In accepting the generous invitation of Mr. Edward T. Newell, President of the American Numismatic Society, to continue his investigation into the Seleucid Mint of Tyre, some sort of explanation should be made. My interest in the Seleucid mint of Tyre began, as philosophy is said to begin, in wonder. A good many years ago grave doubts arose in my mind as to whether a tetradrachm of Antiochus III, apparently bearing the recognized monogram of Tyre, was really issued from that mint at all. The authorities of the day said it was: I ventured to think it was not and so began to study the mint of Tyre. As my numismatic studies are compelled to be intermittent from the very nature of my calling, Mr. Newell was able to anticipate me and reached conclusions after which I had been blindly groping.
From Antiochus III to Demetrius I, Mr. Newell has elucidated the coinage of Tyre. The historical value of his conclusions is incalculable. Without them the numismatic history of Tyre is nonsense and any classification of the Seleucid series merely fantastic. Further, the principles he has outlined for the earlier coinage, if applied generally, will solve many of the puzzles and make this wonderful Seleucid series an open book. The coinage for Tyre has been classified by Mr. Newell up to the beginning of the reign of Alexander Balas. My work begins at that point and endeavors to throw some light on certain of the questions which arise.
From Alexander Balas onward, the activities of the Seleucid mint of Tyre are perfectly straightforward. There are no problems of attribution, which is the real fun of numismatics.
The minor problems are possibly, from the nature of the case, totally insoluble. I have made an attempt to solve one of them, but I claim no finality for the solution I propose.
After the defeat and death of Demetrius I, the Saviour, the mighty hunter of the House of Seleucus, Alexander Balas, the putative son of Antiochus Epiphanes became the Greek King in Syria. He owed his victory and his throne to the powerful support of Ptolemy Philometor of Egypt. How real that support was may be gauged from the fact that as soon as ever Alexander was established in his kingdom, Ptolemy forced him to marry his daughter Cleopatra, and the Seleucid court was removed from Antioch to Ptolemais, where the marriage took place "with great pomp, as the manner of kings is."
This Egyptian alliance had an immediate effect upon the coinage of Tyre. A new standard of weight was introduced and a new type, both Ptolemaic.
As far as Tyre is concerned, the second coinage, which lasted from B. C. 151/150 (A.S. 162) until B.C. 126/125 (A.S. 187), may Well be said to have begun and ended with Cleopatra. This infamous woman, successively the wife of Alexander Balas, Demetrius II and Antiochus VII, granted Tyre its freedom as a reward for the murder of her second husband. Her twenty-five years of political intrigue cover the period of the second coinage.
Both silver and copper coins were issued, the former certainly in abundance. No gold has come to light. The silver denominations are the tetradrachm, the didrachm the drachm and the half drachm. The copper, following the very wise precedent of Mr. Newell, are the chalkous, the hemi-chalkous, the dilepton and possibly the lepton.
The prototype of the silver coins is the ordinary Lagid tetradrachm of the Ptolemaic Kings in Egypt. The obverse is always the king's portrait and the reverse is the eagle on the prow of a galley with a palm-branch except in the case of the single half drachm known.
The copper, in contrast with the usual practice of the Seleucids, has a different type for each denomination, although the obverse is always the King's portrait. The largest denomination, which is conveniently called the chalkous, has on the reverse the stern of a galley, usually ornamented with the aphlaston, the half chalkous has the prow and palm, the dilepton has the palm tree with fruit, and the lepton a club, which appears on a single example belonging to Antiochus IV in my collection.
In view of the difference of this coin I have thought it right to assign the lepton (prow and palm—caps of Dioskouroi) to the mint of Tripolis and to find a rudder rather than a prow on the coins.
The distinction of type for different denominations is markedly Phoenician and does not obtain in the money of other Seleucid mints. A persistent feature, especially of the obverse, is a border of dots. This stands out in sharp contrast with the bead and reel border, which was becoming more and more popular upon the monies of Attic weight.
It is worth while noting that there exists a tetradrachm of the Phoenician type of Ptolemy Philometor of the year B. C. 148 with a monogram, which appears to indicate Ptolemais. It is obviously connected with the expedition, which he made into Palestine and Phoenicia to bring to his senses Alexander Balas, whose dissolute life threatened disaster. The Phoenician mints were in some degree disorganized and a Sidon tetradrachm of Attic weight, remains as witness. Certainly the coins of this year are the rarest in the reign of Alexander.
The mint of Tyre had its own idea of the fitness of things and with Semitic persistency clung to them. On the silvei coins, the Seleucid monarch's portrait is always clean shaven and draped. Even in the case of a king, like Demetrius II, who more Parthico affected a formal cut to beard and hair, the mint of Tyre insisted upon a presentation, ridiculously young. Other Phoenician or Palestinian mints might, if they liked, put up with a bearded king,* but the mint of Tyre, with but one exception (cf. no. 131), would have none of it.
As far as possible the Seleucid King had to resemble the Tyrian Herakles (Melquarth) and a comparison of the Tyrian issues of Alexander Balas with the much later issues of free Tyre shew a noteworthy likeness between the Seleucid King and the hero of Tyre.
The remarkable feature of the second coinage of Tyre is the weight. It is no longer Attic, but approximates to the Ptolemaic. Thus, while throughout the rest of the Seleucid domain of Asia the tetradrachm weighs 17.40 grammes, the tetradrachm of the Tyrian mint weights 14.20 grammes only.
Naturally, this indicates that the chief trading interest of Tyre was maritime and with Egypt, but it must have been a real inconvenience to the rest of the Seleucid Empire requiring a constant adjustment, like the British duo-decimal system.
At all events the same standard was continued,* even after Tyre regained its freedom, upon autonomous issues and so long as Imperial Rome authorized silver monies (always provided that the tetradrachms, ranging from Vespasian to Trajan are rightly attributed to Tyre) with the single exception of what I have ventured to call the third Seleucid Coinage of Tyre.
There is however one problem, the most tantalizing of all. That problem is the interpretation of the monograms, which occur upon the coins throughout. They are not numerous and are easy to classify. On the other hand, if once they were really understood, they would throw a flood of light of the utmost value upon the monetary arrangements of the Seleucid Kings.
The following table shews all that have come to light.
|Demetrius II 2nd Reign.|
Before considering these monograms in detail, there is one fact that should be noted. They occur solely upon the silver money. No bronze of Tyre has any monogram, which could possibly refer to a monetary official. This has an important consequence. Babelon (p. cxxiv), discusses the meaning of the monogram and shews that it is the monogram of the word IEPAΣ, so that with the other constant monogram and the club surmounted by we have an abbreviated form of the full legend TϒPOϒ JEPAΣ KAI AΣϒΛOϒ. This is of course established by a remarkable tetradrachm and didrachm (see Catalogue of Types, below, nos. 39, 40).
Such monograms and such a legend, he goes on to say, clearly indicate a royal mint. Where the coins read TϒPIΩN then they are issued by municipal authority. With that observation I entirely agree. It therefore follows that in the second coinage of Tyre no Seleucid King ever issued a bronze coin, and that there must have been entirely different con- ditions for silver from bronze. This is in no way modified by the fact that there are certain bronze coins of very low denomination (cf. Catalogue of type nos. 26, 42, 45, 47, 96) of which the flans are obviously too small to admit the word TϒPIΩN but they shew neither nor .
It may be taken for certain then that the Seleucid King was only concerned with the silver issues from the Tyrian mint. Either the right of coining bronze was of little moment or its intrinsic value was so slight as to obviate fraud. Judging from the extraordinary fluctuations in weight of what apparently are the same denominations in the whole of the Seleucid coinage, as well as in other series of Greek bronze, the conclusion is inevitable that the bronze coinage must have represented an arbitrary value and been in the nature of a "token" coinage, a position still actually existing today. I recently weighed a five shilling bag of English pennies, all current and in mint condition with the unexpected result that their margin of variation was more than 20 grains.
The presence, then, of a monogram on the silver coins may mean that the Seleucid King intended to fix the responsibility for their fineness upon somebody, who might be brought to book for defaulting. While that is true of other Seleucid mints, e. g. Antioch, I hope to shew why it was not true at Tyre. Again, as in no case does more than one monogram appear upon a coin, it follows that the responsibility might be fixed upon a particular individual or a definite quarter. In the Mint of Antioch and elsewhere two or three persons sign the monies: but at Tyre a simpler method obtains. Each coin is referable to a single individual or a single quarter. That was a distinctly sound business procedure, appropriate to the Semitic instincts of those in authority at Tyre.
So much is clear, the rest is conjecture. The monograms may stand for officinae as Mr. G. F. Hill suggests in the B.M.C. for Phoenicia, or they may stand for monetary officials of one sort or another. Normally the table of monograms suggests that during the days of Alexander Balas and the first reign of Demetrius II, there were two authorities responsible, and in the time of Antiochus VII and Demetrius II (second reign) three. When circumstances demanded, more were added. Whether these authorities, officials or officinae functioned simultaneously or consecutively is not clear.
From this point the problem thickens. A cursory examination of the Table shews that for some considerable time and held the ground, and that from the beginning of the reign of Antiochus VII to the end of the series carried on.
Personally I am inclined to believe that and ; and respectively represent the same signature. Whether I am right in this or not, at least it is certain that three of these signatures continued to Roman times long after the Seleucid Mint of Tyre was closed and forgotten. Thus runs from 149/8 B.C. to 123/2: from 139/8 B.C. to 107/6 and from 151/0 B.C. to 103/2. That is rather a wonderful record. There is of course nothing inherently impossible in such lengths of service, and they might be paralleled by many instances in individual cases from many mints, but I confess that the longevity of the three principal officials of the Mint of Tyre arouses my suspicions. One patriarch in the service is conceivable but that all the principal officers should have put in forty years' work is a big proposition to accept. Of course it may be true that a monetary magistracy was an hereditary affair and descended from father to son, and in that case the difficulties of time are overcome: but there is not as yet a scrap of evidence to prove it so.
The theory that these monograms stand for officinae, though in some ways attractive, bristles with difficulties. is perplexing. A digamma at this date is almost inconceivable, for what then could stand? I venture a suggestion, though it may appear in the nature of the wildest guess. The Semitic word for "first" is which would be written at this date in Tyre approximately thus The first two letters are perilously like the monogram . Possibly then these constant monograms are intended to represent serial issues, covering certain periods in the year.
The objection to regarding them as the signatures of magistrates has already been noted, the arguments for rejecting them as the marks of officinae are even more cogent. A careful examination of the dies reveals the fact that the same obverse dies are combined both in the Seleucid and in the autonomous mints with reverses bearing different monograms, working strictly within the circumference of the three more or less constant monograms. Although, there are, no doubt, many other examples, perhaps the following will be sufficient to prove the point. My drachm of ΞP with the monogram has an obverse identical with that illustrated in the Fenerley Bey Catalogue, 705 with the monogram . Mr. Newell has two tetradrachms of Demetrius II of the year ZΞP with identical obverse dies but with reverses bearing the monograms and .
In the autonomous series it is hardly worth while to detail instances: a glance at the B.M.C. (Phoenicia) will shew that they abound. The conclusion is inevitable. Different officinae would not use the same dies. Whatever else the monograms stand for, they do not stand for officinae. I am equally certain that they do not stand for magistrates. The conclusion to which I am forced is that the municipality of Tyre accepted the responsibility for the issue of all monies: for the bronze they had to render no account: for the silver they were referable to the Seleucid King, just so far as he had power to compel. When that power was stable they issued monies with the constant monograms, indicating periods of issue rather than responsible officials: and the same die might easily serve for more than one period through material overlapping and in the two cases I have quoted, the signatures are the same viz: and .
It remains then to try and explain the other monograms. I suggest that the municipality farmed, out part of the coinage and the monogram stands for the individual, who had bought or otherwise secured the contract. Such an opportunity for profit would be quite in keeping with Semitic character. Individual enterprise no less in ancient days than in modern has turned a state controlled concern from a dead loss into a paying business. The silver mines in Spain will occur as an example, apposite because it was these very Phoenicians of Tyre and Sidon, who were interested. The Roman State found it paid better to farm them out than to work them on their own account.
It is further quite natural to assume that before the municipality settled into its stride and realised its privilege of striking coins and even afterwards, when its own machinery was inadequate to meet the demand, it went outside its own arrangements to supplement its issues. The monograms extant in the early days of Alexander Balas bear this out, and an interesting parallel can be found in recent British coinage. In 1918 the royal mint could not cope with the demand for copper. Part of the enormous issue necessary was struck at two private mints. Messrs. Heaton of Birmingham and the King's Norton Copper Company were pressed into the service and some of the pennies of 1918 and 1919 are marked with the letters H or K.N. to indicate the source of their manufacture. The coins of Tyre bearing monograms other than the two early constant and the three later constant monograms are infrequent and so suggest some arrangement of this sort.
There is only one further point to notice about the second coinage. In the year BOP, that is B.C. 140 or A.S. 172 a tetradrachm and a didrachm of an unusual type were issued. The tetradrachm is illustrated in Bab. Pl. XX., 3. On the reverse in the left field is a substantial club instead of the usual club, surmounted with , and in the field right below the date is the monogram. Most remarkable of all, the circular legend reads BAΣIΛEΩΣ ΔHMHTPIOϒ as usual, but within it is a second legend in smaller characters, which reads TϒPOϒ IEPAΣ KAI AΣϒΛOϒ. The monogram is . There is also a didrachm of the same year, probably reading for monogram .
It is impossible to account for the change. It may have been an experiment to gratify the young king, who was beginning to assert himself or it may have been some commemorative issue. The fact that it was not continued seems to prove that it lacked popular acceptance. It is entirely confined to one year and judging from its extreme rarity it must have been a very small issue.
My conclusion of the matter is that the three constant monograms indicate the yearly order of issue of the monies, something like the Amphora etters on the Athenian coins, or the months on the Parthian, or to come right up to date like the figures 3.4.5, which were placed below the date of the English pennies of 1863 in order to indicate a consecutive series of issues.
As complete a catalogue of the known monies of the second Seleucid coinage of Tyre as is possible follows:—
|*||Cf. Num. Chron. Ser. iv. Vol. XII, Pl. X, 12. Cat. Jameson, No. 1736, Pl. LXXXVIII, which coins, however, are modern forgeries by Becker (Hill 115).|
|*||In the Catalogue des Rois de Syrie a tetradrachm of Alexander Balas (no. 887), although described as a Phoenician tetradrachm is stated to weigh 16 gr. 10. As this, if true, would open up an insoluble problem, I wrote to M. Babelon, suggesting it was probably a misprint. With that kindness—to which I personally owe so much—he replied immediately, "Le poids est, non pas de 16 gr. 10, comme il est imprimé, mais de 14 gr. 10. Il y a là une simple faute d'impression, puisque la pièce est classée et décrite parmi les tetradrachmes de poids phénicien, et non pas attique: la correction s'impose d'elle-même."|
|*||I have sometimes suspected that this particular monogram is only a malformed monogram .|
B.C. 150–145 A.S. 162–167.
Obv. Diademed head of Alexander to r., chlamys around neck, border of dots.
Rev. AΛEΞANΔPOϒ BAΣIΛEΩΣ from left to right, circular. Eagle stands to 1. on spur of galley; palm branch over right shoulder; in field r. date over monogram; in field 1. club surmounted with monogram of Tyre; border of dots.
|1.||BΞP||4dr.||Bab. 887; Newell (Plate I);* Nav. X, 1152.|
|3.||ΓΞP||4dr.||B.M.C. 51/1; Bab. 889; Newell (Plate I); Pozzi 2981–3; Nav. X, 1157–9.|
|4.||ΓΞP||2dr.||Newell (Plate I); Nav. X, 1160.|
|5.||ΓΞP||AC||4dr.||Bab. 888; Cumberland-Clark 274; Newell (Plate I).|
|6.||ΔΞP||4dr.||B.M.C. 51/2; Bab. 893; Newell (Plate I); Nav. X, 1167.|
|7.||ΔΞP||4dr.||Bab. 891; Newell (Plate I).|
|8.||ΔΞP||4dr.||Bab. 892; Newell (Plate I).|
|10.||ΔΞP||4dr.||Newell (Plate I); Nav. X, 1166.|
|12.||EΞP||2dr.||Newell (Plate I).|
|13.||EΞP||Dr.||Nav. X, 1173†|
|14.||EΞP||4dr.||Amer. Numis. Society.|
|15.||EΞP||4dr.||Petersen Sale, Dec. 1920, no. 190; Pozzi 2984; O-man; Newell (Plate I); Nav. X, 1171.|
|16.||EΞP||Dr.||Newell (Plate I) (=Nav. X, 1172).|
|17.||ΞP||4dr.||Bab. 898; Newell (Plate I).|
|19.||ΞP||Dr.||Newell (= Nav. X, 1176) (Plate II).|
|20.||ΞP||4dr.||B.M.C. 51/3; Bab. 896; Hunter 65/61; Pozzi 2985; Newell, Nav. X, 1174.|
|22.||ΞP||Dr.||Fenerly Bey, 705.|
|23.||ZΞP||4dr.||B.M.C. 51/4; Nav. X, 1177.|
|24.||ZΞP||4dr.||Bab. 900; Newell = Nav. X, 1178 (Plate II).|
|*||With the exception of no. 130 on Plate IV and Fig. 1–3, the illustrations are all from coins in Mr. Newell's cabinet.|
|†||Formerly Rogers' collection from Fenerly Bey Sale, Vienna, Nov. 1912, Pl. xix, no. 703. Dr. Macdonald published a similar drachm in Zeitschr.f. Num., vol. XXIX, Pl. iv, 18 with , but I am convinced it is misread for .|
25. Obv. Diademed head of Alexander to r., border of dots.
B.C. 146–138 A.S. 166–175.
Obv. Diademed head of Demetrius to r., chlamys around neck; border of dots. Rev. ΔHMHTPIOϒ BAΣIΛEΩΣ from left to right, circular. Eagle stands to 1. on spur of galley; palm branch over right shoulder; in field r. date over monogram; in field 1. club surmounted with monograms of Tyre; border of dots. Date
|26.||ZΞP||4dr.||B.M.C. 58/4; Bab. 955; Newell; Nav. X, 1199, 1200.|
|27.||ZΞP||4dr.||Newell (Plate II); Nav. X, 1201.|
|29.||HΞP||4dr.||Newell (Plate II).|
|30.||ΘΞP||4dr.||B.M.; Newell (Plate II); Nav. X, 1205.|
|33.||ΘΞP||4dr.||Bab. 963; Nav. X, 1204.|
|36.||OP||4dr.||Bab. 972; Newell (Plate II).|
|37.||AOP||2dr.||Newell (= Naville X, 1212) (Plate II); Nav. X, 1211.|
Obv. Diademed head of Demetrius to r., chlamys round neck, border of dots.
Rev. BAΣIΛEΩΣ ΔHMHTPIOϒ, in inner circle and smaller letters: TϒPOϒ IEPAΣ KAI AΣϒΛOϒ from left to right circular. Eagle standing to 1. on spur of galley, palm branch on right shoulder; in field 1. club; in field r. date over monogram; border of dots.
41. Obv. Head of Demetrius II with diadem to r.
Rev. BAΣIΛE ΔHMH Palm tree with fruit; in field 1., OP. As the weight of this coin is gr. 1.75 it must be a hemidrachm and is the single known example of this denomination. Vienna (cf. Macdonald, loc. cit., Pl. iv, 20).
|*||Dr. Macdonald in Zeitschr. f. Num., vol. XXIX, p. 97, 23, Pl. v, 1. He gives the monogram as ; hut a careful examination of the plate shows it to be .|
Obv. Diademed head of Demetrius to r., border of dots.
Rev. BAΣIΔEΩΣ right, ΔHMHTPIOϒ left. Palm tree between LZ-ΞP.
B.M.; Newell gr. 2.17 and 1.91 (Plate II).
B.M.C. 60/20–23; Hunter 71/25–6; Bab. 980–3; Newell grs. 7.58, 8.44, (Plate II), 5.485, 5.195; Rogers grs. 7.128.
Rev. Similar to 43 but date LHΞP below prow. B.M.; Rogers grs. 6.24.
Rev. Similar to 42 but date HΞP. B.M.; Bab. 1246–8; Newell grs. 2.625; 2.225; 2.09; Rogers grs. 1.55; 2.68
Rev. Similar to 43 but date ΘΞP. B.M.; Hunter 71/27–8; Bab. 984; Newell grs. 5.01; Rogers grs. 6.80.
Rev. Similar to 42 but date is ΘΞP. Newell gr. 2.07.
Rev. Similar to 43 but date is OP. B.M.; Hunter 71/29.
Rev. Similar to 43 but date is AOP. Rogers grs. 6.27.
There seems to have been no Seleucid mint at Tyre for either of these reigns.
B.C. 138–129 A.S. 174–183.
Obv. Diademed head of Antiochus to r., chlamys around neck; border of dots.
Rev. ANTIOXOϒ BAΣIΛEΩΣ from left to right, circular. Eagle standing to 1. on spur of galley; palm branch over r. shoulder; in field r. over date; in field 1. over club surmounted with the monogram of Tyre; monogram between eagle's legs; border of dots.
|50.||ΔOP||Hunter||84/57; Newell (Plate II); Nav. X, 1249.|
|(IE instead of )||( instead of )|
|54.||ΔOP||2dr.||B.M.; Nav. X, 1250.|
|56.||EOP||ΔI||4dr.||Newell (Plate II).|
|58.||EOP||Newell (Plate II).|
|59.||OP||4dr.||B.M.C. 70/5; Bab. 1088; Hunter 84/58; Pozzi 2999; Newell (Plate III); Nav. X, 1253–4.|
|2dr.||B.M.C. 70/6; Newell; Nav X, 1255–6.|
|61.||OP||4dr.||B.M.C. 70/4; Bab. 1090.|
|62.||OP||2dr.||B.M. (Bunbury); Hunter 85/64; Newell (PlateIII); Bab. 1091; Nav. X, 1257.|
|63.||ZOP||4dr.||B.M.C. 70/7; Hunter 84/59; Newell; Bab. 1099.|
|64.||ZOP||4dr.||B.M.C. 70/8; Hunter 84/60; Bab. 1102; Nav. X, 1260–1.|
|65.||ZOP||2dr.||Bab. 1102; Pozzi 3000; Newell (Plate III); Nav. X, 1262–3.|
|66.||ZOP||Dr.||Newell (Plate III).|
|67.||HOP||4dr.||Bab. 1109; Nav. X, 1265–6; Newell (Plate III).|
|68.||HOP||2dr.||B.M.C. 70/9; Bab. 1110.|
|69.||ΘOP||4dr.||B.M.C. 70/10; Nav. X, 1267.|
|71.||ΘOP||4dr.||Nav. X, 1268.|
|72.||ΘOP||2dr.||Nav. X, 1269.|
|73.||ΠP||4dr.||Bab. 1120; Hunter 85/61; Newell (Plate III).|
|74.||ΠP||2dr.||Bab. 1121; Nav. X, 1270.|
|77.||AΠP||4dr.||Gagarem Sale Cat. 1912, no. 63.|
|78.||AΠP||4dr.||B.M.; Bab. 1124; Nav. X, 1271–2; Newell (Plate III).|
|79.||AΠP||2dr.||Nav. X, 1273–4; Newell (Plate III)|
|80.||AΠP||(?)||2dr.||Egger Sale, 1913, no. 706.|
|81.||BΠP||4dr.||Nav. X, 1276–7; Newell (Plate III)|
|82.||BΠP||2dr.||Nav. X, 1278.|
|83.||BΠP||4dr.||B.M.C. 70/11; Hunter 85/62; Bab. 1126; Nav. X, 1275; Newell (Plate III).|
|84.||BΠP||2dr.||Hunter 85/65; Rouvier 1912.|
|86.||ΓΠP||2dr.||Newell (Plate III); Nav. X, 1281.|
|87.* ΓΠP||4dr.||Bab. 1137; Nav. X, 1279–80; Newell (Plate IV).|
Obv. Diademed head of Antiochus to r., border of dots.
Rev. Similar to 88 but date is ZOP.
B.M., Newell gr. 7.92 (Plate III);
Rogers grs. 6.82
Rev. Similar to 88 but date is HOP.
Rev. Similar to 90 but date HOP is below galley.
B.M.; Newell gr. 8.12 (Plate III), 5.855.
Rev. Similar to 90 but date is ΘOP.
Newell gr. 6.80, 6.17.
Rev. Similar to 91 but date is ΘOP.
Rogers gr. 5.63.
93. DILEPTON. †
Rev. Spur of galley and palm branch. Below, ΘOP.
B.M.; Newell gr. 2.925 (Plate III).
Rogers gr. 6.741.
|*||Coins of Antiochus VII dated ΔΠP have been published (Rouvier, nos. 1916–7, Bunbury Cat. II, 556). As Antiochus was killed in Parthia in ΓΠP these coins, if ever they were struck, must have been struck after his death. But ΔΠP is so easily mistaken for AΠP that it may fairly be concluded that these particular coins really read AΠP. Especially is this the case as we have a large series of coins struck by Demetrius at Tyre in ΓΠP, and it is not conceivable that this mint should have struck monies for both Antiochus VII and Demetrius II for more than a year after the former's death!|
|†||A'Lepton,' Obverse Caps of the Dioscuri, Reverse Prow and palm branch, have been assigned to Tyre both by the British Museum Catalogue (75/70) and by Babelon (1168). This is more probably a coin of Tripolis and therefore not incorporated here.|
B.C. 130–125 A.S. 182–187
Obv. Diademed head of Demetrius to r., chlamys around neck; border of dots.
Rev. ΔHMHTPIOϒ BAΣIΛEΩΣ from left to right circular. Eagle standing to 1. on spur of galley; palm branch over its right shoulder; in field r. A over date; in field 1. PE over club surmounted with monogram of Tyre; monogram between eagle's legs; border of dots.
|94.||ΓΠP||4dr.||Bab. 1177; Newell (Plate IV).|
|95.||ΓΠP||2dr.||B.M.C. 76/3; Nav. X, 1316–7.|
|96.||ΓΠP||4dr.||B.M.C. 76/1; Hunter 90/30; Bab. 1179; Newell; Nav. X, 1314–5.|
|97.||ΓΠP||2dr.||B.M.C. 76/2; Bab. 1178.|
|98.||ΔΠP||4dr.||Bab. 1186; Nav. X, 1319; Newell.|
|99.||ΔΠP||4dr.||B.M.C. 76/4; Hunter 90/31; Bab. 1181; Nav. X, 1318; Newell (Plate IV).|
|100.||ΔΠP||2dr.||Newell; Nav. X, 1322.|
|101.||ΔΠP||Dr.||Bab. 1187; Nav. X, 1323.|
|102.||ΔΠP||4dr.||B.M.; Bab. 1182; Nav. X, 1320–1; Newell.|
|103.||ΔΠP||2dr.||B.M.C. 7675; Bab. 1185.|
|105.||EΠP||4dr.||B.M.; Hunter 90/32; Nav. X, 1328–9; Newell.|
|107.||EΠP||4dr.||B.M.C. 76/6; Bab. 1199; Pozzi 3003; Nav. X, 1324; Newell.|
|108.||EΠP||2dr.||B.M.C. 76/8; Bab. 1200; Pozzi 3004; Nav. X, 1325; Newell.|
|109.||EΠP||4dr.||Bab. 1201; Nav. X, 1326; Newell (Plate IV).|
|110.||EΠP||2dr.||Nav. X, 1327.|
|111.||ΠP||4dr.||Nav. X, 1336.|
|113.||ΠP||4dr.||Hunter 90/34; Bab. 1208; Nav. X, 1333–4; Newell.|
|114.||ΠP||2dr.||Hunter 90/36; Bab. 1209.|
|115.||ΠP||Dr.||B.M. (Montagu Sale).|
|116.||ΠP||4dr.||B.M.C. 76/9; Nav. X, 1332; Newell (Plate IV).|
|117.||ZΠP||2dr.||Newell (Plate IV).|
|118.||ZΠP||4dr.||B.M.; Hunter 90/35; Newell (Plate IV).|
|119.||ZΠP||4dr.||B.M.C. 76/11; Bab. 1211; Nav. X, 1337–9; Newell (Plate IV).|
|120.||ZΠP||2dr.||Nav. X, 1340.|
Obv. Diademed head of Demetrius to r.; border of dots.
E. Rogers grs. 5.90. Bab. Pl. xx, 5 is probably a similar coin as cast M. Babelon has sent me clearly shows; but the date is ·ΠP, it might be EΠP.
122. HALF CHALKOUS.
Rogers; gr. 8.58 (Fig. 2, facing p. 4).
Newell gr. 6.37, 5.255.
124. HALF CHALKOUS.*
Rev. Similar to no. 122 but date is EΠP.
Newell gr. 3.82, 2.87 (Plate IV).
124a. HALF CHALKOUS.
(Rogers) gr. 3.82 (Fig. 3).
|*||Bah. 1246–8 belong to Demetrius' first reign and probably also Hunter 90/41 of which only H · P of the date is visible.|
I have ventured to put in a class by themselves certain very exceptional tetradrachms and drachms bearing the symbols and the monograms of the Mint of Tyre, but instead of the usual eagle the Regal types of Athene and Zeus. The weights are Attic and not Phoenician. Evidently it was a small issue, because most of the few dates known today are represented by single specimens.
Mr. G. F.Hill in the Introduction to the British Museum Catalogue of Phoenicia says, "It is notice- able, also, that the Phoenician silver bears (in addition to the mint-mark or name of Tyre) monograms similar to those we find on the later autonomous silver; but the Attic is not marked in this way. . . . Since the coinage with Seleucid types on the reverse does not bear these monograms, it may have been struck in metal drawn from the royal, as distinct from the Tyrian, treasury."
In this statement he is however misinformed. All the coins bear such monograms, and , and are represented. These coins occur in the reigns of Antiochus VII and Demetrius II (second reign); and since tetradrachms of Phoenician weight were also struck not only in the same years, but actually with the same monograms in some cases, the only suggestion I can offer is that the Seleucid King for his own reasons interfered in the routine otherwise usual in the Mint of Tyre. A similar phenomenon is much more common in the Mint of Sidon and from Alexander Balas until Antiochus IX tetradrachms of Attic weight and regal types appear side by side with the characteristically Phoenician issues. It should be noted that in all these regal issues the portrait of the king is an actual and nowise idealized portrait of Herakles Melquart, vid No. 131, where Demetrius II wears a beard. It is conceivable that the exigencies of trade with the rest of the Seleucid Empire rendered such "equated" money advisable, and avoided the necessity of tariffing the common monies.
I have not been able to trace any copper issues; but if it is sound that the copper coinage was in the form of a token coinage—and this the notable difference in weight throughout the whole Seleucid series, in denominations apparently the same, as I have already said, makes extremely likely—then there would naturally be no necessity for any sort of equation beyond mutual goodwill and understanding between all parties concerned. As it was a municipal issue the Seleucid king was not concerned. The Catalogue of the series is as follows:—
B.C. 138–129 A.S. 174–183
Obv. Diademed head of Antiochus to r.; bead and reel border.
Rev. BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOϒ (right downwards), EϒEPΓETOϒ (left downwards). Winged Nike to 1., holds garland in right hand and the folds of her chiton in left. In field 1. club surmounted by monogram of Tyre; in field r. M. In the exergue ΔOP. Berlin (Zeitschr. f. Num., vol. XXIX, Pl. v, 2).
Rev. BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOϒ (right downwards). EϒEPΓETOϒ (left downwards). Athene Parthenos, with helmet, double chiton and Aegis stands to 1., holds a little Nike with garland outstretched to 1. on her right hand and her lance in her 1. which is poised on her shield adorned with the Gorgon's head. In the exergue date and monogram. In field 1. club surmounted with the monogram of Tyre on r. side of which downwards is IEP; on 1. AΣϒ. The whole is a wreath of laurel with berries.
|127.||HOP||Bab. 1114–6; Nav. X, 1283.|
|128.||ΠP||Nav. X, 1284.|
|129.||AΠP||Nav. X, 1285; Fenerly Bey Sale, Pl. xix, 724; Newell (Plate IV).|
|130.||BΠP||Bab. 1130; Nav. X, 1286–7. cf. B.M.C. 71/18 undated. (Plate IV.)|
Obv. Diademed and bearded head of Demetrius to r.; bead and reel border.
Rev. BAΣIΛEΩΣ ΔHMHTPIOϒ (right downwards), ΘEOϒ NIKATOPOΣ (left downwards). Zeus Nikephoros enthroned to 1. rests 1. on sceptre. In field 1. club surmounted with the monogram of Tyre on r. side of which downwards is IEP, on 1.
AΣ. Beneath throne, M. In exergue, EΠp.
Newell (Plate IV).
In the foregoing lists the classification of the coinage of Tyre has been extended from the point at which Mr. Newell left it down through the second reign of Demetrius II with whom the issues of this dynasty at Tyre came to an end (125 B.C.). Certain of the troublesome questions of this series will probably never be settled unless some hoard still to be unearthed provides additional evidence.