 66, but profile heavy and hair very plain; necklace. Rev. Die of 69.

P 17 A14 Wt. 3.35 grms. 0.0161 m. ↑ ↑ Somewhat worn.

71. 81 Die of 70.

Rev. Similar to 66.

P 18 A14 Wt. 3.17 grms. 0.0158 m. ↑ ↑ Somewhat worn.

72. Head of nymph l., in very poor style: profile weak and hair in stereotyped strands.

Rev. Ε Υ above filleted bull's head r; in r. field, dolphin swimming. P19 A15 Wt. 3.48 grms. 0.017 m. ↑ ↑ Somewhat worn.

73. Die of 72.

Rev. Similar to 72, symbol almost completely off flan.

P 20 A15 Wt. 3.16 grms. 0.0164 m. ↑ ↑ Worn.

74. Similar to 72; hair a little coarser.

Rev. Die of 73.

P 20 A16 Wt. 3.25 grms. 0.017 m. ↑ ↑ Somewhat worn.



The year 368 b.c. is of considerable importance in the numismatic history of Greece. In that year, the Congress at Delphi reinforced the autonomy of cities, already agreed upon at the time of the Peace of Antalcidas (387). A number of Greek cities thereupon began striking their first coins or resumed coinages which had been interrupted. Chalcis began again to strike coins, the first since ca. 507, when it was conquered by the Athenians; Histiaea struck its first coins and the mint of the Euboean Confederation resumed its federal issue which had ceased some years before: all these coinages were on the Macedonian standard which Carystus had introduced into Euboea ca. 379. There were also a number of cities of central Greece and the Peloponnesus which inaugurated or resumed an issue of coins at this time (cf. below note 83). Comment has already been made, passim, by all numismatists on the imitation of the Syracusan tetradrachms in the style of Evaenetus by the various cities of Greece which started or resumed coining a little before the middle of the fourth century. Head 82 says, "All these.... imitations of Syracusan coins are to be accounted for not so much by the political influence undoubtedly exercised by Dionysius (who was present at the Congress) in Central Greece, as by a considerable influx of Syracusan money at this period, in payment of various mercenary troops sent into the country by Dionysius in support of his Lacedaemonian allies." May not aesthetic appreciation of the art of Evaenetus have had an influence, apart from political considerations? Seltman, Greek Coins, pl. XXIV, 3, shows the fifth century decadrachm signed by Evaenetus from which the fourth century coins were copied; pl. XLIV, 4–7, show the Syracusan copies, ranging in date from ca. 380 to ca. 350. No die cutter's name appears on these coins and it is improbable that Evaenetus made them.

The coiffure of the nymph seems to be in a fashion peculiar to the West, although it was not originated by Evaenetus. Seltman, pl. XXII, gives a number of tetradrachms, dating from 474–413, showing a variety of coiffures, most of which can be paralleled from vases and statues. However, nos. 10–12, signed Sosion, Euth. and Phrygillus, and Evaenetus, show variants of a new mode, where the hair is pulled back and up loosely, then coiled softly over a confining band, which must have been placed on the head before the hair was drawn up. (It is close to the style of no. 1 in this catalogue.) This mode appears on the coins of south Italian towns in the last third of the fifth century. Cf. Seltman, Greek Coins, pl. XXI, 4 (Terina, ca. 425), 7 (Neapolis ca. 430), and 13 (Cumae, ca. 430). No. 5. on the same plate, also a coin of Terina, shows clearly how Evaenetus took the simple mode of no. 4 and softened the rather severe outline with a profusion of escaping ringlets. On the Syracusan pieces, the added grain wreath further relieves the simplicity. It is this style which was copied far and wide.

While some of the coins with such a head may have reached Greece earlier than 368, so long as the various cities were not free to strike coins until that time or shortly before, it must be concluded that those coins which show an adaptation of this style are to be dated 368 and after. 83 In the borrowing the style is modified, the grain wreath is often omitted and the hair bound merely with a fillet, or not at all. The results achieved in various places reflect the relative skill of the copyists: at Opuntian Locris, the die cutters were among the most successful; at Chalcis and some of the other cities listed in note 83, the copies were somewhat less successful than the model.

While the manner of the adoption of this type was undoubtedly peculiar to each city that adopted it, one can see the course of events in the Euboean confederation. Prior to 387, that organization struck, on the Attic standard, among other denominations, drachmas having as types the head of a nymph with her hair rolled up in a fashion not too unlike the early Syracusan, to which no. 1 in the hoard is related, and the head of a bull with the letters ΕΥ above. 84 After that coinage ceased, the next drachmas were on the Macedonian standard, but continued the same types. The change from the earlier style to the later was effected with the aid of a foreign artist, as can be seen from a comparison of the hoard coin, no. 45, with the B.M.C. Cent. Greece specimen, p. 95, no. 7, pl. XVII, 5. No 45 is a unique specimen in a style that is either early or crude 85 : it cannot be early because its weight (3.47 grms.) shows that it is on the Macedonian standard. It therefore is crude. The nymph's head is coarse, with heavy profile and unintelligible hair; it is hard to be sure a female head is intended. The bull's head, small, unfilleted, poorly executed, is to the left and the letters are retrograde. 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 in the hoard and its type was not distinguishable before cleaning. It does not have fixed dies like the other hoard drachmas. The flatness of the reverse argues against its being as early as the Carystian drachmas, whose cup-shaped reverses have already been noted. It must be concluded that this is the only 86 remaining specimen of a type issued by the Euboeans, about 368, when they again struck coins after a lapse of some twenty years. The die-cutter had obviously been out of work for some time; desuetude has left its mark in the execution of the hair and features on the obverse and in the complete reversal of the type on the reverse, with the retrograde letters. Or, alternately, a person with no experience in cutting dies, trying to copy the earlier type, would be likely to achieve such a result as is embodied in no. 45. Dissatisfaction with this result led the Euboeans to employ the services of a minor "master," for the London coin cited above is in the best style (cf. note 85). The maker of this die used the Syracusan head as his model, even to the necklace and earring; the treatment of the hair is simpler and neater than on the coins of Opuntian Locris and that of the features and profile is quite as fine. That he was no mere copyist is clear (a) from the fact that he was not slavishly bound to retain the orientation of the model (the heads on all the earlier Euboean coins had been turned to the right) and (b) from his simplification of the hair, which is far more suitable to the small size of the flan than a more elaborate arrangement would have been.

It is questionable whether he made more than the one obverse die, since the London specimen seems to be the only one published. He also made the reverse die for the same coin, where the bull's head is for the first time filleted; the artist's individuality appears in his delineation of the texture of the bull's hide, by means of a delicate use of the drill. This reproduction of texture, so far as I know, does not occur on any other coins where the bull, or his head or protome, is the type. 87 The nearest approach to it is on coins of Phocis: SNGL, III, pl. XXXII, no. 1709, and Seltman, Greek Coins, pl. XXXIV, no. 4. This series was struck after 357, when the Phocians gained possession of the sanctuary at Delphi; the occurrence of the lyre as symbol on the Phocian coins is, of course, to be connected with that seizure. The attractive young animal on the Euboean coins, with his muzzle lifted to sniff the incense at the altar to which he is being led, has a pedigree at least as long as that of the cocks on the Carystian staters.

The new style, 88 once established, was interpreted thereafter by local artists. The two coins just discussed, without any symbol, probably were issued near or shortly after 368; possibly little more than a year separated them. The "lyre" drachmas may be presumed to have started in 367 or 366. The heads are in a style inferior to that of the London coin: the earring is different and the necklace has been omitted; the coiffure has been simplified and regularized to a point where only one or two tendrils are allowed to escape from the sleek arrangement of the locks. 89 Probably the anvil dies of nos. 46–51 were all cut by the same artist for there are only minor differences. The die of no. 52 is better, particularly in the treatment of the eye and profile; possibly this should have been placed first in the series, as being closer to the London coin; since it is not linked to the rest, it has been put at the end. The lack of a link between no. 46 and the following coins is only apparent, for in my own collection, unpublished, I have two coins with the same reverse die (P 1), one of which has A 2 for the obverse and the other has an anvil which does not occur in the hoard. (Cf. note 74.) The reverses of these coins fare no better in a comparison with the London coin than the obverse: the bull is filleted, as on that coin, but he is a sad-faced, weary creature, with lowered muzzle.

From the number of dies in the hoard, (4 anvil and 4 punch dies, a fifth anvil being used on the coin in my collection mentioned above) it is not possible to determine the length of time during which the lyre was used as a symbol. 90 On other grounds it is possible to suggest that this symbol, if it has a political significance, went out of use shortly after the accession of Philip II to the throne of Macedon, since in 357 the Euboean towns joined the Athenian Confederacy, sending deputies to Athens, Histiaea, Chalcis and Eretria being separately assessed. The two former cities were striking coins independently of those of the Euboean federation, to which apparently Carystus be- longed at this time; 91 their coinage neither ceased nor changed to the Attic standard. The influence of the Chalcidic League in causing the use of the Macedonian standard in Euboea has already been mentioned in the discussion of the Carystian staters; that the cities of Euboea adopted it in 368 attests its continued importance. Between 368 and the accession of Philip, Athens, which had concluded a treaty with the Macedonian king in 371–370, was making a series of attempts to regain Amphipolis, a course of action which could only further alienate the Chalcidians. It seems quite probable that the tiny conventionalized lyre on this first series attests an even closer connection between Euboea and the League during the period between 367/6 and 357 than can be assumed for the period about a decade earlier (i.e. following 379) when Carystus was the first Euboean city to use the Macedonian standard. The drachma of Chalcis with the countermark of the lyre and the letters І + Ν, first discussed by Babelon 92 and catalogued in the Traité, pp. 185–6, under no. 161, which he has identified as having been countermarked by the city of Ichnae about the middle of the fourth century, serves as an indication that the lyre was more than a local coin-type with only a religious significance. Ichnae, situated between Olynthus and Pella, was a part of the Chalcidic domain at least as early as 383 b.c., for Cleigenes, a member of the embassy from Acanthus and Apollonia to the Lacedaemonians, said in his speech at Sparta 93 that Olynthus was then in possession of Pella, among other cities. From this countermark on the drachma of Chalcis, by a city associated with Olynthus, we can conclude that the lyre on the Euboean drachmas indicates a rapport between the island and the League, whose name, whatever the nationality of the people, would provide a strong bond of sympathy with the people of the island. This close association is best dated between 368 and 357, the period when Athens and the League were not working toward the same ends, and before the cities of Euboea joined the mid-century Athenian Confederacy.

Nos. 53 and 54, with a facing Silen mask as symbol, are the only hoard representatives of the group which succeeded to those with the lyre. The London specimen is from the reverse die (P 6) of no. 54, but the obverse is not A 6; the Lockett and Paris coins (see note 75) add a fourth reverse and fifth obverse to the dies with which I am acquainted. This makes it possible to suggest that coins with the Silen mask symbol were struck in about the same numbers as those with the lyre, of which I have been able to find four reverse and five obverse dies, or if not in the same numbers, at least over a comparable length of time. The nymph on the two hoard specimens is the immediate successor to the one on no. 52. She has even plainer earrings, her fillet has no bow at the nape of the neck and her hair is rather more simply done, although still in the "Western" style. 94 The head is for the first time facing left, an orientation which persists through the subsequent series, although on the coins of Histiaea the change is never made. The bull is brother to those on nos. 46–52.

Since they are immediate upon a series which ended in 357, and since the period between 357 and 350 was characterized by a close association with Athens, it is logical, granting a political significance to the symbols, to seek a meaning connected with Athens for the use of the Silen mask. The extreme rarity of a Silen mask, even as a type, although a satyr or Silen himself occurs on the coins of various cities, 95 argues a recherché reason for its use at this time. Rather hesitantly I put forward the suggestion that we have here a reference to the Dionysia at Athens: in the fifth century this was the season at which the tribute was paid; it probably continued to be the appointed time in the fourth century, when the Euboean cities, voluntarily rather than under compulsion, were paying tribute to Athens. While the symbol is none too clear on the coins, and the parallels cited do not give much more detail, the bald elderly satyr is always Silenus. Miss Bieber in Die Denkmäler zum Theaterwesen im Altertum, pp. 90–91, states that the Satyr-play in the fourth century was performed, not following the three tragedies, but quite separately at the beginning of the celebration of the Greater Dionysia. As Papposilenus was the leader of the satyr crew, it seems at least a workable hypothesis that the mask on the coins refers to the time of the collection of the tribute, the prominent position of the Satyr-play making the choice of that mask instead of a tragic one a readily recognizable allusion. Since Athens recognized the independence of all of Euboea except Carystus in 348, the symbol would have been abandoned at that time, if it had not already been in 350, when Athens was betrayed by Plutarch at the battle of Tamynae. 96

The years following, up to the battle of Chaironeia, saw a succession of "tyrants" in the Euboean cities, with factional strife between pro-Macedonian and pro-Athenian parties. The somewhat later style of the remaining Euboean drachmas leads to the conclusion that there was an interruption of an indeterminate number of years between nos. 54 and 55. The coiffure of the nymph is no longer in the "Western" style, but in one which reflects the sculpture of the latter half of the fourth century and which continues into the Hellenistic period. It has already been remarked that the coiffure made popular by Evaenetus had no parallels on vases or sculpture in the fifth century. The vases show an amazing variety, ranging from loose-tressed Maenads to heads bound with all manner of fillet, ampyx, sphendone or stephane.

Sculptured heads were dressed more simply. Starting, somewhat arbitrarily, with the Lemnian Athena, 97 one finds the hair drawn down over the brow and bound with a fillet; the hair of the Amazons was drawn down over the ears from a center part; the Terme Niobid's hair is quite similar, with a broad fillet high on the head. A modification of this style is dimly apparent in the battered heads of the Phigaleia frieze and becomes clearer in the coiffure of Eirene holding the infant Ploutos. Here the hair is curled back from the face to form a heavier frame for it. By the middle of the fourth century, probably under the influence of Praxiteles, although he may only have refined an existing fashion, the hair, still parted in the middle, was drawn away from the center of the brow before being brought back over the tips of the ears, as for example on the Cnidian Aphrodite and Demeter, both of which are dated very close to 350. A further and later modification resulted in retaining the triangular brow framed by the hair, but in coiling the hair loosely back over the sides of the head and tips of the ears. The Aphrodite of Arles, the Sarcophagus of the Mourning Women from Sidon, the Tyche of Antioch, to name but a few, show various forms of the modifications of the hair style of the two Cnidian statues.

Turning to the drachmas, those with the cantharus as symbol, nos. 55–65, pls. 4 and 5, show some beautiful examples of this mode, which seems on the coins to have developed easily from the "Western" style. For example, nos. 55 and 56 have only slightly modified the coiffure of no 54, lowering the hair at the back to form a chignon, while curl- ing it away from the face instead of drawing it back loosely. The following coins, nos. 57–64, show individual artists' treatment of the fashion, with varying degrees of elaboration in the matter of vagrant tresses, and finally with some deterioration of quality in nos. 63 and 64. The style is clearly later than on nos. 46–54. No. 65, 98 pl. 5, is very close to nos. 63 and 64. The succeeding coins, nos. 66–71, with no symbol, show a dullnes and triteness in the treatment of the hair. The last two, nos. 70 and 71, have added a necklace for the nymph's adornment; she is made no more beautiful thereby. The last three hoard drachmas, nos. 72–74, pl. 5, show a marked degradation of style. The hair has become merely a series of regular lines and there is none of the subtlety of planes that was evident on the other heads. In addition, the modeling of cheek, profile and chin is weak and flat, a feature Madame Varoucha had already remarked; she considered it a further indication of the late date of the coins with the dolphin symbol. 99

Since the change in the style of coiffure from the head on the Silen mask series to that on the cantharus series reflects a mode not far from the middle of the fourth century, there is nothing to impel one to infer any interruption of the Euboean drachmas. However, it is perhaps better to conclude that in that confused period between 348 and the final conquest of Greece by Philip in 338 there was some time in which no coins were struck. Newell 100 has made it clear that an issue of Histiaean octobols was struck between 340 and 338. These, on the Attic standard because of the close association with Athens in 341–340, are in style so close to the Histiaean drachmas on the Macedonian standard that Newell believes the same artist cut the dies. Now, the hair on the nymph of the Histiaea coins, although bound by a sphendone or ampyx, shows a change from the "upsweep" of the drachmas to the rather patterned waves back from the brow, which has already been marked on the Euboean drachmas. Cf. B.M.C. Cent. Greece , pl. XXIV, 1, 2, 6 and Newell, op. cit. (supra, note 100), pl. l, 1, 2, 3, 4. The nymph of A 8 (nos. 57, 60, 61) is in as fine a style as that which Newell shows the Histiaean octobols to be. While all the heads do not attain to the excellence of A 8, the coiffure, even to the detail of the few escaping locks, is the same. As it is not safe to "pinpoint" the date of any coinage without specific historical data, and as there remain, to the best of my knowledge, about the same number of dies for the cantharus series as for the lyre and Silen mask drachmas, provisionally they maybe dated following 340, 101 after a period during which the factional strife in Euboea interrupted the regular emission of coins. The conquest of the island by Philip and the installation of his garrison at Chalcis (one of the 'three fetters of Greece') have in the past been taken as a sign that all the island's coinage ceased at that time; more recently it has been established that neither Philip nor Alexander had a mint there 102 and that consequently the issue of Euboean coins, particularly the small denominations, after 338 is probable, in view of the fact that Philip chose to interfere as little as possible with the internal affairs of states.

The significance of the cantharus, which is the symbol on these coins, is as esoteric as that of the Silen mask. It appears on the coins of a great many places as type or symbol at all periods 103 and seems to be a reference to viniculture or the worship of Dionysus. That Euboea produced wines is attested by the use of bunches of grapes as type or symbol by various cities; 104 the location of the theater at Eretria was found to be dependent upon that of a slightly earlier temple, which has been taken to be a temple of Dionysus. 105 However, the cantharus is used only on this particular group of coins instead of generally, which argues for a peculiar significance. Now, on the coins of Philip of Macedon, minted at Amphipolis subsequent to 356, there occurs a cantharus occasionally as a symbol below the body of the horse; the same symbol is used on Alexander coins from that mint. 106 The reason for it escapes me, since I can find no reference to one of the independently issued Amphipolitan coins having that symbol. Why the Euboeans should choose that symbol rather than one of the many others which Philip used is another phenomenon for which I can offer no explanation. It may be suggested that about 340 a pro-Macedonian tyrant chose this symbol to mark, somewhat obscurely because of the symbol's apparent reference to Dionysus, his loyalty to Philip. On this hypothesis there would be time for the coiffure of the statues mentioned above to become known to the die cutters and a short enough interval after the other two series for the quality of the reverses not to have deteriorated.

The next symbol used must have been the bunch of grapes, represented in the hoard by a single specimen, no. 65. It is hard to tell, from one coin, whether the rather hard profile and stereotyped hair on the obverse and the undistinguished bull on the reverse are the product of an inferior artist or the result of a lapse of time. The rather commonplace symbol 107 indicates its decreasing importance, I believe, and its use may have been as a result of the ambiguous cantharus on the preceding series. The latter's connection with Dionysus was so obvious that it rendered obsolescent the remote Macedonian connection in the years following, say, 335, when political events were far off and Greece was almost somnolent. The bunch of grapes was a clear reference to Dionysus and had no political meaning.

The coins which have no symbol further reflect the lack of interest in political affairs: here quite clearly no political events were important enough to be recorded on the coins. The dies are quite uninspired and bear no resemblance to the earlier drachmas without symbol, no. 45 and the London coin. The coiffure of the nymphs has already been shown to be later than that on the cantharus drachmas. A 12, nos. 66–68, is the best and shows clearly how the coils of hair at the sides of the face come to be more sharply differentiated from the hair on the top of the head and from the chignon; the curious thick lock above the ear is an enlargement of that on such a head as no. 64. These heads are the embodiment of neatness; not a lock escapes from its place. The head of no. 69, which is connected by its reverse with no. 70, is in the same style; the artist has delineated eye, cheek and profile more successfully. Nos. 70 and 71 show a marked degradation, being the least attractive heads of the lot. The bulls are so nondescript that they must have been depicted at a time when the "land of fair cattle" had been stripped of its blooded stock: a sorrier lot of animals one would go far to see. During the years following the death of Alexander, when the world was in turmoil and all parts of Greece were scenes of battle, very likely livestock was slaughtered in quantity to supply food for the soldiers, and Euboea was bound to suffer in that respect. These coins are to be assigned to the last quarter of the fourth century, possibly following the Lamian War.

There seems no longer any support for the theory 108 that there was a general interruption of autonomous Greek coinage following 338. There is no indication from the Euboean drachmas that any cessation of their coinage occurred between 338 and 313, the date of the liberation of Greece from Cassander. In the case of the Carystian staters, fabric and mint technique point to an interval between Group I and Groups II and III. The addition of the monogram is the only essential difference between the latter two Groups. The last Group had already been assigned to the period following 313 by Head, who apparently did not feel that Carystus' assistance to Athens in the Lamian War (323–22) presupposed an issue of coins, and later by Babelon (cf. note 40) who assigned both Groups I and II to the period between 369 and 338. I should be more inclined to place the staters of Group II, as well as Group III, after 313 for a number of reasons: 1. the fabric and technique of those two Groups is nearly the same and quite different from Group I (cf. above pp. 23, 30, 34); 2. the use of a monogram, although it had occurred earlier in the fourth century sporadically, is characteristic of the Hellenistic period; 3. the presence of the Euboean drachmas in a hoard from Carystus argues for a lack of local coinage. The coins of Groups II and III seem to be considerably rarer than those of Group I, indicating a shorter period of production; such an indication may be contradicted at any time by the appearance of more coins. Appearing first in 313, they may have continued until 265 as Head suggests, followed by Babelon, but in view of the contents of the hoard, they probably ceased at the end of the fourth century.

The connection of the dolphin, the symbol on nos. 72–74, with Demetrius Poliorcetes has already been suggested by Madame Varoucha in the article cited in note 90. The great difference in quality between these coins and those preceding makes one hesitate to conclude that they followed directly upon them. Their very flat style and banal treatment of the hair, as well as the extremely sketchy deliniation of the bull, places them in the third century when the coins of other cities show a similar deterioration. 109 It is better to admit a lapse of time between the last three hoard drachmas and the others, although there may be other coins with the dolphin symbol whose style and fabric would serve to bridge the gap and make it possible to conclude that this symbol was used over a longer period of time than any of the others. These dolphins scarcely deserve to be dated before 294, when Demetrius became king of Macedon, and probably came to an end in 265.

Although the relative dates of the Euboean drachmas would remain unchanged thereby, it must be recognized that there is the possibility that these changing symbols have no political meaning. Influenced by the suggestion of Madame Varoucha that the dolphin, the latest symbol, had such a meaning, the same thing has been sought for the others. The fact that, as far as I know, there is no linking obverse die from one symbol to the other, a curious fact in itself, since none of the obverse dies is much worn, rather supports the political theory of the symbols; it argues separate occasions for each issue, rather than a regular succession with symbols honoring various deities. However, leaving out of account the dolphin (which of course could be a reference to Poseidon, albeit an unusual one), it is possible that the lyre, Silen mask, cantharus and bunch of grapes were purely religious in intent. The worship of Apollo Daphnephorus at Eretria was of long standing; the appearance of the lyre as the first symbol after the Congress at Delphi would doubly honor the god, for his local importance, and for the freedom the Euboeans, along with others, gained under the shadow of his temple at Delphi. The other three are plausibly Dionysiac, the last named being commonly used, not only in the various cities of Euboea but generally throughout the ancient world, by such places as were proud of their wines, or had another association with Dionysus. 110 The other two are not so frequent, but are found, particularly the cantharus, on issues where other honors are paid Dionysus. They appear most frequently in the north, more often in Thrace than in Macedonia, but the cantharus at least is found as far south as Boeotia. 111 As the worship of Dionysus was introduced through the north, the earlier northern use of Dionysiac types and symbols is not surprising. Given the Eretrian temple and theater of Dionysus, assuming a religious significance for the symbols, the fact that they are used in the fourth century at Eretria can be taken to indicate that close association with the north made the adoption of symbols used hitherto almost exclusively in the north a simple enough matter. Such an interpretation gives no clue to the dates of issue of the various symbols, but, as has been stated, their relative chronology remains unaffected.

End Notes

For an early fourth century coin with these types, cf. BMC Cent. Greece , 94, 3, pl. 17, 3, wt. 4.06 grms. (Attic standard).
I have in my own collection, not from this hoard, two drachmas from the same reverse die as no. 46. One has an obverse die which does not occur in the hoard; the other is from the obverse die of nos. 47 and 48. These provide an additional link in the die sequence.
BMC Cent. Greece 95, 13, pl. 17, 7, is from the same reverse die (P6), but the obverse, which appears to be by the same hand as A 6, is not the same die. SNGL, 3, pl. 33, 1779, has another and very similar reverse die (the description erroneously calls the symbol a bunch of grapes instead of a Silen mask), but the obverse, a fourth anvil die, is not so good as any of the others (A 5, A 6 or the London die). The Paris coin, Traité, pp. 197–8, no. 181, pl. 198, 4, is from still another pair of dies.
From the same dies as Naville, 17 (1934) 464.
From the same dies as Hess, 202 (1930) 2463.
From the same dies as Weber Coll. 3392.
From the same dies as Hirsch, 14 (1905) 369.
From the same dies as BMC Cent. Greece , 95, 8, pl. 17, 6, of which Head remarks on the earring as being of a later style than that of no. 7, a coin not represented in the hoard. From the same dies also, Mc Clean Coll., 2,5705, pl. 205, 7; in this specimen the punch die is not yet damaged at the bull's right eye as on the others.
From the same dies as Boston, 95. 133.
BMC Cent. Greece, xvii.
The cities of the Peloponnese and Central Greece, many of which had had little or no coinage prior to the fourth century and thus had no traditional types to employ, were the ones who adopted the Syracusan type for a local divinity or nymph. The coin of ssuch cities, Opus (whose small coins show a head very like the earlier Euboean drachmas, cf. Babelon, Traité, pl. 206, 19, 21) Thespiae, Messene, Pheneus, to say nothing of the Euboean cities, Chalcis and Histiaea, are illustrated in all collections; Seltman, Greek Coins, plates, passim, gives examples of most of them except the Euboean, since he omits all reference to fourth century issues of that island. The spread of the type is attested by its appearance on the coins of Aptera in Crete, Sinope on the Black Sea, Lampsacus, Dicaea in Macedonia (bronze), Carthage, Massilia and Rhodes.
Cf. note 73.
The recent, pertinent and extremely sagacious remarks of C. H. V. Sutherland (ANS Mus. Notes 4, 1–12) illustrate the dangers of relying solely on style and disregarding such other features as fabric and technique in dating coins. The hoard specimen, no. 45, is an excellent example of a coin in very poor style, the work of an incompetent craftsman, which must be dated considerably later than its appearance alone would warrant.
This rash statement is buttressed by the opinion of Prof. William Wallace, who is making a study of Euboean coinage; he knows of no other like it.
Cf. the coins of Acanthus, recently studied by Desneux, "Les Tétradrachmes d'Akanthos," Rev. Belge de Num., 95 (1949); Sybaris, Siris and Pyxus (Seltman, Greek Coins, pl. 14,3,4); Thurium (Noe, The Thurian Di-Staters, Num. Notes and Monographs No. 71); Phaestus and Gortyna (Seltman, pl. 36, 13 and 38, 1–4); Byzantium (Seltman, pl. 41, 1 and 2), to say nothing of the other Euboean coins.
Style here refers to the manner of arranging the hair.
The heads on some of the Locrian Opuntian hemidrachms are very similar: cf. Mc Clean Coll. 2, pl. 198, 11–16 and SNGL 3, pl. 32, 1697–1701, 1703, as are some of those of Chalcis: cf. Mc Clean Coll. 2, pl. 204, 2 and SNGL 3, pl. 33, 1787, 1788 and of Histiaea: cf. Mc Clean Coll. 2, pl. 205, 18, 19 and SNGL 3, pl. 33, 1796.
This symbol was not known to Head, either in the BMC Cent. Greece or in the Historia Numorum, even in the second edition in 1911, nor to Babelon in the Traité, 1914. Prof. Wallace informs me that he has 29 specimens, although the only published specimens he knows are Copenhagen SNG, 484, the University of Colorado Cat. of Greek and Roman Coins, no. 93 and Weber 3393, which in the text is described as having no symbol. It was known to Madame Varoucha in 1941. Cf. Epitymbion Christou Tsounta (Athens, 1941) "Ptolemaic Coins in Greece," 672.
One is led to this conclusion by a consideration of the fabric of the two series: the Carystian pieces were deeply rounded on the reverse and the dies were not fixed; the Euboean drachmas are almost flat and the dies are fixed with such precision that on many the point at the front or back of the neck marks the line of the axis. The Histiaean and Chalcidian coins resemble the Euboean drachmas in fabric. It would be surprising not to find a single coin of Chalcis in this hoard, since both Chalcis and Eretria were approximately equidistant from Carystus, if there were no political reason for the Carystians to use the coins from Eretria instead of Chalcis.
Rev. Num., 1905, pp. 388ff.; Mélanges numismatiques, 4th series, pp. 147–154.
Xenophon, Hell. V, 11ff.
The rapid deterioration of the copies of the Syracusan heads is seen on the coins of the cities which used the type for more than a brief period. Chalcis in particular, reaches an apogee of ugliness in the heads on such coins as Mc Clean Coll. II, pl. 20 4,4–7.
Cf. the archaic staters from the Thraco-Macedonian area, some attributable to Thasos or Lete, and others unassigned, with nymph and satyr; the satyr on the ass at Mende; the seated satyr at Naxos. Thasos, before 350, struck small coins with a janiform satyr's head, as well as a satyr holding a cantharus (Mc Clean Coll. II, pl. 152, 5–9). From Macedonia, probably under the Romans, comes a bronze with a fine satyr mask: Gaebler, Die Antiken Münzen Nord-Griechenlands, III2, p. 8, 6, pl. III, 12; for an illustration of a better coin, see the Berlin Beschreibung, II, pl. 1, 10.
Aesch. III, 86ff.; Plut. Phoc. 12ff.; CAH 6, 231–232.
The 1950 edition of Richter, The Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks, furnishes ample illustration of these statues: Lemnian Athena, fig. 614; Amazons, (Mattei) fig. 620, (Capitoline) figs. 626 and 627, (Berlin) fig. 655; Terme Niobid, fig. 196; Phigaleia frieze, figs. 198, 202, 204; Eirene and Ploutos, fig. 659; Cnidian Aphrodite, figs. 668 and 671 (cf. fig. 669); Cnidian Demeter, fig. 315; Aphrodite of Arles, fig. 685; Head from Kos, figs. 687–688; Sarcophagus of the Mourning Women from Sidon, fig. 316; Girl in the Goldman Collection, fig. 207; Mausoleum Amazon, fig. 209; Boston head from Chios, fig. 174; Tyche of Antioch, figs. 753 and 754. There are many others.
The Paris specimen with the same symbol, Traité, 197–8, no. 181, pl. 198, 3, is not from the same dies but shows the same coiffure done by a better artist.
Loc. cit. (supra, note 90).
Newell, Octobols of Histiaea (Num. Notes and Monographs No 2). There were also some smaller pieces in the same series.
The beautiful head of Demeter on the staters struck at Delphi in 336 (cf. Raven, E. J. P., Num. Chron. 1950, p. 5) though it has the hair hanging and partially concealed by a veil, shows a similar contemporary treatment of the hair about the face.
Cf. Newell, Alexander Hoards, II: Demanhur, 1905, (Num. Notes and Monographs No. 19) 13, where the European mints are located in Macedonia and the Peloponnese.
The cantharus as a type on coins of Naxos, Mende, Melos, Cetriporis, Alopeconnesus, Peparethus, Corcyra, Boeotia, Thebes, Thespiae, Andros, Aphytis; as a symbol: Aenus, Maroneia, Mende, Thasos, Philip II and Alexander III (mint of Amphipolis).
Cf. coins of the late fifth century Confederation, Eretria, and Histiaea.
Cf. AJA (1891) 233–280; (1895) 326–346, for a description of the American excavations at Eretria.
For Philip II, cf. Seltman, Greek Coins, 202 and pl. 46, 11; Gaebler, op. cit. (supra, note 51) pl. 30,42. For Alexander cf. Newell, Demanhur, 27, nos. 247–253,and 65–71.
The bunch of grapes as a type on coins of Mende, Maroneia, Corcyra, Opus, Tanagra, Carthea, Tenos; as a symbol: Naxos (with cantharus as type) and Mende.
Cf. Head, BMC Cent. Greece , (1884) Introduction, passim; Traité (1914) 172–3, and Gardner, Hist. Anc. Coinage, 426–7, for the gradual realization that Philip made little or no change in autonomous Greek coinage; Seltman, Greek Coins, does not even discuss the matter.
Cf. the third century coinage of Chalcis and Histiaea, to mention only those nearest to Euboea, and note 99.
Cf. note 107.
Cf. notes 95 and 103.

Athens, Fourth Century Tetradrachms

75. Helmeted head of Athena r., partly off flan.

Rev. Owl r., on branch; in 1. field olive spray and waning moon; in r. field А⊙Ε

Wt. 16.50 grms. Very worn.

76. Similar to 75.

Rev. Similar to 75.

Wt. 16.40 grms. Very worn.

77. Similar to 75.

Rev. Similar to 75.

Wt. 16.50 grms. Very worn.

78. Similar to 75.

Rev. Similar to 75.

Wt. 16.31 grms. Very worn.

79. Similar to 75.

Rev. Similar to 75.

Wt. (uncleaned) 17.31 grms. 112

80. Similar to 75.

Rev. Similar to 75.

Wt. (uncleaned) 17.45 grms.

These Athenian tetradrachms, the grotesque fourth century type with a profile eye on the obverse and the caricatured owl on the reverse, add little but numbers to the hoard. No attempt has been made to identify dies. They offer the negative evidence of date in that they lack the symbols which appeared on the reverse of a few rather rare old style tetradrachms. Those with the symbols are assigned to some period later than theLamian War, 113 which leaves the remainder of the fourth century, probably after 394, for such tetradrachms as these in the hoard. They may have circulated in Euboea after 357 (see above p. 48); the date of their entrance into the hoard must be considerably later, judging from their worn state. It may be conjectured that in the interval between the earliest group of Carystian staters and the two later ones (i.e. ca. 370 and 313) these were the only large coins circulating in Euboea and that they entered the hoard during the latter part of that time.

End Notes

These coins have been left uncleaned to preserve the incrustation, on the chance that other coins from the hoard may appear.

Elis , Fourth and Third Centuries

81. Laureate head of Zeus r.

Rev. Eagle standing r., on rocky prominence; in 1. field Ϝ, in r. field А and horizontal fulmen.

Wt. 11.40 grms. Slightly worn.

82. Laureate head of Zeus r., in later style than 81.

Rev. Eagle standing r., on Ionic capital; in field 1. and r. Ϝ А.

Wt. 11.62 grms. Somewhat worn.

These two staters are from dies unpublished in Seltman, The Temple Coins of Olympia. No. 81 is very like his CB (Group G, Series XX, pl. VI) except that the hair at the nape of the neck does not end in such ringlets; the reverse is unlike any of his, not only in Group G, in that the eagle is standing on what looks like a heap of rocks. The coin is clearly a member of Group G, which is the only one with the horizontal fulmen. Seltman assigns these to the years 363–343, Babelon to 323–300. Newell 114 inclines to the earlier date. No. 82 indicates a closer connection between Seltman's Group G and his Group K than he intimates, for the obverse is like his DA (pl. VII) except that the beard ends are mere lines and the hair at the nape of the neck is brushed out from the head. A somewhat similar treatment is seen on his CV (Group J, pl. VII) and foreshadowed in Group G, CK, CL, CN, CF (pl. VI). The reverse of no. 82, without a symbol, has the Ionic capital as a footrest for the eagle, which appears only in his Group G, although this die is not there. The coin is more worn than no. 81: another hoard instance of the date not being indicated by the amount of wear on coins in this hoard. His Group K dates from 273–191, Group J from 323–271; no. 82 therefore should be dated near the end of the fourth century or the beginning of the third. The eagles on both the staters are of the style which the Carystian cocks of Group II and III emulate. These coins may record a trip to Olympia by some member of the family, or they may have reached Euboea through Boeotia where they would circulate easily, since Boeotia used the same standard.

End Notes

Cf. Head, H. N.2, 375; Gardner, op. cit. (supra, note 27) 366; Traite, 119–120; Seltman, Greek Coins, 260.

Alexander III Tetradrachms

Mint: probably Amphipolis after 318. 115

83. Head of young Heracles r., in lion's skin.

Rev. Zeus Aetophorus seated 1., holding scepter, r. foot drawn back; in r. field АΛΕimageАΝ·ΔРΟΥ in 1. field, caduceus.

Wt. 15.41 grms. Somewhat worn.

Mint: Babylon, after 317. 116

84. Similar to 83.

Rev. Similar to 83; no symbol in field; below chair image in wreath.

Wt. 15.49 grms. Worn.

(Seleucus I)

Mint: Seleucia, 305/4. 117

85. Similar to 83.

Rev. Similar to 84; in 1. field

Wt. 11.82 grms. Clipped, slightly worn.

Seleucus I

Mint: Ecbatana, 293–280. 118

86. Similar to 83.

Rev. Zeus Aetophorus seated 1., on backless chair, holding scepter, r. foot drawn back; infield r. ΣΕΛΕΥΚΟ(Υ) at bottom ΒАΣΙΛΕΩΣ below chair ΣΩ; below eagle image and anchor.

Wt. 15.85 grms. Somewhat worn.

End Notes

Newell, Alexander Hoards IV. Olympia, (Num. Notes and Monographs No. 39) 13.
Although this coin is not listed by Newell, and by the position of Zeus' right leg must be a posthumous issue, its attribution to Amphipolis seems certain, since the caduceus is a frequent symbol of that mint. Cf. Newell, Reattribution, pl. 2 (XII–10) and pl. 6 (XXXII–6); Robinson, "An Alexander Hoard of Megalopolis," ANS Mus. Notes 4, 15, no. 3, pl. 1 and 20, no. 21, pl. 3.


87. Head of young Heracles r., in lion's skin.

Rev. Zeus Aetophorus seated 1., holding scepter, r. leg forward; in r. field АΛΕimageАΝΔРºΥ; n 1. field image. 119

Wt. 4.20 grms. Somewhat worn.

88. 120 Similar to 87.

Rev. Similar to 87, but r. leg of Zeus drawn back; in r. field traces of АΛΕimageАΝΔРΟΥ; below chair Δ

Wt. 3.90 grms. Worn.

89. 121 Similar to 87.

Rev. Similar to 88; in 1. field, lyre; below chair B

Wt. 3.96 grms. Somewhat worn.

Although the tetradrachms have been catalogued first, the earliest Alexander piece is probably the drachma, no. 87; it is the only one which retains the older style position of Zeus. The clipping of no. 85 occurred anciently, for the edge is smooth and not ragged as is the case with those coins whose metal had crystalized and chipped off in cleaning. The presence of such a coin in the hoard is surprising. The inclusion of these seven coins in the hoard, which has no coins of Philip, is of some importance. If only the tetradrachms were present, one could infer that the small coins issued locally were still circulating in some quantity, but for the purposes of savings the tetradrachms (and perhaps the staters of Elis ) were put away. The three drachmas, however, show that toward the end of the fourth and during the first half of the third century small coins of Alexander were supplementing, if not replacing local issues. This may be taken as a partial explanation of the fact that of the latest series of Euboean drachmas, those with the dolphin, the hoard contains only three specimens. Evidently the old order was changing and giving way to the new, as individual communities became smaller in the perspective of the great new world.

End Notes

Cf. Copenhagen, SNG Macedonia , 2, pl. 22, 835.
Cf. Newell, Eastern Seleucid Mints, pl. 2, 9 and 10. It is in Series I, Group A, 305/4. Newell says (17) of this group that new reverses are constantly turning up.
Newell, Eastern Seleucid Mints, 176, no. 480 ζ, pl. 3f, 7, 293–280, Series III, Group A, the first issue with the name of Seleucus.
I have been unable to find this monogram; probably the coin is to be dated before the death of Alexander, because of Zeus' position.
Cf. Copenhagen, SNG Macedonia , 2, pl. 24, 882, where a similar coin is assigned to the Propontis, before 318.
Cf. Copenhagen, SNG Macedonia , 2, pl. 25, 864, where a similar coin is assigned to an uncertain mint in the fourth or third century. Newell does not list the symbol (lyre).

Antiochus Hierax, 246–228 Tetradrachm

Mint: Abydus, ca. 241–236 122

90. Head of Antiochus II, r., filleted.

Rev. Apollo seated 1., on omphalos, holding bow and arrow; in field 1. А]ṆТΙΟХΟΥ and race-torch; in field r., Β]ẠΣΙΛΕΩΣ in exergue traces of monogram and eagle.

Wt. 15.51 grms. Very good.

This is a rare coin struck by Antiochus Hierax during or directly after the years 246–241, when he was in possession of part of Asia Minor as "trustee" for Seleucus II. Newell 123 who knew the obverse die shows that it was made by an artist who worked later at Lampsacus and who also made those reverse dies at both places which have the race-torch. The Lampsacene pieces have the forepart of Pegasus below the torch and the coins from Abydus have a monogram and an eagle in the exergue. While the exergue is defaced, enough remains to show that there were both monogram and symbol below; the area below the torch above Apollo's foot is unmarred and too small to have contained the Pegasus protome. The obverse die differs from one used at Lampsacus only in minor details; indeed, Newell himself says that the obverse dies of his nos. 1553–4 and 1557–8 are almost indistinguishable. However, the arrangement of the hair above the fillet marks this as the die of his δ specimen of no. 1558. He dates the Abydus issue slightly earlier than the Lampsacene, saying (p. 331) "Doubtless in consequence of an Egyptian attack on the Chersonnese and paricularly on Abydus, the Seleucid mint there was merged with that of Lampsacus." He gives ca. 241 and later as dates for the Abydus coins and 241–228/7 for Lampsacus. Since the 'War of the Brothers' 124 ceased in 236 when Antiochus Hierax fled, presumably to Thrace where he later died, this coin was struck between 241 and and 236 and indicates that the hoard was buried about 230 b.c.

The curious but self-evident fact that the earliest and the latest coins in the hoard show the least signs of wear has already been remarked as one of the reasons for disregarding wear in dating the contents of the hoard. The hoard is, however, important historically and economically, representing as it does the accumulation of a family over a period of about 150 years. There are various other instances of hoards of such long accumulation: the third, fourth and fifth Dura hoards include coins of at least as long a period. The small Siphnos hoard published by Newell covers nearly 100 years. 125 Surely the total, 90 coins, is sufficient to indicate that it must have been slowly accumulated, with considerable sacrifice. Thus we may outline the vicissitudes of a family in those troublous years of the fourth and third centuries, humble folk, of whom little account is taken in the investigations of great events, the battles and the conquests, in those years which saw the fall of independent Greek cities and the rise of the great Hellenistic kingdoms. The first coin saved, a rare and beautiful specimen, possibly was put away for that reason, drachmas or tetrobols being put aside to exchange for this handsome piece with which to start the family savings. Following that the eight Carystian drachmas found their way into the family coffers. The twenty-four staters with the short ethnic, all struck in close succession, indicate more settled financial conditions and some local prosperity: this may be implicit in the fact that Carystus struck staters, for she was the sole Euboean city to issue larger coins than drachmas between 387 (the terminal date usually given to the tetradrachms of the Euboean Confederacy) and 340, when Histiaea struck octobols. As the fabric of the staters is earlier than that of the Euboean drachmas, the period following 368, when possibly the six Athenian tetradrachms also entered the hoard, is represented by these coins, with the corollary that Carystus was not issuing coins during that time. Possibly after the Lamian War, or a little later, there was a brief period of prosperity again for the town and townsfolk, when the later staters were struck, of which the family could save only eleven. The end of the fourth century and the beginning, or even the first half, of the third, during which only a few Euboean drachmas entered the hoard, was not necessarily a more stringent period financially for the family, since they were able to save the Elean staters and the Alexandrine pieces, but their inclusion marks a diminution of local currency.

The absence of coins of Philip of Macedon, which enjoyed such wide circulation and which were on the same standard as the Euboean coins, may be set down to the intense local patriotism of the family; later the increasing number of bronze issues of Euboea, and the reduction of silver, may have made it more profitable to sacrifice principle to prudence and put away the large silver of Alexander. The last coin, the tetradrachm of Antiochus Hierax, shows that the hoard was not finally put away until the thirties of the third century; the occasion for it I have been unable to discover. Some obscure fate overtook a family which had been thrifty for a long, long time.

End Notes

Newell, Western Seleucid Mints, 327, no. 1558α–δ; pl. 71, 12 and 72, 1 (obverse dies of α– y), and 2, (obverse die of δ). The hoard coin is from the obverse die of δ; the reverse die is different from and better than any of the three.
Newell, Western Seleucid Mints, 329–330.
Newell, Western Seleucid Mints, 331–2.
Cf. note 25.

End Notes

I am grateful to Mr. Edward Gans for his help in cleaning the coins.
A hoard of 20 Carystian drachmas and 70 Athenian tetradrachms, buried about, 88 B. C., was found in 1883. (Cf. Parnassus [1883] 777; ZfN, 12 [1885] 103; A J Num, 18, 82.) A second hoard in a burial found in 1860 contained 15 staters; Sotheby, Merlin Sale, Nov. 11, 1861, 18, nos. 96–102. Cf. S. P. Noe, Bibliography of Greek Coin Hoards 2, (Num. Notes and Monographs No. 78), 67, 211, 212, for the hoards of 1860 and 1883; 86, 290, for a hoard of about 38 coins found in 1930, containing eight Carystian pieces of the second century B. C.
Cf. Walpole, Travels in Various Countries in the East, 285; Wiegand, AM, 21 (1896) 11–17; Baumeister, Denkmäler des klassischen Altertums, 2, pl. 15, 881–883, s. v. Kyklopenbau, not mentioned by Johnson, AJA, 29 (1925) 398–412. On the name Ocha, cf. Stephanus, s. v. Κάρυστος; Welcker, Kleine Schriften, 3, 376ff.: called Ocha ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκεῖ ὀχείας ἤτοι ϑϵῶν μίξεως Διὸς καὶ Ηρας.
Johnson, AJA, 29 (1925) 412.
Herodotus, 6, 99. F. Geyer, in his book, Topographie und Geschichte der Insel Euboia (Berlin, 1903), hereafter referred to as Euboia, 102ff., gives the history of Carystus from Homer, 1l. 2, 539, to Macedonian times. Carystus was supposed to be an old colony of the Dryopians: Thuc. 7, 59; Diod. 4, 37; Scymnus 476; Strabo, 10, 6. For what is known of the topography of the city see Praktika (1908) 101–113; IG XII, 9, 25; CIL, III 12286, and IG, XII, 9, 8 and 9.
Pausanias 10, 16, 6.
Herodotus, 8, 66; Geyer, op. cit. (supra, note 5), 29.
Herodotus, 7, 214.
Herodotus, 8, 112, 121. Cf. the inscription, found at Carystus, published in Praktika (1901) 111. Η]ελλε [ν]ι[κ]ὸ]ν μεδίσαντας Κα]ρυστίоς ἐτιμоρέσατо
Euboia, 29.
Besnier, Lexique de Géographie Ancienne (1914) 182.
Cf. Meritt-Wade- Gery-McGregor, The Athenian Tribute Lists, 1, 302–3, 499; 2, 80.
Diod. 11, 88; Pausanias, 1, 27, 5.
Thucydides, 1, 114 and Meritt etc. op. cit. (supra, note 12).
Thucydides, 8, 69.
Aristophanes, Lysistrata, 1058, 1181.
Tod, Greek Historical Inscriptions, 2, no. 123. Cf. Laidlaw, The History of Delos , 77–79, for the administration of the Athenian Amphictyony, 377–373: i.e. the celebrated "Sandwich Marble" at Cambridge, on which arrears of interest on a loan (or loans) to the Carystians, inter alios, are recorded.
There were at least two theoriai from Carystus to Delos about 250 and 247 B. C. Cf. IG, XI, 2, 287, A2 line 73, and Tréheux, "La Réalité historique des Offrandes Hyper-boréennes," in Studies Presented to David Moore Robinson II (1952), 758–774. Presumably at this time or in the period following 377 (cf. note 17) the Καρυστίωνοἰκος, listed by Deonna, La Vie Privée des Déliens (Fasc. VII of École Française d'Athènes, Travaux et Mémoires) 171, was in use. Cf. BCH 32 (1908) 43.
Herodotus 9, 105; Theophrastus, H. P., 8, 4, 4; Athenaeus, II, 52f., V, 212b and VII, 304d; Pliny, N. H., 18, 70.
Geyer, Euboia, 14.
Athenaeus, VII, 295 c, 302 a.
Cf. RE, 1, (1830) s. v. Amiantos; Seneca, Tro., 836; ferax varii lapidis Caristos; Lucan, 5, 232, saxosa Carystus.
CIL, VI, 8486, lapicidinae Carystiae; DarSag, 3, 1682; Strabo, 10, 437, 446,
Cf. the list in Ziebarth, IG, XII, 9,159–160, with complete testimonia on Carystus. Cf. also Meritt, etc, op. cit. (supra note 12), 1, 499.
A Hoard from Siphnos. (Num. Notes and Monographs No. 64).
Bellinger, The Third and Fourth Dura Hoards and Newell, The Fifth Dura Hoard (Num. Notes and Monographs Nos. 55 and 58).