LATE SELEUCID MINTS IN AKE-PTOLEMAIS AND DAMASCUS

Second Reign in Ake-Ptolemais, 129–126 B. C.

Year 128–127 B. C.

1. Attic Tetradrachm

Obv. Diademed, bearded head of Demetrius II to r. Fillet border.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΑΕΩΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟϒ in two lines on the r., ΘΕΟΥ ΝΙΚΑΤΟΡΟΣ in two lines on the l. Zeus, naked to waist, seated to l. on diphros, holds Nike with diademed wreath in outstretched r., rests l. upon sceptre. Beneath throne, In the exergue, ΕΠΡ and

α) Vienna, gr. 16.45, PLATE I; β) Newell, gr. 16.68, PLATE I; γ) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1342, gr. 16.46. Pl. 51: δ) Paris, No. 1206, gr. 16.20; ε) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1343, gr. 16.47, Pl. 51; London, No. 14, gr. 16.19; ζ) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 86, No. 1, gr. 16.42.

α, β, and γ are from the same obverse die.

2. Phoenician Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding, except that there is a dotted instead of a fillet border.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ around an eagle standing to l. upon a thunderbolt. In l. field, above In r. field, ΕΠΡ. Between eagle's legs,

α) Paris, No. 1194, gr. 13.90, Pl. xxii, 12; β) Paris, No. 1195, gr. 13.70; γ) Paris, No. 1196, gr. 13.50; δ) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1330, gr. 13.58, Pl. 50; ε) Newell, formerly Rouvier, loc. cit., No. 954, gr. 13.53, PLATE II; London; ζ) Bunbury Coll., Numismatic Chronicle, 3rd Ser., Vol. III, 1883, p. 102, gr. 13.87, Pl. vi, 7.

3. Phoenician Didrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding, and with the same date and monograms.

α) Paris, No. 1197, gr. 6.55; β) Newell, formerly Rouvier, loc. cit., No. 955, gr. 6.61 (the weight given by Rouvier is an error), PLATE II.

Year 127–126 B. C.

4. Attic Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to No. 1.

Rev. Same types and inscription as No. 1, except that the Nike in Zeus’ hand faces to the r. In the exergue,

α) Naville Sale XII, Oct. 1926, No. 1978, Pl. 57 (= Walcher de Molthein Coll., No. 2993, Pl. xxvii), gr. 16.09; β) Bement Coll., Naville Sale VII, June 1924, No. 1700, gr. 16.33, Pl. 59 (= Headlam Coll., Sotheby Sale, May 1916, No. 446, Pl. x); γ) Hess Sale, Lucerne, Dec. 1933, No. 111, gr. 16.38, Pl. 4 (= Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1353, Pl. 52); δ) Newell, gr. 16.32, PLATE II, 5; ε) Luneau Coll., Platt Sale, March 1922, No. 747, Pl. xvi; Cahn Sale 61, Dec. 1928, No. 168, gr. 14.30, Pl. vi; ζ) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 86, No. 3, gr. 16.81, Pl. lxviii, 23.

5. Phoenician Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to No. 2.

Rev. Same inscription and types as No. 2. In l. field, above In r. field, ϚΠP.

Newell, gr. 12.86, PLATE II, 6.

6. Phoenician Didrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding.

Paris, No. 1198, gr. 6.70. Owing to the small size of the letters, the date could also be read as ԐΠΡ. PLATE II, 4.

Demetrius II, escaping from his long Parthian captivity, returned in 129 B. C. and recovered what was left of the Seleucid empire. Tyre, the most active Seleucid mint south of Antioch, commenced coining prolifically in his name in the Seleucid year 183, which is 130–129 B. C. 10 The same is true of Antioch, 11 though at that mint his issues are not dated. As the escape of Demetrius and the death of Antiochus VII in Media took place within a short time of each other in the spring of 129 B. C., 12 these issues probably first commenced to appear shortly afterward.

Very soon, however, Demetrius had managed to make himself thoroughly unpopular at Antioch, with the upshot that Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II was able to install there (128 B. C.) a creature of his own, one Alexander, nicknamed Zebina. Demetrius II now ruled only over Phoenicia, Coele-Syria and Palestine. And having thus lost the great central mint of Antioch, Demetrius apparently proceeded to replace it by causing the coastal mints still in his possession to issue Attic as well as their more usual Phoenician tetradrachms. Thus, it happens that we now suddenly find Attic tetradrachms coined at Sidon, 13 Tyre, 14 and Ake-Ptolemais, all bearing the Seleucid date 185 = 128–127 B. C. The types of these Attic tetradrachms are not Phoenician but royal Antiochene, i. e., with the bearded portrait of Demetrius surrounded by fillet border on the obverse, seated Zeus on the reverse.

As at Tyre and Sidon, so also at Ake-Ptolemais this Attic coinage (Nos. 1 and 4) is accompanied by a renewed coinage on the Phoenician standard, comprising two denominations, the tetradrachm and didrachm (Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6). It is interesting to note, though, that at our mint both the Attic and the Phoenician coinages display a contemporary portrait of Demetrius II, wearing his long Parthian beard. In contrast, the issues of the two separate standards at both Sidon and Tyre are differentiated not only by their weights and reverse types, but also by the use of a bearded head on the Attic and of a now anachronistic beardless bust on the Phoenician coins.

During the first year (ΕΠΡ) of the re-opening of the royal mint at Ake-Ptolemais, all coins are marked with the city’s monogram just as in the days of Alexander I Bala and Tryphon. Like the earlier coins, the Phoenician pieces again depict the eagle standing on a thunderbolt, but the barley-stalk is missing. On the Attic tetradrachm (No. 1), we find but one magistrate indicated, on the Phoenician denominations two, and

It is curious to note that the monogram also appears in this very same year (ΕΠΡ) on the coins of both Sidon and Tyre. At Sidon it occurs in this one year only. 15 At Tyre it had appeared for the first time on the initial Phoenician tetradrachm struck by Alexander I Bala in ΒΞΡ. 16 It reappeared seven years later in ΘΞΡ on a Phoenician tetradrachm of Demetrius II's first reign. 17 From ΔΠΡ (second reign of Demetrius II) onwards, it recurs frequently at Tyre. It is possible that this man, one of the most active mint officials at Tyre, was employed not only to initiate the special coinage of Tyrian Attic tetradrachms in ΕΠΡ, but also to re-open the mint at Sidon which had been quiescent, so far as the issuing of silver money was concerned, since the year HOP in the reign of Antiochus VII. 18 After supervising the initial re-coinage here, apparently delegated his power to 19 and transferred the scene of his activities to Ake-Ptolemais where coins of both ΕΠΡ and ϚΠΡ bear his signature. At Tyre, coins signed by continued to appear regularly throughout the years ΕΠΡ, ϚΠΡ and ΖΠΡ, at which time Tyre received her independence and at once inaugurated an autonomous coinage of her own. 20 But continued to sign the new Tyrian "shekels" regularly for another twelve years or more. 21

This suggested identity of person between the various ’s signing the coins of Sidon, Tyre and Ake-Ptolemais in the year ΕΠΡ is suppositional. It is predicated, however, upon the close proximity to each other of the three mints, 22 as well as upon the obviously special nature of this coinage of Attic tetradrachms. Their issue lasted but one year at both Sidon and Tyre, two at Ake-Ptolemais. As the coinage of any silver money at all had been in abeyance for some seven years at Sidon and eleven years at Ake-Ptolemais, it may well have been considered advisable to send a practised functionary from an active mint like Tyre to supervise the renewed production of silver money at her two neighboring cities.

The undated Attic tetradrachm, No. 4, may have been coined towards the close of ΕΠΡ, as well as in ϚΠΡ. Its two monograms appear on the accompanying Phoenician coins of both years.

Sole reign at Ake-Ptolemais, 126–125 B. C.

Year 126–125 B. C.

7. Attic Tetradrachm

Obv. Veiled bust of Cleopatra to r., wearing diadem, stephane and veil. Fillet border.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΗΣ ΚΛΕΟΠΑΤΡΑΣ in two lines on the r., ΘΕΑΣ ΕϒΕΤΗΡΙΑΣ in two lines on the l. Two cornucopiae filled with fruits and bound with a royal diadem. On r., On l., ΖΠΡ.

London, No. 1, gr. 16.65, PLATE II.

After Alexander II Zebina had with Egyptian help secured his position at Antioch, Demetrius II apparently removed his court to Ake-Ptolemais. At least, it is there that we find 23 Queen Cleopatra at the time that her husband Demetrius was meeting the army of the usurper near Damascus. Demetrius was routed and fled to Ake-Ptolemais, only to discover that the strong-willed Cleopatra had decided to take matters into her own hands and had shut the gates against him. He fled to Tyre, where he was slain by the governor of the city, probably by order of Cleopatra herself. She also would have none of her oldest son by Demetrius, Seleucus, and had him assassinated when he attempted to assume the diadem on his own initiative. 24

In the year 126–125 B. C., then, Cleopatra was ruling alone in Ake-Ptolemais and issued the preceding tetradrachm dated ΖΠΡ. It bears the monogram on whose strength previous scholars have assigned the com to Sycamina 25 or Scythopolis. 26 Babelon 27 rightly questions the attribution to Sycamina but offers no suggestion of his own. On numismatic grounds, and by analogy with Nos. 4–6, the monogram can only be that of some magistrate. In general, on Seleucid coins of the period, city monograms play a subordinate rôle and are seldom found except as accessories to the monogram of the officiating magistrate. 28 In other words, the coins always bear magistrates’ monograms and only oc
casionally city monograms. When but one monogram appears on a coin, we can be certain that it represents a magistrate, not a city.

Looking at the matter from a purely historical and economic standpoint, this ephemeral coinage which appeared during the short period that Cleopatra ruled alone, could have been struck only at Ake-Ptolemais, her royal residence and the city in which she and her court actually found themselves when she repudiated her worthless husband, and herself assumed the reins of government. Its style and workmanship, both of excellent quality for the period, are identical with those of the immediately preceding issue (Nos. 1–6) of Demetrius II. On these pieces the monogram, definitely proclaims their place of issue to have been Ake-Ptolemais. Because of its close similarity of style and fabric, No. 7 must also have been coined there. It is unreasonable to suppose that, in the crisis, a coin so well executed would be produced for Cleopatra at Sycamina or at Scythopolis—neither of which places had ever possessed a royal Seleucid mint of any sort. There seems no possible reason why No. 7 should not have been produced in the now active mint of the city which was Cleopatra’s capital, her residence, and the seat of her power.

The reverse type of the double cornucopiae may have been adopted in allusion to Cleopatra’s Egyptian origin, for the type is the usual one for the gold coins of that country, coins doubtless well known in Palestine. Many a gold mnaieia, with the cornucopiae reverse, had been coined at Sidon, Tyre, Joppa, Gaza and at Ake-Ptolemais itself. The double cornucopiae was also the reverse type of most of the municipal bronze coins struck at the latter city in the preceding thirty years. Thus, we have an added reason for recognizing Ake-Ptolemais as the true mint of No. 7.

End Notes

23	Appian, Syr. 68; Josephus, Antiquities XIII, 268.
24	Appian, Syr. 69; Justin, XXXIX, 1, 9; Livy, Epit., lx.
25	Percy Gardner, in British Museum Catalogue, The Seleucid Kings of Syria, p. xxx; de Saulcy, Monnaies datées des Séleucides, p. 61.
26	Edgar Rogers, Numismatic Chronicle, 4th Ser., Vol. XIX, 1919, pp. 22–29. Dr. Rogers’ arguments are somewhat weakened by the fact that he includes (p. 23) among his coins supposedly bearing the monogram , one (Babelon, No. 1359) which does not possess this monogram. The piece was actually coined at Damascus, as we shall see below, p. 60, No. 87. Further, the coin in the British Museum (The Seleucid Kings of Syria, p. 86, No. 6, Pl. XXIII, 3) which he lists, does not bear a date as he claims; and his own coin, Pl. III, 3, is dated BꟼP, not ϚꟼP.
27	Rois de Syrie etc., p. cliii.
28	An exception would seem to be Tyre, whose monogram had invariably marked its coins since the days of Alexander Bala (not to mention its issues under Ptolemy II and III). But here it is always united with the more conspicuous club which, since the time of Demetrius Poliorcetes, is par excellence the symbol of the Tyrian mint. Under the Seleucids, it never stands alone but is always accompanied by one or more magistral monograms.

125–121 B. C.

Year 125 B. C.

8. Attic Tetradrachm

Obv. Heads of Cleopatra with veil, stephane and diadem, and of Antiochus with diadem, jugate to r. Fillet border.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΗΣ ΚΛΕΟΠΑΤΡΑΣ ΘΕΑΣ in three lines on r., ΚΑΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOϒ in three lines on l. Zeus Nicephorus enthroned to l. In outer l. field,

α) London, No. 6, gr. 16.65, Pl. xxiii, 3; β) Naville Sale I, Apr. 1921, No. 3010, gr. 16.52, Pl. lxxxix; γ) Collignon Coll., Feuardent Sale, May 1914, No. 397, Pl. xx; δ) Ratto Sale, May 1912, No. 1095, gr. 15.96, Pl. xxi; ε) Vogel Coll., Hess Sale, March 1929, No. 406, gr. 16.35, Pl. 11; Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1382, gr. 16.45, Pl. 53; ζ) Otto Coll. Hess Sale 207, Dec. 1931, No. 675 (Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1383, Pl. 53), gr. 16.47, Pl. 16; η) O’Hagan Coll., Sotheby Sale, May 1908, No. 686, Pl. xi, gr. 16.26; θ) Ratto Sale, Apr. 4, 1927, No. 2518, Pl. lxiii (= Bement Coll., Naville Sale VII, June 1924, No. 1707, Pl. 59 = Schlesinger y Guzman, Sotheby Sale, July 1914, No. 118, Pl. vii), gr. 16.57; α) Mrs. E. T. Newell, gr. 16.63; κ) Newell, gr. 16.42, PLATE II; λ) Fenerly Bey Coll., Egger Sale XLI, Nov. 1912, No. 737, gr. 16.15, Pl. xx; μ) Egger Sale XLV, Nov. 1913, No. 769, gr. 15.88, Pl. xxi (= Tobin Bush Coll., Sotheby Sale, Nov. 1902, No. 250, Pl. ii); v) Bement Coll., Naville Sale VII, June 1924, No. 1706, Pl. 59; ξ) Luneau Coll., Platt Sale, Mar. 1922, No. 749, Pl. xvi; o) Sir Herman Weber Coll., Vol. III, Part II, No. 7926, gr. 15.98, Pl. 290; π) New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art (J. Ward Coll., No. 798, Pl. xx, gr. 16.49; ρ) Cons. Weber Coll., Hirsch Sale XXI, Nov. 1908, No. 4118, Pl. liv, gr. 16.53.

9. Phoenician Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding, except that the border is composed of pellets.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΗΣ ΚΛΕΟΠΑΤΡΑΣ on l., ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOY on r. Eagle standing to l. (on a thunderbolt?). In l. field, In r. field, ΖΠΡ.

Paris, No. 1336, gr. 14.00, Pl. xxiv, 1, PLATE II.

10. Bronze Unit

Obv. Radiate head of Antiochus to r. Circle of pellets.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΗΣ ΚΛΕΟΠΑΤΡΑΣ in two lines on r., ΚΑΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOϒ in three lines on l. Isis head-dress. In upper r. field, In the exergue, ΖΠΡ.

London, gr. 3.82, PLATE II.

11. Bronze Unit

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding, except that the monogram is

α) London; β) Paris, No. 1337, gr. 6.15, Pl. xxiv, 2; γ) Newell, gr. 4.96, PLATE II.

Municipal Issue

12. Bronze Half

Obv. Jugate busts of the Dioscuri to r.

Rev. ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙ in two lines on r., ΙΕΡΑΣ ΑΣϒΛΟϒ on l. Cornucopiae. In lower r. field, ΖΠΡ.

London (Brit. Mus. Cat., Phoenicia, p. 129, No. 10, Pl. xvi, 6), gr. 2.20, PLATE II.

Year 125–124 B. C.

13. Phoenician Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to No. 9.

Rev. Similar to No. 9, except that the date is ΗΠΡ.

Paris, No. 1338, gr. 13.30, PLATE III.

14. Bronze Unit

Obv. Similar to No. 10.

Rev. Similar to No. 10, except that the date is ΗΠΡ. The accompanying monogram is

α) Glasgow, Hunterian Coll., Vol. III, p. 98, No. 10, gr. 5.54, PLATE III; β) Paris, No. 1339, gr. 5.30; γ) Paris, No. 1340, gr. 5.15.

Municipal Issue

15. Bronze Quarter

Obv. Laureate head of Apollo to r., with features of Antiochus VIII. Circle of pellets.

Rev. ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙ in two lines on the r., ΙΕΡΑΣ ΑΣϒΛΟϒ on the l. Lyre. In the exergue ΗΠΡ.

Newell, gr. 1.77, PLATE III.

Year 124–123 Β. C.

16. Attic Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to No. 8. At times, the fillet border is replaced by a dotted one.

Rev. Similar to No. 8. With the same monogram in the outer l. field, but with ΘΠΡ in the exergue.

Fillet Border

α) Rogers Coll., Numismatic Chronicle, 4th Ser., Vol. XIX, 1919, p. 23, Pl. iii, 4 (= Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1378, Pl. 53), gr. 16.58; β) Hirsch Sale XXXIV, May 1914, No. 506, Pl. xvi (= Hirsch Sale XXXIII, Nov. 1913, No. 913, Pl. xxi = Prowe Coll., Egger Sale, Nov. 1904, No. 1556, Pl. x), gr. 16.45; γ) Carfrae Coll., Sotheby Sale, May 1894, No. 317, Pl. x, 10, gr. 16.59; δ) Schlessinger Sale 13, Feb. 1935, No. 1469, Pl. 52; ε) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 96, No. 1, gr. 16.67, Pl. lxix, 15.

Dotted Border

) Jameson Coll., Vol. I, No. 1742, Pl. lxxxviii (= Ashburnham Coll., Sotheby Sale, May 1895, No. 217, Pl. v = H. P. Smith Coll., Sotheby Sale, June 1905, No. 307, Pl. iii), gr. 16.84; ζ) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1379, gr. 16.70, Pl. 53; η) Cambridge, Leake Coll.; θ) Glendining Sale, March 1931, No. 1162, gr. 16.70, Pl. xxx; ι) Newell (= Rhousopoulos Coll., Hirsch Sale XIII, May 1905, No. 4471, Pl. lv = Naville Sale XV, July 1930, No. 1083, Pl. 38), gr. 16.70, PLATE III.

17. Bronze Unit

Obv. Similar to No. 10.

Rev. Similar to No. 10. Monogram, In the exergue, ΘΠΡ, beneath which a winged thunderbolt.

α) Paris, No. 1341, gr. 3.85; β) Paris, No. 1342, gr. 4.60; γ) London, gr. 6.05, PLATE III; δ) Newell, gr. 4.24; ε) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 98, No. 11, gr. 6.42, PLATE III.

Municipal Issue

18. Bronze Half

Obv. Jugate busts of the Dioscuri to r. Circle of pellets.

Rev. ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΕΝ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙ in two lines on r., ΙΕΡΑΣ ΑΣϒΛΟϒ on l. Cornucopiae. In lower, inner field, ΘΠΡ. In upper r. field, or or N (?).

α) Paris (Les Perses Achéménides, p. 218, No. 1503, with N (?) in place of monogram), gr. 2.55; β) Vienna; γ) Newell, gr. 1.91; δ) Paris (loc. cit., p. 218, No. 1502, Pl. xxix, 1), gr. 2.70, PLATE III; ε) London, gr. 2.21, PLATE III.

Year 122–121 B. C.

19. Attic Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to No. 16. Fillet border.

Rev. Similar to No. 16. In outer l. field, Beneath throne, In the exergue, AꟼP.

Paris, No. 1351, gr. 16.10, Pl. xxiv, 5, PLATE III.

Year 121 B. C.

20. Phoenician Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to No. 9.

Rev. Similar to No. 9, except that the inscriptions are transposed. The eagle stands upon a thunderbolt.

In inner l. field, In inner r. field, BꟼP.

α) Paris, No. 1358 (= Collection de Luynes, Vol. IV, No. 3404, Pl. cxxv), gr. 13.55, PLATE III; β) London, p. 85, No. 1, gr. 12.93, Pl. xxiii, 2.

21. Phoenician Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding, but beneath is the monogram

α) Paris, No. 1357, gr. 13.85, Pl. xxiv, 7, PLATE III; β) Newell, gr. 13.06; γ) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1386, gr. 13.51, Pl. 53; δ) Ratto Sale, June 1929, No. 511, Pl. xxiv (= Walcher de Molthein Coll., No. 3048, Pl. xxviii, gr. 13.32), gr. 13.15.

Within a few months of the death of Demetrius II and her own assumption of power, Cleopatra found it expedient to associate with herself on the throne her second son by Demetrius, Antiochus VIII surnamed Grypus. 29 But she, herself, retained the reins of government, as evinced by the coins which bear the portraits of both mother and son, hers ostentatiously in the foreground, while Antiochus takes second place behind his mother. On the reverse, too, her name precedes that of her son.

The coinage of Attic, as well as Phoenician tetradrachms, continues at Ake-Ptolemais; and all bear the magistrate’s monogram, On one specimen (No. 21, PLATE III), it is even accompanied by which assures us that all of these coins must have been struck at Ake-Ptolemais. Phoenician tetradrachms are known for the three years ΖΠΡ, ΗΠΡ and ΒꟼP. The eagle, as had become customary at our mint, still holds the thunderbolt in its claws. Corresponding Attic tetradrachms are known for the two years ΘΠΡ and ΑꟼΡ, which happen to be years of which we possess no Phoenician tetradrachms. This may be mere coincidence or due to the erratic chances of archaeological transmission, but even so it does suggest that when our mint was busy coining money on the Phoenician standard it tended to neglect the issue of Attic coins, and vice versa. We may therefore be at fault in tentatively placing the undated Attic tetradrachms (No. 8) at the commencement of the joint reign. Possibly these were actually coined in the year ꟼP, of which we would otherwise possess no specimens at all, neither Attic nor Phoenician. A study of possible die-identities might solve the question, one way or the other. But a search of the scanty material at the writer’s disposal reveals not a single obverse die-identity between No. 8 on the one hand and Nos. 16 and 19 on the other. A certain detail observable in the reverse type may offer a possible clue to the solution. On the Attic tetradrachms, both of Demetrius II and of Cleopatra and Antiochus VIII, the reverse type depicts the enthroned Zeus. On Demetrius II's first issue at Ake-Ptolemais (No. 1) he is invariably seated upon a diphros; in his next issue (No. 4) his throne is invariably provided with a high back. On the coins of Cleopatra, those for the year ΘΠΡ (No. 16) invariably have the high- backed throne as on the last issue of Demetrius II, while the sole known example of the year ΑꟼP (No. 19) again has the diphros. As the undated coins (No. 8) display both the diphros and the high- backed throne, they might more logically be placed between the coins of years ΘΠΡ and ΑꟼP. The point is interesting, but the author hesitates to lay too much weight upon it and would prefer to await the more conclusive evidence of die-identity—if and when obtainable.

Alongside the silver money, bronze coins of royal types were now also issued at Ake-Ptolemais. Of these, we possess specimens dated ΖΠΡ, ΗΠΡ and ΘΠΡ, some of which bear also the magistrate’s monogram, Curiously enough, these coins display only the portrait of Antiochus on their obverses, 30 though we may assume that the Isis head
dress of the reverse alludes directly to Cleopatra and her Egyptian origin. Here, her name still precedes that of her son, as on the silver coinage.

Apparently, at the time that Cleopatra seized the supreme power, she was pleased, for political reasons, to grant the city of Ake-Ptolemais an enlarged amount of local freedom and the coveted titles “holy" and “inviolate." At least, the municipal coinage which was referred to above, now continues in the usual two denominations and with the same types as before but, henceforth, bearing the additional titles, ἵερας and ἀσύλου. Fortunately, this new series of municipal issues is dated. We have ΖΠΡ, ΗΠΡ and ΘΠΡ well attested, although we do not yet possess both denominations for each year. Apparently, to judge by their sizes and weights, these municipal pieces represented the halves and quarters of the royal bronzes. If we may assume the latter to be chalci, then the two municipal denominations should represent hemichalci and dilepta—or, possibly, in the three, we have before us hemichalci, dilepta and lepta. It is to be noted that the king’s head on the royal bronze coins presents the same general contours, arrangement of locks and style as do the Dioscuri heads on the accompanying municipal bronzes— thus attesting a common mint for both categories. It is instructive to compare PLATE II, Nos. 11 and 12, PLATE III, Nos. 14 and 15, 17ε and 18ε.

In 123-122 B. C., 31 with Ptolemaic assistance, the usurper Alexander Zebina was finally overcome, and thereupon committed suicide. Cleopatra and Antiochus entered into possession of Antioch, and possibly also removed their residence thither. Certainly, a large coinage in their joint names was now commenced at the central mint. 32 It may or may not be a coincidence that for this very year (ꟼP = 123–122 B. C.) no dated coins, either in silver or in bronze, are known for Ake-Ptolemais. The silver coinage at this mint was recommenced the following year (AꟼP) and continued until Cleopatra’s death at the hands of her own son in Β4Ρ. The coinage of bronze seems not to have been resumed at this time. So far as the royal bronze is concerned, the prolific issues (dated ꟼP and AꟼP) now appearing at Antioch may have been deemed sufficient for popular needs both there and in Palestine. The apparent absence of municipal issues for the years ꟼP to ΒꟼΡ may be due to chance, as the dated issues of the city are generally extremely scarce.

It is probable that only with the year ΖΠΡ, was a truly continuous series of silver Seleucid issues definitely begun at Ake-Ptolemais. The reason is not far to seek. It was in that very year that the city of Tyre finally secured its freedom 33 from Seleucid rule and coined Seleucid types no longer. This loss to the Seleudds of an important mint was apparently counteracted at once by the introduction of a regular coinage of royal money at the nearby Ake-Ptolemais. It is, further, to be noted that in the same year (ΖΠΡ) the great mint at Damascus was also lost 34 to the faction headed by Cleopatra, and was not recovered until four years later. Thus, an additional reason for the opening up of a permanent mint-establishment at Ake-Ptolemais in the year ΖΠΡ is presented. Not only was this city Cleopatra’s capital, but for a time it actually constituted the sole mint under her jurisdiction. 35 In these difficult times, it is impossible to believe that her only mint would be in the outlying and dangerously situated town of Scythopolis, now open to an attack from Damascus by the recently victorious troops of Zebina. We are not even certain that Cleopatra was able to retain her hold on Scythopolis at this time. Obviously, Ake-Ptolemais constitutes the only possible place where a mint could have safely or logically operated for Cleopatra in the first few years of her reign. A further point militates strongly against considering Scythopolis as a possible mint. Under the Seleucids, there is not a single instance recorded of an inland city issuing coins based on the Phoenician standard. The use of that standard was confined exclusively to such coastal mints as Berytus, Sidon, Tyre, Ake-Ptolemais and Ascalon. On a priori grounds, therefore, there exists an excellent reason against accepting Scythopolis as a mint for the Phoenician tetradrachms and didrachms, here described. With them must go the accompanying Attic coins, signed by the same magistrates.

The probable reason why a true mint-mark is so seldom found on the Ake coins after ΖΠΡ, is perhaps due to the fact that, like Antioch, the city was now looked upon as a “central" mint of the Seleucid power. Certainly, under Cleopatra it was not only a central but, for a time, her sole mint. Therefore, no mark indicating locality was actually needed. When success eventually crowned Cleopatra's efforts and she had added to her kingdom the districts of Coele-Syria, Seleucis and Pieria, and Cilicia, including their central mints of Damascus, Antioch and Tarsus, habit still dictated the practice of dispensing with a true mint-mark on the coins of Ake-Ptolemais. And here the old adage that “the exception proves the rule" again demonstrates its validity. For, suddenly and in only one instance (No. 21), does reappear for a moment on the coins of Ake-Ptolemais, to distinguish them from the issues at the newly acquired mints of Damascus, Antioch and Tarsus.

First Reign, 121/0–114/3 B. C.

Year 121–120 B. C.

22. Phoenician Tetradrachm

Obv. Diademed head of Antiochus VIII to r. Circle of pellets.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ on r., ANTIOXOϒ on l. Eagle stands to l. upon a thunderbolt. In l. field, In r. field, BꟼP.

α) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1440, Pl. 56 (= Numismatic Chronicle, 4th Ser., Vol. XIX, 1919, p. 22, Pl. iii, 3), gr. 12.90; β) Cambridge, McClean Coll., Vol. III, No. 9336, gr. 13.81, Pl. 341, 10, PLATE III; γ) Newell, gr. 12.25.

Municipal Coinage

23. Bronze Half

Obv. Jugate busts of the Dioscuri to r. Circle of pellets.

Rev. ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΔΙ in two lines on r., ΙΕΡΑΣ ΑΣϒΛΟϒ on l. Cornucopiae. In inner r. field, LBꟼP.

London, gr. 1.66, PLATE III.

Year 120–119 B. C.

24. Phoenician Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to No. 22.

Rev. Similar to No. 22. In l. field, In r. field, ΓꟼΡ.

α) Paris, No. 1377, gr. 13.35; β) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1439, Pl. 56 (= Naville Sale I, Apr. 1921, No. 3011, Pl. lxxxix = Egger Sale, Jan. 1908, No. 638, Pl. xx), gr. 14.07; γ) Newell, gr. 13.38, PLATE IV.

Municipal Coinage

25. Bronze Half

Obv. Jugate heads of the Dioscuri to r. Circle of pellets.

Rev. ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΔΙ in two lines on r. (ΙΕΡΑΣ ΑΣϒΛΟϒ on l.). Cornucopiae. In inner r. field, ΓꟼΡ.

Newell, gr. 2.09, PLATE IV.

Year 118–117 B. C.

26. Phoenician Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to No. 24.

Rev. Similar to No. 24. In l. field, In r. field, EꟼP.

Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1441, Pl. 56 (= Bunbury Coll., Sotheby Sale, Dec. 1896, No. 575, Pl. vi), gr. 14.15, PLATE IV.

Municipal Coinage

27. Bronze Half

Obv. Jugate busts of the Dioscuri to r. Circle of pellets.

Rev. ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΔΙ in two lines on the r., ΙΕΡΑΣ ΑΣϒΛΟϒ on the l. Cornucopiae. In inner r. field, ΕꟼΡ. In inner l. field, or Rouvier, Nos. 965–6 = Paris, Les Perses Achéménides, Nos. 1504–5, gr. 1.82, 1.38.

Undated Coinage

Years 120–117 Β. C.

28. Attic Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding, but with a fillet border.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOϒ in two lines on r., ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟϒΣ on l. Zeus Uranius, naked, standing to l., holds star in outstretched r. and rests l. upon sceptre.

In l. field, The whole surrounded by a laurel wreath.

α) Newell, gr. 16.51; β) Newell, gr. 16.68; γ–ε) Paris, No. 1409 (Pl. XXV, 2), gr. 16.50; No. 1410, gr. 16.40; No. 1411, gr. 15.85; Naville Sale I, Apr. 1921, Nos. 3016–8, grs. 16.53, 16.57, 16.60, Pl. lxxxix; θ) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1396, gr. 16.48, Pl. 54; ι) Bement Coll., Naville Sale VII, June 1924, No. 1709, gr. 16.47, Pl. 59 (= Fenerly Bey Coll., Egger Sale XLI, Nov. 1912, No. 740, Pl. xx); κ) Allotte de la Fuÿe Coll., Ciani Sale, Feb. 1925, No. 925, gr. 16.58, Pl. 16; λ) Newell, gr. 16.68, PLATE IV; μ) Schlessinger Sale 13, Feb. 1935, No. 1475, gr. 16.30, Pl. 52; v) Schlessinger Sale 11, Feb. 1934, No. 344, Pl. 10; ξ) Hamburger Sale, May 1929, No. 413, gr. 16.50, Pl. 9; o) De Nanteuil Coll., No. 498, gr. 16.24, Pl. xxxi; π) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 99, No. 1, gr. 15.75; ρ) Ratto Sale, Apr. 1927, No. 2523, gr. 16.33, Pl. lxiii; π) Ciani Sale, 1920, No. 139, Pl. iii; σ) Hartwig Coll., Santamaria Sale, March 1910, No. 822, gr. 16.30, Pl. xv; τ) Helbing Sale, Oct. 1927, No. 3138, gr. 15.95, Pl. 59; ν–φ) American Numismatic Society, gr. 16.01 and 16.51.

Year 117–116 B. C.

29. Phoenician Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding, but with a border of pellets.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ on r., ANTIOXOϒ on l. Eagle to l. on a thunderbolt. In l. field, In r. field, ϚꟼΡ.

Paris, No. 1385, gr. 13.80, PLATE IV.

Year 116–115 B. C.

30. Phoenician Didrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. field, In r. field, ZꟼP.

α) Paris, No. 1392, gr. 6.85, Pl. xxiv, 14; β) Newell, gr. 6.75, PLATE IV.

31. Phoenician Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. field, In r. field, ZꟼP.

Paris, No. 1391, gr. 13.25, PLATE IV.

Undated Coinage

Years 117–115 B. C.

32. Attic Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding, but with fillet border.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOϒ in two lines on r., ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ on l. Zeus draped, standing, holding star in outstretched r., and resting l. upon sceptre. In l. field, The whole surrounded by a laurel wreath.

α–β) Naville Sale X, June 1925, Nos. 1405, 1406, gr, 16.42, 16.53, Pl. 54; γ) Schlessinger Sale 11, Feb. 1934, No. 343, gr. 15.60, Pl. 12; δ) Naville Sale XV, July 1930, No. 1084, gr. 16.50, Pl. 38; ε) Glasgow, Hunter Col.,Vol. III, p. 100. No. 5. gr. 16.23; Helbing Sale. Jan. 1930, No. 333, gr. 16.20, Pl. 13, PLATE IV; ζ) Newell, gr. 16.50.

Year 115–114 B. C.

33. Phoenician Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding, but the border is dotted.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ on r., ANTIOXOϒ on l. Eagle standing to l. upon a thunderbolt. In l. held, In r. field, HꟼP.

Paris, No. 1396, gr. 13.85, Pl. xxiv, 15, PLATE IV.

Year 114–113 B. C.

34. Phoenician Didrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. field, In r. field, ΘꟼΡ (the theta has been recut over a preceding eta).

London, PLATE IV.

Undated Coinage

Years 115–113 B. C.

35. Attic Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding, but with fillet border.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOϒ in two lines on r., ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟϒΣ on l. Zeus, draped, standing to l., holding star in outstretched r., resting l. upon sceptre. In l. field, or or The whole surrounded by a laurel wreath.

α) London, No. 13, gr. 16.52; β) Paris, No. 1420, gr. 16.50; γ) Newell, gr. 15.12; δ) Newell, gr. 15.87; ε) Newell, gr. 16.54; Newell, gr. 16.71; ζ) Newell, gr. 16.57, PLATE V; η) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1408, gr. 16.27, Pl. 54; θ) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1407, gr. 16.70, Pl. 54; ι) Rhousopoulos Coll., Hirsch Sale XIII, May 1905, No. 4473, gr. 15.30, Pl. lvi; κ) Schlessinger Sale 13, Feb. 1935, No. 1476, gr. 15.10, Pl. 53; λ) Cahn Sale 60, July 1928, No. 1051, gr. 16.39, Pl. 16; μ) Egger Sale, Jan. 1908, No. 643, gr. 16.03, Pl. xx; ν) Ratto Sale, Apr. 1927, No. 2521, gr. 16.64, Pl. lxiii; ξ) Fenerly Bey Coll., Egger Sale XLI, Nov. 1912, No. 743, gr. 16.40, Pl. xx; ο) Pozzi Coll., Naville Sale I, Apr. 1921, No. 3015, gr. 16.56, Pl. lxxxix; π) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 100, No. 6, gr. 16.20, Pl. lxix, 19; ρ) Egger Sale, Jan. 1908, No. 644, gr. 16.38, Pl. xx; σ) Merzbacher Sale, Nov. 1910, No. 830, gr. 16.39, Pl. 14 (= Egger Sale XLV, Nov. 1913, No. 770, Pl. xxi = Walcher de Molthein Coll., No. 3052, gr. 16.42, Pl. xxviii); τ) American Numismatic Society, gr. 16.21.

36. Attic Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. field, In r. field, Φ.

Newell, gr. 16.57, PLATE V.

Grypus disposed of his too masterful mother by forcing her to drink the poison cup intended for himself. He continued at Ake-Ptolemais the regular coinage of Attic and Phoenician tetradrachms. These now bear his portrait only. The connecting link with his mother’s coinage is the magistrate, who signs Grypus’ Phoenician tetradrachms for the remainder of the year BꟼP. 36 The eagle, as was customary at Ake-Ptolemais, is perched upon the thunderbolt. The style and fabric are identical with those found on the joint issues of this mint under the rule of Cleopatra and Antiochus.

With the year ΓꟼΡ, a new magistrate, appears, but the style and fabric continue the same. He can hardly be identical with the Tyrian who is still found signing coins in that city. The mint of Ake-Ptolemais had by now grown into so well- established an institution that it hardly seems likely it would again have needed to call upon Tyre for the loan of some practised functionary. Under the new incumbent, Phoenician and Attic tetradrachms continue to appear in great numbers, the latter being particularly common. From time to time, Phoenician didrachms also are struck. The Attic tetradrachms of may be divided into an earlier (No. 28) and a later (No. 32) group by observing that the nude Zeus on the reverse suddenly assumes drapery. The same phenomenon occurs at both the sister mints of Antioch and Damascus. But as the tetradrachms of Antioch are not dated, they help us only in a general way. 37 Fortunately, those of Damascus bear dates, from which we learn definitely that Zeus dons his himation at Damascus in the course of the year EꟼP, or between October 118 and September 117 B. C. The apparently intimate correlation which existed between the three mints under the successive reigns of Cleopatra and her son Grypus, makes it practically certain that at Ake-Ptolemais also the draped Zeus makes his appearance about 117 B. C. Hence, the coinage of No. 28 lasted from 120 to 117 B. C., followed by that of No. 32 in 117–115 B. C.

In the course of the year ZꟼP, as the dated coin No. 31 reveals, the magistrate was relieved by a new official, one who signs the remainder of the coinage for Grypus’ first reign over Ake-Ptolemais. The last dated coin, No. 34, bears the year ΘꟼΡ, or 114-113 B. C. The same date is found also on copper coins struck by Antiochus IX Cyzicenus at Antioch. 38 We know from our historical sources 39 that in 113 B. C., probably in the spring campaign
ing season, Cyzicenus appeared and drove Grypus out of Antioch. Our extant coins suggest that shortly afterwards he secured Ake-Ptolemais as well.

There are no known bronze coins, bearing the types of Antiochus VIII Grypus, which could reasonably be assigned to Ake-Ptolemais. The city, however, apparently continued to issue small, dated municipal bronze pieces as before. So far, only the dates BꟼΡ, ΓꟼΡ, and EꟼΡ have turned up. The style is now much poorer, the flans smaller, of lighter weight and more carelessly prepared than had been the case under Cleopatra. Only the “halves" are known, the smallest denomination with the lyre reverse seems no longer to have been coined.

First Reign in Ake-Ptolemais, 113–108 B. C.

Undated Coinage

Year 113–112 B. C.

37. Attic Tetradrachm

Obv. Diademed, youthful head of Antiochus IX to r. Fillet border.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOϒ in two lines on r., ΦΙΛΟΠΑΤΟΡΟΣ on l. Helmeted Athena standing to l., holding Nike in outstretched r. and resting l. upon shield and spear. In lower r. field, Σ. In l. field, The whole surrounded by a laurel wreath.

α) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1475, Pl. 58, gr. 16.20; β) Newell, gr. 16.58, PLATE V.

38. Attic Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding, but the sigma is re
placed by a STAR.

Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1462, gr. 16.27, Pl. 57, PLATE V.

39. Attic Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding, but in l. field, star above above University Museum, Philadelphia, PLATE V.

40. Attic Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding, but in l. field, Star above In the exergue,

α) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1476, gr. 15.87, Pl. 58; β) Newell, gr. 16.32, PLATE V.

41. Attic Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding, only, in l. field.

α) Prof. Oman, Numismatic Chronicle, 4th Ser., Vol. XIX, 1919, Pl. X, 3; β) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1474, gr. 16.00, Pl. 58; 7) Bement Coll., Naville Sale VII, June 1924, No. 1713, gr. 16.15, Pl. 60; δ) London, No. 9, gr. 15.58, PLATE V; ε) Ratto Sale, Apr. 1927, No. 2534, gr. 14.86, Pl. lxiii. α, β and γ are from the same obverse die.

42. Attic Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding, except that in l. field is

α) Dayet Coll., Platt Sale, June 1925, No. 32, gr. 16.35, Pl. i; β) London, No. 7, gr. 16.36, Pl. xxiv, 9, PLATE V.

Year 112–111 B. C.

43. Phoenician Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding, but with a dotted border.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ on r., ANTIOXOϒ on l. Eagle standing to l. upon a thunderbolt. In l. field, in r. field, LAΣ.

α) Paris, No. 1457, gr. 13.50; β) London, No. 2 (Pl. xxiv, 7), gr. 13.82, PLATE VI.

44. Attic Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding, but with fillet border.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOϒ in two lines on r., ΦΙΛΟΠΑΤΟΡΟΣ on l. Athena as on No. 37. In l. field, The whole surrounded by a laurel wreath.

Walcher de Molthein Coll., No. 3060, gr. 14.00, Pl. xxix, PLATE VI.

Municipal Issue

45. Trihemiobol (?)

Obv. Laureate head of Apollo to r. Border of pellets.

Rev. Lyre. On l., On r., LΑΣ.

Berlin (Imhoof-Blumer, Monnaies grecques, p. 449, No. 57, Pl. J, 6), gr. 1.08.

Year 111–110 B. C.

46. Phoenician Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to No. 43.

Rev. Similar to No. 43. In l. field, Δ. In r. field, LΒΣ.

Paris, No. 1458, gr. 13.80, PLATE VI.

47. Attic Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding, but with fillet border.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOϒ in two lines on r., ΦΙΛΟΠΑΤΟΡΟΣ on l. Athena as on No. 44. In l. field, Δ. Laurel wreath around.

α) London, No. 8, gr. 16.16, PLATE VI; β) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 104, No. 1, gr. 16.20.

(?) Year 110–109 B. C.

Undated Coinage

48. Attic Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. field,

α) Prof. Oman (Numismatic Chronicle, 4th Ser., Vol. XIX, 1919, Pl. X, 2; β) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1464, gr. 14.89, Pl. 58; γ) Newell, gr. 15.27; δ) Newell, gr. 16.32, PLATE VI; ε) R. Jameson Coll., No. 1750, gr. 15.11, Pl. lxxxix.

β and ε are from the same obverse die.

49. Attic Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding, but with cornucopiae alongside the

α) London, No. 10, gr. 15.88; β) Allotte de la Fuÿe Coll., Ciani Sale, Feb. 1925, No. 938, gr. 15.80, Pl. 17; γ) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1463, gr. 15.35, Pl. 57; δ) Newell, gr. 15.75; ε) Newell (Collignon Coll., Feuardent Sale. May 1914. No. 400. Pl. xx), gr. 15.63: Newell, gr. 16.37, PLATE VI.

Year 109–108 B. C.

50. Phoenician Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding, but with circle of dots.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ on r., ANTIOXOT on I. Eagle to l. on a thunderbolt. In l. field, In r. field, LΔΣ. Circle of dots.

Paris, No. 1405, gr. 12.80, PLATE VI.

Year 107–106 B. C.

51. Phoenician Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Same inscription and type as on the preceding. In l. field, combined with a barley-stalk. In r. field, LϚΣ.

London, No. 4, gr. 13.61, PLATE VI.

Cyzicenus, once in possession of Ake-Ptolemais, continued there the usual parallel coinage of dated Phoenician tetradrachms and undated Attic tetradrachms of royal types, laying particular stress on the latter. These are identical in style and fabric with the issues of his predecessor, but now display the rather foolish features of young Cyzicenus on the obverse, and the standing Athena (a type especially favored by his father, Sidetes) on the reverse. The new issue is at first signed by the same official, who had been functioning at Ake-Ptolemais for the last three years of Grypus. His monogram is frequently accompanied by that of a subordinate, as on the final issue of Grypus, No. 36. In this case, however, the subordinate’s signature is or Σ. 40 On most of these coins the features of Cyzicenus are very youthful, although the traces of a nascent beard are visible just in front of the ear and sometimes extending down to the corner of the jaw.

To this same issue (Nos. 37–41), has been added a variety (No. 42) bearing the monogram This association has been suggested by the extreme youthfulness of the king’s features. So similar, in fact, is its obverse die to that of some of ’s coins (cf. PLATE V, 37–38) that it requires careful comparison to assure us that it is not indeed identical.

For the year 112–111 B. C., we again have the issue (No. 43) of a dated Phoenician tetradrachm, accompanied by a corresponding issue of the undated Attic tetradrachm (No. 44). Both coins bear the signature who is possibly the same person once so active under Cleopatra in the mint at Ake-Ptolemais. Because of the close similarity in style and fabric between these pieces and the immediately preceding issues, they cannot possibly be removed from the series as a whole and assigned to Sycamina or Scythopolis, as has been proposed. They, obviously, form part and parcel of the long series of issues which emanated from our mint in these last years of the Seleucid dynasty. Ake-Ptolemais had evidently now become the “central" mint for the entire southern coastal region still remaining under Seleucid domination. At this particular period, Cyzicenus' hold on Antioch was demonstrably intermittent, 41 and he was again and again ejected from the capital by the armies of Grypus. He could not, therefore, count on its great mint for a steady production of the money he needed so badly in his desperate struggle with his brother. That had largely to be supplied by his provincial mints of Damascus 42 and Ake-Ptolemais, for we know that the principal seat of his power was in the south. 43 The burden of coinage probably fell even more heavily upon these two mints when one of the last Seleucid strongholds, Sidon, having finally secured its freedom, 44 ceased forever to coin for Seleucid account.

Of necessity, Cyzicenus apparently granted further privileges to the municipality of Ake-Ptolemais, for in the year ΑΣ (112-111 B. C.) it even commenced to coin small silver pieces (No. 45) with autonomous types. The city fathers refrained, or were constrained, from inscribing the coins with more than a modest monogram, and they continued the Seleucid system of dating. It is interesting to find on these coins, and notably on the tetradrachms Nos. 43, 46, 50 and 51, the sudden appearance of the Egyptian sign (L) for year, preceding the Seleucid date. Seleucid mints, indeed, had rarely employed it, but Sidon and Tyre both definitely adopted it on their autonomous coins the moment they had obtained their freedom.

In the following year ΒΣ (111–110 B. C.), we possess a further coinage of dated Phoenician (No. 46) and undated Attic tetradrachms (No. 47), now signed by Δ. To this same year, Rouvier would assign his bronze coin of Ake-Ptolemais, No. 971, with the reverse type of a lyre. The coin is now in the author’s collection, but the letters which its former owner doubtfully read as ΣΒ are something more like IE, of which the E at least is certain. It would appear to be a magistrate’s signature and not a date.

Nos. 48–49, signed by the magistrate would seem to have been the final Attic coinage at Ake-Ptolemais of Cyzicenus. The portrait which they bear is a little more mature than any we have yet encountered, while the beard is more pronounced and extends to the point of the chin. As yet no corresponding dated Phoenician tetradrachms have appeared. The Cornucopiae, alongside the monogram on No. 49, may perhaps be taken as an indication of our mint, 45 rather than a magistrate’s symbol, as symbols, in general, do not otherwise accompany 46 the monograms on the Seleucid issues of Ake-Ptolemais.

For the years 109–108 and 107-106 B. C. we again have Phoenician tetradrachms. They bear the eagle upon a thunderbolt, so characteristic of the Phoenician silver issues of our mint, and continue from Nos. 43, 45 and 46 the use of the Egyptian year sign (L) preceding the date. Their general style and fabric are the usual ones for Ake-Ptolemais, while the magistrate’s monogram on No. 51 is combined with a barley-stalk, reminiscent of the same plant which accompanies the eagle on the coins of this city under Alexander I and Ptolemy VI. The mint of Nos. 50 and 51 must therefore certainly be Ake-Ptolemais. No. 50 has been assigned by Babelon to Grypus, 47 but both profile and expression of the portrait head are typically those of Cyzicenus, as a comparison with the remaining coins on PLATE VI will readily show. The characteristic hawk-like beak of Grypus is not apparent. Traces of the cheek-beard, so typical of Cyzicenus at this period of his life, can just be made out in front of the ear, in spite of the fact that some of the metal has flaked away from this very spot on the unique specimen of No. 50 in the Paris cabinet.

Cyzicenus cannot much longer have been actual master in Ake-Ptolemais, as Josephus 48 tells us that soon after the new ruler of the Jews, Alexander Jannaeus, had secured the power in 104–103 B. C. he laid siege to Ake-Ptolemais in an attempt to add it to his kingdom. Apparently the citizens could expect no further protection either from Grypus or from Cyzicenus. For Josephus says: “while Antiochus Philopator (i. e., Grypus), and Antiochus who was called Cyzicenus, were making war against one another, and destroying one another’s armies, the people of Ptolemais could have no assistance from them … nor indeed had the kings such a friendship for them as that they should hope for any advantage from them." Thus, Josephus plainly offers us the explanation why we possess no further Seleucid coinages at Ake-Ptolemais after the No. 51 here described. The Syrian kings no longer ruled over the city, and Seleucid domination and coinage had alike come to their end.

End Notes

2	The gold coins of Seleucus I assigned to Ake-Ptolemais by Rouvier, Journal internationale d’archéologie numismatique, Vol. IV, 1901, p. 200, Nos. 929–934 and by Babelon, Rois de Syrie etc., pp. xi and xxxvi, have long been recognized as certainly belonging elsewhere. Cf. Hill, Brit. Mus. Cat., Phoenicia, p. lxxviii, n. 3; Newell, Tyrus Rediviva, p. 18, n. 7.
3	Babelon, loc. cit., pp. ciii and 79, Nos. 619–23; J. Rouvier, loc. cit., p. 201, Nos. 935–40. The tetradrachm No. 941 is of the Antioch mint. The bronze coin of this mint, given by Babelon, p. 59, No. 456, to Antiochus III, has been shown by Rouvier, loc. cit., p. 213, No. 991, to be an issue of Claudius I. Cf. also B. M. C., Phoenicia, p. lxxix.
4	Rouvier, loc. cit., p. 203, No. 949 (his Nos. 947–8 are of the Antioch mint). Unfortunately No. 949 is a modern cast, but made from a genuine coin now lost. There do, however, exist two genuine examples of these Phoenician tetradrachms struck at Ake-Ptolemais by Alexander Bala. One, dated ΒΞΡ, was secured by Rouvier after the publication of his work, and is now in the author’s collection (Cf. Plate I, A); the second, dated ΓΞΡ, was in Col. Allotte de la Fuye’s collection, sold by Ciani in February 1925, No. 837, Pl. 15, and is also in the author’s collection.
5	J. N. Svoronos, Τὰ Νομίσματα τοῦ κράτους τῶν Πτολεμαίων, Vol. II, p. 244, No. 1486, Pl. XLVIII, 19–20.
6	At Berytus, the eagle stands upon a palm-branch, at Tyre upon a ship’s ram, at Sidon upon nothing at all.
7	Babelon, loc. cit., No. 1056, Pl. XXI, 4; Rouvier, loc. cit., No. 953. Another example, in the Hague, was published by Imhoof- Blumer, Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Vol. III, 1876, Pl. IX, 9. These coins we again find marked by the barley stalk, the monogram and the thunderbolt. Cf. Plate I, B.
8	Brit. Mus. Cat., Phoenicia, p. 128, Nos. 1–7; Rouvier, loc. cit., Nos. 962, 972. His No. 971 also belongs here, but he mistook the magistral letters IB as a date (ΒΣ).

138–129 B. C.

Year 138 B. C.

52. Tetradrachm

Obv. Diademed head of Antiochus VII to r. Fillet border.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOϒ in two lines on r., ΕϒΕΡΓΕΤΟϒ on l. Helmeted Athena standing to l., holding: Nike in her outstretched r., resting l. upon shield. In inner l. field, In the exergue, ΔΟΡ. The whole surrounded by a laurel wreath.

Newell (from Baghdad), gr. 16.55, PLATE VII.

Year 138–137 B. C.

53. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. field, above Δ. In the exergue, EOP.

Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1282, gr. 16.27, Pl. 48, PLATE VII.

54. Drachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Same inscription as on the preceding. Winged Nike advancing to l., holding wreath in her outstretched r. In outer l. field, above Newell (from Damascus), gr. 3.89, PLATE VII.

Year 137–136 B. C.

55. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to No. 53. In l. field, ΛΕ above In the exergue, ϚOP.

London, No. 13, gr. 16.78, Pl. xx, 6, PLATE VII.

Year 135–134 B. C.

56. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. field, ΛΕ above In the exergue, HOP.

α) London, No. 14, gr. 15.80; β) Newell, gr. 15.20; γ) Paris, No. 1112, gr. 16.50, PLATE VII.

Year 134–133 B. C.

57. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. field, ΛΕ above In the exergue, ΘΟΡ.

α) Cambridge, Leake Coll.; β) London, No. 15, gr, 15.01; γ) Fenerly Bey Coll., Egger Sale XLI, Nov. 1912, No. 723, gr. 16.52, Pl. xix; δ) Paris, No. 1117 (De Luynes Coll., No. 3383, Pl. cxxiv), gr. 16.45.

58. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. field, above In the exergue, ΘΟΡ.

London, No. 16, gr. 16.20, PLATE VII.

Year 133–132 B. C.

59. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. field, ΛΕ. In the exergue, ΠΡ.

α) Newell (Allotte de la Fuÿe Coll., Ciani Sale, Feb. 1925, No. 890, Pl. 16), gr. 16.29; β) Newell, gr. 16.40, PLATE VII.

60. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. field, In the exergue, ΠΡ.

Paris, No. 1123, gr. 15.65, PLATE VII.

Year 132–131 B. C.

61. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In 1. field, ΛΕ. In the exergue, ΑΠΡ.

α) Newell, gr. 15.77; β) Newell, gr. 16.05, PLATE VII; γ) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 79, No. 1, gr. 16.09.

62. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. field, In the exergue, ΑΠΡ.

Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 79, No. 2, gr. 16.46, Pl. lxviii, 13, PLATE VIII.

Year 131–130 B. C.

63. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. field, or In the exergue, ΒΠΡ.

α) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1288, gr. 16.55, Pl. 48; β) London, No. 17, gr. 16.03, PLATE VIII.

α and β are from the same obverse die as 62.

64. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. field, In the exergue, ΒΠΡ.

α) Ciani Sale, Oct. 1920, No. 104, Pl. 3; β) Paris, No. 1128, gr. 16.45; γ) Paris, No. 1129, gr. 16.65 (= de Luynes Coll., No. 3385, Pl. cxxiv), PLATE VIII. α and γ are from the same obverse die.

Year 130–129 B. C.

65. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. field, above Δ. In the exergue, ΓΠΡ.

De Nanteuil Coll., No. 496, gr. 16.55, Pl. xxxi, PLATE VIII (the mold from the obverse die was damaged before casting).

From the same obverse die as No. 64 α, γ.

66. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. field, N above Δ. In the exergue, ΓΠΡ.

Newell (Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1289, Pl. 48), gr. 16.54, PLATE VIII.

From the same obverse die as No. 65.

Antiochus VII re-opened the mint at Damascus in the very year (ΔΟΡ = 139–8 B. C.) of his arrival in Syria and his seizure of the power from the hated usurper, Tryphon. The mint now began to coin steadily, and we possess its issues for every year but one of Antiochus' reign. That lacuna is probably due to chance, as the yearly coinage seems not to have been over-large. With the exception of the first year (ΔΟΡ), the issues are supervised by two magistrates whose monograms appear together on the coins from year EOP through ΘΟΡ. Thereafter, from ΠΡ through ΒΠΡ, the coinage is divided into two groups, the one signed by a single magistrate, the other by his associate. In the final year of the reign (ΓΠΡ), the initials of two magistrates again appear together on each coin, and continue to do so under the succeeding reigns.

In silver, Damascus coined only Attic tetradrachms and drachms, employing the same types as used at Antioch, 4 i. e., a standing Athena for the large denomination, a winged Nike for the small. Though the types are the same, the issues of Damascus are clearly differentiated from the more prolific ones of Antioch by certain peculiarities. In the first place, they bear dates, while the Antiochene silver issues do not. Year by year they are supervised by two magistrates only, 5 while at Antioch (because of the size of her issues) a whole galaxy of magistrates officiate. Furthermore, for the greater part of the time, the latter’s issues are distinguished either by the presence of the monogram, placed in the left-hand field above an alpha (for the mint name, Antioch?) or by the alpha placed beneath other magistral monograms. At Damascus, we find only magistrates' monogram or initial. The style of our Damascene coins also differentiates them from those of Antioch. Generally speaking, it is heavier, clumsier, and less compact. With the exception of the first issue, the king’s head is of lower relief, and not so well modelled. The flans, also, tend to be more spread than those of the capital. These, and other differences, are strikingly obvious when the two series are placed side by side and compared.

Granted, then, that Nos. 52–66 form a compact group by themselves, clearly differentiated from the issues of Antioch, how do we know that they must be assigned to Damascus? The first step is one of elimination. The shrunken territories that throughout the greater part of his reign acknowledged the sway of Antiochus VII, comprised only Cilicia, North Syria (including Seleucis, Pieria, and the cantons to the east), the coastal districts of Phoenicia and Palestine, and, finally, inner Syria, which we shall conveniently designate as Coele-Syria. In the reorganization carried out by Antiochus VII after the chaos engendered by the internecine wars between Alexander I and Demetrius II, and between the latter and Antiochus VI and Tryphon, we sense several changes that had come to the coinages of the kingdom. First, a stable mint was provided for the district of Cilicia at Tarsus 6 which now, for the first time, commenced regularly to coin tetradrachms and drachms bearing on their reverses the types of Sandan. 7 Secondly, the district of North Syria was sufficiently furnished with the necessary coin by the great central mint at the royal capital of Antioch. The monetary demands of Phoenicia and Palestine were, of course, well taken care of by the very active mints at Sidon and Tyre, followed later, as we have seen, by that at Ake-Ptolemais. In this coastal district, and here alone, money of Phoenician weight was coined, supplemented from time to time by royal issues brought out on the accustomed Attic standard. There thus remains unsupplied with a suitable central mint only the important district of Inner Syria with its great metropolis of Damascus. To that mint alone are we logically justified in assigning so continuous a coinage as that represented by Nos. 52-66. Finally, as we shall soon learn, these coins are but the beginning of a long series of issues which lead directly into, and eventually end with, such coins as Nos. 115–153. It has long been known 8 that these latter could have been coined at Damascus only.

To the group of coins described here, there should perhaps also be added the undated tetradrachm which appeared in the Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1304, Pl. 49. In its style and general appearance, the coin is not unlike our Nos. 59–66, but as it bears no date and as the letters in its field are never found on the certain Damascene issues, it has not been included.

Doubtless, royal bronze coins were also struck at Damascus to accompany the silver issues, but at present we have not sufficient data available to make definite attributions possible, or even desirable. A visit to the museum at Damascus, and search among the bazaars of that city, might lead to useful results.

Second Reign in Damascus, 129–126/5 B. C.

Year 129 B. C.

67. Tetradrachm

Obv. Bearded head of Demetrius II to r. The hair at the back of the head and of the beard is not curly. Fillet border.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟϒ in two lines on r., ΘΕΟϒ ΝΙΚΑΤΟΡΟΣ in two lines on l. Zeus, naked to waist, seated to l. on diphros, holding Nike in outstretched r. and resting l. upon sceptre. In inner l. field, ΝΔ or ΔΝ. In the exergue, ΓΠΡ.

α) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1354, Pl. 52 (= White-King Coll., Schulman Sale, Sept. 1904, No. 606, Pl. vi), gr. 16.67; β) London (= Bunbury Coll., Sotheby Sale, Dec. 1896, No. 545, Pl. v = Numismatic Chronicle, 3rd Ser., Vol. III, 1883, pp. 100–102, Pl. vi, 4), gr. 16.46; γ) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1341, Pl. 51 (= Num. Chron., 4th Ser., Vol. XII, 1912, p. 254, No. 23, Pl. x, 11) gr. 16.43; δ) Newell, gr. 16.51, PLATE VIII; ε) Cons. Weber Coll., Hirsch Sale XXI, Nov. 1908, No. 4110, Pl. liii, gr. 16.68.

α, β, γ, and δ are from the same obverse dies. β and γ are also from the same reverse die. It is obvious that on the Bunbury specimen, the king’s beard has been tooled away in modern times.

Year 129–128 B. C.

68. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding, but the hair is more curly.

Rev. Similar to the precedine:. Beneath the throne. In the exergue, ΔΠΡ.

α) Newell, gr. 16.66; β) University Museum, Philadelphia (= Merzbacher Sale, Nov. 1910, No. 829, gr. 16.63, Pl. 14); γ) Cumberland-Clark Coll., Sotheby Sale, Jan. 1914, No. 280, gr. 16.30, Pl. viii; δ) London, No. 12, gr. 16.43, PLATE VIII; ε) American Numismatic Society, gr. 15.90.

β and δ are from the same pair of dies; ε is from the same obverse but another reverse die.

69. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding, but beneath throne.

α) Hirsch Sale XXXIV, May 1914, No. 505, Pl. xvi (= Hirsch Sale XXXIII, Nov. 1913, No. 911, Pl. xxi), gr. 16.25; β) Egger Sale XLV, Nov. 1913, No. 767, gr. 16.06, Pl. xxi; γ) Locker-Lampson Coll., No. 348, gr. 16.43, Pl. xxvi; δ) Hamburger Sale, June, 1930, No. 429, gr. 16.15, Pl. 14; ε) Newell, gr. 16.33, PLATE VIII; London, No. 13, gr. 16.58.

α, β, γ are from the same obverse die. δ and ε are from another obverse die.

Year 128–127 B. C.

70. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. Beneath throne, In the exergue, ΕΠΡ.

α) Naville Sale XVI, July 1933, No. 1449, gr. 16.57, Pl. 48; β) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1344, gr. 16.34, Pl. 51; γ) Cambridge, McClean Coll., Vol. III, No. 9330, gr. 16.42, Pl. 341, 4, PLATE IX.

α, β and γ are from the same obverse die.

71. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. field, Beneath throne, In the exergue, ΕΠΡ.

Egger Sale XLVI, May 1914, No. 2464, gr. 16.65, Pl. xl, PLATE IX.

Year 127-126 B. C.

72. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In outer l. field, or Beneath throne, In the exergue, ϚΠΡ.

α) Glendining Sale, March 1931, No. 1161, Pl. xxx (= Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1347, Pl. 51), gr. 16.12; β) Newell, gr. 16.58, PLATE IX; 7) Allotte de la Fuÿe Coll., Ciani Sale, Feb. 1925, No. 899, gr. 16.10, Pl. 16; δ) Hamburger Sale 98, Apr. 1933, No. 843, gr. 16.35, Pl. 26; ε) Naville Sale IV, June 1922, No. 968, Pl. xxxiv (= Schlesinger y Guzman Coll., Sotheby Sale, July 1914, No. 117, Pl. vi = Butler Coll., Sotheby Sale, July 1911, No. 265, Pl. vi), gr. 16.66; Bement Coll., Naville Sale VII, June 1924, No. 1699, Pl. 59 (= O’Hagan Coll., Sotheby Sale, May 1908, No. 674, Pl. xi), gr. 16.60; ζ) Newell, gr. 16.11, PLATE IX; η) Egger Sale, Jan. 1908, No. 627, gr. 16.51, Pl. xix; θ) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1345, gr. 16.68, Pl. 51; ι) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1346, gr. 16.65, Pl. 51; κ) Tobin Bush Coll., Sotheby Sale, Nov. 1902, No. 244, Pl. ii.

α, β, γ are from the same obverse die. ε–ι, inclusive, are from another obverse die. δ and κ are from a single pair of dies.

73. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding, but of finer style.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. Between the feet of Zeus, Δ. Beneath the throne, Ω. In the exergue, ϚΠΡ.

London, No. 15, gr. 16.57, PLATE IX.

74. Drachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. The same letters in the same positions, but no date in the exergue.

α) Jameson Coll., Vol. IV, No. 2610, gr. 3.84, Pl. cxxxvii (= Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1355, Pl. 52); β) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 87, No. 5, Pl. lxviii, 24, gr. 3.83. PLATE IX; γ) Newell, gr. 4.04.

Year 126–125 B. C.

75. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding, but style not quite so good.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In outer l. field, Beneath the throne, In the exergue, ΙΠΡ.

α) Electrotype; β) Naville Sale I, Apr. 1921, No. 3005, gr. 16.34, Pl. lxxxix, PLATE IX.

α and β are from the same obverse die.

76. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In outer l. field, above Beneath throne, In the exergue, ɪΠΡ.

London, No. 16, gr. 16.52, PLATE IX.

77. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In outer l. field, above Beneath throne, In the exergue, ɪΠΡ.

London (= Bunbury Coll., Sotheby Sale, Dec. 1896, No. 548, Pl. v), gr. 16.39, PLATE IX.

Under Demetrius II, now returned from Parthia, the mint of Damascus continued to coin its usual dated tetradrachms. They begin in ΓΠΡ, which is Antiochus VII's last year as well as the first year of Demetrius II's second reign in Coele-Syria. The magistral letters, delta and nu, are found on the issues of both kings. They continue to appear in the succeeding year, ΔΠΡ, but now in monogram form. In the same year (ΔΠΡ), they are succeeded by a monogram composed of the two letters, ksi and delta. As these letters together cannot possibly represent the initials of a single name, and as they are arranged in the same manner as the preceding delta and nu (which, themselves, must represent two persons as shown by comparing Nos. 66 and 67), it seems obvious that ksi and delta must also constitute the initial letters of two separate names. During the short second reign of Demetrius II at Antioch (129-128 B. C.), several of his issues there were signed by the letters, Ξ and Δ, or Ξ and O. 9 Alexander II Zebina seized Antioch, and himself began to coin there in ΔΠΡ, employing magistrates entirely different from those found under Demetrius. 10 It would seem quite likely, therefore, that Ξ (at least) had fled from Antioch with his master, and continued to work for him at Damascus for the remainder of ΔΠΡ (No. 69) and the following ΕΠΡ (No. 70). Whether the delta which accompanies his letter at Damascus represents the same person who had also officiated with him at Antioch, or is the Δ who previously appears at Damascus, on Nos. 6568, it would be difficult to determine. In any case, the same letter, delta, again appears in ϚΠΡ (Nos. 73-74), now accompanied by an omega, which may be only the second letter of his name but more probably indicates another magistrate. The drachm, No. 74, had previously been assigned to Antioch by the writer, 11 who at that time had failed to observe that it must almost certainly belong with the tetradrachm, No. 73. The latter’s attribution to Damascus is practically assured by the presence of a date in its exergue, a practice not followed on its silver issues at Antioch after the reign of Antiochus VI. Certainly it cannot have been struck at Antioch as Alexander, not Demetrius, ruled there in this year. The style of the die-cutting in the portraits on Nos. 73–74 is far better than is customarily found at Damascus, and more nearly approaches the excellence of the Antiochene issues of the period. Can it be that some die-engraver, too, had escaped from Antioch and joined Demetrius in Damascus?

Throughout the years ΕΠΡ and ϚΠΡ, alongside these tetradrachms and drachms marked by letters rather than by monograms, come other coins (Nos. 71–2), which bear real monograms, one in the outer l. field, the other beneath the throne. Apparently, the mint at Damascus was now going through a period of unusual activity. The reason is not far to seek. It had to supply for Demetrius the place of the lost mint at the capital of Antioch. In ΕΠΡ, as we have seen above, the mint at Ake-Ptolemais was also reopened, and great coining activity begun in order to assist yet further the finances of Demetrius.

At Damascus, the coinage continues into ΖΠΡ, when a third magistrate’s monogram is added to the field of the coin (Nos. 76–7). This is the last year of Demetrius’ reign. The disastrous campaign against the usurper Alexander proceeded until Demetrius suffered his final defeat before the walls of Damascus, probably in the spring of 125 B. C. He fled to Ake-Ptolemais, only to be turned away by the exasperated Cleopatra and to meet his death on shipboard in the harbor of Tyre.

An accompanying bronze coinage at Damascus may be represented by the type described in Babelon, Nos. 1189–92, Pl. XXII, 10 and the British Museum Catalogue, Pl. XXI, 11. The known specimens are all dated ΔΠΡ. Their fabric is Syrian and the style not unlike that of the silver coins described above. Certainty in the matter can hardly be attained until more provenance records than are at present available to the writer can be secured.

Reign in Damascus, 125–123 B. C.

Year 125 B. C.

78. Tetradrachm

Obv. Diademed head of Alexander to r. Fillet border.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ on r., ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟϒ on l. Zeus, naked to waist, seated to l. upon throne, holding Nike in his outstretched r. and resting l. upon sceptre. In outer l. field, Beneath throne, In the exergue, IΠΡ.

α) Bunbury Coll., Sotheby Sale, Dec. 1896, No. 557, Pl. v, gr. 16.26; β) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1359, Pl. 52 (= Egger Sale XLV, Nov. 1913, No. 719, Pl. xx), gr. 16.31; γ) Newell, gr. 15.77, PLATE X; δ) Paris, No. 1274, gr. 16.10, Pl. xxiii, 3.

Year 125–124 B. C.

79. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. field, or Beneath throne, In the exergue, ΗΠΡ.

α) Egger Sale, Jan. 1908, No. 630, gr. 16.49, Pl. xix; β) Cambridge, McClean Coll., Vol. III, No. 9334, gr. 16.63, Pl. 341, 8, PLATE X; γ) Paris, No. 1275, gr. 14.40; δ) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 91, No. 1, gr. 16.32, Pl. lxix, 6; ε) Cambridge, McClean Coll., Vol. III, No. 9333, gr. 16.23, Pl. 341, 7; Newell, gr. 15.42.

β, δ–ε are from the same obverse die, but on the reverse of ε the monogram beneath the throne differs slightly in form, and the date is off flan.

80. Drachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ on the r., ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟϒ on the l. Double cornucopiae bound with a diadem. In inner l. field, In inner r. field, In the exergue, ΗΠΡ.

Newell, gr. 3.91, PLATE X.

Year 124–123 B. C.

81. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to No. 78.

Rev. Similar to No. 78. In outer l. field, Beneath throne, In the exergue, ΘΠΡ.

Allotte de la Fuÿe Coll., Ciani Sale, Feb. 1925, No. 904, gr. 16.07, Pl. 16, PLATE X.

82. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In outer l. field, Beneath throne, or In the exergue, ΘΠΡ.

α) Allotte de la Fuÿe Coll., Ciani Sale, Feb. 1925, No. 905, gr. 16.10, Pl. 16; β) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1360, gr. 16.08, Pl. 52, PLATE X.

83. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In outer l. field, Beneath throne, or In the exergue, ΘΠΡ.

α) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1361, gr. 16.30, Pl. 52; β) Schlessinger Sale 13, Feb. 1935, No. 1466, gr. 16.30, Pl. 52; γ) Electrotype; δ) Newell, gr. 16.07, PLATE X; ε) Paris, No. 1276, gr. 15.45; Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 92, No. 2, gr. 15.18.

Year 123–122 B. C.

84. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In outer l. field, Beneath throne, In the exergue, ꟼP.

α) Walcher de Molthein Coll., No. 3043, gr. 16.30, Pl. xxviii; β) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1362, gr. 16.43, Pl. 52; γ) Newell, gr. 16.57, PLATE X; δ) Paris, No. 1277, gr. 16.00; ε) Newell, gr. 16.67; American Numismatic Society, gr. 15.90.

γ, ε and δ are from the same obverse but different reverse dies.

85. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In outer l. field, Beneath throne, In the exergue, ꟼP.

α) Newell, gr. 16.10, PLATE X; β) Yakountchikoff, Unpublished Coins (in Russian), p. 41, No. 105, Pl. viii, gr. 14.56.

For three full years the mint of Damascus, now proceeded to strike coins for its new master. In style, fabric and arrangement of design they are exactly similar to those of Demetrius. As is natural enough, the issues of the victor start out under the auspices of two new officials who continue in office to the year ΘΠΡ. At that time, the monogram beneath the throne is changed and the new incumbent continues through the remainder of the year and into the next. Just before Alexander’s final issue at Damascus, this magistrate is replaced by a new man (No. 82). Throughout these years, the chief magistrate (whose monogram appears in the outer l. field) remains the same, since and are probably but variants of one monogram. In the year ꟼP, the issues come to an abrupt end, for in 123–2 B. C. Alexander was utterly defeated by the young Antiochus VIII, and committed suicide.

We may possibly have an accompanying bronze coinage indicated by the piece in the Hunter Collection, Vol. III, p. 95, No. 40, Pl. LXIX, 12, whose monogram, is not unlike that of the chief magistrate signing our silver coins. The latter display two slightly variant styles of workmanship. One is quite good (Cf. PLATE X, Nos. 78-80, 82), but commencing with year ΘΠΡ, is gradually replaced by a style whose chief characteristics are very low relief, flat fabric, careless and uninteresting drawing (cf. PLATE X, Nos. 83–85).

Reign in Damascus 122–120 B. C.

Year 122–121 B. C.

86. Tetradrachm

Obv. Diademed busts of Cleopatra and Antiochus VIII jugate to r. Fillet border.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΗΣ ΚΛΕΟΠΑΤΡΑΣ ΘΕΑΣ in three lines on r., ΚΑΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOϒ in three lines on l. Zeus, naked to waist, enthroned to l., holding Nike in outstretched r. and resting l. upon sceptre. In outer l. field, Beneath throne, In the exergue, AꟼP.

London, PLATE X.

Year 121–120 B. C.

87. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In outer l. field, Beneath throne, In the exergue, BꟼP.

α) Paris, No. 1359, gr. 16.45; β) Burel Coll., Feuardent Sale, June 1913, No. 343, Pl. vi; γ) Butler Coll., Sotheby Sale, July 1911, No. 270, Pl. vi; δ) Cahn Sale 65, Oct. 1929, No. 261, Pl. 8 (= Cahn Sale 60, July 1928, No. 1049, Pl. 16), gr. 16.55; ε) Schlessinger Sale 13, Feb. 1935, No. 1470, gr. 15.70, Pl. 52; Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1380, gr. 16.34, Pl. 53; ζ) London, No. 3, gr. 16.26; η) Fenerly Bey Coll., Egger Sale XLI, Nov. 1912, No. 736, gr. 16.27, Pl. xx; θ) Newell (Allotte de la Fuÿe Coll., Ciani Sale, Feb. 1925, No. 914, Pl. 16), gr. 16.68, PLATE XI (The obverses of 87 and 88 have become interchanged on the plate); ι) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 97, No. 2, gr. 15.38.

γ, δ, ε, are from the same obverse die. ζ, η and θ are from another obverse die.

88. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In outer l. field. Beneath throne, AN. In the exergue, BꟼP.

α) Paris, No. 1360, gr. 15.50; β) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1381, gr. 16.44, Pl. 53; γ) Hamburger Sale, June 1930, No. 851, gr. 16.38, Pl. 25; δ) Newell, gr. 16.45, PLATE XI (The obverses of 87 and 88 have become interchanged on the plate.).

γ and δ are from the same obverse die.

No Damascene issues for Cleopatra and Antiochus VIII are yet known for the year ꟼP,—probably their first in that city. It may be that the defeat of Alexander and the acquisition of Damascus came too late in that Seleucid year to allow time for the preparation of dies and the coining of money. Even the issues of ΑꟼP seem to be rare, as only one specimen has so far been recorded. In contrast, the issues for ΒꟼΡ are well represented today.

The types are the same as employed at both Ake-Ptolemais and Antioch, but the style is poorer and very similar to that found on the last issues of Alexander for Damascus. Other Damascene peculiarities are also noticeable, such as the date in the exergue, and the presence in the l. field and beneath the throne of two complicated monograms. It is interesting to note that the one beneath the throne on Nos. 86 and 87 is absolutely identical with the monogram seen in the same position on the tetradrachm No. 19 of Ake-Ptolemais. As this is the only occurrence of a monogram beneath the throne on the coins of that particular mint during the reign of Cleopatra, the piece may actually have been struck at Damascus where there is always a monogram beneath the throne. In that case we must suppose that the official who signed so many issues at Ake-Ptolemais, had been temporarily transferred in order to reorganize the Damascus mint and start it coining for his mistress. He signed the first issue (No. 19) only, and then returned to his own mint where we again find his monogram on the coins of years BꟼP and ΓꟼΡ. On the other hand, the style of No. 19 seems more in keeping with the issues of Ake-Ptolemais than it is with those of Damascus. If so, then it was probably who left the Phoenician mint and went to Damascus.

Damascene bronze coins seem still to be lacking for the joint reign of Cleopatra and Antiochus VIII. Of their issues in the base metal, there are altogether but five types known. One of these we have learned emanated from the mint at Ake-Ptolemais (above Nos. 10, 11, 17). Two other types (a: Paris, Pl. XXIV, 3–4; London, Pl. XXIII, 5. b: Paris, Pl. XXIV, 6; London, Pl. XXIII, 7) certainly belong to the Antioch mint. 12 The remaining two (a: Paris, Pl. XXIV, 8; London, Pl. XXIII, 4. b: Paris, Pl. XXIV, 9; Hunter, Pl. LXIX, 17) are not of Syrian but of Cilician fabric and so, perhaps, should be assigned to the mint at Tarsus.

First Reign in Damascus, 120–113 B. C.

Year 120-119 B. C.

89. Tetradrachm

Obv. Diademed head of Antiochus to r. Fillet border.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOϒ in two lines on r., ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟϒΣ on l. Zeus Uranius, completely nude, standing facing to l., holding star in outstretched r., resting l. upon sceptre. In outer l. field, AP above AN. In the exergue, ΓꟼΡ. The whole surrounded by a laurel wreath.

α) Paris, No. 1379, gr. 16.25, Pl. xxiv, 11; β) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1391, gr. 16.44, Pl. 53; γ) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1392, gr. 16.50, Pl. 54; δ) Newell, gr. 16.49; ε) Newell, gr. 15.93, PLATE XI. α–ε are all from the same obverse die.

90. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding, but with AP above ΕΣ. Date, ΓꟼΡ.

α) Cambridge, McClean Coll., Vol. III, No. 9341, gr. 16.46, Pl. 342, 3; β) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1389, gr. 15.96, Pl. 53; γ) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1390, gr. 16.15, Pl. 53; δ) London, No. 2, gr. 15.94, PLATE XI; ε) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 99, No. 2, gr. 16.41, Pl. lxix, 18.

α, β, and ε are from the same obverse die. δ is from the same obverse die as No. 89 α-ε.

91. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding, but with above Date ΓꟼΡ.

α) Glendining Sale, March 1931, No. 1163, gr. 16.40, Pl. xxx; β) Schlessinger Sale 13, Feb. 1935, No. 1472, gr. 30 (sic !), Pl. 52; γ) Newell, gr. 16.48, PLATE XI; δ) London, No. 3, gr. 16.13; ε) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 99, No. 3, gr. 16.10.

α–γ are all from the same obverse die.

Year 119–118 B. C.

92. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In inner l. field, above In the exergue, ΔꟼΡ.

Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1395, gr. 16.32, Pl. 54, PLATE XI.

93. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding, but with AP above ΕΣ. Date ΔꟼΡ.

Newell, gr. 16.19, PLATE XI.

94. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding, but with AP above Date, ΔꟼΡ.

α) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1393, gr. 16.47, Pl. 54; β) Paris, No. 1380, gr. 16.40; γ) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1394, gr. 16.25, Pl. 54; δ) Luneau Coll., Platt Sale, March 1922, No. 750, Pl. xvi; ε) Newell, gr. 16.33; Newell, gr. 16.44, PLATE XI; ζ) London, No. 4, gr. 16.46; η) Mrs. E. T. Newell, gr. 15.96; η) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III. p. 99, No. 4, gr. 16.52.

γ– are from the same obverse die as No. 92. α and η are from another obverse die.

95. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding, and with the same two monograms, but no date.

α) Allotte de la Fuÿe Coll., Ciani Sale, Feb. 1925, No. 926, gr. 16.20, Pl. 16; β) Commerce, PLATE XII; γ) American Numismatic Society, gr. 16.40 (the upper monogram on this piece appears to be IA).

α and β are from the same obverse die as Nos. 92 and 94 γ–

Year 118–117 B. C.

Series I

96. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In inner l. field, above In the exergue, EꟼP.

α) Paris, No. 1381, gr. 15.90; β) London, No. 5, gr. 16.19; γ) Commerce; δ) Newell, gr. 16.38, PLATE XII; ε) Naville Sale I, Apr. 1921, No. 3012, gr. 16.27, Pl. lxxxix.

δ from the same obverse die, now very slightly retouched, as Nos. 92, 93, γ– 95.

Series II

97. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding, but Zeus is draped. Same monograms and date.

α) London, No. 6, gr. 16.45; β) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1398, Pl. 54 (= Naville Sale I, Apr. 1921, No. 3013, Pl. lxxxix), gr. 16.40; γ) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1397, gr. 16.30, Pl. 54; δ) Newell, gr. 16.48, PLATE XII; ε) Cambridge, McClean Coll., Vol. III, No. 9342, gr. 16.32. Pl. 342. 4.

β is from the same obverse die as No. 96 γ, δ and ε are from another obverse die.

98. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding, with the same mono
grams but no date.

Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1404, Pl. 54 (= Naville Sale V, June 1923, No. 2814, Pl. lxxviii = Sir Herman Weber Coll., Vol. III, 2, No. 7927, Pl. 290), gr. 16.37, PLATE XII.

This is from the same obverse die as the following No. 99 δ.

Year 117–116 B. C.

99. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In inner l. field, above In the exergue, ϚꟼΡ.

α) London, No. 7, gr. 16.41; β) Paris, No. 1384, gr. 16.60; γ) Glendining Sale, March 1931, No. 1164, gr. 16.23, Pl. xxx (= Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1400, Pl. 54); δ) Newell, gr. 16.30; ε) Newell, gr. 16.32; Newell, gr. 16.27, PLATE XII; ζ) Newell, gr. 16.27; η) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 100, No. 9, gr. 15.83.

γ and δ are from the same die as No. 98. ε and are from another obverse die.

Year 116–115 B. C.

100. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. inner field, above In the exergue, IꟼP.

α–β) Paris, Nos. 1389 and 1390, gr. 16.25 and 16.00; γ) Newell, gr. 16.17, PLATE XII.

The coin in Cahn Sale 84, Nov. 1933, No. 416, gr. 13.78, Pl. 14, is surely a modern forgery.

101. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. inner field, above Date, IꟼP.

α) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1401, gr. 15.69, Pl. 54, PLATE XII; β) Walcher de Molthein Coll., No. 3051, gr. 16.52, Pl. xxviii.

102. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. inner field, above E Date, IꟼP.

α) Paris, No. 1394, gr. 16.30; β) Newell, gr. 16.28; γ) Newell, gr. 16.57, PLATE XII; δ) Naville Sale X, June 1925. No. 1402, gr. 15.77, Pl. 54; ε) Newell, gr. 16.15; Newell, gr. 15.41.

β and γ are from the same obverse die as No. 101 β. δ, ε and are from another obverse die.

Year 115–114 B. C.

103. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. inner field, above E In the exergue, HꟼP.

So described by E. Babelon, Rois de Syrie, p. 181, No. 1395. The cast of this coin, kindly sent by M. Jean Babelon, shows it to be the following variety, No. 104. The description of No. 103 has, however, been retained as there seems to be no real reason why such a variety should not once have existed. This state
ment is premised on No. 102 and the fact that at the Damascus mint under Antiochus VIII the same pair of magistrates frequently signed coins for two or more years in succession.

104. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. inner field, above In the exergue, ΗꟼΡ.

α) Newell, gr. 14.82; β) Hess Sale 207, Dec. 1931, No. 676, Pl. 16 (= Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1403, Pl. 54), gr. 16.20; γ) Newell, gr. 16.42, PLATE XIII; δ) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 100, No. 10, gr. 16.08; ε) Paris, No. 1395 (see preceding note).

β and γ are from the same obverse die.

Year 114–113 B. C.

105. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. inner field, above In the exergue, ΘꟼΡ.

α) Newell, gr. 16.51, PLATE XIII; β) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 100, No. 11, gr. 16.01.

After Cleopatra had been removed, the issues of Antiochus VIII appear at Damascus in his name alone and with his usual reverse type of Zeus Uranius, standing nude and holding a star in his outstretched right hand. Two magistrates, (sometimes in the form AP) and AN, who had functioned under Cleopatra, carry over onto the issues of the new reign.

From 120 to 113 B. C., the coinage of Antiochus VIII at Damascus proceeds in an orderly and uninterrupted fashion, year by year. At least one magistrate, sometimes two or three, carry over from the old to the new year throughout the series. We also possess instances of obverse dies doing the same. There can be little doubt, therefore, that all the varieties catalogued above represent the issues of a single mint. Identity of style and fabric point to this conclusion.

As before, the coins are dated—with but two exceptions, Nos. 95 and 98. Since, however, the monograms borne by these coins are identical with ones found on the dated pieces, and as in each case there is also a community of obverse dies, we may be certain that these undated specimens emanated from the same mint as the dated ones. Under Demetrius II, the number of magistrates functioning for each full year at Damascus was usually four. Under Alexander II and Cleopatra, the number fell to an average of three. With the opening of Antiochus VIII’s sole reign, they increased to four again for the first two years (ΓꟼP and ΔꟼΡ), fell to two in EꟼP and ϚꟼΡ, increased again to four in ZꟼP and HꟼP. Only two are known for the final year (ΘꟼΡ) of his first reign at Damascus. Because these particular coins are extremely rare, the appearance of new specimens may alter the record. On the other hand, Antiochus VIII may have ruled at Damascus for only a portion of that year before the city was seized by his half brother Antiochus IX Cyzicenus.

Bevan 13 places the attack of Cyzicenus at “about 116 B. C." Even if this be so, Antiochus IX got no hold on any of the Syrian, Phoenician or Palestinian mints striking dated coins until the year 113 B. C., at the earliest. At Antioch, we have coins both of Grypus and of Cyzicenus dated in ΘꟼΡ. 14 At Damascus and Ake-Ptolemais, also, we find the latest date on the coins of Grypus to be ΘꟼΡ. The earliest date of Cyzicenus at Damascus is Σ, while at Ake-Ptolemais it is ΑΣ. The evidence furnished by minor and more intermittently coining mints is a little more equivocal. The latest known date of Grypus at Sidon is HꟼP, at Ascalon it is ZꟼP. But the earliest coins of Cyzicenus known for Sidon 15 and Ascalon 16 bear the date Σ. In the light of the evidence from the larger and more prolific mints, this is significant. Thus by 113–112 B. C., the hold on his kingdom by Grypus had become so weakened that he retired 17 to Aspendus to recoup his power and raise fresh troops of mercenaries for a renewed trial of strength.

First Rule in Damascus, 113–circa 109 B. C.

Year 113–112 B. C.

106. Tetradrachm

Obv. Diademed head of Antiochus IX to r. Fillet border.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOϒ in two lines on r., ΦΙΛΟΠΑΤΟΡΟΣ on l. Helmeted Athena standing to r., holding Nike in outstretched r. and resting l. on shield and spear. In l. field, above ΕΣ. In the exergue, Σ. The whole surrounded by a laurel wreath.

α) London; β) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 104, No. 4, gr. 16.50; γ) Newell, gr. 16.35; δ) Newell, gr. 16.28, PLATE XIII.

γ and δ are from the same obverse die.

107. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. field, above ΕΣ. Date Σ.

α) Hartwig Coll., Santamaria Sale, March 1910, No. 824, Pl. xv; β) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1461, gr. 15.83, Pl. 57 (= Egger Sale, Jan. 1908, No. 653, Pl. xx); γ) Newell, gr. 16.45, PLATE XIII.

Year 112–111 B. C.

108. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. field, above ΕΣ. In the exergue ΑΣ.

α) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1457, gr. 15.75, Pl. 57; β) Dresden; γ) Prof. Sir Charles Oman Coll.; δ) Newell, gr. 16.36, PLATE XIII.

α is from the same obverse die as No. 106, γ, δ.

109. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. field, above Π. Date ΑΣ.

α) Prof. Sir Charles Oman Coll.; β) Allotte de la Fuÿe Coll., Ciani Sale, Feb. 1925, No. 939, gr. 14.90, Pl. 17; γ) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1458, gr. 14.80, Pl. 57; δ) Newell, gr. 15.84; ε) Newell, gr. 16.32, PLATE XIII.

α and γ–ε are from the same obverse die.

Year 111–110 B. C.

110. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. field, above In the exergue, ΒΣ.

α) Newell, gr. 16.15; β) Newell, gr. 16.15, PLATE XIII; γ) Athens; δ) Newell, gr. 16.56, PLATE XIII.

α and β are from the same obverse die. γ and δ are from another obverse die.

As stated above, the first issues which we possess at Damascus of Antiochus IX Cyzicenus are dated Σ (113–112 B. C.). They bear the monograms of three magistrates, but with no more than two appearing on any one coin, as was the usual practice at Damascus. One of these, ΕΣ, may represent the same magistrate who had previously officiated under Grypus during the years ΓꟼP 18 and ΔꟼΡ. 19 The types used are the customary ones for Cyzicenus: his portrait on the obverse; a standing Athena surrounded by a laurel wreath on the reverse.

In the year ΑΣ, we again find ΕΣ working, but now with two new associates. Of these, was apparently the chief mint master, for his monogram appears on all specimens and is always placed above the others. He continues to officiate in ΒΣ, after which no more silver coins of Cyzicenus are known for the Damascus mint. As, likewise, no coins of Grypus for Damascus have turned up dated in the year ΓΣ, we cannot be certain whether Cyzicenus managed to maintain his hold on the city throughout that year or had to cede it to his brother. The latter’s Damascene issues begin again with the year ΔΣ.

Bevan is correct in questioning 20 Babelon’s categorical statement, 21 that Damascus was the capital of Antiochus IX. Even now that we are for the first time enabled to divide such Attic issues of Cyzicenus as were not struck at Antioch or Tarsus, between Damascus and Ake-Ptolemais, and although we now possess many more varieties than were at Babelon’s disposal, the coins do not reveal clearly whether Damascus, rather than Ake-Ptolemais, was Cyzicenus’ real capital. It may well have been so, for the city was not so exposed to attacks from the sea as was Ake-Ptolemais. On the other hand, the latter place would be more immune to land attacks than was Damascus. All that the coins can teach us definitely, 22 is that Antiochus IX was master of these two cities from the year Σ (113–112 B. C.) through ΒΣ (111–110 B. C.).

Second Reign in Damascus, after 109 B. C.

Year 109–108 B. C.

111. Tetradrachm

Obv. Diademed head of Antiochus VIII to r. Fillet border.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOϒ in two lines on r., ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟϒΣ on l. Zeus Uranius, draped, standing facing to l., holding star in outstretched r. and resting l. upon sceptre. In l. field, above ɪH. In the exergue, apparently ΔΣ.

Newell, gr. 15.93, PLATE XIV.

112. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. field, above ɪ. The date is illegible, but on β appears to have been ΔΣ.

α) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1409, gr. 16.08, Pl. 55; β) Newell, gr. 15.77, PLATE XIV.

Year 108–107 B. C.

113. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. field, above ɪH. In the exergue, (almost certainly ΕΣ).

Newell, gr. 16.55, PLATE XIV.

This coin is from the same obverse die as No. 111.

Year 104–103 B. C.

114. Tetradrachm

Obv, Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Same inscription as on the preceding. Zeus Nikephorus, naked to waist, enthroned to l. In outer l. field, A above Σ, above Beneath throne, In the exergue, ΘΣ.

α) Sir Charles Oman (Numismatic Chronicle, 4th Ser., Vol. XVII, 1917, Pl. viii, 7), PLATE XIV; β) Newell (on this specimen, the date and one monogram are off flan), gr. 16.38, PLATE XIV.

The return of Grypus from Aspendus has been dated by Bevan 23 in the year 111–110 B. C. (ΒΣ). At Damascus, however, we have found the coins of ΒΣ still bearing the name and types of Cyzicenus. The succeeding year remains to us a blank, so far as Damascus is concerned, for we have no coins at all from its mint bearing the date ΓΣ. But in ΔΣ, the face and name of Grypus reappear (No. 111).

At least, what remains of the exergual date on the single known specimen can only be read as ΔΣ. It cannot be ΑΣ, the sole alternative, as that year is pre-empted by coins of Cyzicenus (Nos. 108–9). Furthermore, the unusually flat relief of No. 111 is nearest in quality to No. 110δ. As indicated by its degenerate style and bad die-cutting No. 111 can only follow, not precede, the far better issues of Cyzicenus at Damascus. The chief magistrate of Cyzicenus’ years ΑΣ and ΒΣ, carries on under Grypus for two years more, that is, through years ΔΣ and ΕΣ. Then there comes a definite break in the material at our disposal, the first of any consequence in thirty-one years. Whether Cyzicenus was able to recover Damascus, or whether Grypus still held on to the city, we do not know.

The next specimen available (No. 114), still bears the name and well-known features of Grypus. It is dated ΘΣ, or 104-103 B. C. But now the reverse type has been changed, to make the issues of Damascus conform with those of the more important mint, Antioch. There, a similar change in the reverse type had taken place at about this time. 24 The standing Zeus Uranius, a type which had for so long been peculiar to the coin issues of Grypus, is now replaced by the more usual seated Zeus Olympius holding a tiny winged and wreath-bearing Nike in his outstretched hand. But while conforming in type, the style of No. 114 remains typically Damascene, differing fundamentally from that prevalent at Antioch. 25 The date is still to be found in the exergue. In addition to the monograms in the l. field, we find another monogram, placed be
neath the throne. Under the succeeding kings of Damascus, we shall note that this monogram has become almost a fixture on its silver issues.

No. 114 remains the last known silver coin of Grypus which we possess from the Damascus mint. Curiously enough, there are also no more known silver issues of Cyzicenus which by their style or monograms could be assigned to this city. Did Grypus hold Damascus, or did Cyzicenus? Who can tell? Historians, on the authority of Josephus, 26 suppose that the final decade of the second century and the early years of the first, represent a period of tacit peace between the two brothers, due to their utter exhaustion. They believe that Grypus held the north, Cyzicenus the south. For Damascus, we possess no numismatic evidence of such a situation, although we do know now that Grypus was ruling there in the years 109–8, 108–7 and 104–3 B. C. If Cyzicenus held it for the remainder of the time, and it constituted his capital, as Babelon claims, it seems passing strange that this long established and hitherto active mint did not coin silver in his name. On the other hand, Cyzicenus appears to have issued but little silver at all during this period. We possess only the tetradrachm of Ake-Ptolemais (No. 51) dated in ϚΣ (107–6 B. C.), a tetradrachm 27 dated ΗΣ (105–4 B. C.) whose types point to Tripolis in Phoenicia or to Elaeusa in Cilicia, and some very late-style 28 issues of Tarsus which may perhaps belong to this period. He does not coin silver again prolifically until the last two years of his life when he once more secured the mint of Antioch on his brother’s death in 96 B. C.

The lack of a silver coinage of Cyzicenus for the period from 107/6 to 98 B. C., may reasonably be attributed to the utter exhaustion of his resources. But the dire results of the fratricidal war between the two brothers may also be recognized in the case of Grypus, who, during the years 108-96 B. C., struck silver only at Antioch and the one Damascene issue here described (No. 114). Apparently his depleted treasury, too, allowed only one mint to remain continuously active.

If Cyzicenus really held Damascus at any time after 107 B. C., it is possible that his rather common bronze coins of Syrian fabric (obverse, bust of Eros, reverse, Nike) 29 might be assigned to this city. The authenticated dates which they bear, namely ΑΣ, ΒΣ, ΕΣ, ΑΙΣ, ΒΙΣ, would not be inimical to the suggestion. A few of these coins have turned up in the Princeton excavations at Antioch, while another was found in the Harvard excavations at Samaria. 30 Other provenance records are not available. Consequently, the question had best be left in abeyance. The same applies to a possible assignment to Damascus of Syrian bronze coins of Grypus which display his radiate head on the obverse, and a winged thunderbolt on the reverse; 31 or the pieces having his laureate portrait on one side and the standing figure of Zeus Uranius on the other. 31a

Reigned in Damascus, 96–87 B. C.

Year 96–95 B. C.

115. Tetradrachm

Obv. Diademed, bearded head of Demetrius III to r. Fillet border.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟϒ ΘΕΟϒ in three lines on r., ΦΙΛΟΠΑΤΟΡΟΣ ΣΩΤΗΡΟϒ in two lines on l. Archaic, facing agalma of Atargatis with arms extended, holding flower in her l. hand. Her head is veiled and at times apparently radiate, and from it depend two long, frequently knotted fillets ending in tassels. Behind each shoulder rises a stalk of barley. In outer l. field, above In the exergue, ɪΙΣ The whole is surrounded by a laurel wreath.

α) London, No. 1, gr. 15.70; β) Helbing Sale, Nov. 1928, No. 4084, gr. 15.40, Pl. 74; γ) Cahn Sale 71, Oct. 1931, No. 557, gr. 15.60, Pl. 17; δ) Newell, gr. 15.64, PLATE XIV.

γ–δ are from the same obverse die.

116. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In l. field, A above N. In the exergue, ɪΙΣ

α) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1553, gr. 15.58, Pl. 62 (= Ratto Sale, April 1909, No. 4921, Pl. xix); β) Newell, gr. 15.46, PLATE XIV.

α and β are from the same obverse die.

117. Bronze Unit

Obv. Radiate, diademed, bearded head of Demetrius to r. Circle of dots.

Rev. Same inscription as on the preceding. Winged Nike advancing r. holding wreath in her upraised r. and palm in l. In outer l. field, In the exergue, ɪΙΣ.

Rogers Coll., gr. 6.25.

117a . Bronze Unit

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding, but above N in l. field.

E. Zygman Coll., gr. 7.22.

118. Bronze Half

Obv. Diademed head of Demetrius to r. Circle of dots.

Rev. Same inscription as on the preceding. Hermes, nude, standing facing, holds palm in r. and caduceus in l. In outer l. field, above In the exergue, ɪΙΣ

α) Newell, gr. 3.99, PLATE XIV; β)? Paris, No. 1574, gr. 4.25.

Year 95–94 B. C.

119. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding. Fillet border.

Rev. Same inscription as on the preceding. Atargatis as on No. 115. In outer l. field, N above In the exergue, ΗΙΣ

α) Cambridge, McClean Coll., Vol. III, No. 9359, gr. 15.56, Pl. 343, 9 (= Tobin Bush Coll., Sotheby Sale, Nov. 1902, No. 267); β) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 113, No. 1, gr. 15.20, Pl. lxx, 15; γ) London, No. 2, gr. 15.97, PLATE XIV.

120. Bronze Unit

Obv. Similar to No. 117.

Rev. Similar to No. 117. In outer l. field, above In the exergue, ΗΙΣ.

α) London; β–γ) Paris, Nos. 1563, gr. 6.50, Pl. xxviii, 1, and 1566, gr. 6.20, PLATE XV.

121. Bronze Half

Obv. Similar to No. 118.

Rev. Similar to No. 118. In outer l. field, above Date, ΗΙΣ.

Paris, No. 1575, gr. 4.50, Pl. xxviii, 6, PLATE XV.

122. Bronze Half

Obv. Similar to the preceding. Fillet border.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In outer l. field, N above In the exergue, ΗΙΣ.

Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 114, No. 6, gr. 5.18, Pl. lxx, 16.

Year 94–93 B. C.

123. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Atargatis as on No. 119. In outer l. field, N above In the exergue, ΘΙΣ

α) Paris, No. 1568, gr. 15.10; β) London, No. 3, gr. 15.58, PLATE XV; γ) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1554, gr. 15.77, Pl. 62 (= Egger Sale, Jan. 1908, No. 664, Pl. xxi).

124. Bronze Unit

Obv. Similar to No. 117.

Rev. Similar to No. 117. In outer l. field, N above A. In the exergue, ΘΙΣ.

Newell (purchased by Mrs. Agnes Baldwin Brett at Petra), gr. 7.90, PLATE XV.

125. Bronze Half

Obv. Similar to No. 118.

Rev. Similar to No. 118. In the exergue, ΘΙΣ. Rogers Coll., gr. 3.63.

Year 92–91 B. C.

126. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to No. 123.

Rev. Atargatis as on No. 123. In outer l. field, N above A. In the exergue, ΑΚΣ

α) Paris, No. 1569, gr. 15.65, Pl. xxviii, 3; β) R. Jameson Coll., No. 1763, gr. 15.91, Pl. xc; γ) Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1556, gr. 15.42, Pl. 62 (= Egger Sale XLV, Nov. 1913, No. 745, Pl. xx = Egger Sale, Jan. 1908, No. 665, Pl. xxi); δ) Newell, gr. 12.96 (corroded); ε) Newell, gr. 15.13, PLATE XV; Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1555, gr. 16.11, Pl. 62 (= Cons. Weber Coll., Hirsch Sale XXI, Nov. 1908, No. 4141, Pl. liv), gr. 16.12. β–ε are from the same obverse die.

Year 91–90 B. C.

127. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In outer l. field, A above E. In the exergue, ΒΚΣ.

Naville Sale X, June 1925, No. 1557, gr. 15.09, Pl. 62, PLATE XV.

Year 90–89 B. C.

128. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In the outer l. field, N above Δ. In the exergue, ΓΚΣ

London, No. 4, gr. 16.06, PLATE XV.

Year 89–88 B. C.

129. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In the exergue, ΔΚΣ.

Eckhel, Doctrina Numorum Veterum, Vol. III, p. 245. Babelon, loc. cit., p. clxxii, states that he has seen two specimens of this date in the commerce.

Year 88–87 B. C.

130. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In outer l. field, N above In the exergue, ΕΚΣ Cambridge, Leake Coll., PLATE XV.

131. Bronze Unit

Obv. Radiate, bearded head as on No. 117.

Obv. Inscription and winged Nike as on No. 117. In outer l. field, NI above ΦΙ. Date off flan.

London, gr. 5.31, PLATE XV.

In the year 96 Β. C., Grypus was assassinated, and chaos again reigned supreme over the last remaining portion of the once great Seleucid empire. Antiochus IX Cyzicenus seized Antioch and installed himself there, 32 but was immediately attacked by the eldest of the sons of Grypus, Seleucus VI. Another son, Demetrius by name, leaving his numerous brothers to settle scores, first with Cyzicenus and then with the latter’s son, Antiochus X, profited by the confusion and secured Damascus with the help of Ptolemy Lathyrus, king of Cyprus. Here he established himself firmly and immediately revived the coinage of this desert metropolis.

Silver tetradrachms, and bronze coins in two denominations, now appeared in a steady flow from its mint. Fortunately, the practice of dating the coins, finally abandoned at all other Seleucid mints, was continued at Damascus, thus definitely linking the new coins with its preceding issues which had been distinguished by this same useful feature. Similarity of style and fabric also connect the present with earlier issues, while the magistrate signing himself on Nos. 115 and 117–123, mav be identical with the person signing himself on the last Damascene issue of Grypus (No. 114). Another notable feature of the new coinage is the almost constant presence of the monogram alongside the date in the exergue. The same monogram had appeared on the above mentioned final issue of Grypus. In the present case, it appears continuously from ΖΙΣ to ΕΚΣ, and again under Tigranes from ΑΜΣ to ΓΜΣ. If it denotes a magistrate, then this person enjoyed a longer tenure of office than any other official we have met with at Damascus. That being so, are we not justified in suspecting that may have some other connotation? Perhaps it is something in the nature of a real mint-mark. As it is obviously composed of the two letters delta and eta, it may represent the initial letters of Δημήτριας, a name, which it has long been suspected, that Damascus at this time bore in honor of its king, Demetrius III. 33

Another important innovation was introduced on the silver issues of Damascus at this time. No longer do we find a distinctly Seleucid royal type on the reverse—such as Zeus, Apollo, Athena, and the like. Instead, we have a type of local significance, similar to the “Pyre of Sandan" on the Seleucid issues of Tarsus, or the statue of Athena Magarsis on their coins struck at Mallus. 34 We see what is probably a local representation of the great goddess Atargatis, 35 a divinity revered for ages throughout Syria. She appears in her oriental aspect and as a fertility goddess, mummiform in shape and with grain-stalks sprouting from each shoulder. In her left hand, she holds what has usually been described as three ears of barley, but so crudely rendered that their true nature remains perhaps somewhat doubtful. She is facing, hands and fore-arms jutting stiffly out to either side; from her veiled and (sometimes) radiate head, two long, tasselled fillets de
pend. Her body, from neck to ankles is covered with pendant designs suggestive of human breasts, but which certainly cannot have been intended for such. 36 Possibly they represent leaves or petals, such, for instance, as may be seen covering the bust (and even the face) of Atargatis, goddess of foliage and fruits, on a bas-relief recently discovered at Khirbet et-Tannûr, the Nabataean temple of the goddess on the summit of Jebel et-Tannúr. 37 On the upper portion of her body is a large, uncertain object which seems to have escaped the notice of previous scholars. This is not surprising as most of the coins available are more or less worn. To the writer, it suggests something in the nature of a facing head; but only a perfectly preserved example would allow the object to be definitely identified.

The types of the accompanying bronze coins have a more orthodox Greek aspect. They occur in two denominations, of which the larger has for its reverse type a winged victory walking to r.; the smaller, a Hermes standing to l. They bear dates from ΖΙΣ to ΘΙΣ, accompanied by monograms or letters such as are also found on the tetradrachms. Other specimens are without dates, and these coins may cover the later years of Demetrius’ reign. Whether they, too, should be ascribed to Damascus is still uncertain as we have no provenance notices, and the letters which they bear do not correspond with those found on the tetradrachms. For that reason, they have not been included in our catalogue.

Though maintaining his chosen province more successfully than his brothers did theirs, Demetrius showed himself to be a true Seleucid in his restless ambition for additional territory. At one time he even succeeded in seizing upon Antioch, whose mint then issued some of its typical tetradrachms in his name. 38 He interfered in the affairs of Judaea, and even marched with his army to Shechem in Samaria to assist the Jews in rebellion against Alexander Jannaeus—but nothing came of the matter and he soon returned to Damascus. Finally, in 88–87 B. C., he fell out with his brother Philip and besieged him in Beroea. An Arab chieftain, Aziz by name, and Mithradates, the Parthian governor of Mesopotamia (?), came to Philip’s aid and eventually forced Demetrius to capitulate. He was taken to Parthia where he was honorably treated by the king, and later died in captivity.

Reign in Damascus, 88–84 B. C.

Year 87–86 B. C.

132. Tetradrachm

Obv. Diademed head of Antiochus XII to r. Fillet border.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOϒ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟϒΣ in three lines on r., ΦΙΛΟΠΑΤΟΡΟΣ ΚΑΛΛΙΝΙΚΟϒ in two lines on l. Bearded statue of Hadad standing facing on double basis; wearing a tall, pointed cap; a long mantle fastened about his shoulders; holding a barley stalk in l. hand, and flanked by the foreparts of two bulls. In the exergue, ϚΚΣ. The whole is surrounded by a laurel wreath.

London, PLATE XV.

Year 86–85 B. C.

133. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In the outer l. field, In the exergue, Λ ΚΣ.

Dresden (Imhoof-Blumer, Monnaies grecques, p. 437, No. 121, Pl. H, 15), gr. 15.70.

Year (?)

134. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In outer l. field, Date in the exergue is illegible.

R. Jameson Coll., No. 2361, gr. 15.19, Pl. cxxv (= Egger Sale XLV, Nov. 1913, No. 746, Pl. xx), PLATE XV.

Group I

135. Bronze Unit

Obv. Diademed, draped bust to r. Circle of dots.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOϒ ΔΙΟΝΥΣΟϒ in three lines on r., ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟϒΣ ΦΙΛΟΠΑΤΟΡΟΣ ΚΑΛΛΙΝΙΚΟϒ in three lines on l. Zeus, naked to waist, standing, facing l., holds Nike in outstretched r. and rests l. upon sceptre. In the exergue, The whole in circle of dots.

α) London, No. 5, Pl. xxvii, 3; β–γ) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., p. 116, Nos. 3 and 4, gr. 6.74 and 6.67; δ) Paris, No. 1579, gr. 7.30, Pl. xxviii, 9; ε) Paris, No. 1580, gr. 7.90; Newell, gr. 6.97, PLATE XVI.

136. Bronze Quarter

Obv. Diademed head to r. Circle of dots.

Rev. Same inscription as on the preceding. Hermes standing, facing l., holding palm in r. and caduceus in l.

α) Paris, No. 1582, gr. 2.00, Pl. xxviii, 10, PLATE XVI.

Group II

137. Bronze Unit

Obv. Similar to No. 135.

Rev. Similar to No. 135, but without ΔΙΟΝΥΣΟϒ. In outer l. field,

α) London, No. 6, Pl. xxvii, 4; β) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 116, No. 5, gr. 7.00; γ) Paris, No. 1581, gr. 8.10; δ) Newell, gr. 6.46, PLATE XVI.

138. Bronze Half

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOϒ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟϒΣ in three lines on r., ΦΙΛΟΠΑΤΟΡΟΣ ΚΑΛΛΙΝΙΚΟϒ on l. Apollo, naked, standing to l., holds palm in r. and leans with l. arm on tripod. In outer l. field,

α) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 116, No. 6, gr. 5.18, PLATE XVI.

139. Bronze Half

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Same inscription as on the preceding. Nike advancing to r., holding wreath in extended r. and palm in l.

Paris, No. 1588, gr. 3.90, Pl. xxviii, 14, PLATE XVI.

Group III

140. Bronze Unit

Obv. Diademed, draped bust to r. Circle of dots.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOϒ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟϒΣ in three lines on r., ΦΙΛΟΠΑΤΟΡΟΣ ΚΑΛΛΙΝΙΚΟϒ in two lines on l. Draped female figure wearing Kalathos, standing to l., holding palm in extended r. and cornucopiae in l. In outer l. field, or α–β) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 115, Nos. 1 (Pl. lxx, 18) and 2, gr. 7.55 and 7.42; γ–δ) Paris, Nos. 1583 (Pl. xxviii, 11) and 1584, gr. 6.60 and 6.55; ε) Newell, gr. 8.64, PLATE XVI.

141. Bronze Half

Obv. Diademed head to r. Circle of dots.

Rev. Same inscription as on the preceding. Apollo, naked, standing to l. holding palm in extended r. and leaning l. arm on tripod. In outer l. field, or

α–γ) London, Nos. 1-3, Pl. xxviii, 1: δ– Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 116, Nos. 7–9, gr. 3.99, 3.82 and 3.60; ζ) Paris, No. 1586, gr. 4.10; η) Newell, gr. 3.93; θ) Newell, gr. 5.11, PLATE XVI.

142. Bronze Unit

Obv. Similar to No. 140. Somewhat crude die- cutting.

Rev. Similar to No. 140, but die-cutting somewhat crude. In outer l. field, Π.

α) London, No. 4, Pl. xxviii, 2; β) Newell, gr. 5.87, PLATE XVI.

143. Bronze Half

Obv. Similar to No. 141.

Rev. Similar to No. 141. In outer l. field, Π.

London, gr. 3.45, PLATE XVI.

Demetrius III, as ruler of Damascus and its surrounding districts, was succeeded by his younger brother, Antiochus XII, who bore the resounding appellations of Dionysus, Epiphanes, Philopator, Callinicus. The mint continued to issue silver and bronze coins, but now with the new king’s name and portrait.

The reverses of the tetradrachms are henceforth graced with a most interesting representation of the great god of Damascus, Hadad. 39 He is provided with his usual attributes, the ear of grain and the bulls sacred to him. The dates on two of these rare coins read ϚKΣ and ΖΚΣ, 40 but, unfortunately, the date on M. Jameson’s specimen is illegible.

The undated bronze coins comprise three denominations and, apparently, fall into three groups according to their inscriptions and monograms. The earliest group is probably represented by Nos. 135–6, which are provided with the epithet Dionysus, in addition to Epiphanes Philopator Callinicus. On the remaining coins Dionysus is omitted, as it is on the known silver pieces. Groups I and II are associated with the earliest tetradrachm, No. 132, by the monogram, which they have in common. This monogram cannot possibly denote the mint at Ake-Ptolemais, as Babelon states. 41 For Antiochus XII never ruled over this city, his dominions being confined to Inner Syria. Furthermore, all of his issues exhibit the typical Damascene style and fabric. The monogram in question must denote some magistrate in charge of the mint.

On the bronze coins, the figures of Hermes (No. 136) and Nike (No. 139) are directly copied from the issues of his predecessor, Demetrius. To these, Antiochus XII added the Zeus (Nos. 135, 137), the Apollo (Nos. 138, 141, 143) and the Tyche (Nos. 140, 142). On most of his coins, Antiochus is depicted as a beardless youth, but on a few (cf. PLATE XV, 132; PLATE XVI, 135, 137), he like his elder brother, Demetrius, is unmistakably provided with a beard.

Soon after his accession, the Nabataean Arabs commenced to cause Antiochus XII serious trouble. While he was away trying to overcome this menace, his brother Philip suddenly appeared before Damascus. The city gates were opened to him by Milesius, the governor. On receiving the bad news Antiochus hastened back, but not before Milesius had himself repented of his act and had shut the gates against Philip at a time when the latter chanced to be outside the walls, watching some chariot races in the hippodrome. Antiochus joined forces with his repentant governor and together they forced Philip’s withdrawal. The latter’s tenure of Damascus appears to have been so brief that it is not surprising to note that no coins of Philip, of Damascene style and fabric, have as yet been recorded.

After a short interval Antiochus left on another expedition against the Nabataeans, during which he perished in some hard-fought skirmish with these marauding Arabs.

Reign in Damascus, circa 84–72 B. C.

144. Bronze Unit

Obv. Diademed head of Aretas to r., with long hair. Border of dots.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ APETOϒ in two lines on r., ΦΙΛΕΛΛΗΝΟΣ on l. Nike as City-goddess standing l., winged, turreted, holding wreath in outstretched r. and palm in l. In outer l. field, Border of dots.

α) London, Arabia etc., p. 1, No. 1, gr. 8.16, Pl. i, 1; β) London, No. 2, gr. 8.02, Pl. i, 2, PLATE XVI. For additional specimens and references, see R. Dussaud, Journal asiatique, Mars–Avril 1904, p. 205, Nos. 1–2, Pl. i, 1.

145. Bronze Half

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Same inscription as on the preceding. Draped female figure standing to l., r. hand extended, l. resting upon sceptre.

α) Paris, PLATE XVI; β) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., p. 297, No. 4, gr. 2.95, PLATE XVI.

For additional references, see R. Dussaud, loc. cit., p. 206, No. 5, Pl. i, 3.

146. Bronze Unit

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Same inscription as on the preceding. Tyche, draped and turreted, stretching out r. hand and holding cornucopiae in l., seated l. on rock from which issues river-god swimming to front. In outer l. field, Circle of dots.

α–γ) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 297, Nos. 1–3, gr. 8.00 (Pl. lxxviii, 18), 7.74 and 6.29; δ–ζ) London, Arabia etc., pp. 1–2, Nos. 3–6, gr. 7.43 (Pl. i, 3), 6.08, 7.14 (Pl. i, 4) and 5.62; η) de Luynes Coll., Vol. IV, No. 3494, Pl. cxxx, gr. 7.85; θ) Newell, gr. 7.02; ι) Newell, gr. 6.76; κ) Newell, gr. 5.93, PLATE XVI; λ) Newell, gr. 6.68, PLATE XVI.

For further specimens and references, see R. Dussaud, loc. cit., pp. 205–6, Nos. 3–4, Pl. I, 2.

According to Josephus, Antiquities XIII, 392, after the death of Antiochus XII, the masterless territory of Damascus was threatened by seizure on the part of the robber dynasty of the Ituraeans of Chalcis. Rather than suffer such a fate, the Damascenes preferred the lesser evil and called upon Aretas III, the able king of the Nabataeans, to rule over them. He responded with alacrity and entered the city amid popular rejoicing.

No silver coins of Aretas are as yet known to us, although there seems to be no reason why the still active mint of Damascus might not have struck such at this juncture. It certainly did strike bronze coins, in considerable quantities, with the name and portrait of the Nabataean prince. On their obverses, we find the clean-shaven features of Aretas, endowed with the copious locks of the Arab race and a formidably curved nose, quite as hawklike as those of his Seleucid predecessors, Grypus and Antiochus XII. Perhaps to indicate that under benevolent Nabataean rule Damascus was to lose none of her civic or local power, the reverses of these bronze coins display the city-goddess in various aspects. In one case (No. 144, PLATE XVI), she stands in the guise of Nike, winged and holding wreath and palm-branch, yet turreted as a city- goddess should be. Again (No. 145, PLATE XVI), she stands wingless but holding a patera (?) and sceptre. Finally (No. 146, PLATE XVI), she assumes the familiar attitude peculiar to the Tyche of Damascus. Like the more famous Tyche of Antioch, from whose well-known statue our present type is directly copied, she is seated, turreted, on a rock, while beneath her feet is depicted the swimming figure of the river Chrysaroas. Unlike the Tyche of Antioch, she holds a cornucopiae in her l. arm, and stretches the r. straight out before her, as if blessing with her beneficent powers the happy and industrious populations of her fertile oasis. These particular details always clearly differentiate 42 the Tyche of Damascus from her numerous sisters throughout the Greek world, even down to her last appearance on the issues of the city under the Emperor Volusian, more than three hundred years later.

Reign in Damascus, 72–69 B. C.

Year 72–71 B. C.

147. Tetradrachm

Obv. Head of Tigranes to r., diademed and wearing tall “tiara" edged with pearls and adorned on the top with “rays" and on the side with a star and an eagle who turns his head backward. Fillet border.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ on r., ΤΙΓΡΑΝΟϒ on l. Turreted and draped figure of the Tyche of Damascus seated to l. upon a rock at whose feet is the upper portion of a swimming figure. The Tyche extends her r. arm at full length before her, and holds a cornucopiae in her l. In outer l. field, N above A. In the exergue, ΑΜΣ (?). The whole is surrounded by a laurel wreath.

Paris, p. 214, No. 16, gr. 15.25, PLATE XVI.

Year 71–70 B. C.

148. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In outer l. field, above ΘΕ above ΟΦ. In inner l. field, A. In the exergue, ΒΜΣ.

α) Newell (from Damascus), gr. 15.37; β) London, No. 1, gr. 15.80, Pl. xxvii, 5, PLATE XVII.

Year 70–69 B. C.

149. Tetradrachm

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. Same monogram and letters in the field as before. In the exergue, ΓΜΣ.

Paris, p. 214, No. 17, gr. 12.10, Pl. xxix, 11, PLATE XVII.

Undated

150. Bronze Unit

Obv. Similar to the preceding. Circle of dots.

Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ on r., ΤΙΓΡΑΝΟϒ on l. Tyche of Antioch seated to l. as on the preceding coins. In outer l. field, N. Circle of dots.

London, gr. 7.60, PLATE XVII.

151. Bronze Unit

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Similar to the preceding. In outer l. field, ΘΕ above ΟΦ.

α) Paris, No. 19, gr. 7.55, Pl. xxix, 12; β) Newell, gr. 9.31; γ) London, No. 10, gr. 8.47, Pl. xxvii, 7, PLATE XVII; δ–ζ) Glasgow, Hunter Coll., Vol. III, p. 3, Nos. 10–13 (letters off flan), gr. 6.42, 6.09, 6.03 (Pl. lxiii, 4), 4.05.

152. Bronze Half

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Same inscription as on the preceding. Tyche standing to l., resting r. on tiller, and holding cornucopiae in l. In outer l. field,

α) Paris, No. 22, gr. 3.00, Pl. xxix, 14; β) Newell, gr. 4.60, PLATE XVII.

Figure 1

153. Bronze Half (or Third?)

Obv. Similar to the preceding.

Rev. Same inscription as on preceding. Nike advancing to l., holding wreath in outstretched r., palm in l. In outer l. field, ΘΕ above ΟΦ.

E. Zygman Coll., gr. 2.67. Cf. Fig. 1.

In 83 B. C., Tigranes the Great of Armenia swept over northern Syria and installed himself at Antioch, invited by the Antiochenes, now heartily weary of the Seleucids and their misrule. Coins alone inform us that he eventually secured Coele-Syria and the great metropolis of Damascus, as well. How or when Tigranes had thus succeeded in ousting Aretas and his Nabataeans from the city, our ancient historians fail to relate.

The coin issues of Tigranes the Great have long ago been studied in their entirety by Sir George Macdonald. 43 He has there clearly demonstrated that they must fall into three main categories, which he designates “Periods I, II and III." It is probable, however, that these categories, correct in themselves, correspond in the main not so much to successive periods of time as to different places of mintage. The great and very obvious differences to be noted in their several styles, fabrics, types and systems of official control-marks, render it practically impossible to assign all these coins to any one mint, or even district, within the short space of thirteen years which represents the duration of Tigranes' rule over Syria.

Thus the coins of Macdonald’s “Period I" are certainly issues brought out at Antioch, as is clearly demonstrated by their style and fabric, both absolutely typical of the Antiochene mint at this period. They probably cover the entire period of Tigranes' rule in Antioch (83–69 B. C.), and their style and fabric are continued on the immediately succeeding issues of Antiochus XIII (69–65 B. C.), 44 which could have been struck at Antioch only.

The coins of “Period II" probably represent the issues of his Armenian capital, Arsamosata, or of the newly-built Tigranocerta. The use of the oriental title βασιλεύς βασιλέων and the presence of both annual and monthly dates—peculiar to the coins of Macdonald’s “Period II"—distinctly reveal the influence of Parthian and Pontic practices. The mint of the “Period II" coins must therefore have been so situated that it was most easily accessible to such influences. Only in Armenia proper, or in northern Mesopotamia, would this be true. The use of this title and of monthly dates is never found in Syria. Furthermore, the silver coins of “Period II" are, with but a single exception, composed solely of drachms. No drachms are known to accompany the issues of “ Period I," i.e., from the mint at Antioch, and in fact no Seleucid drachms are known from that mint after the reign of Antiochus X, 45 nor do they occur at Damascus after the reign of Alexander II Zebina. But in this connection it is important to note that the immediate successors of Tigranes the Great (i. e., Artavasdes, Tigranes II) struck silver only in the drachm size and of the same style and fabric as drachms (“ Period II ") of the first Tigranes. As none of the later Armenian princes ruled in Syria, but only in what was left to Armenia by the Roman reorganization of the East, their coins could have been struck nowhere except at Arsamosata or, possibly, Tigranocerta. Hence Macdonald’s “Period II" coins should be assigned to one or the other of these two mints.

As regards Macdonald’s “Period III" coins, R. Dussaud clearly saw 46 that their principal type, the seated Tyche of Damascus, points unmistakably to that city as their only possible mint. Although slightly more crude in style, these Damascene silver issues of Tigranes conform in other respects to the issues of his Seleucid predecessors. We find a local type gracing the reverse as before, accompanied in the l. field by the monogram and the initials of various magistrates, while a Seleucid date is still to be seen in the exergue. The corresponding bronze coins are in three denominations, two of which bear civic types, the seated Tyche of Damascus on the larger size, the standing Tyche on the smaller. The third or smallest denomination bears a Nike as its reverse type. Hence, the “Period III" coins of Tigranes, following Dussaud, must now be assigned to the mint of Damascus.

If the date on No. 147 has been correctly read, it informs us that at least by 72–71 B. C., Tigranes had managed to secure Damascus. The final date, ΓΜΣ, is the very year in which the famous Roman general, Lucius Lucullus, invaded Armenia. The news reached Tigranes just after he had successfully completed the siege of Ake-Ptolemais. 47 He hastened north, only to meet complete disaster at the hands of Lucullus and his veteran army. By 68 B. C. all Armenian power had been cleared out of Syria, and the country faced a new master. That Damascus recovered her freedom at this time is suggested by the bronze coin—if correctly described —of autonomous types which Mionnet records. 48 It bears the date ΜΓ and the inscription ΔAMACK. Damascus had now gained full local autonomy and was no longer a royal Seleucid mint.

End Notes