Except for a short notice in The Numismatist (March, 1924, p. 301) the writer has not since had the leisure to discuss two rather interesting hoards which he met with during his last sojourn in Egypt in the winter of 1923-4. These two hoards, while not perhaps of any very great moment, none the less give us very welcome glimpses as to just what constituted Egyptian currency at two periods of her history under the Ptolemies. Incidentally, they may also serve to affirm or correct certain datings and attributions suggested by previous students of the somewhat intricate problems presented by the various Ptolemaic coinages.
For all information concerning the earliest of these hoards the writer is indebted to Dr. Eddé of Alexandria, through whose hands these particular coins first passed. Such pieces as still remained in his possession in December, 1923, he kindly showed the writer, informing him at the same time that certain specimens which had appeared in Ciani's Sale, held on October 16th, 1923, at the Hotel Drouot in Paris (and which sale the writer had himself chanced to attend), had also originally been in the find. The exact time and locality of the discovery Dr. Eddé did not know or possibly, for obvious reasons, did not care to divulge. Briefly stated, the coins had been brought to him early in 1923 by some peasants of the Egyptian delta who said they had found them while working their fields. More precise information would not probably, in any case, add very greatly to the scientific value of our little hoard. According to Dr. Eddé the "find", as sold to him by the peasants, consisted of the following twenty-one pieces:
Ptolemy II Philadelphus.
285-246 B. C.
1 Phoenician tetradrachm. Diademed head of Ptolemy Soter to r. Rev. Eagle standing to l. Of "Asiatic" style, according to Dr. Eddé.
Berenice II, wife of Ptolemy III Euergetes.
246-221 B. C.
2 Veiled bust of the queen to r. in circle of dots. Rev. BAΣIΛIΣΣHΣ on r., BEPENIKHΣ on l. Cornucopiae adorned with diadem and flanked by the wreath-encircled caps of the Dioscuri. Attic pentadrachm. Gr. 19.27. Worn very slightly. Svoronos No. 989. Now in the author's collection. Plate I, 1.
3 Similar to the preceding. Attic two-and-a-half drachma piece. Gr. 10.38. Slightly worn. Svoronos No. 990. Ciani's Sale, Oct. 16th, 1923, No. 66. Now in the author's collection. Plate I, 2.
Ptolemy IV Philopator
221-204 B. C.
4-6 Jugate busts of Serapis (adorned with the laurel wreath and the "pshent") and Isis (adorned with wheat ear and solar disk with uraei) to r. in circle of dots. Rev. IITOΛEMAIO⌒ on l., BAΣIΛEΩΛ on r. Eagle with head reverted standing to l. upon a thunderbolt and bearing upon his shoulder double cornucopiae adorned with a diadem. Between the eagle's claws: ΛE. Phoenician tetradrachm. Very fine or uncirculated. 4. Naville Sale X, No. 1629, gr. 14.13. 5. Same sale, No. 1630, gr. 13.50. 6. Another, now in the author's collection, gr. 14.21. Plate I, 3.
7-20 Similar to the preceding except that ΔI is between the eagle's claws. Svoronos No. 1124. 7. Ciani Sale, Oct. 16, 1923, No. 67 (Pl. iii).
8. Same sale, No. 68 (PI. iii).
9. Same sale, No. 69 (PI. iii).
10. Naville X, 1626, gr. 14.10.
11. Same sale, 1627, gr. 13.99.
12. Same sale, 1628, gr. 14.01.
13. Naville XII, 2602, gr. 13.78.
14. Same sale, 2603, gr. 14.00.
15. Same sale, 2604, gr. 13.99.
16. Same sale, 2605, gr. 14.10.
17. Same sale, 2606, gr. 13.63.
18. Same sale, 2607, gr. 14.11.
19. Another is now in commerce.
20. Author's coll., gr. 14.12, Plate I, 4. Practically all of these pieces are in an uncirculated state.
21 Similar to the preceding except that ΣI is between the eagle's claws and is in the l. field. Svoronos No. 1186. Naville Sale X, No. 1631, gr. 13.96 (= Ciani's Sale, Oct. 16, 1923, No. 70, Plate iii). Practically uncirculated.
All of these coins, with the sole exception of No. 1 which had previously been disposed of, were actually seen and handled by the present writer. Their uniform appearance and type of oxidization with sufficient clearness betokened their common origin from a single find. Nos. 2 and 3, though slightly corroded, were in good condition but showed signs of circulation. Nos. 4 to 21, though similarly attacked by corrosion had obviously been in a brilliant state of preservation when their original owner had seen fit to bury them some twenty-one hundred odd years ago.
The Berenice coins Nos. 2 and 3, although very rare are, none the less, well known varieties1 struck in the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes in honour of his beautiful and able wife Berenice, daughter of Magas of Cyrene. Nos. 7 to 20 inclusive, struck by Ptolemy IV Philopator, are also well known, no less than eighteen specimens of this particular variety having been recorded by Svoronos.2 The same is true of No. 21, of similar types but coined in the mint at Sidon.3 Nos. 4 to 6 inclusive, on the other hand, present a new variety of the Serapis and Isis type in that they have the monogram between the eagle's claws instead of the more usual ΔI. This may, perhaps, be looked upon as the first issue of Ptolemy IV's reign as there is in existence a single specimen 4 of the coinage with his mother's portrait bearing the same monogram. This latter coin could not very well have been issued by Ptolemy IV himself as he had but just caused Berenice's assassination when he came to the throne following his father's demise in 221 B. C. One might suppose, therefore, that the Berenice coin had been struck under Euergetes, immediately preceding his death, and that its magistrate continued to function for a while under Ptolemy IV. It is also possible, though hardly probable, that Nos. 4 to 6 (together with the above-mentioned Berenice coin) were not coined at Alexandria at all but belong to the Cyrenaic mint where we know5 British Museum Catalogue Cyrene, p. 83, Nos. 48-50, Pl. xxxi, 11-12, and Svoronos, loc. cit., Nos. 1145-1152. that bronze coins with a similar monogram were being struck at this time. Be this as it may, the sudden appearance of certain Serapis and Isis tetradrachms with the monogram would confirm Svoronos' hesitating removal6 to the reign of Philopator of at least the bulk of the large series of bronze coins bearing this same monogram which he had at first assigned to the reign of Euergetes (his Nos. 992–994). That the tetradrachms bearing the jugate busts of Serapis and Isis really belong to Philopator's reign was first correctly recognized by Svoronos7 and hardly requires further discussion. The special honours paid to these divinities by Philopator8 and the dedication of their joint temple at Alexandria 9 amply explain and date the sudden appearance of this interesting and novel type on the Ptolemaic coinage. That these particular coins should occur in a hoard mixed with Berenice issues still further supports Svoronos' attribution.
On the other hand, the unearthing of two more specimens of the Berenice type in Egypt itself rather seems to do away, once and for all, with Svoronos' somewhat hazardous attribution of these coins to the mints of Ephesus and Seleucia on the Orontes.10 Svoronos himself records11 the finding of two specimens in Egypt—the only definite provenience which he deigns to give us at all—but, obviously to save his own view-point, states that these coins are especially frequently found in the coastal districts of Asia Minor.12 Unfortunately he neglects, or is unable, to furnish us with any definite proof of his assertion. In contrast to this vagueness it is possible to show that at least nine of the known gold and silver Berenice coins have turned up in Egypt. One of the gold dodecadrachms and two of the silver pentadrachms from the Dupré and Gréau collections are stated by C. W. Huber in his "Zur alten Numismatik Aegyptens" 13 to have been found while excavating the Suez Canal. A specimen of the gold octodrachm in Huber's own collection is said by him14 also to have been found in Egypt. Furthermore, according to Huber,14a Rev. Reichardt's example of the gold pentadrachm was purchased by him in Cairo. Of the three gold Berenice coins in the present writer's collection two (similar to Svoronos Nos. 973 and 982) were actually purchased in Cairo, and one of these was claimed by its former owner to have been found at Ebtu in Upper Egypt early in 1923. The third coin (= Svor. No. 972) there is good reason to believe was found at Heliopolis near Cairo. Thus, together with the two Berenice silver coins in the present hoard, we possess more or less authentic records of no less than nine of the known Berenice coins having turned up in the land of the Nile. Certainly their style and fabric is not Asiatic but typically Egyptian.15
Unfortunately our hoard brings us no new evidence by which we may explain the sudden and anomalous occurrence of coins of Attic weight in the Egyptian series nearly a century after that system had been definitely abandoned by Ptolemy I Soter. Its reappearance may have been occasioned by certain exigencies of trade or of politics of which we know nothing or can offer, at best, only vague surmises upon which to work. It is to be hoped that the future discovery or decipherment of contemporary papyri may throw some welcome light upon so difficult and puzzling a question. Perhaps the wide-flung and successful campaigns of Ptolemy III through the very heart of the Seleucid empire (where the Attic weight system was at this time universally used), or the bringing back to Egypt by victorious soldiery of plundered Seleucid treasures may have thrown so much Attic silver and gold upon the Egyptian markets that there sprang up a demand for an intermediary coinage that would readily exchange in terms of the two prevalent currencies—the Attic and the Egypto-Phoenician. Not only military successes but also an increased foreign trade might have brought about a similar demand. At any rate, the Attic silver pentadrachm (such as No. 2) would represent the equivalent of six Ptolemaic drachms (or one and a half of the usual current tetradrachms). The two-and-a-half Attic drachm piece (such as No. 3) would equal three Ptolemaic drachms or three-fourths of a tetradrachm. Similarly the gold Attic two-and-a-half drachm piece (Svor. No. 979) would represent the equivalent of three Ptolemaic gold drachms, the pentadrachm (Svor. Nos. 973, 978) of six Ptolemaic gold drachms, the decadrachm (Svor. No. 972) of twelve Ptolemaic gold drachms or exactly one and a half of the ordinary gold Egyptian Mυαɛîα, the commonest of Egyptian gold coins and at this time struck in both single and half pieces (Svor. Nos. 1117, 1118). This expedient of issuing a coinage intermediary between the two dominant systems of the eastern Mediterranean was but ephemeral—as might have been expected. With the commencement of Ptolemy IV Philopator's reign it was abandoned, never again to be revived.
To return once more to our hoard, the exact date of its burial can hardly be determined, any more than the causes which actually led to its interment. The uniformly splendid preservation of Nos. 4 to 21, point, however, to the early years of Philopator's reign. For several reasons, with which Regling apparently agrees,16 Svoronos17 has placed the Serapis and Isis tetradrachms among the earliest issues of Philopator. Our hoard fully substantiates his views but offers nothing to fix the date of burial closer than somewhere in the first quarter, certainly within the first half, of Philopator's reign.
This hoard, of small artistic but of considerable intrinsic and scientific value, would seem to have come to light some time in the first six months of 1923. It was still, for the most part, in the hands of the well known dealer in antiquities, M. Maurice Nahman, when the writer visited Cairo towards the end of that same year. M. Nahman very kindly granted every facility for studying the coins and also furnished what little information is available concerning the discovery and disposal of the hoard. It is said to have been found near Keneh in Upper Egypt and was bought by M. Nahman just a month preceding the latter's departure for Europe in July, 1923. He took the opportunity of carrying a selection of the coins with him for disposal in Paris where the present writer, a few months later, saw several specimens. Among others, one Arsinoe gold octodrachm was shown him by Messrs. Feuardent Frères, two or three more by M. Clément Platt, while three octodrachms and ten silver tetradrachms appeared as Nos. 63-65, 73-82 in the auction sale held on October 16th, 1923, by Messrs. Ciani and Florange at the Hotel Drouot. When the writer arrived in Cairo, M. Nahman still possessed in his trays some six or more of the gold octodrachms and about one hundred and sixty silver tetradrachms. He also stated that, altogether, the hoard as offered to him had contained about forty-five gold coins (including two of the rare Arsinoe gold tetradrachms) and over two hundred silver tetradrachms and also that, so far as he knew, he had been able to secure the entire find.
The coins were all without exception, both gold and silver, in the finest possible condition. The silver pieces were covered with a thin layer of purplish grey oxide, while the gold pieces showed every evidence of having been buried with the silver, because their surfaces showed here and there small patches of the silver oxide where they had lain in contact with the disintegrating surfaces of the silver tetradrachms. There can be no reasonable question but that all of these coins, both gold and silver, had really come from a single find as stated by M. Nahman.
Mint : ALEXANDRIA.
Ptolemy VI Philometor 181/0-145 B. C. and possibly during the early years of his successor's (Ptolemy VIII) sole reign.
About forty-three Gold Octodrachms.
Obv. Veiled and diademed bust of Arsinoe to r. with lotus-tipped sceptre. Behind head, K.
Rev. APΣINOHΣ фIΛAΔEΛфOϒ, around double cornucopiae filled with fruits and tied with the royal diadem. Varieties of Svoronos Nos. 1242 (Plate xl, 20-23), 1374 (Plate xlvii, 1-3), 1498 (Plate li, 17-19), 1499 (Plate li, 20-1, 24). The specimen here illustrated, Plate II, 1 and 2, is in the writer's collection and shows condition both before and after cleaning. Other specimens from the hoard are illustrated in Ciani's sale catalogue, Oct. 16th, 1923, Plate iii, Nos. 63-65. M. Nahman stated that two of the Arsinoe octodrachms in the hoard showed letters on their reverses instead of on the obverses. We probably have to do here with contemporary Cypriote issues, such as are illustrated by Svoronos on his Plates xlix-l. Unfortunately these particular pieces had been sold before the writer's arrival in Cairo.
Two Gold Tetradrachms.
Types similar to the preceding. The specimen now in the writer's collection is illustrated Plate II, 3.
About one hundred and ninety Silver Tetradrachms.
Obv. Diademed head of Ptolemy I Soter, wearing Aegis, to r.
Rev. IITOΛEMAIOϒ BAΣIΛEΩΣ around eagle standing to l. on thunderbolt.
Mint : PAPHOS.
Ptolemy VI Philometor (sole reign) 163-145 B. C.
One Silver Tetradrachm.
Obv. Diademed head of Ptolemy I Soter, wearing the Aegis, to r.
Rev. IITOΛEMAIOϒ BAΣIΛEΩΣ around eagle standing to l. on a thunderbolt. In l. field, . In r. field . Specimen from the hoard in the writer's collection, Plate III, 2.
Ptolemy VII Eupator. Associated with his father 146-145 B. C.
One Silver Tetradrachm.
Obv. Diademed head of Ptolemy I Soter, wearing Aegis, to r.
Rev. IITOΛEMAIOϒ BAΣIΛEΩΣ around eagle standing to l. on a thunderbolt. In l. field In r. field Specimen from the hoard in the writer's collection, Plate III, 3.
Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II (Sole reign) 145-117 B. C.
Two Silver Tetradrachms.
Obv. Diademed head of Ptolemy I Soter, wearing the Aegis, to r.
Rev. IITOΛEMAIOϒ BAΣIΛEΩΣ around eagle standing to l. on a thunderbolt. In l. field, LKE. In r. field IIA. Specimen from the hoard in the writer's collection Plate III, 4. A similar specimen, from the hoard, was seen in the collection of Dr. Lewellyn Phillips, Cairo.
Two Silver Tetradrachms.
Obv. Similar to the preceding.
Rev. Similar to the preceding except that the date reads LK. Specimen from the hoard in the writer's collection Plate III, 5. A similar specimen, from the hoard, was seen in Dr. Phillip's collection.
Other specimens, similar to the preceding six pieces, may originally have been contained in the find, but if so they had already been disposed of before the writer's visit to Egypt. According to M. Nahman's express statement there were "very few" of these Cypriote tetradrachms in the hoard.
It will be noticed that the coins here given to Alexandria ( Plate II, 4-5, Plate III, 1) and, in fact, universally recognized as of Egyptian origin, predominate in our hoard. The last six coins, here given to Paphos in Cyprus, following Svoronos, were but sparsely represented in the Keneh Find. These particular varieties, however, had been assigned by Poole (Brit. Mus. Cat. Ptolemies, pp. lxii, lxx-lxxi, Plate xxii, 1.) to a mint presumably transferred from Paphos to Alexandria. Entirely aside from questions of style and fabric the present hoard refutes this opinion. For, if they had really been struck in Alexandria, it is almost certain that our hoard would have contained a larger number. Svoronos also does not entirely accept18 Poole's conclusion but continues to assign these coins to Paphos, as indicated by the mint-mark IIA which they bear. On the other hand it is equally certain that, at a slightly later date in the reign of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II, his Alexandrian issues really were marked with the letters IIA, as first pointed out by Poole. These latter are only to be distinguished from the true issues of Paphos by their somewhat cruder but very individual style.
While this is hardly the place to enter upon a detailed discussion of the many coinages of Philometor and Euergetes with a view not only to a definite separation of their respective issues but also to distinguish between the IIA coins struck at Paphos and those issued from the Alexandrian mint, a few indications of how this can be accomplished may not come amiss. We may start with the assumption, as proved by the very obvious evidence of fabric and style, that the silver coins in our hoard represent the issues of two distinct mints. As they are all equally well preserved it is fairly certain that they were more or less contemporaneous, and this rules out the possibility that they might have been struck in one mint. Again, it may reasonably be assumed that the coins whose numbers were greatest in our hoard ought to have come from the nearest mint, namely Alexandria. And this assumption amounts to a certainty when we consider the fact that Egypt resembles a long narrow funnel or corridor, with Keneh situated well up the narrowest part. The principal commercial door, commanding the mouth of the funnel, was Alexandria, the seat of a very active mint. Naturally it would be her issues which would tend to predominate the further we proceeded along the neck of the funnel. Therefore coins similar to Plate II, Nos. 4-5, must certainly be Egyptian in origin, and this fact has always been recognized by numismatists. The final six tetradrachms of our hoard ( Plates III, 2-5) then, must belong to another mint, and this can only be Paphos — indicated by the letters IIA and recognized as such by most numismatists except Poole. Obviously these coins are the direct successors in style and fabric of Svoronos' Plate xlix, Nos. 4-24, whose assignment to Paphos by the Greek scholar has never been questioned. In their low relief and odd style these six tetradrachms are identical with the accepted Paphian issues but utterly unlike the Egyptian issues as exemplified by Plate II, Nos. 4-5. Therefore, they never could have been their successors. No, the true successors of the prolific but unmarked Alexandrian issues of Philometor (here Plate II, 4-5; Svoronos, Plate li, 1-5; Poole, Plate xxiv, 4-6) can only have been coins such as Svoronos Plate lii, 2-4, bearing the dates of Euergetes KI and KH. In the stylistic peculiarities of the Soter head, as well as of the eagle, these particular coins are intimately associated with the above-mentioned Egyptian issues. They constitute the easy and obvious transition from them into the later certain Alexandrian issues of Euergetes such as Svoronos Plate xlix, No. 17, Plate lii, Nos. 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 24 and so on—i. e., coins with the now anomalous "mint-mark" IIA and the dates running from Λ through NΔ. These latter coins are certainly of Alexandrian origin. The present writer has secured innumerable specimens from strictly Egyptian hoards, and in style and fabric they again merge directly into the issues of Ptolemies X Soter and XI Alexander (cf. Svoronos Plate lvii) which issues both Poole 19 and Svoronos 20. recognize as necessarily of Egyptian origin.
Our hoard is furthermore instrumental in proving that Poole, following Reichardt, 21 is absolutely justified in assigning certain very rare coins (here Plate III, 3) to Ptolemy VII Neos Eupator, the son of Ptolemy VI Philometor, with whom he was associated in the kingdom the very year of the latter's death. Svoronos, on the other hand, would see22. in these coins an issue of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes struck in his 36th year (= 134 B. C.). He transposes the inscription in the field so as to read LΛ A KAI IIA and translates this : L (= year) Λ (= 36 of Euergetes) A (= Aίγúπτου or Aλεξανδρεíας KAI (= and) IIA (= άφουν ομίσμα With this conclusion Regling disagrees23 absolutely and prefers the old explanation. Our hoard now comes to corroborate fully the majority opinion. In the first place, this coin, if we were to follow Svoronos, would come some ten years later than the latest known dated coin in the find, which is quite inadmissible. Secondly, these particular coins, as we have shown, were struck at Paphos and have nothing to do with Alexandria or Egypt—as Svoronos would have us believe from his rearrangement and translation of the inscription. Thirdly, the date Λcan only refer to Philometor, as the immediately following coin of our hoard ( Plate III, 4) bears the date KE but is absolutely identical with it in the very individual style of its obverse die. If further proof be needed, there happens to be in the writer's collection a coin similar to Plate III, 2 (and therefore certainly of Ptolemy VI Philometor) but struck from the same obverse die as Plate III, 3. The latter coin must, therefore, belong to Philometor and not to a date ten years after his death. Now we know from Porphyrius 24 that the last year of Philometor was his 36th Λ(), which was also the 25th (KE) year of Euergetes in his second reign at Alexandria. The association in our little hoard of the three coins Plate III, 2-4, all so absolutely identical in style and fabric, is quite sufficient to refute the opinion of Svoronos.
While it has long been believed that the Arsinoe gold octodrachms and tetradrachms of increasingly mediocre style, and bearing the letter K behind the head (here Plate II, 1-3, also Ciani's sale Plate iii, Nos. 63-65), were more or less contemporaneous with the silver tetradrachms such as Plate II, 4-5, and that all of these coins belonged somewhere in the second century B. C.,25 no definite proof of this has so far been presented. The Keneh hoard fortunately steps in to fill this gap in the most definite fashion. There can now be no doubt but that these particular gold octodrachms and tetradrachms and silver tetradrachms (together with their accompanying didrachms not represented in our hoard) not only belong together but that they must, for the most part, be assigned to the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor. A few may have been struck after Ptolemy VIII Euergetes had finally returned to Egypt in 147-6 B. C., on the death of his elder brother. For the earliest dated coin of his which we have from the Alexandria mint was not struck until 144-3 B. C. (i. e., year KI = Svoronos, Plate lii, No. 2). The two intervening years, therefore, may well have seen the continuation of the undated coinage inaugurated by Philometor. In assigning these coins to Philometor it must always be remembered that for a goodly portion of his reign he was actually ruling conjointly with his brother Euergetes, but the coinage was doubtless considered as being issued in the name of the senior brother. It should also be stated that all of the one hundred and fifty-five tetradrachms from our hoard actually seen in Cairo, as well as those sold in Paris, were more or less identical with the two here illustrated on Plate II. The hoard apparently contained none of the somewhat similar pieces, but of flatter relief and smaller design, such as are pictured by Svoronos Plate xl, Nos. 2-6, and Poole, Plate xxiv, No. 7. With the inauguration of a dated coinage at Alexandria under Euergetes in 144-3 B. C. the series of undated tetradrachms probably came to an end. It may not have been so with the gold octodrachms bearing the old Arsinoe types. Exceptionally crude pieces, such as Svoronos Plate lviii, No. 3, do not seem to have been present in the Keneh Find and so may have been issued at a later date.
The silver coins in the Keneh Hoard were practically all in the same splendid state of preservation, though, naturally, there was considerable variation in the amount of corrosion exhibited by the various specimens. The gold coins, too, showed little or no wear, with the exception of those few of somewhat better style (such as Plate III, 1) which exhibited slight signs of circulation as compared with those of a little cruder style (such as Ciani's Sale, Plate iii, Nos. 63-5) which were in an absolutely sharp and uncirculated condition. It is remarkable that the only known dated coins in our find should all cover the short period of two years, i. e., year Λ (36) of Philometor (= 146-5 B. C.); year Λ (36) of Philometer with A (1) of Eupator (also = 146-5 B. C.); and years KE (25) and K (26) of Euergetes (= 145 and 145-4 B. C.). And this although the dated Cypriote issues, both before and after these particular years, are quite common! There must be some significance in so curious a fact and it suggests that the hoard was buried not very much after the year 144 B. C. This is further corroborated by the apparent total absence of any of the dated Alexandrian issues of Euergetes which first commenced to appear in his 27th year, or in 144-3 B. C. If the hoard had been buried much later than this date they ought to have been represented in the find, considering the comparatively large number of coins which it actually contained.
As the Keneh hoard was thus apparently buried within the first few years of Euergetes' return to Egypt its interment may not have been unconnected with the somewhat disturbed condition of the country due to the repressive measures at once adopted by the new king. He was obviously most unpopular with certain powerful factions, especially the Greek and the Jewish, who had particularly favoured the well-beloved Philometor. On his death they had declared for his widow and youthful son Ptolemy Neos Eupator as against Euergetes' claim to the throne. It was only with an army at his back that Euergetes made good his claim, and being of an energetic and ruthless nature proceeded at once to make certain of his position by all means in his power, including assassination, massacre and wholesale banishment. Such drastic measures, ruthlessly carried out in the first years26 of his reign, must have brought fear and consternation to the wealthier and more influential people of the country, especially to those at all intimately associated with the preceding reign or devoted to its memory. In such times of imminent danger to property and person many a family treasure would assuredly find its way into the ground, there to await—if disaster befell—the lucky finder of later ages. That the Keneh Hoard represents one of these hastily buried fortunes may well be. The burial date would support the suggestion—but absolute certainty can hardly be expected in such a case.
See Svoronos, Tά Noμίσμara <4oû κρáτovs τͳv IIτoλεμaíwv, Vol. II, Nos. 989 and 990.
2. Ibid., No. 1124.
Ibid., No. 1186.
Ibid., No. 991.
British Museum Catalogue Cyrene, p. 83, Nos. 48-50, Pl. xxxi, 11-12, and Svoronos, loc. cit., Nos. 1145-1152.
Loc cit., Vol. II, p. 177, note under heading :γ
Loc. cit., Vol. I, pp. σπή-σπθ. With this attribution Dr. Regling, Zeitschr. f. Num., Vol. xxv, 1906, p. 369, fully agrees.
Strack, Die Dynastie der Ptolemäer, Nos. 55-58, 69. Bouché-Leclerq, I, 329, 1.
Strack, ibidem, No. 66; Mahaffy, The Empire of the Ptolemies, pp. 73-4 and 274.
Ibid., Vol. II, Nos. 973 δ and 989 ϝ.
Ibid., Vol. I, p. σμθ'. Even here he is forced to admit (with which one can only agree) that these coins and the accompanying bronze pieces are also very frequently found in Egypt. The present writer has secured scores of examples of the bronze coins in Egypt and has seen literally hundreds of others from Egyptian "finds".
Zur alten Numismatik Aegyptens, pp. 217 and 226.
Ibid., p. 215
Ibid., p. 220.
Compare them, for instance, with the well known gold octodrachms bearing the radiate bust of Euergetes (Svor., No. 1117) as against the one gold octodrachm of Berenice which was certainly struck in Ephesus (Svor., Nos. 899 and 900; Brit. Museum Catalogue, Plate xiii, 2). The former are as obviously Egyptian as the latter is Asiatic.
Loc cit., p. 369.
Loc. cit., Vol. I, pp. σπθ', τγ'-τs'.
Ibid. In his catalogue Svoronos places all of these coins under Cyprus. In his introduction, p. τ'7β, however, he appears to accept Poole's suggestion, though only for a few of the coins in question.
Loc. cit., introd., pp. lxxviii-lxxix.
Loc. cit., Vol. I, p. νiδ ff
Num. Chron., N. S., Vol. IV, p. 189.
Loc. cit., Vol. I, pp. τ'7a' - τ'7β'
Zeitschr. f. Num., Vol. XXV, 1906, p. 381.
Frag. Hist. Gr. III, pp. 720-1.
Poole, in the British Museum Catalogue, assigned the gold to Ptolemy VIII or later (introd., p. xli), the silver solely to Ptolemy VIII (ibid., p. lxxiv). Svoronos gives (loc. cit., Vol. I, pp. τξδ' and νs') some of the gold to Ptolemy VI and some to Ptolemy VIII, while the silver he assigns (ibid., pp. τ'7ξ' - τ'7ή) Ptolemies VI and VIII. Regling clearly sees that their style points rather to Ptolemy VI (Zeitschr. f. Num., Vol. XXV, p. 382). It was undoubtedly due to insufficient data that Poole was led to question (ibid., p. lxxiii) the Egyptian origin of these tetradrachms. In additon to the present hoard the writer, in the course of three previous visits to Egypt, saw many of these particular coins which had come from hoards undoubtedly unearthed in that country. They seem to be particularly common on the Egyptian coin market.
Cf. Mahaffy's Empire of the Ptolemies, pp. 374-85, based on Polybius' account and also on Athenaeus, IV, c. 83.