When in 1909 the late—and I fear unlamented —C. Christodoulos of Athens visited America he brought with him, for disposal, several thousand Greek gold, silver and copper coins. Many hundreds of these, ostensibly the rarest, had but recently emanated from his own private mint.1 In conformity with his usual practice, the remainder were unquestionably genuine examples of the commoner varieties of ancient coins. These Christodoulos employed as a sort of camouflage with which to lull any possible suspicions on the part of his intended victims. He was thus frequently enabled to dispose of his forgeries or, at worst, to get rid of a lot of common but authentic specimens which tended to glut his markets in Europe. In the United States Christodoulos apparently did a fair amount of business with his silver coins, but found some difficulty in disposing of the large number of copper coins which he had brought with him. Finally, just before his departure, he and the writer came to terms with regard to the latter.
Amongst these copper pieces were what obviously represented two hoards which Christodoulos had purchased en bloc from their finders. The one lot contained one hundred and seventy-nine coins of Mytilene, all of the same type; the other lot comprised the following one hundred and eighty-four coins of Euboea. In the expectation of publishing these some day, the two parcels have been kept intact since 1909. Perhaps it was the “new leisure” of the present depression which has finally awakened in the writer the desire—and given him the opportunity—to study and publish the two hoards in question. At any rate, they have now been extracted from their almost forgotten resting place, and are here presented for what they may be worth. Selected specimens of this Euboean hoard are illustrated on Plate I.
After 197 B.C.
|1–6||Veiled female head to r.||KAPY above bull butting r. In the exergue, club. Dies ↑. Gr. 4.82; 4.76; 4.67; 4.05; 3.94; 3.45. Very good to fine.|
3rd Century B.C.
|7–8||Female head facing, wearing earrings, necklace, and diadem surmounted by five disks with human faces, over which passes a fillet, the ends of which hang down. The head is placed on the capital of an Ionic column.||Eagle flying l., holding serpent in beak and claws. Beneath, ΧΑΛ. Dies ↗. Gr. 3.47; 3.25. Very worn.|
|9||Similar, but of later style and higher relief. The head inclines slightly to r. On the r., ΧΑΛ (?). Bevelled edge.||Eagle flying to r. with serpent. Beneath, Cornucopiae. Dies ↖. Gr. 3.23. Very good.|
After 197 B.C.
|10–32||Female head r., hair rolled and covered||Eagle flying r., holds serpent in beak and|
|with net of pearls, apparently bound with fillet, the end of which hangs down behind the neck.||claws. Beneath, ΧΑΛ. Above eagle’s head, Trident r.|
|Dies ↑: Gr. 5.78; 5.16; 4.71; 4.28; 4.11; 3.95; 3.45.|
|Dies ↓: Gr. 5.04; 5.03; 4.54.|
|Dies ↗: Gr. 4.88; 4.72; 4.06.|
|Dies →: Gr. 5.57; 4.39.|
|Dies ↘: Gr. 4.07; 2.99.|
|Dies ↙: Gr. 5.80; 5.03; 4.10; 3.78.|
|Dies ↖: Gr. 4.49; 4.46.|
|33||Similar.||Similar, but above eagle’s head, Star. Dies ←: Gr. 4.35.|
|34–36||Similar.||Similar, but below eagle and to r. of in-scription, Star.|
|Dies →: Gr. 4.81.|
|Dies ↗: Gr. 4.64; 4.50.|
|37–71||Similar.||Similar, but below eagle and to r. of in-scription, Dolphin. Dies ↑: Gr. 5.10; 4.65; 4.56; 4.24.|
|Dies ↓: Gr. 4.95; 3.52; 3.51.|
|Dies ↗: Gr. 4.22.|
|Dies →: Gr. 5.48;|
|5.19; 5.17; 4.27; 3.91. Dies ↘: Gr. 4.43; 4.38; 4.21.|
|Dies ↙: Gr. 5.07; 4.14. Dies ←: Gr. 4.94; 4.78; 4.52; 4.35; 4.21; 4.20; 4.18; 3.94; 3.92; 3.91; 3.89; 3.87; 3.80; 3.67; 3.03.|
|Dies ↖: Gr. 4.80; 4.29.|
|72–82||Similar.||Similar, but with a Palm-branch above the eagle’s wing, and the Dolphin to the r. of the inscription.|
|Dies ↑: Gr. 5.56; 4.55. Dies ↓: Gr. 5.18; 4.83; 4.59.|
|Dies ↗: Gr. 4.68.|
|Dies →: Gr. 4.63; 4.06.|
|Dies ↙: Gr. 5.23; 3.95.|
|Dies ↖: Gr. 4.67.|
|83–89||Similar.||Similar, but the symbol is off flan or obscure. Probably the symbol on these coins was the Dolphin.|
|Dies ↗: Gr. 5.29.|
|Dies ←: Gr. 4.87; 4.73; 4.56; 4.48; 4.07; 3.77.|
|90–91||Similar.||Similar, but the symbol is quite uncertain. Dies ↖: Gr. 5.82.|
|Dies ↘: Gr. 4.07.|
3rd Century B.C.
|92||Bull standing to l. Above, Star. Beneath. EY.||Inscription obliterated. Vine-branch with two bunches of grapes. Above, Star. Cf. Brit. Mus. Cat., Nos. 34–35.|
|Dies ↖: Gr. 3.46.|
|93–95||Similar. Above, Star. Beneath,||Similar.|
|Dies ↑: Gr. 3.72.|
|Dies ↗: Gr. 3.55; 3.06.|
|All very much worn.|
|96||Similar. Above, Star. Beneath, ΞΕ.||Similar. Very much worn.|
|Dies ↑: Gr. 2.82.|
|97–98||Similar. Above, Star. Beneath, ΣΤ.||Similar. Very much worn.|
|Dies ↑: Gr. 4.41; 3.96.|
|99–100||Similar. Above, Star. Beneath, TI.||Similar. Portions of the inscription EYBO are to be seen below|
|the grapes. Very worn.|
|Dies ↑: Gr. 3.24.|
|Dies ↗: Gr. 3.33.|
|101–103||Similar. Letters beneath bull are illegible.||Similar. Very much worn.|
|Dies ↑. Gr. 4.04; 3.78.|
|Dies ↙. Gr. 3.96.|
|104||Bull reclining to l. Above, Star. Beneath, ΔΗΜΑΡΧΟΣ (only partially legible).||Similar. Worn.|
|Dies ↑. Gr. 5.08.|
|105||Bull reclining to r. Above, Ear of wheat. Beneath, MANTIΔΩΡΟΣ (only partially legible).||EPETP… above vinebranch from which hang two bunches of grapes. Slightly worn. Dies ↑. Gr. 2.89.|
After 194 B.C.
|106–109||Veiled female head to r.||EYBOI—ΕΩΝ above and below bull butting r. To l. of bull, Caduceus. Somewhat worn.|
|Dies ↑. Gr. 4.70.|
|Dies →. Gr. 5.65; 4.25.|
|Dies ↖. Gr. 6.44.|
|110–114||Similar.||Similar. To r. of bull, Ear of wheat (upright). Worn to very good.|
|Dies ↑. Gr. 5.38; 4.25.|
|Dies ↗. Gr. 5.17; 4.23; 3.43.|
|115–128||Similar.||Similar. In the exergue, to r. of the inscription, Ear of wheat. Cf. Brit. Mus. Cat., p. 98, No. 40 (Pl. XVII, 17) where the symbol is erroneously described as Spearhead(?). Worn to very good.|
|Dies ↑. Gr. 3.91; 3.74.|
|Dies ↓. Gr. 4.78; 4.63.|
|Dies ↗. Gr. 4.38; 4.21; 3.54.|
|Dies →. Gr. 4.46.|
|Dies ↘. Gr. 4.51.|
|Dies ↙. Gr. 4.99; 4.61; 4.16.|
|Dies ←. Gr. 4.74.|
|Dies ↖. Gr. 4.12.|
|129||Similar.||Similar. In the exergue, between the E and the Ω, . Good.|
|Dies ↓. Gr. 5.70.|
|130–136||Similar.||Similar. These coins may belong to any of the Nos. from 106 to 129, inclusive, as the exergue is off flan. Worn.|
|Dies ↑. Gr. 5.18.|
|Dies ↗. Gr. 4.91.|
|Dies →. Gr. 3.58.|
|Dies ↙. Gr. 5.66; 5.16; 4.01; 3.82.|
|137–139||Similar.||Similar. Above the bull, between Y and B, Star. Somewhat worn.|
|Dies ↑. Gr. 5.53; 4.78.|
|Dies ↖. Gr. 4.82.|
|140–144||Similar.||Similar. Above bull, between Y and B, Staff of Aesculapius. Behind bull, K. Worn to good.|
|Dies ↑. Gr. 4.92.|
|Dies ↗. Gr. 6.01; 5.56.|
|Dies ↘. Gr. 6.23.|
|Dies ↙. Gr. 4.84.|
|145–148||Similar.||Similar but without the letter behind the bull. Worn to good.|
|Dies ↑. Gr. 4.37; 4.10.|
|Dies ↗. Gr. 4.13.|
|Dies ↘. Gr. 5.20.|
|149–154||Similar.||Similar. Above bull, between Y and B, Trident. Worn to good.|
|Dies ↑. Gr. 5.28; 3.62.|
|Dies ↗. Gr. 5.44; 4.36.|
|Dies ↘. Gr. 5.45.|
|Dies ↙. Gr. 5.11.|
|155–162||Similar.||Similar. Below bull, between E and Ω, Trident. Worn to good.|
|Dies ↑. Gr. 4.42.|
|Dies ↗. Gr. 4.63.|
|Dies →. Gr. 4.95; 4.22.|
|Dies ↙. Gr. 4.31; 3.47.|
|Dies ←. Gr. 4.77.|
|Dies ↖. Gr. 5.45.|
|163–167||Similar.||Similar. In the exergue, between E and Ω, large X. Good to very good.|
|Dies ↑. Gr. 5.11; 4.15; 3.87.|
|Dies ↖. Gr. 5.16; 3.78.|
|168–175||Similar.||Similar. Above bull, between Y and B, Wreath. Good to very good.|
|Dies ↑. Gr. 5.15; 3.92.|
|Dies ↓. Gr. 5.51; 5.32; 3.90.|
|Dies ↖. Gr. 4.53; 3.55; 3.38.|
|176||Similar.||Similar, but the monogram or symbol is obliterated. Worn.|
|Dies ↙. Gr. 5.17.|
After 191 B.C.
|177–184||Veiled female head to l.||ΑΡΙΣΤΟ ΝΙΚΟΣ in two lines above bull recumbent to l. In the exergue, EPET-|
|ΡΙΕΩΝ. Very good to fine. Dies ↑. Gr. 4.52; 4.48; 4.02; 3.68.|
|Dies ←. Gr. 4.13.|
|Dies ↖. Gr. 5.18; 4.23; 4.21.|
Since the publication of Head’s Catalogue of the Greek coins in the British Museum, Central Greece, but little further research has been devoted to the bronze coinages of Euboea. The present hoard is proof that some slight modifications are desirable in the accepted arrangement of the third and early second century copper issues of Chalcis and Eretria at least. This fact is further accentuated by the hoard of three hundred and fifty-two bronze coins and one silver hemidrachm found by N. Pappadakis in his excavation of the precinct of Isis near Eretria in 1914.2 That particular hoard apparently dovetails with the present one in a most satisfactory manner, the former leaving off just where ours commences.
Head, in the British Museum Catalogue, as well as in the Historia Numorum, assigns almost no bronze coins at all to the third century B.C. Even though Chalcis was firmly held by Macedonian garrisons throughout a large portion of this century, the other Euboean cities (and probably Chalcis as well) were surely allowed the privilege of a local bronze coinage3—as was the case with so many other cities of Greece proper under Macedonian supremacy. The hoard discovered by Pappadakis must represent this coinage, though he naturally follows Head4 in assigning it to the period after the proclamation of the freedom of the Greek cities by Flamininus in 197 B.C.
Let us proceed to investigate, city by city, the issues contained in the two hoards. Coins of Carystus were not present in the Pappadakis hoard at all, while in ours (Nos. 1–6) they comprise one issue only. These particular specimens are in fine condition and so must be among the latest in the hoard. Their types are the veiled female head and the butting bull which, because they are exceptional at Carystus, necessarily associate this coinage with the similar one coined at Eretria in the name of the Euboeans (Nos. 106–76). Style, fabric (i.e. a very noticeable tendency to bevelled edges in the flans), and weight are identical in the two series. The Eretrian coins have been acceptably assigned by Head5 to the period after 197 B.C. The comparatively good style shows that they could not have been coined very much later than this, while the similar veiled head on the unique tetradrachm of Chalcis in the British Mu- seum has been associated by Gardner 6 with the sojourn of Antiochus III in Euboea in 192–1 B.C.
Chalcis is represented in the Pappadakis hoard by thirty-one specimens of an issue bearing the curious facing head of the celestial Hera7 placed upon the capital of an Ionic column; together with a single specimen, in fine condition, of a coin bearing a similar head of later style and with magistrates’. names ΦΙΛΙΣ and ΑΘ on the reverse.8 The former issue is represented in our hoard by two coins in an extremely worn condition. They evidently had been in continued circulation for many years before their burial.9 In types they are identical with the smaller sized coins assigned by Head10 to 369–336 B.C. and by Babelon 11 to 369–313 B.C. The style and fabric, however, are distinctly later and place them in the third century B.C. The flans are flat and have thick, straight edges while those of the smaller and earlier coins are concave and have rounder edges. The reverse type, too, has a beaded border which is never seen on the earlier pieces.
The coin with the magistrate's names in the Pappadakis hoard (his No. 266, Fig. 19, No. 1) is in style, weight and fabric (bevelled edges, etc.) closely similar to the veiled female head issues of Carystus (our Nos. 1–6) and Eretria (our Nos. 106–76). They are in all probability nearly contemporaneous and belong to the beginning of the second century B.C. A similar piece was not contained in our hoard, but is there represented by its half (No. 9), of similar types, style and fabric.12 While the Pappadakis specimen is in fine condition (and so probably among the latest pieces in the Eretria hoard), its corresponding half in our find is somewhat worn.
Chalkis, in the present hoard, is for the most part represented by the eighty-two specimens with the female head facing to r. and wearing a head covering of pearls and a fillet (Nos. 10–91). These coins were hesitatingly assigned by Head13 to 369–336 B.C. Babelon 14 gives them the slightly longer period from 369 to 313 B.C. But their late and rather poor style, and especially their presence in our hoard, proves them to be actually much later in date. As they are of similar style and weight to the coins of Carystus and to the majority of those of Eretria which we are here studying, they evidently belong to the early part of the second century B.C. In fact, they must correspond (for Chalcis) to Nos. 1–6 of Carystus and Nos. 106–76 of Eretria. They probably preceded the second century silver issues of Chalcis with magistrate’s name in full and the ethnic ΧΑΛΚΙΔΕΩΝ or ΧΑΛΚΙ,15 associated with which silver issues there are known copper coins, many being of similar types but bearing magistrates' names and the long form of the ethnic.16
With regard to the mint at Eretria, Pappadakis* hoard contained forty coins; obverse, bull recum- bent to r. or l. and the magistrate’s name (ΣΑΤΥΡΟΣ, ΔΗΜΑΡΧΟΣ, ITIA∃) in the exergue; reverse, two grape clusters depending from a vinebranch, and the inscription ΕϒΒΟΙΕΩΝ in full or abbreviated. Likewise, that hoard contained two hundred and twenty-five coins with the bull reclining to r., ear of wheat above, ΜΑΝΤΙΔΩΡΟΣ in the exergue; reverse, as before but now with the ethnic EPETPI or ΕΡΕΤΡΙΕΩΝ. Our own hoard, on the other hand, contains a specimen (No. 105) of this last type in good condition, a specimen (No. 104) of the ΔΗΜΑΡΧΟΣ type in worn condition, and twelve (Nos. 92–103) specimens, in a very much worn state, of still earlier coins with standing bull accompanied by magistrates’ monograms or initials. Similar pieces have been assigned by Head17 to the period after 196 B.C. Obviously, however, both style and types associate them with an earlier period; and the fact that they appear in an extremely worn condition in our hoard absolutely precludes their having been struck as late as the second century. With the possible exception of the ΜΑΝΤΙΔΩΡΟΣ-ΕΡΕΤΡΙΕΩΝ type the remainder in the Pappadakis hoard may also be of the third century. Certainly the ΔΗΜΑΡΧΟΣ specimen in our hoard is very much worn and so suggests a lengthy period of circulation before burial.
The bulk of the Eretrian coins in the present hoard are of the veiled female head to r. type (our Nos. 106–76), not represented by even a single specimen in the Pappadakis hoard. In condition they range from somewhat worn to very good. All bear the inscription ΕϒΒΟΙΕΩΝ. The latest coins of Eretria in our find are those (Nos. 17784) with veiled female head to l. and the recumbent bull, accompanied by the magistrate's name ΑΡΙΣΤΟΝΙΚΟΣ and the ethnic ΕΡΕΤΡΙΕΩΝ. They are all in very fine condition, showing little or no signs of circulation. The style and appearance of the recumbent bull is absolutely identical with the animal depicted on the silver octobols, Brit. Mus. Cat. Pl. XXIII, 10. The two issues must have been more or less contemporaneous.
Indications furnished by the two hoards just discussed show that in the third century B.C. there was surely a larger coinage of bronze at both Chalcis and Eretria than students have hitherto supposed. The usual assumption that, upon the proclamation of freedom by Flamininus in 197 B.C., the cities of Carystus, Chalcis and Eretria commenced to coin extensively is fully borne out.
At Chalcis the last type coined (Pappadakis No. 266; our hoard No. 9) under Macedonian supremacy presents a modification of the older facing head of the Celestial Hera. The type was changed to a profile head of the goddess (our hoard Nos. 10–91) when the city regained its complete freedom at the hands of Flamininus.
At Eretria the last type coined under the Macedonians was still the old accustomed recumbent bull on the obverse and the two bunches of grapes on the reverse accompanied, in this instance, by ΕΡΕΤΡΙΕΩΝ instead of the former ΕϒΒΟΙΕΩΝ (Pappadakis Nos. 41–265; our hoard No. 105). Only one issue, signed by ΜΑΝΤΙΔΩΡΟΣ is known. Then the types were radically changed to the veiled female head and butting bull. These again bear the old inscription ΕϒΒΟΙΕΩΝ—probably reintroduced when, as we may infer from Livy, XXXIV, 51, Flamininus in 194 B.C. reestablished the koinon of the Euboeans. Later, with the introduction of the silver issues, the ethnic was again changed to ΕΡΕΤΡΙΕΩΝ, which continued to the end of the Eretrian autonomous coinage. Only one bronze issue of this new coinage was contained in our hoard (Nos. 177–84), but many more varieties, exhibiting ever deteriorating style, are described in the British Museum Catalogue18 and elsewhere. All of this suggests that the resumption of silver coining at Chalcis and Eretria did not take place immediately after the freeing of these cities by Flamininus (as usually supposed),19 but, rather, at the time of the occupation of Euboea by Antiochus III in 192–1 B.C. or, more probable still, a few years later, when the renewed silver coinages of the cities of Asia Minor after the battle of Magnesia had begun to make themselves felt in commerce. At that time, then, the Euboean cities participated in the revival of commerce and emulated their Asiatic rivals in the coinage of silver.20
The burial spot of our hoard is unknown. Judging by the fact that the find comprises a more complete series of Eretrian issues than it does of the other two cities, and also that these Eretrian specimens number ninety-three, as against six of Carystus and eighty-five of Chalcis, it may be surmised that, like the Pappadakis hoard, this one, too, was buried somewhere in the territory of Eretria.
The date for the burial of the Pappadakis hoard may tentatively be assigned to the summer of 198 B.C., when the combined forces of the Romans under L. Quinctius Flamininus and of Pergamum under Attalus himself, landed near Eretria, attacked and eventually carried the city by storm.21 This event would appear to be a most probable occasion for the hasty burial of such a hoard in the precinct of Isis at Eretria.22 If that be the case, our own hoard must then have been buried some time within the immediately succeeding decade.
This space of time is predicated upon the necessity of allowing a reasonable period for the coin- ing of Nos. 1–6 at Carystus, Nos. 10–91 at Chalcis and Nos. 106–184 at Eretria—all of which issues postdate anything in the Pappadakis find. Above, we have assigned the burial of the Pappadakis hoard to 198 B.C., not only because of the very likely occasion presented by the storming of Eretria in that year, but also because the types of Pappadakis' coins are still those which had long been in favor at both Chalcis and Eretria. In view of this, the sudden and complete change in types represented by such coins of Carystus, Chalcis and Eretria in our hoard as did not occur in Pappadakis' find, may best and most obviously be associated with the great change which took place in the political history of these cities when, in 197 B.C., Flamininus proclaimed their freedom from the long endured subjection to Macedonia. That is to say, the coining of Nos. 1–6, 10–91, 106–184 probably commenced as soon after 197 B.C. as was possible. On the other hand, these copper issues appear to precede, rather than to be contemporary with, the renewed silver issues of the three cities in question.28 The latter have been largely as- signed by Gardner 24 to the period of Antiochus III's sojourn in Euboea, 192–1 B.C. The present writer, however, has suggested above that these silver issues more probably followed the departure of Antiochus and were contemporaneous with the great revival of autonomous silver coinages in Asia Minor after the battle of Magnesia (190 B.C.) when the leading cities there recovered their freedom from Seleucid domination. In any case, the considerable number of known varieties comprising these renewed silver coinages of the Euboean cities cannot possibly be compressed into the few winter months when Antiochus resided in Euboea, but must have continued for some time after. Our Nos. 1–6, 10–91, 106–184, which issues apparently preceded the silver, may be assigned to the years which ran from 197/6 down to, at least, 192/1 and possibly down to circa 189 B.C. Their place was then taken by the later copper issues which certainly accompanied the silver coinage.
In view of the above, our Euboean hoard may have been buried about the time of the Seleucid occupation of the island, late in 192 B.C., or in connection with Antiochus' hasty evacuation before the advancing Romans in the early summer of 191 B.C. The hoard may even have been interred somewhat later, although there is no known occasion during the immediately following years of comparative peace with which to connect its burial. It may always happen, too, that a hoard burial is occasioned by personal rather than by political considerations.
Arch. Deltion, 1915, pp. 145–7.
Babelon, Traité, II3, pp. 172–4, 189–92, 199–202.
Historia Numorum 2, p. 363; Brit. Mus. Cat., pp. 98–9, Nos. 39–44, Pl. XVII, 17.
Num. Chron., N.S., Vol. XVIII, 1878, pp. 96–100.
Historia Numorum 2, p. 359.
Brit. Mus. Cat., pp. 115–6, Nos. 96–103, Pl. XXI, 5, 6.
A similar piece is described by Babelon, Traité, II3, p. 187, No. 166, Pl. CXCVII, 15, who dates it between 369 and circa 313 B.C. This is somewhat too early, in the present writer’s opinion.
Brit. Mus. Cat., p. 113, Nos. 79–80.
Traité, II3, p. 187, No. 165.
This similarity indicates that the two denominations belonged to one and the same issue of coin. It should further be noted that where the larger coin bears the magistrate’s letters ΑΘ, our piece displays the symbol Cornucopiae. Now these particular letters form no known Greek name. On the majority of available specimens (i.e. three out of four legible specimens in the writer’s collection) the letters are clearly ΑΘ—that is, the first alpha always has the broken bar, while the second alpha usually has the straight bar. This most unusual (and in this case perhaps significant) mixture of forms suggests that the first letter is really intended to represent a monogram composed of A and M. With regard to the second alpha the die-cutter (when he was paying attention) deliberately altered the form to indicate an intentional difference in the two letters. It would naturally happen at times, in the hurry of die-cutting, that the engraver committed dittography and made the second alpha like the first. In any case, the second alpha could well stand for a ligature of A and Λ, giving us the form ΑΜΑΛΘ for the first portion of the magistrate’s name. The smaller flan of the denomination in our hoard did not offer so much space, even for the abbreviated name, and the latter’s place was therefore taken by its symbolic equivalent the Cornucopiae—or, as it is frequently called, the Horn of Amalthea.
Brit. Mus. Cat., pp. 113–4, Nos. 81–84, Pl. XX, 16, 17.
Traité, II3, p. 187, No. 167, Pl. CXCVII, 16.
Brit. Mus. Cat., p. 114, Nos. 85–88, Pl. XXI, 2–3. Historia Numorum 2, pp. 359–60.
Brit. Mus. Cat., pp. 115–6, Nos. 89–95, 104.
Brit. Mus. Cat., p. 98, Nos. 34–6, Pl. XVII, 15.
Loc. cit., p. 124, Nos. 46–7, Pl. XXIII, 13.
Head (Brit. Mus. Cat., Central Greece, and Historia Numorum), followed by all later writers.
It is to be noted that in the Babylonian hoard described by Regling (Hellenistischer Münzschatz aus Babylon, Zeitschr. f. Num., vol. XXXVIII, 1928, pp. 94 ff.) there were three of these Eretrian tetradrachms, in little-worn condition, mingled with many issues of the Asiatic cities, as well as of Pergamene, Pontic and Seleucid kings.
Livy, XXXII, 16.
Pappadakis, following Head’s assignment of all of these Euboean coins to the period after 197 B.C., has of course placed the burial of his hoard well after that date. But he can suggest no likely occasion on which it could have been buried. On the other hand, the association of his hoard with the fall of Eretria seems more natural—in fact, quite obvious. In any case, two things may be assumed as certain. Firstly, the Pappadakis hoard must be older, by several years, than ours as its contents leave off just where ours commence. Secondly, because of what it does contain, it could hardly have been buried before circa 198 B.C. On the other hand its contents preclude any idea that it could have been buried later than 198 B.C. by more than a very few years, say (to suggest a possible occasion) during the acquisition of Euboea by Antiochus III in the late autumn of 192 B.C., or his hasty evacuation of the island the following spring. If, for argument’s sake, we should envisage the possibility of a burial between 198 and 191 B.C., then it will be necessary to change the suggested date of issue for two of the varieties contained in the hoard. Instead of assigning the latest Chalcidian coin (Pappadakis No. 266 = same issue as our No. 9) and the latest Eretrian coins (Pappadakis Nos. 41–265 = our No. 105) to the end of the Macedonian period, we should then give these coins to the interval between the proclamation of the freedom of Euboea in 197 B.C. and the revival in 194 B.C., under Roman auspices, of the Koinon of the Euboeans. For, be it noted, Pappadakis’ Nos. 41–265 (= our No. 105) are struck in the name of the Eretrians, and not in that of the Euboeans. Because of their types and style, however, the present writer prefers to believe these coins to have been issued while the Macedonians were still in control of Euboea and that, as a corollary, the burial of Pappadakis’ hoard actually took place just before or during the assault on Eretria by the combined Roman and Pergamene forces.
On Nos. 1–6 the ethnic is KAPϒ, instead of the full ΚΑΡϒΣΤΙΩΝ as found on the silver coins. Similarly, on Nos. 10–91 the ethnic is ΧΑΛ, instead of the ΧΑΛΚΙΔΕΩΝ as on the silver issues. Nos. 106–176 are still in the name of the Euboeans, while the silver coins are struck in the name of the Eretrians. Only on Nos. 177–184 do we find ΕΡΕΤΡΙΕΩΝ again; but the magistrate ΑΡΙΣΤΟΝΙΚΟΣ does not occur on the known silver coins.
Loc. cit. The Historia Numorum 2, pp. 357, 359, 363, gives these silver coins to the longer period from 197 to 146 B.C.
The writer very much questions whether Christodoulos personally manufactured the forgeries attributed to him. It is practically certain that he had several artificers, of varying ability, working under his direction or inspiration. Svoronos, in his Mille coins faux, gives a list only of the dies actually seized by the Government. Hundreds of others must have escaped the hands of the police, or were produced at a later date. Hence, unfortunately, we possess but a partial catalogue of the truly surprising quantity of coins known to have issued from this modern argyrokopeion. On the other hand there exist, on this side of the Atlantic, two fairly extensive collections of such pieces, which thus partially make up for a lack of a comprehensive catalogue of the total output.
In March, 1934, there was sent to the author, from Greece, a small hoard—or portions of a hoard—comprising fifty-eight copper coins of Epidaurus and one of Hermione. The hoard is said to have been found, not long previously, near Epidaurus. The coins were for the most part provided with an extremely thin surface coating of an olive-brownish shade, with here and there thicker patches of reddish earth shading into grey. In a great many cases the red tinge of the copper, or the yellowish tinge of the bronze, was exposed over considerable portions of the coin. The specimens thus presented a rather unusual appearance, and had certainly all been found together. Selected specimens of the Epidaurus hoard are illustrated on Plate II.
|1–22||Laureate head of Asklepios to r.||(or 1). Epione standing or walking to l., clad in long chiton, holding a bowl (phiale?) in her outstretched l. On die γ her r. fore-arm and hand may be seen, holding a small branch above the bowl.2 On r., .|
|Obv. die, A.||Rev. die α. ↖. Gr. 7.04.|
|↖. Gr. 7.02.|
|Obv. die, A.||Rev. die β. ←. Gr. 6.84.|
|→. Gr. 6.55.|
|Obv. die, A.||Rev. die γ. →. Gr. 6.54.|
|→. Gr. 5.63.|
|Obv. die, A.||Rev. die δ. ↑. Gr. 6.82.|
|↓. Gr. 6.62.|
|→. Gr. 5.36.|
|↑. Gr. 5.24.|
|↙. Gr. 4.93.|
|Obv. die B.||Rev. die ε. →. Gr. 4.92.|
|↙. Gr. 4.88.|
|Obv. die B.||Rev. die .3 Gr. 7.17.|
|↗. Gr. 5.72.|
|→. Gr. 5.44.|
|→. Gr. 4.64.|
|↑. Gr. 4.45.|
|Obv. die C.||Rev. die ζ. ↓. Gr. 5.82.|
|↘. Gr. 5.82.|
|Obv. die C.||Rev. die η. ↖. Gr. 5.06.|
|Obv. die C.||Rev. die θ. ←. Gr. 4.49.|
|23–28||Laureate head of Apollo4 to r.|
|All of these specimens are struck from the same obverse die (A).||Thymiaterion. On either side, a cupping- vase. On r., .|
|Rev. die α. ↙. Gr. 4.66.|
|↗. Gr. 4.51.|
|↘. Gr. 3.00.|
|Rev. die β. ↘. Gr. 3.83.|
|↗. Gr. 3.26.|
|Rev. die γ. ↙. Gr. 5.30.|
|29–41||Laureate head of Asklepios to r.||above dog reclining to r. Dies α to γ inclusive have exergual lines, the remainder not. In the exergue,|
|Obv. die, A—Rev. die, α.||←. Gr. 2.11.|
|Obv. die, B—Rev. die, β.||↖. Gr. 2.03.|
|Obv. die, C—Rev. die, γ.||↖. Gr. 3.69.|
|←. Gr. 3.27.|
|↑. Gr. 2.63.|
|↖. Gr. 2.41.|
|Obv. die, C—Rev. die, δ.||↑. Gr. 3.50.|
|↘. Gr. 3.03.|
|Obv. die, C—Rev.|
|die, ε.||↘. Gr. 2.56.|
|Obv. die, C—Rev. die, .||↗. Gr. 3.35.|
|Obv. die, C—Rev.||↘. Gr. 3.01.|
|die, ζ.||→. Gr. 2.50.|
|↓. Gr. 1.58.|
|41a–42||Laureate head r., as above.||above coiled serpent r. In the exergue,|
|Obv. die, A—Rev. die, α.||↓. Gr. 1.98.|
|↓. Gr. 1.74.|
|43–44||Similar to the preceding.|
|Obv. die, B—Rev. die, β.|
|Obv. die, B—Rev. die, γ.||Similar to the preceding, but in the exergue, __.5|
|→. Gr. 1.76.|
|↑. Gr. 1.73.|
|45||Similar to the preceding but of lower relief and better style.||Coiled serpent to r. In the exergue, .|
|↗. Gr. 2.18.|
|46–47||Laureate head of Asklepios to l. Fairly good, early style.||E in laurel wreath. Both specimens are very worn.|
|↖. Gr. 1.52.|
|↗. Gr. 1.44.|
|48||Similar, but head of good style to r.||Similar to the preceding. In the exergue, T.|
|↙. Gr. 1.30.|
|49||Similar head, of fair style, to r.||Similar to the preceding. In the exergue, .|
|→. Gr. 1.13.|
|50||Similar to the preceding.||Similar to the preceding. In the exergue, .|
|↖. Gr. 1.79.|
|51–52||Similar to the preceding.||Similar but without any letter in the exergue. Both specimens are very worn.|
|↖. Gr. 2.01.|
|↑. Gr. 1.73.|
|53–56||Similar to preceding but style is less good and most similar to that of Nos. 1 to 45. Obv. die, A—Rev. die, α.||E in laurel wreath, as above.|
|↗. Gr. 1.58.|
|Obv. die, B—Rev. die, β.||↗. Gr. 1.31.|
|Obv. die, C—Rev. die, γ.||↙. Gr. 1.61.|
|→. Gr. 1.23.|
Not “pouring from a phial into a patera” as described by Gardner in the Brit. Mus. Cat., Peloponnesus, p. 157, No. 8.
Same reverse die as Brit. Mus. Cat. Peloponnesus, Pl. xxix, 15.
This is the same variety as Brit. Mus. Cat., Peloponnesus, p. 158, No. 23, where, however, the head is described as that of Asklepios. On our better preserved coins the head is certainly intended for that of Apollo. It is true, though, that Apollo’s jaw is rather heavy, which fact, on a worn or corroded coin, would give it the semblance of being bearded.
|57||Head of Demeter crowned with wheat.||Lighted torch between E and P, all within wreath of wheat. B.M.C. Peloponnesus, No. 8, Pl. XXX, 4.|
|↗. Gr. 1.73.|
The coins have been catalogued according to type, commencing with the largest denomination. In our hoard only those of the smallest denomination (type: city’s initial contained in a wreath, Nos. 46–56) cover an extended period of time. These have been arranged according to their age, commencing with the most worn—which are also the best in style. Nearly all the remainder represent the coinage produced under one magistrate, signing himself with the monogram Being comparatively numerous, it has been possible to subdivide the latter according to the dies employed in their production. The bulk of the hoard, in fact, is comprised of the issues of this official. Of the fifty-six coins of Epidaurus, forty-two actually bear his monogram; and, in addition, six more (Nos. 43–4, 53–6) are so similar in style and fabric that we may consider their dies to have been cut by the same workman and the coins themselves to have been issued under supervision. The issue in question was obviously a large one. This fact is attested by the quantity of specimens extant, by the large number of dies employed, and by the impression which these dies produce of having been brought out in hurried circumstances. While some are still of fairly good style, the majority are more or less crude—the handiwork of unskilled die-cutters.
As the issues signed by are the best preserved in the hoard, it may reasonably be surmised that they represent the last coinage at Epidaurus before the hoard's burial. Basing our conclusions on the amount of circulation exhibited by the various coins before us, as well as on the style and character of their die-cutting, the original order of issue may be more or less the following: Nos. 46–47, 51–52, 48, 49, 50, 45, the latter then followed by the coinages bearing the monogram of i.e. Nos. 1–44, together with their companion pieces Nos. 53–56.
The silver coins of Epidaurus have all been assigned by the Historia Numorum, 2nd edition, to the period “Circ. B.C. 350–323 or later.” Percy Gardner 6 divides the silver issues into two groups. The small denominations (obv. Heads of Asklepios or of Apollo; Rev. or E in wreath) he gives to 370–323 B.C.,7 the drachms with the seated Asklepios reverse (cf. figs. 1 and 2) he gives to 323–240 B.C. Wroth, in publishing8 the British Museum example of fig. 1, calls attention to the article by Dr. Gurlitt 9 who there shows that the chryselephantine statue of Asklepios at Epidaurus, the work of Thrasymedes of Parium, could not have been produced before 350 B.C. The reverses of figs. 1 and 2 are evidently based upon this famous work of art. Wroth contends, therefore, that the earliest possible date at which coins similar to fig. 1 could have been struck was 350 B.C. and that they may be twenty years later. To him the Apollo drachm (fig. 2) seems “somewhat later but not later than the early part of the 3rd century.” It is to be noted that on both of these coins Asklepios is seated with his right foot drawn back behind his left. This scheme of representation does not seem to have been used on coins until about the time of Alexander’s death. On by far the greatest portion of the life-time silver issues of Alexander the old scheme obtains of the god’s legs still placed in a parallel position. Only on a few of the coins struck just preceding Alexander’s death does the new style appear—but within a bare five or six years it becomes practically universal throughout his empire. As autonomous issues of the period are greatly influenced by the Alexander coinage, we may say that coins such as figs. 1 and 2 could hardly have been produced before circa 323 B.C., at the earliest. On the other hand, the style exhibited by these drachms supports Wroth’s belief that they were not coined later than the early part of the third century B.C.
The Apollo head on our coins Nos. 23–8 appears to the writer to be copied, by a much inferior artist, from the head on the drachms (fig. 2). We thus secure a date, postquem, for the issues signed by Indeed, their crude diecutting practically precludes their having been produced in the fourth century B.C., while a third century date seems far more probable. As stated above, issues are the latest in the hoard. This would place its burial well within the third century B.C., perhaps about 280 B.C. Very much later than this we can hardly go, because of the presence in the hoard of the Hermione coin (No. 57) whose issue is placed by Gardner 10 between 370 and 300 B.C. and by Head,11 more closely, at 350–322 B.C. This specimen is somewhat worn, more so than the issues of but not nearly so much as some of the other Epidaurus pieces, such as Nos. 46–8, 51–2. It is worn to about the same degree as Nos. 49–50.
We may best leave matters with this tentative date of about 280 B.C., until future finds shall have brought more evidence upon which to base conclusions. Whether or not it is pure coincidence that the date we have thus arrived at is somewhat in accord with the date suggested12 for the burial of the 1903 Epidaurus silver hoard, we cannot say. It is quite possible that one and the same specific event, or general situation, brought about the interment of the two hoards.
Brit. Mus. Cat., Peloponnesus, p. 156.
They extend down to at least as late as this, as four specimens occurred in the 1903 Epidaurus hoard which was buried about 287–281 B.C. Cf. Noe, A Bibliography of Greek Coin Hoards, p. 89, where is listed the literature concerning this find.
Numismatic Chronicle, 1892, pp. 14–15.
Arch.-epig. Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich-Ungarn, XIV (1891), pp. 128–130.
Brit. Mus. Cat., Peloponnesus, pp. 160–1.
Historia Numorum, 2nd edit., p. 442.
Newell, Tyrus Rediviva, N. Y., 1923, p. 11.
The second hoard, mentioned above as having been purchased from C. Christodoulos in 1909, comprised one hundred and seventy-nine bronze coins of Mytilene. The pieces in question are all of one type, similar to the British Museum Catalogue, Troas, etc., p. 192, Nos. 96 ff. None of them, however, bear the counter-stamps which are present on all of the specimens described in that publication.
The coins contained in our hoard are in very good condition throughout, showing little if any wear. For the most part, too, the corrosion which has affected their surfaces is but slight and of a similar shade and consistency for all of the pieces. It is obvious that they must have been found together and so, as claimed by Christodoulos, have come from a single find.
On the obverse is a laureate head of Apollo, of typical Hellenistic style, to right, with his hair done in a roll at the nape of his neck and three thin strands hanging down. On the reverse is a long narrow lyre, with the letters Μ ϒ above, while T and I are to right and left, respectively. Below, on the left, is the monogram on the right is With only two exceptions (XXX–72 and XL–94) the dies are invariably fixed in the position ↑ ↖. The exceptions have their dies placed ↑ ↗.
In view of the fact that the magistrates' monograms are the same on all the coins, it is evident that the latter form part of one general issue only. Hence it is not surprising that, from first to last, the style and details of design vary remarkably little, suggesting that the same die-cutters continued to be employed throughout the entire issue. The coinage may not have covered more than a year or two at most. Careful inspection and comparison reveal that the Apollo heads show a slowly decreasing relief, together with a slight increase in size and a growing carelessness in execution. The lyre, also, tends to grow in size as the issue progresses, to lose some of its slim proportions and delicacy of execution.
In our catalogue, below, the coins themselves have been arranged according to the preceding observations. Other criteria for placing the individual pieces chronologically are not available, as the coins show about the same amount of wear throughout; and it has proved impossible, with but one exception, to establish reverse die mulings between any two obverse dies. This one exception is represented by the reverse die No. 59, which was used in conjunction with both XXVI and XXVII. To produce the one hundred and seventy-nine coins before us, forty-seven obverse dies and one hundred and nineteen reverse dies were employed. Each obverse die has been given a roman numeral, each reverse die an arabic one.
|Obverse die||Reverse die||Specimens||Weights|
|I||1||2||3.49; 3.76 (Plate III, 1).|
|3||1||3.81 (Plate III, 2).|
|II||4||2||3.40; 4.05 (Plate III, 3).|
|5||1||4.12 (Plate III, 4).|
|III||7||1||3.62 (Plate III, 5).|
|IV||8||2||3.91; 4.48 (Plate III, 6).|
|V||9||1||4.34 (Plate III, 7).|
|12||1||3.86 (Plate III, 8).|
|13||3||3.71; 3.98; 4.60.|
|VI||14||4||3.74; 3.94; 4.40; 5.06 (Plate III, 9).|
|16||1||3.79 (Plate III, 10).|
|19||1||4.06 (Plate III, 11).|
|VII||20||2||4.37; 4.36 (Plate III, 12).|
|VIII||21||3||4.57; 4.75; 5.60.|
|23||1||5.09 (Plate III, 13).|
|IX||25||2||3.94; 4.24 (Plate III, 14).|
|X||26||1||3.72 (Plate III, 15).|
|XI||28||4.46; 4.58; 3.96 (Plate III, 16).|
|30||1||3.85 (Plate III, 17).|
|XII||31||4.11; 3.98 (Plate III, 18).|
|XIII||32||1||4.67 (Plate III, 19).|
|XIV||35||1||5.16 (Plate III, 20).|
|XV||36||3.95; 4.45 (Plate III, 21).|
|XVI||38||1||4.86 (Plate IV, 1).|
|XVII||40||1||4.32 (Plate IV, 2).|
|XVIII||43||1||4.41 (Plate IV, 3).|
|XIX||44||1||3.23 (Plate IV, 4).|
|XX||45||1||3.96 (Plate IV, 5).|
|47||2||4.75; 4.46 (Plate IV, 6).|
|XXI||48||2||3.34; 4.38 (Plate IV, 7).|
|49||1||3.95 (Plate IV, 8).|
|50||1||4.31 (Plate IV, 9).|
|XXII||52||3||4.47; 3.93; 3.33 (Plate IV, 10).|
|53||1||4.40 (Plate IV, 11).|
|XXIII||54||1||4.45 (Plate IV, 12).|
|XXIV||55||3||3.11; 4.83; 3.94 (Plate IV, 13).|
|XXV||58||1||4.48 (Plate IV, 14).|
|XXVI||59||1||4.34 (Plate IV, 15).|
|XXVII||59||1||3.40 (Plate IV, 16).|
|XXVIII||61||1||3.86 (Plate IV, 17).|
|XXIX||63||1||4.68 (Plate IV, 18).|
|XXX||66||3||3.79; 4.01; 4.27 (Plate IV, 19).|
|68||4||3.28; 4.16; 4.25; 3.18 (Plate IV, 20).|
|69||2||4.07; 4.29 (Plate IV, 21).|
|71||1||4.54 (Plate IV, 22).|
|72||1||4.25 (Plate IV, 23).|
|XXXI||73||1||4.45 (Plate V, 1).|
|XXXII||75||3||3.69; 3.74; 4.07 (Plate V, 2).|
|76||3||3.94; 4.18; 4.37.|
|77||3||3.65; 3.88; 5.25.|
|XXXIII||80||2||4.62; 4.30 (Plate V, 3).|
|XXXIV||82||3||3.48; 4.55; 5.79 (Plate V, 4).|
|XXXV||83||1||3.91 (Plate V, 5).|
|84||1||4.64 (Plate V, 6).|
|85||3||3.93; 5.21; 3.80 (Plate V, 7).|
|XXXVI||86||5||3.58; 3.90; 4.26; 4.43; 3.95 (Plate V, 8).|
|XXXVII||89||1||4.74 (Plate V, 9).|
|XXXVIII||90||2||4.04; 5.43 (Plate V, 10).|
|XXXIX||92||1||3.47 (Plate V, 11).|
|XL||94||1||4.12 (Plate V, 12).|
|XLI||95||1||3.67 (Plate V, 13).|
|XLII||100||1||4.40 (Plate V, 14).|
|102||1||4.10 (Plate V, 15).|
|XLIII||103||2||4.01; 3.57 (Plate V, 16).|
|XLIV||105||1||3.67 (Plate V, 17).|
|XLV||106||2||3.19; 3.81 (Plate V, 18).|
|XLVI||107||2||3.14; 4.04 (Plate V, 19).|
|XLVII||113||1||3.79 (Plate V, 20).|
|114||3||4.17; 4.42; 3.97 (Plate V, 21).|
|116||1||5.05 (Plate V, 22).|
The fact that the preceding pieces are all in a similar state of preservation, and that, furthermore, they do not bear the usual countermarks with which these particular coins are almost invariably provided, suggest that our coins were hoarded and buried soon after their issue. An exactly similar hoard is stated by Koldewey to have been found in 1888 in the ruins of an ancient villa near the modern town of Karini, two and a quarter hours from Mytilene on the highroad from that city to Ajassu.1 The Karini hoard contained several hundred (einige hundert) Mytilinean bronze coins of the same types and description as the present pieces. Dr. Dressel, in describing them for Koldewey, makes no mention of any counterstamps. It is to be presumed, therefore, that, like our own coins, they possessed none.
Were it not for the long lapse of time between the finding of the Karini hoard (1888) and the purchase of our pieces (1909), one would be greatly tempted to claim that they all represent one and the same hoard. In fact, such may actually be the truth. In the first place, coins of this type without countermarks are distinctly unusual.2 In the second place, the one hundred and seventy-nine coins in the present lot and the “couple of hundred” in the Karini find seem suspiciously close in number. It is a well known fact that Christodoulos drew from sources in the Greek Islands and even in Asia Minor, as well as from Greece proper. As the writer has been unable to discover what actually became of the Karini hoard, it is just possible that, for the most part at least, it eventually found its way into the hands of Christodoulos.
The opinions as to the probable date of issue of the type in question differ considerably. Dressel3 believed them to have been struck after 200 B.C., while Wroth4 gives excellent reasons for placing them in the period 250–200 B.C. Supposing them to be not identical, neither our hoard, nor that of Karini, presents any internal evidence—other than that outlined by Wroth for the coins themselves— which would enable us to date the interment closer than at some point after circa 250 B.C.
Lesbos, pp. 40, 41.
In a very hasty survey of available catalogues, the writer found countermarked coins of this type in twelve collections (British Museum, McClean, Seyffert, Waddington, Imhoof- Blumer, Leake, Athens, de Luynes, Hunter, Turin, Copenhagen, Hedevar, Fontana) but non-countermarked coins definitely in only three (Sir Herman Weber, Waddington 1391, Molthein 2091–2)—while the somewhat superficial description of the coins in the Welzl de Wellenheim and Lavy catalogues leaves it rather open to doubt whether these particular pieces were actually countermarked or not.
Op. cit., p. 41.
Brit. Mus. Cat., Troas, Aeolis and Lesbos, pp. 192–3.
Another hoard of bronze coins was received by the writer in March, 1934. It was said to have been found near Magnesia in 1933, and consisted of the following forty-six coins. There are no means of knowing whether these constituted the complete hoard or not.
Selected specimens of the Magnesia hoard are illustrated on Plate VI.
3rd century B.C.
Size in mm. 15–18.
Weights in grammes, 3.12–5.50.
|Horseman, wearing helmet, cuirass and flying chlamys, holding couched spear in r., on prancing horse to r. Beneath horse sometimes letters. No border.||ΜΑΓΝ (sometimes ΜΑΓ) above humped bull butting l. In the exergue, magistrate’s name. The whole within circular Maeander pattern (sometimes absent on coins with small flans).|
Size in mm. 11–12.
Weights in grammes, 1.92–2.52.
|Similar to the preceding, but enclosed in a dotted circle. No letters.||ΜΑΓΝΗ. Type similar to the preceding. On Nos. 45–46 the ethnic is “off flan.”|
These coins had obviously all been found together, and were so claimed by the dealer from whom they were purchased. In color and type of corrosion they are all alike, being only partially covered with a very thin verdigris of a greenish- olive tint. Before brushing they also were encrusted with soft, lightly adhering, faun-colored dirt, giving them a rather distinctive appearance.
The first thing about this little hoard that strikes the observer is the unusually large proportion of names whose occurrence on the coins of Magnesia has not as yet been recorded. Assuming that ΑΡΙΣΤ…. (No. 27) might be the same person as ΑΡΙΣΤΕΥΣ ΦΙΛΙΟΥ (No. 8), and ΘΕΟΔΟΤΟΣ (No. 1) as ΘΕΟΔΟΤΟΣ ΘΕΟ…. (No. 18), we have here the names of thirty individuals. Of these no less than sixteen1 are not known to R. Münsterberg who, in his Beamtenna men auf den griechischen Münzen, gives a compendium of the names published or otherwise known down to 1927. There is thus secured, at one stroke, a considerable addition to our numismatic “directory” for Magnesia ad Maeandrum. We are also enabled to correct or to complete two patronymics given by our predecessors. The father of ΖΩΠϒΡΙΩΝ (Nos. 35–9) is hesitatingly given by the British Museum Catalogue, Ionia, p. 160, No. 22 as ΠϒΡ(?). The name can be clearly read on our coins as ΠϒΘΑΓΟ and ΠϒΘΑΓΟΡΟ. Similarly the father’s name of ΦΙΛΙΣΚΟΣ (No. 25) is reasonably suggested by Münsterberg, p. 30, as Ζω (π?…); but on our coin the name is certainly ΖΩΒΙΟϒ.
The coins themselves do not aid much in dating the probable burial of the hoard. If there had been present more closely datable coins of Magnesia, or of other cities or kings, they did not reach the writer. Our coins are all obviously of third century style and fabric. The type as a whole (obverse, horseman; reverse, butting bull) has been assigned by Head2 to the long period from 350 to 190 B.C. Our hoard, however, does not cover this entire period as no specimen, which by style belongs to the fourth century B.C., appears therein. We are probably justified in stating that none of them antedate the year 281 B.C. In a forthcoming work the present author describes a large quantity of gold, silver and bronze coins of royal types coined at Magnesia by Lysimachus, leaving no room for an autonomous coinage under his reign. It is not likely that this ruler would have allowed autonomous issues to be coined there, in any case. Hence the period, during which our particular specimens appeared, can be limited to the years which ran from Lysimachus’ death in 281 B.C. to the battle of Magnesia in 190 B.C. an event that caused a series of new types to be introduced.
A careful study of the coins contained in the Magnesian hoard allows them to be divided into the following three groups: (a) Those which bear a single name; (b) Those which add the father’s name; (c) Those which continue this practice but which bear, in addition, two initial letters of another name on the obverse.3 Considerations of style and of the variations in amount of circula- tion to which the coins have been subjected, allow us to state that these three groups appeared in the order here given. The condition of the coins (Nos. 1–3) in group ‘a’ may be described as good to very good; that of group ‘b’ (Nos. 4–25) as good with a larger proportion of very good, and some even in fine condition; that of group 'c' (Nos. 26–40) as distinctly the best preserved of all three, all the coins being in very good or fine condition. The small denominations (Nos. 41–46) bear no letters on their obverses, but as the coins range from good to fine they may be considered as having appeared contemporaneously with both groups ‘b’ and ‘c’.
It is interesting to note further how greatly our hoard increases the list of those magistrates who add their father’s name to their own. For instance, in the British Museum Catalogue we find ten4 bronze coins of the horseman-bull type bearing but a single name, as against five with the two names. In Münsterberg’s lists, if we count only the bronze coins of the horseman-bull type, we find thirty-five single as against twenty-three double names given. In the present hoard we have only three single names (two of which were previously known) in comparison to the thirty double names, of which thirteen were known, one is uncertain and sixteen are new.
In the British Museum collection5 only one specimen of the bronze coins (No. 29 in the catalogue) presents letters on the obverse. Taking into consideration the large number of single names recorded on the bronze coins of that collection, it may be surmised that the British Museum series largely covers the early portion of our period. As the present hoard contains no less than ten distinct varieties with letters on the obverse, together with a still larger number of the immediately preceding issues with no letters at all on the obverse but with the two names on the reverse, we reach the conclusion that the hoard represents the latter end of the coinage in question. Hence, if we should place the burial of our hoard about 200 B.C., or a little later, we may not be far wrong. If this be the case, then it might not seem unreasonable to associate the burial of our hoard with the war between Magnesia and Miletus for the possession of Myus. This war, we know from inscriptions,6 taken in conjunction with Polybius, XVI, 24, 9, broke out some time after 200 B.C. and came to an end in 196 B.C. when peace was finally established between the contending parties.
The hitherto unrecorded names are: (1) ΑΝΑΞΙΠ Π E… POϒ. (2) ΑΝΔΡΩ ZHN. (3) ΑΡΙΣΤΑΓΟ ΖΗΝΟΔΟ. (4) ΓΟΡΓΑΣΟΣ ΙΠΠΟΚΡΑΤ. (5) ΔΩΚΕϒΣ ΜΑΙΩΝ. (6) ΕΠΗΡΑΤΟ ΜΟΡΙΜ. (7) ΕΡΜΩΝAΞ ΕΡΜΩΝΑ. (8) ΖΗΝΟΔΟΤΟΣ ΑΡΙΣΤΑΓΟΡΟ. (9) ΖΩΠϒΡΙΩΝ ΠϒΘΑΓΟ. (10) ΗΓΗΣΑΓΟΡΑΣ ΕϒΧΩΡΟϒ. (11) ΘΕΟΔΟΤΟΣ. (12) ΙΠΠΟΚΡ ΠϒΘ. (13) ΜΕΝΕΛΑΟΣ ΑΝΤΙΓΟΝΟϒ. (14) ΜΟΙΡΑΓΟΡΑΣ ΜΙΟΜΗΤ. (15) ΝΙΚΗΡΑΤΟΣ ΜΟΛΟΣΣΟϒ. (16) ΣΤΡΑΤΟΚΛ ΜΑΝΔΡΟ. The names are here given exactly as they are found on the coins themselves i.e. not always completed. This incompleteness may sometimes be due to the fact that the design is partially off flan, but at other times the name had not been completed on the original die because of lack of available space.
Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum, Ionia, pp. 158–161.
It will be noted that the magistrate ΠΡΩΤΙΩΝ ΑΝΔΡΟTIMOϒ occurs in both groups (cf. Nos. 23 and 40). It may be that No. 23 also once had the initial letters on its obverse, but if so, they happen to be completely “off flan” on this particular specimen. No traces of letters are now visible on the coin.
This figure does not include No. 29 which, because of the two letters appearing on the obverse, probably belongs to our group ‘c’, the father’s name being off flan on this particular specimen.
As Münsterberg does not record the presence of letters (if they occur) on the obverses, we cannot use his lists for purposes of comparison here.
Rehm, Milet, pp. 200 ff.; Inschr. Milet, No. 148.
Not long before the outbreak of the World War Mr. Robert Orbelliani-Rustafjaell brought to the United States a collection of objects which he had secured in the course of his excavations in Egypt. Added to these were numerous items acquired by purchase or placed on consignment with him by various Egyptian dealers in antiquities. On November 29, 1915, and following days, the entire collection was sold at public auction by The Anderson Galleries, Inc., of New York City.1 At this sale the writer acquired lot No. 114,2 comprising sixty-nine large Ptolemaic copper coins—by their appearance all obviously from a single hoard. The coins in question were said to have come from Lower Egypt, but Mr. Rustafjaell was not certain whether they comprised the entire hoard found or not—probably not.
The coins, at the time they were acquired by the writer, were all covered by an extraordinarily thick coating which was apparently composed of coagulated and hardened mud heavily impregnated with copper verdigris. In nearly all cases this coating was so thick that the types were completely invisible or, at best, only partially visible. In some instances, however, rough handling and the vicissitudes to which the coins had been subjected since discovery had chipped off small flakes of the covering above mentioned, leaving the under surface in these spots comparatively clean and undamaged. This fact led the writer to entertain hopes of the possibility of removing the entire covering of dirt and corrosion by sharp tapping on the coin with a small hammer or similar object. To a certain extent these hopes were justified and a sharp rap, particularly on the edge of the coin, frequently caused large flakes of the corrosion to spring off, leaving the original surface of the coin clear and smooth with a rather handsome, reddish- brown color flecked with green. On the majority of the coins, however, the corrosion proved actually to have eaten into the surface, and the heavy covering described above had become so firmly welded to the coin itself that mere tapping, however sharp, failed to loosen its hold. As the writer did not care to subject the coins to the action of acids (and their problematical results), he laid the entire find aside for future consideration. After Dr. Colin Fink of Columbia University had published a description of his experiments in the electrolytic cleaning of ancient objects,3 the present writer returned to the now almost forgotten hoard and set about cleaning the remainder. This was finally accomplished with fairly satisfactory results, though in some cases the corrosion proved to have eaten so deeply into the coin that it was impossible, even by electrolytic cleaning, to recover the original surface undamaged. In such instances, while the coin cannot now, in any sense, be termed an object of beauty, at least the details of design and accessory symbols or monograms are sufficiently clear for purposes of study.
As hoards of the heavy Ptolemaic bronze coins have seldom been published4 it is probable that a description of this little hoard (or portion of a hoard) will not come amiss to students of the subject. Especially is this the case as it is only by means of hoard analyses that we can definitely prove, disprove or correct the theories and arrangements proposed by J. N. Svoronos in his epoch-making corpus of the Ptolemaic coins: Τἁ Νομίσματα τοῦ Κράτους τῶν Πτολεμαίων. Selected specimens from the hoard are illustrated on Plates VII–IX.
|Rev.||Diademed, horned head of Zeus Ammon to r. in circle of dots.|
|ΒΑΣΙΑΕΩΣ on l., ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ on r. Eagle, wings open, head reverted, standing to l. upon a thunderbolt. Circle of dots around. Svoronos 412. Good. Gr. 81.89.|
|Rev.||Similar to the preceding.|
|Similar to the preceding. Between the legs of the eagle, Θ. Svoronos 462. Very worn. Gr. 87.74.|
|Rev.||Similar to the preceding.|
|ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ on l., ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ on r. Two eagles, wings closed, standing to l. upon a thunderbolt. Circle of dots around. Between the legs of the left-hand eagle, Λ. Svoronos 479. Worn. Gr. 59.44.|
|Rev.||Similar to the preceding.|
|Similar to the preceding, but with P between the eagle’s legs.|
|Svoronos 497. (4) Worn. Gr. 68.83. (5) Good. Gr. 68.24.|
|Rev.||Similar to the preceding.|
|Similar to the preceding. Letter obliterated. (6) Very worn. Gr. 67.59. (7) Worn. Gr. 65.13.|
The preceding coins comprise the two largest denominations (Nos. 1–2 marked by the eagle with open wings, Nos. 3–7 by the two eagles) of the bronze coins associated with the types of Arsinoe II in gold and silver. This issue was shown by Svoronos to have been instituted by Ptolemy II about 270 B.C., continuing until his death in 247 B.C.
|8–20||48.5 to 45.5 mm.||Obv.|
|Rev.||Diademed, horned head of Zeus Ammon to r. in a circle of dots.|
|ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ on l., ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ on r. Eagle, wings open and head reverted, standing to l. upon a thunderbolt. Between the legs, E. Circle|
|of dots around. Svoronos 446.|
|(8) Worn. Gr. 90.13.|
|(9) Good. Gr. 86.50.|
|(10) Worn. Gr. 85.69.|
|(11) Worn. Gr. 84.61.|
|(12) Worn. Gr. 82.91.|
|(13) Good. Gr. 82.84.|
|(14) Good. Gr. 82.67.|
|(15) Good. Gr. 79.90.|
|(16) Worn. Gr. 79.16.|
|(17) Very good. Gr. 79.11.|
|(18) Good. Gr. 79.09.|
|(19) Worn. Gr. 73.73.|
|(20) Worn. Gr. 73.68.|
|21–24||40.5 to||Obv.||Similar to the preceding.|
|38 mm.||Rev.||ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ on l., BA-ΣΙΛΕΩΣ on r. Eagle, wings closed, head reverted, filleted cornucopiae on shoulder, standing to l. upon a thunderbolt. Between the legs, E. Circle of dots around. Svoronos 974.|
|(21) Good. Gr. 44.56.|
|(22) Good. Gr. 42.33.|
|(23) Worn. Gr. 44.73.|
|(24) Worn. Gr. 40.68.|
|25–28||38.5 to||Obv.||Similar to the preceding.|
|37 mm.||Rev.||Similar to the preceding, ex-|
|cept that between the eagle’s legs is the monogram . Variety not recognized by Svoronos.|
|(25) Very good. Gr. 45.31.|
|(26) Good. Gr. 44.98.|
|(27) Very good. Gr. 40.20.|
|(28) Very good. Gr. 38.57.|
|29||48 mm.||Obv.||Similar to the preceding.|
|Rev.||ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ on the l., ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ on the r. Eagle, wings open and head reverted, standing to l. upon a thunderbolt. Between the legs, Λ. Circle of dots around. Svoronos 478.|
|(29) Very good. Gr. 81.59.|
|30–37||43.5 to||Obv.||Similar to the preceding.|
|42 mm.||Rev.||ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ on the l., ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ on the r. Eagle, with closed wings, standing to l. upon a thunderbolt. In l. field, Cornucopiae with fillet. Between the legs, . Circle of dots around. Svoronos 964.|
|(30) Fine. Gr. 67.61.|
|(31) Fine. Gr. 65.06.|
|(32) Fine. Gr. 63.44.|
|(33) Fine. Gr. 62.88.|
|(34) Very good. Gr. 62.33.|
|(35) Very good. Gr. 60.48.|
|(36) Good. Gr. 58.13.|
|(37) Worn. Gr. 54.62.|
|38–39||35 mm.||Obv.||Similar to the preceding.|
|Rev.||Similar to the preceding. Svoronos 965.|
|(38) Very good. Gr. 35.07.|
|(39) Fine. Gr. 32.84.|
Group I, comprising, once more, the two largest denominations, is clearly associated by its mint mark E with the gold issues of Ptolemy III bearing the portrait, name and types of Berenice (Svoronos, Nos. 972–3). Svoronos, for very understandable reasons, assigned coins such as Nos. 8–20 to the preceding issues of Ptolemy II, leaving Ptolemy III without any representatives of this the largest denomination in bronze ever issued by the kings of Egypt. For the following reasons, however, the present writer believes it preferable to group these coins with the Berenice coinage of Ptolemy Euergetes. In the first place, the average condition of Nos. 8–20 is distinctly better than that of Nos. 2–7, which are very much worn indeed. For this same reason No. 1 may also be an issue of Ptolemy III, but for stylistic considera- tions it has been left among the issues of the second Ptolemy. In their somewhat poorer style and in details of design and execution Nos. 8–20 appear to be much nearer to Nos. 21–28 than to any of the bronze issues of Ptolemy II, and yet Svoronos would assign them to the middle (i.e. 265 B.C.) of that king’s reign. If we accept them as the large denomination belonging to the same issue as Nos. 21–4 (as indicated both by similarity of style and the presence of the letter E) they seem to fit into the general scheme of sequence of style and issues better than if put among the coins of Philadelphus. It is to be noted that the Ammon head on the coins of Ptolemy II, such as Nos. 1–7, tends to fill the flan of the coin, allowing comparatively little of the field to show beyond the contours of the head. On Nos. 8–20, on the other hand, the head takes up much less of the field, gradually growing longer and more slender and approaching the type we finally find on Nos. 30–39. While the design and execution of the eagles on Nos. 1–7 are excellent, with the details finished and naturalistic, the eagles on Nos. 8–20 are notably inferior and the details are at times only perfunctorily indicated. In this they are very similar to the eagles on Nos. 21–28.
Group Ia is, apparently, merely the continuation of Nos. 21-24, but the single letter E has been changed to a monogram composed of E and P.
Group II, in our hoard, comprises only one speci- men of the largest denomination (No. 29) which for the same reasons as outlined above for the E issue has been transferred from the reign of Ptolemy II to that of Ptolemy III. It is marked with the letter A and was accompanied by coins exactly similar in types, size and weight to Nos. 21–28 but marked with this same letter A. Of this smaller denomination (Svoronos 1166) no specimen chanced to be contained in our hoard—or, at least, in the portion of the hoard which lies before us. This smaller denomination Svoronos has assigned to Ptolemy IV, but that is hardly possible as it is absolutely identical in style, fabric and types as Nos. 21–28 which he assigns, with every show of reason to Euergetes. Because of their particular types they would constitute an anomaly among the coinages of Philopator, but fit in exactly among the coins of his father’s reign.
Group III contains the two largest denominations of this beautiful and plentiful issue which Svoronos has shown comprised a total of no less than eight different denominations in bronze (his Nos. 964 to 971) together with gold and silver pentadrachms of Attic weight bearing the name and types of Berenice (his Nos. 962–3). These coins are all of particularly fine style and execution, showing a considerable improvement in this regard over the bronze coins which had immediately preceded them.
|40–41||42.5 to 40 mm.||Obv.||Diademed head of Zeus Ammon to r. in a circle of dots.|
|Rev.||ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ on l., BA-ΣΙΛΕΩΣ on the r. Eagle, with closed wings, standing to l. upon a thunderbolt. In l. field, Cornucopiae bound with a diadem. Between the eagle's feet, ΛΙ. The whole in a circle of dots. Svoronos 1126.|
|(40) Very good. Gr. 66.83.|
|(41) Fine. Gr. 62.50.|
|42–43||34.5 to||Obv.||Similar to the preceding.|
|33 mm.||Rev.||Similar to the preceding. Svoronos 1128.|
|(42) Fine. Gr. 36.36.|
|(43) Good. Gr. 30.65.|
|44–57||43.5 to||Obv.||Similar to the preceding.|
|40.5 mm.||Rev.||Similar to the preceding. Between the eagle's legs, ΔΙ. Svoronos 1125.|
|(44) Worn. Gr. 72.69.|
|(45) Fine. Gr. 71.96.|
|(46) Good. Gr. 71.07.|
|(47) Good. Gr. 68.06.|
|(48) Good. Gr. 67.58.|
|(49) Fine. Gr. 67.06.|
|(50) Fine. Gr. 66.61.|
|(51) Good. Gr. 66.32.|
|(52) Fine. Gr. 65.72.|
|(53) Fine. Gr. 63.83.|
|(54) Good. Gr. 61.20.|
|(55) Good. Gr. 61.03.|
|(56) Fine. Gr. 54.23.|
|(57) Good. Gr. 44.05.|
|58–60||42 to||Obv.||Similar to the preceding.|
|41 mm.||Rev.||Similar to the preceding. In l. field, Cornucopiae bound with diadem. Between the eagle’s legs, . Svoronos 992.|
|(58) Fine. Gr. 67.28.|
|(59) Fine. Gr. 65.68.|
|(60) Fine. Gr. 62.23.|
|61–65||44.5 to||Obv.||Similar to the preceding.|
|42 mm.||Rev.||Similar to the preceding, but with ΣΕ between the eagle’s legs. Svoronos 992.|
|(61) Very good. Gr. 70.96.|
|(62) Very good. Gr. 68.78.|
|(63) Fine. Gr. 68.11.|
|(64) Fine. Gr. 65.09.|
|(65) Good. Gr. 63.81.|
|66–69||43 to||Obv.||Similar to the preceding.|
|40 mm.||Rev.||Similar to the preceding but with Σ between the eagle’s legs. Svoronos 992.|
|(66) Very good. Gr. 74.86.|
|(67) Fine. Gr. 65.41.|
|(68) Good. Gr. 64.38.|
|(69) Good. Gr. 61.51.|
The three groups which comprise the issues of Ptolemy IV in our hoard have been arranged according to style. Group I contains specimens of two denominations, while II and III contain specimens of the largest denomination only. I and II have been correctly associated by Svoronos and given to Ptolemy IV because of the letters ΔΙ (Group II) on gold and silver issues certainly belonging to that king (Svoronos Nos. 1117–1123, incl.).
Group III, marked by the letter Σ, or by variations of a monogram containing the letters Σ and E, have been assigned to Ptolemy III by Svoronos 4a because a somewhat similar monogram appears on a unique silver coin (Svoronos 991) bearing the name and portrait of Berenice. Style and fabric of the copper coins, however, point rather to the reign of Ptolemy IV—and this is confirmed by the existence of certain rare tetradrachms5 bearing the types of that king, accompanied by the letters (or monogram) The writer was formerly of the opinion that these particular tetradrachms had immediately preceded the exactly similar ones marked ΔΙ because of the existence of the abovementioned Berenice coin6—but the style of the accompanying bronze coins7 precludes this. Furthermore, the bronze denomination next largest in size to the ones in our hoard (i.e., Nos. 58–69) which bear the same magistrates' letters and monograms ΣΕ or Σ (Svoronos, Nos. 1145, 1148, 1149) are frequently countermarked with a cornucopiae enclosed in a sunken, oblong rectangle (cf. Svoronos, Nos. 1145β, 1149)—and this same countermark appears only on similar coins with varying monograms (Svoronos, Nos. 1140, 1142, 1144) which can belong to Ptolemy IV only.
Our hoard apparently contained only the three heaviest denominations in bronze of the Ptolemaic kings Philadelphus, Euergetes, and Philopator. In contents, as in size, it is almost exactly paralleled by the hoard of sixty-eight Ptolemaic bronze coins found by Quibell in a recess of the great north wall of the Ramesseum at Thebes.8 The following is a comparative table of the two hoards. For purposes of comparison, the present writer has taken the liberty of rearranging the Ramesseum coins according to the modified scheme adopted for the catalogue of our own hoard.
|Ptolemy II Philadelphus||hoard||hoard|
|Heavy Unit. Single eagle. No letters.||1||2|
|Heavy Unit. Single eagle. Θ.||1||..|
|Three-quarter. Two eagles Λ, P or ?||5||..|
|Ptolemy III Euergetes|
|Heavy Unit. Eagle and E.||13||2|
|Heavy Half. Eagle and E.||4||139|
|Heavy Half. Eagle and .||4||..|
|Heavy Unit. Eagle and Λ.||1||..|
|Heavy Half. Eagle and A (= Λ?).||..||1|
|Light Unit. Eagle and .||8||8|
|Light Half. Eagle and .||2||5|
|Ptolemy IV Philopator|
|Light Unit. Eagle and ΛΙ.||2||..|
|Light Half. Eagle and ΛΙ.||2||..|
|Light Unit. Eagle and ΔΙ.||14||8|
|Light Half. Eagle and ΔΙ||..||5|
|Light Unit. Eagle and or ΣΕ.||8||1110|
|Light Half. Eagle and .||..||1310|
|Light Unit. Eagle and Σ.||4||..|
Avoiding the tangled controversy which still rages around the denominations of the Ptolemaic bronze coins and their proper nomenclatures, it has been deemed quite sufficient for our purposes to adopt the simple expedient of dividing the material before us into its most obvious categories, namely into “units,” “three-quarters” and “halves.” Thus, according to their weights, our Nos. 1, 2, 8–20 and 29 would be “units”; Nos. 3–7 would be “three-quarters”; Nos. 21–28 would be “halves.” In the reign of Ptolemy III there came an apparent reduction in weight, which was accompanied— naturally enough—by changed reverse types and also by a greatly improved style. From this point, in both the Ramesseum and our own hoard, the coins have been designated as “light units” and “light halves.” Thus, for our hoard, Nos. 30–37 and 44–69 would be “light units,” Nos. 38–39 would be “light halves.”
Both hoards obviously cover about the same period of time, though the issues of Ptolemies II and III are slightly better represented in ours, those of Ptolemy IV in the Ramesseum hoard. The difference, however, is too slight to have any probable significance. Both hoards seem to have been put away at just about the same time—well before the close of Philopator’s reign as neither of them contain such comparatively common Egyptian issues in bronze of this sovereign as Svoronos, Nos. 1140–1144. No doubt the burial of these hoards (as that of the silver hoard described by the writer in Numismatic Notes and Monographs, No. 33) was intimately connected with the very serious internal troubles and rebellions which broke over the kingdom in the course of Philopator’s reign.11
See, however, Svoronos, loc. cit., Vol. II, p. 177, last two lines on page.
First published by the present writer in Two Recent Egyptian Hoards, Numismatic Notes and Monographs, No. 33, 1927, p. 4, Nos. 4–6.
Loc. cit., p. 7.
Svoronos, Nos. 992–994, Nos. 1145–1152.
Quibell, The Ramesseum. Egyptian Research Account, 1896, p. 13.
Polyb., XIV, 12. Cf. E. Bevan, A History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty. London, 1927, pp. 236–41.
Catalogue of the Interesting and Valuable Egyptian Collection formed by Mr. Robert de Rustafjaell. The Anderson Galleries. Nov. 29, 30th, Dec. 1st, 1915.
Lot No. 114 was described in the catalogue as: “A Collection of Roman [sic!] Coins. Large and small, from ¾ to 1½ inches in diameter. Some look as if they had been melted for they have partially lost their shape and stuck together. Most of the coins are heavily encrusted.”
The Restoration of Ancient Bronzes and Other Alloys. By Colin G. Fink. New York, 1925.
Only the following two instances are known to the writer: (1) A large hoard briefly mentioned by Dr. J. Eddé in Bolletino di Numismatica, 1905, p. 129; (2) The coins found in a recess in a wall of the Ramesseum and described by J. G. Milne in Egyptian Research Account, 1896, p. 13.