__MAIN_TEXT__

Page 1


NUMISMATIC STUDIES No.

21


Obverse of a group F tetradrachm selected dead

of no particular

merely for the appealing depiction lion's eyelashes

(private

significance, of the

collection).


STUDIES IN THE MACEDONIAN COINAGE OF

ALEXANDER THE GREAT BY

HYLA A. TROXELL

NUMISMATIC STUDIES No. 21

THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY NEW YORK 1997 11*1ti, i -4 U l'

Indiana University

JUL 11 o OC

L'fcK■■r. [ 5,

1597

Library

• m

[V


© COPYRIGHT

THE AMERICAN

1997

NUMISMATIC

SOCIETY

ISSN-0517-404x

ISRN 0-89722-261-x

PRINTED IN BELGIUM AT CULTURA, WETTEREN


Dedicated to the memory of

MARGARET THOMPSON, with awe and affection in equal measure


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

11

Abbreviations 1. Publications

13 13

2.

Sale Catalogues

14

3.

Collections

15

Introduction

17

Part I Amphipolis Silver of Alexander 1:

III

and Philip

II,

ca. 332 - ca. 310 B.C.

Alexander Tetradrachms

20

Issues and Groups The Size of the Groups Concordance 2:

25

to and Commentary on Alexander

Issues

Alexander Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm

30 30

Discussion

35 to and Commentary on Alexander

Alexander Groups: Obverse Links Other Evidence

Issues

Relative Chronology

Post-323 Philip

41

47 48

II

Tetradrachm Reissues

51

Issues and Groups The Size of the Groups

Commentary on Philippe

51

54 Issues

55

Philip II Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm Fifths Tenths Attic-Weight Drachms Commentary on Philippe Issues

5: Post-323

6:

Philip

II

Groups:

Obverse

37 41

Discussion 4:

26

Issues and Groups Concordance 3:

20

Relative Chronology

8:

The Silver Hoards Alphabetical Index Individual Hoards

62 63

65

Discussion

Alexander and Philip Groups:

56 61

65

Links

7:

56

69

Summary and Relative Chronology

71 73 73 73

7


Table of Contents

8

Hoard Summary Discussion 9:

83 84

Alexanders and Philips: Absolute Chronology Groups A-D and the Start of the Coinage Groups E-F Group G and the Introduction of the Title Groups H-I Groups K-J Group L and the Dropping of the Title Philip II Reissues Summary Part

86 86

90 92 93 93 94

95 95

II

Alexander's Lifetime Gold 10:

The Lifetime Staters

100

Catalogue

101

The Coins and Their Attribution Commentary on Alexander Issues

107 110

11:

Three Groups of Distaters

112

12:

The Gold Hoards Alphabetical Index Individual Hoards

115

Gold Discussion and Chronology The Lifetime Staters Other Cantharus, Trident, and Fulmen Staters Distaters Summary

122

13:

115 115

122 127 128 128

Tables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

17.

Alexander Alexander Alexander Alexander Alexander Alexander

Tetradrachm Groups and Issues Tetradrachm Group Sizes Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm: Groups and Issues Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm: Examples Located Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm: Obverse Dies Located Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm: Reverse Types Post-323 Philip II Tetradrachm Groups and Issues Post-323 Philip II Tetradrachm Group Sizes Philip II Fifths: Groups and Issues Philip II Tetradrachms and Fifths: Examples Located Occurrence of Symbols on Philip II Fifths and on Tetradrachms of Groups 8 and 9 Philip II Tetradrachms and Fifths: Examples Located Certain Philip II Tetradrachms and Fifths: Examples Located Philip II Tenths Philip II Attic-Weight Drachms Summary of Relative Chronology of Alexander and Philip II Tetradrachms and of Accompanying Smaller Coins Relative Amounts of Silver Struck as Measured by Estimated Dies

21 26

30 33 34 34 52 54 57 59 59

60 61

62 62 71 72


Table of Contents Percentages

18.

Macedonian

K/J

20. Concordance

of Newell's Tarsos

Dies and Troxell Dies

21. Comparison of Series 1 and 2 with Philippe 22. Comparison of Sicyon 1-5, 6-8, and 9-16 23. Gold Hoards Buried by ca. 315 B.C 24. Philippe Group II Gold Coins in Selected

Pella Groups

5. 6. 7. 8.

94 100 108 110 112 121

Hoards

Figures Alexander Tetradrachms: Die Links within Group H Die Links between Alexander Groups Die Links between Philip II Groups of Newell and Troxell Dating Comparison Die Linkage in Series 1 and Series 2 Die Linkage among Group C Distaters

1-3. 4.

in Hoards Containing 10 or More

Coins

Gold Coins

19.

K/J in Groups A through of Groups A through K/J and Obverse Dies Located of I and

9

124

24-25 47 69 96 106 114

Appendices Hoard, Tetradrachms Mende 1983 Hoard, Gold Commerce 1993 Hoard, Gold Commerce 1994 Hoard, Gold

1. Commerce 2. 3. 4.

Key

1993

129 134 137 141

to Plates

145

Indices

Alexander's Amphipolis Silver Markings Philip Il's Post-323 Amphipolis Silver Markings

153

2. 3.

General

161

1.

157


PREFACE Not the least of the attractions

of numismatics is the kindness and helpfulness of numismatists and help of all sorts with this study I thank Maria Akamati, Michel Harlan S. Berk, Mark Blackburn, Theodore V. Buttrey, A. S. De Amandry, Carmen Arnold-Biucchi, Shazo, Kamen Dimitrov, U. L. Diucov, Peter R. Franke, Stephen C. Glover, Silvia M. Hurter, Jonathan

themselves. For information

K. Kern, Frank Kovacs, Anne Kromann,

Peter L. Lampinen, Katerini Liampi, Joseph P. Linzalone, Mando Oeconomides, Constantin Preda, Katerina Romiopoulou, Hans-Dietrich Schultz, Iannis Touratsoglou, J. P. A. Van der Vijn, Hans Vogtli, Kerry K. Wetterstrom, and Orestes

Valerii P. Nikonorov, Zervos.

Wayne Moore produced most of the photos of the ANS's gold and many of its small silver pieces; Michael Di Biase, most of Plates 18 and 19; and the ANS's Frank Deak, the bulk of the remaining on Plates 1-25. Photos of the hoard coins on Plates 26-31 were supplied by various friends who are noted elsewhere. Marie H. Martin has done her usual magnificent job as editor, and I thank her

illustrations

too most heartily. Charles A. Hersh has made available his remarkable collection of small-denomination

Alexanders,

many purchased in recent years in deliberate aid of this study and has made valuable comments on the manuscript. Sarah E. Cox, by her cheerful and patient checking of references in the text, has eliminated a host of errors.

Georges Le Rider and the late Martin Price have helped throughout with information indeed enthusiastically, and with their sage comments. That Dr. Price in particular did not agree with all my conclusions did not lessen his continued kind help. I am especially grateful to each of these three friends. offered willingly,

11


ABBREVIATIONS

1. Publications

Abydus ACNAC

AJA

AJN Ake Alexander

AMNG Andritsaena

ANSMN ANSNNM ANSNS "Babylon

Mint"

Abydus die numbers in Lampsacus and Abydus Ancient Coins in North American Collections (American Numismatic Society, New York) American Journal of Archaeology American Journal of Numismatics Ake issue numbers in Sidon and Ake M. J. Price, The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus (Zurich and London, 1991) Die antiken Miinzen Nord-Griechenlands, 3 vols., ed. F. Imhoof-Blumer and T. Wiegand (Berlin, 1898-1935) E. T. Newell, Alexander Hoards 3. Andritsaena, ANSNNM 21 (New York, 1923) American Numismatic Society Museum Notes American Numismatic Society Numismatic Notes and Monographs American Numismatic Society Numismatic Studies N. M. Waggoner, "The Alexander Mint at Babylon," Ph. D. diss. (Columbia University, 1968)

N. M. Waggoner, "Tetradrachms from Babylon," in Greek Numismatics and Archaeology. Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson, ed. O. Merkholm and N. M. Waggoner (Wetteren, 1979), pp. 269-80 "Balkan Peninsula" K. Dimitrov, "Observations on Several Hoards of Gold Hellenistic Coins from the Balkan Peninsula," Etudes Balkaniques 3 (1987), pp. 103-16 BCH Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique B. V. Head, A Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Macedonia, etc. (London, 1879) BMC "Cavalla" M. Thompson, "The Cavalla Hoard (IGCH 450)," ANSMN 26 (1981), pp. 33-49 CH Royal Numismatic Society, Coin Hoards 1 and 2 (London, 1975 and 1976) "Cypriote Alexanders" E. T. Newell, "Some Cypriote 'Alexanders'," NC 1915, pp. 294-322 de Hirsch P. Naster, La Collection Lucien de Hirsch: Catalogue des monnaies grecques (Brussels, 1959) Demanhur E. T. Newell, Alexander Hoards 2. Demanhur 190,5, ANSNNM 19 (New York, 1923) The Arthur S. Dewing Collection of Greek Coins, ACNAC 6, ed. L. Mildenberg and S. Hurter Dewing (New York, 1985) "Earliest Coins" O. Zervos, "The Earliest Coins of Alexander the Great 1. Notes on a Book by Gerhard Kleiner," NC 1982, pp. 166-79 "Earliest Silver" H. A. Troxell, "Alexander's Earliest Macedonian Silver," in Mnemata: Papers in Memory of Nancy M. Waggoner, ed. W. E. Metcalf (New York, 1991), pp. 49-61 E. T. Newell, The Coinage of the Eastern Seleucid Mints from Seleucus I to Antiochus III, ESM ANSNS 1 (New York, 1938) HN B. V. Head, Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek Numismatics, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1911) G. Macdonald, Catalogue of Greek Coins in the Hunterian Collection, University of Glasgow, Hunter voi. I (Glasgow, 1899) An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards, ed. M. Thompson, 0. Merkholm, and C. M. Kraay IGCH (New York, 1973) JNFA Journal of Numismatic Fine Arts JNG Jahrbuch fur Numismatik und Geldgeschichte Lampsacus die numbers in Lampsacus and Abydus Lampsacus Lampsacus and Abydus M. Thompson, Alexander's Drachm Mints 2. Lampsacus and Abydus, ANSNS 19 (New York, 1991) McClean S. W. Grose, Catalogue of the McClean Collection of Greek Coins, 2 (Cambridge, 1926) MFA A. B. Brett, Catalogue of Greek Coins [Museum of Fine Arts] (Boston, 1955) Miletus Miletus die numbers in Sardes and Miletus Monn. gr. F. Imhoof-Blumer, Monnaies grecques (Amsterdam, 1883) Miiller L. Muller, N umismatique d' Alexandre le Grand, suivie d'un appendice contenant les monnaies de Philippe et (Copenhagen, 1855) "Babylon"

II

III

13


Abbreviations

11

E. T. Newell, Myriandros- Alexandria Kat'isson, AJN 53, 2 (1919), rpt. New York (1920) Numismatic Chronicle "Near East" C. A. Hersh and H. A. Troxell, "A 1993 Hoard of Alexander Drachms from the Near East," AJN 5-6 (1993-94), pp. 13-42 K. Dimitrov, "Tresor monetaire hellenistique de Nicopolis ad Nestum (IGCH 829)," "Nicopolis" Archaeologia (Sofia) 29 (1988), pp. 44-56 (in Bulgarian, French summary) "Peloponnesian Alexanders" H. A. Troxell, "The Peloponnesian Alexanders," ANSMN 17 (1971), pp. 41-94 G. Le Rider, Le monnayage d'argent el d'or de Philippe Philippe frappi en Macedoine de 359 d 294 (Paris, 1977) 0. Zervos, "Early Tetradrachms of Ptolemy I," ANSMN 13 (1967), pp. 1-16 "Ptolemy" RBN Revue Beige de Numismatique Reattrib. E. T. Newell, Reattribution of Certain Tetradrachms of Alexander the Great, AJN 45 (1911) and 46 (1912), rpt. New York (1912) "Reform" M. J. Price, "The Earliest Coins of Alexander the Great 2. Alexander's Reform of the Macedonian Coinage," NC 1982, pp. 180-90 RN Revue Numismatique Salamis Salamis issues in "Cypriote Alexanders" Sardes Sardes die numbers in Sardes and Miletus Sardes and Miletus M. Thompson, Alexander's Drachm Mints 1. Sardes and Miletus, ANSNS 16 (New York, Myriandros

NC

II

1983) S. P. Noe,

Sicyon Sidon Sidon

and Ake

SNGANS SNGAshm SNGBerry SNGCop SNGDavis

The Alexander Coinage of Sicyon, ANSNS 6 (New York, 1950) Sidon issue numbers in Sidon and Ake E. T. Newell, The Dated Alexander Coinage of Sidon and Ake, Yale Oriental Series, Researches 2 (New Haven and London, 1916) Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum The American Numismatic Society, p. 8, Macedonia 2: Alex ander I - Philip (New York, 1994) Museum Oxford Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum [Great Britain), voi. 5, pt. 2, Ashmolean (London, 1969) Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum The Burton Y. Berry Collection (New York, 1961-62) Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish National Museum (Copenhagen, 1955) Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum (Great Britain], voi. 1, pt. 2, The Newnham Davis Coins in the Wilson Collection of Classical and Eastern Antiquities, Marischal College, Aberdeen (Lon

II

don,

SNGFitz SNGLewis

1936) Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum [Great Britain], General Collections (London, 1967)

voi.

4, Fitzwilliam

Museum: Leake and

Nummorum Graecorum [Great Britain], voi. 6, The Lewis Collection in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (London, 1972) Tarsos E. T. Newell, Tarsos under Alexander (New York, 1919) "Tetradrachms Amphipolis" C. Ehrhardt, "A Catalogue of Issues of Tetradrachms from Amphipolis, 318-294 B.C.," JNFA 4 (March 1976), pp. 85^89 Traiti E. Babelon, Traite des monnaies grecques et romaines, pt. 2, voi. 4, (Paris, 1932) Watcher de Molthein L. Walcher de Molthein, Catalogue de la collection des medailles grecques de. . . Leopold Walcher de Molthein (Paris and Vienna, 1895) Weber L. Forrer, Descriptive Catalogue of the Collection of Greek Coins Formed by Sir Hermann Weber, 4 vols. (London, 1922-29) E. T. Newell, The Coinage of the Western Seleucid Mints from Seleucus I to Antiochus III, WSM ANSNS 4 (New York, 1941) 2. Sale

Sylloge

Catalogues

Artemis Artemis Antiquities, St. Petersburg, Florida Auctiones Auctiones A. G., Basel Ball Robert Ball Nachf., Berlin Bank Leu Bank Leu A.G., Zurich Berk Harlan J. Berk, Chicago, Illinois Birkler & Wadd ell Birkler & Waddell, Washington, D.C. Blaser-Frey Helga P. R. Blaser-Frey, Freiburg im Breisgau Cahn Adolf E. Cahn, Frankfurt am Main Canessa C. & E. Canessa, Naples CNG Classical Numismatic Group, Lancaster, Pennsylvania Coin Galleries Coin Galleries, New York, New York


Abbreviations

15

Briider Egger, Vienna Frankfurter Munzhandlung, Frankfurt am Main Giessener Giessener Munzhandlung, Munich Glendining Glendining and Co., London Grabow Ludwig Grabow, Berlin Hess Adolf Hess Nachf., Lucerne Hirsch, G. Gerhard Hirsch, Munich Hirsch, J. Jacob Hirsch, Munich Knobloch Frederick S. Knobloch, Bronx, New York Kovacs Frank Kovacs, San Mateo, California Kricheldorf H. H. Kricheldorf, Stuttgart Kunst u. Miinzen Kunst und Munzen, Lugano Lanz Numismatic Lanz, Munich Leu See Bank Leu Alex G. Malloy, Inc., South Salem, New York Malloy Mid-American Mid-American Rare Coin Auctions, Inc., Lexington, Kentucky J. C. Morgenthau and Co., New York, New York. Morgenthau Miinz. u. Med. Munzen und Medaillen A.G., Basel Robert J. Myers, New York, New York Myers Naville Naville et Cie., Geneva New Netherlands New Netherlands Coin Co., New York, New York NFA Numismatic Fine Arts, Los Angeles, California Numismatica Ars Classica Numismatica Ars Classica, Zurich Parke-Bernet Parke-Bernet Galleries Inc., New York, New York Peus Busso Peus, Frankfurt am Main Piatt Clement Piatt, Paris Ratto, M. Mario Ratto, Milan Ratto, R. Rodolfo Ratto, Milan Rauch Hans Dieter Rauch, Vienna Rollin & Feuardent Rollin & Feuardent, Paris Santamaria P. & P. Santamaria, Rome Schulman Jacques Schulman, Amsterdam Kreditanstalt, Bern Schweizerische Kreditanstalt Schweizerische Shore Fred B. Shore (The Parthian), Fort Washington, Pennsylvania Sotheby Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge (1924) or Sotheby & Co. (1969), London Stack's, New York, New York Stack's Frank Sternberg, Zurich Sternberg Tradart, Geneva Tradart Egger Frankfurter

3. Collections

Unlike most studies, the present one has been based not on material gathered by the author, but almost entirely on the rich lode at the American Numismatic Society. Its Alexander collection, the world's best, has been augmented by its library, its photograph file, and most significantly by its large and important cast collection, assembled chiefly by the discerning Edward T. Neweli. To these have been added the stater photographs gathered by Georges Le Rider, the important small denomination Alexander coins in the collec tion of Charles A. Hersh, and a mere handful of other examples. Although all the material on which the study is based is at the ANS in the form of coins, casts, or the present location of many of the coins themselves is not known. Many collectors of decades photographs, In a few cases ago cannot be identified, and many once known older collections are now no doubt dispersed. the particular institution in a stated city is not known. Such information as is on Newell's cast cards or in his records is given, but where there is no clear indication of the specific institution holding a coin (e.g., on casts marked simply "Berlin" or "Istanbul") no expansion of the citation in the text is given below. Most readers will be as well able as the author to assume which institution holds (or held) a coin. It has not seemed necessary to trouble a great many curators with inquiries about whether or not they still possess particular coins. Doubtless there will be criticism of this decision, but all the evidence is, after all, at the American Numismatic Society and available there. Aberdeen

ANS Athens

Marischal College American Numismatic Society, New York National Archaeological Museum


16

Abbreviations

Beirut American University Berlin Staatliche Museen, Munzkabinett Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria Historical Museum Brett Agnes Baldwin Brett England See the individual publications cited Cambridge, Massachusetts Harvard University, Fogg Art Museum Cambridge, Nationalmuseet, Royal Collection of Coins and Medals Copenhagen Dattari Private collector, Cairo Private collector, Athens. Many Empedocles coins are in the National Archaeological Empedocles Museum, but those here cited simply as "Empedocles" are not there Florence Museo Archeologico Gillette George A. Gillette, Rochester, New York Hunterian Museum Glasgow Museum fiir Kunst und Gewerbe Hamburg Hersh Charles A. Hersh, Mineola, New York Hollschek Karl Hollschek Leiden Koninklijk Penningkabinet, Rijksmuseum (collection formerly in The Hague) London British Museum Milan Museo Archeologico Museo Archeologico Nazionale Naples Oman Professor Sir Charles Oman Oxford Ashmolean Museum Paris Bibliotheque Nationale Petsalis Private collector, Athens Ruse, Bulgaria Regional Museum of History St. Petersburg State Hermitage Museum Thessaloniki Archaeological Museum Toronto Royal Ontario Museum Turin Museo Civico di Torino Veliko TaYnovo, Bulgaria Regional Museum of History Verroia, Greece Archaeological Museum Vienna Kunsthistorisches Museum Wertheim Julius Wertheim, Berlin Mr. E. Zygman Zygman


INTRODUCTION The rather amorphous, non-specific nature of this book's title is unfortunately unavoidable. The work deals with what are essentially five coinages, in two metals, struck over several different periods of time and very possibly at two or more different mints— whose locations we do not know. The project started more than ten years ago, as I worked on preparing sylloge volumes of the ANS's magnificent collections of Alexander's gold and of the silver coins from his major Macedo nian mint, usually assumed to be Amphipolis. Philip II's coinage had previously been cata logued, and the sylloge volume containing his coins, lifetime and posthumous, was published in 1994. SNGANS numbers for Philip's coins are therefore given in this work. The Alexander volumes, however, remain in manuscript and publication dates are uncertain, so that no sylloge numbers are given here for the coins in his name. The ANS's gold from the two or more Macedonian gold mints has been subjected to a die study together with examples from the Society's (largely E. T. Newell's) remarkable cast collec tion and its rich photo file and library. To these examples were added photographs of many other gold coins, which Georges Le Rider kindly put at my disposai. The results of the die study are briefly summarized here in chapter 10, which describes in detail only one sub-group which can now be identified as the earliest lifetime staters. The tetradrachms from the main silver mint, traditionally called Amphipolis, were also stud ied, through the issues which were found in the great Demanhur hoard of 1905, buried ca. 318 B.C., and through the next group of issues as well, those with the primary marking P which No attempt was made to assemble a corpus, but the ANS's rich were not present in Demanhur.1 coin and cast collections and other resources enabled some 2,949 examples to be studied. Approx imately 879 obverse dies were identified, for a quite respectable coin to obverse die ratio of 3.3 to 1.

Together with the Alexander tetradrachms were studied three related series of coins: first, the silver denominations of varying sizes and types which accompanied the tetradrachms; second, the reissues of tetradrachms with Philip II's types, name, and weight made after Alex ander's death, through those whose markings repeat those of the Alexander tetradrachms with P; and third, the small-denomination silver coins with Philip's types which accompanied these small

tetradrachms.

Each of these three other silver series has helped to illuminate the main output of this chief mint, the enormous strikings of Alexander tetradrachms. Die links and iconographical changes in these other series help in ordering and dating the Alexander tetradrachms and in understanding the overall activity of the mint. All these die studies were essentially completed some five years ago, with the one exception of the small denominations with Alexander's types. Many of these quite rare little coins have appeared in sale catalogues in recent years, and some of these new arrivals have produced new connections between groups. They have been valuable late additions. No fewer than four hoards of Alexander coins which surfaced in 1993 and 1994 also provided important information Macedonian

and could

All

not be omitted.2

the series studied

exhibit random die axis relationships. The Alexanders, silver and gold, with a tetradrachm of ca. 17.2 g; the Philip tetradrachms are on the

are on the Attic standard,

1 Demanhur. See Chapter 8, hoard 10, for additions to its Amphipolis 2 Chapter 8, hoards 4 and 7, and Chapter 12, hoards 7-8.

17

component.


Introduction

18

local standard of ca. 14.4 g. In the interest of brevity, therefore, neither weights nor die axes are given except in the case of the small Philip coins of chapter 5 whose denominations are either

uncertain or unusuai. Deliberately left unread until the coins' study was complete is a manuscript left behind by Edward T. Newell, which internal evidence seems to place between the publication of Reattribution in 1912 and that of Demanhur in 1923. It contains no discussion, only a very preliminary and incomplete catalogue of the two tetradrachm series in the present study, and a listing of smaller coins. It does not include gold coins. many of their corresponding This manuscript has thus served as a valuable check on my findings, and it has been gratify ing to find that my conclusions were in the main the same as those of Neweli. To mention a few concerning the Alexander coins: groups F and G might well be considered a single group — Newell describes them as "group F, section 1" and "group F, section 2."3 He placed the drachms with arrow symbol in group F's first section — i.e., in Demanhur group F.4 All of the P-aplustre coins were considered one issue, regardless of the shape or orientation of the symboi.5 No P-laurel branch issue was mentioned.6 And, for example, among the reissues of Philip II's types, he placed the small denominations with the straight laurel branch with the Alexander tetradrachms with P and laurel branch.7 He also apparently did not question the authenticity of the Philip Attic-weight drachm issue with crescent symbol (the only marking he knew here), but listed it together with the T-crescent Alexanders of group J.8 Only twice did Newell's placement differ in any significant way from mine. He put the rare Alexander drachms with P in group F — perhaps because there they would have directly followed the only other known Alexander drachms of our mint. I had followed both Thompson and Price in placing these P with the tetradrachms of group L, where the P is the primary marking. I was wrong: one of the 1993 hoards just mentioned decisively proved them earlier, and my original placement had to be changed.9 Finally, Newell placed the Philip fifths and tenths of the tetradrachm with the Philip tetradrachms of both groups 8 and 9, whereas it is here argued that 10 This last then is the only place where I differ from that great they accompanied only group 8. scholar.

In general, then, this study of the silver coinage does not differ greatly from Newell's think ing, but it provides a more complete description than has hitherto been available of the four series of silver coins and of their interrelations and a slightly revised chronology. The study also sheds some light on the rather maddeningly uniform Macedonian gold issues of Alexander, with their repeated unvarying symbols. It does not, however, propose any answers to — or indeed

— two basic and persistent questions : the coins' mint or mints, and the reason for the reissue after Alexander's death of Philip II's coins." I happily leave to others make much effort to address

the enjoyment of puzzling over these questions

3 See p. 22. 4 See p. 32. 5 See p. 23. 6 See p. 28, comments on Alexander issue 7 See p. 23, J6, and pp. 58-59 and 62. 8 See p. 23, J5, and pp. 62-63. 9 See Chapter 8, hoard 7. 10 See 11 On

and wish

all success to them.

140.

pp. 58-62.

this last question, see now 323-294/290," BCH 1993, pp. 491-500.

G.

Le

Rider,

"Les

deux

monnaies

macedoniennes

des

annees


PART I AMPHIPOLIS SILVER OF ALEXANDER III AND PHILIP II, ca. 332

-

ca. 310

B.C.

For Alexander's chief Macedonian silver mint I use here when necessary the traditional name This name is used with great reluctance, for I have no confidence that this city, rather than Pella or perhaps Aegae or Philippi, was the source of this enormous silver output. With no specific evidence supporting the claim of any other city, however, it seems preferable at least for the moment to retain the usual attribution to Amphipolis — but with no assurance that the coinage was in truth struck there. A second Macedonian silver mint, usually referred to as Pella, is treated here only rarely and peripherally. This study concerns itself only with the chief mint. of Amphipolis.

19


1.

ALEXANDER

TETRADRAGHMS

ISSUES AND GROUPS The Alexander tetradrachms' pattern, established long ago by Edward T. Newell,1 is of a number of successive groups, each of which includes from three to twelve different issues, i.e., coins with differing reverse markings. Within each group there is heavy obverse linkage among issues. Not every die is known in multiple issues, but with almost no exceptions every issue is obverse linked with at least one, and usually more than one, other issue in its group.2 Table 1 lists the groups and their constituent issues. Groups A through K are listed by Newell's letters as he published them in the Demanhur hoard.3 The next group, not present in that deposit, I have termed L. Groups after L are not included in this study. The groups are listed in Newell's order, with the single exception that the minute group K is placed before J. Justification for this minor shift, as well as for its continued attribution to our mint, is given below.4 Within each group the issues are listed in the order given in Alexander, Martin Price's recently published monumental compendium of Alexander issues,5 although within each group any order is meaningless, as die linkage patterns show that the issues within each group must all have been struck more or less simultaneously. Table 1 is organized by inscriptions and groups with the number of coins studied given for each group. The first column in the table gives Newell's group letters, joined by issue numbers (repeating for each group) assigned by the present author. Hesitant as I have been to introduce a new set of numbers into this subject, I have been convinced to do so by the unsatisfactory choices available for describing these issues, which so often form major components of hoards and provide the basis for dating those hoards. Miiller issue numbers are incomplete and their order virtually meaningless. Alexander's issue numbers and Demanhur hoard coin numbers give only a rough indication of where in this vast Macedonian coinage the individual issues fall. A system which indicates the group (more important than the issue in any case) in addition to the specific issue should be far more descriptive than one which identifies only the issue and does not always accurately place that issue. Thus B8, E2, and G3, for example, provide more readily useful information than Demanhur'?, 247, 716, and 1,168, or Alexander's 32, 78, and 110. The table's second column describes each issue's marking or markings (the primary marking preceding any secondary one, regardless of their positions on the coins). A bold P indicates that issues of Philip II's types are known with the same markings. These Philips are probably posthumous in the case of those similar to the Alexanders of group A. Those parallel to the later issues, from group I on, are decidedly so.6 The third column gives the plate numbers of examples of each issue. The fourth and fifth give the issue numbers in Alexander1 and the initial Demanhur hoard coin numbers. Issues illus trated in Alexander are marked with an asterisk, and those with whose descriptions I differ are placed where I believe they belong but in parentheses. Finally, as an indication of their relative abundance or rarity, the numbers of examples studied from each issue are given. The numbers of obverse dies located and the estimated totals used, better indications of the original size of the groups, are given in Table 2. 1 Reattrib., pp. 26-32, 65-66, finalizing the classification presented in Reattrib. pp. 5-23, and Demanhur, 2 The exceptions are very small issues in groups K and L (K3, K5, K6, L2, L9), whose markings make their certain. group placements 3 See above, n. 1. 4 See pp. 49-50. 5 Alexander, pp. 89-103, with the addition of some issues from p. 132. 6 See Philip reissues. Chapters 4-6 for these late posthumous 7 Alexander, pp. 89-103 and 132.


1.

Alexander Tetradrachms

21

The tetradrachms' types are Obv. : Beardless

r., wearing lion's skin headdress. (or BAZIAEQZ AAEEANAPOY in groups G, H, I, holding scepter and eagle. head of Heracles

Table

Alexander Tetradrachm Groups

and

and

Issues

Alexander

Initial

Issue

Demanhur Coin No.

Found

4*

1

Plate

Markings

Issue

K,

1

seated

i.,

Rev. : AAEEANAPOY

82

5*

56

56

6*

91

65

8*. 9*

132

31

10*, 11*

151

16

Examples

AAEEANAPOY

A4

P?

Double heads Fulmen Rudder

Group B, 212 coins Cantharus Amphora Wreath Stylis Attic helmet

Bl B2 B3 B4

B5

12*

254

20

10

13*

162

48

11

14*

229

16

12

20*

240

22*

243

11

9

A5

Stern

6

P

Prow

1,

A2 A3

Group A, 250 coins 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

P P

Al

13

21*,

14 B6

Ivy leaf

15

23*

266

55

B7

Grapes

16

29*

198

48

B8

Caduceus

18

32*

247

Filleted caduceus

19

36*

332

10

Quiver Grain ear

20

38*

302

24

21

39, 39A

317

10

8

17 (also in E)"

C2 C3

-

C5 C6

L

Trident head Pegasus forepart Bow

C4

22 23

43*

327

3

Group C, 87 coins

CI

24

44*

340

27

25

48*

361

13

Macedonian shield

26

51*

373

32

27

57*

395

38

29

58*

422

9

head

r

Eagle

D2

30

59*

490

27

31

61*

501

16

32

65

426

1

Group D, 216 coins

Dl

33 34

66*

472

12

67*

481

10

36

70*

427

29

37

71*

455

20

D1 D5

D6 D7 D8

iwi.

35

has the shape

-

?;

in

B

D10 ■

i£l

Caduceus

Club J£l Club iwi.

D9

The caduceus

Caduceus

L

Club Horse head Star Filleted caduceus

D3

M

28

in E9, Y.

J).

Zeus


I. Amphipolis

22

Issue

Dll

Silver, ca.

Markings

Plate

Dolphin Aplustre

332 - ca. 310

Alexander

Initial

Issue

Demanhur Coin No.

Examples Found

38

73*

509

15

39

75*

514

7

- 40

76*

520

3

41

78*

716

124

42 43 L 44

79*

792

174

83*

536

75

84*

529

12

Pentagram

46

87*

521

13

E7 K8

Crescent

46

89*

579

54

93*

656

92

E9

Caduceus

48

99*

614

58

50

102*

—

2

51

103*

895

20

52

104*

909

76

D12

Group E, 605 coins

El

Rose"

E2 E3

Herm Cock

J

K1

"E

E5 i-:ti

- 47

Bucranium (also

L 48 in B)r

Group F, 224 coins Scallop shell Star in circle Cornucopia

F1

F2 F3

r

53

Athena Promachus Bow and quiver

F4 F5

L

54

105*

967

85

55

106*

1014

41

56

AAEEANAPOY

BAZIAEQZ

or BAZIAEQZ

AAEEANAPOY

Group- G, 287 coins

Gl

Cornucopia Athena Promachus Bow and quiver

G2 G3

BAZIAEQZ

57

108*

1043

111

58

109*

1100

107

59

110*

1168

69

AAEEANAPOY

Group H, 455 coins

HI

Antler*1

60

111*

1210

84

H2

Phrygian cap Macedonian helmet Trident head Tripod

61

112*

1344

181

62

113*

1251

142

63

114*

1456

3

64

115*

1458

45

r65

(118*),

1471

40

1

(119*)

II3

III

H5

I1

P?

b This small issue

Group I, 177 coins M, W, etc.c

El

is catalogued where Newell placed it in Demanhur. above (40 and 44), but in Reattrib. (p. 10, issue

knew the die link shown specimen

It

is not clear whether

XXVII),

he eventually

he commented

on the one

of previous coins [of group style and workmanship with the following [group E[." Once again, as there is now known a second obverse die in the issue, which was 17. El might thus belong to either D or E, but is here left in its D and E are joined by one known obverse die.

he knew from the issue that the coin's "obverse

resembles

D), while the reverse is almost identical in Newell's remarkable sense of style is clear, used also in group D: see Chapter 3, link traditional place. In either case, groups c See issue B8 with note a, above. d "Antler," the accepted name for this symbol, is unsatisfactory. c See p. 27, commentary on Alexander issues 118-19.

the obverses

It

often looks more like a ragged branch.


1.

Alexander Tetradrachms Plate

Markings

Issue

I2

Alexander

Initial

Issue

Demanhur Coin No.

Found

120*

1488

63

121*

.1512

74

1 66 1 67

IN

Examples

68

1

I3

L69 70

Kl K2

Group K,'

P

A A,

P

18 coins

-

P)

(or

71-

72

421*,

'

1

1582

10

2

425, 426

73

74 K3 K4

K5 K6 K7

P P

P

Group

Jl

75

A T A T A A A ©

J,

J5 P P

P

J6

423

78 79

424

80

427

[-81 82

Crescent

J3 Laurel J4 P P grain

422

77-

— — —

424A

1 1 1 2

147 coins

Grain ear

.12

76

116*

1538

117A

3 3

branch

83

117

1563

2

ear

84

122*

1541

46

123*

1551

34

124*

1564

59

8

5

-

91

14

— — —

52

12

85 crescent

86 87

laurel branch

L88 89

AAEEANAPOY Group L,

LI P P L2

P

L3

P P

coins

271

forked branch

90

(126*), 140

filleted club

91

aplustre

92

(127*), 128 129*, (135)

93

P

L4

94 grain

ear

95

130*

96

L5 L6 L7 L8 L9

P P P P

P P P P P

L10P P

' For discussion

L

crescent

L

wreath

dolphin profile shield

97 98

131*

99

132*

100

133*

101

136*.

fulmen

102

(137) 138

axe

103

139

of the disputed

placement

and even attribution

-

of group

K,

12 69

2 6

see pp. 49 50.


I. Amphipolis

24

Silver, ca.

Succeeding groups, all inscribed AAE=ANAPOY to a die study. They include:

332 - ca. 310

and struck before

ca. 295 B.C.,8

were not

subjected

P P P P

A or t t over A over fulmen star,

over bucranium, and varying additional marking; race torch, and varying additional marking; race torch, and varying additional marking or markings; over

obelisk,

I,

and varying additional marking; and

and X (varying positions),

or star over

obelisk,

and varying additional

marking or markings. As has been noted, within each group it is clear that all issues must have been struck more or less simultaneously, and the die linkage is so complex that it is impossible to place the issues in any linear chronological order. Three typical clusters of coins are diagrammed in Figures 1-3. They come from group H, but similar clusters and die linkage are found in almost every group (e.g., note in Table 1 the obverse die used for six issues in group D). The clusters presented below are simplified. Another antler obverse, for instance, sharing a reverse die with the first coin listed but not linked by its obverse to any other symbol, is omitted. Brackets to the left and horizontal lines indicate obverse die identities, and brackets to the right, reverse die identies. All coins are illustrated on Plates 5-6.

Figures

1-3

Alexander Tetradrachms: Die Links within Group H

Obverse

HI

H2 Phrygian

Antler

Cap

H3 Macedonian Helmet

Figure 104

H4

H5

Trident

Tripod

1

106 -i 108 J

105

107

Figure 109

111113115r

L

2

110 112 114 116 117 118 119

8 For these issues, see "Tetradrachms

Amphipolis."

120

121

Ehrhardt here also notes the posthumous Philip

I.

II

issues which were struck in parallel with the Alexanders through those with fulmen over These Philip issues form Amphipolis group IV in Philippe. The final group, with star, obelisk, and X, may not belong to our mint. Price in Alexander (pp. 139-40) tentatively prefers an older attribution to Uranopolis, but an

Amphipolis origin is most recently strongly defended

by Thompson in "Cavalla,"

i

pp. 40-44.


1.

Alexander Tetradrachms Figure

25

3

123

122

124

125

J

126

127 130 ]

129

128

A further confirmation of the contemporaneity of issues within groups is provided by the groups described in Chapter 3. Issues struck in linear sequence would

obverse links between

tend to have one issue in a given group linked to one issue in another.

Instead,

especially

among

groups after A and B, the obverse dies forming links between groups were often employed great number

for

a

of issues.

THE SIZE OF THE GROUPS Newell's coin numbers, as they are found on the ANS's coin boxes, cast cards, and photo file only, and they encompass many numbers for which

cards, are provisional working numbers

When I finally consulted Newell's notebook (described in the introduction), no examples for the missing numbers appeared there either. Clearly he sometimes left runs of numbers unused available to be assigned to subsequently acquired specimens, and there seem to be no examples.

consequently

cannot be taken as cumulative and do not show the total numbers

his die numbers

For example, in group I, his die numbers run from 660 numbers. Three pairs of those numbers, however, were given to

of obverse dies in the various groups.

through 723, for a total of identical dies, for a loss of

64

the trays and not mentioned

Newell's apparent total of obtain in each group. Table

Similarly, there are

3.

in his notebooks), dies for group

64

2 shows the numbers

13 numbers

with no examples known (not in

and I have found 8 additional dies.

I, there seem to

be

Instead

of

only 56. Similar situations

of coins studied in the various groups and the numbers

of obverse

"Coins" include ANS coins (approximately half of all located), casts, illustrations in the ANS's photo file, or examples pictured in readily available publica tions. The number of obverse dies given for each group is reduced by 0.5 for each die shared dies identified in each group.

with another group. by the useful

The final column, the number of estimated

equations

Group E (605 coins, seems probable, a close

9

rival

F

(511

published 193 dies

known and

arrived at

is clearly the largest group, but, if as into one group, then that resulting group would be

241 estimated)

and G should be combined coins,

dies, is the number

by G. F. Carter.9

162.5 dies known and 203 estimated).

"A Simplified Method for Calculating

Group L was also very large.

the Original Number of Dies from Die Link Statistics," ANSMN from the total numbers of coins and

28 (1983), pp. 195-206, at p. 202. The total estimated dies are calculated dies, not by the addition of the estimated dies in the various groups.


I. Amphipolis

26

Silver,

ca. 332 - ca. 310

Table

2

Alexander Tetradrachm Group Sizes Obverse Coins

Group

Obv. Dies 88

250

72.5

3.45

212

43.5

4.64

19

C

87

16

5.50

18

D

216

62.5

3.46

76

E F

605

193

3.13

241

224

71

3.15

89

G H

287

91.5

3.14

111

455

97

4.69

109

I

177

56

3.14

70

18

7

2.57

10

147 2,678

30

4.90

33

740

3.62

885

271

139

1.95

232

2,949

879

3.34

1,075

J

Totals

L Totals

A-K/J

CONCORDANCE TO AND COMMENTARY Troxell

ander

Issue

Estimated

Ratios

A B

K

Alex-

Coin/Die

Dies

ON

ALEXANDER ISSUES

Issue

1,4

Al

5

A2 A3 A4

6 8, 9

10,

11

12

A5

Bl

36

B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 CI

13 14

20 21, 22 23 29

32 38

C2

39, 39A

C3

43

C4

44

C5

48

C6

51

Dl

57 58 59 61

D2 D3 D4 D5

The prow on 1 faces r., on 4 i. The difference is significant, as the right-facing prow seems to appear on the very earliest coins of the issue. See pp. 87 89.

The fulmen is slanted on 8; on 9 it is vertical, large, and crude. Alexander's illustrated example of 9 perhaps shows a recut symboi. Other vertical fulmens are smaller and more neatly executed. The rudder has tiller up on 10, down on 11.

The Attic helmet faces r. on 21, l. on 22.

The grain ear is vertical on 39, slanted on 39A.


1.

65

D7

67

D8 D9

71

Dll

75

D12

78 79 83 84 87 89 93 99 102

El E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9

Fl

106

F2 F3 F4 F5

108

Gl

109

G2

110

G3

103 104 105

27

D10

73

76

Tetradrachms

D6

66

70

Alexander

The issue is described with AAEEANAPOY

110A

BAZIAEQZ,

and with dolphin l. in l.

issue 40 (pi. 9, 8). The symbol however seems cornucopia of group G (as indeed Newell suggested,

field; the reference is to Reattrib.,

to be merely a degenerated p. 33, n. 39), cut over the Athena Promachus of that group. 111 112 113 114 115 116

HI

Jl

Issues 116-17A are wrongly placed

part of group

links between 117A 118, 119

J3 J2

II

Alexander

from 120

13

122

J4 J5 J6

124 125

117A

J.

(J2)

Alexander and 124

here, between groups H and I. They are even, exceptionally (p. 86), notes obverse

(J6),

and between

117

(J3)

and

124.

lists and illustrates two variations, M and M (actually M, as is clear

a cast

at the ANS),

of the usual

monograms.

See 65-66.

12

121

123

110A is a

H2 H3 H4 H5 merely

117

Issue

phantom.

The issue is described with AAEEANAPOY, and with wreath in i. field and P below throne. The reference is to Reattrib.'s issue LH-a, which there (p. 16) cites only Miiller 548. Miiller 548, however, has only the wreath, no P, and issue 125

is apparently a phantom.


I. Amphipolis

28

Silver,

ca. 332 - ca. 310

The coin is described as with P and "oak(?)-branch," but a dot is visible on the illustrated example, joined to the bottom of the right vertical stroke of the P. The illustrated example of 126 seems but one of many poorly executed Issue 126 is a examples of group L, and belongs instead in issue 140, below.

126

phantom.

The coin is described with P and filleted club, but a dot is clearly visible just to the left of and below the right vertical stroke of the P. The coin belongs in issue

127

128, 128 129 130 131 132 133 134

135

[L3]

136

L8

137

[L8]

138

L9 L10

139

so issue

127

is a phantom.

L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7

140

LI

421,

K2

425, 426

The issue is described with AAEEANAPOY, and with dolphin r. in i. field, and it is placed with the issues of group L (with P). The reference is to "Tetradrachms Amphipolis," issue 16, which cites as a parallel a Philip II issue (Miiller 211), which might seem to suggest that the Alexander issue does belong at Amphipolis. The Philip issue is, however, decades earlier. See Philippe, Pella II.B, 410 ff. The present author strongly doubts that Alexander 134 was struck at Amphipolis. The wing described on the sole coin cited (here 93) would seem simply to be an aplustre, a symbol whose shape varies considerably. See 92-94. The cowrie shell described profile shield as on 136.

on 137 is almost

certainly merely

a degenerated

The issue, described with laurel branch and P, cites Miiller 561, whose symbol is pictured like the single straight upright laurel branch of issues J3 and J6. Two references are cited, the Aleppo 1893 hoard (IGCH 1516), and "Tetra drachms Amphipolis." Newell's transcript of the Aleppo hoard coins, however, shows a forked branch as on issue LI. Citations in "Tetradrachms Amphipolis" reveal only coins as J6 (Demanhur 1564 and Newell's list of the Kuft hoard) and LI (Aleppo 1893 hoard, and Walcher de Mollhein 1061). As no coins with P and straight laurel branch can be located, then, one can probably safely discount Midler's description and consider that Alexander issue 140 is equivalent to LI. Issue 126, described as with "oak(?)-branch" (perhaps a better description than "forked branch") also belongs in issue 140. The three issues seem but three variations in the secondary marking. Alexander has separated 421-27 (Demanhur group K) from groups A-J and L and placed them at a different mint as the direct predecessors of the groups with A or t and bucranium or torch, etc. See Alexander, pp. 86-87. This separation seems

incorrect in the light of the four die links now known between posthumous and others as group K. See below, Chapter 6, links Philip II issues as group 14-17. Further, at least one obverse die link is known between group L and the A-bucranium Alexanders. See Chapter 3, link 22.

J

422

K3

423

K4

424

K5

424A

K6


1.

427 428

Alexander Tetradrachms

29

K7 The issue is described with AAEZANAPOY, and with A below the throne as the only marking. The reference given is "Tetradrachms Amphipolis," issue 5, which no doubt is derived in turn from a coin of this description at the ANS which was placed in its trays together with group K coins. Neither the coin's sole marking nor its style suggests any association with group K. I strongly doubt that the issue belongs at our mint.


2.

ALEXANDER COINS SMALLER THAN THE TETRADRAGHM ISSUES AND GROUPS

but one very brief study, by Newell in 1912. 1 Table 3 presents the Alexander silver issues smaller than the tetradrachm: didrachms, drachms, triobols, diobols, and obols. All denominations have the obverse type of the tetradrachms, a beardless head of Heracles r., wearing lion's skin headdress. The various reverse types are noted after each denomination's heading in the table, and shown again in schematic form in Table 6, All coins are inscribed simply AAEEANAPOY. pp. 34-35. The first column in Table 3 gives the Newell tetradrachm group to which each issue belongs, and the specific tetradrachm issue number assigned in Chapter 1, if there is an exact correspon dence. Some small coins' markings do not parallel any on the tetradrachms, but obverse links among the small coins securely place most of these non-parallel issues in group E, and the rest can be assigned with near certainty on other grounds. The second column gives the coins' markings, and the third the plate reference for representa tive coins of the different issues. Virtually all known obverse dies are illustrated, the exceptions being the late issues with P1 or arrow markings. Issue numbers in Alexander form the fourth column, and asterisks indicate the issues illustrated there. Where I differ on the reading of markings, the Alexander issue number is placed where I believe it belongs, but in parentheses. The fifth column gives the number of examples found in each issue. Brackets to left and right of the plate references indicate, as usual, obverse and reverse die links. All known die links between Issues of which I have seen no examples are shown in brackets, and are not issues are shown. counted among the examples located. The drachms, the commonest denomination, are divided between standing eagle reverse and seated Zeus reverse. Table 4 summarizes the numbers of examples found of each denomination in each group. Table 5 shows the number of obverse dies located (shared dies reduce the number by 0.5), again for each denomination in each group. It is remarkable how close to 2:1 the coin to die ratio is for each denomination and for each group except group A. These

smaller

coins

have received

Table

3

Alexander Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm: Groups and Issues Corresponding Tetradrachm

Alexander Plate

Markings

Issue

Issue

Examples

Found

Didrachms Rev. : Zeus seated

Group B, B6

1 Reattrib.,

1 coin

Ivy leaf

Group C,

131

Filleted caduceus

C2

Quiver Grain ear

pp. 12-14

and

23.

24*

1

14 coins

CI C3

l.

r 132

133 134

37

2

(107) 40

4 3


2.

Smaller Alexander

Coins

Corresponding Tetradrachm

C5 C6

Alexander forepart

Pegasus

Bow

Group D, Horse head Star

D7/8

Caduceus

D9

Club Jft.

Examples

Found

135i

45*

4

r

136 137

49

1

-

J

138

1

139

62

1

140

68

5

142

72

1

143 144

78A

1

Cock

80

3

Bucranium

145

94

2

Caduceus

146 147

JOL (J21?

Group E,

E9

8 coins

Issue

L

\-

D4 D5

E2 E3 E8

Plate

Markings

Issue

L L

141

8 coins

Herm

2

Drachms A. Rev. : Eagle, head sometimes

Al A3

Group A,

Group B,

C3

Grain ear

D4

D-

Dll El E5 E6 E8

4

7

1

G, 1 coin 151

40A

152 153 154

52*

2

60*

5

69

1

155

74

1

Group D,

9 coins Eagle head Horse head Filleted caduceus ® Dolphin

Group E,

36 coins

Rose

r 156

77

2

157 158 159 160

85

4

87A

3

3": eagle on club

Pentagram Bucranium: vertical; horizontal; eagle on thyrsus? or torch? Caduceus

E-

No marking: eagle on caduceus; eagle on club;

EE-

2

1 coin

E9

E-

148 149

150

Ivy leaf

Group

standing l. or r. on fulmen

5 coins

Prow Double heads

B6

Dl

reverted,

163 164 165n 166 J 167

eagle on thyrsus; eagle on torch

L

168

1

96*

4

161 162

95*

(33*),

101

1 5

144

1

145*

9

148

4

151

2

81

2

B. Rev. : Zeus seated i.

Group E, E3 E7

Cock Crescent

6 coins

L

169

170

1


I. Amphipolis

32

Corresponding Tetradrachm Issue

E8 E9

Silver,

ca. 332 - ca. 310

Alexander

Markings

Plate

Bucranium

h L

Caduceus

Issue

Examples

Found

94 A

171

172

1

100

2

1 11

10

173

Group E or F,

E?F? P E?F? Laurel

13 coins 174

branch

175

3

176

Group F,

18 coins

Arrow

177

50*

18

178 179

Triobols Rev. : Eagle standing l. or r. on fulmen

Group B, 2 coins

B3 B6

Wreath Ivy leaf

180

Group C,

2 coins

Grain ear

C3

Group D,

D5

182

41*

183

63

1 coin

Star

Group E,

24 coins

E2 E3

Cock

E4

"E

|E6] E7

Pentagram"

Herm

184 head

r

-

Crescent -

Caduceus

E-

No marking: eagle on club

E-

No marking

185 186

1 J

187 -

E9

15*

181

188

—

1

82

2

86

2

88

[1] 3

(53), 90

189 190 191

34*

5

192 -

193-j 194 J 195

146, (149)

4

150, 154

7

196

Diobols Rev. : Two eagles standing facing

Al

Group A,

each other,

on fulmen or exergue

line

1 coin

Prow

197

3

1

Group B, Bti

7 coins Ivy leaf: in center; to right

198 199

25, (16)* 25A

" Alexander's sole reference is to Reattrib., p. 14, XXXIV. This cites "Imhoof-Blumer," which presumably is Monn. gr., p. 119, 25, a coin of 2.10 g with pentagram symboi. This coin is from an unidentified private collection and cannot be traced.


2.

Smaller Alexander

Coins

Corresponding Tetradrachm

Alexander Plate

Markings

Issue

Group C,

Group D, Dl

7 coins

Eagle head Horse head Star

D4 D5

Examples

Found

Issue

2 coins"

Grain ear Pegasus forepart

C3 C5

33

200

42

1

201

46

1

■ 202-

54*

3

203 204

3 1

64

Group E,

13 coins Bucranium No marking: eagles on club; eagles on torch No marking

E8

EEE-

r 205

98*

206 207 L 208

147

1 3

152

1

155*

8

Obols Rev. : Fulmen

Group A, [Al]

Prowc

B3 B6

Wreath Ivy leaf

1 coin

3A

Group B,

Group C5

Dl E-

Pegasus

4 coins

209 210■ 211G, 1

17

1

26*

3

212

47

1

- 213-

55

3

214

157*

9

coin

forepart

Group D,

3 coins

Eagle head

Group E,

[1]

9 coins

No marking

b While this to study was in page proof, Charles Hersh acquired a diobol with bow symbol corresponding tetradrachm issue C6. The litte coin is from new dies. It is not illustrated, but it is included in Tables 4-6. c It has unfortunately not been possible to obtain a cast or photo of this coin, seen by Price in a private collection, but there seems no reason to doubt the issue.

Table

4

Alexander Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm: Examples Located Group

Didrachms Drachms, eagle Triobols Diobols

A 5 1

Obols 6

F

F

C

D

£

1

14

8

8

1

1

9

36

52

2

2

1

24

29

7

3

7

13

31

4

1

3

9

Drachms, Zeus Totals

E

B

15

21

28

or

Tok 31

17

6

13

18

37

%

13

18

197


I. Amphipolis

34

332 - ca. 310

Silver, ca. Table

5

Alexander Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm: Obverse Dies Located* A

Group

Didrachms Drachms, eagle Triobols Diobols Obols Drachms, Zeus

1

Table

6 summarizes

ER

=

ERH EL

=

5

E

or

F

F

Tola 14

1

7

9.5

2

1

9

14

1 0.5

3

2.5

6

13

1 0.5

9

2.5 4

7

11

21.5

13

2.5

7

7

16.5

41

7

7

92

15

the issues known of the small coins.

following abbreviations =

E

4

1

is the same as the tetradrachms'.

Z

/;

1

C

2

3

Totals

tions

B

The obverse type of all denomina The reverse types are indicated in the table by the

:

Zeus seated, as on the tetradrachms

Table

6

F

i.,

Eagle standing r., usually on fulmen Eagle standing r., head reverted, usually on fulmen = Eagle standing usually on fulmen = Two eagles standing facing, on fulmen or exergue line 2E = Fulmen Issues in Alexander of which no specimens have been seen by me are shown in brackets.

Alexander Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm: Reverse Types Marking Prow Double heads

B3 B6

Wreath

CI

Filleted caduceus

C2

Quiver Grain ear Pegasus forepart Bow

C3 C5 C6

Dl D4 D5 D7/8 DD9

Dll

Ivy

leaf

Eagle head Horse head Star Caduceus

(J£V? Filleted caduceus

Club JSI Dolphin

Drachms

Triob.

ERH ERH

/I?)

ER

EL ER

EL

EL

EL ER ER

Diob.

2E

ER ER

®

A3

Didr.

Obols

[F]

F

Issue

Al

r2E-

2E 2E 2E 2E2E 2E

LFJ


2.

Issue

Marking

El

Rose

E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E8 E9

EEEEEE-

Smaller Alexander Didr. Drachms

Herm

rZ I Z

T

ERH ERH

eagle on club

Pentagram Crescent

Bucranium: eagle on thyrsus? Caduceus

35

Triob.

Diob.

Obols

ER

Cock or cock head

J

Coins

or torch?

No marking:

Z

eagle on caduceus; eagle[s] on club; eagle on thyrsus; eagle[s] on torch

ER, ERH| ERH ER, ERH| ERH ERH ERH

No marking No marking

ER -ER EL [ER]

ER

2E

ER ERH ER

2E

ER

2E 2E

EL

E3 E7 E8 E9

Bucranium

Z

Caduceus

Z

E?F? E?F?

Laurel branch

F-

Arrow

Cock

Z

Crescent

Z

DISCUSSION It should hardly be necessary to state once again that these small coins, most with eagle as reverse type, are not subdivisions of the rare Alexander tetradrachms with eagle reverse.2 Those tetradrachms were struck to the old standard employed by Philip II, whereas the small coins are all of full Attic weight and most of their markings are clearly those of the Attic-weight tetra drachms of Chapter 1. The type of standing eagle with reverted head was simply an old Macedo nian type continued by Alexander. It was used by Archelaus I, Amyntas III, and Perdiccas III,3 and the latter two, Alexander's grandfather and uncle, coupled with it the Heracles head obverse used by Alexander. Unaware of the numerous obverse links now known between the many small coins without reverse symbols and those with symbols of group E, Alexander unfortunately has catalogued these no-symbol issues together with the eagle-reverse tetradrachms (while of course listing the symbol-bearing small coins together with the tetradrachms bearing their markings).4 All the small coins with eagle reverses can now, however, be associated with specific groups of the Attic weight tetradrachms. Together with the didrachms, which bear the tetradrachms' seated Zeus It seems unnecessary to as reverse type, they are all simply subdivisions of the tetradrachms. consider them a separate series struck "for local circulation" only.5 In groups A through D, the small coins' markings are exactly those of the tetradrachms, except for one drachm with filleted caduceus and ÂŽ, which probably should be assigned to group 2 Alexander issues 142-43. Long assumed Bactrian or Indian in origin, these rare tetradrachms were firmly placed in Macedonia by E. Pegan, "Die friihesten Tetradrachmen Alexanders des Grossen mit dem Adler . . ," JNG 18 (1968), pp. 99-111. See Philippe, p. 394, and p. 18 above, n. 11. 3 E.g., BMC, pp. 165, 171-72, 176; SNGCop 505, 513-15, 522; SNGANS 94-96, 113. 1 Alexander 144-52, 154-55, 157. See Tables 3 and 6 and comments on 144-57, pp. 39-40. The association of the eagle-reverse bronzes of issues 158-62 5 Alexander, pp. 24, 88, and 103-4.

with the eagle-reverse

small silver coins is also quite uncertain.


I. Amphipolis

36

Silver, ca.

332 - ca. 310

D (the filleted caduceus occurs in both C and D, but only in D are monograms found). The drachms of groups A through D all have the standing eagle reverse type. As just noted, the numerous obverse links within group E, diagrammed in both Table 3 and Table 6, allow the firm placement within that group of a number of anomalous issues of drachms, triobols, and diobols whose attribution has heretofore been uncertain. These coins have no regular issue markings and often show the eagle standing not on the standard fulmen, but on caduceus, club, thyrsus, or torch. By any standard — number of issues, number of examples located, or number of obverse dies found — group E had the largest output of small coins. This is not surprising, as E was also the largest group of tetradrachms. In this group, too, the drachms with the usual imperial Alex ander drachm reverse of seated Zeus first appear, with issue markings identical to those of some eagle-reverse coins in the group, and actually obverse linked to one other eagle-reverse issue. A drachm issue with the simple marking P has heretofore usually, and understandably, been associated with the Alexander tetradrachms of group L, which bear the same primary marking." The presence now of several examples of the issue in the Near East 1993 hoard,7 however, buried perhaps ca. 322 (several years earlier than the great Demanhur hoard interred before the strik ing of the P tetradrachms of group L), shows that these drachms must be considerably earlier than tetradrachm group L, and the absence of the title requires a group prior to groups G K/J. Also in the Near East 1993 hoard were two drachms with laurel branch symbol, an issue previously unknown save for one example published in 1988 by Kamen Dimitrov. This was one of three Alexander drachms forming a small hoard discovered in 1976 at Calim, in Bulgaria." Dr. Dimitrov has kindly sent me not only a direct photo of a cast of the coin (175), but also a translation of his relevant Bulgarian text: Calim, ca. 35 km. W. from Nicopolis ad Nestum. Three Alexander drachms are kept Museum of Blagoevgrad. . . . According to the control marking . . . to the issue of Demanhur 1563, (J1, with laurel coin in corresponds question] [the branch but with the P omitted], Amphipolis 320 319. At the same time the coin is struck from the same obverse die used for a specimen of an issue not represented in the Demanhur hoard. . . . [Sardes and Miletus, p. 87, 3 = 174]. . . .

in the Historical

The Sardes and Miletus issue cited, die linked with the Calim laurel branch coin, is the P issue. The laurel branch issue's presence in the Near East 1993 hoard now shows that it too antedates 322/1 at the latest, and the absence of the title again indicates a group prior to groups G-K/J. with any tetradrachms' markings exist for these two interesting No exact correspondences issues, but the reverse variation and experimentation introduced in group E may in part explain The obverses of these P and laurel branch drachms are extremely their lack of correspondence. similar to many tetradrachms of groups E and F (e.g., 40-56). Their reverse exergue lines, too, with one dotted exception, are formed by a simple line, an innovation which is known rarely among the group E tetradrachms, but which is common among those of group F.9 One of these groups then must be that to which these P and laurel branch issues belong. Another Zeus-reverse drachm issue with arrow symbol has long been known. The arrow, which again does not occur on the tetradrachms, could be considered as associated with group C's bow or with F's bow and quiver.10 But, as other Zeus-reverse drachms first appear in group E, these arrow-symbol drachms cannot be so early as group C. Again, the lack of the title rules out groups G K/J. The obverse style of many arrow drachms, like that of the P and laurel 6 Sardes and Miletus, p. 88; Alexander 141. 7 Chapter 8, hoard 7. 8 Chapter 8, hoard 11.

9 See pp. 91-92, and 53. 10 Alexander 50 (placed after coins of group C), but see Sardes and Miletus, p. 88, where the placement

with group F.

is


2.

branch

Smaller Alexander

Coins

37

is very similar to tetradrachms of both groups E and F — but in one iconographical detail allows a firm placement in group F. tetradrachms, their exergue lines, instead of the normal dotted ones, are

drachms just discussed,

the case of these arrow drachms,

Just

as on the group F found as simple straight lines (177) or omitted altogether (179). And on at least one arrow drachm (178) the footstool is indicated by the slanting "short straight line (not to be sometimes

confounded with an exergual line)" which is found only on the tetradrachms of group F.11 The arrow drachms can only belong to group F. No small Alexander coins are known after group F. As will be seen below in Chapter 4, the revived tetradrachms of Philip II, many of whose markings parallel those of Alexander tetra drachms, start possibly as early as group I, and certainly by groups K and J, continuing through L and several subsequent groups. Philip II fractions accompany these Philip tetradrachms through those parallel with Alexander groups K and — and then, as I shall argue in Chapter 5, probably are discontinued before the Philip group parallel to Alexander's group L. Finally, following group L and the tetradrachms with bucranium and A, Thompson has deduced from the existence of a plated ancient Alexander imitation drachm with A and torch that there may have been genuine Alexander drachms with those markings also.12 If so, how ever, none have yet been discovered. Thus the small coins were as follows. drachms with eagle reverse Groups A-D: Alexanders, several denominations, drachms with both eagle and Zeus reverses Group E: Alexanders, several denominations, Group F: Alexanders, drachms, Zeus reverse

J

Groups Groups

G-H: —

K-J

and perhaps

I: Philips.

See

Chapter

5.

CONCORDANCE TO AND COMMENTARY ISSUES

Alexander

ALEXANDER

Corresponding Tetradrachm

Issue

Denom. Issue

2

dr.

3

2-ob.

3A

ob.

7

dr.

15

3-ob. 2-ob.

16

ON

Al Al [Al]

This

(B6)

as with wreath between two eagles on reverse, the only coin actually has an ivy leaf (it is a die duplicate of several other specimens so marked, and the leaf is clear on Alexander's illustration of 16). The coin belongs to group B's issue 25. No diobols with wreath are known to me.

is the coin

seen

by Price in a private collection.

A3 B3

Described

cited

17

ob.

2-dr. 25, 25A2 ob. 24

B3 B6 B6

The one coin known to me of issue 25A (199, with ivy leaf to right) is from the obverse of all five known examples of issue 25, with ivy leaf between two eagles (e.g., 198). Coin 199 is from the same die pair as Alexander s illustrated example of issue 54 and McClean 3509 (the sym-

11 Reattrib., p. 17. See p. 92. 12 "Cavalla," p. 40 (discussion

of hoard

coin

17).


I. Amphipolis

38

bol erroneously

Silver, ca. described

332 - ca. 310

as a bucranium), both with the eagle head of

group D. The symbol of these last two coins has been cut over the ivy leaf of issue 25A. See also issue 54. Note the analogous recutting in the 26

ob.

B6

30

ob.

[B7]

33

dr.

E9

34

3-ob.

E9

37

2-dr.

C1

obols of groups B and D (issues 26 and 55). The ivy leaf on the single reverse die of all three known specimens has been recut to an eagle head on the two known specimens of group D's issue 55.

40

2-dr.

C3

40A

dr.

C3

41

46

3-ob. 2-ob. 2-dr. 2-ob.

47

ob.

C5

49

2-dr.

C6

50

dr.

F-

52

dr.

Dl

53

3-ob.

(E7)

54

2-ob.

Dl

55

ob.

Dl

60

D4

63

2-dr. 2-dr. 3-ob.

42 45

62

C3 C3 C5 C5

See

pp. 36-37 for the placement

in group

F.

The issue is described with eagle head to right, but the sole known coin, at the ANS (188), seems on close examination to bear a crescent, with horns pointed downward — which is also the orientation of the same symbol in the exergue of a coin of issue 90 (189). Issue 53's flan and die sizes also accord far better with group E than with D, so that the coin probably belongs in issue 90. Issue 53 seems, at least from present knowledge, to be a phantom. The issue exists. See issues 25 and 25A for discussion of its recut sym boi. SNGBerry 197, however, noted as an example, has not an eagle head but a horse head. Coin 203 clearly shows the horse's bridle. See

issue 26 for discussion

of the recut

symboi.

D5 D5

64

2 ob.

D5

68

2-dr.

D7/8

69

dr.

D-

13 See

Newell in Reattrib. mentions this issue, but I have found no examples. Possibly an ivy leaf was seen as grapes. Compare issue 26. Although listed in Alexander after the issues of group B, the shape of the issue's caduceus argues for a placement with issue 101 in group E.13 Issue 34, also with caduceus, is obverse linked with other E issues. Also listed after the group B issues, the issue belongs to group E. Of the four known examples, only three are in sufficiently good condition to allow die identification, and all three share their single obverse die with coins of group E's issues 82 and 149. The issue is perfectly valid. Note only that Lanz 48, 22 May 1989, 193, from the dies of the coin illustrated here (132), is erroneously described as bee on rose, and thus as a unique didrachm of Pella.

p. 21, note a.

Price calls the monogram iwl, but its small size and condition on the known coins make it impossible to be certain whether it is iSl or m., or perhaps simply f\. The caduceus is filleted.


2.

72

2-dr.

74

dr.

77

dr.

El

78A

2-dr. 2-dr.

dr.

88 94

3-ob. 3-ob. 2-dr.

[E6] E7 E8

94A

dr.

E8

95, 96

dr.

E8

97

3-ob.

98

2-ob.

100

dr.

dr.

3-ob.

85

dr.

86

3-ob.

90

39

Dll

87A

81 82

Coins

D9

E2 E3 E3 E3 E5 E4 E6

80

Smaller Alexander

p. 21, note a. See also issue 53. See

The sale catalogue reference cited in Alexander has a caduceus, not a bucranium. The two citations refer to the same coin, and the Giessener (Gorny) coin number

101

dr.

E8 E9 E9

107

2-dr.

C2

141

dr.

144

dr.

E?F? E-

EE-

145

dr.

146

3-ob.

147

2-ob.

148

dr.

EE-

149

3-ob.

E-

should

be 221.

The symbol is vertical on 95 and horizontal on 96. Two examples are listed. The Hague (now Leiden) coin must be an erroneous citation. J. P. A. van der Vijn has sent photographs of the cabinet's only Alexander triobol, and it is from the dies of the other examples of 146. The bucranium on the Hersh coin cited seems to be merely the final Y of the inscription and the coin thus is part of issue 150. Issue 97 seems to be a phantom.

Issues 33 and 101 both seem to belong to group E. The symbol is not the upright bow and quiver of group F (where the issue is placed) and G, but the simple quiver depicted in the slanting position of group C, where 107 shares its single obverse die with issue 45 (with group C's Pegasus forepart symbol). See p. 36 for the placement in group E or F.

The object on which the eagle stands is not perfectly clear, but does appear to be a club on the three examples known, which are all from the same die pair.

See

also issue 149.

The issue exists, but the eagle on the Weber coin cited (now at the ANS) seems to be standing on a club, not a thyrsus, and the coin thus belongs in issue 145.

The eagle is described

as

ple cited is now in the

ANS

standing on

"thyrsus( ?)" and the sole exam In fact it is the coin cited under It is from the dies of the Hague (now a

collection.

issue 146, with eagle on club. Leiden) coin also cited under 146, and those of another

example

of 146

in the Hersh collection.

3-ob.

E-

151

dr.

152

2-ob.

EE-

150

found,

and issue 149

No triobols with eagle on thyrsus have been appears to be a phantom.

Some examples at least of issues 150, 154, 155, and 157 may be coins whose markings are off flan and which therefore belong elsewhere. The eagle stands to right on 150, to left on 154.


I. Amphipolis

Silver, ca.

332 - ca. 310

Whether one accepts Thompson's attribution of this issue with H to Miletus (Miletus 28-31), or Price's to "Macedonia ('Amphipolis')" it does not belong at our mint. See comment at 150. See comment at 150. The reverse type of the sole coin cited is an eagle standing left, head reverted, on an uncertain object. Dr. Price kindly confirmed that the coin's poor condition made recognition of a symbol, if any; or reading of All other known obols in this Macedonian any inscription impossible. a fulmen reverse have as coinage type, and nowhere here in any denom ination is there known an eagle with reverted head standing left. Small coins of Amyntas III, however, bear precisely the types of issues 156, similarly oriented (e.g., SNGANS 94-96), and thus the coin cited as the only example of issue 156 is probably of that earlier king. See comment at 150.


3.

GROUPS: RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY

ALEXANDER

links provide by far the most important evidence for the order of the Alexander These links, together with group A's use of symbols found in Philip II's coinage (imme diately prior or perhaps for a time contemporary), the presence of the title BAZIAEQ2 on five of Obverse

groups.

the groups, and certain repetitions of reverse markings put all the groups into a firm order, with of the minute group K (whose placement will be discussed below). Some small confirmation of this order is provided by other types of evidence — hoards, stylistic considera tions, and the small denominations of Chapter 2. the one exception

OBVERSE LINKS The 22 die links which have been discovered

between

the various Alexander groups

are

detailed on the following pages and summarized in Figure 4. Tetradrachms provide all but five: links 6 (drachms), 7 (diobols), 8 (obols), and 15-16 (didrachms). All coins known from these obverse dies shared by more than one group are described as a possible aid to future researchers. For the same reason, Newell's provisional tetradrachm obverse die numbers are also given, as the ANS's

casts and photo file cards are marked with these numbers. Further intra-group connections of the tetradrachms listed via reverse links are mentioned in the discussion following each die link in order to demonstrate further the complexity of the die linkage between issues within the groups and to show that the issues directly involved in the links between groups are often clearly contemporary with other issues in their groups. The reverses of the coins listed are described by Newell group letter, my issue number, and symbol, e.g., "A2, stern," while "same die" indicates that the reverse die is that of the immediately preceding coin. The evidence is extremely as link 3, where

or there would doubtless be more instances of links such for group B, then for A, and then for B again.

incomplete

a die was used

Group A with Group B

Link

1,

tetradrachms, Newell obverse Stage

25

1

A2, stern (215) ANS; ANS

A B

Stage 2 B7, grapes

(216)

Toronto

Stage 3

B7, grapes (217) cast marked

"Demanhur";

Naville

6,

28

.Jan.

1924, 721,

same die Stage 4

B7, grapes (218) Ball

6, 9

Feb. 1932,

167,

same die

Breaks in the lion's mane commence on the two coins in stage succeeding

Link

2,

tetradrachms, Newell obverse Stage

"An L

B"1

1, and become

ever larger in

stages. 28

1

B7, grapes (219) formerly ANS = Reattrib., pi. 7, 12; ANS, same die; Oxford = SNGAshm 2538; Morgenthau 342, 26 Nov. 1934, 189, same die A2, stern (220) ANS, stern cut over 219's grapes; ANS = Realtrib., pi. 7, 11,

same recut

die; Saroglos


I. Amphipolis

42

SlLVliR, Ca. 332 - Ca. 310

Stage 2

A2, stem (221) ANS The reverse die of 219 and 220 is the same but, when used for 220, group A's stern symbol As noted above, Newell illustrated coins with stern and grapes in Reattrib. to show their obverse identity, but did not recognize the reverse identity and recutting at the time (his evidently subsequent ticket in an ANS coin's box, however, does describe the recutting). In stage 2 slight deterioration has appeared around Heracles' mouth. had been cut over B's grapes.

Link

3, tetradrachms, Newell obverse Stage

B2, amphora

[-] A

47

1

(222)

ANS

Stage 2

A3, double heads (223) ANS; Beirut, same die; ANS cast from Tripolitsa 1921 Hoard, IGCH 81, same die B2, amphora (224) Berlin, die of 222

B

Stage 3

A3, double heads (225) ANS; ANS B2, amphora (226) ANS In stage Heracles'

1 there are no breaks in the dotted border at the top of the die, no break between brow and the border, and no break in the field at the top of his nose. In stage 2 slight

in all three areas. In stage 3 the breaks in the border and at the brow are and the field behind the lion's mane is starting to deteriorate. Clearly at least

breaks have appeared more pronounced,

coins and B's amphora coins were struck simultaneously. The last coin with amphora, is linked by a net of reverse and obverse dies to all seven of the other symbols of group B. All but one of these die links are found among coins in the ANS collection. some of A's double-head listed,

Link

4,

tetradrachms, Newell obverse Stage

40

1

A3, double heads (227) ANS = Reattrib., pi. 1, 8; cast marked "in trade, Cairo," same die; ANS; Knobloch FPL 33, Apr. 1968, 530, same die

A B

Stage 2

B2, amphora pi. 1, 9;

(228) London = Alexander

13a;

ANS, same die; ANS = Reattrib.,

ANS

2 are there die breaks at the corner of Heracles' mouth and on his neck below The first ANS coin in stage 2 is linked by its reverse die to another in the ANS collection, which is from the obverse die of a third there, from the B6 ivy leaf issue.

Only in stage

the lion's jaw.

Link

5,

tetradrachms, Newell obverse 52 Stage

1

B1, cantharus (229) ANS L

Stage 2

B

A4, fulmen (230) ANS; Egger 40, cast is at the

2

May 1912, 592. same die, not illustrated but

a

ANS

B1, cantharus (231) Saroglos, die of 229; Coin Galleries Coin Galleries, FPL 4.3 (1963), C18, same die

FPL

5.3 (1964), C49 =

In stage 2 only, breaks have occurred at the corner of Heracles' mouth, and in the lion's ear. The cantharus coins are linked by a net of reverse and obverse dies to five of the seven remaining symbols of group B (all but B7, grapes, and B4, stylis).


3.

Relative

Chronology

:

Alexanders

43

Group B with Group D

Link

6, drachms

-B

B6, ivy leaf (232) Hersh = Giessener 58, 9 Apr. 1992, 234 D1, eagle head (233) Hersh; London = Alexander 52 = Weber 2083

LD

See also links 7 and 8.

Link

7,

diobols Stage

B-i N'

LD

1

B6, ivy leaf in center (234) Paris = Traite IV, 2, 900, pi. 31 1, 7 = Reattrib., pi. 7, = SNGDavis 8; London = Alexander 16, same die; Athens, same die; Aberdeen 141, same die; Hersh, same die B6, ivy leaf to right (235) St. Petersburg

Stage 2

D1, eagle head (236) Hersh, cut over 235' s ivy leaf; London = Alexander 54, same recut die; Cambridge, Eng. = McClean 3509, same recut die, symbol called bucranium The reverse die of the coins of group D is that of the St. Petersburg example of group B, but with the ivy leaf recut to eagle head. See also links 6 and 8.

Link

8,

obols Stage

rB

1

B6, ivy leaf (237) London = Alexander

DJ

26

Stage 2 D1, eagle head (238) Hersh, cut over 237's ivy leaf; Hersh, same recut

die

The reverse die of all coins is the same, the ivy leaf having been recut to eagle head on the coins in group D. See also links 6 and 7. Also from this reverse die, in its first stage with ivy leaf, but from a different obverse die, are another ANS coin and a third coin in the Hersh collection (210). Group

Link

9,

tetradrachms, Newell obverse

C

with Group D

102

C

C2, quiver (239) ANS = Reattrib., pi. 3, 9; H. Schulman, 7 July 1970, 213, same die; ANS; Egger 40, 2 May 1912, 632, same die, not illustrated, but a cast is at

D

D1, eagle head (240) ANS;

the

ANS Weber 2082, same die; Reattrib.,

A cast at the ANS (from link 10's obverse

117 and

pi. 3, 10

240's reverse) associates obverses

110 and

117.

Link -

C

LD

10,

tetradrachms, Newell obverse

117

C2, quiver (241) ANS D1, eagle head (242) ANS; Thomas L. Elder, Remarkable

Collection of Greek Tetra1972,

drachms. . . (New York, n.d.), 71, same die; ANS; ANS; Malloy, 28 Feb. 322, same die; Berlin

The die is associated

with that of link

9.


Link

tetradrachms, Newell obverse

11,

Stage

-

L

=

116

121

1

C2, quiver (243)

C

332 - ca. 310

Silver, ca.

I. Amphipolis

41

Athens

Stage 2 C6, bow (244) Egger 40, 2 May 1912, part of non-illustrated lot 631, but a cast is at the ANS; ANS, same die; Gillette, same die

D

ANS

D1, eagle head (245)

In appears in the central row of the lion's locks, and the field just below the locks is breaking down. Newell obverses 116 = 121 and 105 (link 12) are both found in a group C cluster of ANS coins linked by a network of obverse and reverse identities. The cluster stage 2, a die break

all the remaining three symbols

includes

Link L

tetradrachms, Newell obverse

12,

Stage C

D

of group

C.

105

1

ear (246) ANS Stage 2 C2, quiver (247) ANS; Berlin C3, grain ear (248) ANS C3, grain

C4, trident head (249) ANS D5, star (250) Cambridge, Mass.

= Dewing

1122

just to the left of and below Heracles' ear. In stage 2 this break has enlarged, and new breaks have appeared at Heracles' nose and at the angle of his chin and neck (this last break has been cut away on 249). The die is associated with that of link 11. In stage

Link

13,

1, there is a small die break

tetradrachms, Newell obverse

Stage

107

1

(251) ANS; cast marked

C

C1, filleted caduceus

D

D1, eagle head (252) Cambridge, Brett," same die

Mass.

"Pozzi,"

= Dewing

same die

1117; ANS; cast marked

"Mrs.

Stage 2

D1, eagle head (253) ANS, die of 252; Saroglos, In stage

2, a die break

beginning in the field at Heracles'

ANS

coin (251) shares a reverse die with another coins of C4 (trident head) and C6 (bow).

Link -

14,

tetradrachms, Newell obverse

Stage

LD

brow has greatly enlarged. coin whose obverse

The first

was used also for

109

1

C5, Pegasus

C

ANS

same die; ANS

forepart (254) ANS

Stage 2 D2, Macedonian shield

(255)

ANS

Die breaks are present at Heracles' nose in both stages of the die, but only in stage 2 is there in the hair at his brow and deterioration in the upper left field. The reverse die of 255 is shared with another ANS coin whose obverse was used for five other issues of group D, namely, Dl (eagle head), D3 (club), D6 (filleted caduceus M), D8 (caduceus iwt), and D10 (club iwl) (see 26-27, 29, 32, 34 and 37) and with a third ANS coin whose obverse also a break

was used also for D4 (horse

head).


Relative Chronology

3.

Link -

s/

15,

Stage

15

1

C1, filleted caduceus (256) Hersh = Glendining, 7 Mar. 1957, 21; Lanz 48, 22 May 1989, 193, same die, but the symbol called bee on rose and the coin an

unpublished didrachm of Pella

D

Stage 2 D5, star (257) ANS D7, caduceus iSV (258)

ANS; St. Petersburg, same die

Below the lower left lock of the lion's hair

"

Alexanders

didrachms

C

Link

:

16,

a small break appears

only on the coins of group D.

didrachms forepart (259) Hersh = Giessener 58,

C5, Pegasus Alexander

C

9

Apr. 1992, 229; London =

= Reattrib.,

pi. 7, 1, same die C6, bow (260) ANS = Reattrib., pi. 15, 2 D4, horse head (261) Hersh = Giessener 60, 5 Oct.

LD

45

D7, caduceus

ifL,

or possibly D8,

caduceus

1992, 114

iwL, or caduceus

The last coin, 262, is extremely worn, but the obverse does seem to

be

1"\ (262) Berlin

that of the other coins.

Group D with Group E Link

17,

tetradrachms, Newell obverse

"D

D5, star (263)

159

"Case"; ANS; ANS, same die

cast marked

Dl1, dolphin (264) ANS

E

E1, rose (265) Copenhagen

= SNGCop

672

Either the die or the flan was defective when 265 was struck, as the type is missing in a large arc around the upper edge of the coin's obverse. The small E1, with rose, is known from but three coins and two obverse dies. One die, here, is shared with group D coins; the other, with another issue of group E (40, 44). The rose issue could thus belong with either group D or group E, but is here left where Newell placed it.1 In either case, an obverse link between D and E results.

Group E with Group F

Link

"E

18,

tetradrachms,

Stage

361

1

E3, cock (266) ANS; Parke-Bernet, 27

L

Newell obverse

July

1939, 244, same die;

16 Oct.

1968, 23, same die; Grabow 14,

ANS

F Stage 2

E3, cock (267) ANS; Munz. u. Med. FPL 333, Apr. 1972, 11 F3, cornucopia (268) ANS In stage 2, a dot just to the left of and below the lion's ear has enlarged, and another break has appeared to the left of and below the first one, between the second and third locks from the top in the outer row of the lion's mane. The reverse die of 268 is shared with another ANS coin whose obverse was used also for a coin of F5 (bow and quiver). 1 See p. 22, note b.


I. Amphipolis

IB

Silver, ca.

332 - ca. 310

Group F with Group G

Link -

19,

tetradrachms, Newell obverse 427 = 490

F

F4, Athena Promachus (269) ANS = Reattrib., G2, Athena Promachus (270) ANS = Reattrib.,

LG

Group I with Group

Link -

L

20, tetradrachms, Newell obverse Stage

I

pi. 9, 4; Petsalis, same die

J

681

1

I1, M (271) 12, IN

J

pi. 9, 3

Stage 2

J5,

r

ANS

(272) ANS crescent

ANS

(273)

In stage 2, the obverse has suffered general deterioration, and looks "softer," with breaks at Heracles' nose and to the right of his ear, and in the lion's locks.

Link

21, tetradrachms, Newell obverse

"I L

13,

H (274) Stockholm; Berlin, same die

J1, grain

J

702

ear (275)

ANS

The last coin, 275, is in extremely poor condition, but its reverse seems to without the P.

Group

Link

L

22, tetradrachms, Newell obverse

L

A-Bucr.

with A-Bucranium

be as described,

Group

896

L7, P dolphin (276) Athens from Lamia 1901-2 hoard (IGCH 93) A over bucranium in left field, E under throne (277) Saroglos; unidentified photo (278),

same die

Although groups after L have not been examined in detail for this study, link 22 has come to my attention. Mando Oeconomides has verified that the Lamia hoard obverse and reverse casts are indeed of a single coin. In Figure 4, solid brackets show tetradrachm links, and dashed brackets show links between denominations. Brackets to the left indicate the 22 obverse links found between the Alexander groups, and those to the right show reverse links resulting from recutting of the reverse dies. Tetradrachms furnish 17 of the links and the remaining five are found among smaller denominations (which exist only in groups A through F). Arrows on the brackets show in which the dies were used. Numbers on the brackets are those the order, when ascertainable, Dotted brackets to the right indicate multiple identical reverse of the links already described. and L). As shown, groups G through K/J include the title markings (groups F and G, BAZIAEQZ in their inscriptions. smaller

J


3.

Chronology

Relative

Figure

:

Alexanders

17

4

Die Links between Alexander Groups

8

7

16 15 1

1

r

r i

r

\/

l

r

6

r I

II

5

4

{

f

3

1

2

^{

9 14 13 12 11 10 1

.III

\/ \/ \/\/

A

2

R^8 1 1 C

J VV

D

JI JI

I

I

L 17 18 L

E

19L

F

I

G

II BAIIAEQZ

21 20 I

X L

K

J .

22 L -

J

A-Bucranium

Links 1-5, 9-14, 17-22: tetradrachms Link 6: drachms

Link 7: dioboIs Link 8: obols Links 15-16: didrachms

OTHER EVIDENCE Given the framework of obverse die links just detailed, other evidence does little more than confirm the order they provide. Still other observations are all perfectly consistent with the order in Figure 4 and will be discussed below in Chapter 9, in connection with the mint's absolute

chronology.

Hoards As Newell long ago wrote, the Kyparissia 1892/93 hoard, with its coins of groups A through D only, showed these four groups to be the earliest struck. Karditsa 1925 included coins of C are known. Of these, through I, seven contiguous groups. Five hoards ending with group Akcakale 1958 contained every group except A and the small K, and Demanhur 1905 and Andritsaena ca. 1923 included every group, even K.2

J

Style Newell dealt with details of style and iconography, and the progression from group to group, in Reattrib. His analyses cannot be improved by the present author, but such

at some length

See Chapters

8 and 9 for fuller discussion

of these hoards.


I. Amphipolis

48

aspects as are relevant below in Chapter 9.

to absolute

Silver, ca.

chronology,

332 - ca. 310

whether

or not treated by him, will be discussed

Small Denominations Not surprisingly, the present study of the small Alexander denominations only corroborates the group order already established, although it does provide the only actual die links known between groups A and B and the rest of the coinage. The eagle-reverse coins of various denomi nations are found only in A through E, and only in E do the Zeus-reverse drachms come in, which then are the only small coin struck in the following group F. No small coins of Alex ander's types are known after group F.

DISCUSSION Newell stated in Demanhur, without giving specific examples or illustrations beyond presented in Reattribution, that the tetradrachm groups were all bound in sequence by obverse dies linking one group to the next: ". . . group 'A' will possess certain dies that in its production and then were continued in use, in a slightly more worn condition,

those few a series of

were used

for group 'B.' Group 'B,' in turn, will be found to possess certain obverse dies that had already been used for 'A,' and others that were later used for 'C,' and so forth."3 This account of the groups' linkage is somewhat of a simplification. Newell knew most of the links presented above. He apparently did not know the B-D or D-E links, and he evidently did not realize until after Reattribution' s publication that at least some of group B was contemporary with group A.4 Further, no B-C links such as he suggests have been located. At least since the publication of Reattribution, group A has been recognized as the first, because three of its symbols (prow, stern, and double heads) are the same as those found at the end of the lifetime or early posthumous coinage of Alexander's father, Philip II.5 And, although its shape is different in the two coinages, Le Rider has suggested that the rudder, which occurs in Philip's issues, is a possible fourth symbol relating group A to Philip's coinage.8 Group B, repeatedly linked to A, should be next. But the first modification of Newell's order is that here some overlap between groups must be accepted, because of the links where an obverse die was used first for a coin or coins of group B before being used for group A (links 2, 3, and 5 above), and because of the unique recutting of a symbol of group B to one of group A (see link 2). Group D Groups C and D, linked by no fewer than eight obverse dies, are clearly contiguous. would at first seem to have followed C, because, of the five shared obverse dies whose priority of use can be determined, all five were first used for group C. A complication is, however, intro duced by links 6-8, where drachm, diobol, and obol obverses were used both for B and for D, the two smaller denominations having had their reverse symbols recut from one of group B to one of group D. Because of the large number of obverse links between A and B and between C and D (a pattern which does not recur), and because of the newly recognized B and D links, it now seems probable that A and B were struck concurrently at two adjoining locations, followed by C and D at the same two respective locations (workshops? adjoining rooms? adjacent anvils?). If group C had chronologically separated B and D, all three groups emanating from the same workshop, it is hard to see why new dies should have been cut for C, while B's dies were preserved unused until returned to service, recut where necessary, for coins of group D. But certainty is not to be had, and no great violence can be done by leaving Groups A through D in their traditional order. rarely

3 Demanhur, pp. 65-66. 4 See discussion 5 Reattrib., 6

Philippe,

following, and comments on link 2, above. Amphipolis group I IB.

p. 21; Philippe, pp. 389-90.


3.

Relative Chronology

:

Alexanders

49

Following group D, successive obverse links, the introduction and abandonment of the title and similarities in reverse markings make the groups' order inescapable except for the position of the minute group K. I have placed K in the tables before J, although a strict linear order is probably misleading. More interesting than the placement of K, however, is the question of its very attribution to our mint. Newell in Reattribution published only one issue of the group (K3, its largest) and assigned it to an uncertain mint of Macedonia, Thrace, or Asia Minor. By the time of Demanhur's publication, however, he had placed it, although without comment, at Amphipolis.7 Price has now argued against this attribution, considering group K (the A group) as the immediate predecessor of the A- or T-bucranium and A- or T-torch series — which he considered struck at Amphipolis. He posited that groups A-I, J, and L belong together, but without successors, at another mint, presumably Pella.8 I would not necessarily disagree with his sugges tion that the mint for the huge output of groups A through L and their successors may have changed at some point. His suggestion of an introduction at Pella with a subsequent move to Amphipolis could possibly be true. But this study attemps to deal with numismatic evidence only, and that evidence seems at the very least to contradict the division at the particular point that Price suggests. Precisely because his monumental work will inevitably and deservedly become the standard reference for Alexander's coinage, I should like to respond here in some detail to Price's arguments. First, he assumes that the title of BAZIAEQZ, once dropped (as it was in group L) would stay This is surely correct. dropped, that there would be no brief recurrence. Second, he states that group (the P-group) follows directly on the symbol-only issues of groups A-I. This also seems correct, although not for the reasons he gives.9 Third, he says that group L (the P-group) should follow directly on for two reasons. One is that P is an elaboration of P : this is of course quite possible but not necessarily so. The second reason is the shared symbols between and L, which is quite convincing.10 And, as group L first drops the title BAZIAEQZ," Price concludes that there would appear to be no room in the sequence for group K (the A-group), which bears the title. It then, he says, will have been the direct predecessor, but at another mint, of the A-bucranium and A-torch groups. His reasoning is tight and would be persuasive, but the separation of group K from our mint seems almost certainly impossible in the light of the four die links now known between the Philips analogous to group K and those analogous to group J. Moreover, any posthumous at our mint to K as the initial group at suggestion that dies might have been transferred from BAZIAEQZ,

J

J

J

J

7 Reattrib., 1582. p. 40, issue 62; Demanhur 8 Alexander, previously given in his "On Attributing Alexanders — pp. 86-87, expanding on arguments Some Cautionary Tales," in Greek Numismatics and Archaeology. Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson, ed. O. Merkholm and N. M. Waggoner (Wetteren, 1979), pp. 241-50, at 247-49. 9 He adduces obverse links between a coin with P and laurel branch, and coins with crescent alone and with laurel branch alone. These latter two, however, are merely examples of a few rare, perhaps early or perhaps only poorly executed coins of group J. They are not part of a group of their own, nor are they connected to any earlier issues. See Chapter 1, issues (grain ear alone, 3 coins and 2 reverses known), J2 (crescent alone, a firm 3 coins and 2 reverses known), and J3 (laurel branch alone, 2 coins and 1 reverse known). Nevertheless, tie between group and earlier groups is provided by the two obverse dies now known to be shared by I and J. See links 20 and 21 above. 10 Price adduces four shared Of symbols: filleted caduceus, grain (or corn) ear, crescent, and laurel branch. these, only two (grain ear and crescent) seem to be shared. See the commentary at the end of Chapter 1 on Price's issues 127 ("P and filleted caduceus" and 140 ("P and laurel branch"). Nevertheless, among the Philip issues analogous to groups and L there are four or possibly five common symbols. See p. 53, Table 7, groups 8 and 9. Therefore, again, group does seem closely connected to L. II Citing his issues 126 and 127, Price states that a few coins of group also drop the title. The examples given seem, however, merely bungled examples of group L, with P. See the commentary on 126 and 127 at the end of Chapter 1.

Jl

J

J

J

J


I. Amphipolis

50

Silver, ca.

332 - ca. 310

another mint is ruled out by the observation that in the Philip link where priority of use can be determined, the die was used for coins of group K before being employed for coins of group J.12 Yet it remains quite true, as Price has pointed out, that K does not logically fit in the sequence either before or after J. The resolution is again provided by the study of the contem and K, some not, but all so tightly and intricately porary Philip groups, some analogous to obverse linked that the only explanation seems to be that all were more or less contemporary.13 The tiny Alexander group K, if also struck concurrently with J, which would seem likely, then Price's sequence A through I to to L is preserved, yet K being contem presents no problem. means that our mint need not be divided into two, at least at the spot Price porary with

J

J

J

proposes.

And finally, link 22 above, between group L (with P) and the A-bucranium group, seems to out Price's sequence at his proposed second mint of group K (with A), A-bucranium, A-torch. rule

Newell in Demanhur placed group K after J, presumably because of the single die link which his tickets show that he knew between I and J. More recently, both Le Rider and Thompson

have preferred to place K before J,14 but the disagreement is meaningless if K was contemporary with J. But because some order is inevitable in a serial listing, I have opted, despite the two links, for K before because of the more numerous shared dies among the analogous Philip II reissues. Another consideration is that after group I two markings rather than one identify the various issues and a primary marking for each group is accompanied by a varying secondary marking. Only in K is there inconsistency in the placement of the two markings, with the primary one either in the left field or below the throne and the secondary one in the other spot.15 In and L, however, the placement is unvarying. Unfortunately then, the unavoidable strict linear order presented in the tables does not, in the case of group K, accurately represent reality.

I-J

J

J

J

The last group in this study, L, despite its superficial similarity to group (P instead of P, and the two groups' shared secondary markings), is a totally different outpouring from group J. No obverse links connect the two groups, and only one possible but quite doubtful link joins the

16 Several hoards contain coins of all or most groups down to analogous Philip groups 8 and 9. and including J, but not L. Group L drops the title BAZIAEQZ present on the five preceding groups. And, while abundant small-denomination coins (of Philip's types) accompany groups K and J, none are known that are analogous to group L.17 F1 may resemble P— indeed may well be

an elaboration of

P — but

the two groups

of coins are completely different.

12 See Chapter 6, links 14-17 especially 14 and 17. Further, contrary to Price's assertion, Newell's trays, provisional die numbers, and notebook for both the Alexander and Philip series make it clear that his order $-torch, A-torch. The use of the letter A is not limited in any case to was group J, K, L, A or ❖-bucranium, group K and the A-bucranium and A-torch groups: it is found in Philip groups 5 and 6, contemporary with 8 (with I"1), and also in Philip group 9 (with F). 13 See Chapter 6. 14 Philippe, p. 397, n. 5; Sardes and Miletus, p. 88, n. 90. 15 Cf. 72-75. 16 See Chapter 6, link 18. 17 See Chapter 5.

I


4.

POST-323 PHILIP

II

TETRADRACHM REISSUES

No even reasonably satisfactory study of the Alexander coinage of Amphipolis can omit a study also of the late reissues of Philip II tetradrachms and smaller coins which parallel many of the posthumous Alexander issues. These tetradrachms' obverses depict a handsome head of Zeus, and their reverses bear the simple legend (DIAinnOY and a nude mounted horseman. A summary of the Philip tetradrachms whose markings correspond to those of the Alexanders of groups K, J, and L, and perhaps I, follows. These late Philip II reissues continue beyond those shown here, which end with those contemporary with Alexander group L.1

ISSUES AND GROUPS Table 7 summarizes the post-323 Philip issues through those analogous to Alexander group L. These late issues form Le Rider's Philippe Amphipolis silver group III.2 Le Rider gives only a brief overview of this group, not the thorough die study accorded Philip's earlier Amphipolis silver. Essentially he presents a list of issues to which a few corrections now seem justified. These are given at the end of this chapter. The numbers assigned the Philip tetradrachm groups here are not Le Rider's (who gives none), but the present author's. Numbers were chosen rather than letters in order to differenti ate the Philip groups from the Alexander groups. The order of the Philip groups here is for the most part that adopted by Le Rider, who remarks that his order is in many cases arbitrary.3 The only changes made here are that group 7, listed as two separate contiguous sections in Philippe, is presented as a single group and placed after rather than before group 6 because 5 and 6's secondary markings are largely identicai. Also, the fractions of groups 2 through 6 (group 1 has none) normally bear both issue markings of their analogous tetradrachms, while 7's fractions, like those of group 8, bear only the secondary issue markings.4 The conclusion reached below in Chapter 6 will be that most if not all of these Philip groups were issued more or less simultaneously. The numbering of the groups has been adopted for convenience of reference, as we do not seem to be dealing here with a linear sequence of groups (see Figure 5 for the complicated die linkage among groups 2-8).5 Unlike the Alexander groups', the Philip groups' issue markings clearly show the internal coherence of each group. Many internal die links are known, some published in the summary in Philippe, and more in SNGANS. At least one example of each tetradrachm issue is illustrated here, on Plates 12-14, and a few internal die links are also shown which do not appear elsewhere. Table

markings found in each group, the plate locations of representative Philippe plate references, initial SNGANS numbers, and the number of examples located for each issue. Regardless of their positions on the coins, the primary marking is given first, followed by the secondary one. When an issue has the same marking or markings as an Alexander issue, the Alexander issue's group letter and issue number are given in bold type, before the Philip issue's markings: e.g., K2 before the first issue in group 7 indicates that this Philip issue has precisely the markings of Alexander group K, issue 3. Markings given in paren theses are known only in the Philip fractions and are included merely to fill out the issue list, as examples of such tetradrachms may well surface some day. 7 gives the issue

examples,

1 See "Tetradrachms Amphipolis" 2 Philippe, p. 120-24. 3 Philippe, p. 120. 4 See Chapter 5. 5 See p. 69.

for a summary of later Alexander and Philip issues.


I. Amphipolis

52

Silver, ca. Table

Post-323 Philip

II

332 - ca. 310

7

Tetradrachm Groups and Issues

Plate

279

43, 1

bee

280

43,

amphora or Ifl, ivy leaf

r

281

44,

L

Initial Philippe Plate

282 283 284

Markings

Group

Found

1

572

16 coins

(club?)

globule

L

star grapes

*

285 286 287 288 289 290

576

44, 11 44,

577

579

44, 10

44,

44,

2

1 3 3 1 7 1

44,

3 1 3

43, 10

5, 8 6 9

3,

Group

Ai amphora ivy leaf

571

2

L

-

globule (SI or FR, star)

1 9

2, 9 coins

ffl

III ffl ffl

Group

Examples

Number

1, 1 coin

M

Ai Ai Ai Ai Ai

SNGANS

580

coins 291

44, 20

At grapes At r£ [sic]

292 293 294

44, 21 44, 19 44, 22

295

44, 29

592

296 297 298

44, 30

299

44, 33

301

45, 24

600

302

45, 25

603

303

45, 22 45, 26

606

Causia,

globule,

-

300

A is

3

594

-

304 305

306 - 307

45, 27 45, 23 45, 28

p. 122 and p. 308, 281.

607

7 6 6 7

45 coins

coin with causia and reported in Philippe, listed, as have not seen it.

the examples

I

'

A

Wreath Wreath Wreath Wreath Wreath Wreath "E Wreath <6

M)

593

610

14

615

2 3

Group

T M A E A 6,

(Causia, globule, Causia, globule,

44, 31 44, 32

1 1 2 2

globule,

r

Causia,

1

L

Causia

- ■

E A

Causia

A"

T

Causia

590

13 coins

E

(Causia Causia

T M

Group

A) 5,

At club

589 —

2 1 2 2

L

r

At star

The coin

is

Group

4, 7

(Ai club)

not counted


4.

Philip II Tetradrachms

53

Initial

Group A

P

SNGANS Number

45, 5, 6

630

310

45, 15, 16

643

16

311

45, 11-13

638

24

45, 14

636

7

46, 3 46, 4

667

27

674

25

46, 5

683

20

688

6

691

2

Plate

Markings

K2

Philippe Plate

Examples

Found

7, 72 coins

or P

308

25

309

K3 K6

r

ATE A ©

L

L

312 313

A ^1

J4 J5

Group 8, 93 coins P grain ear P crescent P forked branch P aplustre

314 315 316 317 318 - 319 -

P

profile shield Trident head P trident head P Macedonian shield

LI

L3

Group

P

46, 8 46, 6 46, 1

branch

P aplustre

1

320

46, 2

321

46, 7

692

322 323

46, 11

6

46, 17, 18

738

86

46, 12

736

8

46, 10 46, 14

737

15

747

17

749

95

9, 235 coins

forked

5 4

3241

P grain ear P crescent

L4 L5 L6

P

L7

P

L8?"

P profile P axe P A

L10

wreath

Wreath dolphin

325J 326 327 328 329 330 L

shield

-

331

332 333 334 335

46, 15 46, 9, 19 46, 13 46, 16

2

— — —

4 1 1'

b Although the issue markings are those of Alexander's L8, the Philip issue may well be a phantom. Four coins are known, from two die pairs. One die pair is illustrated here (333), but the reverse's general aspect is a bit odd (note in particular the unique orientation of the shield). This may be an ancient imitation, a common

in group 9. Indeed, Newell marked an ANS cast from these dies as "Barbarian." The other reverse die (Hunter, p. 291, 61, and the Paris coin, here 449) has a very fine, faint dot below the P, very likely not made by the same tool which engraved the P, and in the Hunter catalogue itself the marking is described as a simple P. If the dot on this second reverse is a mere accident, the die would belong to group 8— which is made more likely by the fact that this reverse's accompanying obverse is found also in group 8's P-crescent issue, forming the only possible die link between groups 8 and 9, see Chapter 6, link 18. It is worth noting that the Paris cast at the ANS had been placed by Newell with his casts of group 8, not 9. c Besides the coin illustrated, three other examples of the issue are cited in Philippe, p. 308, 717-19. Not seen by me, these three coins are not included in the count of examples located. occurrence

Ffl

Group 1 may well be a phantom. One single tetradrachm is known, and the fractions which Le Rider places with it in Philippe solely on the basis of style would seem instead to belong with others with the same issue markings, which clearly belong in other groups.6 The tetradrachm's or IB, and perhaps the coin should be included monogram M may well be a variant of group 2's

See pp. 63-64, comments

on Philippe,

pi. 43, 2-8.


I. Amphipolis

54

Silver, ca.

332 - ca. 310

Group l's monogram M also is identical to one variant in Alexander issue I1, and, other Philip reissues repeat some markings of Alexander groups K, J, and L, it remains possible that the Philips commenced as early as Alexander group I.7 The composition of groups 2 through 7 is self-evident and the primary markings clearly show which coins and issues belong in each group. Groups 8 and 9, however, present problems. These are the coins with the primary marking P or P. The groups with these markings, both Philips and Alexanders, were for the most part poorly and often carelessly made, apparently in some haste. The two series in each king's strikings used many of the same secondary symbols, but are subject to being confused because of the similarity of the primary markings P and P, which differ only by a single dot. The correct attribution of an Alexander, even with a poorly or imperfectly executed letter or monogram, is simple because group J, with P, included the title BAZIAEQZ in the inscription, while group L, with P, did not. Among the Philip coins, however, the attribution depends solely upon whether the marking is P or P and, given the often poor workmanship involved, it can be virtually impossible to decide whether the presence or absence of the critical dot is intentional or accidentai. Further, there exist numbers of barbaric imita tions of the Philips, especially in these problematic groups 8 and 9 and in following groups also. Obvious imitations have been excluded from this study, but some may well not have been Some group 8 and 9 coins are possibly wrongly attributed in Table 7, but the overall recognized. picture should be approximately correct. More important is the possible, but highly uncertain, die link between Philip groups 8 and 9 which results from taking a few coins at face value, that is, trusting that their markings are intentional and not the result of carelessness or accident. For discussion of the coins involved in these links, see Chapter 6, link 18, and p. 53, note b. in that group. as

THE SIZE OF THE GROUPS The size of each group, as judged from the estimated number of obverse dies employed, seems to bear little relation to the number of issues in the group. Contrary to what one might at first assume from Philippe's treatment of these strikings, essentially a listing of issues, the sizes of the groups varied widely, from 3 to 56 estimated dies used for a given group. Table 8 shows the numbers of coins and of obverse dies located, the coin to die ratios, and, as in the similar table of

Alexander tetradrachms above, Table 2,8 the estimated each group. All conventions are those of Table 2.

Table

number of obverse dies employed

8

Post 323 Philip Tetradrachm Group Sizes Coins

Dies

Coin Die Ratios

10

2.5

4.00

3

16

7.3

2.19

11 3

Obverse Group

i" 3

i

Obv. Dies

7

2.5

2.80

5

13

2.5

5.20

3

6

45

15.5

2.90

20

7

72

26.5

2.72

35

8

93

29.2

3.18

36

86

2.98

110

â&#x2013; t

Totals

7 See p. 70. 8 See p. 26.

Estimated

1-8

256

9

235

50

4.70

56

Totals

491

136

3.61

163

for


4.

Philip II Tetradrachms

COMMENTARY

ON

55

PHILIPPE ISSUES

concern three tetradrachms listed in Philippe, p. 124, and illustrated there They are coins of groups 8 and 9, with the primary markings P or P.

These comments on pi. 46.

Plate 46, 8, "aplustre and P." The issue may exist, but this particular coin does have a faint dot within the P, and belongs to group 9's very large P-aplustre issue. I am most grateful to Martin Price for a direct photograph of the coin (324) and an enlargement of the reverse. It is

from the dies of Miinz. u. Med. 13, 17 June 1954, 1096, and from the reverse of 325, both of which clearly show the P. The obverse of 324 is not known elsewhere and 325' s is known only in group 9: Myers, 11 May 1972, 18, P aplustre; 329, P wreath; and a cast at the ANS, P dolphin.

Plate 46, 9, "dolphin and P." The ANS has a cast of this coin, which does seem to have a dot joined to the inner edge of the right perpendicular element of the P. As the coin in question would be the only known example of the supposed P-dolphin issue, it almost certainly is merely a poorly executed specimen of the extremely large P-dolphin issue of group 9, where its poor, flat relief would be typicai. present,

"laurel branch and P." The coin would be the only known example of this the fractions with a horizontal, quite different branch).9 It seems more likely that the symbol of pi. 46, 12, is a poorly engraved grain ear, an issue not listed in Philippe, but of which several examples are known, e.g. 326. Ineptly engraved grain ears are common also on Alexanders with P, e.g. 95-97. Plate 46,

12,

supposed issue (note, however,

9 See pp. 58 and

62.


5.

POST-323 PHILIP

II

COINS SMALLER THAN THE TETRADRAGHM FIFTHS

By far the chief subdivision of the post-323 Philip reissues is a small coin with the head of Apollo wearing taenia on obverse1 and OlAirTnOY with a nude horseman on reverse. The denom ination of these little pieces is unclear. As Le Rider points out, they are certainly too heavy to be considered tetrobols on the standard of the tetradrachm of the period (ca. 14.29-14.39 g), which would require a coin of, at most, 2.38-2.40 g. Nor are they heavy enough to be truly fifths of a tetradrachm (ca. 2.86-2.88), such as the fifths with the same types were in the lifetime coinage of Philip. Le Rider suggests that these fractions could pass at their period as tetrobols on the Attic standard, but on the whole prefers to regard them as fifths of the tetradrachm.2 Their correct denomination, however, being unclear, and Le Rider's persuasive "fifths of the tetradrachm" rather unwieldy, these coins will simply be called "fifths." There are known also a few extremely rare "tenths" and several examples of what must be drachms on the Attic weight standard which belong with these abundant post-323 Philip fifths. These other denominations will be discussed briefly later in this chapter.3 A few corrections to Le Rider's small-coin listings are also given at the end of the chapter. Table 9 presents the issues found of the fifths. The first column gives the issue's markings (primary marking before the secondary one, regardless of their position on the coins) and the second the plate location of a representative Plate numbers in Philippe example or examples. form the third column, and the fourth gives the issues' initial coin numbers in SNGANS. The last column gives the number of examples found of each issue. Brackets to the left of the plate references indicate obverse die links, those to the right, reverse links. Some small issues cannot be definitely assigned to a particular group, namely those with the single markings of globule or amphora (group 2 or 3), and star (group 2, 3, or 4). The last issue listed, with simple straight laurel branch, can only probably be placed in group 8*

1 I follow Ulla Westermark in the obverse head to be Apollo. See her "Remarks on the Regal considering Macedonian Coinage ca. 413-359 R.C.," in Kraay-Merkholm Essays. Numismatic Studies in Memory of C. M. Kraay and 0. Merkholm, ed. G. Le Rider, G. K. Jenkins, N. Waggoner, and U. Westermark (Louvainla-Neuve, 1989), pp. 301 15. See p. 303 for the argument for Apollo, based in part on the occasional presence of a laurel wreath instead of the taenia (cf. 339). 2 Philippe, pp. 359-62. On p. 359 Le Rider suggests that the earlier Philip fractions with the same types as these were instituted in order to facilitate the exchange of Philip tetradrachms with Attic weight gold staters. How much more necessary would some aid to exchange have been at this later period, when Attic-weight tetradrachms of Alexander were being issued simultaneously with Philip tetradrachms. One Philip tetra drachm and one so-called fifth of a tetradrachm do not weigh quite as much as an Attic tetradrachm, but one must take into account the usual tendency for small coins to weigh less than their theoretical weight and the fact that such exchanges would be for the most part locai. Price came to this same conclusion in Alexander, p. 38. In favor of such a function for the small coins is the observation later in this chapter that the fifths were issued in roughly proportional numbers (if one can judge by surviving coins) with their corresponding tetradrachms. Price has also convincingly shown that the small coins, fifths of the Philip tetradrachms, were in reality drachms, and the traditional Macedonian large coins, more properly termed staters than tetradrachms, were traditionally divided into five, not four parts, i.e., drachms {Alexander, pp. 38 39). But the term fifths will be with Alexander's Attic-weight drachms. used in this text to avoid confusion 3 See pp. 61-63. 4 See p. 58.


Smaller Philip Table

II

Plate

9

Philippe Plate

2, 9 coins

Rl globule HI or Ifl, star 22 coins

-

/*) Ai

[

-

grapes club

uncertain marking

571

2

11, 14

581

1

44, 17

340

44, 13 44, 18

583

44, 15 44, 16 44, 12

coins 349 350

4, 9

Group

44, 28

43, 43,

— —

584 586

— 588

coins 352

44, 25 44, 26

353

44, 23, 24

— —

354

43, 3-5;

2,

Group

or

4, 6

351

At grapes At f> 3,

At star

coins

Star

591

7 1 1

or

Globule Amphora

4 1

6, 7 8

2

Group

3, 5

Ai Ai Ai

Grapes

Examples Found

2

44, 4 44, 3

342 343 344 345 346 347 348

Number

— —

336 337 338 339

341

globule Star star

SNGANS

6

Group 3, A ivy leaf

57

Fifths: Groups and Issues

Markings

Group 1 If bee

Coins

2 6 2 1 3 1 3

Philip

II

3 2

5.

44, 27

globule,

45,

359* 360b

598

45,

16

— —

599

45, 30

616

362 363 364

45, 31, 32 45, 29

621

45, 33

625

365

45, 34

628

366 367

45, 7-9

650

20

43 coins 361

T 7,

Group *3. P, or

P

Group Wreath Wreath Wreath Wreath Wreath

597

1 1 1 1 2 1

Causia,

596

44, 35 45,

8 7 7 5

Lr

globule,

M A E A 6,

Causia,

44, 34 1, 3 2

Causia

355

356 357 358

4

Causia

T M

Causia

13 coins

M A E A

Causia

5,

Group

622

50 coins

368

is

b

M

" The globule (to left, below the end of the horse's tail) and the (below the causia) are both faint, but definitely present. The globule (to left, below the end of the horse's tail) again faint but definitely present.


I. Amphipolis

58

Silver, ca.

Plate

Philippe Plate

Markings 369 370

Š

8, 115 coins

Grain ear

373

Number

Examples Found

663

10

661

13

45, 20 45, 19

658

5

660

2

43, 2;

696

29

372

Group

SNGANS

45, 21 45, 17-18

371 A

332 - ca. 310

_

45, 10;

Crescent

Forked branch Aplustre Profile shield Trident head Macedonian shield

374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381

382 383 384

"

46, 22-23

46, 24-25 46, 26-27

706

17

711

29

46, 31 46, 29, 32

721

7

731

9

46, 20-21 46, 30

723

13c

726

11

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

9

Group

8 ?, 9 coins Laurel branch

385

46, 28

c Not included are Philippe, Pella silver 541 43 (group III, pi. 22). The obverse of 541 is, as Le Rider very close to 540's; 542 (an ANS coin, now SNGANS 453) seems to have a crescent, not noted in Philippe, to the left of the trident head ; and 543 has a unique vertical ornamented trident head. None of the states, coins

shares

an obverse

die with any other

known fifths.

The final marking listed, the straight laurel branch, is not found on any known tetradrachms. The symbol finds its nearest parallel in the rather sketchily executed straight laurel branch found occasionally among the Alexander tetradrachms of group J, analogous to Philip group 8.5 Supporting this tentative association with group 8 is the fact that the only tenths issues known The remaining (see below) have the grain ear of group 8 and this horizontal laurel branch. problematic issues are listed in Table 11. Table 10 gives the total number of examples found and studied for the various groups of tetradrachms and fifths. Because the fifths' dies are so small and often so similar, and because the coins are often in such poor condition, no attempt to count their obverse dies has been made. Hence the comparison with the tetradrachms is made not by actual or estimated obverse dies used, but simply by the numbers of coins located. In groups 2 through 6, virtually all of the securely placeable fifths bear the dual markings of their corresponding tetradrachms. However, the single markings of group 7 are (except for the one coin with a rather crude A) only the secondary markings of their group, whose primary marking is A; but there can be no doubt as to the placement of this group's fifths. After group 7 the situation is more difficult, because subsequent fifths also bear only a second ary marking, and many of these markings were used both in group 8 (with P), and in group 9 of the symbols found on these problematic fifths with (with P). Table 1 1 compares the incidence the incidence of the same secondary markings on the tetradrachms of groups 8 and 9.

5 Cf. 83, 89.


Smaller Philip

5.

Table Philip

II

II

Coins

59

10

Tetradrachms and Fifths: Examples Located Tetradrachms

Group

Fifths

2

9

9

3

16

22

2 or 3 4

5

7

9

5

13

13

6

45

43

7

72

50

8

93

115

9

235

2, 3, or 4

Table Occurrence

6

11

of Symbols on

Philip

II

Fifths

and on Tetradrachms of Groups 8 and 9

r

Group 8, Tetradrachms

Fifths

Group 9, F Tetradrachms

Grain ear

Grain ear

Grain ear

Crescent

Crescent

Crescent

Forked branch Aplustre Profile shield Trident head Macedonian shield

Forked branch Aplustre Profile shield Trident head Macedonian shield

Forked branch Aplustre ?Profile shield

Wreath Dolphin Axe A

Laurel branch * See p. 64, commentary on Philippe,

pi. 46, 32.

As can be seen, seven of the fifths' eight6 known markings occur in group 8, and all of group 8's seven secondary markings are found on the fifths. The only markings of group 9 which occur on the small coins are the four (or five, if the profile shield really is found with P)7 which are found also on the group 8 tetradrachms. The remaining four in group 9, peculiar to that group, are not known on the fifths. Clearly the trident head and Macedonian shield fifths, whose symbols are found only in group 8, must belong to that group. The first five issues listed, those with grain ear, crescent, forked branch, aplustre, and profile shield, might, however, belong to either group, although the other fifths' correspondences with group 8 together with their non-correspondences with group 9 strongly suggest that all the small coins belong with group 8. Several other observations, none convincing in itself, also lend weight to this supposition. First, there are the numbers of tetradrachms and fifths located in the various issues from group 2 on, listed in Table 12. The forms of the monograms given are those which occur most commonly. 6 See p. 58 for the eighth symbol, the horizontal laurel branch, and its probable association Alexanders analogous to group 8. 7 See p. 53, note b, and

p. 58, note

c.

with the


I. Amphipolis

Silver, ca. Table

Tetradrachms and Fifths: Examples Located

amphora ivy leaf

club?

star grapes

uncertain marking

2 2 2 1

*

At star At grapes At club

Causia

3

Causia,

globule,

Causia,

globule,

E A

Causia,

globule,

M

Causia,

globule,

T

Causia

P

P

A A A A

r

T T

T M A E A

Wreath Wreath Wreath Wreath Wreath Wreath "E Wreath * A; or ©

trident head. and trident head Macedonian shield

11

1 1

-

16

25

20

Hi

10

24

13

2 r>

Causia

1 1 2 2

Causia

T M A E A

Causia

7 6 6 7 1

At

— —

2 3

Ai

A* club

7

Ai Ai

Ai globule

1 3 3 1 7 l

-

star

2

ivy leaf

3 1 3 1

:i 2 1 3

globule

?

Ai Ai SI SI ffl

ffl amphora

2

7

ffl

bee

Fifths

1 1 7 2 (i

Tetradrachms

1 ■12 1

Marking m

13

1

Group

II

12

1 1

Philip

332 - ca. 310

8 7 7 5

60

11

9

8

A

is

By and large, the sizes of the tetradrachm issues and the fifths' issues correlate ever so approximately, at least as measured by the numbers of examples located. Although there are for larger tetradrachm issues to be accompanied by larger fractional exceptions, the tendency issues, and smaller by smaller. comparison of the five fractional issues in question with the tetradrachm issues bearing their symbols follows in Table 13. and group group


5.

Smaller Philip Table

II

Coins

61

13

Certain Philip II Tetradrachms and Fifths: Examples Located Group 8 Tetradrachms

Fifths

Group 9 Tetradrachms

Grain ear

27

29

8

Crescent

25

17

15

Forked branch Aplustre Profile shield

20

29

6

4

7

86

6

9

?4

The number of crescent fifths, 17, is compatible with either group 8's 25 or group 9's 15 tetradrachms, and the 9 profile shield fifths might also belong to either group (if indeed group 9's profile shield issue even exists),8 but the number of fractions with the other three symbols is far out of line with the numbers of tetradrachms known in group 9, while according well with those of group 8. By itself this analysis of the sizes of the issues is far from definitive, but may help to strengthen

the other evidence

suggesting

that these problematic fractional reissues of

Philip II belong to group 8. Finally there are the obverse links detailed in the following chapter. Nine links between groups are known among the fifths. Five of these (links 2, 4, 6, 7, and 10) do not involve groups 8 or 9, but all parallel obverse links found among the tetradrachms. A sixth link among the small coins (link 15) involves a coin with trident head symbol — which must be of group 8, not 9, as the trident head does not occur in group 9. This link too parallels an obverse link among the

tetradrachms. The remaining three obverse links among the fifths (links 9, 16, and 17) involve small coins with symbols common to both group 8 and group 9 — forked branch, grain ear, and crescent. Because all the six other known links among the fifths parallel known tetradrachm links, it seems only reasonable to assume that these three links do also, and thus at a minimum that the specific coins in question here — and very likely their whole issues as well — belong not to group 9 but to group 8.

The Philip tetradrachms of group

9 are succeeded

repeat those of many Alexanders subsequent

known with these later emissions. have ceased with those of group

to group

by other Philip

L, but

issues whose

markings

no Philip fractions of any size are

The small denominations with Philip's types would seem to 8.

TENTHS These few small coins have weights between 1.23 and 1.30g, roughly half the weight of the fifths. Their obverses are as those of the fifths, and their reverses bear the forepart of a horse to right. They are known in two issues only, with grain ear and straight laurel branch, as on the fractions of group 8 described above.

See note

7, above.


I. Amphipolis

62

Silver, ca. Table

Philip Plate 386 387

Markings Grain ear Laurel branch

II

332 - ca. 310

14

Tenths

Philippe Plate

SNGANS

46, 33, 34

735A

Number

Examples 5

46, 35, 36

3

ATTIC-WEIGHT DRACHMS Six such coins are known to me, from four obverse and three reverse dies. Their obverses Alexander coins, and their reverses depict a nude rider holding palm branch, his horse walking right with one foreleg raised as on Philip's contem The combination of types should not be throught of as a hybrid, however, porary tetradrachms. for Philip's lifetime didrachms and drachms coupled just such a Heracles head with slightly different horseman reverses identical to tetradrachms of their time.9 These Attic-weight drachms do not appear in Philippe or SNGANS. show a head of Heracles as on the standard

Table

II

Philip

Attic- Weight Drachms Plate 388 389

Markings

r

grain

ear

Grain ear Crescent down:

(horns

ÂŤ)

15

r L

390 1 391

392

Examples 1 2 3

]J

The P on the first coin, known since 1891 although first published in 1973, places that issue in group 8, together with the die linked simple grain ear issue.10 Neither the grain ear alone nor the crescent alone is known on any Philip tetradrachms of either group 8 or group 9, but both are known on the Alexander tetradrachms of group J, analogous to Philip group 8." The crescent issue is Miiller's 273 "tetrobol" (equivalent to octobol in present-day terminol 12 The first crescent coin illustrated here (390), acquired in 1841 by the ogy), published in 1855. British Museum, presumably also gave rise to Hisloria Numorum's citation of such an issue on the Attic standard.13

9 E.g., Philippe, Amphipolis 109-10, 142-44, 174-76. These coins showed the mounted king on reverse. They were lighter than the drachms under discussion, being one-quarter of the weight of the tetradrachms of Philip which were lighter than the Attic tetradrachm. 10 The first coin is in SNGLewis 500. Its obverse also was used for a coin with grain ear symbol Cambridge, alone (not illustrated). 11 See p. 23, and J2 (81 and 82). 12 Miiller, p. 337, 10, and table 26 (Philip II), 273. I thank Martin Price for pointing out this citation. I thank also Dr. H.-D. Schultz for the coin's weight of 4.06 (Miiller gives 4.07), and for the information that it It is not clear whether the coin was purchased was "erworben 1852 vom Consul Spiegelthal in Smyrna."

Jl

"from Consul Spiegelthal, [who was consul] in Smyrna" or whether it was purchased "by Consul Spiegelthal in Smyrna." If the latter, however, this may be an extremely rare instance of a silver coin of Philip II circulat â&#x20AC;&#x201D; perhaps because of its Attic weight. ing in Asia Minor 13 HN, p. 223. The denomination is again called an octobol, but the 66 grain theoretical weight given equates to 4.28, the weight of the Attic drachm.


5.

Smaller Philip

II

Coins

63

The unusual orientation of the crescent, with horns down, also points to a placement in group orientation is unreported on any Philip tetradrachms in either group 8 or group 9, or on the Alexanders of group L, contemporary with Philip group 9. This orientation is, however,

8. Such an

found on

of the Alexander tetradrachms in group

a number

J,

contemporary with Philip group

8.14

The weights and axes of the six known specimens are 4.03 «-, P grain ear; 4.11 f and 4.18 |, j, 4.06 J, (holed), and 4.13 crescent. Clearly drachms on the Attic stan dard, they are considerable anomaly, the only silver with Philip's type struck to this standard a

J.,

grain ear; and 4.07 at any time.15

COMMENTARY

a

J

8

is

P

a

A

is

is

a

is

a

is

Private communications have revealed considerable doubt as to the coins' genuineness. First their weight, but the treatment of Heracles' hair at the brow, the dotted circle on the reverse of the grain ear coins with the dots placed over faint linear circle, and the incuse aspect and small size of that reverse die have all raised suspicions. None of these latter objections seem valid, however, as Heracles' hair similar to that on many Alex ander tetradrachms of group J,16 the dots cut over circular guideline are common at this time,17 the incuse effect seen on both Philip tetradrachms and fifths,18 and the small size of the die may simply reflect the small size of the common fifths. The present author — rather brashly, for she has not seen any of these drachms — therefore inclined to accept them as genuine.19 Most telling are the markings of the simple grain ear and the simple crescent with its horns pointing downward. modern forger would presumably have modeled such coins on Philip's tetradrachms, but these markings do not occur alone on those tetradrachms. It seems most improbable that any forger would realize, first, that both of these markings were found alone only on very few rare Alexander tetradrachms, and, second, that those Alexander tetradrachms were contemporary with the Philips with the marking (where the T-grain ear issue obviously belongs), and thus that the simple grain ear and crescent with horns pointing down would be reasonable markings for his little creations. Far more likely the assumption that during the striking of Philip group and the contem few Attic drachms and, as porary Alexander group Amphipolis was called upon to produce all other small denominations at the time bore Philip's types, appropriate Philip types were used for these drachms also. and most important, of course,

ON

PHILIPPE ISSUES

Plate 43, 2-8. Le Rider has placed these fifths of fine style, with grain ear, amphora, star, and after his lone tetradrachm of group with the single marking M. He likens the 1

globule symbols,

most probably roughly contemporary, gold staters of which seems persuasive but which does not necessarily suggest an association with any particular tetradrachm group. small coins' obverses to those of certain, Amphipolis,20

14

1.

ard. See Alexander, p. 24, n. 20 Philippe, p. 120, n.

2.

is

It

1,

a

a

6,

1,

g

a

I

a

E.g., 87. with agree with Price that single known Philip tetradrachm of 16.72 poor and most peculiar obverse style must be an ancient imitation (Alexander, and K. Dimitrov and V. Penchev, Seulhop. 29, n. and pi. true that the coin has as polis 2: The Ancient and Medieval Coins [Sofia, 1984], p. 52, 5). crescent (horns right), but the coin's style seems simply impossible for symbol genuine issue. 16 E.g., 84, 86, and 88. 17 E.g., 87, 88, and 378. 18 E.g., 368, 371, 380, and 383. 19 Price also apparently accepted them as genuine, although considering them octobols on the local stand 15


I. Amphipolis

64

Silver,

ca. 332 - ca. 310

As already discussed, group 1 may well be a phantom. In any case, none of the four symbols on the fractions in question occur on this tetradrachm, but all occur in other tetradrachm groups. One fifth with star is die linked into group 3 (343 and 340), and the coin seems merely to lack group 3's primary marking of Ai.

Other coins with star, amphora,

and globule

probably

also simply lack their primary markings. The grain ear is a heavily used symbol in group 8, and there seems little reason to separate out the few coins with the finest obverses. Philippe's pi. 43, 2 (373), is in fact reverse linked to a coin with a quite unexceptional obverse (374). Placement on stylistic grounds is at best weak placement, and it seems preferable to place the particular coins illustrated on Philippe's pi. 43,

2-8, together Plate 44,

12.

with others bearing

the same markings.

The coin, SNGANS 587, with only

Ai

visible, may well have

a

symbol off flan.

Plate 44, 27-28. These coins, with star only, are in Philippe placed with group 4. Here 28 (343) has been moved to group 3, as it shares an obverse with another group 3 coin (340). Other star-only coins, including 27, may belong to any of groups 2, 3, or 4. Plate 46, 32. The "dolphin" symbol on the coin, SNGANS 735, is shown by a comparison with the better preserved SNGANS 734 (382), from the same dies, to be not a dolphin but a profile shield. No small coins with dolphin symbol are known.


6.

PHILIP II GROUPS: RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY

The 17 (or possibly 18) obverse links which have been found between the various post-323 Philip groups are detailed below, followed by a summary in Figure 5 and then by discussion. Tetradrachms provide eight, or possibly nine, of the links (links 1, 3, 5, 8, 11-14, and also 18 if this last is a valid link), and the fifths the remaining nine (links 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 15-17). As in Chapter 3, all coins known from the obverse dies involved are catalogued. Newell's provisional tetradrachm obverse die numbers are also given as a possible help to future researchers, because the ANS's coin tickets, casts, and photo file cards bear these numbers.

OBVERSE LINKS Group

Stage

110

1 2,

2

3

globule same die

(393)

Munich; Oxford = SNGAshm 2482 = Philippe,

pi. 44,

ivy leaf (394) SNGANS 573 star (395) Naples = Philippe, pi. 44,

5

Ffl

A

Stage

3, 2, 2

L 3

s'

tetradrachms, Newell obverse

with Group

2,

-

1,

ffl

Link

2

R!

3, 2,

globule

(396) Turin

globule

(397)

Cambridge,

Eng. = McClean 3359

3,

5

grapes (398) Peus 279, 14 Mar. 1972, 16 = Frankfurter 116, 27 Jan. 1969, 417 = Philippe, pl. 44, = SNGCop 557 = Philippe, pi. 44, causia (399) London; Copenhagen 30 8

M

5,

fifths

A

14

1

ivy leaf (400) Berlin = Philippe, pi. 44, causia (401) Athens = Philippe, pi. 45, Ai

5, 3,

4,

L 5

Link

be of this group.

tetradrachms, Newell obverse 56C

3

-

with Group

Ai

3,

Group

Link

odd, yet the coin must

is

monogram

3

The form of the group

2

L 3

-

fifths

2

Link

2,

2

In stage there are small retouchings, most obviously in the hair below the wreath, e.g., an added line above the tip of the lock farthest to the left.


Silver, ca.

I. Amphipolis

66

Group

Link -

s' -

5,

with Group

3

tetradrachms, Newell obverse Stage

332 - ca. 310

5 and

Group

6

56

1 3,

A

5,

causia,

star (402) SNGANS 579; Athens = Philippe globule, T (403) cast marked "Volo" 6, wreath T (404) SNGANS 613

3

5

pi. 44, 9

Stage 2 5,

6

causia

E

(405) Auctiones

5, 2 Dec.

1975, 65

Stage 3 5, causia 5, causia

E (406) SNGANS 592 = Naville 12, 18 Oct. 1926, 1150 T (407) SNGANS 593; Glasgow = Hunter p. 291, 60 = Philippe,

pi. 44, 31 1 is evident in stage 3, with extra lines added at the Coin 405 seems to show an intermediate stage, with a die break in the field behind the crown which may have occasioned the retouching in stage 3.

As Le Rider notes, retouching of stage

back of the crown and below the beard.

Group

Link L

v' L

with Group

6

6, fifths 3,

3

6,

A

club (408) Wertheim wreath M (409) SNGANS 625; (410) SNGANS 626 = SNGBerry

125

6

Link -

3

7,

fifths Stage

1

3, Ai star (411) SNGANS pi. 44, 13; private coli.

3

6

pi. 52, 5; Paris

583 = Philippe,

= Philippe,

Stage 2 6,

wreath

M

(412) SNGANS 627 = Philippe, pi. 52,

Retouching is evident on the obverse of 412, probably occasioned

12

by

a rusted

die. The effect

of the rusting can be seen in the lower portions of the relief.

Group Link,

8,

tetradrachms, Newell obverse Stage

P

8

100

Stage 2 8,

(413) SNGANS 682; St. Petersburg, same die; Dresden; "Commerce 1929," same die

crescent

marked 8

with Group

1

8,

4

4

P Macedonian

shield

cast

(414) SNGANS 692

Stage 3 4, AT star (415) St. Petersburg 8, P grain ear (416) J. Hirsch 33, 17 Nov. 1913, 643, not illustrated but a cast is at the ANS;

Hollschek

In stage 2, a minute die break has appeared in the center of the locks below the wreath. In stage 3, other small die breaks have formed directly below Zeus's earlobe, and in his hair above the wreath.


6.

Link |-

Relative Chronology: Philip

II

67

fifths

9,

8,

*

(417) Paris = Philippe, pi. 44, 24 forked branch (418) London = Philippe,

4, At

4

pi. 46, 27

8

The link is not noted by Le Rider.

Group

Link

10,

5

with Group

6

fifths

Stage

1 5, causia 5, causia

A (419) SNGANS 596 = Philippe, pi. 44, 34 = Philippe, pi. 44, 35 E (420) London = Weber 2061

Stage 2

6

6,

wreath A (421) Rudapest, Delhaes

= Philippe,

pi. 45, 29

As Le Rider notes, the die identity is not absolutely certain. If the same obverse was used here for both groups (which seems likely to the present author), it was recut rather heavily after its use in group

5.

Group

Link

11,

5,

6,

5

8, |- 6

8,

8

8,

12,

8

Group

8

80

(422) Philippe, pi. 44, 29 (in commerce) ?A (423) Leiden wreath A (424) SNGANS 600; London grain ear (425) SNGANS 667 = SNGBerry 119 forked branch (426) SNGANS 683; Cambridge, Mass. = Dewing 1113, same die; Athens, same die P profile shield (427) SNGANS 688; Munz. u. Med. FPL 320, Feb. 1971, 8, same die; Piatt, 27 Mar. 1922, 339 E

r r

50

1

5, causia,

globule, 6, wreath A (429)

5

6 and

causia

tetradrachms, Newell obverse

Stage

6

with Group

tetradrachms, Newell obverse 5, causia

Link

5

A (428) SNGANS 595 Rerlin

Stage 2 6, wreath A (430) Frankfurter 123, 8 Mar. 1976, 67, same die 8, P grain ear (431) Yakountchikoff; Naville 1, 4 Apr. 1921, 854, same die 8,

P

aplustre (432) Florence

Stage 3 6, wreath "E (433) London Gotha, same die Stage 4 6, wreath M (434) 6,

In stage

= Philippe,

SNGANS

pi. 45, 23;

SNGANS

615, same die;

608

wreath T (435) St. Petersburg

2 there is some recutting of the hair at the crown, in stage 3 a small die break has directly in front of the eye, and in stage 4 there is a new die break in the hair just

developed above the ear.


Silver, ca.

I. Amphipolis

68

Group

Link -

tetradrachms, Newell obverse

13,

41 = 111

r

forked branch (438) SNGANS 684; Oman, Nov. 1973, 180, same die

Group tetradrachms, Newell obverse

14,

Stage

-

8

r

8

Link

with Group

6, wreath A (436) Paris; M. Ratto, 16 May 1935, 217, same die 8, grain ear (437) SNGANS 668

6

8, L

6

332 - ca. 310

7

with Group

same die; Coin Galleries, 19

8

115

1

7

A

7,

(439) Zygman

grain ear (440) London; Paris = Philippe, Galleries, 20 Nov. 1975, 2028, same die

8,

8

pi. 46,

3,

I"1

Stage 2 same die; Coin

a

a

is 2

In stage clear die break has formed in the hair just above the lowest pair of leaves. Coin 439 the only Philip II tetradrachm cast from the Zygman collection at the ANS, so the cast pair must certainly be true one. (fifths) 8, 7, 16,

(441) SNGANS 658; London = Philippe, pi. 45, 20, same die trident head (442) Berlin = Philippe, pi. 46, 21

fifths (443) Vienna = Philippe, pi. 45, grain ear (444) Hersh = Philippe, pi. 45,

L r 8 7

8

8, 7,

P

Link

A

10

and pi. 46,

7

Le Rider catalogues 444 not with other similarly marked examples (pi. 43, coin. 22-23) but because of the obverse link together with this group

2,

15

1 r 8 7

Link

fifths (445) Berlin

7,

17,

"E

8,

Link

crescent

= Philippe,

pi. 45, 21

(446) Turin, the crescent cut over 445's "E; (447) Wertheim

Coins 445 and 446 are from the same die pair, but on 446 the crescent has been cut over the of 445.

?Group

8

monogram

with Group 9?

See p. 53, Table

7,

1

note

is

is

b.

F

P

is

highly questionable because of the similarity of the The following link and markings and the careless execution of many coins in these groups. Further, the very existence of the doubtful, and thus the validity of the link doubly uncertain.1 P-profile shield issue


Relative Chronology: Philip

6.

?Link -

18,

tetradrachms, Newell obverse

?

69

121

8,

P

crescent

9,

F

profile shield (449) Paris; Glasgow

8

II

(448) SNGANS 677; London = Hunter, p. 291, 61

= Philippe,

pi. 46, 13, same die

9

In Figure

indicate die links between tetradrachms in different groups and fifths. The brackets to the left show obverse links (1-18), and the dashed bracket to the right shows reverse link 17 including recutting between fifths in groups 7 and 8. The dotted brackets to the right show not die links, but multiple similarities in the secondary reverse markings of the groups. 5, solid

brackets

show die links between

Figure

5

II

Groups Markings

Group 1 2 6

5

4

3

12 11 10

r

r

13

r

/N

L

L

r

r

r

?18 L

L

L

L

HI etc.

3

j

A

4

J

H

etc. etc.

5-

Causia

6-i

Wreath etc. 17

etc. etc. etc.

etc.

J

9

I

r

2-

7-,

17 16 15 14

1

M

A

Die Links between Philip

P

brackets

P

dashed

8,

5,

3,

4,

2,

1,

11-14, 18? Tetradrachms: links 6-7, 9-10, 15-17 Fifths: links

DISCUSSION

See Chapter See Chapter

8, 8,

3 2

a

if

is

a

is

8.

7

8

7

a

Hoards provide minimal help in proposing relative order for the Philip groups here. Several Alexander hoards' contents end with Alexanders parallel to groups and 8.2 These will be discussed in Chapters and 9. Two hoards of Philips include coins of all or most groups through group 9.3 None help with any arrangement of groups 1-6, nor with their relationship to groups and Here we are totally dependent on the evidence of the coins, and this not clear. The Philip groups 1-8 are presented here in linear order, because on two-dimensional sheet not all of of paper there no alternative. The evidence strongly suggests, however, that many

hoards

10, 13-14,

hoards

34-35.

18, 20, and 28.


I. Amphipolis

70

Silver, ca.

332 - ca. 310

these groups were struck more or less simultaneously â&#x20AC;&#x201D; or at least that groups were struck concurrently with group 8.

1 (or 2)

through

7

Groups 4, 5, 6, and 7 all share obverse dies with group 8. Groups 2 and 3, 3 and 4, and 5 and 6 form pairs of groups closely connected by shared secondary markings. Links 5 and 10 show that groups 5 and 6 must have overlapped at least to some extent, and link 12 shows that 5 and 6 must also have overlapped group 8. Link 8 shows that group 8 must have at least in part preceded group 4, and yet 4 is closely bound to 2 and 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; and it does not seem reasonable to place the small groups 1-3 after 6. And then there is group 7, tied by no fewer than four die links to group 8. And, if the monograms M, Ffl, and IB of groups 1 and 2 are variations of Alexander group I's M or W, then group 7's monogram P seems even more probably a variation of Alexander group I's unusual monogram H, suggesting that group 7 came rather early in the series. It does not seem possible, then, to place groups 1-8 in any sort of linear order and the relatively small groups 1-7 must have been struck more or less at the same time as the larger group

8.

Le Rider stated that his order for these groups in Philippe was somewhat arbitrary. The order here, largely his, is not intended to be understood as a strict chronological sequence, but merely as a convenient way of presenting the contemporary groups 1 through 8. Given the unexpec tedly small size of some of the groups, as measured by the obverse dies employed,4 this is not surprising. Group 9, however, is different. Aside from the highly questionable link 18 with group 8, it Further, hoard evidence and other observations on the shares no dies with any other group. analogous Alexander groups show that, despite its superficial reverse resemblance to group 8, it must be considered a completely separate emission.5 4 See p. 54, Table 8. 5 See p. 50.


7.

ALEXANDER AND PHILIP GROUPS: SUMMARY AND RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY

Table 16 summarizes and correlates the chronology of the silver coinage of Amphipolis â&#x20AC;&#x201D; both Alexander's and Philip II's types, and all denominations. The table is based solely upon internal evidence, that of the coins themselves. Its two chief subdivisions, Attic weight and Macedonian weight, parallel the coins' types with but one exception, the rare Attic-weight drachms corres ponding to Alexander group J. These anomalous Attic-weight drachms bear Philip's reverse type and name. The incidence of the various small denominations with their reverse types is indicated in Table 16 by the following abbreviations: = Zeus seated, as on the tetradrachms Z E = eagle standing i. or r., head sometimes reverted 2E = two eagles facing each other F = fulmen P = Philip's type of mounted horseman (or horse forepart on tenths) Alexander tetradrachm groups G, H, I, K, and include the title BA2EIAEQZ in their inscrip tions. This study ends with Alexander group L and the contemporary Philip group 9, but the arrows at the bottom of the table indicate that Alexander and Philip tetradrachms continued to be struck at Amphipolis.

J

Table

16

Summary of Relative Chronology of Alexander and Philip II Tetradrachms and of Accompanying Smaller Coins Attic Weight Obv. Heracles head

Alexander Tetradr. Group A B C

D E

F

2-dr.

1-dr.

3-ob.

E Z

E

E

z z z

E

E

E E,Z

E

E

Macedonian Weight Obv. Zeus head (tetradrachms) or Apollo head (smaller

2-ob. 2E 2E 2E 2E 2E

obols

F F F F

Philip Tetradr. Group

denominations)

Fifths

Tenths

?â&#x2013;

F?

Z

G H

I

P

K/J L

1-8" 9

I

i

"

Philippe's Amphipolis group

b The Philip pp. 54 and 70.

II

reissues

may

IIB may have at least partially overlapped Alexander group A. possibly have commenced during Alexander group I, as discussed above,

gives in its second and fourth columns the estimated number of obverse dies in the Alexander and Philip tetradrachm groups, as discussed in Chapters 1 and 4. The figures in the final column for groups A through I are the numbers of estimated dies used for

Table

employed

17


I. Amphipolis

72

Silver, ca.

332 - ca. 310

those Alexander groups.

Group A's total may be higher, as it is unclear whether Philip's coins with the same markings were issued before or together with group A's Alexanders. Further, at least in part, and C and D may well have also. groups A and B must have overlapped The Attic-weight fractions of all denominations, being so few, have not been taken into But the Philip fifths corresponding to Philip groups 2-8 were, so far as is shown by account. surviving specimens, at least approximately equal in number to their corresponding tetradrachms, and the small coins' weights were nearly equal to the difference between the weights of the two kings' tetradrachms. Therefore, a simple addition of the estimated dies used for Alex ander groups K and and Philip groups 1-8 seems the most reasonable number to use in the final column. In Philip group 9, however, there appear to have been no small coins struck. Therefore a conversion factor has been applied to the number of Philip dies estimated here: 14.40/17.20, the approximate theoretical weights of the Macedonian and Attic tetradrachms. The resulting number 47 (56 Philip dies x 14.40/17.20) was then added to the 232 Attic tetradrachm dies to give the final column's 279. The numbers in the final column, then, the results of several approximations, are the best estimates the present author can make of the relative numbers of dies used, and thus the amount of silver produced, at Amphipolis during the period under study.

J

Table

17

Relative Amounts of Silver Struck as Measured by Estimated Dies, Attic Weight or Equivalent Philip

Alexander Dies

Group

Group

Total Dies

Dies

A B

88

C

18

18

D E

76

76

241

241

F

89

89

G

114

114

H

109

109

I

70

K/J

43

Totals

L Totals

88 +

1

49

A-K/J,

1-8

49

70

1-8

885 232 1,075

9

110

153

110

995

47

279 1,232

157


8.

THE SILVER HOARDS

Listed in this chapter, following an alphabetical index, are the 46 hoards containing Amphipolis Alexanders (or their analogous post-323 Philip II reissues, or both) which were buried by ca. 300 B.C. and whose detailed contents are available to me. Noted are the total numbers of coins of Alexander and Philip III, the numbers of Amphipolis coins, and the latest Amphipolis group present. The Alexanders are tetradrachms unless described otherwise. The hoards are presented in approximate chronological order, in many cases based on their Amphipolis contents. Where this is not the case, the latest reasonably datable coins are identi fied. It is of course impossible to date each hoard accurately to a given year, and the order is not to be taken too seriously as hoards several numbers apart may be contemporary, or hoards may well be listed after others whose burials they actually preceded. A hoard summary appears on p. 83.

ALPHABETICAL INDEX Hoard Abu Hommos 1919 Agios Ioannis 1949 Akcakale 1958 Aksaray 1968 Aleppo 1893 Andritsaena 1923 Asia Minor, S. 1960 Asia Minor 1964 Asia Minor 1964 Asia Minor 1965 Asia Minor 1966 Asia Minor 1968 Asia Minor 1968 Babylon 1973 Byblus 1931 Calim 1976 Central Greece 1911 Cilicia 1964 Commerce

18

Hoard Karditsa 1925 Katd Paphos 1965 Khirbet-el-Kerak 1936

41

Kuft

40

Kyparissia 1892-93 Lamia (Hagioi Theodoroi) 1901-2 Lebanon 1985 Mageira 1950 Mavriki 1962

Number 24 37

20 42 8 See 22

Number

1874-75

15 38 14 26 1 45 6 2 44

32

Megara 1917 Messene 1922

22

Near East 1993

7

Nemea

3

23

See 22 5 31 11 13 12

1993

4

Demanhur 1905 Drama 1935 Egypt 1893 Egypt 1894 Karaman 1969

10 28 16 25 43

1938

Paeonia 1968 Paphos District 1945 Phacous 1956 Phoenicia 1968 Razinci 1961 Sfire 1932 Sinan Pascha 1919 Tel Tsippor 1960 Thessaly 1971 Tripolitsa 1921 Unknown Provenance ca. 1990

36 29

34 46 39 9 35 17 19 30 33 21 27

INDIVIDUAL HOARDS Kyparissia, Messenia, 1892-93 (IGCH 76),1 35 coins, 20 Alexanders. Amphipolis: 10 A, 2 B, C, 2 D. Newell dated the hoard's burial to shortly after 327 on the basis of the five other Alexanders present from Tarsus and Ake, no later than 328 on his dating. His burial date must be approximately correct. 1.

15

1 Philippe,

p. 295, 8; Alexander,

pp. 50-51.


I. Amphipolis

74

Silver,

ca. 332 - ca. 310

Mageira, Elis, 1950 (IGCH 74),2 48 coins, 1 Alexander. None from Amphipolis. The hoard contained mostly civic issues, but also 4 coins of Philip II. The hoard's only Alexander was from Tarsus (Tarsos, series I, 333-328 B.C.). All authorities date the hoard to ca. 330-325, and Le Rider in Philippe notes that 325 is more likely, as the Tarsus coin is quite worn. 2.

Argolis, 1938 (IGCH 79),3 3 coins, 1 Alexander. Amphipolis: D. This little hoard (one lifetime Philip II, one Boeotian stater, and one group D tetradrachm) is dated to ca. 330-325 in Alexander, but by Thompson to ca. 325-320 in IGCH. Le Rider notes in Philippe that the Amphipolis tetradrachm is heavily worn so the later range seems more likely. In any case, the group D coin dates the hoard, which is of no chronological

3.

Nemea,

1

value. 4.

1993, 72 Alexanders.

Commerce 25

Amphipolis:

3

A,

2

B,

3 C, 2

D,

15

E. See Appendix

1

for

a complete

listing and discussion.

Babylon 1973,4 a large hoard including "many" Alexanders. Amphipolis: A, B, 4 D, 5 E, G. This fascinating hoard contained not only Alexanders (chiefly of Babylon, with Aradus providing the second most important component), but also numerous Athenian tetradrachms and imitations, lion staters, and Porus decadrachms and other issues with elephant types, at least one of which was new. The specific Amphipolis information given here derives from the casts and photos which Nancy Waggoner assembled at the ANS. Most of the coins were Babylonian Alexanders, of which approximately half bear the title BAZIAEQZ. Waggoner's material does not include the latest Babylonian issue in the hoard, but Martin Price believed that she had information stating that this issue was present, and he included it in his description of the hoard in Alexander. The issue in question is of tetradrachms as Alexander 3692, with M and AY and BAZIAEQZ AAEEANAPOY, which Waggoner considered Babylon's first posthumous issue, ca. 323-322 B.C.5 The hoard material at the ANS does include, however, a record of a contemporary lion stater with M and AY. Also among Waggoner's material are two Tarsus coins with Nike and two monograms (Alex ander 3039), Tarsos issue 47, placed by Newell in the second of four groups in his series III, a series which he dated to ca. 324-319. At least 39 Aradus coins with caduceus (Alexander 3332) were also present. This was the last Aradus issue in Demanhur, and it is the last tetradrachm issue listed by Price in Alexander's ca. 328-ca. 320 Aradus section. Some of these Aradus coins may well be later than 322, but their dates are not firmly enough established to justify dating the Babylon hoard's burial after 322 or 5.

12

perhaps

321.

6

Lebanon ca. 1985, 26 Alexanders. Amphipolis: A, C, 2 E, G. Martin Price provided the details of this hoard, which also contained Alexanders of Lampsacus, Side, Amathus, Salamis, Tarsus, Aradus, Myriandrus, and Babylon. Most are probably from the years just before 323. The latest coins are one of Babylon with the title BASAEQZ (Alexander 3684), which Waggoner dated to ca. 324/3-323/2/ and three of Aradus from the large issue with caduceus (Alexander 3332), which may possibly be a bit later. See comments on this issue in hoard 5, above. 6.

5

2 Philippe, p. 296, 9; Alexander, p. 51. 3 Philippe, p. 297, 11; Alexander, p. 51. 4 Alexander, pp.51, 451. 5 "Babylon Mint," pp. 134-35 and 148. Whether or not this issue and the similarly marked one in Philip III's name (Alexander P181) were struck at Babylon (see p. 85 below), Waggoner believed that the die linkage

pattern suggests that the Alexander coins preceded ÂŤ See p. 85. 7 "Babylon,"

pp. 273 and 276.

rather than paralleled

those

with Philip's name.


8.

Silver Hoards

75

Near East 1993,8 1,412 Alexander drachms. Amphipolis: 3 E, 8 E or F (6 P, 2 laurel branch), 6 F (arrow). The hoard's composition is extremely similar to Asia Minor 1964. Its Asia Minor components ended where those of Asia Minor 1964 did, except that the latest series of Lampsacus and Abydus present there were lacking here, as was any Colophon materiai. The present hoard contained also a drachm of Aradus with caduceus (Alexander 3333). Its burial thus seems to antedate that of Asia Minor 1964 by a very short time, perhaps less than one year. The hoard is of no value to the absolute chronology of the Amphipolis groups, but its burial date of ca. 322 rather surprisingly shows that the P drachms, contrary to all previous assump tion, cannot be associated with the post-318 tetradrachms of group L with that monogram as primary marking. 7.

17

Asia Minor 1964 (IGCH 1437),9 88 Amphipolis: F (arrow). Price notes one Alexander drachm from Magnesia Thompson dated the hoard's burial to chronological value. 8.

1

Alexander drachms. that although the hoard contained no Philip III coins, was from an issue also struck in Philip III's name. ca. 321/320. The burial date is thus too late to be of

Phoenicia 1968 (IGCH 1513),1" 9 Alexanders and 6 Philip III. Amphipolis: 2 G, H, I. The hoard's 8 Babylonian coins include 5 of the Philip III issue with and AY (Alexander P181), which Waggoner considered Babylon's second posthumous issue,

9.

4 M

ca. 322-321

B.C.11

Demanhur, Egypt, 1905 (IGCH 1664),12 8,000+ Alexander and Philip III. To the 1,582 Amphipolis coins listed in Demanhur can be added 423 speci mens which Newell recorded after that hoard publication, giving a total of 2,005. 10.

2,005 Amphipolis.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

K

J

Total

161

140

71

147

375

148

167

261

67

1

1,582

52

41

32

46

81

42

54

56

14

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

44 5

423

213

181

103

193

456

190

221

317

81

1

49

2,005

Group

Demanhur Newell's

Notes

Total

This enormous

gives us the one securely fixed point in the dating of all lifetime and Alexander issues by its inclusion of the dated coins of Ake and Sidon through â&#x20AC;&#x201D;4,826 in 319/318 B.C. Of the 8,000+ coins present, some 5,951 can be identified by issue Newell's Demanhur, and an additional 1,125 in Newell's notes at the ANS. The total additions to each mint as recorded by Newell have been published by Orestes Zervos.13 The proportions of these additions, as well as of the Amphipolis breakdown above, are close to those of the original publication in Demanhur and confirm the general composition at the hoard as reported there. hoard

early posthumous

Calim, Bulgaria, 1976, 14 3 Alexander drachms. I Amphipolis: E or F (laurel branch). The coins were a drachm of Magnesia of ca. 322, one of Sardes as Alexander 2639 (Sardes, series XV, 319/8 B.C.), and one of Amphipolis with Zeus reverse, no title, and a laurel branch from Alexander group E or F.15 The Sardes coin dates this hoard's buriai. 11.

8 Ca. 400 photos and some casts at the ANS. The hoard has been published by Charles A. Hersh and the present author. See "Near East." 9 Sardes and Miletus, pp. 81-85; Alexander, pp.51, 320. 10 List of coins and some casts at the ANS. II "Babylon Mint," pp. 134-35 and 148. See also pp. 74 and 85. 12 Alexander, pp. 52, 406-7, and passim. 13 Orestes Zervos, "Additions to the Demanhur Hoard of Alexander Tetradrachms," NC 1980, pp. 185-88. 14 "Nicopolis," pp. 48, 50, and 55. 15 175. See pp. 32 and 36.


Silver,

I. Amphipolis

76

ca. 332 - ca. 310

Cilicia 1964 (IGCH 1421),16 22 coins, 4 Alexanders. Amphipolis: D, F. The bulk of the hoard was Athenian tetradrachms and imitations. The two non-Macedonian Alexanders were Damascus probably as Alexander 3211, whose date is not precisely known, and Tarsus as Alexander 3053, the last Tarsus issue catalogued in Demanhur. The hoard thus is not helpful for chronology. 12.

2

Central Greece 1911 (IGCH 81),17 37 + coins, 28 Alexanders. Amphipolis: A, 2 D, 2 E, 4 H, 3 I, 3 J. The latest non-Macedonian coins, both noted in the list at the ANS as worn, were Citium with BAZIAEQZ and T- (exact issue not ascertainable), dated to ca. 325-320, and the Aradus caduceus issue of perhaps 322-319 (see comments on this issue in 13.

15

hoard

5, above).

Although Thompson in IGCH and Le Rider in Philippe date the hoard's burial to ca. 315, Price in Alexander places it in his group of hoards buried ca. 323-320: "The Macedonian issues in Central Greece go down to the P group [group J] of c. 323 BC..., emphasizing that its deposit cannot have been long before that of the Demanhur hoard." Perhaps Price was influenced by the absence of group K, considered in Demanhur as the latest Amphipolis group. But as K now seems quite contemporary with J, Central Greece's Amphipolis issues go down as far as Demanhur's, and its burial was probably at least as late as that great deposit's, i.e., ca. 318 or 317. In any case, the hoard does not date our group J; it is dated by it. Note that the hoard contained 3 coins of group J, not 1 as reported in Philippe. 14.

III.

Khirbet-el-Kerak,

Galilee,

1936

J.

(IGCH

1510),18

118 + coins,

40 Alexanders and 13 Philip

7 Amphipolis: B, 2 G, 2 H, I, The latest datable coin is a Sidonian tetradrachm of year 13 dates the hoard which is thus of no chronological help. A (321/20 B.C.), but the coin of group "considerable number" of coins were said, however, to have been dispersed before the remaining

J

were studied.

118

Karditsa, Thessaly, Amphipolis: C, D,

30 Alexanders. The latest coins are Tarsus as Alexander 3039 (Tarsos 47), dated to ca. 323-317 in Alexander, and 3 Pella of ca. 325-315 (Alexander 214, 218, 220). The hoard is not useful for our chronology. 15.

15

(IGCH E, F, 3 G,

1925

82),19

3

5

37 + coins,

H, I.

Egypt 1893 (IGCH 1665), 44 Alexanders. Amphipolis: 3 A, 2 D, 7 E, 4 F, G, H (the count differs slightly from that in IGCH). IGCH notes (properly, as appears from the original account) "a single hoard?" With four exceptions (intrusions?) the hoard contains only issues found in Demanhur, and is thus, even if a true hoard, of no value chronologically. 16.

18

Sfire, Cyrrhestica, 1932 (IGCH 1511), 84 Alexanders. Amphipolis: E. The hoard contains many of its mints' latest Demanhur issues, and thus was dated by Seyrig in IGCH to soon after 318. It is again of no chronological value. 17.

1

Alexanders and 27 Philip III. J. The hoard contained 5 coins of Ake and Sidon of 319/8 B.C., the last year present in Demanhur, but also one of Ake of year 30, or â&#x20AC;&#x201D; a year later than Demanhur's latest coins. As Le Rider and Olcay remark, no other 318/7 B.C. 18.

Akcakale, Mesopotamia,

1958,20

163

26 Amphipolis: B, C, D, 9 E, 2 F, 4 G, 4 H, 2 I, 2

16 List of coins at the 17 List of coins at the 18 Alexander, p. 51. 19 List of coins at the 20 G. Le Rider and N.

ANS. ANS; Philippe,

p. 298,

13; Alexander,

p. 51.

ANS; Philippe, pp. 312-14, 18; Alexander, p. 51. Olcay, "Un tresor de tetradrachmes d'Alexandre trouve a Akcakale en 1958," RN The hoard is mentioned passim in Alexander, but only as a reference for certain issues; there

1988, pp. 42-54. is no general discussion.


8.

hoard coins can be dated later than or perhaps

early in 316,

Silver Hoards

Philip III's

77

reign, so the hoard's burial can be taken as 317

later than Demanhur.

a year

20. Andritsaena, Elis, 1923

(IGCH

S3),22 145+

(lot A, 74; lot B, 28). Amphipolis

coins (lot A, 110; lot B, 35), 102 Alexanders and

J

Total

1 4

22

5

K 1

— 1

6

1 5

I

H 3 3

1 1

6

G

F 1 1 2

D

E 3 2 5

1 3

C

B

2

Total

4

1

2

B A

Lot Lot

A

Group

1

33

III

:

Philip

a

L

P

P

F1

I*1

19. Sinan Pascha, near Afyon-Karahissar, Phrygia, 1919 (IGCH 1395),21 682+ drachms of Alexander and Philip III, the great majority from Asia Minor mints. 3 Amphipolis: E or F (F1), 2 F (arrow). Thompson in Sardes and Miletus dated the hoard's burial to "about the time of the assassination of Philip III" (fall 317 B.C.) because the Sardes material contained two series (one large, one small) not present in Demanhur. Additionally, drachm, which she believed contemporary with the Sinan Pascha contained a tetradrachms alone," which were not present in of group L, "the immediate successors of coins with Demanhur. As the drachms were present in the Near East 1993 drachm hoard buried ca. 322, are now seen to antedate reason for Thompson's by some years, and are no longer they group burial date. Nevertheless, as Price notes, Sinan Pascha contained the full record of drachms struck in the name of Philip III and its burial can hardly be earlier than the end of 317.

33

11

a

B

A

is

a

9

it

E,

A,

it

A

a

is

A

There are two components of the hoard. Lot the 110 coins in Newell's original publica tion (Andritsaena), which included 73 Alexanders of which 22 were from Amphipolis. Newell dated the hoard's burial to ca. 315 B.C. because the latest coin known was one of Babylon, which he considered struck ca. 316 B.C. This coin was of the issue of Alexander 3746, there dated to ca. 311-305 B.C. However, this issue was struck over period of several years, and the dies of the Andritsaena coin are Waggoner's 280a, which she assigns to ca. 316 B.C. — just the time Newell thought. second group of 41 (not 40, as in IGCH) coins forms IGCH's lot B. Newell learned of this Of its Alex group from the Greek collector Empedocles only after Andritsaena's publication.23 anders, 11 are identifiable issues of Amphipolis as shown above. Several complications arise from this lot. As Thompson noted in IGCH, included and bucranium (the group which follows post-323 coin of Philip II's types with markings of Philip group [analogous to Alexander group L]): "If this was part of the original hoard, may few years." require lowering Newell's burial date of 315 B.C. by But there are further complexities. Fortunately still preserved at the ANS the scrap of paper on which Newell recorded, rather sketchily, the coins of lot B. From this he added the lot to the previous lot in one of the bound notebooks in which he kept careful and precise records of many hoards. Six of the tetradrachms of lot were not transferred from the scrap of paper

;

21 Alexander, pp. 52 (burial ca. 320-ca. 317), 248 (burial ca. 315); Sardes and Miletus, pp. 41, 86-89; Lampsacus and Abydus, p. 77. 22 Andritsaena Philippe, pp. 309-10, 16; Alexander, p. 55; "Babylon Mint," pp. 183-84. 23 IGCH states that Empedocles acquired most of lot B. On Newell's record of the lot (see text below),

number of the coins. Many of Empedohe quoted Empedocles as saying that he had disposed of are today in the Athens collection, but Dr. Oeconomides kindly informs me that none can be a

however,

cles's coins

a

A

and ® (79) can be identified as from identified as from the Andritsaena Hoard. The unique Alexander with Andritsaena only because of very old and poor cast at the ANS so marked. The cast illustrated was sent by Dr. Oeconomides.


I. Amphipolis

78

Silver, ca.

332 - ca. 310

They included four coins of Philip II: two of Philippe's Pella group II, one of II ("Jannated [sic] Vase", i.e., double heads)24 and one of Amphipolis group IV (that mentioned above, with A-bucranium); and two coins of Alexander III, one with AAEEANAPOY, A in left field and H" below the throne, and one with BAZIAEQZ AAEEANAPOY and a to the notebook.

Amphipolis group

star of seven rays below

the throne.

The first of the two Alexanders must be the twelfth Amphipolis coin mentioned in IGCH, but its identification is a problem. No issue is known with precisely these markings. Could a men tion of a bucranium or torch have been omitted from the original sketchy list ?25 The second Alexander, however, with the star's seven points carefully noted, can only be an uncertain Peloponnesian issue of ca. 270-260 B.C.26 The two omitted Alexanders and the late Philip II possibly were not transferred to Newell's notebook because he considered them intrusions â&#x20AC;&#x201D; but then why would he have omitted the three unexceptional earlier Philips, completely similar to others recorded from both lots A and B ? I can only believe that the admirably precise and careful Newell did not put them in his final record of the hoard because he had good reason. Perhaps he, or his colleague Sidney Noe who frequently traveled to Greece, saw the coins and noted differences; or, perhaps more likely, a subsequent communication, not preserved, was received from Empedocles. This writer con cludes that the latest coin in lots A and B of the Andritsaena Hoard was indeed lot A's Babylon tetradrachm of ca. 316-315/4, and that Newell's original burial date of ca. 315 is probably correct.

Arcadia, 1921 (IGCH 84),27 23 coins, 14 Alexanders. Amphipolis: 2 A, E, I. Newell28 considered Tripolitsa probably part of the Andritsaena Hoard, and he is tentatively followed in this by Le Rider and definitely by Price. Tripolitsa's inclusion would make no difference, however, as its composition is very similar to Andritsaena's and no coins are later than that hoard's. 21. Tripolitsa, 4

22. Asia Minor 1968

(IGCH 1440),29 90+ Alexanders. Amphipolis: 3 A, 2 B, 9 D, 12 E, 5 F, G. Martin Price again provided the details of this hoard. I have been unable to discover the specific issues present in the Asia Minor 1964 (IGCH 1438) and Asia Minor 1968 (IGCH 1439) hoards. Note, however, that Price apparently considers 32

1439 and

1440 as one hoard.30

IGCH 1440 included a Babylon tetradrachm ANAPOY BAZIAEQZ, dated by Waggoner to ca.

as Alexander 3692, with M and AY and AAEE-

and 7 coins of the Aradus issue with caduceus, which may even be a bit later.32 But the latest coin present was a Babylon coin as Alexander 3704, which Waggoner dated to ca. 316-310.33 Even if this latest Babylon coin is an intrusion, the hoard is of no value for chronology. 23. Asia Minor 1965 5

Amphipolis: D,

2

323-322 B.C.31

(IGCH 1443),34 29 Alexander and Philip III. E, 2 L. The hoard's latest coins were Ake of year

Sardes whose dates are disputed.

The latter two are as Alexander 2645A

33 (315/4) and two of = Sardes series XVI,

24 Le Rider (Philippe, p. 310) describes this coin as with amphora, but the original wording surely indicates the double heads. In either case, the coin is an unexceptional one of Philippe's Amphipolis group II. 25 E.g., Alexander 430, 445. 26 See Alexander 776 (not illus.) and "Peloponnesian Alexanders," p. 67, 7; p. 69, II. 4; and p. 80. 27 Philippe, pp. 311-12, 17; Alexander, p. 55. 28 Andritsaena, pp. 32-36. 29 Alexander, p. 51. 30 Alexander, p. 51. 31 See hoard 5, above, and p. 85. 32 See p. 85. 33 "Babylon Mint," p. 149. Not having seen this coin, I cannot place it more precisely than to ca. 316-310. 34 List of coins at the ANS; Sardes and Miletus, p. 93.


Silver Hoards

8.

363-67,

and similar to Alexander

coins to ca. 310-302,

2671

ff. = Sardes series

79

XX,

393. Thompson dates these two

but Price prefers ca. 319-315.

24. Abu Hommos, Egypt, 1919 (IGCH 1667),35 1,000+ coins, 750 Alexander and Philip III. 61 + Amphipolis: 3 A, 3 B, C, D, 18 E, 2 F, 7 G, 11 H, 5 I, 6 J, 4 L. The IGCH notes only 30

ANS

coins of Amphipolis.

These (and the totals given there for coins of other mints) are coins as at Spink's in London in July 1922. They (at least the 30 of

listed in Newell's hoard notebook

Amphipolis) were purchased by Newell, but were only a portion of his acquisitions from the hoard. The 61 coins listed above are all in the ANS trays and identified as from this hoard. In the ANS's Abu Hommos hoard folder are notations of other hoard coins seen in Egypt. Some of these are perhaps among other coins acquired by Newell, but none of Amphipolis are later than those above. Abu Hommos's latest coins are 20 of Ake of year 36 (311/10 B.C.). The hoard's burial can thus be fairly securely dated to ca. 310. 25. Egypt 1894

(IGCH

1669), 79+

coins, 65 Alexander and Philip

III

(but only 36 Alexanders

are decipherable). 1 1 Amphipolis: 2 B, F, 2 H, 3 I, 3 L. The latest coins are Attic-weight Alexander head/Athena Promachus tetradrachms of Ptolemy I and a Babylon coin as Alexander 3764, dated by Wag

goner to ca. 311/10

-

309/8.36

1874-75 (IGCH 1670), 190+ Alexander and Philip III. Working from Newell's original meticulous notes on Kuft's contents, Orestes Zervos has made significant corrections to Nash's 1974 list of the hoard coins.37 The two accounts, broken down for Amphipolis into its constituent groups, are summarized below. 26.

Kuft, Egypt,

53

Amphipolis.

Group

A

B

C

Nash

4

7

2

Zervos

5

3

1

E

F

G

H

I

J

L

1

19

5

5

8

10

5

7 9

3

1

6 6

1

1

8

D

K

A-torch 1

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

Total 71 53

Nash and Zervos dispute the contents of the hoard. Omitted from the Amphipolis coins above are 2 group coins (one of which may be group L) without provenance (or countermarks) as noted by Nash,38 and added are the 7 coins given as additions to Newell's list by Zervos.39 IGCH

J

follows Nash, but the present writer is convinced by Zervos's arguments, which accord fully with from the material at the ANS and from coins and their provenances listed in Alex ander. Newell's account of the coins is "as stated to me by Dr. Strachan Davidson, who had secured the larger portion of the following in Egypt." This statement in Newell's notes (italics mine) was not cited in Zervos's article. The distinguishing feature of Kuft is its multiplicity of punchmarks and countermarks, often several on one coin, and many unknown elsewhere. Newell's list includes only such coins. Nash, however, would include many non-countermarked coins in modern collections on the basis of their patina or merely because they are from the same issues as known Kuft coins, but this seems unwarranted. It is clear that Newell believed, not just on his own, but on the basis of what Dr. Davidson had told him, that all the hoard coins were punchmarked or countermarked, or both. In general, for the hoard's dating and its considerable significance for the Ptolemaic coinage, the exact composition of the hoard makes little if any difference. But for our purposes here, it is significant that the A-torch coin listed by Nash is not in Newell's list. It is the British Museum deductions

35 Alexander, 36 "Babylon

p. 55.

Mint," p. 37 Daphne Nash, "The "Newell's Manuscript of 38 Nash (above, n. 37), 39 Zervos

(above,

149.

Kuft Hoard of Alexander III Tetradrachms," NC 1974, pp. 14-30; Orestes the Kuft Hoard," ANSMN 25 (1980), pp. 17-29; Alexander, p. 56.

p. 18, n. 6. n. 37), p. 24.

Zervos,


I. Amphipolis

80

Silver, ca.

332 - ca. 310

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; but it bears no punchmarks or countermarks. It therefore would seem it, along with the other non-mutilated coins listed by Nash, as not part of

coin 457 in Alexander correct

to consider

Kuft. As stated above, Alexander follows Nash in its assignation of the British Museum holdings to Kuft hoard.40 Among these British Museum "Kuft" coins, I count 48 identified as coming from the Davidson 1881 donation. Ten of these, including the A-torch coin, bear no counter marks or punches, leaving 38. This is a fair approximation of the 35 "Davidson '81" coins listed in Newell's manuscript as belonging to the British Museum. The hoard's latest non-Egyptian coins are of Sidon, to 312/11, and Ake, to 311/10. The Egyptian component seems a few years later, but for group L the date of 311/10 is the signifi cant one. Worth noting is Nash's redating of the hoard's discovery from IGCH's 1875-80 to "in or just before 1875" (presumably from the British Museum coin 3036a, a Kuft coin donated in 1875). I follow her in dating the hoard to 1874-75. the

27. Unknown

provenance ca. 1990, 77 coins, 69 Alexanders. Amphipolis: A, 2 B, 4 C, 3 D, 14 E, F, G, H, ?A-torch (with M and star). Martin Price has sent a list of varieties and photos of 39 Alexanders (including those from Amphipolis). The latest coins present seem to be Ecbatana as Alexander 3889 (ESM 434), ca. 310-308, and the Amphipolis A-torch coin. Are they intrusions? Nothing else seems later than ca. 320-318, the latest perhaps being Tarsus with Nike and monograms, cf. Alexander 3038-53. As no other hoard evidence places the A-torch group before ca. 310, an interment ca. 310-308 seems 28

probable. 28. Drama?, Macedonia, 1935 (IGCH 414),41 20 coins (3 gold), 1 Philip II and 16 Alexanders (13 tetradrachms, 3 drachms). 11 Amphipolis: A (very worn), 8 I, ("F.D.C."), and 1 Philip fifth of a tetradrachm with crescent (Philip group 8, contemporary with Alexander group J). The latest silver present included drachms of Sardes and Miletus of ca. 325-323, earlier than group on either the Newell or Troxell chronology. The latest coin of all, however, was an Alexander stater with no mark ings, for which the most likely attributions are western Asia Minor 323-280 B.C. (Alexander 2696), Salamis 323-315 (Alexander 3148), Memphis 332-323 (Alexander 3961), Cyrene 305-300 (Alexander 3983), and "East" 325-320 (Alexander 3991-91A). This stater was the basis for Newell's IGCH burial date of 310-305.

J

J

29. Messene, 1

1922 (IGCH 95),42 31 Alexander and Philip I. The latest coin present was Ake of 310/9 B.C.

Messenia,

Amphipolis:

III.

1960 (IGCH 1514),43 63 coins, 59 Alexander and Philip III. Amphipolis: E, F, 2 H, 2 I. The hoard's latest coin is of Ecbatana as Alexander 3889 (ESM 434), struck ca. 310-308 B.C. 30. Tel Tsippor, Judaea, 6

(IGCH 1515),44 141 coins, 137 Alexander and Philip III. Amphipolis: A, 2 D, 2E, F, 2 L. The hoard contained coins of Ake and of Sidon to 310/309, and of Ecbatana as Alexander 3889 (ESM 434), struck ca. 310-308. 31. Byblus, Phoenicia, 1931 8

32. Asia Minor 1966

1436),45 52 coins, 51 Alexanders. B, 3 E, G, 2 H, L. Morkholm's burial date in IGCH is ca. 323, but he seems not to have taken account of one coin listed with "Ahre(?)" to left and P below the

8-9 Amphipolis:

40 Alexander lists in the catalogue. 41 List of coins 42 List of coins 43 Alexander, 44 Alexander, 45

List

1

(IGCH

or

Kuft

2

coins on p. 56. To these add 103b (Amphipolis) and 3412 (Byblus), so identified only

at the ANS. and

some casts at the ANS.

pp. 56, 490. pp. 56, 490.

of coins

at the ANS.


8.

Silver Hoards

81

which can only be L4. This coin dates the hoard, which is therefore once again of no chronological help. My count of the Amphipolis coins differs slightly from IGCH's. Omitted are 3 coins described with bucranium symbol, which need not necessarily be from this mint, but their inclusion or omission is not significant. throne,

33. Thessaly 1971 or 1972,46 90+ coins, 13 Philip II, 20 Alexander and Philip III. 7 Amphipolis: all L. Martin Price again kindly sent a list of the varieties in this hoard.

III

All

of

the Alexander issues not of Amphipolis and all those of Philip were present in Demanhur. The latest coins of Philip II's types are contemporary with Alexander groups K, J, and L. These

Philips date the hoard, which is therefore of no chronological value. The post-323 Philip lis present were: 1? group 3, 1 group 6, 3 group 7, Philippe's contemporary Pella group III.

1 group 9, and 1 (2 ?) of

Paeonia 1968 (IGCH 410),47 ca. 2,000 coins, gold of Philip II, Alexander, and Philip III, 139 tetradrachms of Philip II. 93 Amphipolis: 19 Philippe groups I and II, 20 groups 2-8 (contemporary with Alexander groups K and J), 54 group 9 (contemporary with Alexander group L). The bulk of this enormous hoard of nearly 2,000 coins was silver of Patraos of Paeonia. It also contained gold of Philip II, Alexander, and Philip III, but no silver of the latter two kings. The latest coins are the 54 group 9 Philips and one Alexander Babylon stater as Alexander 3750, dated by Waggoner to ca. 316/5.48 The hoard's burial date must be 315 or later and, as Le Rider notes, probably before 310 because of the absence of coins of Patraos's successor Audoleon, who was on the throne by that date. 34.

35. Razinci,

K

Bulgaria,

1961

1,446 Philip II tetradrachms. 2-8 (analogous to Alexander groups to K and or to L); 517 group 9 (analogous to can be dated only by the latest Philips, and is thus of no

(IGCH

41 1),49 2,657+

996 Amphipolis: 40 Philippe groups I and and J); 392 either group 8 or 9 (analogous

Alexander group L). chronological value.

The hoard

II;

coins,

47 groups

J

1917 (IGCH 94),50 789+ coins, known are 208 Philip II, 174 Alexander. Amphipolis: 64 Philip II, 1 Alexander: D. The 64 Amphipolis Philip II tetradrachms were: 15 early; 43 groups 2-8 (analogous to Alexander groups K and J); 2 group 9 (analogous to group L); and 4 A-bucranium. The latest coins known are the A-bucranium Philips, which date the

36. Megara 65

hoard. 37. Aghios Ioannis, Cyprus, 1949 (IGCH 1470),51 58+ coins, 54 Alexanders, 4+ Philip 6 Amphipolis: C, D, F, G, J, L. The latest coins are Sidon of 307/6 B.C. and Carrhae Alexander hoard 38.

9), dated to ca. 310-302 in WSM, but to ca. 305-300 in Alexander. have been buried at least some years after the introduction of group L.

3818

must

(WSM

Kato Paphos, Cyprus,

drachms,

6

1965

Alexander drachms.

(IGCH

1471),52

13 coins,

7

Alexander and Philip

III

III. as

The

tetra

46 CH 1, 40; Philippe, the hoard is p. 318 (mention only, no details); Alexander, p. 52. In Alexander and considered a parallel to Demanhur â&#x20AC;&#x201D; the issue erroneously described as ending with the P issues of group to the correct P issues. references given are, however, 47 Philippe, See also Chapter 12, hoard pp. 298-304, 14; Alexander, p. 50; Sardes and Miletus, pp. 73-74.

J

the Alexander gold component is discussed. Sotheby, 16 Apr. 1969, 274. The coin is from Waggoner's obverse 258, the first she lists in her issue VIII, series 1, a series she dates ca. 316-315/4 B.C. ("Babylon Mint," p. 149). As her preceding issue VII is assigned to ca. 317/6, her date for this stater should be ca. 316/5. Price assigns Alexander 3750 to his ca. 311-305 grouping, but his catalogue was completed before he had full access to Waggoner's work. 49 Philippe, pp. 304-9, 15. 50 List of 79 coins at the ANS. Philippe, pp. 314-16, 20; Alexander, p. 55. 51 List of coins at the ANS (79 known). 52 List of coins at the ANS; Sardes and Miletus, and Abydus, p. 73. p. 95; Lampsacus 10, where 48


I. Amphipolis

82

Silver, ca.

332 - ca. 310

Amphipolis: A. Thompson dates the latest Lampsacus drachm present to ca. 305/4, which IGCH's burial date of ca. 305. In any case, burial was decades after the striking of group A. 1

requires a slight lowering of the

39. Phacous, Egypt,

1956

A, 4 B,

(IGCH

1678a),53

D, 23E,

F,

456 Alexander and Philip

514 coins,

H,

I,

J,

L,

III.

A-torch. The latest coins were Sidon of 306/5 (which is the latest dated issue struck at Sidon) and Sardes of 305 or shortly after. 69

Amphipolis:

4

9

3

5 G, 6

2

5

6

2

(IGCH 1516),51 3,000+ coins, 949 Alexanders and Philip III. Amphipolis: 10 A, 7 B, 3 C, 1 1 D, 34 E, 1 1 F, 7 G, 19 H, 8 I, 5 J, 33 L, 4 A-bucranium, 2 T-torch, 2 A-torch. The latest known coins are Sidon of 308/7, Ake of 306/5, and Sardes, Miletus, and Lampsacus drachms of ca. 305-300.

40. Aleppo, Cyrrhestica, 1893 156

1968 (IGCH 1400),55 19 coins, 18 Alexander and Philip III. Amphipolis: H, I, A-torch. Thompson considered the one Seleucid coin in the hoard to be intrusive, and suggested a burial date of ca. 300, earlier than the ca. 281 proposed in the original publication.

41. Aksaray, Cappadocia, 3

42. Asia Minor, southern,

ca. 1960 (IGCH 1422),56 ca. 160 coins, ca. 150 Alexanders and a "few" Philip III, 9 known. 1 Amphipolis: H. The latest reasonably firmly dated coin is Abydus as Alexander 1549, 310/309 B.C., but also present was Aradus as Alexander 3349, there assigned to ca. 311-300. IGCH's ca. 300 burial date may be a bit late, but the hoard is in any case far too late to help in dating group H.

Lycaonia, 1969 (IGCH 1398),57 49 Alexander and Philip III. Amphipolis: D, I. IGCH notes a coin of Sicyon dated to ca. 303-301, but Thompson on the basis of a Miletus coin would lower burial to ca. 295-290. In any case the hoard is too late to be 43. Karaman, 2

useful. 44. Mavriki,

Arcadia, ca. 1962 (IGCH 122), 30+ coins, 3 Alexanders. Amphipolis: A-torch (in superb condition). The later of the other two Alexanders present is one of Pella as Alexander 249 (Miiller 754) of perhaps 315-310 B.C. The present author accepts Price's burial date in IGCH, ca. 300, but without knowing what else led to so late a date as 300. 1

45. Lamia District (Hagioi Theodoroi), Thessaly, 1901-2

(IGCH 93),58 112 coins, 32 Alexander tetradrachms, 3 Alexander drachms. 16 Amphipolis: D, E, H, I, 11 L, A-torch. The hoard contained an Ake coin of 312/11. Price in IGCH dates the hoard's burial to ca. 310 300, and in Alexander to "c. 310 or a little later." Le Rider in Philippe agrees with Price but notes that as the latest coin seemed to be the A-torch tetradrachm the hoard was dated by that coin. Thompson, however, dated two Lampsacus drachms to 301/300 or later, requiring a burial date of ca. 300. and Philip

III

1945 (IGCH 1469),59 39+ coins, 38 Alexander, 1 Philip III. Amphipolis: D, 2 E, F, 3 L. The hoard is dated by Morkholm in IGCH to ca. 310, but Thompson dates a Miletus tetradrachm in the hoard to ca. 300-294.

46. Paphos District 7

53 Alexander, p. 56; Sardes and Miletus, p. 91. 54 List of 922 coins at the ANS; Alexander, p. 56; Sardes and Miletus, p. 92; Lampsacus 55 Sardes and Miletus, p. 90. 56 List of the nine known coins at the ANS. 57 Sardes and Miletus, p. 94. 58

Philippe, pp. 316-17, 21; Alexander, p. 55; Lampsacus 59 List of coins at the ANS; Sardes and Miletus, p. 94.

and Abydus,

p. 74.

and Abydus, p. 73.


8.

Silver Hoards

HOARD SUMMARY No.

IGCH

Hoard

1

Kyparissia

2

Mageira

1892-93

1950

3

Nemea

4

Commerce

5

Babylon 1973 Lebanon 1985 Near East 1993: drs. Asia Minor 1964: drs. Phoenicia 1968 Demanhur 1905 Calim 1976: drs. Cilicia 1964 Central Greece 1911 1936 Khirbet-el-Kerak Karditsa 1925 Egypt 1893

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1938

25

Akcakale 1958 Sinan Pascha 1919: drs. Andritsaena 1923 Tripolitsa 1921 Asia Minor 1964: see 22 Asia Minor 1968: see 22 Asia Minor 1968 Asia Minor 1965 Abu Hommos 1919 Egypt 1894

26

Kuft

27

Unknown Provenance

21

— — 22 23 24

1

1437

1874-75

Group

D

15

1

1

73

25

D E

"Many"

12

G

26

5

G

1412

17

89

1

F F

15

4

1664

5,951

2,005

1932

Amphipolis

1513

I

J

E?F?

3

1

1421

4

2

81

28

15

1510

53

7

82

30

15

I

1665

44

18

H E

F

J J

84

1

190

26

1395

682

3

83

102

33

84

14

4

1438

70

28

?

1439

80

18

?

1440

90

32

1443

29

5

1667

750

61

1511

Sfire

18 20

20

74 79

17 19

III*

76

— — — —

1993

Latest

Alexander,

Philip

Number

J

L?

J

1

G

L

L L L

1669

45

11

1670

190

53

69

28

414

16

11

J

95

31

1

I

1514

59

6

I

1515

137

8

L

1436

51

8-9

20

7

A-torch ?

ca. 1990 28

Drama 1935

29

Messene

30

35

Tel Tsippor 1960 Byblus 1931 Asia Minor 1966 Thessaly 1971 or 1972 Paeonia 1968 Razinci 1961

36

Megara

37

Aghios Ioannis 1949 Katd Paphos 1965 Phacous 1956

31 32 33 34

38 39

1922

45 46

Theodoroi) 1901-2 Paphos District 1945

41 42 43 44

* Bracketed groups

and

numbers

are Philip

L L

410

[139]

[93]

[=

411

[996]

[=

L] L]

94

[1446] 174

1470

58

1, [64] 6

1471

13

1

1678a

456

69

1516

949

156

1400

18

3

1422

9

1

1398

49

2

I

122

3

1

93

35

16

A-torch A-torch

1469

39

7

L

1917

Aleppo 1893 Aksaray 1968 Asia Minor, S., 1960 Karaman 1969 Mavriki 1962 Lamia District (Hagioi

40

II

reissues.

Only silver coins are included.

[A-bucr.]

L

A A-torch A-torch A-torch H


81

I. Amphipolis

Silver, ca.

332 - ca. 310

DISCUSSION In general, the chronological help given by the hoards is disappointing. Only the first two hoards were clearly buried during Alexander's lifetime, and they are of limited value. The third hoard may also have been interred before 323, but it again is of no help. Nevertheless, a few hoards

provide clues, if not totally satisfactory evidence, about the dates of the various coin This evidence will be discussed in the following

groups in the decade after Alexander's death. chapter.

The burial dates of many of the hoards listed above depend on non-Macedonian issues whose exact times of striking are not precisely known. Indeed, it is remarkable how very little firm evidence there is for the dates of any of Alexander's lifetime and early posthumous silver. The annual dates on Sidon's coins, together with the contents of the massive Demanhur Hoard, give the one fixed point. Sidon's hoard coins of year 15, almost assuredly the Macedonian year of October 319 to October 318 B.C., provide a secure point of reference for most of the Alexander

mints operating at that time. Ake's coins, too, in Demanhur must have been struck in 319/8, but was this mint really Ake or was it Tyre ? As this mint's year 1 antedated the coming of Alexander by some 14 years, did its year start in a different month than that of Sidon â&#x20AC;&#x201D; perhaps the Babylonian year commencing in June? Price has made a convincing argument that historical considerations mean that year 1 at Ake could not have been 347/6, as Newell believed, but rather 346/5. But it has also been persuasively argued by Lemaire that the mint of these coins was not Ake but Tyre, in which case there is no difficulty in accepting a start in 347/6.60 At either of these cities the year would probably have started in June. Thus in the Demanhur hoard Sidon's latest coins (year 15) would have ended in October 318. If the second mint was Ake, coins of year 29 would have ended in June 317, eight months later. If the second mint was Tyre, coins of year 29 would have ended in June 318, four months earlier than Sidon's. In neither case do their dates correspond exactly to those of Sidon, but the difference is only a matter of months. More serious is the dating of the important series ascribed to Babylon, which provides the latest component in so many hoards. Waggoner's unpublished thesis closely follows Newell's Babylon dating in Demanhur, and a published article by her treats in detail the large group of issues which end with those with the first use of the title BAZIAEQZ.61 Here again her dating is extremely close to Newell's, and she assigns these issues to six years, 329/8 to 323/2, with the title introduced in 324/3-323/2. She has done a careful die study of an unusually large number of coins, with the obverse dies used divisible by reverse linkage into six consecutive groups each joined to the next by only a few common obverses. There is no doubt that her arrangement of dies and their groups is correct, but the conclusion that six groups of dies are to be equated with Obverse dies are retired when no longer usable. They six calendar years is highly questionable. are not arbitrarily discarded just because a new calendar year starts. A large number of symbols was used for this series, and they are used throughout, at first without and then with the title, and all are closely obverse linked in each group. Price wrote that the series "has every aspect of a large-scale production over a relatively short period of time." Waggoner counted 77 obverse dies in the Babylon series for her hypothesis of six years of striking. This is a respectable number of dies, and it approximates the average number in the Amphipolis groups: 879 known dies -r 12 groups = 73. Price, however, would date this entire Babylon series to ca. 325 323 B.C.,62 when returning soldiers from the east received their pay. I agree with Price's analysis. 50 A. Lemaire, "Le monnayage de Tyr et celui dit d'Akko dans la deuxieme moitie du ivc siecle av. J.-C," 1976, pp. 11-24; Alexander, pp. 405-7, with other bibliography. Georges Le Rider tells me that Lemaire soon. has further evidence supporting Tyre. One hopes to see this published 61 Alexander 3594-3687; "Babylon Mint" and "Babylon." 62 Alexander, p. 454-57, dates at p. 457.

RN


8.

Silver Hoards

85

Price also suggests that the Babylon issues with M and AY bearing either Alexander's or Philip name, which Newell and Waggoner both place after the Babylon series just described, may not even belong to the same mint. There are no die links, and there are great dissimilarities of style. Price's suggestions as to specific mints are intriguing but not especially relevant here. The important thing is that separating these M-AY coins from the series in question could well bring that series, culminating in coins with the title, down a year or two. Thus there remains considerable uncertainty about the attribution and precise dating of the issues usually assigned to Babylon, but at the moment there seems no alternative to following, with some caution, Waggoner's attributions and dating as modified by Price. Then there is the extremely large issue of Aradus with the city monogram A and caduceus (Alexander 3332), the last Aradus issue in Demanhur, and the last in Price's series of issues which he assigns to ca. 328-320 B.C. One should not argue from such small samples, but in the absence of other indications it is at least interesting to note that no such coins were present in the Commerce 1993 hoard, buried ca. 323, but that a drachm with these markings was included in the ca. 322 Near East 1993 hoard. The huge issue, however, could well have continued for several years after 323/322. Price also notes an obverse link with an issue in the name of Philip III which is normally assigned to Marathus. Questions of attribution and more precise dating thus arise, which one hopes some future thorough study of the Aradus mint will resolve. For now, it is impossible to be confident of the dates of this issue, which again could be crucial in estimating the burial date of several of the hoards.

III's


9.

ALEXANDERS

AND PHILIPS: ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY

This chapter1 evaluates the evidence for the dating of groups A-D and the start of Alexander's Macedonian silver coinage; the dating of groups E-F, G, H-I, K-J, and L; and the start of the Philip II silver reissues. Hoards described in the preceding chapter that are useful chronologi cally are discussed below, together with the coins' own internal evidence. The traditional chronology for Alexander groups A through K and is that of the Demanhur hoard publication, where E. T. Newell first identified and lettered the groups, assigning each to either one or two years of production.2 Newell's dates range from the year of Alexander's accession, 336 B.C., to 318 B.C., the date of the latest coins (of Sidon and Ake) present in the Demanhur Hoard. In Demanhur, Newell wrote:

J

The dates here assigned the various groups of the Amphipolis coinage are, perhaps, to certain extent approximate. But even so, they cannot be in error by much more than a year either way. The commencement of the coinage is determined by the accession of Alexander, its termination â&#x20AC;&#x201D; so far as our hoard is concerned â&#x20AC;&#x201D; by the latest date found on the accompanying issues of Sidon and Ake. Between these limits the material has been divided in such a way that, up to the two or three years immediately preceding the actual burial, . . . the average annual production ... is reasonably distributed. Natu rally some years would witness a greater production than others, and full account has been taken of this possibility. . . .3 a

Just what did Newell

mean by "some years would witness a greater production than others, and full account has been taken of this possibility" ? One would give a good deal to know his thinking here, but he has left no clue. In any case, the production was not at all evenly distributed, either on Newell's dating or the slightly lower chronology proposed in this chapter.4

GROUPS A-D AND THE START OF THE COINAGE In November 333 Alexander fought and won the second of the three decisive battles in his of the Persian Empire. At Issus in southern Cilicia he routed the Great King, captured a major treasure, the king's war chest, and effectively took control of the Persian Empire. Shortly before the battle, in the late fall of 333, he had acquired nearby Tarsus, a major administrative center of the empire. At Tarsus, before Alexander's arrival, Persian satraps had struck coinage in their names depicting several variations of a seated figure of Baal or, specifically, the Baal of Tarsus, Baaltars. The two commonest varieties are shown here on Plate 18, A-B. These have long been recognized as the immediate predecessors of the seated Zeus shown on the earliest Alexanders struck at Tarsus (Plate 18, G). The gods' postures are identical, stiff and archaizing, not the normal classical style of the late fourth century. Their hair is rolled at the back (this can be seen on Baal only on Plate 18, A, where his head is shown in profile). Their scepters are shown with dotted shafts and with a floral ornament at the top, the "flowering scepter." A row of dots immediately under the throne seat probably indicates some sort of decoration on the seat. The lowest protuberances on the throne legs show the so-called "bell-covers," which seem to be circles of parallel hanging leaves over these two lowest and largest bell-shaped protuberances. Finally, both gods' feet rest on footstools, which are depicted in an identical rather sketchy fashion as a conquest

1 A preliminary

2 Demanhur, 3 Demanhur,

version of the chapter has appeared

pp. 26-32. p. 68.

4 See p. 96, Figure 6.

as "Earliest

Silver."


9.

Absolute Chronology

87

single slanting line supported only at the right by a support resembling an inverted horseshoe, or the letter Q. That Alexander's Zeus at Tarsus derived from the Baal of Tarsus was recognized by scholars before Newell and by Newell himself, and seems universally accepted today.5

The crucial question is whether the Macedonian Zeus derived in turn from the Tarsiote Zeus. In the early groups at Amphipolis, the general aspect of Zeus with his stiff posture is close to that of the Tarsiote deities, but on the typical coins of, e.g., Plate 1, from 2 onward, Zeus has long, not rolled, hair; his scepter terminates in a ball, not a floral ornament; there are no dots immediately below the throne seat; there are no bell-covers on the lower protuberances of the throne legs; and there is a dotted exergue line, but no footstooi. Orestes Zervos has, however, recently revived an old thesis that the Macedonian Zeus did indeed derive from the Tarsiote Zeus. He has discussed a number of elements at Macedon which he believes show the influence and hence the priority of the Tarsiote Alexanders. These are five : the frontal extended hand of Zeus, his twisted torso, his stiffly parallel legs, the stylized row of None of these, except the probable drapery at his waist, and the throne with its bell-covers. presence of bell-covers on a few very early Macedonian coins, seem particularly convincing to the present author, and none at all convinced Martin Price, that leading authority on the Alexander coinage.6 But the Alexander collection at the American Numismatic Society, largely that of E. T. Newell, is extraordinary. Here there are indeed a number of Tarsiote iconographical details present on what seem to be among the very earliest coins struck at Amphipolis. These details appear, although no more than one or two on a given die, on coins often struck at the same time (i.e., from the same obverse die) and, after their first brief and often awkwardly executed occurrences, they drop out, not to return until much later in the coinage. silver stater of Perdiccas III, brother and predecessor of Philip II, and Plate II. Note in particular the double row of locks at Heracles' brow, so unlike the single row of thick, snail-like curls of virtually all early Alexanders from this mint. Such a double row of locks is found on only three dies in this Alexander coinage, all in group A, and one might well conclude that these Alexander dies were early ones. The two coins 450-51 are from one of these obverses. These two coins are also highly unusual in that their reverses are two of only five known where the prow symbol faces right rather than left. On Philip's imme diately prior (or contemporary ?) coins the prow always faced right, the natural and graceful orientation because the reverse type of the horse and rider faced right, e.g., Plate 18, F. On Alexander's coins, however, the orientation is awkward, with the prow rather disconcertingly about to sail right into Zeus. Again, one might well conclude that these reverses with prow right were early ones. Thus, both obverse and reverse indications are that the two coins 450-51 were indeed among the very first struck at Amphipolis â&#x20AC;&#x201D; and both reverses show Zeus holding a flowering scepter. Further, the second coin appears to have bell-covers on the throne legs. The coin is worn, so that the divisions between the hanging leaves are lost, but the scalloped lower do show an attempt at depicting bell-covers. edges of the extra-large bottom protuberances The remaining three reverses with the prow symbol facing right all occur with a second obverse die (452-54). This obverse die again is one of those which have a double row of curls at Heracles' brow. On 452-53 there appear to be bell-covers, and on 453 also a probable floral ornament atop the scepter (largely off flan). On 454 there occurs another Tarsiote feature not discussed by Zervos in his publication, but one which he suggested I look for, the row of dots immediately below the throne seat. This is a detail which one must admit is not striking, but it occurs on, at most, three or four dies, all in group A. Plate

18,

E,

18,

D, is

a

is a didrachm of Philip

5 See, e.g., Myriandros, p. 15. 6 "Earliest Coins." Zervos has been supported by F. de Callatay in "La date des premiers tetradrachmes de poids attique emis par Alexandre le Grand," RBN 1982, pp. 5-25. Price argued for retaining the tradition al starting date of 336 B.C. in "Reform" and in Alexander, pp. 27-30.


I. Amphipolis

88

Silver, ca.

332 - ca. 310

Also from the obverse die of 452-54 is a coin of another group A issue, A4, with fulmen (455). Its reverse shows Zeus's feet resting on a clear footstool on the Tarsiote model, a slanting line supported at one end only. The four coins 456-59 have the prow symbol facing in its usual direction, left. Coins 456 and 457 are from different obverse dies, but from the same reverse with a footstool (clearer on 456 than 457). Three, 457-59, are from the same obverse die, and 458 has the row of dots imme diately under the throne seat, while 459 has a flowering scepter. Four more coins, 460-63, have a similar prow symboi. The first two are from the same reverse, with flowering scepter (clearer on 460 than 461), while 461-63 are from the same obverse die. There is a footstool on 462, while 463 has bell-covers on the throne legs. The double heads (A3), appear on 464, with flowering scepter, dots below the throne seat, and a footstool which is awkwardly executed, being cut directly over the exergue line. A further feature which suggests that these coins with eastern details are contemporary with each other is the incidence in group A of the letter-form !E instead of H. Of the some 145-50 reverses known to me in A, only 1 1 have 3E. These are concentrated in the early reverses, five of which are illustrated here (450, 451, 456, 459, and 465, the last also with flowering scepter). Although the form !E is standard on the Tarsiote coinage, it cannot be claimed as a uniquely eastern feature at Amphipolis, and is mentioned merely as one more bit of evidence that these Amphipolis coins with eastern features were struck at the same time. There are a few possible other examples of bell-covers in group A, and a handful of other flowering scepters, many poorly executed as in the foregoing examples, but none of either in any of groups B through E. Nor are dots under the throne seat or bell-covers found in these groups. Two dies with footstools are known in group B, which as discussed earlier may have at least in part overlapped group A. Perhaps significantly one of these occurs on a coin of B7 with grapes (16), one of whose reverse dies was recut to become a reverse of group A.7 The other is on a coin of B5, with Attic helmet.8 It is a fair assumption that these two reverse dies also were cut rather early

in the coinage.

In groups C and D there seem to be no instances whatever of any of the Tarsiote iconographical details just discussed. Newell did mention a footstool on a coin of C's Pegasus forepart issue (C5), but a thorough search has not succeeded in locating such a coin.9 Nor do there seem to be any Tarsiote details present in the huge group E, save for one die with footstool,10 and this is easily understood as a precursor of the frequent Tarsiote or eastern details which reappear from group F onward. A possible explanation for this later recurrence will be found below." Thus the Tarsiote details occur early at Amphipolis. They appear, even if only one or two on a given die, on coins struck at the same time because linked by common obverse dies. They are as if imperfectly understood. often poorly executed, Finally, very shortly after their early Even though many of them â&#x20AC;&#x201D; e.g., the flowering scepter and the to Greek art on the mainland before Alexander's time, the fact that these early, concurrent, awkwardly executed, fleeting details are precisely those of the Tarsiote

appearances

they drop out.

footstool â&#x20AC;&#x201D; are well known

7 See Chapter 3, link 2. 8 Cambridge = SNGFitz

2112.

I thank T. V. Buttrey

for verifying that the coin does indeed

have

a

footstooi. 9 Newell in Reattrib.,

p. 16, notes a footstool on type XV (C5), Pegasus forepart. I have not been able to locate such an example among the ANS coins, Newell's casts, the ANS photofile, and published collections, nor any mention of such a coin in Newell's notebooks on the Amphipolis mint or in his numerous hoard Can it be that XV was an error for XI, the grapes issue of group B, where a Newell coin with records.

footstool is indeed known? 10 E.g., Grabow 14, 27 July 1939, 220. The ANS has a coin from the same dies. bucranium. 1i See p. 92.

The issue is E8, with


9.

Absolute Chronology

89

coins can hardly be coincidence. There seems no possible way to explain these iconographic details on these few early Amphipolis coins other than by their makers having already seen the Tarsiote tetradrachms (or perhaps other eastern ones, for the contemporary or slightly later coinages of many mints in the east strongly resembled the Tarsiote strikings). The conclusion must be that the Amphipolis silver coinage was initiated only after that of Tarsus, and that therefore Alexander's Macedonian coinage can have started at the earliest only extremely late in 333 B.C., or more probably in 332. Such a starting date is in many ways more satisfactory from a historical point of view than is 336 B.C., immediately upon Alexander's accession. Regardless of what numismatists may think today, one may question whether reform of the coinage really was one of the first things Alex Rather, a coinage whose types ander thought to do when suddenly propelled to the throne. would be understandable throughout a newly secured empire â&#x20AC;&#x201D; and, perhaps more important, whose standard would be universally acceptable there â&#x20AC;&#x201D; would seem to have been needed only after the decisive battle of Issus in November 333. Further, it was shortly after Issus that Alexander issued his famous manifesto to Darius, who had written offering friendship and alli ance. Alexander replied that he had defeated in battle first the king's generals and now the Great King himself, and that he was now by God's help master of Darius's country and of everything Darius possessed: they were not equals and in future any communication from Darius should be addressed to him as lord of all Asia.12 For those who try to understand Alexander's coinage on the shaky and uncertain basis of "what Alexander would have done," here is an occasion which surely must be as psychologically satisfactory as his accession for the introduction of the young king's own coinage. But the usual question here, given this later starting date, is what Alexander did for money from the time of his invasion of Asia in mid-334 and the initiation of his silver coinage ca. 332. The continuance of his father's coinage in both gold and silver could well have been sufficient so long as he was at home. But, although Philip's gold on the Attic standard was acceptable his silver on the parochial Macedonian standard was not and its almost total everywhere, absence from Asia Minor hoards is striking. One must assume that some combination of prepay ment to the troops before departure, promise of pay on return, Philip's gold taken along with the invading army, and, of course, requisitioning and looting during the campaign sufficed until Alexander's own silver coinage was instituted. That even before Issus Alexander was sending cash to Macedonia rather than receiving it from home is shown by Curtius's statements that Alexander sent money back to Antipater at least twice in early 333. 13 It thus does not seem at all clear that Alexander needed his own silver coinage before 332.

But if Macedonian Alexanders appeared only after Issus, is it necessary to conclude that they did so promptly, perhaps early in 332 ? The first question is how long into his reign Alexander continued striking his father's silver. Le Rider suggested bringing Philip's silver down to ca. 328, by analogy with Philip's gold, to which he gave a terminus ante quem of ca. 329/8 because of the Corinth hoard, then believed buried ca. 328." But the hoard's burial date no longer seems secure,15 and in any case each king's coinage in one precious metal bears little obvious relation to his coinage in the other metai. Second, we do not know the temporal relationship of the two kings' groups of strikings employing the same markings of prow, stern, and double heads.16 The usual assumption is that the Philips preceded the Alexanders, but there is no reason the two could not have been at least 12 Arr.,

Anab. 2.14; Curtius 4.1.7-14; Diod. 17.39.1-2. 13 Curtius 3.1.1, 3.1.20. 14 Philippe, pp. 390-91, 430-31. 15 See pp. 115-16 and 123-25. 16 Philip: Philippe, Amphipolis 263-427. Alexander: A1-A3.

See pp. 21-48.


I. Amphipolis

90

for

a time

Silver, ca.

332 - ca. 310

struck in parallei. In particular, the Philips with the added symbol of the

bee17

might

have come from a subsidiary workshop once the main workship using prow, stern, and double

from Philips to Alexanders. The hoard evidence is a bit contradictory and does not help date the start of the coinage. There are but two useful lifetime hoards from the Greek mainland, Kyparissia and Mageira (the little Nemea hoard is dated by its group D coin). Kyparissia, containing groups A through D, was dated by Newell to ca. 327. Even if the hoard was buried promptly by 327, there is still ample time before that date for four groups if the coinage started in 332, or even perhaps a bit later, the more especially if, as now seems probable, groups A and B and perhaps also C and D overlapped somewhat.18 Weak, because negative, evidence for a starting date somewhat later than 332 is the Mageira hoard of ca. 325 which contained no Macedonian Alexanders at all, only a single worn Alexander from Tarsus. When would cash have been required in Macedonia and Greece ? We know from the sources that Alexander made numerous recruiting efforts on the mainland, starting even before 332. The only known domestic occasion which would have required coin was Antipater's suppression of the Spartan rebellion under Agis in 331. But the wide acceptability of Philip's money in Greece and the north means that Alexander's own money was not necessarily required even then. Nevertheless, late 333-332, when the coinage started in Asia, is perhaps as good a guess as any for the introduction in Macedonia of Alexander's Attic tetradrachms â&#x20AC;&#x201D; but it is still only a heads had switched

guess.

GROUPS E-F Group E shares an obverse die with group D,19 but from E on the pattern of striking changes. Groups A and B, and perhaps C and D also, seem to have been struck at least in part concur rently with many shared obverse dies between each pair. From E on (except for and the very small K) each group appears to have been the only one in production during its period of It could be that there was a hiatus between the striking of D and E, despite the striking.20 obverse die they share, but there is no firm evidence. There is also no hoard evidence beyond the somewhat uncertain terminus post quem of the Kyparissia Hoard's burial for the start of group E, or for the time occupied by its striking and that of group F, but there are a number of clues supplied by the internal evidence of the coins themselves. These are the sizes of the groups, the smaller denominations, and various iconographic observations.

J

The Sizes of the Groups Group E is the largest by far of any of the Alexander tetradrachm groups, employing some obverse dies.21 The considerably later group L, with 232, came close, but the next largest of the lifetime and early posthumous groups, G, used 114. But if F and G (with essen tially the same markings) should be considered as a single group, then F/G, immediately after E, would have employed a total of 203 obverses.22 Newell dated group E to ca. 328 and 327 B.C. Why should there have been such a tremendous outpouring in those years, when apparently affairs in Macedonia and Greece were quiet, and Alexander was as far from home as he would ever be ? What need could there have been then ? 241 estimated

17 Philippe, 18 See

Amphipolis 430-494.

p. 48. 19 Chapter 3, link 17. 20 See p. 47, Figure 4. 21 See p. 26, Table 2. 22 Indeed, in his Amphipolis notebook with the preliminary catalogue group F "group F, section 1," and group G "group F, section 2."

of coins known to him, Newell called


9.

Absolute Chronology

a revised starting date for the coinage of 332 instead of mid-336, and dies out evenly (which is not in any case good practice), one arrives at a E from the end of 329 to the end of 325.23 This span of several years seems most stylistically is an extremely homogeneous group, with every indication of having

Positing

estimated

91

spreading the date for group unlikely, as E been struck in

over a fairly short period. I would propose here a second major shift in Newell's chronology, assigning group E to approximately the years 325 and 324. This is the period to which Margaret Thompson has dated a concentrated

manner

the opening of some of Alexander's Asiatic mints and the sudden large expansion of activity in others. The reason for this heightened activity in Asia Minor was the need to pay discharged troops, mercenaries, and others, who were sent home in large numbers starting in 325, and who

would have been fully paid only upon arrival at home.21 The same situation would have obtained on the mainland, and the large group E is reasonably explained as struck in expecta tion of and during the return of the earliest troops. The relatively large succeeding groups F, G, and H would then reflect the same continuing need.

The Small Denominations From A through E, denominations smaller than the tetradrachm were struck â&#x20AC;&#x201D;didrachms, drachms, triobols, diobols, and obols.25 The drachms are of particular interest, as their initial reverses with the old Macedonian type of standing eagle change during the coinage to the standard

reverse

of seated Zeus as on the tetradrachms.

It

is in group E that this change appears. Obverse linked to one of its eagle reverse drachm issues are drachms with the imperial seated Zeus, the type used everywhere else in the empire.26 The largest and almost exclusive producers of drachms were the Asia Minor mints, whose vastly enhanced production in 325-323, as Thompson demonstrated, went for the payment of troops discharged then. A likely explanation for the new type's introduction in Macedonia would be the carrying home of some of these Asiatic drachms by returning Macedonian veterans, and this

would have been more likely to occur from 325 on than in 328 or 327. An influx of Asiatic drachms would also explain why, after a very few more drachms (all also with Zeus reverses) were struck in group F, all production of small silver denominations ceased for some years. No small coins at all are known in groups G, H, and I. Small coins with Philip II's types were struck during K and J, probably for the special purpose of facilitating exchange between Alexander tetradrachms and the newly reissued Philip tetradrachms on the old Ma cedonian standard. Following these small Philips, no small coins are known at Amphipolis.27

Iconography Long ago, Newell noted two changes in the reverses of groups E and F, changes which he quite rightly concluded served to connect these two groups, but to which he apparently attached no other significance.28 First is the exergual line. In groups A through D, as he observed, the line was almost invariably present and dotted (1-39). The same depiction continued in group E, but with a few rare exceptions. On a handful of coins with bucranium and pentagram the exergue was set off simply by a straight line (e.g., 4S).29 Further, the bucranium symbol is one of the 23 See p. 26, Table 2, and p. 96, Figure 6. The total time span, 332 through 318, is 15 years, and the dies per year 59(885 -M 5). A/B would require 2.32 years, and C/D 1.58, for a total of 3.90 nearing the end of 329, and E would require a further 4.08 years. 24 M. Thompson, "Paying the Mercenaries," in ed. A. Festschrift fur / Studies in Honor of Leo Mildenberg, Houghton et ai. (Wetteren, 1984), pp. 241-47. 25 See Chapter 2. 26 See pp. 31-32, Table 3, drachms, and p. 35, Table 6. 27 For the small Philips, see Chapter 5; for possible drachms with A and torch, p. 37.

28 Reattrib., pp. 16-17. 29 Newell noted also that the scallop shell issue had a simple exergual line. At the time of Reattrib. he considered this issue (one coin known at the time) as part of the earlier of the two groups. In the later Demanhur he had included it in F, no doubt because of the obverse link to that group. See 50 and 55.


I. Amphipolis

92

Silver,

ca. 332 - ca. 310

three found with the new Zeus-reverse drachms to which the pentagram issue is obverse linked. These two issues thus apparently came at least in part rather late in group E. Then, in group F, the exergue line is either dotted (52), or plain (53), or omitted altogether (e.g. 50, 55). Second is the footstooi. As discussed earlier, on four reverses of group A and two of group B, Zeus's feet rest on a footstool which is depicted exactly as on the initial Alexander strikings from Tarsus. I have found no footstools at all in groups C or D,30 and only one in the large group E, in the same seemingly rather late bucranium issue (48). But in group F footstools are common, either on the Tarsiote model of groups A and B with a slanting line supported only at the right by a sort of inverted horseshoe (54), or portrayed, as Newell again noted, by "a short straight 31 line (not to be confounded with an exergual line)" (51, 56). And there are other occasional innovations in group F of which Newell undoubtedly was aware but did not discuss because not relevant to the association of group F with group E. These are bell-covers on the throne legs (51), the folds of Zeus's robe between his legs paired in groups of two as on Tarsiote coins (55, cf. Plate 18, A-C), and even Zeus's hair sometimes shown rolled at the back as on Tarsiote and many other eastern Alexanders (51, 55, cf. Plate 18, B-C). The bell-covers are known earlier at this mint only in group A and the paired folds and rolled hair have not previously occurred in any Amphipolis group. All the innovations discussed tend to occur together, not all on any one die, but often two or three, or more, on a given die. Again, may this be a result of another influx of eastern coins? Although recruiting of troops back in Macedonia is known to have occurred often enough during Alexander's absence in the east, and although Alexanders from the east struck from 332 to ca. 323 are found in Macedonia and Greece proper, perhaps the most likely time for a major influx which would have affected the iconography at the mint would be in the years following ca. 325, when so many soldiers returned home. If this imported eastern money was responsible for the eastern details present on group F, it is another argument for the dating of groups E and F to approximately 325-323 B.C.

Only after the above commentary on groups E-F was completed did the Commerce 1993 tetradrachm hoard appear (hoard 4 in the preceding chapter, full publication in Appendix 1 below). There seems no need to date this hoard later than ca. 323 or 322. On Newell's chronol ogy groups F and G and half of the large group H would all have been struck by 323 (and all of H by 322). The hoard's latest Amphipolis coins, however, were of group E, many die linked. Although we cannot be confident that we know the complete hoard, the absence of F, G, and H in this deposit supports a lower chronology than Newell's.

GROUP

G

AND THE INTRODUCTION

OF THE TITLE

For the start of group G, which introduced the title BAZIAEQZ at Amphipolis, there is hoard In three hoards (Babylon 1973, Lebanon 1985, and Asia Minor 1968)32 the Amphipolis Alexanders end with group G, so their burial dates provide a terminus ante quem for G. The latest coins in Babylon 1973 and Asia Minor 1968 (IGCH 1440), issues of the mint of Babylon, were assigned by Waggoner to 322 B.C.. These two hoards, then, present no problem for dating the beginning of group G to late 323 or even early 322. Lebanon 1985, however, requires more examination. It, like Babylon 1973 and Asia Minor 1968, contained Aradus coins with caduceus which may well have been struck as late as or later than 322, but this large issue has never been subjected to a thorough study. The hoard's latest fairly firmly dated issue, one of Babylon, is the first of that mint to bear the title BAZIAEQZ just as group G was the first at Amphipolis with the title. Newell's chronology for Amphipolis, evidence.

30 See p. 88. 31 Reattrib., p. 17. 32 Chapter 8, hoards

5, 6, and

22.


9.

Absolute Chronology

93

described earlier, put the introduction of the title there to the year 325. But he himself said that his dates could be off by a year or two, and it seems that his attempt to assign the various groups premise

to particular years (and each to either precisely one or two years) was based on the that the coinage was produced fairly evenly over the years. One must wonder if this

dating, with Newell's well-deserved prestige behind it, has not come to be the basis for our belief in when the title was introduced at all, or at least many, mints. Newell in Demanhur dated the introduction of the title at Babylon to 324-323.33 Unfor tunately we again have no insight into his thinking, but could it have been influenced by his dating for Amphipolis? He dated the title's introduction at Tarsus partly on the basis of his belief that it came in at Amphipolis and at Babylon "about a year or so previous to the death of Alexander, or between 325 and 324 B.C."34 Waggoner has followed his Babylon dating extremely closely, but dates these earliest coins with the title to 324/3-323/2,33 i.e., approx imately to 323. It requires no great adjustment to accept that AAEEANAPOY changed to BA2AEQZ AAEEANAPOY at Babylon and Tarsus no earlier than late 323, after Alexander's death, and thus that group G also had a terminus post quem late in that year.

GROUPS H-I Groups H and I, as discussed in Chapter 3, fall between group G and groups no special

K/J,

and require

discussion.

GROUPS

K-J

Newell assigned group K to 318, placing it after group J, which he had assigned to the years 320 and 319. But I have attempted to show above that K and were struck concurrently, and in any case there would have seemed no need to devote a full year to the minute group K. was

J

not a very large group either, although it must be remembered types were contemporary with K/J.

J

that large reissues of Philip II's

There is reason to suspect that K/J started only very shortly before Demanhur's burial and may even have continued for some time afterwards. There is a relative under-representation in

Demanhur of the last groups, the contemporary K and J, and of the immediately preceding group I. Some 885 obverse dies are estimated to have been used in the production of groups A through K/J. Groups K/J used an estimated 43 obverses, hence their estimated percentage of total production to that point was 43^-885, or 4.9%. The following table shows the hoards which contained ten or more identifiable coins of groups A through K/J, and their percentages of groups I and K/J. The proportions of group I vary widely, both more and less than its percentage (70 -r 885 = 7.9%) of the total production. But only two of the ten hoards (Aleppo and Demanhur) contained less than the estimated percentage of groups K/J, and only Demanhur contained considerably less â&#x20AC;&#x201D; almost exactly half its proportional amount. Newell was well aware of the low representation of I and K/J, "because of the apparently general law observable in coin hoards that, for perfectly natural reasons, the issues contemporary with the burial are usually comparatively scantily represented. . . . Also, certain material at the writer's disposal would tend to show that groups and K, and probably also I, were originally much larger than our find would seem to indicate."36 One might counter that, on the contrary, the latest group a

J

33 Coins 4446 ff. 34 Tarsos, p. 34. 35 "Babylon Mint," 36 Demanhur,

p. 122, and pp. 68-69.

"Babylon,"

p. 276.


I. Amphipolis

94

Silver, ca. Table

Percentages

of I and

K/J

332 - ca. 310

18

in Groups A through

in Hoards Containing 10 or

More Macedonian Coins of Groups A through

Hoard

Hoards ending with 10 13 18 20 28 24

Demanhur 1905 Central Greece 1911 Akcakale 1958 Andritsaena 1923 Drama 1935 Hoards ending with Abu Hommos 1919

26

Kuft 1874-1875 Later hoards

39

Phacous 1956 Aleppo 1893 Meydancikkale 1980*

40

K/J

K/J

Total

Coins

Percentage

K/J

/

K/J

A-K/J

/

2,005

81

50

4.0

2.5

3

3

20.0

20.0

15

L

K/J

26

2

2

7.7

7.7

33

6

6

18.1

18.1

10

8

1

80.0

10.0

57

5

6

8.8

10.5

45

1

4

2.2

8.9 8.2

61

2

5

3.3

115

8

5

7.0

4.3

95

10

11

10.5

11.6

* The Meydancikkale,

Cilicia, 1980 hoard was published by A. Davesne and G. Le Rider, Le Tresor de Meydancikkale (Paris, 1989). Found in excavations, this enormous hoard contained 5,215 coins. There were 2,554 Alexander and Philip III, with 419 from Amphipolis: 3 Group A, 2 B, 1 C, 3 D, 27 E, 9 F, 10 G, 19 H, 10 I, 2 K, 9 J, 47 L, 8 A-bucranium, 7 Morch, 214 A-torch, and 48 later. The hoard, buried ca. 240-235, is far too late to be of any chronological value to us, but is listed in Table 18 because its size provides a good example of the proportion of group K/J coins to others. hoard contains is often present in very great numbers.37 But an obvious alternative explanation to Newell's for the relatively small numbers of groups K/J in Demanhur is that those groups were still in the process of production when the hoard was interred. If so, they would have

continued for some period

of time after Demanhur's burial ca. 318 or 317 B.C.

GROUP L AND THE DROPPING

OF THE TITLE

Group L, the earliest not included in Demanhur, is generally assumed to have been struck between 318 and 316/315, i.e., between the date of Demanhur's deposit and Cassander's firm assumption of power in Macedonia.38 The hoard evidence for the start of group L, although hardly conclusive, seems however to suggest a starting date for group L somewhat later than 318.

First, the groups after L are the very small ones with primary markings of A-bucranium, T-bucranium, and T*-torch, and the enormous one with A-torch. There is no hoard evidence for the absolute date of the introduction of the A-bucranium, T-bucranium, or ^-torch groups,39 but the earliest possible appearance of the A-torch group is in the Unknown Provenance ca. 1990 hoard, buried perhaps ca. 308 B.C., although the interpretation of this hoard is problematicai. The A-torch group was certainly in circulation a few years later, however, for five hoards of ca. 305-300 include such coins.40 These groups after L are mentioned because if A-torch began to 37 E.g., Paeonia and Razinci (Chapter 8, hoards 34 and 35). 38 E.g., Philippe, p. 304. 39 The latest coins in the Megara hoard (Chapter 8, hoard 36) were the Philip II reissues with A-Bucranium, contemporary with the similarly marked Alexanders, but unfortunately the hoard can only be dated by these

A-Bucranium Philips. 40 Phacous, Aleppo, Aksaray, Mavriki, 44-45.

and

Lamia (Hagioi Theodoroi) in Chapter 8, hoards

39-41

and


9.

Absolute Chronology

95

there is ample time before that for group L and the A-bucranium and A-torch groups even if group L started several years after 318. Second, two hoards buried shortly after Demanhur also contain our mint's coins only through groups K/J, with no examples of the very large group L, suggesting that L was not yet in circulation. They are Akcakale 1958, which was buried ca. 317-316, and Andritsaena 1923, whose burial date, despite the doubts expressed in IGCH, seems to have been ca. 316-315.41 These two hoards contained, respectively, 26 and 33 coins of groups A through K/J, so that the absence of the large group L supports a proposed starting date for group L a few years after 318. Until recently there seemed to be one contradictory bit of hoard evidence for the beginning of group L, the Sinan Pascha 1919 Hoard of Alexander and Philip III drachms, whose burial date of 317-316 seems quite firm. The hoard contained one drachm with P as its sole marking, an issue which had usually been considered as belonging with group L, where the P is the constant primary marking. The issue's appearance in the new Near East 1993 drachm hoard,42 however, buried a few years earlier, ca. 322 or 321, together with iconographical evidence, places the P drachms in group E or group F. Thus Sinan Pascha no longer can be understood to show that group L was introduced prior to its burial ca. 317-316. All the hoard evidence, then, seems to suggest, even if it does not prove, that group L was introduced only a few years after the burial of the great Demanhur Hoard, perhaps in ca. 316 or be used in ca. 308-305,

315.

PHILIP II REISSUES As discussed in Chapters 4-7, reissued tetradrachms and smaller coins with Philip II's types groups 1-8) were struck parallel with Alexander groups K and J, and some may possibly have been struck in parallel with the earlier Alexander group I. The tetradrachms (Philip group 9) then continued parallel to Alexander group L. Succeeding Philip groups paral leled succeeding Alexander groups, until perhaps 294-290 B.C. when Demetrius Poliorcetes assumed power in Macedonia. Because these Philip reissues lasted so long, much later than Philip III's death, it is most unlikely that their issue had anything to do with that unfortunate monarch. Had any coinage at Amphipolis been intended to support him, it surely would have been struck in his own name â&#x20AC;&#x201D; but no such coinage is known. By Newell's chronology, Alexander group I was struck ca. 322-321 B.C., by my chronology, on Newell's chronology would have been issued ca. 320-318, perhaps 320-319. Groups K and My best estimate of when these Philip reissues started is, then, by mine, perhaps 318-317. ca. 320 or 319 B.C. Newell suggested that they were reissued because of the popularity of Philip's coinage in the Balkans to the north, where the hoards show that they circulated widely. Georges Le Rider has recently put forth another explanation: the fiscal advantage of a double coinage to the ruling parties in Macedonia.43 and name (Philip

J

SUMMARY The chronology proposed

here for Amphipolis's

Groups A-D Groups E-F Groups G-K/J Group L

Alexanders, then, is:

ca. 332 - ca. 326 ca. 325 - ca. 323/322 ca. 322 - ca. 317? ca. 316 - ?

41 Chapter 8, hoards 18 and 20. 42 Chapter 8, hoard 7; see also p. 36. 43 Demanhur, p. 21. See now G. Le Rider, "Les deux BCH 117 (1993), pp. 491-500, esp. pp. 497-500.

monnaies

macedoniennes

des annees 323-294/90,"


I. Amphipolis

96

Figure

Silver,

ca. 332 - ca. 310

form, on the left, Newell's dating, and the estimated total for each group. On the right is the chronology proposed here, with the estimated totals for groups A-D, E-F, G-K/J, and L. Also shown are the total estimated number of Philip dies employed at various times, given in terms of Attic-weight equivalents of the amount of silver struck.41 number

6 shows

in schematic

of dies found

Figure

of Newell and Troxell

Comparison Newell Dies

6

Date

Group

Dating

Troxell Group

Dies

A-D

230

E-F

330

G-K/J

336

(+110 Philips)

232

( + 47 Philips)

mid-336 88

A

335 334 333

49

B

332

17

C

331

76

I)

330 329 328

241

E

89

F

326

114

G

325

109

H

70

I

33

J

320

10

K

318

( + 110 Philips)

327

324 323 322 321 319

317? 316-?

?

The Troxell dates are extremely approximate and rough, e.g., groups A-D may not have occupied the full span of 332 to 326, and the output of G-K/J was probably heavier at the outset than at the end of these groups' striking. Nevertheless, the output at various periods seems to make far more sense historically than does the rate of striking under Newell's chronology. The heaviest striking,

as mentioned

above, would have come not in 328 and 327 when Alex

ander was at his greatest distance ever from home and when there was no apparent need for a great deal of coinage there, but from 325 onward when back payment for many years of service was due to returning troops.

This lowered chronology also produces one rather satisfactory result. The reason for the introduction of the title BAZIAEQZ has never been adequately explained. Newell in Tarsos, only after he had already decided upon 324 as its date of introduction there, ventured the suggestion that it was due to Alexander's conquest of India and the finalization of his conquest of all the Great King's domains.45 But if there has ever been any attempt to explain why the title was dropped ca. 318-315, at least at Amphipolis, I have missed it. An obvious explanation is that the inscription BAZIAEQZ AAEEANAPOY was intended to refer not to the great Alexander but to his young son Alexander IV. After Alexander's death his generals arrived at an uneasy truce leaving the succession to his mentally defective brother 44 The dies are estimated 15 Tarsos, p. 34.

as on p. 25, n. 9.


9.

Absolute Chronology

97

Arrhidaeus, renamed Philip III, and to Alexander's unborn child by Roxane, should the child turn out to be a male. It did, and he became Alexander IV. These two unfortunate individuals became the wards of one after the other of the powerful successors, but nominally they were the joint Kings of Macedonia, referred to in the sources as oi paaiAtTs. Philip III's coinage, struck at a number of mints but, remarkably, never at Amphipolis, often uses the title BAZIAEQZ, and so the title would be perfectly appropriate should the reference be to Alexander IV. Antipater, an old companion of Philip II, had been left as regent in Macedonia by Alexander III, and, although Alexander may have been disaffected with him shortly before he (Alexander) died, still Antipater would have had every reason to emphasize the continuance of the royal house. Indeed, one eminent numismatist has explained why the title at Amphipolis must refer to the young boy because Alexander would never have used the title on the mainland:

It

is evident that throughout his lifetime Alexander contented

himself with the mod for use in the West it would have been far from politic for Alexander to display a title so abhorrent to the Greek mind. By force of arms and circumstances his undoubtedly was the hegemony over Hellas and the Greeks, but he understood their character too well to advertise the fact boldly on what he intended should be a national coinage.... After his death, how ever.. ..the legends BAZIAEQZ OlAinnOY and BAZIAEQZ AAEEANAPOY were intended to indicate that these kings were the rightful successors.... est legend AAEEANAPOY.

On the coins especially

intended

This strong statement was made by Newell himself in Reattribution46 when the coinage's dates were believed to be later than he subsequently demonstrated. It is a pleasure, although perhaps a rather perverse one, to quote that great numismatist in support of my own thesis. As for the explanation of why the title was subsequently dropped at Amphipolis, it seems in the light of events in 317-316. Olympias, in brief control of Macedonia in the fall of 317, assassinated Philip III and his young wife Eurydice and put to death many of Cassander, returning from the Peloponnese, besieged her and her forces Cassander's supporters. in Pydna, finally defeating her in 316 and arranging her death. He then, according to Diodorus Siculus, married into the royal family, espousing Thessalonice, Philip II's daughter and Alex ander's half-sister, and founded Cassandreia, named after himself. Cassander also, according to Diodorus Siculus, understandable

to do away with Alexander's son

...

that there might be no to observe what the common people would say about the slaying of Olympias ... he placed Roxane and the child in custody, transferring them to the citadel of Amphipolis, in command of which he placed Glaucias, one of his most trusted henchmen. Also he took away the pages who, according to custom, were being brought up as companions of the boy, and he ordered that he should no longer have royal treatment but only such as was proper for any ordinary person of private station. After this, already conducting himself as a king in administering the affairs of the realm, he buried Eurydice and Philip. . . .47 . . . had

successor

determined

to the kingdom; but for the present,

so

since he wished

This may be the explanation for the removal of the title: Cassander wished it no longer to be understood as legitimizing the young Alexander IV, for he was now allied by marriage to the great Alexander and the royal house, and felt secure to pursue his own ambitions. A modern view, most recently argued by Hammond and Walbank, holds that Diodorus's source Hieronymus was repeating propaganda favorable to Cassander's enemy Antigonus,48 and 46 Reattrib., p. 31. 47 Diod. 19.52. 48 N. G.

L. Hammond

and F. W. Walbank,

A History of Macedonia (Oxford, 1968), voi. 3, p. 145, n. 1.


I. Amphipolis

98

Silver, ca.

332 - ca. 310

that Cassander was not acting in an inimical fashion towards Alexander IV. One must agree, certainly, that Cassander, who had been appointed administrator by Philip III and Eurydice, acted appropriately in burying them: after all, who else was there to do so? At the same time, though, they also discredit Diodorus's statement about the removal of the pages: "In fact the Royal Pages, being recruited at the age of fourteen, were too old to be associated with Alexander IV, who was only six or seven." But Diodorus's actual words are that Cassander orrrecnTacrE 6e kocI tous eIgoSotocs ttcuSccs auvTpE<pEa0ai. This could as easily simply refer to some suitable agemates as schoolmates or companions such as the heir to the throne would surely be provided with, rather than the "Royal Pages," well-born teenage attendants on the reigning king. Con finement to the citadel is explained as simply safeguarding the young boy's person, but such insulation from affairs would not be the normal thing for an heir truly expected to inherit the throne.

Hammond and Walbank

also discredit Diodorus's statement

that Cassander

had already

made up his mind to do away with the young Alexander and his mother, saying "that happened six years later!" It strains belief, however, to think that Cassander intended to stand aside

quietly and relinquish power when his young charge should come of age. Certainly Cassander later did indeed do away with both the boy and his mother. In any case, whatever his behavior towards the young Alexander IV, Cassander was now firmly in control of Macedonia and would have had every reason to discontinue a practice which could be seen as promoting the interests of his ward. This, I believe, is the explanation for the dropping of the title ca. 316 B.C.: the coinage was no longer to be understood as that of the young Alexander IV, but as continuing that of the great Alexander, whose successor Cassander planned â&#x20AC;&#x201D; and was â&#x20AC;&#x201D; to be. I rashly suggested that the title on Alexander's coins, no matter where struck, might only after his death,49 but hoard evidence seems to show that the title was adopted at a number of mints to the east probably shortly before 323, and almost certainly In addition, the title was not discontinued at every mint at before it appeared at Amphipolis.50 the same time: at Babylon, for instance, it apparently persisted until the end of its Alexander coinage, ca. 305 B.C. And, of course, many mints never used the title at all. The arguments above, therefore, refer only to the mint identified as Amphipolis. In

1991

have appeared

49 "Earliest Silver," pp. 60-61. 50 E.g., most recently, the 1993 tetradrachm hoard buried ca. 323 or 322 (Chapter 8, hoard 4), which contained coins with BAZIAEQ2 AAEEANAPOY from Citium, Myriandrus, and Aradus, but whose Amphipolis

component ended with E, the penultimate group before

the title was added

there.


PART II ALEXANDER'S LIFETIME GOLD This study describes in detail only an early subgroup of the common Alexander staters with of cantharus, trident head, or fulmen. At the American Numismatic Society, gold with these markings has been traditionally assigned to Amphipolis, while elsewhere it has sometimes been given to Pella. No decisive evidence exists for either attribution, and even whether all the gold so marked emanated from a single mint seems quite uncertain. All gold coins with can tharus, trident, or fulmen as well as those with Boeotian ( ?) shield are therefore here assigned, as in Philippe, merely to Macedonia. symbols

99


10.

THE LIFETIME STATERS

Some years ago, Georges Le Rider and the present author began a die study of Alexander III's Macedonian gold coinage â&#x20AC;&#x201D; distaters, staters, and quarter staters.1 A summary of part of this coinage is given below, the part with the common Macedonian symbols of cantharus, trident

Table

19

Gold Coins and Obverse

Dies

Located Obverse

Links Obverse

Coins Distaters0

141

[[ Staters

[[[L

Cantharus Trident Fulmen

Published Below

[[[[[[

Cantharus Trident Fulmen

Other Staters"

[[[ [[

Shield

Quarter Statersc

[[

Cantharus [! [I [1 Fulmen Shield

22

61

10.5

43

9

37

2.5

109

30

38

14.2

54

13.2

17 238

Cantharus Trident Fulmen

Dies

8.5

62

21.5

109

38

39

10

88

16

ti2 3

Links/

Obv.

Obv.

Die

Die

3

6.41

0.14

14

3.63

0.47

5

3.05

0.06

5

5.50

0.31

Symbols

2.7 78

28

23

between

Obv.

Coins

4.5 '.I.:. 2

" The tabulation is only of the main group of distaters, group A in the following chapter. b The tabulation does not include a number of anomalous coins: 20 trident coins (10 obverses) of exceed ingly poor style, which have one obverse link to a coin with torch symbol, and another obverse shared by both trident- Š and A coins; a small number of anomalous and rather crude fulmen staters; and, as stated in the

text, no coins with horizontal trident heads. Also not included are still other staters with the usual symbols whose obverses show the lower tip of a third crest on Athena's helmet (e.g., Plate 25, H). These seem to form on each. a separate group which leads into other staters with two markings (a symbol and a monogram) c The quarter staters probably fall into two groups, those with fulmen and cantharus and others with fulmen and shield, but there seems no way to divide the fulmen coins listed. See pp. 126-27, where a group of obverse linked fulmen and shield staters (with which the obverse linked fulmen and shield fractions must belong) is distinguished from staters, early or late, with the common cantharus, trident, and fulmen symbols.

1 Professor Le Rider is due all credit for initiating this gold study and for gathering and studying a vast amount of material from cabinets both public and private, much previously unpublished. This material has resources of the American Numismatic Society, including its coins and been augmented by the considerable its extensive cast collection (largely assembled by E. T. Newell), its library, and its photo file. The present author has restudied all the assembled examples and any errors or misinterpretations are hers alone.


10.

Staters

101

head (vertical only), fulmen, and Boeotian ( ?) shield. For brevity's sake, the trident head symbol on the gold coins will in this and succeeding chapters be called simply trident; and the shield simply shield. The results, while perhaps interesting statistically, have not as yet led to any conclusions about either chronology or attribution to specific mints, with the exception of what turned out to be a distinct group of staters with the first three symbols (cantharus, trident,

that is published here. This distinct group consists of two series. Series 1 has only two reverse symbols, cantharus or trident. It appears to be the immediate predecessor of series 2, which is a large, heavily die linked series starting with cantharus and trident and adding the fulmen later. Nothing at all approaching this group's coherence is found anywhere else among the more numerous other and fulmen), the group

staters bearing these symbols,

and both the details of its iconography and its hoard appearances

set it off from the mass of those other such staters.2

Table

of coins and obverse dies found for the various denominations and links discovered between different reverse symbols.3 As might be expected, the survival rate is better for the rarer denominations (distaters, 6.41 coins per obverse die, and quarter staters, 5.50 per obverse, as against 3.63 and 3.05, or 3.21 overall, for the symbols

19 gives the numbers

and

the obverse

What is striking in Table 19, however, is the difference in the number of die links symbols that the two stater groups contain. The staters published here have 14 such links for 30 obverse dies, a ratio of 0.47; the remaining staters have but 5 such links for 78 staters). between

dies, a ratio of only 0.06. Other differences between the two stater groups are also evident and will be discussed following the catalogue. An unexpected result of this study has been that many of the staters Newell in 1918 assigned to Tarsus in his series I, ca. 333-227 B.C.,4 must be included in the staters here published. Their obverse

reattribution to Macedonia seems inescapable.

CATALOGUE The material in the catalogue is arranged by reverse die symbols numbered consecutively. Brackets to the left indicate obverse die links, brackets to the right indicate reverse links. Horizontal lines to the left lead to other symbols found with the obverse dies. Figure 7, follow ing the catalogue,

shows the coins'

repeat this arrangement.

die linkage in schematic

form,

and Plates 20-23

indicate dies that were reported

A concordance of Newell's Tarsos appears in Table 20, p. 108 below.

part of Tarsos. numbers

complex

Bold Troxell numbers

die letters

and

the present

by Newell as author's die

2 Compare the coins of series 1 and 2 to other staters with their symbols, e.g., Plate 25, E-H, Plate 31,11-26, and Alexander 164a-b, 168a, 172a-d. 3 The number of obverse dies reported for each symbol is the total number of dies used with that symbol, less one half for each die shared with one other symbol, and less two thirds for each die shared with two other symbols. This should give a reasonable approximation of the relative sizes of the issues. In counting die links, a single obverse die connecting three symbols is counted as two links. 4 Tarsos, pp. 22-26. Newell's attribution to Tarsos has been rightly questioned by F. de Callatay, "Numismatique d' Alexandre III le Grand. Deux questions," Memoire presente en vue de l'obtention du grade de licencie en Archeologie et Histoire de l'Art (Antiquite) (Universite Catholique de Louvain, 1983), pp. 125-28.


II. Alexander's Lifetime Gold

102

The staters' obverses show a head of by a serpent. The reverses show Nike AAEEANAPOY. Obverse dies have the trident; and F, fulmen. Hoards cited

Athena right, wearing a Corinthian helmet surmounted standing, holding wreath and stylis, and are inscribed prefix 0 and reverses are identified as C, cantharus; T, are discussed in Chapter 12.

Series

1

(Plate 20)

Cantharus

Trident

04-C1

Trident

1.

05-G2

-

06-C2

-

2. 1.

1. 2.

= Tarsos 14 (dies E-e; pi. III, 15) (466) Hess 208, 14 Dec. 1931, 259 London = Alexander 3004 = Tarsos 14 (dies D-<5 ; pi. 16) (467; Plate 25, N14)

ANS

III,

ANS

(468) Commerce 1994

hoard

3

(Plate 31, 3)

Trident

Ol-Tl

1. 2.

02-T2

1. 2.

Alexandria = Tarsos 15 (dies G-ÂŁ ; pi. III, 18) Veliko Tarnovo = Samovodene hoard 58 (Philippe, pi. 89, 13, obv. only) (469) Paris = Tarsos 15 (dies F-f; pi. III, 17) ANS = R. Ratto, 4 Apr. 1927, 567 = R. Ratto, FPL Dec.

3.

02-T3 02- T4 03- T5

1922, 1947

Kovacs

9, 21

Nov. 1988,

3 =

Munz. u. Med.

10, 22

June

1951, 240 (470; Plate 25, N15) 1. Athens = Corinth hoard 47 (471) 2. CNG 26, 11 June 1993, 66 = Malko Topolovo hoard 34a 1994 hoard 1 (472; Plate 31, 1) 1. Commerce 1. Athens = Corinth hoard 48 2.

3.

Coin Galleries, hoard 34 Potidaea hoard

9

Mar. 1956,

1296

=

Malko Topolovo

5

1994 hoard 2 (473; Plate 31, 2) Commerce 1. ANS = Ball 4, 23 Mar. 1931, 1625 (474)

4.

Cantharus

â&#x2013;

04 T6

Cantharus

-

05-T7

2. 1. 2.

05-T8

1.

Balkans hoard 27 Mid-American, 24 May 1985, 1015 = Balkans hoard 26 Veliko Tarnovo = Samovodene hoard 59 (Philippe, pi. 89, 13, rev. only) (475) Glendining, 9 June 1982, 114 (476)

Series 2 (Plates 20-23)

The coins struck from obverses 07 through 022 (Plates 20-22) form one large completely die linked group. Those from obverses 023 through 030 (Plate 23) clearly on stylistic grounds belong with those from 07-022, but no actual die links are as yet known.


10.

Staters

103

Cantharus

07-C3

08-C3

08-C4

1.

J -

-

011-C4

-

=

Samovodene

3.

Cast: "Spink, Nov. 1920.

Saida

hd.?"

1.

Rauch 4, 26 June 1970,

2.

Commerce

1994

hoard

Plate 31, 5)

1.

Trident — & Fulmen

014-C7

1.

Istanbul (484)

2.

Coin Galleries, 19 Nov. 1971, 464 Athens = Corinth hoard 42 (485)

016-C9 017-C9

Trident — & Fulmen

018-C10

-

-

019-C10 020-C10

Trident

1.

-

-

1. 2. 1.

1.

1.

Malko Topolovo hoard 30 Glendining, 29 Apr. 1954, 2 (486) Verroia = K. Romiopoulou, "EupYjjzaxa ztz6 tou<; Maxedovixovg 'Aibvfjiovq Td<povg xr\g Btqoiac," A' Zvvavrrjarj yia rrjv EXXrjviaTixrj Kega/xeix^ (Joannina, 1989), p. 35, 3 (inv. 13a), and pi. 15, obv. only (487) London = Alexander

168b = Glendining, 14

July

1950,

(not illus.) (488) London = Alexander

168d

Commerce 1994 hoard 8 (489; Plate 31, 8) 1. Ruse = Ruse hoard 3 (490)

1.

London = Alexander 168c (491) New Netherlands 63, 18 Apr. 1972, 68 (492) Stack's, 10 Dec. 1987, 3112 (493) Veliko Tarnovo = Samovodene hoard 53 (Philippe, pi. 89, 12, obv. only) (494) In commerce 1976, provenance unknown G. Hirsch 17, 12 June 1958, 17 (495)

2.

Shore

1. 2.

Jasna Poljana hoard 13 Peus 270, 10 June 1969,

1.

Commerce

1. 1.

028-C13

1.

029-C14

1.

2.

030-C17

(483)

2.

027-C12

03O-C16

33

97

026-C11

030-C15

= Schweizerische

2

5 (481 ;

Berlin (482) Sofia = Varna hoard

10;

5.

1.

Fulmen

(Philippe,

Kreditanstalt FPL 25, Spring 1978, 20 = Cahn 68, 26 Nov. 1930, 1222 (480) Veliko Tarnovo = Samovodene hoard 55 Veliko Tarnovo = Samovodene hoard 56 (Plate 25, P)

012-C5 012-C6

014-C8

57

= Tarsos 12 (dies A-a; pi. III, 14; p. 23, fig. p. 24, fig. 12) (Plate 25, N12, first example) 2. Athens = Corinth hoard 46

ANS

Trident

hoard

illus.) (479). This cast at the ANS, marked "Hermitage 198," is clearly the example listed by Newell as "Petrograd (no. 198)," but described by him as from his dies B-|3. The rev. die, however, is Newell's a. Berlin (Plate 25, N12, second example)

1.

4.

Trident

Tarnovo

The stylis's cross-bar is in pi. 89, 12, rev. only) (477). front of Nike's wing, as on T10, T12, and T18-T19. 1. ANS = SNGBerry 169 (478) 1. St. Petersburg = Tarsos 12 (dies B-a ; coin cited but not

2.

010-C4

Trident

Veliko

FPL

16,

1994

n.d.,

20

hoard

7

55 (496) (497; Plate 31, 7)


II. Alexander's Lifetime Gold

104

Trident

09-T9

1.

2.

ANS

= Tarsos 13 (dies C-y; coin cited but not illus.) (498; Plate 25, N13) Munz. u. Med. 64, 30 Jan. 1984, 88 = Miinz. u. Med. 8, 8 Dec.

3.

09-T10

1.

1949, 809

FPL "Coli. H. H.," n.d., but ca. 1910-15, 17 St. Petersburg = Anadol hoard 8 = Tarsos 13 (obv. die Piatt,

C; coin cited but not illus.) (499). The cast at the ANS, marked "Hermitage 214," must be the coin listed by

Newell from "Petrograd" from dies C-y, but the rev. die is not y. The stylis's cross-bar is in front of Nike's wing, as on C3, T12, and T18-T19. After the striking of coins from 09 and T9, two ringlets Athena's neck on 09.

Cantharus Cantharus

09-T11 010- Tl 011- T12

â&#x20AC;˘

Cantharus

2.

Lanz 28,

7

3.

NFA,

June

10

L

Fulmen

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;, L

J

012-T13

i

Bucharest = Gildau hoard 4 (500) Berk 56, 17 Jan. 1989, 12 (501) 1. Birkler and Waddell 2, 11 Dec. 1980, 128 (502). The stylis's cross-bar is in front of Nike's wing, as on C3, T10, and T18-T19. 1. Milan 2. Malko Topolovo hoard 31 3. Veliko Tarnovo = Samovodene hoard 54 (503) 1.

ANS

2.

Potidaea hoard

(504)

1.

014-T15 015-T15

1.

(MX

Fulmen

021-T16

Fulmen

H

T15

022-T17

1.

or 12 (not illus.)

11,

(505) Peus 298, 23 Oct. 1979, Balkans hoard 25 (507)

51

1626

(506)

2.

Athens = Corinth hoard 43 (508) Athens = Corinth hoard 45 (509). This obv. has previ ously been described as the same as 018, following, but differs from it in a number of ways: the nearer crest's hairs radiating from its holder, the placement of the ser pent's head and tail, and the hair revealed by the indenta tion between helmet visor and flap. Athens = Corinth hoard 44 (510) Canessa, 22 May 1922, 391

1.

J

10,

32, 12 Nov.

1985, 54 1. Ball 6, 9 Feb. 1932, 152 = Ball 4, 23 Mar. 1931,

013-T14 014-T13

Cantharus & Fulmen

195

1993, 40

1.

3. Giessener

Cantharus & Fulmen

to the right of

1.

012 T12

013-T13

May 1984,

were added

1.

1.

ANS

2.

Glendining, 24 Nov. 1950, 1543

3.

Commerce

1.

Sotheby, 16 Apr. 1969, 269 = Paeonia hoard Frankfurter 99, 2 Oct. 1958, 39 Munz. u. Med. FPL 281, Oct. 1967, 7

2. 3.

(511) 1994

hoard

9

(Plate 31, 9)


10.

4. 5. 6.

Cantharus

-

023-T18

1.

023-T19

1.

024-T20 025-T21 026-T22 026-T23

1. 1. 1. 1.

Staters

Miinz. u. Med. Potidaea hoard

105

FPL

317, Oct.

1970, 2

5

1994 hoard 10 (512; Plate 31, 10) Lanz 16, 24 Apr. 1979, 72 (513). The stylis's cross-bar is in front of Nike's wing, as on C3, T10, T12, and T19. Plovdiv (514). The stylis's cross-bar is in front of Nike's wing, as on C3, T10, T12, and T18. Commerce 1994 hoard 4 (515; Plate 31, 4) Auctiones 10, 12 June 1979, 118 (516) Sternberg 11, 20 Nov. 1981, 74 (517) Peus 328, 2 May 1990, 111 (518)

Commerce

Fulmen Cantharus • & Trident Trident — Cantharus -

014- F1

i -1

1. Mende

hoard

73

(519; Plate 29, 73)

015- F1 016- F2

-i

1.

Berk 52, 22 Feb. 1988, Gotha (521)

J

2.

Commerce

018-F2 018-F3

1.

1. Oslo

1. 2. 3.

018-F4 018-F5 018-F6 018-F7

1. 1.

i

1. 1. 2.

021

I"

022-F7

022-F8

i J

1. 2. 1.

1.

1994

hoard

11 (520) 6

(Plate 31, 6)

(522)

ANS = SNGBerry 136 (523) Lanz 48, 22 May 1989, 176 Commerce 1993 hoard 20 (Plate 30, 20) Alexandria (524) Glendining, 29 Apr. 1954, 3 (525) Glendining, 20 July 1976, 2 (526) Sofia = Varna hoard 32 Malko Topolovo hoard 29 (527). There is a die break on Nike's right wing. Peus 277, 25 Oct. 1971, 80 London = Alexander 164A = Larnaca hoard 62 (528) Hamburg = W. Hornbostel, et al, Kunst der Antike. Schatze aus N ord-deutschen Privatbesilz (Mainz/Rhein, 1977) 536 = Miinz. u. Med. FPL 258, Oct. 1965, 9 (529) The die break noted under 018-F7 has enlarged. Kricheldorf 15, 15 June 1965, 6 (530)

Figure 7 summarizes the catalogue, and Plates 20-23 are arranged in the same manner. Brackets to the left and horizontal lines indicate obverse links, and brackets to the right, reverse links. Bold type identifies dies in Tarsos. Superscripts identify die combinations present in the five earliest hoards of Table 23, those buried very shortly after 323 B.C. (see Chapter 12): C = Corinth, S = Samovodene, B = Balkans, M = Mende, and R = Ruse. Some internal shuffling of dies in the great die linked section of series 2, from 07 through 022, is surely possible, but the overall arrangement seems justified.


II. Alexander's Lifetime Gold

106

Figure Die Linkage in Series Cantharus

7 1 and Series 2

Trident

Fulmen

01-T1S

Series 1

r02-T2 -02-T3c

(Plate 20)

1-02-T4 03-T5c

04- C1 05- C2

-04-T6B

r 05-T7SB L05-T8

06- C2 s

Series 2, all

07- C3 -i

die linked

08- C3-I 08-C4 i

(Plates 20-23)

^OS-TS 09-T10 010- C4 011- C4

css

r012-C5 I-012-C6

•-09-T11

— 010-T1

— 011-T12 -r012-T12 Loi2-T13-i r013-T13-| L013-T14

r014-C7Loi4-C8c 016- C9 j017- C9 -I 018- C10 019- C10 020- C10

-r014-T13

Ul4-T15

-014-F1

f

015-T15

-015-F1 -016-F2-1

-018-T15-

-018-F2018-F3 018-F4 018-F5 018-F6

021- T16022- T17-

018-F7-]

021-F7J

T022-F7J I-022-F8

Probably series 2, but

not as yet die linked to preceding coins

(Plate 23)

026-C1 1

027-C12 028- C13 029- C14s r030-C15 -030-C16 -030-C17

r023-T18 Lo23-T19 024-T20 025-T21 r 026-T22 L 026-T23


10.

Staters

107

THE COINS AND THEIR ATTRIBUTION The bulk of series 2, the coins struck from obverses 07-022 (Plates 20-22), consists of one tightly die linked group which includes the three common Macedonian symbols of cantharus, trident, and fulmen.5 Eight other obverse dies, 023-030 (Plate 23), although not yet actually die linked to this main section of series 2, seem on stylistic grounds firmly bound to it. Die 023, so similar to 09, is coupled with reverses (T18-T19) with the stylis's cross-bar shown awkwardly in front of Nike's wing, a feature known to me on no other Macedonian staters except those from the reverses C3, T10 and T12, which occur early in series 2's die linked group. And obverses 023^)30, like 07-022, exhibit most or all of the iconographic details which, taken together, distinguish series 2 from all the numerous other Macedonian staters bearing the same symbols: small heads with finely drawn profiles; elongated helmet crests of which the nearer extends almost horizontally below several of Athena's thin parallel ringlets; two complete right of the helmet flap; two or more tightly curled ringlets (as ringlets to the immediate opposed to the loose locks in this position on the bulk of Macedonian staters) to the right of her neck; and often, unrealistically and rather disconcertingly, ringlet tips depicted also under the goddess's neck truncation. Series 1 and 2 reverses also show a fairly broad cross-piece on the stylis. Many other staters with the same symbols have much narrower cross-pieces, some so short as to give the stylis the appearance of a trident.6 At the outset of series 2 a certain amount of variation and experimentation is evident. Die 07, although the hair is in ringlets, has the thin, lank helmet crests of 01-05 in series 1, while 08 has a coiffure of rather loosely twisted ringlets which are arranged not in parallel but in a gracefully irregular fashion. Die 09 was used with T9 without the ringlet tips to the right of Athena's neck, but the tips were added by the time T10 and Tl 1 were employed, and 010 has a unique curve in the nearer helmet crest. And as just mentioned, C3, T10, and T12 (as well as T18-T19) have a peculiar feature found nowhere else on the hundreds of Macedonian gold staters studied, the stylis's cross-bar in front of rather than above Nike's wing. The cantharus of C3, and to a lesser degree that of C7, have no apparent bases depicted and they terminate below in a point. The handles of these canthari are almost semicircular and their top attachments reach outward, not upward, from the cup's brim. The canthari on subsequent dies of series 2 have distinct bases and elongated handles which reach vertically upward from the cup. This more elegant shape is found on all the other such Macedonian gold studied, i.e., on all cantharus distaters, quarter staters, and staters other than those published here.7 Although series 1 is not die linked to series 2, and although its coiffures differ from those of that series, it seems on close inspection firmly associated. Its two obverse-linked symbols, cantharus and trident, are those which, again obverse linked, are the first symbols employed in series 2. Athena's profiles in scale and in their general fine and delicate aspect are almost identical in both series. The homogeneity of series l's previously known coiffures on 01-05 is 06, with its loose flowing locks replacing the now broken by the newly emerged reverse-linked earlier dies' short curly hair, and with its helmet crest extending horizontally below Athena's ringlets, anticipating the crests' arrangement from series 2's 08 onward. Die 08, which strangely was not illustrated by Newell, also repeats the loose locks of 06. The thin, lank helmet crests of 01-05 appear also on the new 07, at the outset of series 2. And CI and C2, the only cantharus reverses known in series 1, have the unusual cantharus of series 2's C3, with no base, and with 5 The die chart of Figure 7 shows the die linkage of both series 1 and 2 in compact form. Plates 20-23 follow its arrangement. 6 E.g., Plate 25, F-H. 7 See Plate 25, C (C3), D (C4), and E (one of the "other" cantharus staters not in series 1 or enlargements, 2).


II. Alexander's Lifetime Gold

108

semicircular handles.8 Finally, of course, there is the feature which was key in Newell's associa tion of coins of the two series in Tarsos, the unusual down-turned ends of the stylis's cross-bar, seen most clearly on series l's T4 and T5, and series 2's C4. The two series, too, contain most of the known cantharus staters as measured by obverse dies employed (see Table 19, p. 100) but only a minute fraction of all the abundant known fulmen staters. Enough similarities thus exist between series 1 and the early coins of series 2 to warrant them the output of a single mint â&#x20AC;&#x201D; as did Neweli. The variations in details of considering iconography in series 1 and early series 2 can be explained simply enough by experimentation at the outset of the new coinage â&#x20AC;&#x201D; compare the initial obverses of Philip I I's gold, with their long hair and one head facing left.9 Newell in 1918, early in his career, attributed most of series 1 and some of the early coins of series 2, with cantharus and trident symbols, to Tarsus, although he placed series 2's coins (Tarsos issues 12-13) earlier than those of series 1 (Tarsos issues 14-15). Table 20 relates Ne well's Tarsos issues 12-15 and their dies to the arrangement proposed here. Plate 25 shows representative examples of Tarsos 12-15. Dies marked with an asterisk in the following table are those illustrated there.

Table

20

Concordance

of Newell's Tarsos

Newell Die

Newell Issue

Dies and Troxell Dies

Newell PI.

IIl

Troxell Die

Newell's First Group, Included in Troxell Series 2 Obv. A* Obv. B* Obv. C*

12

Rev. a* Rev. p Rev. Y*

12

010 08

13

09 14

C4 = a (C4) T9 and T10

12 13

Newell's Second Obv. D* Obv. E Obv. F*

14

12

Group, Included in Troxell Series 1

14

16

14

15

05 04

15

17

02

Obv. G

15

18

01

Rev.S* Rev.E Rev. f* Rev.!;

14

16

C2

14

15

15

17

CI T2

15

18

Tl

Newell did not realize that the coins of his first group (part of series 2 here) were firmly linked to coins of more nearly "standard" ringlet style, nor, more important, to coins with fulmen Had he known of these links it is inconceivable that he would have given his first symboi. group, now bound to all of the present series 2 with its three quintessential Macedonian symbols, to any place other than Macedonia. Series 2 certainly was produced in Macedonia. In the absence of actual die links, however, Newell's attribution of his second group (here part One might think that the early iconof series 1) to Tarsus cannot be decisively disproved. ographic details of series 2 which repeat those of series 1 were due to one mint's (Macedonia's) copying of another's (Tarsus's) coins. But the new 06, firmly die linked into series 1 yet antici8 See enlargements, Plate 25, 9 Philippe, Pella gold obverse

A-B. dies D1-D4,

pp. 129-30,

and

pi. 53.


10.

Staters

109

pating the ringlets and long helmet crests of series 2, argues against this interpretation. An origin in Macedonia for both series seems almost certain. The frequent presence of series 1 staters along with those of series 2 in hoards from the Greek mainland is not necessarily an argument for a Macedonian origin, for all those hoards also contained staters from elsewhere.10 Series l's attribution here to Macedonia rests solely on an analysis of the coins themselves, with the many similarities between series 1 and series 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; the In addition, coiffures and helmet crests of 06 and 07 and the shapes of the canthari of C1-C3." series 2 at its outset uses only the two symbols of series 1, cantharus and trident, adding the third common Macedonian symbol of the fulmen only later. Most of Newell's dies in question from Tarsos are reproduced here on Plate 25, the coins identified by Newell's issue numbers N12-N19, and with his die letters and my die numbers both also given. N18-N19, known from but one shared obverse die, have the prominent vertically placed plow to left that is the unvarying primary symbol on the large output of analogous silver (N20-N40) at Tarsus, which Newell dated after 327 B.C. N18-N19 are surely from Tarsus. But then Newell took N16-N17 as the link between N18-N19 and the issues now reattributed to Macedonia (N12-N15). N16-N17's obverses do indeed have the tightly curled hair of N14-N15, but there all resemblance ceases. In the arrangement of the helmet crests, the absence of locks to the right of Athena's neck, and their large scale and general coarseness, N16-N17's obverses are most unlike those of both N14-N15 and N18-N19. Similarly with the reverses. N16 and N17 do have cantharus and trident symbols, but those symbols are placed differently from those of N12-N15 and from the primary symbol of N18-N19, and N16-N17's cantharus has a different shape, and the trident a different orientation, from those of N12-N15. Finally, the elaborate stylis of N16-N17, topped with small Nikes, makes these issues a most unlikely bridge between N14-N15 and N18-N19. Where or when N16-N17 were struck I should not like to hazard a guess, but even after the removal of N12-N15 from Tarsus they seem improbable on stylistic grounds as predecessors of N18-N19, the earliest certain Tarsiote gold. There remains, however, the possibility or even probability that N18-N19 were modeled on N14-N15. Despite the appearance of the griffin on N18-N19's helmet and those issues' thick helmet crests, there is an overall similarity between the two pairs. It would be only natural if Tarsus, for its small first gold issue ca. 327 B.C., took as a model a stater from the main Macedo nian mint, i.e., from this series 1 which includes N14-N15. The gold of Tarsus then would not have commenced until after the main Macedonian mint had started to strike Alexander's gold.12 If it be granted, then, that all of series 1 and 2 were struck in Macedonia, a specific association may be suggested. The word "association" is used deliberately, for this study would prefer to avoid definite mint attributions. But in Philip I l's gold coinage, only two groups employ all three symbols of cantharus, trident, and fulmen, and these two groups' symbols are obverse linked as tightly as are those of these Alexander coins. The two Philip groups are Le Rider's Philippe, Pella group II. 1, which he dates to ca. 340/336-ca. 328 B.C.,13 and most of his Pella group IIIA, struck ca. 323-ca. 315 B.C.14 Table 21 compares the three groups (obverse links refer only to links between different symbols).15 10 See 11 See

p. 121, Table 23. pp. 107-8.

12 See Chapter 13 for a discussion of the meager evidence as to when the main Macedonian mint may first have struck Alexander's gold. 13 Philippe, pp. 135-63, pi. 55-64. Note that the small II.2 is not necessarily considered later than II. 1. See Philippe, p. 417. Pella group contains the last Philips struck there before the hiatus which ended only

II

with the reissuance of Philip's types after Alexander's death. 14 Philippe, hoard for pp. 171-82, 398-516, pi. 65-69. See commentary below (p. 117) on the Samovodene the retention of the ca. 323 starting date for Philippe's Amphipolis and Pella groups IIIA. 15 See Philippe, pp. 415-16, for the number of II. 1 dies and links. Only the IIIA staters with cantharus, trident, and fulmen symbols are included here (there are other less important symbols also). Again, a single obverse used with three symbols is counted as two obverse links.


II. Alexander's Lifetime Gold

110

Table Comparison

of Series

1 and

2

21

with Philippe Pella Groups

Obv. Coins

Dies

Obv. Coins/ Obv. Die Links

Pella II. 1

513

124

4.14

54

Series

109

30

14

0.43 0.47

187

47

3.21 3.98

25

0.53

Pella

1 and 2

IIIA

Obv. Links/ Obv. Die

The three groups' survival rates are very close, and so the frequency of die linkage between Both common symbols and similar die linkage associate our symbols in each case is comparable. staters with Pella's Philips. Further, the earliest canthari of series 1 and 2 are very similar to

those of Philippe's Pella II. I.16 These Alexander staters are a relatively small group compared to the two great outpourings of Philip staters comprising Le Rider's Pella II. 1 and IIIA. But the three groups' use of the same three symbols them.

and above all their extensive

obverse linkage

between symbols

clearly associate

If Philippe's Pella

groups truly belong to that city, then seemingly so do these earliest Alex This attribution to Pella is opposed to the usual view, at least that of the ANS, that they, along with all the other Macedonian staters bearing their symbols, were produced at But whether these "other" staters came from the same mint as the early ones of Amphipolis.17 series 1 and 2 is quite unclear.18 In the absence of any good evidence, I follow Le Rider's practice in Philippe of ascribing all of them merely to "Macedonia." ander staters.

COMMENTARY

ON

ALEXANDER ISSUES

With cantharus, trident, and fulmen staters struck at different times and places in Macedonia, one cannot consider all coins with, e.g., a cantharus symbol as a single emission. Price's massive compilation was, of necessity, selective and no concordance of his issue numbers with the stater groups here published or with others similarly marked examples may however be usefui.

is possible.

Comments

on his illustrated

Issue

Marking

Comments

164

fulmen, vertical fulmen,

Neither of the illustrated examples is in our series 2, but they are among the "other staters" of pp. 100, 107, and 122, and Plate 31, 11-26. The illustrated example of 164A (dies 021-F7) is part of series 2 but, as shown by the obverse-linked examples in series 2, the distinction be tween 164 and 164A merely on the basis of the symbol's orientation seems unwarranted. 168a does not belong to series 1 or 2, but it is one of the "other staters" discussed on pp. 100 and 107. Coins 168b (dies 018-C10), 168c (dies 026-C11), and 168d (dies 019-C10) are part of series 2. None of the illustrated examples is part of series 1 or 2. Coin 172a is one

164A

slanted

168

172

cantharus

trident, vertical

showing three helmet crests. See p. 100, note b. 172b-d with the "other staters" discussed on p. 100. Coins with this symbol so placed are quite separate from those with vertical trident heads. Again, note the three helmet crests on both illustrated examples. of a subgroup belong

175

trident, horizontal

16 Compare Plate 25, A-C (C1-C3) with the canthari of Philippe's pis. 57 60. 17 E.g., SNGBerry 136 ff.; Sardes and Miletus, p. 70; and p. 116 below. â&#x2013; ÂŤSee p. 127.


10.

176

shield

Staters

The issue is not in series

1

111

or series

2,

but is discussed on pp.

100 and

127.

3004

cantharus

3005

cantharus,

wing trident, vertical

Price retains Newell's attribution to Tarsus for this coin, distinguished from issue 168 (itself not a homogeneous output) only by its obverse The example illustrated is however here reattributed to Ma style. cedonia (series 1, dies 05-C2). The attribution to Tarsus seems correct,

below 3006

This coin's attribution is puzzling. It is from the Larnaca hoard, buried ca. 300 B.C. Its obverse style is surely not that of any Macedonian coins with this symbol, nor does the obverse seem to fit with coins Newell attributed to Tarsus. In Alexander, p. 48, discussing the sim ilarities between the Corinth, Samovodene and Balkans hoards, Price identifies the trident staters of series 2 in Corinth and Samovodene (not in Balkans) as this issue 3006, saying that its presence "in all three. ..hoards may suggest that despite its very different obverse style, this variety ought to be placed in Macedonia." But the sole example of 3006 shown is obviously from an entirely different output than the coins in these hoards.

3008

trident, As with 3005, the probable horizontal (below wing)

attribution is to Tarsus.


11.

THREE GROUPS OF DISTATERS

Very little has been written on the subject of Alexander's distaters. With two of the earliest known hoards containing his Macedonian distaters published here for the first time, this seems an appropriate place to make a few observations about these handsome coins. The present author distinguishes three groups, A, B, and C, so indicated in Chapter 12 in the commentaries on the five relevant hoards (Mende, Saida, Commerce 1993, Paeonia, and Varna) and in the hoard chart, Table 23. These groups bear no relation to the similarly designated silver groups of Chapters

1-3 above.

Group A (531-36) The first group, A, comprises most of the Macedonian distaters with the usual symbols of trident, and fulmen, summarized above in Table 19.1 Little need be said about these. They are by far the most common such coins (I have located 22 obverse dies), stylistically quite homogeneous, and exhibiting but three known obverse links between symbols â&#x20AC;&#x201D; two cantharus-trident, and one cantharus-fulmen. Two links and other representative examples are shown on Plate 24. cantharus,

Group B (537 39) The second group, B, is the fulmen-A distaters, Sicyon 6-7, for which I have located six dies. They and the rest of Sicyon's group I (other distaters, rare staters, and silver tetradrachms) were reattributed by me in 1971 to an uncertain mint in Macedonia, and more obverse

Table Comparison Issue

Markings

1-5

Youthful

6-8 9-16

(athlete? boxer?) Fulmen A" Similar youthful figure A

figure

of Sicyon

22 1-5, 6-8, and 9-16

Distater

Stater

Tetradrachm

Second

Obv. Dies

Obv. Dies

Obv. Dies

Symbol?

1

2

1

yes

6b 1

1"

-

-

6

yes

â&#x2013; The three examples of Sicyon issue 6 are from an obverse known in issue 7, and the A given as the second marking on issue 6's sole reverse die seems on close inspection to be merely A, as on issues 7-8. b Sicyon records six obverse dies. Al1, however, seems a retouched version of A8, while the coin illustrated from die-pair 7.8, supposedly from 7.7's A12, is from another, uncounted, obverse. The total thus remains at six. c The second die-pair of this issue (Plate 25, L) surfaced in the Commerce 1994 hoard (Chapter 12, hoard 8, lot A), CNG 32, 7 Dec. 1994, 1110. The main Macedonian component of the hoard is catalogued in Appendix 4. d Sicyon's A16 is the same as A17.

1 See p. 100.


11.

DlSTATERS

113

recently have been given by Martin Price to "Aegae(?)."2 Since my 1971 work, two northern Greek provenances, the Mende and Paeonia hoards,3 have been identified. A Macedonian origin now looks even more probable, at least for the coins with fulmen and A, which may be strikings of a mint other than that which produced the remainder of Sicyon's group I. This group I is broken down in Table 22 into its three component sub-groups of issues, which between them include distaters, staters, and tetradrachms. No die links connect any of these three sub-groups

to another. The fulmen-A coins (Sicyon 6-8) differ from the other two groups in their relative abundance, in their lack of a second symbol, and, most important, just as with other Macedonian gold, in not being accompanied by any silver with the same markings. The only common element is the marking A, shared with the third group. This hardly seems sufficient: this marking, or its possible variant ÂŽ, is found on

Amphipolis's Alexander tetradrachms of group K, and on their contemporary Philip II reissues And perhaps more significantly, it is also found on staters with the other two typical Macedonian symbols, cantharus and trident.5 The rare fulmen-A staters' divergent styles are revealing. Whether they truly accompany the of tetradrachms and smaller coins.4

similarly marked distaters is a question, as the obverse styles of the two denominations are quite different. If the two denominations are not associated, the resulting lack of staters further differentiates the fulmen-A distaters from the other Sicyon gold. If they are associated, how ever, the staters'

connections

with simple fulmen staters are significant. The obverse shown in

J)

is very similar indeed to one known with simple fulmen reverses (Plate Sicyon (Plate 25, 25, 1 ; see also Plate 31, 21, 22). And the newly emerged second fulmen-A obverse (Plate 25, L)e is actually known used with a fulmen reverse (Plate 25, K).

It

possible that the gold with the youthful figures and its accompanying silver was struck somewhere in Macedonia. But the new shared stater obverse just mentioned strengthens the suggestion that the fulmen-A gold coins, lacking matching silver issues, were struck in Macedonia and may also indicate that they formed part of the output of the chief Macedonian gold mint. remains

also

Group C (540-48) But even the three simple markings of cantharus, trident, and fulmen, unaccompanied by any marking, seem to have been revived on distaters, again obverse linked, at some period after the issuance of groups A and B. There exists a third separate, small sub-group of distaters, with obverses of different style with two crests rather than three shown on Athena's helmet, and with the Nike on the reverse often quite obviously walking. Only 17 coins are known, from three secondary

obverses.

In the catalogue below, dies are prefaced by "D" for distater. Thus, e.g., DOl = distater obverse 1, DC2 = distater cantharus reverse 2, DTI = distater trident reverse 1, etc. Brackets to the left indicate obverse die links, brackets to the right, reverse links, and horizontal lines to the left lead to other symbols

found with the obverse dies.

2 "Peloponnesian Alexanders," pp. 42-44; Alexander 185-200. 3 Chapter 12, hoards 4 and 7. 4 See pp. 23, 53, and 58. 5 Cantharus A: SNGCop 624; trident A: Philippe, p. 271, 19, pi. 91. 6 See p. 112, note c, above. The obverse link is noted also in the author's "Staters, Serendipity, and Soli," in XagaxTTjg. Ayiigajfia artj Mavrco Oixovofildov, ed. E. Kypraiou, D. Zafiropoulou et ai. (Athens, 1996), pp. 283-86.


II. Alexander's Lifetime Gold

114

CATALOGUE Trident â&#x20AC;&#x201D; & Fulmen Fulmen

Cantharus

DOl-DCl

1. Commerce

1993 hoard

19.

Nike walking (540; Plate 30,

19)

/tvD02-DCl

3.

Berlin (541) = SNGBerry 135. Nike walking Paris (542) In commerce, 1976

1.

NFA

2.

Parke-Bernet,

-DOl-DFl

1.

Fulmen Paris (544)

D01-DF2

1.

1.

D03-DC2

1. 2.

ANS

Trident Cantharus& Fulmen

Cantharus & Trident

-DOl-DTl

i

Miinz. u. Med.

1. Commerce 2. Boston =

4. 5. 6.

D02-DF4

1969, 141 = Paeonia 1968 hoard

1993 hoard) (546). See 540 and obverse and from that hoard

3.

Cantharus

9 Dec.

1969,

FPL 227, Nov. 1962, 434 = Santamaria, 12 Oct. 1949, 16 = Egger, 7 Jan. 1908, 420 (545) 1. Berk 82, 13 July 1994, 10 (possibly from the Commerce

D01-DF3 L D01-DF4

1, 20 Mar. 1975, 82 = Parke-Bernet, 9 Dec. 140 = Paeonia 1968 hoard. Nike walking (543)

1.

1993 hoard

MFA

18 (547;

547 from

the

same

Plate 30, 18)

659

Florence Paris = De Luynes 1604 Schlessinger 13, 4 Feb. 1935, 649 Naville-Ars Classica 17, 3 Oct. 1934, 359 Boston = MFA 658 (548)

The die links are summarized in the following figure. walking.

Reverses in italics are those whose Nikes

are shown

Figure Die Linkage among (540)

D02-DC7 (541) D03-DC2 (542) This small concentrated

Group C Distaters

Trident

Cantharus

DOl-DCl

8

DOl-DTl

Fulmen (543)-

DOl-DFl D01-DF2 D01-DF3 D01-DF4 D02-DF4

(544) (545) (546) (547) -| J (548)

output is obviously distinct from group A. The hoards also distin distaters of group A, as will be seen in following chapters.

guish group C from the more common


THE GOLD HOARDS

12.

The following hoards are those known to me which contained gold coins of Alexander from Macedonia; which were buried by the time of Philip III's death in 317 B.C. or perhaps a very few years later; and of which I have seen casts or photographs of the actual coins â&#x20AC;&#x201D; for a mere listing of, e.g., a trident-symbol stater does not allow it to be identified as a part of series 1, or of series 2, or of the larger group of staters with this symbol not included in these series. The coins listed for each hoard under "series 1," "series 2," and "other" refer only to the Macedonian gold staters of Alexander present. Macedonian distaters of three distinct groups (A, B, and C) are also listed (for discussion of these groups see the preceding chapter). Publications given in IGCH are generally cited only when their contents are discussed. Table 23 at the end of the chapter summarizes the hoards which are discussed in chapter 13.

ALPHABETICAL INDEX Hoard Asia Minor 1950 Balkans 1967

Hoard

Number 13

Mende

Number 4

1983

Commerce

1993

7

Paeonia 1968 Ruse ca. 1952

Commerce

1994

8

Saida

Corinth 1930 Gildau 1960 Jasna Poljana

3

1 1969

1829, 1852,

10 5 6

1863

11

Samovodene

9

Varna 1949

1954

2 12

INDIVIDUAL HOARDS 1.

Corinth, Corinthia, 1930 (IGCH Series

1: 2 staters,

Series

2:

5 staters,

77)1

from 02-T3 (471), 03-T5 from 010-C4, 014-C8 (485), 014-T15 (508), 015-T15 (509),

018-T15

(510) Other:

none

The Corinth hoard, found during excavations, is the only hoard listed here whose full contents It is also possibly the earliest buried, and thus its interment date, uncertain, should be of high importance for the terminal date of the striking of unfortunately are known with certainty. series 1 and series 2.

With the realization that Alexander's Attic-weight tetradrachms were introduced in Mace donia at the earliest only ca. 332 B.C., and with the present reattribution of the early "Tarsus" gold to Macedonia,2 Thompson's reasons for dating the Corinth deposit to ca. 327-325 B.C. must

Her arguments, perfectly valid at the time, were that Philip II's coins were all condition, and that none of the Alexanders (her coins 42-51) could be dated to after 329/8. Some issues which seemed to be early are now more doubtful and a review of the current evidence for the hoard's burial is indicated, with remarks by Thompson in quotation marks. be reexamined. in excellent

1 G. R. Edwards and M. Thompson, "A Hoard of Gold 74 (1970), pp. 343-50, esp. Thompson, "The Coins," pp. 429-30, pi. 87-88 (all coins illus.); Alexander, p. 47; M. and "Reform," p. 188, n. 20; "Balkan Peninsula," with Samovodene,

J

Coins of Philip and Alexander from Corinth," A A 347-50 (all coins illus.); Philippe, pp. 257-59, and J. Price, "The Coinage of Philip II," NC 1979, p. 234, an illuminating comparative table of the Corinth, and Balkans hoards; T. R. Martin, Sovereignty and Coinage in Classical Greece (Princeton, 1985),

App. 4, pp. 271-92. 2 See pp. 86-90, 101, and 108-9.


II. Alexander's Lifetime Gold

116

four "Amphipolis"

series 2's 014, 015, and 018, "from dies which Newell that mint [Amphipolis]." As Newell's chronology for placed Amphipolis's silver started in 336,3 presumably he and Thompson considered that the gold too commenced then, but the current evidence indicates that the silver seems to have been introduced no earlier than ca. 332 B.C. Further, the dies, to 018, no longer seem particularly 42-45:

early

in the sequence

staters, from

early in their sequence. 46-48: three "Tarsus" staters, 46 from series 2's 010, 47-48 from series l's 02 and 03. The Tarsos date of 333-329 B.C. is eliminated by the present reattribution to Macedonia. 49: a Salamis stater with harpa symboi. Thompson notes this issue as fourth in a series of five issues which Newell had dated to the rather wide range 332 320 B.C.,4 "which might seem to indicate a date toward the end of Alexander's lifetime or possibly after his death." But Thompson next adduced Newell's comparison in Tarsos of two coins coincidentally from the very dies of Corinth 46 and 49, 5 where he described the Cypriot piece as a contemporary imitation of the "Tarsiote" (now Macedonian) one. This led her to consider the Salamis piece as struck in the early 320s. It has recently become clear that the Salamis issue as 49, with harpa, is not the fourth issue in its series, but among the first if not the very first of a few extremely small issues.6 If it can only be dated by comparison to 46, however, it is of no independent value in dating the hoard. 50: a "Sidon" stater with caduceus symbol, which Newell considered struck ca. late 333-ca. 330 B.C.7 Price has recently voiced important doubts about the attribution of Ne well's undated Sidon 1-7, both on the basis of the coins' internal evidence and on Newell's later thought that perhaps they emanated from Damascus.8 If so, they may well be contem porary with the dated Sidon gold which will have commenced only in the early 320s. 51: an uncertain stater, with grain ear symbol, "of the same general period as nos. 42-50." This coin is clearly of no help. We are then left without any coins which can be assigned to a date before the early 320s. Thompson also observed that the absence of the gold of "Sicyon," thought to have commenced 330-325,9 tended to confirm her early dating of the hoard. Price has noted, however, that a recent reattribution of the early "Sicyon" staters and distaters to some mint outside of the Peloponnesus, perhaps in Macedonia, makes their absence in the Corinth hoard less dramatic and thus less of a confirmation of a burial date so early as first thought.10 More important, "Sicyon" distaters are known from only three of the hoards listed here, all buried ca. 323 or later, and the "Sicyon" staters, known from but four obverse dies, appear only in the very large hoards 6 and 8 below. Those staters' absence from the Corinth hoard means nothing.

3 Demanhur, pp. 26 and 68. No later publication shows any change in his thinking here. 4 "Cypriote Alexanders," pp. 306-7, 1-5. 5 Tarsos, p. 24, fig. 12. 6 SNGBerry 171, at the ANS (Newell's Salamis issue 4, with harpa symbol), is from the obverse die of Newell's Salamis issues 1-3. The ANS has one or more coins or casts from each of these issues and from a new fifth issue as well, all from the same obverse die. The Berry coin alone lacks several small obverse die breaks on all other examples, and its harpa issue is thus probably the first â&#x20AC;&#x201D; if indeed issues 1-4 were even struck in sequence. The activity at this mint is also more complex than appears from "Cypriote Alexanders." See Sardes and Miletus, p. 70, n. 64; and pp. 118 and 125 below. 7 Sidon and Ake, pp. 7-8 (Sidon 2). 8 Alexander, p. 436. Sidon 1-7, close stylistically in other respects to the certain Sidonian gold, have a griffin replacing the usual serpent on Athena's helmet. present

9 Sicyon, p. 25. 10 "The Coinage of Philip

the present 185-200).

II," review of Philippe, JVC 1979. p. 234. The suggested reattribution was that of author, in "Peloponnesian Alexanders," p. 44. Price now specifically suggests Aegeae (Alexander See also Chapter 11, group B.


12.

2.

Samovodene, Series

Bulgaria, 1954 (IGCH

Gold Hoards

117

395)11

from 01-T1 (469), 05-T7 (475) 5 staters, from 07-C3 (477), 010-C4 (2 coins) (Plate 25, P), 012-T12 (503), 029-C14 (494) one "other" stater with fulmen symbol (Plate 25, M). See p. 127.

1: 2 staters,

Series 2: Other:

III (Plate 25, Q and R) were not until 1987. The IGCH earlier had dated the hoard's burial to ca. 325^320 B.C., and Le Rider, citing the close resemblance of the coins known to him to those of the Corinth hoard, suggested a burial ca. 327-325 B.C. Dimitrov, subsequently able to obtain a record of all the hoard coins, including these Philips issued after Alexander's death, has now shown that the hoard must have been buried after 323. 12 One might consider that Philippe group III of both Pella and Amphipolis should perhaps now be dated to after 320. It is argued above in Chapter 9 that the reissues of Philip II's silver after Alexander's death started together with Alexander groups K/J, or perhaps I, perhaps only in 321 or 320 B.C. If the gold reissues were introduced at the same time, then they also might have started only ca. 321 320 B.C. The reissues of Philip II gold staters from Asia Minor, however, are dated to ca. 323 and later13 and, as the gold and silver strikings of both Philip II and Alexander seem to be quite separate phenomena," it seems more reasonable to assume that the Philip II gold reissues from Macedonia (i.e., Philippe's groups III) commenced around that date. Thus Samovodene may be dated to ca. 323 B.C. or shortly afterward. Samovodene's

recognized

3.

Balkans Series

two Philip

II

staters of Philippe's Pella group

as from this group

196715 1: 2 staters,

Series 2:

1 stater,

Other:

none

from 04-T6, 05-T7 from 014-T13 (507)

Le Rider terms this hoard "Commerce 1967," although noting it as "decouvert probablement I have adopted Dimitrov's "Balkans" as more descriptive. The latest coin in the hoard is a stater of Salamis, with rudder symbol, issue 11 in Newell's "Cypriote Alexanders." Newell dated the Salaminian coins with this symbol in both gold and silver to after 320 B.C. on two grounds: that the first use of the rudder on silver was on coins inscribed dans la region des Balkans."

11 Philippe, pp. 259-61, 3, and 430, pis. 88-89 (20 coins listed and illus.); Alexander, p. 47; "Balkan Penin sula." Note that the illustration of the exceptional fulmen stater 52 is actually a duplicate of 57. Here Plate 25, M, has the correct photo of 52. Dimitrov in "Balkan Peninsula" points out that the casts furnished to Le Rider and illustrated by him as Philip's Pella 172 and 368, and Amphipolis 55b, and Alexander's 12, 13, and 18 were in each case not pairs from the same coin. Dimitrov shows further that the hoard's discovery date was 1954, not 1957, and plans to publish it and related hoards in fuller format in his forthcoming Philip and Alexander Coin Hoards in Hellenistic Thrace (Gold and Silver). 12 Philippe, p. 261; "Balkan Peninsula," p. 105. 13 M. Thompson, "Posthumous Philip II Staters of Asia Minor," in Studia Paulo Nasier Oblata I. Numismatica Antiqua, ed. S. Scheers (Louvain, 1982), pp. 57-61, at p. 60 and n. 8, "These Asia Minor Philips were issued for only a few years . . . and there is no compelling reason to date any of the coins earlier than 323 B.C. An earlier date for the initial emission of Philips at several Asia Minor mints is given in the publication of the Bab Hoard. . . .I am now inclined to think that the dates should be brought down slightly." This statement was based on the evidence of the 1964 Asia Minor drachm hoard, IGCH 1437, subsequently published by her in Sardes and Miletus, pp. 81-85. Now the far larger and thus more conclusive Near East 1993 drachm hoard (Chapter 8, hoard 7) provides confirmation that the earliest series which included Philip II staters at any Asia Minor mint were little if any earlier than those including coins of Philip III, hence struck no earlier than very late in 323, more probably in 322. 14 See

pp. 122-23. 15 Philippe, pp. 262-64,

Peninsula."

5, and 430, pis. 89-90 (all coins illus.); Coin Hoards 2, 50; Alexander,

p. 47; "Balkan


II. Alexander's Lifetime Gold

118

with the name of Philip III, and that Philip III's name seems to have been used at neighboring mints not immediately upon Alexander's death but only from ca. 320 B.C. Also, Cyprus came under Ptolemaic control in 320, and the rudder seemed an appropriate symbol for a long series of issues struck while the Egyptians maintained a naval base there. In his commentary, however, Newell wondered if the rudder staters might possibly have of the latest of the previous started before 320, "as their style is at first a close development staters."16 On this basis, Le Rider dated the Balkans hoard to 323 or a bit later, and Dimitrov Newell's study of Salamis, however, must be revised and amplified. Several obverse agreed.17 linked stater issues are now known to follow his issues 1-5, and they employ at least two different obverse styles.18 Issue 11, with rudder, may well at its outset imitate the early issues 1-5, but it does not seem to follow directly on them. One may conclude only that the Balkans hoard was buried probably no earlier than 323 B.C., and very likely as late as late as 320, or even possibly a bit later. 4.

Macedonia,

Mende,

Series 2:

198319

from 014-F1 (519 ; Plate 29, 73) 4 "A," 6 "B" (Plate 29, 63-72) The group B coins are from dies and an unknown number of reverse dies. 1 stater,

10 distaters,

Other:

3 obverse

Georges Le Rider provided a photographic record of this hoard. Appendix 2 and p. 121, Table 23, constitute Mende's fullest publication. The latest coins are Alexander and Philip II staters of Miletus (series I, ca. 325-323, the Philips most probably from late 323),20 so that the Mende hoard also was interred ca. 323 or a few years later. 5.

Ruse, Bulgaria, ca. Series 2:

1 stater,

Other:

none

This

small

195221

from 020-C10 (490)

of four coins only, was surely correctly dated by Dimitrov to Its latest coin was a Miletus Alexander stater: cf. Miletus 127-29, series II, ca.

hoard,

ca. 323-320 B.C. 323/2 B.C. 6.

Saida

(anc.

Sidon), Phoenicia, 1829, 1852, 1863 (IGCH

1508)'22

No identifiable coins of series 1 or 2, except, possibly, one from series 2's 010-C4 (480). Other identifiable: 2 staters, 1 shield, 1 trident A. Also listed by Waddington were dista ters of group B, and others with cantharus, trident, and fulmen symbols which could be from either group A or C or from both. The seven to nine thousand coins of this remarkable hoard, most of Philip II and Alexander were soon dispersed, but a sizable fraction was seen and listed by W. H. Waddington in RN 1865. Staters with cantharus, trident, and fulmen were noted, but in the absence of illustrations it is impossible to know whether they belong to series 1 and 2, or to later issues.

III,

16 "Cypriote 17 Philippe,

Alexanders," pp. 313-14. p. 264; "Balkan Peninsula," p. 106. 18 See Sardes and Miletus, p. 70, n. 64. Die studies

in preparation for a projected ANS sylloge volume of Alexander's gold have revealed that the eagle staters specifically rejected as Salaminian by Newell "Cypriote Alexanders," p. 307, n. 19), and still other issues, are obverse linked to his early gold stater issues at Salamis. For their subsequent styles, see Sardes and Miletus, pi. 32, 14-18. See also n. 6 above and p. 125, n. 16. 19 Alexander, p. 48, partial listing only. See Appendix 2. 20 See p. 117, n. 13. 21 "Balkan Peninsula,"

pp. 105, 112, and 114 (all four coins illus.); burial date, p. 105. 22 Philippe, pp. 48 49; W. H. Waddington, "Trouvailles de Saida et Marmora," RN p. 262, 4; Alexander, 1865, pp. 1-28, esp. pp. 6-8; U. Westermark, "Notes on the Saida Hoard (IGCH 1508)," Nordisk Numismatisk Arskrift 1979-80, pp. 22-35 (the 42-43 known coins listed and all but 2 illus.); Sardes and Miletus, pp. 71-72.


12.

Gold Hoards

119

The only two Macedonian staters of Alexander identifiable today are those noted above under "Other," both no doubt singled out because of their relative rarity. The issue with shield is discussed below, together with the anomalous fulmen stater of the Samovodene hoard.23 Westermark dated the stater with trident and A to ca. 331 using an invalid comparison with Mac edonian tetradrachms with trident symboi. Its date and mint are uncertain, however. Waddington stated clearly that no coins of Philip III were included in the hoard (but note that only two of the five final hoards of Table 23, buried after Philip III's death, contained his coins). Further, Saida included a Salamis stater with rudder symbol, a marking used also by Philip III (Alexander tetradrachm issue P129). The IGCH dated Saida's burial to ca. 324/3 and Le Rider agreed. Thompson, considering only the Alexander material, opted for "soon after Alexander's death but perhaps closer to 320 than to 323." She probably was taking account of the fact that, while Philip III acceded late in 323, most of his datable coins seem to postdate 320, and no doubt also considered that the issue with trident and A was posthumous. Westermark agreed with Thompson. Commerce

7.

Series 2:

1993

from 018-F3 (Plate 30, 20) " 1 "A" (Plate 30, 17), 2 C" (540, 547 ; Plate 30, 18 and 19). The two "C" coins are from the same obverse, which is that of the two "C" distaters in hoard 10 below; 2 staters, 1 fulmen (Plate 30, 21), 1 shield (Plate 30, 22). 1 stater,

3 distaters,

Other:

The hoard is catalogued in full in Appendix 3. Aside from occasional sale catalogue appear ances of individual coins, this is its only publication. Its burial would seem to have occurred within

a few years

Commerce

8.

Series

of 321 B.C., the date of its latest

datable coin.

1994

from 02-T4 (472), 03-T5 (473), 06-C2 from 011-C4 (481), 016-F2, 019-C10 (489), 021-T16, 022-T17 (512),

1: 3 staters,

Series 2: 7 staters,

024-T20 (515), Other:

at least fairly firmly

21

staters,

030-C17 (497)

13 fulmen,

3 cantharus,

5 shield

Lot A of 134 coins was reliably stated to be the remainder of a larger hoard. Lot B of 85 (or 94) coins and lot C of 20 were possibly but not definitely from the same hoard. See Appendix 4, where all the lots are discussed briefly (more complete descriptions are on file at the ANS), and the Macedonian portion of A is catalogued in fuli. Jasna Poljana, Bulgaria, 1969 (IGCH 777)M

9.

Series 2:

1 stater,

Other:

4 staters,

from 030-C16 2 trident, 2 fulmen

The latest coin present was from the dies of Abydus 169b, series agree on a burial date in the neighborhood of 317-315 B.C.

XI,

ca. 318/7

B.C.

All

scholars 10.

Paeonia 1968 (IGCH Series 2:

1 stater,

Other:

7 staters,

410)25

from 022 Tl 7 2 trident, 4 fulmen,

1

trident-A

23 See p. 127. 24 Philippe, pp. 266-67, 8, Sardes and Miletus, pp. 74-75, pi. 33 (all 24 coins illus.); "Balkan Peninsula," and Abydus, p. 68. p. 105; Lampsacus 25 The primary sources are the two sale catalogues listed and summarized in IGCH, whence the data in Table 23. Other references are Philippe, pp. 298-304, 14 (discusses Alexanders and other coins included, but lists specifically only the known Philips, gold and silver); Alexander, p. 50; Sardes and Miletus, pp. 73-74 (lists 7 Sardes

and Miletus staters

of Alexander and

Philip

III).


II. Alexander's Lifetime Gold

120 3 distaters,

obverse

Only

a

1

of the

"B," 2 "C." The two "C" "C" distaters in hoard 7

portion of the hoard's thousands

coins are die duplicates and from the above.

of gold and silver coins of Paeonian and Macedonian

rulers is known. According to Le Rider and Thompson, the hoard is dated to shortly after 316/5 by the known silver, the latest being from Philip II's group 9 with P, and by a Babylon stater as Alexander 11.

3750, struck ca. 3 16-3 15/4. 26

Gildau, Rumania, 1960 (lGCH 774) Series 2:

1 stater,

Other:

4 staters,

09-T11 (500) 2 trident,

from

1 cantharus,

1

fulmen

The IGCH dated Gildau's burial to ca. 320 B.C. and Thompson, in Sardes and Miletus, to after was struck after Philip III's death.27

316 because of a Colophon stater that she believed 12.

Varna, Bulgaria,

1949

1

796)28

from 012-C6 (483),

Series 2: 2 staters, Other:

(IGCH

distater,

018-F7

"A"

Only 34 of the thousands

of coins in this deposit

are known.

Relying on those 34, Le Rider

based his burial date of after 316/5-311/0 on a Babylon stater which N. M. Waggoner in "Baby lon Mint" dated to that intervai. The specific dies of this coin, which might allow a closer

dating, are not known to me, but in any case Varna's burial will fall after ca. 316. 13.

Asia Minor 1950 (IGCH No coins of series Other:

2 staters,

1442)29

1 or 2

fulmen

The IGCH dates the hoard's burial to ca. 310 B.C. because of the presence of a Babylon stater Thompson suggested the piece may be intru sive and offered a burial date of ca. 322/1 if so. As so many of the gold hoards listed here contain but one or two coins later than the bulk of their contents, however, there seems no real need to accept intrusion. of the same period as that in the previous hoard.

Coins catalogued in Chapter 10 come from four additional hoards, all buried in the third century and thus useless for the chronology of these early staters. These hoards are Larnaca 1870 (IGCH 1472), buried ca. 300 B.C.; Malko Topolovo 1940 (IGCH 853), buried ca. 285-280;30 a new hoard of Philip II, Alexander III, and Lysimachus, buried after 281 B.C., found in Potidaea in 1984;31 and Anadol 1895 (IGCH 866), buried ca. 228-220.

26 See also Chapter 8, hoard 34. 27 Sardes and Miletus, pp. 72-73; Price also places the issue (Alexander 1785) midway in his ca. 319-310 Two earlier publications of the hoard are listed in IGCH. Note that in B. Mitrea, SCN 4 (1968), group. pp. 327-29, the reverse illustration of hoard coin 4 (from dies 09-T11) is a duplicate illustration of the reverse

coin 3 (not in the stater group here published). The correct reverse of hoard coin 4 is shown only in B. Mitrea, Omagiu lui P. Constantinescu-Iasi (Bucharest, 1965), pp. 73 79, at p. 76. 28 Philippe, pp. 268-69, 10, lists the 34 known coins. The identification of the two Alexander staters as part of series 2 is made possible by photos obtained by Georges Le Rider. 29 Sardes and Miletus, pp. 70-71, pi. 32 (all 24 coins illus.). 30 Now published in Kamen Dimitrov, "A Hoard of Gold Staters from Topolovo (IGCH 853)," Bulletin of the Museums in South Bulgaria 15 (1989), pp. 189-207 (partially illus., in Bulgarian with English abstract and summary). 31 Alexander, p. 58, now published by G. Le Rider, "Tresors de stateres d'or trouves a Potidee en 1984 et a Skione en 1985," RN 1991, pp. 89-96, at pp. 89 94. of hoard


1

51

11 5116

M 13

D

I II

1 1

77

11 2,

25

5 1 17 —

1 1

unc.

1 2

1 1 4

32 4 1 1 —

5 2 1 1 3

various civic reg nal

4 A 4 4 3

2 9 3 7 1

Sardes, Bab., 72-73 39/8; Sardes, Bab., 322321 322/1 —

4

1

1

1

M Paeonian kings and Philip to group after ca. 36

MAE; Unc.

II

of

A

18

A

1,

1,

9,

is

— — —

Colophon, Babylon, 36 36-31 M3

— —

3om"

fulmen

— — — —

— —

— Babylon, 36-33 M3; 33; Cyp; MAE —

In each hoard except the first bold type indicates the latest firmly datable coin or coins. There are many omissions of "ca.," which may be assumed for most dates. The following abbreviations are used: A&E, Africa and the East; Abyd., Abydus; Bab., Babylon; Cyp., Cyprus; Lamps., Lampsacus; Mac, Macedonia; Magn., Magnesia; SAM, Southern Asia Minor; S&P, Syria and Phoenicia; "Sidon," Sidon 1-7 (Alexander 345fM>6),whose attribution somewhat uncertain, see 116 above; Unc, uncertain; WAM, Western Asia Minor.

1

6 1

2,

7 1 1 2 5 5 1 2

3 11

1

1 A —

9,

trident; cantharus; fulmen

33 — — —

Aom" —

1

2

Bab, Abyd.,to 37; 36-35/4; M3 M3; AAE 33; Cvp; 3P; Unc. — M3;

1

33; Cvp; 3P; M&E; Unc.

1 M3; 33; 3P; AAE; Unc.

1

5 1 1 1

125

to 322/1

1

A M3;

— — —

3 3 1

M3; 33; 3P; AAE; Unc.

— — — —

fulmen; trident; trident-A

2 1 1

M3; Cy; I'nc.

6

73 on

— —

2 2

trident; fulmen

M3

— — — — —

— —

30+

AsiaMinor 1953 IGCH 1442

1

4 2,

A, — — — —

A

1

2

2

— —

A,

25,to 323/19

1

13,to 323/19

— Abyd. 37; M3

3

323/2

155 3 1

Fulmen;2-3 trident; shield; 1-4 fulmen; shield canth.; Pella — —

Lamps., 323/2-72/3 M3

Much

1

5 4

Other

21

A

4

73 on

1

— —

1 C 2

present 7M73

1

? 1?

1

73/2

2 1 Fulmen; shield

M4 M4

A

34 (known)

Varna 139 IGCH 7M

Glldiu 1M3 IGCH 774

2

Philip III

M

1

1

6B 7A73

1

1 37

shield; trident-A; others?

1

M3

3

1

3alamis 3idon 3idon Other

4 56 1

— —

? Lamps., 73 Magn.322

1

— —

2 1

421

— -

I 12,323on —

— — — — —

— —

7

XO

distaters Miletus

2

— —

1 ti 1

1

2 1 41

1

+ 18

— — —

M

53

Miletus, late 323 on; unc.

3

— — —

(AO

Paeonia 1M8 IGCH M3

2772

2

— fulmen(see commentary)

62 I3 —

16

— — —

XII

A 14

49 73 on — —

; —

2

5 — —

22 5 M

Oo r D

f,7 25

8

— — —

29

+

83 — —

1

9

17

3

Lot

C A

— —

42

— —

A

211 — —

3

Lot A4

B

7333+ known 6+ 17+ —

Fulmen

M

4

Alexander 3eries 3eries OtherMac. staters

2 73

3

Philip Philippe Philippe PhilippeIIIA Philippe IB OtherMints

3 Jas. Pol. 1M9 IGCH 111

or 13

— —

4 13

Philip Alexander PhilipIII Other

5 M

3

6 Commerce 193 1GCHLot

Trident, 12

Total Coins*

7

3aida Commerce 1829-1863 1993 IGCH 1508 IGCH -

8

Ruse 1952 IGCH -

Cantharus,

by ca. 315 B.C.

23

9

Mende 1983 IGCH -

with

Buried

Table

A

Corinth 3amovodeneBalkans 1933 1954 1M7 IGCH IGCH 395 1GCH-

Staters

Hoards

A

Hoard

Containing

Identifiable

Gold

to

o

p.

*


13.

GOLD DISCUSSION

AND CHRONOLOGY

THE LIFETIME STATERS So far, the die linkage and hoard evidence for the gold staters is fairly satisfactory. A portion (series 1 and 2, catalogued in Chapter 10) of the many staters known with the quintessential Macedonian symbols of cantharus, trident, and fulmen has been separated out. This distinct group differs from the other staters with these symbols in its iconography and in its unique tightly die linked structure so different from that of other similarly marked such coins, which are almost

never die linked with each other.

It differs

also in containing with virtually

no

the only coins with these symbols to appear in hoards buried around the time of Alexander's death â&#x20AC;&#x201D; i.e., hoards 1-6 or 1-7 in the previous chapter, ca. 323 or perhaps one or two years later. exceptions1

That series 1 and 2 must have been struck during Alexander's lifetime comes as no surprise. What is surprising is that, at least according to the hoard evidence, virtually no other staters with cantharus, trident, and fulmen symbols seem to have been lifetime strikings. These other staters' appearances in the slightly later hoards suggest that many of them at least were very early

posthumous

issues.

But just when during Alexander's life were the staters of series 1 and 2 minted ? In examining the meager and suggestive but far from conclusive evidence, I shall confine myself to the gold coins of Alexander and Philip II, for the silver output of the two kings seems to be a quite separate

phenomenon.

Modern numismatists tend to think in terms of the following pairs of emissions: Philip U s silver and gold, and Alexander's silver and gold. But, quite unusually in ancient numismatics, in the case of each of these monarchs' Macedonian outputs, the gold and silver struck by each do not bear similar markings. Philip's gold cannot be related by its issue markings to his silver, nor can Alexander's gold to his silver. Indeed, the gold's markings under both kings, chiefly these three symbols of cantharus, trident, and fulmen, were repeated again and again, at different times and places,2 while the two kings' silver strikings followed a more typical pattern with different markings, or groups of markings, succeeding each other in fairly orderly fashion. The relevant pairs to consider are not Philip's gold and silver, and Alexander's gold and silver, but Philip's silver and Alexander's silver, and Philip's gold and Alexander's gold. Common markings join each of these pairs: Alexander's tetradrachm group A repeats the symbols found on certain silver issues of Philip,3 and Alexander's gold repeats those of Philip's gold.4 The silver of the two kings was of course struck to different standards. Silver of both mon archs seems to have circulated together in Macedonia and in Greece proper. But Philip's silver, on its parochial local standard, was not struck and is not found overseas, while to the north of Macedonia it is found in much greater numbers than Alexander's Attic-weight coins.5 The silver of Philip and Alexander must be considered together, but the two series of strikings were not everywhere

interchangeable.

The two kings' gold, on the other hand, struck to the same standard, assuredly was.6 Today we ask of a given coin, where was it struck and by whom ? The ancients would ask, what is this 1 The fulmen staters struck at a secondary 2 Philips in Philippe polis II, III; fulmen,

in hoards 2 and 7, see the preceding chapter. That in hoard 2 was in all probability Macedonian mint, and hoard 7 was buried ca. 321 at the very earliest. : cantharus staters, Pella groups, II, III, Amphipolis III; trident, Pella II, III, AmphiPella II, III, Amphipolis II. For Alexander, see Chapter 12.

3 See p. 48. 4 See pp. 109-10. 5 E.g., the Paeonia hoard,

with its gold of both kings, (Chapter 12, hoard 10, and Table 23). 6 See Table 23, in particular the Saida hoard.

but silver only of Philip and of Paeonian kings


13.

Chronology

123

coin worth to me in the marketplace? The names and images on the coins must have been irrelevant to their users — Philip II's and Alexander's gold were clearly interchangeable. This is why Philip's gold can be found everywhere together with Alexander's. Indeed, in the second century B.C. all Macedonian staters, no matter by whom issued, were known by the general term nummi aurei philippei (or axaTTjpE*; XPUCT0' yOhzivzioi) and the same term may well have been in use also in the early hellenistic period, although recent apparent proof of this no longer seems valid.7 none conclusive, provide the only help in dating the Alexander they are A) the Corinth hoard, B) the known dates of other Alexander gold strikings, C) what is known of the Philip II gold, and D) the wear on certain hoard coins. Several

types

of evidence,

staters of series 1 and 2.

A. The Corinth Hoard This hoard until recently seemed to provide a firm terminus ante quem for the staters of series It is the only hoard known containing Alexander's gold which could have been buried during his lifetime, and its first proposed burial date of ca. 327 or perhaps a year or two later appeared to indicate that these staters were all struck by ca. 328, in the early years of Alex ander's reign. But the reasons for dating its interment so early now seem to be not so convinc ing,8 and there are new reasons for questioning a lifetime buriai. Thomas Martin has very reasonably argued that the circumstances of Corinth's burial — together with a gold necklace, and in the basement of a stoa perhaps occupied by Macedonian troops — point not to a circulation but to a savings deposit, and thus that the hoard is useless in any case for the chronology of its contents.9 If he is right, of course, there is no point at all in discussing the Corinth hoard. But whether or not he is correct here, his cautions about savings deposits are especially relevant to all gold hoards — often coins in that precious metal received relatively little circulation and wear and gold deposits in general often contain coins in excellent condition struck over considerable periods of time. More important, perhaps, the more recently discovered hoards 2-5 in the previous chapter (Samovodene, Balkans, Mende, and Ruse) now provide illuminating comparisons to Corinth. At first, only a portion of Samovodene was known, which did not include its two post-323 staters with Philip II's types. Understandably, Samovodene was, because of its remarkable resem blance to Corinth, believed to have been buried at approximately the same time (i.e., in the early or mid-320s). Dimitrov's full listing of Salovodene's contents now shows that it must be brought down to after 323 B.C., because of the two late Philips. A glance at Table 23 will show that Samovodene's inclusion of only two late coins is analogous to the compositions of Balkans, Ruse, and Mende, all interred ca. 323 or a bit later. Only two of Samovodene's 67 coins can be dated later than ca. 330 B.C. (or perhaps ca. 327);10 only one of Balkans' 29 and one of Ruse's four to later than that date; and only one to three of Mende's 80 to later than 327, but in each of these four hoards those one to three late coins were struck after 323. One may well suspect that only chance may have kept Corinth too from including one or two post-323 coins, and that it also might be considered as interred only after 323. 1 and 2.

7 M. B. Hatzopoulos, Actes de vente d'Amphipolis, Meletemata 14 (Athens, 1991), inscriptions VII, X.A, and XI, and commentary on pp. 84-85. Georges Le Rider has pointed out that Hatzopoulos's restora

X.B

tion 85 CTTai7)pcov[xpuacov <piAi7r7Te£]cov [AeyaXcovin X.B could equally well be restored with [xputrcov <xXei;av8pe£], "La date des premiers stateres d'or de Philippe," in Xagaxrrig (above, p. 113, n. 6), p. 268. As these 85 "large staters" are shown by inscription X.A to be equivalent to 170 regular arar^goi (fikavneioi, and as Philip issued no distaters, it had seemed that Alexander distaters must have been involved, and called "large Philips." But the alternate restoration suggested by Le Rider, with which he reports Hatzopoulos concurs, destroys the Nevertheless, such a name seeming proof that these particular Alexanders were actually called "Philips." remains possible, and perhaps even probable, in the light of known second-century practice. 8 See pp. 115-16. 9 See p. 115, n. 1. 10 See p. 116 for comments

on the undated

"Sidon"

staters.


II. Alexander's Lifetime Gold

124

Le Rider also notes the heavy die linkage among the Philips in Corinth, especially among the which suggested that their striking preceded the hoard's burial by a rather short time." Similar heavy die linkage is found also, however, in other hoards. There are 19 die links, obverse and reverse, among the 41 Macedonian Philips in Corinth, but also 19 Even the considerably later Varna deposit (hoard among the 51 similar coins of Samovodene. coins from Amphipolis,

11)

has 11 among

30 such coins.12

The only significant difference between Corinth and other hoards with large numbers of Philip II coins seems to be the varying proportions in each from different portions of Le Rider's groups II at Pella and Amphipolis (both cities' groups I are early and very small, and their groups III of course fall after Alexander's death). Le Rider divides his Pella group II into II. 1 and 1I.2. II. 1, with 124 obverse dies employed for coins bearing cantharus, trident, and fulmen symbols, is the largest stater group in his entire study. 1 I.2, which shares one obverse die with II. 1, employed but 18 obverse dies for its four other symbols.13 Le Rider considers 1 I.2 a subsidiary group of Pella issues whose chronology in relation to II.1 is uncertain. Amphipolis's group II is not formally subdivided by Le Rider, but he notes that the last two of its ten issues were, unlike the first eight, struck in parallel rather than sequentially.14 For the sake of discussion, these first eight issues, which employed 48 obverse dies, are here called "II. A," and the last two, which used 30 obverses, "II. B." Table 24 compares the contents of the five hoards which contained significant numbers of group II Philips.

Table Philippe Group Obv. Dies

Pella II.1 Pella I I.2 Amphipolis Amphipolis

"II.A" "II.B"

II

24

Gold Coins in Selected

Corinth Coins

Hoards

Coins

Balkans Coins

Samovodine

Mende

Coins

Varna Coins

124

5

24

10

19

18

8

5

1

16

48

7

19

11

15

11

30

21

3

2

6

3

16

In Corinth the numbers of coins from Pella 1 I.2 and Amphipolis II.B are higher than the from the larger Pella II.1 and Amphipolis II.1. This situation is the reverse of that in each of the other four hoards, where the number of coins in each sub-group bears some vague if varying relation to the original number of dies used for each sub-group. Further, 17 of the 19 die links in the Corinth hoard are from Amphipolis's II.B, which followed II.A. Although this may be simply a consequence of the high relative representation of this subgroup (21 coins from a group employing only 30 obverse dies), still the concentration here sets Corinth apart from Samovodene, Balkans, and Mende. Why ? It may simply be that the reason is purely geograph ical as Corinth is the only mainland Greek hoard location, while the other hoards were all from the north. As an aside, one may also wonder if perhaps Philippe's Pella II. 2, or perhaps Amphipolis II.B, each joined by only one obverse to its preceding group of issues, could have actually been struck numbers

11 Philippe,

p. 430. single die used with two coins is counted as one link; with three coins, as two; and with four, as three. The photographs of the Mende hoard coins (see Appendix 2) are often not clear enough to allow positive die identification, and so the number of die links in that hoard cannot be given. 13 I omit the last two small issues listed in Philippe from I I.2 (p. 170, 393-97) from but three unconnected obverse dies, as Le Rider seems to doubt strongly that they truly belong to II. 2 (p. 417). They occur in no known hoards. 14 Philippe, pp. 425^26. 12 A


13.

Chronology

125

at Corinth, where Antipater and his successors maintained a garrison.

A mint at Corinth itself would nicely explain Pella II.2's or Amphipolis II.B's high representation in the Corinth hoard, whenever it was buried. But this is mere conjecture. We are unfortunately left with no real confidence that its burial had to be earlier than ca. 323 B.C., and thus that it can be taken as proof that stater series 1 and 2 must necessarily antedate Alexander's death by a number of years. However, the tentative conclusion reached later in this chapter is that the early 320s are indeed the most probable time for their emission. B. Other Alexander

Gold

Few Alexander mints struck gold before 323 BC. Sidon's issues 1-7 were given by Newell to the years immediately before 330, but the Sidonian attribution and early dating are both quite The earliest dated Sidonian gold is of year 7, 327/6 B.C., although this was probably preceded by the small undated issues Sidon 11-14 and 19. No gold is known, however, to the silver dated years 1 and 2, 333/2 and 332/1 B.C., so that it is a fair corresponding that Sidon's gold started only after its silver, perhaps 330-328. The situation is assumption similar at Ake where no gold corresponds to the earliest silver, again of 333/2 and 332/1. These two cities, of course, furnish the only dated series struck during Alexander's lifetime. At Tarsus, the first two of the three groups of staters which Newell assigned to his series I, ca. 333-327, are composed of his issues Tarsos 12-15 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; in the present study reattributed to Macedonia. Hence no Tarsiote gold can be reasonably assigned to earlier than ca. 330. At Salamis, Newell himself was firm that the earliest strikings imitated our series 2.16 If so, the Salamis coins cannot be placed earlier than our staters and do not help in dating them, and one would suspect that other Cypriot mints initiated their gold at the same time as Salamis. Thompson dates the opening of the mint at Sardes to ca. 330, the earliest of any Asia Minor mint. But so early a date depended in part on assigning three years to the issuance of Sardes series IV-VI and perhaps III and, as she notes, "the time span may have been even shorter."17 All in all, there seems no need to believe that any Alexander gold struck overseas antedated ca. 330 B.C. questionable.15

C.

Philip II's Gold

Le Rider in Philippe tentatively assigned a terminus ante quem of 328 B.C. to Philippe's II because the Corinth hoard was at the time of his writing believed buried ca. 327. 18 This burial date is now quite uncertain, as discussed in the previous chapter, and it may well be 323 or later. The dates of Philip's Pella staters, struck either late in his lifetime or early in that of Alex ander, and those of the Alexander series 1 and 2 are obviously related.19 But even aside from absolute dates the question is, how are the staters of the two kings related? With the same symbols, used in similarly die linked fashion, and with exactly the same standard so that in the marketplace they were equivalent, did one necessarily replace the other? Or could they not have been struck simultaneously, or alternately ? Note that both series continued, or resumed, after Alexander's death. And, again, note that in early hellenistic Macedonia, as in later centu ries, Alexander's staters may have been known as CTxar5jpe<; xpuaoL (pMnneioi.2" group

15 See p. 116. 16 Tarsos, p. 24. were indeed

Despite Thompson's comments (p. 118, above, n. 18) I believe that Newell's Salamis 1-5 the earliest emissions of the mint and expect to publish the evidence in a planned festschrift

honoring Georges 17 Sardes

Le Rider.

and Miletus, p. 10. 18 Philippe, p. 429-430. 19 See pp. 109-10. 20 See p. 123.


II. Alexander's Lifetime Gold

126

It

is thus not at all clear that the introduction of gold with Alexander's types and name must even a temporary cessation of the coins with Philip's types and name.

Certainly probably shortly after 323, Philip's gold was over whelmingly predominant over Alexander's Macedonian strikings, with a total of 174 staters of Philippe groups I and II compared to only 19 Macedonian Alexander staters. The heavy die linkage in Alexander's series 1 and 2 suggests that this coinage must have been produced over a quite short period of time. It seems entirely possible, even probable, that staters of Philip's types continued to be struck at least sporadically until the end of Alexander's reign. have produced

in the first four hoards

of Table 23, buried

D. The Wear on Certain Hoard Coins Among the eight earliest gold hoards of Table 23, those most probably buried by shortly after 323, three (Corinth, Balkans, and Ruse) show no helpful disparity in wear between the coins of latest coins, and the contents of Saida are not known in detaii. But the wear in the four other hoards may be instructive.21 Six of Samovodene's seven series 1 and 2 coins are illustrated here (series 1: 469, 475 ; series 2: 477, 494, 503, and Plate 25, P). All show a good amount of wear, particularly when compared series 1 and 2 and the hoards'

to the two post-323 Philip

Q-R), both

in superb

II

staters which date the hoard (Samovodene

28 and 29, Plate 25,

condition.

By far the most worn coin in the Mende hoard is its 73, from series 2 (519 ; Plate 29, 73), particularly when compared to the hoard's latest coins, a post-323 Philip II stater (Plate 29, 61) and contemporary Alexanders (Plate 29, 74-75), all in excellent condition. Commerce 1993 seems to have been interred a few years later than Samovodene and Mende, perhaps 320 B.C., so its evidence is not as strong as that of those two deposits. But its coin 20 (Plate 30, 20), from series 2, was considered in only EF condition by the dealer offering it, while the bulk of the hoard coins were termed MS (mint state) or near-MS. Comparison of coin 20 with the other two Macedonian Alexander staters in the hoard (Plate 30, 21-22) shows it is far more worn. Coin 20 was also offered at the lowest price of any of the hoard coins, save only the rather wretched coin 42, struck from flawed dies. In Commerce 1994, buried perhaps as late as 318, and thus also of lesser importance, the only two of the 26 staters with fulmen, cantharus, or trident symbols considered to be a grade lower

VF or Good VF/VF+ were one each of series 1 and series 2.22 Wear cannot be quantified, of course, but a reasonable deduction is that series 1 and 2 were not struck during the great outpouring of silver coin which occurred throughout Alexander's empire from 325 on, but that they antedated Alexander's death by quite a few years. As already noted, their tight die linkage suggests a fairly short period of emission. than

The only conclusion the present writer can draw about the dates of series 1 and 2 is thus unfortunately the rather imprecise one that they were minted at some time or times between ca. 336 and ca. 323 B.C., and perhaps nearer to 332 than to 323. Alexander's gold and silver strikings, like those of this father, bore no obvious relationship to each other, as has been several times in this study. Even if Alexander's silver started no earlier than emphasized reason why his earliest gold cannot even have preceded his initial silver. But perhaps the most likely date for the introduction of series 1 and 2 falls after By 327, at any rate, overseas gold was certainly being 332, when the silver coinage commenced. struck. ca. 332, there seems no decisive

21 Hoards 2, 4, 7, and 8 in Chapter 12. 22 See p. 143.


13.

OTHER CANTHARUS,

Chronology

127

TRIDENT, AND FULMEN STATERS

Not yet fully discussed is another striking feature of Table 23. Leaving aside Saida, whose Macedonian component is effectively unknown, in the first five hoards of Table 23 there are 19 Macedonian staters of series 1 and 2,23 and only one single Macedonian stater of the more numerous others bearing the same symbols: the slightly worn fulmen stater in Samovodene.24 This coin is exceptional in that it belongs to a small group of fulmen staters of unusually homogeneous style, two of whose obverses are used also for coins with the unusual shield sym boi.25 Dimitrov has plausibly suggested that this Samovodene fulmen stater was struck at a in Samovodene.26 mint other than that which produced the series 1 and 2 staters These obverse-linked fulmen and shield staters, with their accompanying similarly obverselinked fractions,27 may then be from a second Macedonian mint. They may have commenced shortly before 323, but must have been struck for the most part in following years. The shield certainly appear in abundance in the Commerce 1994 hoard (Plate 31,27-31). significant, however, than this Samovodene fulmen stater is the remarkable fact just mentioned that, except for this stater, of the nineteen staters of series 1 and 2 and the distaters of the Mende hoard, not one single Alexander gold coin with the common symbols of cantharus, trident, or fulmen appears in any of the first five hoards of Table 23, those buried by 323 B.C. or a very few years later. Staters with these markings not included in series 1 and 2 are far more numerous than those in these two series;28 had they been struck much before 323 they would staters

More

have appeared in these early hoards. They first occur, and in quantity, accompanied by relatively few examples of series 1 and 2, in hoards 7-13, those buried perhaps 320-315. One must conclude that these "other" Alexander staters with cantharus, trident, and fulmen symbols, absent from the earliest hoards, were in surely

large part posthumous

strikings. Another interesting observation is the very few obverse links between symbols among these other, later, gold staters. There are also, as the present author's examination has shown, very few reverse links between obverse dies as well as many minor variations in, particular, obverse style.29 These "other" coins' absence in the early hoards of Table 23 together with their pres ence in six of the seven latest hoards there suggests a rather short period of striking. The variety of obverse styles in Commerce 1994 (see Plate 31) suggests that their output may have been largely completed by that hoard's burial date of perhaps 318, or very shortly after. They thus would have spanned the aproximate time, ca. 324-319, when the present author believes the Unlike the silver, however, the lack of die heaviest silver production of Amphipolis occurred. links and the varying styles suggest that the large output of these "other" staters may have been produced in a number of workshops, even perhaps in different mints.

23 This section

concerns

excludes those mentioned 24 "Balkan Peninsula,"

itself only with the coins of these symbols included in Table 19 on p. 100. on p. 100, note b. 52; here Plate 25, Samovodene

It

M. Note that 52's illustration in "Balkan Penin sula" is an error, a duplicate of that of hoard coin 57. 25 E.g., Plate 25, N and O. Note also that a stater of this shield issue was present in the Saida hoard. 26 "Balkan Peninsula," p. 104. 27 See p. 100, Table 19. 28 See Table 19. 29 Table 19 shows the paucity of obverse links between Plate 25, E-H, and Plate 31, 11-26 show symbols. the varying obverse styles. See also pp. 110-11 for the classification of the coins illustrated in Alexander.


II. Alexander's Lifetime Gold

128

DISTATERS In Chapter 11 three groups of Macedonian distaters were distinguished: A, the bulk of the coins with the usual cantharus, trident, and fulmen symbols (22 known obverse dies and little linkage between symbols); B, coins with marking of fulmen and A, previously attributed to Sicyon (6 known obverse dies); and C, with the markings of A (3 known dies and tight linkage). The Mende hoard appears to show, at a minimum, that groups A and B had been struck by 323 or very shortly after. The heavy linkage among only the group B coins there suggests that they were produced later than group A, and very shortly before the hoard's buriai. Group C, however, with the same markings as group A, is first known to appear (again with die linkage) in Commerce 1993, buried after 321 at the very earliest, and Gildau, interred after 316.

It

almost

surely

is the latest

of the three groups.

Whether any or all of these distater groups emanated from the mint of the early stater series 1 and 2 is unclear, but the proportional use of the three symbols by group A, the largest and probably the earliest, is extremely similar to that of series 1 and 2, at least as measured by the numbers of obverse dies used with each symboi.30 On the other hand, A's obverses resemble those of certain "other" fulmen and shield staters more than they do those of series 1 and 2.31

SUMMARY Some staters formerly attributed to Tarsus (Tarsos 12-15) were struck in Macedonia, perhaps at Pella. They are part of a tightly die linked sub-group of staters with cantharus, trident, and fulmen symbols. The hoards show that this sub-group was struck during Alexander's lifetime, perhaps in the years following 332 B.C. The more numerous staters with the same symbols, and those with shield symbol, were probably largely early posthumous. Their many stylistic differ ences and lack of die links raise the possibility that they were struck at a number of mints. The small amount of hoard evidence available seems to show that the bulk of the distaters

with the trident, and fulmen was also struck during Alexander's lifetime, although a small emission with the same markings was produced after his death. Distaters and staters with fulmen and A (Sicyon 6-8) need not be associated with other Sicyon issues. They appear from the hoards to have been lifetime issues, probably of some mint in Macedonia, but their exact place of issue, like that or those of the staters with cantharus, trident, and fulmen markings, remains unclear. The present study has produced some limited results, but, failing important new evidence, the mint attributions and exact chronology of most of Alexander's Macedonian gold remain unclear. One thing abundantly clear, however, is that it is unwarranted to consider Alexander's gold staters or distaters with cantharus, trident, or fulmen symbols as an "issue": a variety, yes, but not an "issue" if by such we mean a discrete output produced at one given time and place. common symbols of cantharus,

30 See p. 100, Table 19. 31 Compare 531-36 with Plate 25,

M-O.


APPENDICES The convenient

abbreviations devised by Price for Alexander are used with the addition of one II. They indicate the placement of the reverse markings.

more needed for coins of Philip

LF

to left

LW RW

to left,

RF

TH

EX BL

wing, on gold to right, below wing, on gold to right below

below below

APPENDIX COMMERCE

1993

throne,

on silver

in exergue horses'

bellies,

on Philip

II

gold

1

HOARD, TETRADRACHMS

In the spring of 1993 two lots of early Alexander tetradrachms appeared on the United States The obvious similarities and numerous die links between the two lots (A, 50 coins, and B, 23 and a probable intrusion) prove their common origin. At first there seemed a possibility that the tetradrachms derived from the same deposit as the Near East 1993 hoard of Alexander drachms, also very early strikings, which surfaced at about the same time.1 One very knowledgeable and reliable dealer, however, saw all the coins in their original condition before they left Europe and reported that the surface appearance of the tetradrachms was quite different from that of the drachms. Therefore the two denominations probably derive from two separate deposits. Their burial dates, however, are so similar that their evidence for the Amphipolis mint is the same. No information as to the hoard's provenance could be obtained. Its contents are extremely varied, and its large Amphipolis component is no different from that found in most Alexander hoards wherever buried. Even the many coins of Lampsacus, given that port's importance as a place of embarkation for returning soldiery at the time of the hoard's burial (ca. 323-322 B.C.), is not decisive. "Commerce 1993" seems the only possible description. In the catalogue, A or B indicates the lot to which each coin belonged. Celator references are to non-numbered illustrations on the back cover of The Celator, July 1993. Group letters and issue numbers given for the Amphipolis coins are to the present work. Brackets to left or right indicate obverse or reverse die identities. All coins (except 62, from the dies of 61) are illustrated on Plates 26-28, where they are identified by hoard coin numbers. A more detailed catalogue, with most weights and die axes, is on file at the ANS. market.

Amphipolis 1 2 3 4

B A A B

LF LF LF LF

prow r. prow l. fulmen. ivy leaf.

Alexander

1.

Alexander

4.

Al. Al.

8.

A4.

Alexander

Berk 80,

18

Jan.

1994, 54 = Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 63. Alexander

B6.

7

B B A

8

A

9

A A

5 6

10

LF LF LF LF LF LF

1 Chapter 8, hoard

caduceus.

quiver. Pegasus bow.

Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 64. Alexander 32. B8. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 65. Alexander 38. C2. forepart. Alexander 44. C5.

Celator.

Alexander

48.

C6.

Macedonian shield. Alexander 57. D2. caduceus over isi. Alexander 66. D7. 7.

23.


Appendix

130

11

A

12

A

13

A B B B

A A

LF LF

crescent.

A

As As As As As As As

18.

18

L20" r21 L

Alexander

22

"

-

23 24 25

-

J

A A B A A B

78.

Alexander

17

-19-

-

cock.

16

15

-

herm.

As As As As

14

r

LF LF

79.

1

E2. E3.

12. 12. 12.

Berk 82, Berk 78,

July

13

8 Sept.

1994, 205 = Berk 78, 8 Sept.

1993, 66.

1993, 67.

12.

89. E7.

Alexander

bucranium. Alexander

93.

E8.

18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18.

Berk 78,

8 Sept.

1993, 68.

Uncertain Greece or Macedonia2 A A

26 27

LF youthful figure (athlete? boxer?). Alexander As 26. Sicyon 3.5 (A4-P7).

187. Sicyon A3 = A5: new rev.

Lampsacus A A B

28 29 30

LF LF LF

caduceus. caduceus;

Alexander

TH N.

Demeter standing,

1342.

Alexander

I.1: new rev. Lampsacus 1345. Lampsacus I. 2a.

holding two torches.

Alexander

1351. Lampsacus

V: new

dies.

r31

A

32

A

L

r33

A A B A

L34 r 35 L

-

-

r

-

36 37 -I 38

J

39 -i 40

-42 -

V.22: same rev.

30.

Lampsacus

30.

Lampsacus

V.22:

new rev.

30.

Lampsacus

V.23:

same rev.

30.

Lampsacus

V.23:

new rev.

30.

Lampsacus

V.25: new rev.

30. Lampsacus V.25: rev. of Lampsacus 24, a die to which was later added the of 37-46 below, becoming the rev. of Lampsacus 25b.

monogram

-41

L

As As As As As As

J

-I

J

43

44 45 46

B

LF

Demeter

Lampsacus

A

B A A A

As As As As As As As As As

B A A

LF LF LF

A A B

A

on 30;

as

TH

8.

Berk 78,

8

Sept.

1993, 69.

Alexander

1355.

V.27.

37. 37.

Lampsacus

V.28:

new rev.

37. 37.

Berk 78,

8 Sept.

1993, 70.

Lampsacus

V.28:

new rev.

37. Lampsacus V.28: new rev. V.28: new rev.

37.

Celator.

37.

Lampsacus

37.

Lampsacus

V.29: new rev.

37.

Lampsacus

V.32:

new rev.

Miletus 47 48 49

Celator. Miletus I, but the issue is not in Alexander fulmen; TH H. Alexander 2086. Miletus I.24: new rev. grain ear. Alexander 2099. Miletus 1 1 I. 136a.

H.

2 Sicyon: Demanhur, der, pp. 109-10.

pp. 34-35, 75-80;

Macedonia:

or Miletus.

"Peloponnesian Alexanders," p. 44; Aegae (?): Alexan


Commerce 1993 hoard, Tetradrachms

131

A

LF Tl ; TH A. The right vertical stroke of the n is faint, but definitely present. must be from The issue, with the n to not in Alexander or Tarsos, although series The ANS possesses coin from the same dies, but with the incom pletely erased. TH TH

52

n

issue

4.

series

I,

Tarsos

to inner r., globule,

Alexander

3019.

Tarsos series

II,

issue 29.

(Soli)3

B

53

3000.

TH O;

plow;

LF

prow r. Celator.

A

"Amathus"

Alexander

B.

LF

Tc;

Berk

78,

8

51

a

I.

it

i., is

50

A A

Tarsus

1993,71.

Sept.

Alexander 3094; obv. die of 3091.

Citium 54

RF

EX

AAEEANAPO A, issue 4. group

BAZIAEQZ;

I,

anders" series

[sic].

Alexander 3107.

"Cypriote Alex

A

55

LF

dove.

B A

Paphos

LF

bow.

Alexander 3116.

As 56.

"Cypriote Alexanders" series

3139.

Berk 78,

Sept.

issue

7.

Alexander

Celator.

8

56

57

I,

Salamis 1993, 72.

LF LF

As 59. Berk 78,

forepart; TH globule and AA. Alexander 3203. ram forepart; TH AA and four globules. Celator. Berk 80, 18 Berk 78, Sept. 1993, 73. Alexander 3209. ram

Jan.

1994, 55 =

8

59

B A

58

B

Damascus

A

r

61

(Issus

1993, 74.

?)4

LF ÂŤ; TH

EX

RF

AAEEANAPOY. Alexander 3222. MyrThis obverse not known in issue 21 in Myriandros, but occurs in issues 20 (the same markings and inscription except that the inscription simply AAEEANAPO) and 22 (see 63 below, without the rtl;

series

III,

and

BAZIAEQZ

issue 21, obv.

IX.

Myriandros series

III,

is

iandros

is

Myriandrus

Sept.

8

60

66 67

LF ÂŤ; TH

Itl.

Alexander

3223.

issue 22.

TH

M. Alexander 3240. As 64. TH O. Alexander 3244. As 66, but obv. IX.

Ake series Ake series

II,

issue issue

3,

?5

obv.

6,

65

Tyre A A A A

r

64

L

Ake

?

63

title). As 61.

I,

A A

62

obv.

IV. V.

a

is

6)

3

The present author's "Staters, Serendipity and Soli" in Xagaxr^g (above, p. 113, n. shows that the the Cypriot Soli. "Alexanders from Soli on Cyprus," to appear in proper mint of the prow-symbol coins forthcoming festschrift honoring Martin Price, contains her discussion of the prow-symbol coins in all three metals.

5

1

4

J. D. Bing has recently argued strongly for Issus rather than Myriandrus in "Reattribution 'Myriandrus' Alexanders: The Case for Issus," AJN, Second Series, (1989), pp. 1-32. See p. 84.

of the


Appendix

132

LF

B

68

HO.

Berk 78,

8 Sept.

1

1993, 75. Alexander 3248.

Ake series

III,

issue 10, dies

X-e.

Aradus 69

B

LF

A

LF

A B

LF LF

Z; TH

A; EX

BAZIAEQZ.

Alexander

3316.

Byblos 70

A. A lexander 3426, where Price notes that the attribution to Byblos is "very doubtfui."

Babylon 71

72

TH M. Alexander 3581. "Babylon Mint" issue I. kylix; TH 1*1 over M. Celator. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, "Babylon Mint" issue II. <D;

76.

Alexander 3654.

Memphis

LF

B

73

TH

Rose;

and

RF

AIO.

Alexander

3971.

"Ptolemy,"

series A, issue

II.

Also purchased by the dealer who owned lot B was an extremely well-preserved tetradrachm of Ake of year 32, Alexander 3283 (Celator; Berk 79, 2 Nov. 1993, 103). Struck 316/5 B.C. (Sidon and Ake) or 315/4 (Alexander), coins, it was judged an intrusion.

six or seven years later than any of the 73 certain hoard

The latest coins of most mints present in the hoard have been thought to date from 323 B.C. or a few years earlier both by the original studies of their mints (where such exist) and by Martin Price in Alexander. In general, only mints whose latest coins might be a bit later are discussed below.

of Amphipolis is placed last. Greece or Macedonia. Noe in Sicyon assigned a large group of issues to 318, but 26-27 are from the first tetradrachm issue there. Alexander places them

Discussion

Uncertain

330/325-ca. first in a group

given

to 336-323.

Lampsacus. Thompson

in Lampsacus and Abydus dated series V to 325/4-324/3. Twentythree obverses were known to her. This hoard's 17 series V coins are from one new die, whose

it at the head of the series (coin 30), and from seven of Thompson's first 13 Her final ten dies in series V are not represented in this hoard. If series V is correctly dated, these hoard coins, all from the earlier half of its dies, may be considered to have been struck in 325-324. Miletus. Thompson in Sardes and Miletus dated series III to 323/2 B.C. and Alexander places it similarly. A date after 323 is required only by the somewhat uncertain assumption that staters of Philip II's types were associated with series I at this mint,6 but in any case hoard evidence places series III approximately to this time. "Amathus," Gitium, Paphos, Salamis. Any of these imprecisely dated coins may have been struck shortly after 323, where Alexander seems to place them all, but no really satisfactory style clearly places dies.

evidence

exists.

Byblos. This from

coin, too (the only one in the hoard showing after 323, but the issue is not precisely dated.

See Alexander,

p. 276.

I share Price's reservations.

Zeus with crossed legs) could date


Commerce

1993

hoard, Tetradrachms

133

Aradus. Coin

69's issue is placed, although early, in Alexander's ca. 328-320 group. It pre ceded the Aradus issue with caduceus (Alexander 3332), whose accompanying drachm issue (3333) was present in the Near East 1993 Hoard interred ca. 322,7 and it thus should be dated no

later than ca. 323. The great bulk of Commerce 1993 thus was struck by 323: only a very few coins may be a year or so later. Its large Amphipolis component ending with the many die linked coins of group E accords far better with the present author's downdating of group E to ca. 324-323 B.C. than with Newell's date of 328-327 for that group.

Amphipolis.

7 "Near

East" coin 1399.


APPENDIX MENDE

1983

2

HOARD, GOLD

Georges Le Rider has obtained photographs of this hoard of 80 gold coins, 62 staters of Philip

III (10 distaters and 8 staters). No weights or die axis positions Professor Le Rider has generously provided the photographs and allowed me to publish this account of the hoard, whose evidence as to the date of Alexander's earliest gold is important even if not conclusive.1 The coins are listed below. The quality of the photographs (some roughly life-size, some at various magnifications) of the Philip coins is often insufficient to allow exact die identification, either in comparisons with other hoard coins or with the die numbers given in Philippe. Pro fessor Le Rider and I are in accord, however, that no Macedonian Philips are later than Phi lippe's groups II. The photographs of the Alexander coins are somewhat clearer, but unfortunately all are also enlarged. As noted, some of the distater reverses lack photos, but the coins' mints and issues are not in doubt. Illustrations on Plate 29 are thus in many cases only approximations of the coins' true sizes. Because of the generally low clarity of the photographs only a selection is shown. A few of the more significant coins are also illustrated at 2x magnification. All photographs are on file at the ANS. All the coins are staters except 63-72 (distaters). See Chapter 1 1 for discussion of their groups A-B. The groups and dies given for the Philip II coins are those in Philippe. Asterisks indicate varieties illustrated on Plate 29. II

and 18 coins of Alexander

were secured.

PHILIP II Pella Group IC

BL BL

1-3 4

Group

grapes.

2 and

3 are die duplicates.

grasshopper.

1 I. 1

BL BL

5-9 10-15*

fulmen.

cantharus. The obv. die of 10 (probably D44) is known in Philippe only with 13 is from the obv. of 8, retouched. symbol. trident. 21-23 are from the same obv., 23 and 24 from the same rev.

fulmen

BL

16-24*

Group

1 I.2

25 26* 27* 28

29-34 1 See p. 126.

BL BL

prow.

prow ( ?). The rev. is probably Philippe's R268. It and R269 are the only two prow revs, known in Philippe. Obv. die of 25. Rev. die of 26, with symbol recut to Nike. The rev. again seems to be R268, known in Philippe only with prow, but here recut. As 27. R269'. Philippe's R269 has a prow symboi. On R269' the symbol has been recut to Nike. BL Nike. 30-32 are from the same obv., 33-34 from the same rev.


Mende

1983

Hoard, Gold

135

BL BL

lion's skin. profile shield. 37-40 are from the same obv., 37-39 from the same rev., and 36 and 40 from another rev.

35

36-40*

Amphipolis Group 41-42 43-44 45

46-49* 50-54* 55*

56-60

II BL BL BL BL BL BL BL

grain kernei. club.

BL

Pf.

BL

uncertain or no marking.

caduceus.

ivy leaf. 51-52 are from the same obv.

crescent.

grain ear. trident.

Miletus 61*

Cf. Miletus 22-23 (different dies), from series I, dated to 325-323 B.C.

Uncertain 62

III

ALEXANDER Macedonia Distater Group A 63* 64*

LF

fulmen. Alexander 163. Probably as 63. Only the obv. photo was included, but the die is known to have been used for 12 fulmen coins and 1 cantharus coin, strongly suggesting that 64 also bore a fulmen.

65* 66*

LF LF

cantharus.

trident.

Alexander Alexander

167.

171.

Distater Group B 67*

LF

68*

As As As As As

69* 70* 71* 72*

67.

LW A. Obv. of 67. Obv. of 67.

67.

Sicyon

67.

Sicyon

fulmen; 67.

67.

A10;

191. Sicyon A8-P14. A8; no rev. photo. All (= A8, retouched?); no rev. photo.

Alexander Sicyon Sicyon

no rev. photo.

A13-P26. Obv. of 71. Sicyon A13; new rev.

Stater

LF

fulmen.

74*

LF

H.

75*

Obv. below,

73*

Alexander

164

or 164A.

This study's series

2,

014-F1.

Miletus Alexander

Miletus series I, 13-14. (off flan); LW h. Alexander 2079.

2078.

fulmen

Miletus series I,

18.

"Sidon"2 76-77

Obv. on helmet, griffin; RW club.

Alexander 3460. Sidon

same obv. See p. 116 above

for questioning the attribution

to Sidon.

4.

76-77 are from the


Appendix

136

78

Obv.

as

76.

Obv. Obv.

as

76.

as

76.

RW

grain

kernei.

2

Alexander

3464.

Sidon

6.

Sidon 79

80*

The Mende (74-75). ered the

RW filleted palm branch. LW H; RW filleted palm

hoard's latest

coins

Alexander branch.

are the Miletus staters

3470.

Sidon

Alexander 3472.

11.

Sidon

13.

II (61) and Alexander 325-323 B.C. Thompson consid

of Philip

All are in Miletus series I, dated by Thompson to ca. Philip II issue as struck "in the beginning of the reign

of Philip III," i.e., at the earliest burial date of 323 or a few years later.3 The hoard has two especially interesting features. One is Macedon's series 2 Alexander stater (73), whose extremely worn condition â&#x20AC;&#x201D; it is by far the most worn coin in the hoard â&#x20AC;&#x201D; provides valuable evidence for the start of Alexander's gold. One may question the evidence of a single coin, but it is still highly suggestive of a date fairly early in Alexander's reign. The second remarkable feature is the presence of the ten distaters from an uncertain Macedo nian mint or mints, four of group A (63-66), and six of group B (67-72) with markings of fulmen and A. Mende is the earliest known hoard in which Alexander's distaters occur, and there can be little doubt that at least those of group A were lifetime emissions. The close die linkage among those of group B seems to show that they were somewhat later emissions than those of group A. in late 323 B.C, so that coin 61 furnishes

the hoard's

3 Sardes and Miletus, pp. 33 and 66, in connection with a Philip II issue at Sardes. The association of the Philip II coins with Miletus, however, and thus also the dating of series I, is subject to some question. As Price notes (Alexander, p. 276) the Philips' monogram is not quite that of the Milesian Alexanders, and at least one of the Philips' dies is shared with coins of Magnesia of slightly later date. I share Price's reserva tions, but in any case hoard evidence places Miletus series I to approximately 323 B.C.


APPENDIX COMMERCE

1993

3

HOARD, GOLD

Photographs, weights, and professional assessments of most coins' states of preservation were provided by Harlan Berk, to whom I am greatly indebted for enabling this hoard to be put on record. No information about the hoard's origin was available, however, so it is termed merely "Commerce 1993." All the coins are staters except 17-19 (distaters). See Chapter 11 for the division of Macedo nian distaters into three groups. As their mints remain uncertain, they are attributed simply to Macedonia. Philip II groups, die combinations, and dies are those of Philippe. Celator references are to non-numbered illustrations on the back covers of The Celator, May or June 1993. The coins are illustrated on Plate 30, where they are identified by hoard coin numbers. A more detailed catalogue, with weights and assessments of wear, is on file at the ANS.

PHILIP II Pella Group II.1

BL

1

Group -

fulmen.

67, D31-R54.

1 11A

As

2

1.

Berk 80,

18

Jan.

1994, 4 = Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 4 = Celator, June 1993.

413, D185-R305. 3

As

1.

4

BL

cantharus.

1993. 6 7 8 L

9 10

L

Berk 79, 2 Nov. 1993, 7 = Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 5 = Celator, June 455?, D187?-R337. Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 6 = Celator, May 1993. D192'-R342.

As 4. As 4. 477, D216 R349. BL trident. 491, D185-R358. As 7. 498?, D187?-R359. BL bucranium. D185-R384. As 9. Celator, May 1993. 522, D224-R382. BL fly r. Celator, May 1993. 540?, D187?-R390. As 11. 535, D226-R390.

5

-

436, D197-R324.

11 12

Amphipolis Group 13

Group 14

II BL

trident.

D64?-R104?

11 IA

As

13.

Celator,

May 1993. 222, D98-R176.

Lampsacus 15

BL

facing head and K.

Lampsacus

VI:

new dies.


Appendix

138

3

Magnesia and bee. Dies of Thompson, "Posthumous Philip II Staters of Sludia Paulo Nasler Oblata, ed. S. Scheers (Louvain, 1982), p. 58, 2. obv. die had previously been used for an issue ascribed to Miletus. See Sardes Miletus, p. 50 (but see doubts about this attribution, p. 136 above, n. 3). The markings are those of the new Alexander stater 26 below.

BL

16

spearhead

Minor,"

Asia The and rev.

III

ALEXANDER Macedonia Distater Group A 17

LF

fulmen. Alexander

Distater Group r L

18

As

19

LF

163.

C

17.

Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 7 = Celator, June 1993. Alexander 167. See cantharus. p. 114, D01-DF3, for another distater from the obverse of 18-19, which may also be from this hoard.

Staters 20 21

22

Series Rev. as 17. Alexander 164; obv. of Alexander 168b (with cantharus). 018-F3. Rev. as 17. Alexander 164. LF Boeotian (?) shield. Berk 80, 18 Jan. 1994, 5 = Berk 77, 16 June 1993, Alexander See

2,

8.

176.

also coin 40, probably a Macedonian imitation.

Uncertain Greece or Macedonia ? 23

LF

Corinthian helmet

i.

Alexander

794.

Lampsacus 24

LF

addorsed

V.105: 25

horse foreparts

and t. Celator, May 1993. Alexander 1358. Lampsacus

new rev.

As 24. Berk 77,

16

June 1993,

9.

Dies of Alexander

1358c. Lampsacus

V: new dies.

Magnesia Obv. below, ram's head r.; LF bee and spearhead. Berk 79, 2 Nov. 1993, 9 = Celator, May 1993. Apparently unpublished, but from the obverse die of Alexander 1924 (with griffin to and 1928 (with ram's head and & to i.). The rev. markings are those of the posthumous Philip II stater 16 above. i.)

26

Miletus 27 28

RW bipennis; RF grain ear. Alexander LW grain ear; RW bipennis. Berk 77, Alexander

2096.

Miletus

III. 129:

2095. 16

new rev.

LF

serpent.

As 29.

Alexander

2532.

Sardes

1 1

Sardes I.8.

III. 127a. 1993, 10 = Celator,

Miletus

June

June 1993.


Commerce 1993 Hoard, Gold

139

Side 31

LF

BAZIAEQZ; LW

LF

caduceus

<DI over

BZ.

Alexander 2956.

Tarsus 32

3043c.

LW E over Z (partially off flan). Dies of Alexander third group, 50, dies N-o.

and BAZIAEQZ;

Tarsos

III,

series

Salamis 33

LF

34

As 34.

35

LW

Dies

harpa.

of Alexander 3136.

"Cypriote Alexanders" series I, issue

4.

3136.

Alexander

eagle i. Alexander 3125; obv. of 3129a (with eagle r.). This and coins of similar style (e.g., Sardes and Miletus, pi. 32, 14-18) were rejected as Cypriot by Newell in

"Cypriote Alexanders," but later placed by him at Salamis.

See Sardes and Miletus,

p. 70, n. 64. The evidence at the ANS does not indicate to the present writer, how ever, that the coins similar to 35 were the earliest emissions of Salaminian gold.

Aradus i.,

Z; LF BAZIAEQZ; LW A. Berk 77, Obv. to June 1993. Alexander 3315.

36

16

June

1993, 11 = Celator, May and

"Sidon"1 Obv. on helmet, griffin; RW fulmen. Alexander 3461. Sidon series group A, but the issue not known there. The issue known in Alexander and 37's reverse die that of Balkans hoard 29 (Chapter 12, hoard see Philippe, pi. 90, 29).

is

3;

is

is

I,

37

Sidon Obv. as 37.

38

RW filleted

branch.

Alexander

3470.

Sidon series

II,

issue 11.

Memphis 16 June 1993, 12 = Celator, May and June 1993. The obverse appears to be that of an ANS coin with (same obv.). reverse markings of ram head with Isis crown and A (Alexander 3963), whose corre dated to 324 B.C. in "Ptolemy," p. 14. sponding tetradrachm issue

Rev. no markings.

39

Berk 77,

3961

is

Alexander

Uncertain

LF

40

fulmen. The obverse style differs so drastically from other Macedonian fulmen that this coin must be an imitation.

staters

Uncertain East Obv. on helmet, griffin;

41

the obv.

Obv.

42

LF

BAZIAEQZ; LW Al. Apparently unpublished, but from

3994 ("Uncertain East," with BAZIAEQZ, and LW E). fulmen over <t>,and BAZIAEQZ. Apparently unpublished.

of Alexander

as 41.

LF

See

p.

is

is

15 of Lampsacus, whose markings are known Perhaps the latest dated coin in the hoard with Philip III's name and whose issue dated by Thompson to 323/2-322/1 B.C. The drachm issue corresponding to 15 was not in the large Near East 1993 hoard buried ca. 322 and thus 15 probably was struck ca. 321. Nos. 16 and 26 of Magnesia, whose markings are also known with

116 above

for questioning of the attribution

to Sidon.


140

Appendix

3

Philip III's name, again can be no earlier than the very end of 323 or more probably 322; nos. 27-28 of Miletus were also dated to 323/2 by Thompson. The number of post-323 Philip II coins (Philippe groups III) in the hoard is also large. It is hard to suggest a burial date for the hoard earlier than ca. 320. For present purposes, the importance of the hoard lies in its inclusion of the distaters of group C, but even more in the two staters 20 and 21, both with the same fulmen symboi. Coin 20, from our early series 2, is somewhat worn and was described in only EF condition. Coin 21, one of the "other" staters struck later than groups 1 and 2, is far better preserved and was described as in near mint state. Further, Mr. Berk also supplied his asking prices for the coins. One comparison is highly relevant here. The price asked for stater 20, from series 2, was the third lowest of all the hoard coins' prices, higher only than those asked for 1 ("F/VF"), from Philip's early Pella group 1 1. 1, and 42, from deteriorated or damaged dies. The stater 21, however, with the same fulmen marking as 20, had a very high asking price. Again, although we are discussing only two coins, their conditions support the conclusions reached in Chapter 13: series 1 and 2, lifetime issues, were struck considerably earlier than most of the staters with the common symbols of cantharus, trident, and fulmen, and those later staters were in large part early posthumous.


APPENDIX COMMERCE

1994

4

HOARD, GOLD

Lot A. On December 7, 1994, 132 staters of Alexander III and 2 of Philip III were sold at auction by Classical Numismatic Group, Inc., in its Auction 32. Kerry K. Wetterstrom of CNG kindly allowed me to examine the coins prior to their dispersal, and he and Peter L. Lampinen assisted me materially in photographing and grading the 30+ Macedonian coins and a few others. The coins were clearly understood to be the last section of a larger hoard which had passed through the hands of Giessener Munzhandlung of Munich. Lot B. In May of 1994 at Giessener Munzhandlung, Charles Hersh recorded a lot of 80 staters of Alexander III and 5 of Philip III. Of these, Giessener Munzhandlung sold in its Auction 69, November 18, 1994, 24 of Alexander III and 3 of Philip III, accompanied by 9 of Philip II. Because of the probable association of lot C with lot A and thus with lot B, I am assuming that these 9 coins of Philip II were also part of the original group. Their presence or absence, however, does not affect the dating of the chief and largest group, lot A. Lot C. In March of 1994 Classical Numismatic Group issued a flyer offering for sale 20 II. These coins had also passed through Giessener "exceptional" staters of Philip Munzhandlung, and the staff at CNG, although they could not be certain, suspected that the coins might have come from the same deposit as lot A. The association of the three lots is not assured, but they are extremely compatible, and may well have originated from the same hoard. See the summaries on Table 23, at the end of Chapter 12. Almost certainly there were other coins present, but there is now no way of tracing them. A further question is whether the Commerce 1993 hoard of staters, with the same approximate burial date, also originated from the same deposit. It is notable that an Alexander stater of uncertain attribution in Commerce 1993 was from the dies of a coin in lot A, and that another uncertain coin in Commerce 1993 may have been from the obverse of a second coin in lot A.1 Commerce 1993 surfaced in the spring of that year, however, nearly a year before any of Com merce 1994, and no other specific circumstances or provenance connects the 1993 hoard with that of 1994. They are therefore separately described here, but the import of each hoard remains the same, whether or not they truly are one hoard or two. Commerce 1993 is described in full in Appendix 3, as it has no other publication. Commerce 1994's lot A appeared in the sale catalogue noted above, but illustration was incomplete, and inevitably some attributions were erroneous. Lot B was only partially published, and lot C was fully described and illustrated, although only in a flyer. Summaries of all three lots' contents appear in Table 23. Full descriptions of each lot, too lengthy to include in this work, together with direct photos of lot C kindly supplied by Classical Numismatic Group, are at the ANS. As can be seen from Table 23, lot A's latest coins were 2 of Sidon dated 322/1, 1 Philip III of Babylon dated by Waggoner to 322-321, 2 of Miletus of 320/19, and 1 Philip III of Sardes of 319/8. Lot B contained 1 Philip III of Sardes of 322/1, 4 of the Philip III Babylonian issue of 322-321, and no fewer than 18 of the same Miletus issue of 320/19. The latest coins (Philip II) in lot C were of Lampsacus of 323/2-322/1. The closing dates of all three lots are thus highly compatible. Taking the Sardes coin of 319/8 as perhaps issued in 319, we may postulate a burial date for the hoard as a whole (if indeed it is a whole, of course) of perhaps 318 or 317 B.C. The hoard contained two Pella coins (one in lot B, one in C) of Philip II of group 11 IB, which followed IIIA. They may provide an indication of the end of the Macedonian groups IIIA. But 1 Commerce

Society).

1993 (Appendix 3) 41-42;

lot A, 128-29 (full description on file at the American Numismatic


Appendix

142

4

the significant aspect of the hoard for present purposes is the 31 coins present from our Macedo nian Alexander mint (or mints) in lot A. A catalogue follows of the Macedonian coins in CNG's 7 Dec. 1994 sale. Those of series 1 and 2 are listed in order of obverse dies, with 4 and 7 from the

non-linked portion of series

2 inserted

in appropriate spots into the linked obverses.

Macedonia Series 1

LF

2

As

LF

3

1

trident. 02-T4. Alexander 172. Sale lot 1108. 03-T5. 1116b.2 cantharus. 06-C2. Alexander 168. 1154b.

1.

Series 2

As As

024-T20. 1157b. 011-C4. 1107. LF fulmen. 016-F2. Alexander As 3. 030-C17. 1125b. As 3. 019-C10. 1125a. As 1. 021-T16. 1121a. As 1. 022-T17. 1156b.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1.

3.

1154a.

164.

Other As

11

3.

1135b. The coin is from the second cantharus obv. known to me which shows

three full helmet under

rL

12 13 14 15 16

rL

17 18 19 20

r21 L -

22 23

-24-1

L25J 26 -

L

27 28

29-1 30 31

J

the helmet

crests as on distaters,

central crests. As 3. 1136b. As 3. 1155b. As 6. 1156a. As 6. 1123a. As 6. 1114a. As 6. 1106. As 6. 1115a. As 6. 1135a. As 6. 1155a. As 6. 1122a. As 6. 1136a. As 6. 1113a. As 6. 1117a. As 6. 1157a. As 6. 1111a. LF shield. Alexander bearing

a fulmen

As 27. As 27. As 27. As 27.

1123b.

the rearmost

bowl with its tip appearing

176.

1115b.

looping to the right directly the tips of the nearer and

between

The obverse die is known also with reverses

symboi.

1109. 1112b. 1111b.

2 The sale catalogue grouped many coins in 5-coin lots, illustrating only one side of each coin. A lowercase a or b indicates the first or second coin described in such lots, not necessarily the order in which the illustra

tions appeared.


Commerce 1994 Hoard, Gold

143

Mr. Lampinen of CNG was kind enough to grade these Macedonian coins with the usual three strictly on the basis of wear and without taking into account any of the other criteria which enter into the usual dealer grading. symbols

VF

+ or Very Fine

Fine

4

4

2

10

6

Good Very Fine Series

1 and

"Other,"

2,

11-26

1-10

are hardly dramatic, but it must be remembered that the lot represents the of a far larger hoard, and that that hoard was buried no earlier than 318. The results are completely compatible, however, with the suggestion that series 1 and 2 preceded the These numbers

remnants

"other" staters.


KEY TO PLATES noted, all coins are in the collection

of the American Numismatic Society. when a previous publication or a hoard provenance is known. SNGANS numbers identify the ANS's coins of Philip II's types (and one of Perdiccas III, Plate 18, D). SNGBerry numbers are given for all ANS coins included in that publication. Unless

otherwise

They are identified

ANS only

as

Most non-ANS coins are known through casts in the ANS cabinet or from its photograph file Hoards are discussed in Chapters 8 (silver) and 12 (gold). Alexander references for London coins are not merely to issues but identify the specific British Museum coins there and library. catalogued.

Plates 1-5, 1-103, Alexander

See pp. 21-23, Table

Tetradrachms.

25

ANS ANS, ANS ANS,

32

Location

34

ANS,

50

Artemis

55

Cast at ANS marked

71

Vienna

72

Paris

73

Petsalis

75

London

77 81

photo at ANS Athens, ex Empedocles and ex Andritsaena London = Alexander 116

1

10 14

1.

"Earliest Silver,"

=

pi. 13, 13 1905 hoard

ex Demanhur =

SNGBerry

196

ex Demanhur

1905 hoard

Demanhur, pi.

unknown.

ex Demanhur

FPL

4,

II,

3

1905 hoard 1970, 2 = Artemis FPL 2, 1968, 3 & F," presumably at one time in the inventory of Rollin and Feuardent,

June-July

"R

Paris

79

=

Alexander 421

unknown;

Location

84

ANS

85

Petsalis

92

Munz. u. Med.

93

Hersh

98

Berlin

=

SNGBerry

Plates 5-6, 104-30,

ca.

1923 hoard

201

FPL

333,

Alexander

Apr.

1972,

12

Tetradrachms

Showing

Intra-Group

1-3.

llle

122

London

124

Dattari

127

Cast at ANS marked "Rollin & Feuardent"

129

St. Petersburg

=

Alexander

Plate 7,131-47, Alexander 131

London

132

Hersh

133

Saroglos

= =

Didrachms.

See pp. 30-31,

Alexander 24 Glendining,

7 Mar.

1957,

21

145

Table 3.

Linkage.

See pp. 24-25,

Figures


Key to Plates

146

135

Copenhagen

136

Hersh

137

ANS

= SNGCop 667 Giessener 58, 9 Apr.

=

138

Hersh

=

141

Berlin

=

Giessener 60, 5 Oct. 1992,

114

Reattrib., pi. 15, 4 = Reattrib., pi. 15, 3

142

Berlin

143

Munz. u. Med.

July 144

1992, 229

Reattrib., pi. 15, 2

=

FPL

1955,

Kricheldorf

1958, 8 =

178, Apr.

3, 25 Feb. 1957,

1174

= Coin Galleries,

11

Munz. u. Med. 13, 17 June 1954, 1106

=

342

Berlin

146

Hersh

147

NFA

Giessener 58, 9 Apr.

=

25, 29 Nov.

Plates 7-8, 148-79, 148

Cambridge,

150

Hersh

151

Athens

152

Hersh

153

Hersh

154

ANS

157

Hersh Hersh

Alexander

See pp. 31-32,

Drachms.

Malter 49, 15 Nov.

=

London

232

Reattrib., pi. 7, 3 (erroneously

=

159

1992,

80

Table 3.

Eng. = McClean 3507 Giessener 58, 9 Apr. 1992, 234

=

158

1990,

1992,

250

called hemidrachm) = Glendining, 7 Mar. 1957, 20

160

= Alexander 95 = Reattrib., pi. 7, 5 = J. Hirsch 13, 15 May 1905, 1126 Hersh = Sotheby, 27 Oct. 1993, 412 = Numismatica Ars Classica 5, 25 Feb. 1992, 105 = LeuMiinz. u. Med., 3 Dec. 1965, 236 = Munz. u. Med. 8, 8 Dec. 1949, 807

161

ANS

162

London

163

Hersh

=

Sotheby, =

164

Glendining,

165

Munz.

166

Bank

1 Dec.

1924,

55

Alexander 33 20 Nov.

u. Med.

1975,

13, 17

879

June

Leu 15, 4 May 1976,

1954,

Ars Classica B, 25 Feb. 1992,

167

Hersh

168

Tradart,

169

Hersh

=

Near East 1993 hoard 1

170

Hersh

=

Near East 1993 hoard 2

171

Hersh

=

Giessener 44, 3 Apr.

173

Hersh

=

Near East 1993 hoard 3

174

ANS

175

Blagoevgrad,

176

Hersh

178

Near East

179

Hersh

=

Numismatica

1098

198 1274

8 Nov. 1992, 71 = Munz. u. Med. 54, 26 Oct. 1978, 184 =

=

1989,

221

Sinan Pascha 1919 hoard 3 Bulgaria

=

Calim 1976 hoard 1

Near East 1993 hoard 4

=

1993 hoard

14

Plate 8, 180-96,

Alexander

180

London

=

Alexander 15

181

Hersh

182

London

=

Alexander 41 = Reattrib., pi. 7, 7

183

Hersh

184

Hersh

Triobols.

See p. 32, Table

3.

Naville

1, 4 Apr.

1921, 862


Key to Plates 185

Munz. u. Med. 13, 17 June 1954,

189

Athens

190

Hersh

192

Giessener 58, 9 Apr.

193

ANS

194

Leiden

195

ANS

196

Hersh

1992,

Giessener 62, 20 Apr.

=

Hess 207,

197

Vienna

198

Paris

199

St. Petersburg

=

1 Dec.

Alexander

Traite

IV.2,

Diobols.

AMNG III.2, Hersh

203

Athens

204

Paris

205

London

206

Egger 40, 2 May 1912, 749

207

ANS

208

Weber

360

See pp. 32-33,

Table 3.

pi. 7, 8

pi. 31, 21 (rev. only)

Traite IV.2, 901, pi. 311, 8 =

Alexander 98

Weber

2086

2087

Plate 8, 209-14, Alexander 209

Paris

210

Hersh

211

London

212

Berlin

213

Hersh

214

London

=

Traite =

IV.2,

=

Alexander

3.

pi. 311, 9

903,

pi. 31, 22

157

Links between Alexander Groups.

279

Paris

280

SNGANS

281

Paris

282 283

SNGANS SNGANS

284

Munich

285 286

SNGANS SNGANS

287

Parke-Bernet,

288 289

SNGANS SNGANS

290

Sofia = Philippe,

291

St. Petersburg

=

See p. 33, Table

Alexander 26

12-14,279-335, =

Obols.

AMNG III.2,

=

Plates 9-11, 215-78,

Plates

126

pi. 311, 7 = Reaiirib.,

900,

202

=

1993,

1931,

201

=

1099

233

=

Plate 8, 197-208,

147

Philippe,

Philip

II

Tetradrachms.

p. 120, pi. 43,

1

p. 121, pi. 44,

1

See Chapter 3 for individual

See pp. 52-53,

coin descriptions.

Table 7.

571

Philippe, 572 573

576 577 9 Dec. 1969,

41b

=

579 580 p. 121,

pi. 44, 10

Philippe,

p. 302,

66,

pi. 44, 9; ex Paeonia

1968 hoard


Key to Plates

148

292

Commerce

293

SNGANS

294

Philippe,

295

SNGANS

296

London

= 590

p. 122, pi. 44, 21

Philippe,

Philippe,

=

p. 315,

SNGANS

298

Munich

299

Munich

300

Volo

301

Cast at ANS, ex ANS

302

London

303

306

SNGANS SNGANS SNGANS SNGANS

307

London

308 310

SNGANS 630 = SNG Berry 118 Cast at ANS marked "Rous" SNGANS 643

311

Stockholm

305

309

Philippe,

p. 123, pi. 45, 25

610

Philippe,

SNGANS London

314

Brussels

315 316

SNGANS SNGANS

317

Oxford

318

SNGANS

688

319

SNGANS

691

320

London

de Hirsch

1041

674 687

SNGAshm

=

321

SNGANS

322

London

323

SNGANS

324

London

325

London

326

Blaser-Frey

327

Vienna

328

SNGANS

329

Miinz.

330

Berlin

331

SNGANS

332

Glendining,

333

Coin Galleries

334

Leiden

335

Philippe,

2477

Philippe,

=

p. 123, pi. 46,

1

693

740 =

Philippe,

p. 124, pi. 46, 8

19, 7 Sept.

FPL

756

309,

=

1077

FPL 83

Philippe, Philippe, 574

Feb. 1970, 6

SNGBerry

=

3 May

p. 303,

=

1968,

748

u. Med.

1967, 2.1 =

Plates 14-15,336-85, Philip

339

pi. 45, 28

p. 123,

639 =

Turin SNGANS

11

615

313

338

hoard

607

312

Berlin

1973,

606

=

Munich

1917

Mar.

p. 122, pi. 44, 33

Philippe,

=

337

343,

593

=

336

FPL

592

297

304

19; ex Megara

34, pi. 44,

Munz. u. Med.

=

p. 122, pi. 44, 22

120

11 (1978),

Sotheby,

II

C28 16 Apr.

Fifths of

the

p. 121, pi. 44, 4 p. 121, pi. 44, 3

1969,

60; ex Paeonia

Tetradrachm.

1968 hoard

See pp. 57-58,

Table 9.


Key to Plates 340

SNGANS

341

Berlin

342

London

343

Berlin

581 =

=

344

SNGANS

345

Paris

346

Philippe,

347

Wertheim

Philippe,

p. 121, pi. 44,

p. 121, pi. 44,

SNGANS London

350 352

SNGANS SNGANS Joannina

353

Cambridge,

354

Wertheim

355

SNGANS London

357

SNGANS

358

London

359 361

SNGANS SNGANS SNGANS

362

Weber

363

London

364

London

365

Berlin

7, 1969,

56

Weber

2060

596 =

p. 122, pi. 44, 26

Philippe, Eng. =

=

SNGFitz

2073

p. 122,

Philippe,

Philippe,

pi. 44, 34

p. 122, pi. 44, 35

=

Weber

2061

597 =

Philippe,

p. 122, pi. 45, 3

598 599 618

2062

SNGANS

652 32, 22 Oct.

368

SNGANS

654

369

Berlin

370

Berlin

371

SNGANS SNGANS SNGANS SNGANS

1962,

2343

658 660

=

SNG Berry

696

=

Philippe,

127

pp. 120 and 318, 2, pi. 43, 2, and pi. 52, 2; ex Arta ca. 1929 hoard

697 698

376

SNGANS SNGANS

377

SNGANS

704

378

Berlin

379 380

SNGANS SNGANS

381

Naville

382

734

383

SNGANS SNGANS

384

SNGANS

726

385

Empedocles

Plate

15,386-87, Philip

386

London

=

Philippe,

p. 124, pi. 46, 33

387

London

=

Philippe,

p. 124, pi. 46, 35

375

FPL

591 =

G. Hirsch

374

u. Miinzen

p. 120, pi. 43, 8 =

Philippe,

367

373

18

Kunst

588

366

372

15 =

587 =

356

17

p. 122, pi. 44, 28

583

=

348

360

p. 121, pi. 44,

Philippe, Philippe,

349 351

149

701

714 719

1, 4 Apr.

1921,

860

724

II

Tenths.

See p. 62, Table

14.


Key to Plates

150

Plate

15,388-92,

Philip Eng.

388

Cambridge,

389

Lanz

390

London

391

Berlin

392

Private

II =

36, 21 Apr. =

Muller,

SNGLewis

1986,

See p. 62, Table

15.

500

217

XXVI,

10, and pi.

p. 337,

273

collection

II

Die Links between Philip

16-17,393—449,

Plates

Attic-Weight Drachms.

Groups.

See

6 for

Chapter

individual

coin

descriptions.

Plates 18-19,

A-F

A B

"Earliest Silver," "Earliest Silver," "Earliest Silver,"

C

ANS ANS ANS

= = =

and 450-65,

Tarsos 2

D

E

SNGANS SNGANS

F

SNGANS

450

112

= =

396

II

538

Start of Alexander's

Macedonian

See pp. 86-88.

pi. 11, 5, stater of Mazaeus, struck at Tarsus pi. 11, 6, stater of Mazaeus, struck at Tarsus pi. 11, 7, Alexander

tetradrachm,

from first issue struck at Tarsus:

SNGBerry 79 = "Earliest Silver," pi. 12, 8, stater of Perdiccas III "Earliest Silver," pi. 12, 10 = Philippe, Pella 314c, lifetime didrachm of Philip

"Earliest Silver,"

=

pi. 12, 9 =

Philippe,

Amphipolis

posthumous tetradrachm of Philip II ANS = "Earliest Silver," pi. 12, 11 = "Earliest Coins,"

386b,

lifetime

or early

pi. 44, 1 = Reattrib., pi. 1, 1

464

"Earliest Silver," pi. 12, 12 = "Earliest Silver," pi. 13, 13 = "Earliest Silver," pi. 13, 14 = "Earliest Coins," pi. 44, 4 (enlargement of throne only) G. Hirsch 21, 25 June 1959, 21 ANS = "Earliest Silver," pi. 13, 15 ANS = "Earliest Silver," pi. 14, 20 ANS = "Earliest Silver," pi. 14, 18 ANS = "Earliest Silver," pi. 14, 17 "Earliest Silver," pi. 14, 19 = Santamaria, 25 Oct. 1951, A429 ANS = "Earliest Coins," pi. 44, 3 and 5 (enlargement of throne) ANS = "Earliest Silver," pi. 13, 16

465

Paris

451 452 453 454 455 456 459 460 462 463

ANS ANS ANS

Silver Coinage.

=

Plates 20-23, 466-530,

Alexander

Alexander

Plate 24, 531—48, 533

ANS

534

Canessa

3, 28

535

Naville

16, 3

537

Cambridge,

538

Athens = ? Naville

539

Cambridge, Eng.

=

SNGBerry June

July

Eng.

=

=

Lifetime

Distaters.

Staters.

See Chapter

See Chapter

10 for individual

11 for descriptions

coin descriptions.

of 540—48.

140 1923, 1933,

41 1022

SNGFitz 14, 2

July

SNGFitz

=

Naville

2093

=

1929,

2092

=

10, 15

June

1925,

435

Sicyon 7.1 (A8-P14) 198 = Ratto, 4 Apr. 1927, 566 Naville

5, 18

June

1923,

1385

= =

Sicyon 7.4 (A9-P17) Sicyon 7.17 (A13-P29)


Key to Plates Plate 25, N12-N19

and

Tarsos stater issues

N12 N12 N13 N14 N15 N16 N17 N18 N19

ANS. Tarsos

B C

D

E F

London

=

ANS.

10-13.

=

O10-C4.

08-C4

=

Tarsos 14, D-S = 05-C2

Alexander 3004.

Tarsos 15,

F-f

=

02-T2

Tarsos 16, H-y)

Berlin.

Tarsos 17,

London

=

Berlin.

Tarsos 19,

ANS, ANS, ANS, ANS,

J-6 Tarsos 18,

Alexander 3009.

K-i

K-x

of cantharus symbols

04-C1

06-C2 08-C3 O10-C4

Late lifetime or early posthumous staters ANS = Tarsos, p. 23, fig. 10 Leiden

Tarsos, p. 23, fig. 1 1

=

Paris

H

Stockholm

J

A-a

Kovacs 9, 21 Nov. 1988, 3 = Mttnz. u. Med. 10, 22 June 1951, 240.

G

I

See Chapters

Tarsos 13, C-y = 09-T9

Enlargements

A

Materiai.

Gold Comparative

and obverse dies.

12,

Tarsos 12, B-a

Berlin.

ANS.

A-R,

151

Staters with fulmen, or fulmen and A, markings Commerce 1994 hoard 21 (Appendix

ANS

=

4)

Sicyon 8.1

K

Cast of coin of unknown

L

CNG

32, 7 Dec. 1994,

provenance

1110,

ex Commerce

1994 hoard lot

A (Appendix

Late lifetime or early posthumous staters, perhaps from a second

M N

Samovodene hoard 52, a fulmen stater not in series

O

Brussels

Oxford

SNGAshm

= =

a fulmen

1049,

a shield stater

Macedonian

mint

1 or 2

stater not in series

2520,

de Hirsch

4)

1 or 2

Samovodene hoard coins

P

Samovodene 56, O10-C4

Q

Samovodene 28, Philip

R

Samovodene 29, Philip

II, II,

Philippe,

Pella

Philippe,

Pella

Plates 26-28, Commerce 1993 Hoard,

With the exception of

IIIA IIIA

Tetradrachms.

See Appendix

1, 47, and 50 in the Hersh collection,

locations unknown.

Plate 29, Mende 1983 Hoard.

All the coins

are

See Appendix

2.

in commerce, their locations unknown.

1.

all the coins are in commerce, their


Key to Plates

152

Plate 30, Commerce 1993 Hoard,

All the coins

are

are

See Appendix

3.

in commerce, their locations unknown.

Plate 31, Commerce 1994 Hoard,

All the coins

Gold.

Gold.

See Appendix

4.

in commerce, their locations unknown.


INDICES 1.

ALEXANDER'S AMPHIPOLIS SILVER MARKINGS

Tetradrachms (Chapter 1) are shown by group letter and issue number. Smaller coins (Chap ter 2) with the same markings are indicated by denomination only, the rare Zeus-reverse drachms being shown by "Zeus-dr." Where the smaller coins have no exactly corresponding tetradrachm issue, their group letters are given in parentheses. BAZ indicates the presence of the title BAZIAEQZ on the tetradrachms, while "etc." is used for series not treated in detail in this study which have varying subsidiary markings. Brackets enclose issues whose reliably reported examples I have been unable to locate. No marking

(E) dr, 3ob, 2ob, ob

Amphora Antler BAZ Aplustre Aplustre P Arrow Athena Promachus Athena Promachus BAZ Attic helmet Axe P

B2

L3 (F) Zeus-dr F4

Bow-

C6, 2dr, 2ob

Bow and quiver Bow and quiver BAZ Branch, forked P Branch, laurel Branch, laurel BAZ Branch, laurel P BAZ Bucranium Bucranium A, etc. Bucranium t, etc.

F5

HI D12

G2

LI (E

J3 J6

J?l Jwt

Caduceus, Caduceus, Caduceus,

filleted filleted filleted

or F) Zeus-dr

E8, 2dr, dr, 2ob, Zeus-dr See pp. 24 and 94-95 See pp. 24 and 94-95 B8 E9, 2dr, dr, 3ob, Zeus-dr D7, 2dr? D8, 2dr?

Caduceus Caduceus

Attic

G3

Caduceus

Caduceus

helmet,

See

L10

C1, 2dr M

D6

ÂŽ

(D) dr

Bl

Cantharus Cap, Phrygian BAZ Club Club iÂŁl

H2 D3 D9, 2dr 153


Index Club iwi Club, filleted P Cock Cornucopia Cornucopia BAZ

1

D10

L2 E3, 2dr, 3ob, Zeus-dr F3

Gl E7, 3ob, Zeus-dr

Crescent Crescent

BAZ

Crescent

P

Crescent

P

BAZ

J2 J5 L5

Dl1, dr

Dolphin Dolphin P Double heads

L7

Eagle head

D1, dr, 2ob, ob

Filleted caduceus, et ai. Filleted club P Forked branch P Fulmen Fulmen P Fulmen etc.

See

I,

Grain Grain Grain Grain

ear BAZ ear

See See

heads,

P P

BAZ

Grapes

double

caduceus, filleted club, filleted branch, forked

A4 L9 See

p. 24

C3, 2dr,

ear ear

See

Jl

dr, 3ob, 2ob

J4 L4 B7

Heads, double Helmet, Attic Helmet, Macedonian BAZ Herm Horse head

A3, dr B5 H3 E2, 2dr, 3ob

Ivy leaf

B6, 2dr, dr, 3ob, 2ob, ob

Laurel branch

See

Macedonian helmet Macedonian shield

See

helmet,

See

shield,

Obelisk, star, X etc.

See

p. 24

forepart Pentagram Phrygian cap BAZ Profile shield P Prow

C5, 2dr, 2ob, ob

Quiver

C2, 2dr

Pegasus

D4, 2dr, dr, 2ob

branch,

laurel Macedonian Macedonian

E6, dr, [3ob] See cap, Phrygian See shield, profile A1, dr, 2ob, [ob]


Alexander:

E1, dr A5

Rose

Rudder Scallop shell Shield, Macedonian Shield, profile P Star Star,

Silver Markings

obelisk,

X

etc.

Fl D2

L8 D5, 2dr, 3ob, 2ob See p. 24

F2 A2 B4

Star in circle Stern

Stylis Torch A, etc. Torch t, etc. Trident head Trident head BAZ Tripod BAZ

See

pp. 24 and 94-95

See

pp. 24 and 94-95

Wreath Wreath

B3, 3ob, ob L6

I

P

fulmen,

etc.

P

A

"E BAZ

M

(or

f)

BAZ

caduceus,

filleted

P branch, laurel P crescent BAZ P grain ear BAZ

BAZ

T A BAZ X obelisk,

H4 H5

See p. 24

A BAZ A bucranium, etc. A torch, etc. AT BAZ A A BAZ A ® BAZ A

C4

Kl See

K4 K5 K6 K2 K3 D6

J6 J5 J4 K4

star,

etc.

See

Ml BAZ

12

A A

BAZ

K5

A BAZ

K6

®

bucranium, etc. t torch, etc.

$

pp. 24 and 94-95

See pp. 24 and 94-95

p. 24

See

pp. 24 and 94-95

See

pp. 24 and 94-95


Index variants BAZ

M, Ffl, or

®

II

filleted caduceus

(D) dr

aplustre

(E or F) Zeus-dr L3 L10

P P P P P P P P P P P

grain ear shield, profile wreath

P P

(or

axe

branch, forked club, filleted crescent

dolphin fulmen

BAZ

r)

A BAZ

■8 BAZ

J

LI

L2 L5 L7 L9 L4 L8 L6

K7 K2 13

E5, E4,

T "E

1

A BAZ

K3

ift. caduceus

D7

i£l

D9

club

iwi. caduceus

D8

Jwl club

D10


2.

PHILIP II

POST-323 AMPHIPOLIS SILVER MARKINGS

S

The number of the group where each marking or set of markings is found is given, followed by T = tetradrachms, f = fifths, t = tenths, and d = Attic-weight drachms. The tetradrachms are found in Chapter 4, the smaller coins in Chapter 5. For series not treated in detail in this study, "etc." indicates that varying subsidiary markings are also Brackets enclose issues whose reliably reported examples I have been unable to employed. the known denominations:

locate.

Amphora Aplustre Axe P

P

Bee M (or W) Branch, forked

Branch, forked P Branch, forked P Branch, laurel Bucranium A, etc. Bucranium t, etc.

2? 3?

f

9 9

T T

2

T, f

8

f

8 9

T T

8?

f, t

See pp. 24 and 94-95 See

pp. 24 and 94-95

Causia

A

5

f

Causia

E

5

T, f

Causia

A

5

Causia

M

5

T, f

Causia

T

5

T

m.

globule

E

5

T T

Causia,

globule

M

5

f

Causia,

globule

T

5

T, f

/*f

P P

9

T T

Dolphin

9

T

8

Crescent

P

Crescent

8

Crescent

f, d

Club Club

f

Causia,

T

5

3

A

4

globule

>*J

Causia,

Forked branch Fulmen etc.

See branch,

Globule

2? 3?

forked

See p. 24

f

I,

f

See

also causia,

T

f d t, d

f, f

T f

2 2 8

T,

9

8

T,

3

Grapes

P P

Rl Ffl

A

Globule Globule Globule Grain ear Grain ear Grain ear

3

globule


Index

T f

T T

8

f f

f f

T T T T T T T T,

ÂŁ1

T

f f f

[T],

torch, etc. wreath

See

f

pp. 24 and 94-95 f

See

6

causia

5

bucranium, etc.

24

f

See

p.

9

etc.

f

f

T,

f

f

6 6

T,

6 6 5 5 6 5

globule

f

9 4 8 8 3 9 6

T, T, T, T, T,

T,

7

fulmen,

T,

7

A A A A A A

I

pp. 24 and 94-95

5

wreath

pp. 24 and 94-95

See

6

A M

P "E

E

causia,

globule

4? T, T,

See

6

E <t>T

A A A E

causia

E

causia causia,

A\

P

A

Uncertain marking

wreath

2

H)

ffl

Torch A, etc. Torch t, etc. Trident head Trident head

Wreath Wreath Wreath Wreath Wreath Wreath Wreath Wreath Wreath

T?

3

/N

2?

3,

Star Star Star /V Star (or

f

8

P

P P

Shield, Shield,

6

Shield,

branch, laurel

8

See

Macedonian Macedonian profile profile profile

Shield,

T, f

f

Laurel branch Shield,

3 2

(or Ffl)

8

ffl

leaf

T, f T, f

f

Ivy leaf A

Ivy

4

3

N

Grapes

pp. 24 and 94-95 f

A

Grapes

2


Philip: Silver Markings A @ A P (or A P

7

T T T T

5

T,

7

r),

7 9

AT M

causia

M

causia,

M

wreath

6

P P P P P P

aplustre

8

crescent

8

globule

5

f

f T, f

branch

8

T T T

grain ear shield, profile

8

T,

8

trident head

8

T T

T causia T causia, globule T wreath

5

T

5 6

T, f T, f

d> wreath

6

T

3

3

T? T?, f T, f T, f T, f T, f f

3

T

At club

4

T

At grapes At star

4

At

4

T, f T, f T, f

7

f

7

T

Ai

forked

amphora

Ai club

3

Ai globule

3

^1 grapes

3

Ai

ivy leaf

Ai star Ai Ai

3

uncertain marking

*

*

4

(or rE)

^ £1

3

A

©

7

f

©A

7

T

t bucranium, etc. torch, etc.

£

See pp. 24 and 94-95 See pp. 24 and 94-95

P

7

f

P

(or P) A

7

T

P P P

aplustre

9

axe

9

crescent

9

■5, P, or

d

T T

T


Index

9

wreath A

9

1

T

amphora

2

globule

2

T T

2

T,

2

f

7

f

2

■E

f

2

globule

m

(or Ff) star

7

T T

3

T

4

T,

(or r£) /V

6

A A

f

Ffl Ffl Ffl Ifl Ffl

T

T T

(or Bl) bee (or Fll) ivy leaf

Pfl

T?

9

"E wreath

* *

9

T T T

f

grain ear shield, profile

M

"E

9 9

f

dolphin forked branch

2

P P P P P P

2


3. Only subjects 1.

not covered

GENERAL

in the detailed

Table of Contents are included here.

Macedonian Coins

III,

cantharus, trident, and fulmen-symbol staters other than the earliest, 121 22, 127; fulmen-symbol staters other than the earliest: see can tharus. ..staters and also shield-symbol staters; quarter staters, 100; reattribution to Mac edonia of Tarsos issues 12-15, 101-9; iconography, 107-8, 113; shield-symbol staters linked with some early fulmen-symbol staters, but from a secondary mint, 127; staters termed crraT/jpea xpuaoi <piXin7rcioi or nummi aurei philippei at least by late Hellenistic and Roman

Alexander

100-101,

times,

gold:

107,

110,

123

Alexander III, silver: drachms' reverse change from eagle to Zeus, 31-35, 71, 91; smaller coins not divisions of eagle-reverse tetradrachms or staters of Macedonian weight, 35; earliest coins' reverses modeled on Alexanders from Tarsus, 86-89; earliest coins' obverses modeled on coins of Perdiccas III and Philip II, 87; iconographic variations in groups E and F, 35-36, 91-92; BAEIAEÂŁ2ÂŁ : introduction, discontinuance, and reference to Alexander IV, 92-98 Alexander III, bronze: eagle-reverse bronzes probably not related to eagle-reverse silver coins, 35 Alexander IV: BA2IAEQ2 as reference to, 96-98 Amphipolis: traditional but not certain mint of Alexander silver, 19; at the ANS considered the chief gold mint, 99, 110 Pella: perhaps Alexander's chief Macedonian gold mint, 99 and 109-10 Perdiccas III: silver stater obverses as models for earliest Macedonian Alexander silver, 87 Philip II, gold: interchangeable everywhere with Alexander gold, 89, 122-23; terminus ante quem of lifetime gold, 89-90, 125-26; Philippe's gold Pella groups compared to earliest Alex ander staters, 109 10; possibility of a small output at Corinth, 124 25 Philip II, silver: lifetime didrachm obverses as models for earliest Macedonian Alexander silver, 87; terminus ante quem of lifetime issues, 89 90; found in mainland and northern Greece but not elsewhere, 2.

Alexander

89, 122

III

Coins of Non-Macedonian Mints

Mere hoard occurrences

are not indexed;

they are included only when they occasion discussion

or further references.

Ake: possible reattribution to Tyre, 84 Amathus: reattribution to Cypriot Soli, 113, 131 Aradus: chronology, 74, 85, 92 Babylon: chronology, 74-75, 81, 84-85; chronology and introduction of BASIAEQS, 92-93; problems of attribution, 84-85 Damascus: possible mint of Sidon 1-7, 116 Miletus: chronology of Miletus Series I, 136 Salamis: order and chronology of stater issues, 116 18, 125, 139 Sardes: gold may have commenced later than Sardes and Miletus's 330 B.C., 125 Sicyon: separation of Sicyon 6-8 from remaining Sicyon gold, and probable Macedonian origin, 112-13,

116,

128

struck at Damascus, 116 Soli (Cypriot): reattribution of "Amathus" coins, 113, 131 Tarsus: silver reverses as models for earliest Macedonian Alexander silver, 86 89; introduction of BASIAEQS, 93; Tarsos stater issues 12-15 reattributed to Macedonia, 101-109; earliest gold 330 B.C. or later, 125 Tyre: possible reattribution to of Ake coins, 84 Sidon:

Sidon

1-7 perhaps


T

1 L.


PLATES


PIate

ALEXANDER TETRADRACHMS

1


PIate 2

ALEXANDER TETRADRACHMS


PIate

ALEXANDER TETRADRACHMS

3


PIate 4

ALEXANDER TETRADRACHMS


PIate

ALEXANDER TETRADRACHMS

5


PIate 6

ALEXANDER TETRADRACHMS


PIate

ALEXANDER

:

SMALL COINS

7


Plate 8

198

H6

199

ten # 209

200

B6

210

192

E9

/JfVj

1)1

202

1)4

D5

B6

C5

211

212

# # ^ ALEXANDER

E4

4

e

E9

204

SMALL COINS

K8

194

195

1:8

205

206

€9 D1

213

188

E7

187

(§."

186

ft

193

203

E3

E

E9

• - 90 (:}

Q

#

B3

®

185

® m ^

• H6

191

E3

®

E9

184

E

«©

190

E2

196

@

148 207

#

197

183

@

E7

D5

182

A1

C3

189

@

181

1

E7

B6

6

180

:

B3

208

ID

• • • E-

214


PIate 9

â&#x2013; an


Plate 10

ALEXANDER: OBVERSE LINKS BETWEEN GROUPS


PIate

ALEXANDER

:

OBVERSE LINKS BETWEEN GROUPS

11


PIate

12

PHILIP II TETRADRACHMS


PIate

PHILIP II TETRADRACHMS

13


PIate

14

y„® b:% @:® © #© # "

^^34° knv341

2/3

349

®

'l*^342

• 2/3

350

3

-

4

343

3

351

344

4

3

352

© #

345

3

346

• 4

353

PHILIP II: TETRADRACHMS AND SMALL COINS

© 3

347

• ^

3

$

2/3/4

354


S

355

356

5

5

361

7

366

7

<N

373

8^*^374

6

367

7

8

357

362

358

5

6

6

363

368

7

369

375

8

376

7

359

5

364

6

0

370

377

365

371

8

378

8

391

-

8

8

8

380

386

8

3i

381

8

8

8

382

388

383

8

PHILIP II

389

:

8

8

SMALL COINS

384

390


PIate

16


PIate

PHILIP II

:

OBVERSE LINKS BETWEEN GROUPS

17


PIate

18

THE START OF THE MACEDONIAN ALEXANDERS


PIate 19

THE START OF THE MACEDONIAN ALEXANDERS


Plate 20


PIate

010

(111

m

012

012

-

480

G4

481

G4

482

C5

483

C6

â&#x20AC;¢9 014

_84

^^^^C7

485

C8

ALEXANDER

STATERS: SERIES

2

21


ALEXANDER

STATERS: PROBABLY SERIES

2


PIate 24


PIate 25

010

N12

08

A-a

N12

02

09

B-a

N13

N14

C-y

D-d

CI

C4

C2

^ if ^

N16

H-Yj

N17

I !

N15

.I-fl

N18

K-i

N19

.

K-k

â&#x2013;

C.l

C2

CI

C3

i B

i)

^^^^^^

IP

M

^^^^^

11

:

ALEXANDER GOLD COMPARATIVE MATERIAL


Plate 26


PIate 27

COMMERCE

l993

HOARD (APPENDIX

1)


PIate 28

COMMERCE

1993

HOARD (APPENDIX l)


MENDE

l983

HOARD (APPENDIX

2)


COMMERCE

1993

HOARD (APPENDIX

3)


3 0000 055 614 865

q

A


Profile for Sonjce Marceva

Studies in the Macedonian coinage of Alexander the Great - Hyla A. Troxell  

An in-depth study of the five coinages from Alexander's Macedonian mints. The book is divided into two main sections. Part I dealing with Am...

Studies in the Macedonian coinage of Alexander the Great - Hyla A. Troxell  

An in-depth study of the five coinages from Alexander's Macedonian mints. The book is divided into two main sections. Part I dealing with Am...

Advertisement