Category Archives: Greek

The Secret Chord: Harps and Lyres on Ancient and Modern Coins

Last month, on November 7, 2016, the internationally acclaimed Canadian artist Leonard Cohen died of cancer. He was regarded as a man of many talents, who painted, wrote novels, poetry, and the songs for which he was best known. He was a man of art, culture, and ideas, who appreciated the value of both Manhattan and Berlin.

Within the large oeuvre left behind by Cohen, the song Hallelujah stands out for its great popularity and the life of its own that it has taken on in the hands of the many other musicians (now more than 300 in multiple languages according to Wikipedia) who have played and modified its lyrics since it was first released in 1984. However, all versions begin with Cohen’s original lament “Now I’ve heard there was a secret chord / That David played, and it pleased the Lord / But you don’t really care for music, do you?” and this has prompted the topic for this edition of the ANS blog. Regardless of whether a numismatist does care for music (Cohen’s or anyone else’s) or not, David’s secret chord and those of other lyric poets have made an impact on coins from antiquity up to modern times.

fig-1-1927-38-76-rev-width350
Fig. 1: ANS 1927.38.76

David is depicted playing his chord on the enigmatic Irish St. Patrick coinage of the seventeenth century, some of which was carried off to New Jersey to serve as halfpence in the cash-starved colony. Its production in two denominations (or one that was later reduced in weight?), date of issue, meaning of its iconography, and the circumstances of its arrival in New Jersey have captured the imagination of Colonial American numismatists for decades and even became the topic for an ANS Coinage of the Americas Conference in 2006. The famous king also plays on contemporary coins of Nuremberg and the Papal States, as well as on psalmenpfennige (medallic awards for the completion of Protestant religious education, which included the memorization of Psalms—the Biblical songs attributed to David).

fig-2-1954-203-63-rev-width350
Fig. 2: ANS 1954.203.63

Harps appear without players on English silver coins struck for use in Ireland in the sixteenth century, but it is not clear whether any reference to King David was intended in this heraldic emblem or whether the instrument alluded only to contemporary Irish culture, which held its native harpers in high esteem. David’s harp (indicated by the winged female column symbolizing the unearthly beauty of its music), occurs on English halfpence produced for Ireland English halfpence produced for Ireland in the eighteenth century—perhaps not coincidentally after more than 100 years of repressive policies had all but crushed the native tradition of harping in Ireland. A pointedly Celtic harp (Irish cláirseach) has been used on all Irish coins, including the current euro, since the creation of the Irish Free State (Republic of Ireland after 1948) in 1922.

fig-3-1944-100-63061-rev-width350
Fig. 3: ANS 1944.100.63061

Although it is regularly described and depicted as a harp in medieval and modern texts and artworks, David’s stringed instrument was actually a form of lyre known in Hebrew as the kinnor. A related instrument, the nebel was regularly played as part of celebratory worship in the Jerusalem Temple. The connection of these instruments to the Temple and to David lies behind their prominent depiction on coins struck by Jewish rebels against Rome during the disastrous Bar Kokhba War (AD 132-136). This bloody conflict erupted when the emperor Hadrian sought to refound Jerusalem (already destroyed by Titus in AD 70) as a pagan city. The kinnor and nebel of the Bar Kokhba coins had a dual purpose. They evoked the longing memory of days when the Temple still stood and great Jewish kings ruled the land while casting Simon bar Kokhba, the leader of the revolt, as a Messianic figure who might lead his people to victory and restore the Temple.

fig-4-1944-100-41956-rev-width350
Fig. 4: ANS 1944.100.41956

The chelys (Latin testudo) and kithara of the Greeks and Romans appear to have been the rough equivalents of the kinnor and nebel, respectively. The former, which included a sound box made from a tortoise shell or wood formed into the shape of a shell, was said to have been discovered by the god Hermes. While traveling along a riverbank, he was attracted by a beautiful sound and when he went to investigate he found that the wind was blowing tendons that had been stretched across a tortoise shell. From this he fashioned the first chelys to be played by gods and men. The kithara, however, was a more elevated instrument of wooden construction associated with Apollo and the Muses as patrons of culture and the arts. Indeed, music lessons on the kithara or chelys were a staple of state education programs for citizens of the ancient Greek cities. The important role of music in Greek education is underlined by coins of the Bithynian king Prusias II that depict Chiron, the centaur tutor of Herakles, playing a kithara. The instrument is the only element of the type that allows the viewer to identify the subject as the educator Chiron and not some other centaur.

fig-5-1967-152-280-obv-width350
Fig. 5: ANS 1967.152.280

Apollo is a ubiquitous deity on Greek coins struck in the Classical and Hellenistic periods and even under the Roman Empire, who often appears in his role as Kitharoidos—the kithara player. His kithara is also depicted on coins, often paired with the head of its divine player or by itself, as on early coins of Delos, the island of Apollo’s birth. Less commonly, even great human lyric poets or the Muses who inspired them to greatness appear on Greek and Roman coins. Sappho is shown playing a kithara on coins of Mytilene in the Roman period as a means of advertising the cultural importance of the city while Terpsichore, Kalliope, and Erato, the respective Muses of choral song, epic poetry, and love poetry appear holding a kithara (Kalliope) or chelys (Terpsichore and Kalliope) on coins of the Roman Republican moneyer Q. Pomponius Musa as an extended pun on his cognomen Musa.

fig-6-1944-100-2329-rev-width350
Fig. 6: ANS 1944.100.2329

While Leonard Cohen attributes a single secret chord to David in his song, the numerous symbolic uses to which harps, lyres, and their players were put on coins of ancient and more modern times would seem to suggest that through the ages there were in fact many such chords aimed at pleasing the mortal as well as the divine.

The Emergence and Spread of the Reduced Aiginetan Standard in Hellenistic Greece

Ruben Post is a PhD candidate in Ancient History at the University of Pennsylvania. Ruben’s area of interest is the economic and environmental of Hellenistic Greece, with a particular focus on federal states. His dissertation examines the relationship between the exploitation of natural resources, land tenure patterns, federal institutions, and economic networks in the Hellenistic Achaean League.

Following the conquests of Alexander the Great (334–324 BCE), the many civic mints of the Greek world continued to produce silver coinage on several different weight standards. In southern Greece, the principal standard was the so-called Aiginetan (based on a drachm of c. 6 g). In the course of the 3rd c. BCE, however, most of these mints ceased to operate, and city after city joined increasingly powerful federal states, until in the early 2nd c. BCE only three such states—the Aitolian, Boiotian, and Achaian Leagues—came to dominate much of mainland Greece. At this same time, federal coinages unsurprisingly replaced local coinages; these federal issues were struck predominantly on a new standard, referred to commonly as the Reduced Aiginetan (based on a drachm of c. 5 g). My project for the graduate seminar has been to examine how this new standard emerged and why so many states came to adopt it.

Full-weight silver stater, Aigina, 380–370 BCE. (ANS 1967.152.314)
Full-weight silver stater, Aigina, 380–370 BCE. (ANS 1967.152.314)

While the main outlines of this process have been known for some time, little attention has been focused on the chronology and initial stages of the spread of the Reduced Aiginetan standard. In my research I found that, while much attention has been paid to the adoption of this standard by federal states, it has gone unnoticed that the first evidence we have for its adoption in southern Greece comes from the coinages associated with two famous Peloponnesian sanctuaries: Olympia and Epidauros. These sanctuaries seem to have required all foreigners to use their coinages exclusively, and administrators thus realized that by lowering the weight of silver used to strike their coins they could make a considerable profit through moneychanging. This monetary reform can be dated fairly securely based on hoard evidence to right around 250 BCE in both cases, though it is unclear who was following whom. When we turn to the federal states of Greece, however, our evidence is less clear. The Boiotian League appears to have been the first to adopt this new standard around 250 BCE, though there is ambiguous evidence suggesting that it may have been adopted some decades earlier. In the case of the Aitolian League, it is clear that the new standard was only adopted in the 230s BCE, and the Achaian League does not appear to have issued Reduced Aiginetan coinage until the beginning of the 2nd c. BCE.

Reduced-weight silver hemidrachm, Olympia. (ANS 1955.54.357)
Reduced-weight silver hemidrachm, Olympia. (ANS 1955.54.357)

Why did these states opt to reduce the weight standard of their coinage? There are two likely factors. The first is that older, well-used Aiginetan coins continued to circulate as legal tender at this time; hoard evidence demonstrates that as a result a significant proportion of small silver coinage circulating in central and southern Greece in the mid-3rd c. BCE weighed c. 2.5 g (the weight of new Reduced Aiginetan hemidrachms). As such, states that derived revenue from circulating coinage were losing out if they struck full-weight issues. The second is that within a couple of decades this standard became the norm for military pay throughout much of Greece. In later 3rd c. BCE inscriptions, this Reduced Aiginetan coinage is referred to as “alliance silver”; it has been plausibly suggested that this name derives from the Hellenic Alliance of 224/3 BCE, a coalition of several federal states including the Achaians and Boiotians. The need to pay troops of different origins serving together thus probably provided the ultimate impulse leading to the widespread adoption of this standard by c. 200 BCE.

Reduced-weight silver drachm, Boiotian League. (ANS 1944.100.20197)
Reduced-weight silver drachm, Boiotian League. (ANS 1944.100.20197)
Reduced-weight silver hemidrachm, Achaian League, Argos. (ANS 1963.31.807)
Reduced-weight silver hemidrachm, Achaian League, Argos. (ANS 1963.31.807)

Making Sense of Greco-Roman Legends on Western Kṣatrapa Coinage

1D3_8405Today’s post is written by Jeremy Simmonsa PhD candidate in the Classical Studies program at Columbia University. He has written on the topic of Indo-Roman trade, and in particular, the spice trade in antiquity.  His dissertation will look specifically at patterns of consumption in the larger Indian Ocean trade network, including the engagement between Indian monetary systems and imported Roman coinage. His project, as a participant of the the 2016 Eric P. Newman Graduate Summer Seminar, focuses on Western Kṣatrapa coins.

 

For my ANS Seminar Project, I decided to look at silver coins of the Western Kṣatrapas, who ruled in the modern day Indian states of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh from the mid-first to early fifth centuries CE (Figure 1). These coins have been indispensable for reconstructing the chronology of the Western Kṣatrapa kings, as well as the line of succession, due to the presence of dates (in the Śaka Era) and patronymics on coins. However, the feature of these coins that drew me to this project is the obverse legend, which appears to be written in a script that mixes Greek and Roman characters at random.

Figure1
Fig. 1: Rudrasiṃha I coin, minted in year 118 of the Śaka Era (c. 196 CE) [BM 1889.0105.25]
These legends have been little discussed in scholarship (as opposed to the Brāhmī legends on the reverse), and have been variously labeled “Greek,” “corrupt/pseudo/blundered Greek,” or “Greco-Roman,” without much consideration of the larger implications of these different descriptions. In fact, it is a general practice to not record the obverse legends of Kṣatrapa coins in catalogues or other publications: cataloguers justify their actions by stating that the legends become corrupt over time and cease to have any meaning; and those publishing or auctioning a single coin tend not to transcribe the obverse legend at all.

This lack of scholarly attention arises from the assumption that the obverse legends at one point communicated written language—specifically, the coins of the early kings like Nahapāna, which have Greco-Roman script transliterations of the Prakrit reverse legends (Figure 2)—but that later die-cutters, due to their lack of skill or knowledge of Greek and Latin, merely rendered corrupt versions as a form of ornamentation. I believe this narrative of decline, first suggested over a century ago, is not only based on the limited evidence of early collections, but has been perpetuated by a regrettable practice of not recording positive data.

Fig. 2: Nahapāna coin, with transliterated obverse legend ΡΑΝΝΙω ΞΑΗΑΡΑΤΑC ΝΑΗΑΠΑΝΑC (rannio ksaharatas nahapanas, “of king Nahapāna, the Kṣaharata”; mid first century CE) [CNG Auction 369, Lot 24, 24 Feb. 2016]
Fig. 2: Nahapāna coin, with transliterated obverse legend ΡΑΝΝΙω ΞΑΗΑΡΑΤΑC ΝΑΗΑΠΑΝΑC (rannio ksaharatas nahapanas, “of king Nahapāna, the Kṣaharata”; mid-first century CE) [CNG Auction 369, Lot 24, 24 Feb. 2016]
In order to correct the treatment of obverse legends on Kṣatrapa coins in scholarship, I have created a database of Greco-Roman obverse legends found on silver coins minted during the three-and-a-half centuries of Kṣatrapa rule (from Nahapāna to Rudrasiṃha III). I gathered these legends from specimens presented in various museum catalogues, auction listings, and publications. While this task involved some difficulties due to the damaged nature of most obverse legends (Figure 3) and the poor quality of photographs, I managed to assemble a large corpus of data in order to supplement existing descriptions and serve as the basis of my initial observations.

Fig. 3: Vijayasena coin, with corroded traces of obverse legend (r. 238-250 CE) [ANS 1978.51.6]
Fig. 3: Vijayasena coin, with corroded traces of obverse legend (r. 238-250 CE) [ANS 1978.51.6]
It is my hope that these observations will contribute to the following aims: 1) determining which paleographic features of the obverse script are Greek versus Roman, in order to mitigate the problem of variable terminology; 2) outlining possible sources of inspiration for these legends, whether it be local precedents (e.g., Indo-Greek, Indo-Scythian, and Indo-Parthian), imported Roman coinage, or imitation Roman coinage produced in India (Figures 4 and 5); 3) uncovering any evidence of conscious design behind these legends (as opposed to mindless copying as previously suggested), indicated by similar patterns of letters, standardization of legends, etc.; 4) and, most importantly, speculating why the Kṣatrapa kings would design coins with unreadable obverse legends alongside very legible Brāhmī legends and numerals.

Fig. 4: Indo-Greek drachm of Apollodotus II, with Greek obverse legend (early first century BCE) [BM 1922.0424.120]
Fig. 4: Indo-Greek drachm of Apollodotus II, with Greek obverse legend (early first century BCE) [BM 1922.0424.120]
At the very least, it is my hope to show the merits in investigating elements of a coinage tradition that many have disregarded as “meaningless.”

Fig. 5: Imitation Roman aureus of Septimius Severus, found in India (early third century CE?) [ANS 1905.57.375; photo Klaus Vondrovec]
Fig. 5: Imitation Roman aureus of Septimius Severus, found in India (early third century CE?) [ANS 1905.57.375; photo Klaus Vondrovec]

 

 

Metrological Equivalencies: The Attic Tetradrachm in Persian Period Egypt

1D3_8315_pp
2016 Eric P. Newman Graduate Seminar student Elsbeth van der Wilt

Dr. Elsbeth van der Wilt is a Dahlem Research School POINT fellow at the Freie Universität Berlin. The (long) title of her project is “Long-distance trade, monetization, marketplaces, and sanctuaries in the fourth century BC: Negotiating change in Egypt during the Achaemenid-Hellenistic transition”. Van der Wilt’s research on metrological equivalencies at the ANS will feed into her work in Berlin. She is currently preparing the publication of the lead weights from Thonis-Heracleion, which was part of her doctorate on the lead objects from this site at the University of Oxford (2014).

For my ANS project I am looking at a metrological problem: the equivalencies in the written sources between the Egyptian weight system—the deben of c. 91 g and kite of 9.1 g as measures of value—and the Attic monetary system. The “stater” in the Egyptian and Aramaic texts is understood as an Attic tetradrachm, which became the most prevalent coin in Egypt in the fifth century and remained so in the fourth century BCE. In Aramaic texts a stater is equated to two Babylonian shekel (8.4 g), in demotic it is one stater to 2 kite.

There is a margin of between 5–6% from the tetradrachm, up to the Egyptian standard and less down to the Babylonian shekel. Several scholars have already noted this difference between the Egyptian and Attic systems and suggested that the overvaluation of the tetradrachm over silver bullion, i.e., the deben, could be interpreted as seigniorage: necessary to cover the cost (and profit) of the minting of imitative owls in Egypt, by the temple of Ptah, for example. In fact, this percentage is very similar to the value of Athenian tetradrachms compared to bullion in Athens itself.

I am collecting the weights of different groups of Athenian owls in order to see whether there is any weight adjustment. In particular, I am interested in the unmarked owls that the American numismatist Th. Buttrey argued were imitations (Figs. 1–3). Since then, the Belgian scholar Chr. Flament clarifies the description of the styles of these coins. However, Flament and others have also argued that these coins were in fact minted in Athens, not Egypt.

Fig. 1: Buttrey style X tetradrachm (ANS 1941.131.550)

Flament suggests on the basis of metallic composition of the coins and the distribution of them in hoards for an Athenian origin of the metal and an earlier re-dating (of two styles, B and M). L. Anderson and P. van Alfen point out that there are in fact multiple scenarios that can explain the results of the metallic analyses of these coins. Furthermore, they also do not agree with Flament that the unusual style of the coins are due to poorer die-cutters in difficult times, arguing with reference to other marked Egyptian imitative coins that they could equally be non-Athenian.

Fig. 2: Buttrey style B tetradrachm (ANS 1944.100.24219)

J. H. Kroll has put forward a middle ground: for style X at least he suggests that the obverse and reverse dies were originally Athenian and exported abroad, where, later, the reverse dies (with the characteristic extended left foot, see Fig. 1) were imitated. Thus, currently there seems to be a conservative consensus that perhaps only Buttrey style “X” was Egyptian.

Fig. 3: Buttrey style M tetradrachm (ANS 1957.172.1123)

My contribution to this debate is to compare as many weights of the so-called Buttrey style imitations I can find, with weights of different groups such as bona fide 5th century owls, early 4th century owls (Fig. 4), and Pi-style owls (Fig. 5).

Fig. 4: Early 4th century Athenian tetradrachm (ANS 1959.137.1)

I want to investigate a) whether or not there was any tinkering with the weights of the coins in order to facilitate conversion between the different standards; and b) whether the results can be used to further strengthen or preclude the Egyptian origin of these Athenian tetradrachms. Finally, I will place the Attic monetary system in Egyptian metrology in order to suggest an explanation for the popularity of the owls, and compare their position with the metrological situation in the Near East.

Fig. 5: Pi I tetradrachm (ANS 1944.100.24312)

The Silver Coins of Syrian Manbog (Hierapolis—Bambyce)

1D3_8238Nathanael Andrade is an assistant professor in the history department at
SUNY-Binghamton. He is the author of
Syrian Identity in the Greco-Roman World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2013) and many articles on the Hellenistic, Roman, and later Roman Near East. His current book projects explore the arrival of Christianity in India in late antiquity and the life of Zenobia, the famous dynast from Palmyra. This blog post features his work as part of the 2016 Eric P. Newman Graduate Seminar in Numismatics.

Silver didrachm, Hierapolis Bambyce (ANS 1971.73.3)

For my project, I am doing a close study of the silver coins produced at Syrian Manbog (otherwise known as Hierapolis—Bambyce) late in the Achaemenid Persian period and in the first years of Alexander the Great’s rule over the Near East. The coins are notable because their inscriptions indicate that they were minted in the name of the mysterious priests of Manbog, the Persian satrap Mazdai (also known as Mazaios), and even Alexander the Great. The coins themselves are replete with images of Manbog’s patron gods, namely Atargatis (‘tr‘th or ‘th) and Hadad (hdd). Their types are also modeled on those from contemporary coins of Sidon, Tarsus, and other Cilician cities. But perhaps most intriguing of all, some of the coins bear likenesses of people that were apparently intended to be representations of Alexander.

Silver didrachm, Hierapolis Bambyce, 342–331 BC (ANS 2012.1.6)

The coins have been studied and catalogued in various publications of the 20th century. But many features of them are yet to be explored. Since 1999, over 20 other silver coins have come to light, thus nearly doubling the number of known specimens. My research thus includes an updated catalogue. No complete die study has yet been conducted. My project provides one for the known specimens and expounds upon its implications. The weights of the coins have been variously associated with the Babylonian shekel and the Attic didrachm. My study aims to provide some clarity on this issue. The circulation of the coins has yet to be established. My project seeks to define what it was. The iconography of the coins has often attracted commentary, especially in terms of how it reflects Near Eastern religious, cultural, or artistic traditions. But my project explores how the iconography was intimately linked to issues of local authority and, for some of the coins, the turbulent political sequence of 334–330. It even probes whether Alexander’s coins at Manbog have any bearing on how we interpret the subsequent coinage of his reign, which was arriving at its standard form at the time. As part of my overall examination of the dies, imagery, weight, circulation and political context, I also aim to theorize the economic or fiscal needs that the coins served and to identify some of the dubious specimens that have been attributed to Manbog’s mint.

Silver Didrachm, Hierapolis Bambyce, 340–325 BC (ANS 2000.3.1)

Finally, my study even tackles the vexing questions that surround the small fractal Samarian or Middle Levantine coins that bear the reverse inscription of MBGY. Does MBGY refer to Manbog and to the minting of small fractions there? Is it an ethnic denoting that “Manbogians” were responsible for minting? Or is it the personal name of a figure that oversaw the coins’ production in some way? If so, what was this person’s role and function? As I address these questions, I hope to make some small contribution to our understanding of the production and circulation of small silver fractions in the late Achaemenid Persian empire.

Silver Stater, Hierapolis Bambyce, 330–325 BC (ANS 2008.36.1)

Cross-Cultural Currencies: The Litra and Early Sicilian Fractional Silver

1D3_8334Giuseppe Carlo Castellano is a graduate student at the University of Texas at Austin, where he is pursuing a PhD in Classical Archaeology. His academic interests include culture contact, numismatics, and the material culture of Sicily and South Italy. Giuseppe is a part of the Contrada Agnese Project of the American Excavations at Morgantina, Sicily.

The indigenous inhabitants of Bronze and Iron Age Sicily exchanged bronze objects as a proto-monetary currency. Ingots, tools, and scrap were hoarded as wealth and traded by weight, eventually coming to be reckoned against a variety of regional libral standards, among which the Sicilian litra. This indigenous bronze system persisted alongside coinage well into the Hellenistic period and had a strong influence on the monetization of Sicily. Greeks and indigenous Italic peoples had been in contact for at least three centuries before the advent of coinage, and so would have become accustomed to each other’s weight standards and proto-monetary practice. The hybridized currencies and standards which emerged from this intercourse speak to the strong cultural and economic links between Italy, Sicily, and the Greek homeland.

Italic aes rude, or raw bronze, exchanged as currency in Bronze and Iron Age Sicily and Italy. Weight 33.95 g (ANS 0000.999.564)

The Greek term litra is of Sicel origin. It is cognate to the Italian libra, the indigenous ponderal unit of the mainland. Linguistic evidence suggests that the word litra came from the mainland to Sicily either as an inherited proto-Italic form or as a later loanword from a peninsular language. Mainland Italic peoples may have introduced their bronze-based ponderal system and associated terminology to Sicily by at least the beginning of the Iron Age.

Obverse of a silver litra of Himera, bearing a cock. These are probably the first silver litrai minted in Sicily, sometime between 550 and 484/483 BC. Weight 0.79 g (ANS 1944.100.8493)
Reverse of the same early silver litra of Himera, bearing an incuse mill-sail pattern. 550–484/483 BC. Weight 0.79 g (ANS 1944.100.849)

With the introduction of Greek-style coinage to Sicily in the sixth century BC the litra took on new significance as a small silver coin equivalent in value to the native bronze weight measure. These coins were minted alongside the traditional Greek fraction, the obol. Despite variations in weight among obols—the expected result of differing Greek regional standards—the silver litrai remain fairly consistent. This suggests that they were at least initially tied to another standard, perhaps the native bronze, unaffected by the variability among traditional Greek systems. The silver litra and its fractions formed a neat solution to the problem of integrating the two traditions and therefore allowed for a direct conversion between the native bronze system and the Greek silver system. This would have greatly facilitated trade between the largely coastal Greeks and the indigenous peoples of the interior. Colonial encounters of this kind often engender complex re-articulations of economic and cultural practice, and it is clear from literary, archaeological, and numismatic evidence that the Greeks were receptive to foreign standards and were willing to modify their own systems or assimilate elements of others in response to social, political, and economic exigencies.

Obverse of a Syracusan silver litra, bearing the head of the nymph Arethusa. Second quarter of the fifth century BC. Weight 0.87 g, diameter 11 mm (ANS 1997.9.29)
Reverse of the same Syracusan litra, bearing a cuttlefish and the legend ΣΥΡΑ. Second quarter of the fifth century BC. Weight 0.87 g, diameter 11 mm (ANS 1997.9.29)

This overlap of diverse currencies led to the creation of hybrid monetary systems that bore elements of both the imported Greek and native Italic traditions. This integrative and assimilative monetization formed part of what Massimo Pallottino in his History of Earliest Italy called the “complex and unstable… equilibrium” that promoted “a tradition of ever-growing diplomatic, religious, cultural, artistic and economic relationships… [and] a truly international way of life.” What emerges is a far more nuanced view of Greek colonization than the literary tradition and the historical narratives suggest: this is not merely a story of the colonizers and the colonized, but of complex colonial and postcolonial populations attempting to coexist, cooperate, and prosper.

Redressing the Balance, Part II: The ANS as Pottery Barn

In a previous installment we looked at the under-appreciated and underutilized leaden riches of the ANS cabinet. In truth, however, the lead coins are probably better known to many collectors and scholars than the Society’s holdings of terracotta and porcelain coins. Yes, that’s right. The same materials and processes used to make your floor tiles, your teacup, and your toilet have at various times been used to make money or monetiform objects.

The oldest example—and my personal favorite—in the collection is a remarkable terracotta “elephant stater” of Seleucus I Nicator (312–281 BC) (Fig. 1).

Silver “elephant stater” (tetradrachm) of Seleucus. NS 1944.100.44932
Figure 1. Silver “elephant stater” (tetradrachm) of Seleucus I from the Seleucia on the Tigris mint (second workshop). ANS 1944.100.44932.

Seleucus began his career as one of the lesser commanders serving Alexander the Great during his conquest of the Persian Empire, but after Alexander’s death, he became satrap (governor) of Babylonia and then king in his own right over a vast territory stretching from western Asia Minor to the borders of India. At his mints in Babylonia (and Susiana and Bactria) Seleucus I struck silver “elephant staters” featuring the head of Zeus on the obverse and Athena in a chariot drawn by elephants on the reverse (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Terracotta “coin model” of a silver “elephant stater” of Seleucus I. ANS 1944.100.44991.
Figure 2. Terracotta “coin model” of a silver “elephant stater” of Seleucus I. ANS 1944.100.44991.

It is unclear what we should make of the Society’s terracotta specimen, which probably came from the Seleucia on the Tigris excavations carried out by the University of Michigan between 1927 and 1937. Terracotta coins of other Seleucid rulers have been published from these excavations, but the ANS piece appears to be the only “elephant stater.” The published examples are usually described as clay models used as references by die engravers in the Seleucid mint. However, all of the terracotta coins (including ours) look very much like they have been cast from moulds made from real coins that have seen some degree of circulation and exhibit some of their own surface wear, none of which we would expect from models for artists. One wonders whether the Seleucid terracotta coins served as tokens at Seleucia (they do not seem to be found anywhere else) in times of emergency, whether they might have served as some sort of accounting tool, or whether they had some other unguessed purpose.

More modern and somewhat less mysterious, but certainly equally interesting are the porcelain and stoneware Notgeld (emergency money) coins produced in the German city of Meissen between 1921 and 1923. After the devastation of the First World War finally came to an end and a punishing Treaty of Versailles was imposed on Germany, the country sank into a nightmarish economic crisis that included shortages of circulating money. In order to make up the shortfall, the Royal-Polish and Electoral-Saxon Porcelain Factory (founded 1710) of Meissen produced porcelain and stoneware coins for German states, municipalities, and private businesses ranging in denomination from the pfennig to multiples of the mark and thaler (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. Böttger ware 5-Mark Notgeld token of Altenburg, Thuringia, produced by the Meissen porcelain factory, 1921. ANS 0000.999.56653.
Figure 3. Böttger ware 5-Mark Notgeld token of Altenburg, Thuringia, produced by the Meissen porcelain factory, 1921. ANS 0000.999.56653.

In many German states Notgeld more commonly came in the form of paper notes rather than coins (Fig. 4).

Figure 4. Paper 2-Mark Notgeld of Hannover-Münden, undated (c. 1921-1923). ANS 1966.88.6.
Figure 4. Paper 2-Mark Notgeld of Hannover-Münden, undated (c. 1921-1923). ANS 1966.88.6.

It is a little ironic that the factory of Meissen was first to make money out of ceramics since the methods for producing white porcelain and a distinctive dark red stoneware (Böttger ware) were first discovered in Europe by the Berlin alchemist Johann Friedrich Böttger (1682–1719) while attempting to create the elusive Goldmachertinktur. This mysterious substance was supposed to give the alchemist the power to cure any disease and, perhaps more importantly, the power to turn lead into gold. Böttger’s efforts attracted the unwanted attentions of the frequently cash-strapped Frederick I of Prussia (1688–1713) and Augustus II of Poland, who was also the Elector of Saxony (1694–1733), and the alchemist frequently found himself held in “protective custody” just in case he was successful.   The secret of porcelain was discovered in 1708, during one such period of “protection” by Augustus II. The King-Elector immediately recognized its implications and established the factory at Meissen. Prior to Böttger, porcelain could be obtained by the European elite only through the long-distance trade with China. As such it was valued like precious metals and was sometimes described as “white gold.” For a time in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries porcelain was as valuable as money, but it only became money in a real sense in the early 1920s.   Unfortunately, while porcelain and stoneware coins helped to fill in the holes in the circulating medium of postwar Germany and also held an attraction for collectors, their utility was hampered by their tendency to break easily. In the end, porcelain coins could not keep up with the hyperinflation that took hold of Germany in 1922–1923 (Fig. 5) and were abandoned as part of the circulating medium before the introduction of the new Rentenmark (a currency backed by land) ended the hyperinflationary period in November of 1923.

Figure 5. Hyperinflationary paper 100,000,000-Mark Notgeld of Cologne, 1923. ANS 1993.35.709.
Figure 5. Hyperinflationary paper 100,000,000-Mark Notgeld of Cologne, 1923. ANS 1993.35.709.

A third notable group of ceramic coins in the ANS collection consists of porcelain gaming tokens that circulated as local money in Siam (modern Thailand) between 1760 and 1875. The colorfully-glazed white porcelain tokens (Fig. 6) were produced in China for use by the numerous private gambling houses in Siam.

Figure 6. Porcelain gaming token from Siam (Thailand). ANS 1937.179.28443.
Figure 6. Porcelain gaming token from Siam (Thailand). ANS 1937.179.28443.

It has been estimated that there were some 500 to 1,000 different firms, or hongs, that operated these houses and issued tokens. They were produced in a variety of denominations ranging from the att to the salung and involved many thousands of different designs as a means of preventing counterfeiting. Issues were also recalled frequently and replaced in order to thwart would-be counterfeiters. The system was evidently successful and the tokens seem to have inspired trust as money. However, the modernizing policies of the Siamese king Rama V (1868–1910), which included the introduction of a European-style royal coinage (Fig. 7), ultimately resulted in the prohibition of the circulation of the tokens. One is reminded of the much more recent use of casino chips as circulating money in Las Vegas before this was curtailed by changes to Nevada law in the 1980s.

Figure 7. Bronze baht of Rama V (1868-1910) ANS 1940.160.245.
Figure 7. Bronze baht of Rama V (1868-1910) ANS 1940.160.245.

In addition to the gold silver and copper coins usually associated with the ANS collection we should always remember the other, not so well known materials that make up the numismatic riches of the Society’s cabinet. Their stories are equally fascinating and worthy of being told. With each raising of the teacup and every flush it is good for numismatists to give a thought to the days of “white gold” and the remarkable places and people as well as the interesting (occasionally frightening) times that have given us porcelain coins.

Dr. Aneurin Ellis-Evans Redefines Attic Weight Coinage

Dr. Aneurin Ellis-Evans delivers the Fowler lecture at the ANS.
Dr. Aneurin Ellis-Evans delivers the Harry W. Fowler lecture at the ANS.

On April 12, Dr. Aneurin Ellis-Evans of Oxford University delivered the 2016 Harry W. Fowler Memorial Lecture, “Imperialism and Regionalism in the Athenian Empire: an Attic Weight Coinage from North-West Turkey and its Afterlife (427-405 BC).”

View the complete lecture here.

lecture2
Dr. Ellis-Evans makes his case regarding Attic weight standards.

Dr. Ellis-Evans holds degrees from Balliol College and New College, Oxford, with a particular interest in the social and economic history of the ancient world. In particular, he is intrigued by the relationship between geography and history, and will be publishing his PhD thesis exploring this theme with OUP as The Kingdom of Priam: The Troad between Anatolia and the Aegean. Since completing his doctoral studies in 2013, he has written numerous articles and reviews, and presented on a variety of topics relating to the Classical and Post-Classical worlds.

lecture1
The Harry W. Fowler Memorial Lecture was established in 1998 with a bequest from Mr. Fowler and with additional gifts from the Fowler family. Harry W. Fowler served as President of the American Numismatic Society from 1984-1990, and for his personal generosity was named a Benefactor of the Society in 1986. In 1995 he bequeathed his collection of Bactrian coins to the ANS, which together with the Society’s already strong holdings, has created one of the most comprehensive collections of Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek coins.

THE RETURN OF THE KINGS

1917.215.1394
Husam al-Din Timurtash. ANS 1917.215.1394

One of the really wonderful things about numismatic study is the way that coin types frequently look back to what came before. People are naturally conservative about the appearance of their money and find it easier to put faith in the value of coins that have the backing of tradition and public sentiment as well as of the issuing authority. Thus throughout the history of coinage, old typological friends, some of whom may have seemed long lost have had an uncanny way of coming back, sometimes even after very long intervals.

ANS 1967.143.1
Najam al-Din Alpi. ANS 1967.143.1

For centuries after the death of Alexander the Great, kings and cities copied his widely circulating tetradrachms with the types of Herakles’s head and seated Zeus. So closely were the types associated with Alexander, that the image of Herakles soon became treated as his portrait in the guise of Herakles and continued in use long into the time of the Roman Empire. From time to time Roman emperors explicitly restored old and trusted denarius types while some of the towers depicted on Medieval deniers may ultimately take their inspiration from the ubiquitous “camp gate” types of the late Roman Empire. Somewhat more recently, the laureate head and seated female figure on the state coppers of Connecticut struck from 1786 to 1788 are suspiciously similar to the portraits of King George II and III and seated Britannia reverse of the well-recognized British halfpenny.

Antiochus VII Sidetes. ANS 1944.100.76618
Antiochus VII Sidetes. ANS 1944.100.76618

Perhaps to be counted among the most remarkable of these reuses and resurrections of earlier types are the copper dirhams struck by the Turkoman rulers of northern Mesopotamia in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries AD. Despite the general tendency to avoid figural types on Islamic coins for reasons of religion, the Turkoman coins are rife with images—many of which seem to be modeled on ancient coin types.

ANS 1917.215.968
Nur al-Din Muhammad. ANS 1917.215.968

One might argue (and I would) that two of the most interesting Turkoman types based on ancient models are the bronze dirhams struck by the Artuqid Turkoman dynasties of Mardin and Hisn Khayfa which take the royal portraits of Seleucid tetradrachms as their prototypes. At Mardin, the coins of Husam al-Din Timurtash (AH 516–547/AD 1122–1152) and his son Najam al-Din Alpi (AH 547–572/AD 1152–1176) take the portrait issues of Antiochus VII Sidetes (138–129 BC) as their model while at Hisn Khayfa, the coins of Nur al-Din Muhammad (AH 571–581/AD 1175–1185) seem to look to tetradrachms of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (176–165 BC) or Antiochus V Eupator (164–162 BC).

1944.100.75243
Antiochus IV Epiphanes. ANS 1944.100.75243

Exactly why these Seleucid types (and other ancient types) were resurrected under these Artuqid Turkoman rulers remains rather mysterious. As the Seleucid presence had disappeared from Mesopotamia already in 130 BC (coincidentally with the death of Antiochus VII) and the Turkomans employed a wide variety of ancient coin motifs, the answer cannot have been to illustrate continuity with the past (except in the very broadest of terms) and thereby express legitimacy. Indeed, the portrait of Antiochus VII was doubled for another issue of Najam al-Din Alpi. This double portrait has been interpreted as a representation of the astrological sign Gemini, which would then clearly indicate that the image of Antiochus VII was not used by the die engravers under Alpi and Timurtash because they knew who he was or the ancient kingdom that he represented, but merely because his appearance was suitable to their own numismatic purposes and they had one of his coins ready at hand as a model. The coins of antiquity came out of the ground in the farmers’ fields and building projects of the Middle East just as easily in the 12th century AD as they do today.

ANS 1961.179.86
Antiochus V Eupator. ANS 1961.179.86

The Artuqid coins with Seleucid prototypes are an interesting example of the direct impact that ancient coins could have on much later coinages—even those of rulers who were not direct heirs of the Greco-Roman cultural tradition. At the same time, they are also a remarkable footnote in the early history of Seleucid numismatic study. As late as the 1790s the Antiochus VII type of Husam al-Din Timurtash was still occasionally included in European collections and antiquarian numismatic works dealing with the Seleucids out of ignorance that the reverse legend was Arabic and significantly postdated the end of the Seleucid dynasty in 63 BC, let alone the reign of the king depicted on the obverse.