For Alexander's chief Macedonian silver mint I use here when necessary the traditional name of Amphipolis. 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.
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. Müller 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's 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 Alexander 7 and the initial Demanhur hoard coin numbers. Issues illustrated 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.
The tetradrachms' types are
Obv.: Beardless head of Heracles r., wearing lion's skin headdress.
Rev.: AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ (or BAΣIΛEΩΣ AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ in groups G, H, I, K, and J). Zeus seated l., holding scepter and eagle.
Issue | Markings | Plate | Alexander Issue | Initial Demanhur Coin No. | Examples Found | |
AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ | ||||||
Group A, 250 coins | ||||||
A1 | P | Prow | 1 | 1, 4* | 1 | 82 |
2 | ||||||
A2 | P | Stern | 3 | 5* | 56 | 56 |
A3 | P | Double heads | 4 | 6* | 91 | 65 |
A4 | Fulmen | 5 | 8*, 9* | 132 | 31 | |
6 | ||||||
A5 | P? | Rudder | 7 | 10*, 11* | 151 | 16 |
Group B, 212 coins | ||||||
B1 | Cantharus | 9 | 12* | 254 | 20 | |
B2 | Amphora | 10 | 13* | 162 | 48 | |
B3 | Wreath | 11 | 14* | 229 | 16 | |
B4 | Stylis | 12 | 20* | 240 | 6 | |
B5 | Attic helmet | 13 | 21*, 22* | 243 | 11 | |
14 | ||||||
B6 | Ivy leaf | 15 | 23* | 266 | 55 | |
B7 | Grapes | 16 | 29* | 198 | 48 | |
17 | ||||||
B8 | Caduceus (also in E)a | 18 | 32* | 247 | 8 | |
Group C, 87 coins | ||||||
C1 | Filleted caduceus | 19 | 36* | 332 | 10 | |
C2 | Quiver | 20 | 38* | 302 | 24 | |
C3 | Grain ear | 21 | 39, 39A | 317 | 10 | |
23 | ||||||
C4 | Trident head | 23 | 43* | 327 | 3 | |
C5 | Pegasus forepart | 24 | 44* | 340 | 27 | |
C6 | Bow | 25 | 48* | 361 | 13 | |
Group D, 216 coins | ||||||
D1 | Eagle head | 26 | 51* | 373 | 32 | |
D2 | Macedonian shield | 27 | 57* | 395 | 38 | |
28 | ||||||
D3 | Club | 29 | 58* | 422 | 9 | |
D4 | Horse head | 30 | 59* | 490 | 27 | |
D5 | Star | 31 | 61* | 501 | 16 | |
D6 | Filleted caduceus M | 32 | 65 | 426 | 1 | |
D7 | Caduceus | 33 | 66* | 472 | 12 | |
D8 | Caduceus | 34 | 67* | 481 | 10 | |
35 | ||||||
D9 | Club | 36 | 70* | 427 | 29 | |
D10 | Club | 37 | 71* | 455 | 20 |
Issue | Markings | Plate | Alexander Issue | Initial Demanhur coin No. | Examples Found | |
D11 | Dolphin | 38 | 73* | 509 | 15 | |
D12 | Aplustre | 39 | 75* | 514 | 7 | |
Group E, 605 coins | ||||||
E1 | Roseb | 40 | 76* | 520 | 3 | |
E2 | Herm | 41 | 78* | 716 | 124 | |
E3 | Cock | 42 | 79* | 792 | 174 | |
E4 | 43 | 83* | 536 | 75 | ||
E5 | 44 | 84* | 529 | 12 | ||
E6 | Pentagram | 45 | 87* | 521 | 13 | |
E7 | Crescent | 46 | 89* | 579 | 54 | |
E8 | Bucranium | 47 | 93* | 656 | 92 | |
48 | ||||||
E9 | Caduceus (also in B)c | 49 | 99* | 614 | 58 | |
Group F, 224 coins | ||||||
F1 | Scallop shell | 50 | 102* | — | 2 | |
F2 | Star in circle | 51 | 103* | 895 | 20 | |
F3 | Cornucopia | 52 | 104* | 909 | 76 | |
53 | ||||||
F4 | Athena Promachus | 54 | 105* | 967 | 85 | |
F5 | Bow and quiver | 55 | 106* | 1014 | 41 | |
56 | ||||||
AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ BAΣIΛEΩΣ or BAΣIΛEΩΣ AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ | ||||||
Group G, 287 coins | ||||||
G1 | Cornucopia | 57 | 108* | 1043 | 111 | |
G2 | Athena Promachus | 58 | 109* | 1100 | 107 | |
G3 | Bow and quiver | 59 | 110* | 1168 | 69 | |
BAΣIΛEΩΣ AΛEΞANΔΡΟ Υ | ||||||
Group H, 455 coins | ||||||
H1 | Antlerd | 60 | 111* | 1210 | 84 | |
H2 | Phrygian cap | 61 | 112* | 1344 | 181 | |
H3 | Macedonian helmet | 62 | 113* | 1251 | 142 | |
H4 | Trident head | 63 | 114* | 1456 | 3 | |
H5 | Tripod | 64 | 115* | 1458 | 45 | |
Group I, 177 coins | ||||||
11 | P? | , etce | 65 | (118*), | 1471 | 40 |
(119*) |
Issue | Markings | Plate | Alexander Issue | Initial Demanhur coin No. | Examples Found | |
66 | ||||||
12 | 67 | 120* | 1488 | 63 | ||
68 | ||||||
13 | 69 | 121* | .1512 | 74 | ||
70 | ||||||
Group K,f 18 coins | ||||||
K1 | Λ | 71 | – | – | 1 | |
K2 | P | Λ, (or | 72 | 421*, 425, 426 | 1582 | 10 |
73 | ||||||
74 | ||||||
75 | ||||||
K3 | P | Λ | 76 | 422 | – | 2 |
K4 | ΛT | 77 | 423 | – | 1 | |
K5 | Λ | 78 | 424 | – | 1 | |
K6 | P | Λ | 79 | 424A | – | 1 |
K7 | 80 | 427 | – | 2 | ||
Group J, 147 coins | ||||||
J1 | Grain ear | 81 | 116* | 1538 | 3 | |
J2 | Crescent | 82 | 117A | – | 3 | |
J3 | Laurel branch | 83 | 117 | 1563 | 2 | |
J4 | P | grain ear | 84 | 122* | 1541 | 46 |
85 | ||||||
J5 | P | crescent | 86 | 123* | 1551 | 34 |
87 | ||||||
J6 | laurel branch | 88 | 124*89 | 1564 | 59 | |
89 | ||||||
AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ | ||||||
Group L, 271 coins | ||||||
LI | P | forked branch | 90 | (126*), 140 | – | 8 |
L2 | filleted club | 91 | (127*), 128 | – | 5 | |
L3 | P | aplustre | 92 | 129*, (135) | – | 91 |
93 | ||||||
94 | ||||||
L4 | grain ear | 95 | 96 | 130* | 14 | |
97 | ||||||
L5 | P | crescent | 98 | 131* | – | 12 |
L6 | P | wreath | 99 | 132* | – | 52 |
L7 | P | dolphin | 100 | 133* | – | 69 |
L8 | P | profile shield | 101 | 136*, (137) | – | 12 |
L9 | fulmen | 102 | 138 | – | 2 | |
L10 | P | axe | 103 | 139 | – | 6 |
Succeeding groups, all inscribed AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ and struck before ca. 295 B.C.,8 were
not subjected to a die study. They include:
P Λ or over bucranium, and varying additional marking;
P
over race torch, and varying additional marking;
P Λ over race torch, and varying additional marking or markings;
P fulmen over I, and varying additional marking; and star, obelisk, 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.
Alexander Tetradrachms: Obverse Die Links within Group H
H1 | H2 | H3 | H4 | H5 |
Anter | Phrygian Cap | Macedonian Helmet | Trident | Tripod |
A further confirmation of the contemporaneity of issues within groups is provided by the obverse links between groups described in Chapter 3. Issues struck in linear sequence would 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 for a great number of issues.
a | |
b |
This small issue E1 is catalogued where Newell placed it in
Demanhur. It is not clear whether he eventually knew the die link shown above (40
and 44), but in Reattrib. (p. 10, issue XXVII), he commented on the one specimen he knew
from the issue that the coin's "obverse resembles the obverses of previous coins [of group D], while the reverse is almost
identical in
style and workmanship with the following [group E]." Once again, Newell's remarkable sense of style is clear,
as there is now known a second obverse die in the issue, which was used also in group D: see Chapter 3, link 17. E1 might
thus belong to
either D or E, but is here left in its traditional place. In either case, groups D and E are joined by one known obverse die.
|
c |
See issue B8 with note a, above.
|
d |
"Antler," the accepted name for this symbol, is unsatisfactory. It often looks more like a ragged branch.
|
e |
See p. 27, commentary on Alexander issues 118–19.
|
f |
For discussion of the disputed placement and even attribution of group K, see pp. 49–50.
|
1 |
Reattrib., pp. 5–23, and
Demanhur
, pp. 26–32, 65–66, finalizing the classification presented in Reattrib.
|
2 |
The exceptions are very small issues in groups K and L (K3, K5, K6, L2, L9), whose markings make their group placements certain.
|
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 Chapters 4–6 for these late posthumous Philip reissues.
|
7 |
Alexander, pp. 89–103 and 132.
|
8 |
For these issues, see "Tetradrachms Amphipolis." Ehrhardt here also notes the posthumous Philip II issues which were struck in parallel with the Alexanders
through those with fulmen over I. 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," pp. 40–44.
|
Newell's coin numbers, as they are found on the ANS's coin boxes, cast cards, and photo file cards, are provisional working numbers only, and they encompass many numbers for which there seem to be no examples. 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 consequently his die numbers cannot be taken as cumulative and do not show the total numbers of obverse dies in the various groups. For example, in group I, his die numbers run from 660 through 723, for a total of 64 numbers. Three pairs of those numbers, however, were given to identical dies, for a loss of 3. Similarly, there are 13 numbers with no examples known (not in the trays and not mentioned in his notebooks), and I have found 8 additional dies. Instead of Newell's apparent total of 64 dies for group I, there seem to be only 56. Similar situations obtain in each group.
Table 2 shows the numbers of coins studied in the various groups and the numbers of obverse dies identified in each group. "Coins" include ANS coins (approximately half of all located), casts, illustrations in the ANS's photo file, or examples pictured in readily available publications. The number of obverse dies given for each group is reduced by 0.5 for each die shared with another group. The final column, the number of estimated dies, is the number arrived at by the useful equations published by G. F. Carter.9
Group E (605 coins, 193 dies known and 241 estimated) is clearly the largest group, but, if as seems probable, F and G should be combined into one group, then that resulting group would be a close rival (511 coins, 162.5 dies known and 203 estimated). Group L was also very large.
Group | Coins | Obverse Dies | Coin/Die Ratios | Estimated Obv. Dies |
A | 250 | 72.5 | 3.45 | 88 |
B | 212 | 43.5 | 4.64 | 49 |
C | 87 | 16 | 5.50 | 18 |
D | 216 | 62.5 | 3.46 | 76 |
E | 605 | 193 | 3.13 | 241 |
F | 224 | 71 | 3.15 | 89 |
G | 287 | 91.5 | 3.14 | 114 |
H | 455 | 97 | 4.69 | 109 |
I | 177 | 56 | 3.14 | 70 |
K | 18 | 7 | 2.57 | 10 |
J | 147 | 30 | 4.90 | 33 |
Totals A-K/J | 2,678 | 740 | 3.62 | 885 |
L | 271 | 139 | 1.95 | 232 |
Totals | 2,949 | 879 | 3.34 | 1,075 |
9 |
"A Simplified Method for Calculating the Original Number of Dies from Die Link Statistics," ANSMN 28 (1983),
(1983), pp. 195-206, at p. 202. The total estimated dies are calculated from the total numbers of coins and dies, not by the
addition of
the estimated dies in the various groups.
|
Alexander Issue | Troxell Issue | |
1, 4 | A1 | The prow on 1 faces r., on 4 1. The difference is significant, as the right-facing prow seems to appear on the very earliest coins of the issue. See pp. 87–89. |
5 | A2 | |
6 | A3 | |
8, 9 | A4 | The fulmen is slanted on 8; on 9 it is vertical, large, and crude. Alexander's illustrated example of 9 perhaps shows a recut symbol. Other vertical fulmens are smaller and more neatly executed. |
10, 11 | A5 | The rudder has tiller up on 10, down on 11. |
12 | B1 | |
13 | B2 | |
14 | B3 | |
20 | B4 | |
21, 22 | B5 | The Attic helmet faces r. on 21, 1. on 22. |
23 | B6 | |
29 | B7 | |
32 | B8 | |
36 | C1 | |
38 | C2 | |
39, 39A | C3 | The grain ear is vertical on 39, slanted on 39A. |
43 | C4 | |
44 | C5 | |
48 | C6 | |
51 | D1 | |
57 | D2 | |
58 | D3 | |
59 | D4 | |
61 | D5 | |
65 | D6 | |
66 | D7 | |
67 | D8 | |
70 | D9 | |
71 | D10 | |
73 | D11 | |
75 | D12 | |
76 | E1 | |
78 | E2 | |
79 | E3 | |
83 | E4 | |
84 | E5 | |
87 | E6 | |
89 | E7 | |
93 | E8 | |
99 | E9 | |
102 | F1 | |
103 | F2 | |
104 | F3 | |
105 | F4 | |
106 | F5 | |
108 | G1 | |
109 | G2 | |
110 | G3 | |
110A | — | The issue is described with AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ BAΣIΛEΩΣ, and with dolphin 1. in 1. field; the reference is to Reattrib., issue 40 (pl. 9, 8). The symbol however seems to be merely a degenerated cornucopia of group G (as indeed Newell suggested, p. 33, n. 39), cut over the Athena Promachus of that group. Issue 110A is a phantom. |
111 | H1 | |
112 | H2 | |
113 | H3 | |
114 | H4 | |
115 | H5 | |
116 | J1 | Issues 116-17A are wrongly placed here, between groups H and I. They are merely part of group J. Alexander even, exceptionally (p. 86), notes obverse links between 117A (J2) and 124 (J6), and between 117 (J3) and 124. |
117 | J3 | |
117A | J2 | |
118, 119 | I1 | Alexander lists and illustrates two variations, and (actually as is clear from a cast at the ANS), of the usual monograms. See 85–66. |
120 | I2 | |
121 | I3 | |
122 | J4 | |
123 | J5 | |
124 | J6 | |
125 | — | The issue is described with AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ, and with wreath in 1. field and below throne. The reference is to Reattrib.'s issue LII-a, which there (p. 16) cites only Müller 548. Müller 548, however, has only the wreath, no , and issue 125 is apparently a phantom. |
126 | — | The coin is described as with and "oak(?)-branch," but a dot is visible on the illustrated example, joined to the bottom of the right vertical stroke of the . The illustrated example of 126 seems but one of many poorly executed examples of group L, and belongs instead in issue 140, below. Issue is a phantom. |
127 | — | The coin is described with and filleted club, but a dot is clearly visible just to the left of and below the right vertical stroke of the . The coin belongs in issue 128, so issue 127 is a Phantom. |
128 | L2 | |
129 | L3 | |
130 | L4 | |
131 | L5 | |
132 | L6 | |
133 | L7 | |
134 | — | The issue is described with AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ, and with dolphin r. in l. field, and it is placed with the issues of group L (with ). The reference is to "Tetradrachms Amphipolis," issue 16, which cites as a parallel a Philip II issue (Müller 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. |
135 | [L3] | 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. |
136 | L8 | |
137 | [L8] | The cowrie shell described on 137 is almost certainly merely a degenerated profile shield as on 136. |
138 | L9 | |
139 | L10 | |
140 | L1 | The issue, described with laurel branch and , cites Müller 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 "Tetradrachms Amphipolis." Newell's transcript of the Aleppo hoard coins, however, shows a forked branch as on issue L1. Citations in "Tetradrachms Amphipolis" reveal only coins as J6 ( Demanhur 1564 and Newell's list of the Kuft hoard) and L1 (Aleppo 1893 hoard, and Walcher de Mollhein 1061). As no coins with and straight laurel branch can be located, then, one can probably safely discount Müller's description and consider that Alexander issue 140 is equivalent to L1. Issue 126, described as with "oak(?)-branch" (perhaps a better description than "forked branch") also belongs in issue 140. |
421, 425, 426 | K2 | 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 or 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 Philip II issues as group J and others as group K. See below, Chapter 6, links 14–17. Further, at least one obverse die link is known between group L and the Λ-bucranium Alexanders. See Chapter 3, link 22. |
422 | K3 | |
423 | K4 | |
424 | K5 | |
424A | K6 | |
427 | K7 | |
428 | — | The issue is described withAΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ, 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. |
These smaller coins have received 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, pp. 34–35. All coins are inscribed simply AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ.
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 correspondence. 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 representative coins of the different issues. Virtually all known obverse dies are illustrated, the exceptions being the late issues with 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 are shown. Issues of which I have seen no examples are shown in brackets, and are not 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.
Corresponding Tetradrachm Issue | Markings | Plate | Alexander Issue | Examples Found |
Didrachms | ||||
Rev.: Zeus seated 1. | ||||
Group B, 1 coin | ||||
B6 | Ivy leaf | 131 | 24* | 1 |
Group C 14 coins | ||||
C1 | Filleted caduceus | 132 | 37 | 2 |
C2 | Quiver | 133 | (107) | 4 |
C3 | Grain ear | 134 | 40 | 3 |
Corresponding Tetradrachm Issue | Markings | Plate | Alexander Issue | Examples Found |
C5 | Pegasus forepart | 135 | 45* | 4 |
136 | ||||
C6 | Bow | 137 | 49 | 1 |
Group D, 8 coins | ||||
D4 | Horse head | 138 | — | 1 |
D5 | Star | 139 | 62 | 1 |
D7/8 | Caduceus ( ? ? | 140 | 68 | 5 |
141 | ||||
D9 | Club | 142 | 72 | 1 |
Group E, 8 coins | ||||
E2 | Herm | 143 | 78A | 1 |
E3 | Cock | 144 | 80 | 3 |
E8 | Bucranium | 145 | 94 | 2 |
146 | ||||
E9 | Caduceus | 147 | — | 2 |
Drachms | ||||
A. Rev. : Eagle, head sometimes reverted, standing l. or r. on fulmen | ||||
Group A, 5 coins | ||||
A1 | Prow | 148 | 2 | 4 |
A3 | Double heads | 149 | 7 | 1 |
Group B, 1 coin | ||||
B6 | Ivy leaf | 150 | 2014 | 1 |
Group C, 1 coin | ||||
C3 | Grain ear | 151 | 40A | 1 |
Group D, 9 coins | ||||
D1 | Eagle head | 152 | 52* | 2 |
D4 | Horse head | 153 | 60* | 5 |
D- | Filleted caduceus | 154 | 69 | 1 |
D11 | Dolphin | 155 | 74 | 1 |
Group E, 36 coins | ||||
E1 | Rose | 156 | 77 | 2 |
E5 | : eagle on club | 157 | 85 | 4 |
E6 | Pentagram | 158 | 87A | 3 |
E8 | Bucranium: vertical; | 159 | 95* | 1 |
horizontal; | 160 | 96* | 4 | |
eagle on thyrsus? or torch? | 161 | — | 1 | |
E9 | Caduceus | 162 | (33*), 101 | 5 |
163 | ||||
E- | No marking: eagle on caduceus; | 164 | 144 | 1 |
E- | eagle on club; | 165 | 145* | 9 |
166 | ||||
E- | eagle on thyrsus; | 167 | 148 | 4 |
E- | eagle on torch | 168 | 151 | 2 |
B. Rev. : Zeus seated 1. | ||||
Group E, 6 coins | ||||
E3 | Cock | 169 | 81 | 2 |
E7 | Crescent | 170 | — | 1 |
Corresponding Tetradrachm Issue | Markings | Plate | Alexander Issue | Examples Found |
E8 | Bucranium | 171 | 94 A | 1 |
E9 | Caduceus *- | 172 | 100 | 2 |
173 | ||||
Group E or F, 13 coins | ||||
E?F? | 174 | 141 | 10 | |
E?F? | Laurel branch | 175 | — | 3 |
176 | ||||
Group F, 18 coins | ||||
F- | Arrow | 177 | 50* | 18 |
178 | ||||
179 | ||||
Triobols | ||||
Rev.: Eagle standing 1. or r. on fulmen | ||||
Group B, 2 coins | ||||
B3 | Wreath | 180 | 15* | 1 |
B6 | Ivy leaf | 181 | — | 1 |
Group C, 2 coins | ||||
C3 | Grain ear | 182 | 41* | 2 |
Group D, 1 coin | ||||
D5 | Star | 183 | 63 | 1 |
Group E, 24 coins | ||||
E2 | Herm | 184 | — | 1 |
E3 | Cock head | 185 | 82 | 2 |
186 | ||||
E4 | 187 | 86 | 2 | |
[E6] | Pentagrama | 88 | [1] | |
E7 | Crescent | 188 | (53), 90 | 3 |
190 | ||||
E9 | Caduceus | 191 | 34* | 5 |
192 | ||||
E- | No marking: eagle on club | 193 | 146, (149) | 7 |
E- | No marking L | 195 | 150, 154 | 7 |
196 | ||||
Diobols | ||||
Rev.: Two eagles standing facing each other, on fulmen or exergue line | ||||
Group A, 1 coin | ||||
A1 | Prow | 197 | 3 | 1 |
Group B, 7 coins | ||||
B6 | Ivy leaf: in center; to right | 198 | 25, (16)* | 6 |
199 | 25 A | 1 |
Corresponding Tetradrachm Issue | Markings | Plate | Alexander Issue | Examples Found |
Group C, 2 coins b | ||||
C3 | Grain ear | 200 | 42 | 1 |
C5 | Pegasus forepart | 201 | 46 | 1 |
Group D, 7 coins | ||||
D1 | Eagle head | 202 | 54* | 3 |
D4 | Horse head | 203 | — | 3 |
D5 | Star | 204 | 64 | 1 |
Group E, 13 coins | ||||
E8 | Bucranium | 205 | 98* | 1 |
E- | No marking: eagles on club; | 206 | 147 | 3 |
E- | eagles on torch | 207 | 152 | 1 |
E- | No marking | 208 | 155* | 8 |
Obols | ||||
Rev.: Fulmen | ||||
Group A, 1 coin | ||||
[A1] | Prowc | 3A | [1] | |
Group B, 4 coins | ||||
B3 | Wreath | 209 | 17 | 1 |
B6 | Ivy leaf | 210 | 26* | 3 |
211 | ||||
Group C, 1 coin | ||||
C5 | Pegasus forepart | 212 | 47 | 1 |
Group D, 3 coins | ||||
D1 | Eagle head | 213 | 55 | 3 |
Group E, 9 coins | ||||
E- | No marking | 214 | 157* | 9 |
Group | A | B | C | D | E | E or F | F | Total |
Didrachms | 1 | 14 | 8 | 8 | 31 | |||
Drachms, eagle | 5 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 36 | 52 | ||
Triobols | 2 | 2 | 1 | 24 | 29 | |||
Diobols | 1 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 13 | 31 | ||
Obols | 4 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 17 | |||
Drachms, Zeus | 6 | 13 | 18 | 37 | ||||
Totals | 6 | 15 | 21 | 28 | 96 | 13 | 18 | 197 |
Group | A | B | C | D | E | E or F | F | Total |
Didrachms | 1 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 14 | |||
Drachms, eagle | 3 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 9.5 | 21.5 | ||
Triobols | 2 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 14 | |||
Diobols | 1 | 0.5 | 3 | 2.5 | 6 | 13 | ||
Obols | 2.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 9 | 13 | |||
Drachms, Zeus | 2.5 | 7 | 7 | 16.5 | ||||
Totals | 4 | 7 | 11 | 15 | 41 | 7 | 7 | 92 |
Table 6 summarizes the issues known of the small coins. The obverse type of all denominations is the same as the tetradrachms'. The reverse types are indicated in the table by the following abbreviations:
Z = Zeus seated, as on the tetradrachms
EH = Eagle standing r., usually on fulmen
ERH = Eagle standing r., head reverted, usually on fulmen
EL = Eagle standing 1., usually on fulmen
2E = Two eagles standing facing, on fulmen or exergue line
F = Fulmen
Issues in Alexander of which no specimens have been seen by me are shown in brackets.
a |
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 symbol. This coin is from an unidentified private
collection and cannot be traced.
|
b |
While this study was in page proof, Charles Hersh acquired a diobol with bow symbol corresponding to 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.
|
1 |
Reattrib pp. 12–14 and 23.
|
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 tetradrachms of Chapter 1. The type of standing eagle with reverted head was simply an old Macedonian 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 as reverse type, they are all simply subdivisions of the tetradrachms. It seems unnecessary to 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 which probably should be assigned to group 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 Alexander 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 has heretofore usually, and understandably, been associated with the Alexander tetradrachms of group L, which bear the same primary marking.6 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 striking of the 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.8
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 in the Historical Museum of Blagoevgrad. ... According to the
control marking . . . [the coin in question] corresponds to the issue of Demanhur 1563, [J1, with laurel
branch but with the 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].
The Sardes and Miletus issue cited, die linked with the Calim laurel branch coin, is the 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. No exact correspondences with any tetradrachms' markings exist for these two interesting issues, but the reverse variation and experimentation introduced in group E may in part explain their lack of correspondence. The obverses of these and laurel branch drachms are extremely 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 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 and laurel branch drachms just discussed, is very similar to tetradrachms of both groups E and F–but in the case of these arrow drachms, one iconographical detail allows a firm placement in group F. Just as on the group F tetradrachms, their exergue lines, instead of the normal dotted ones, are sometimes 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 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 tetradrachms, 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 J–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 Λ, Thompson has deduced from the existence of a plated ancient Alexander imitation drachm with Λ and torch that there may have been genuine Alexander drachms with those markings also.12 If so, however, none have yet been discovered.
Thus the small coins were as follows.
Groups A-D: Alexanders, several denominations, drachms with eagle reverse
Group E: Alexanders, several denominations, drachms with both eagle and Zeus reverses
Group F: Alexanders, drachms, Zeus reverse
Groups G-H: –
Groups K-J and perhaps I: Philips. See Chapter 5.
2 | |
3 |
E.g., BMC, pp. 165, 171–72, 176; SNGCop 505, 513–15, 522; SNGANS
94–96, 113.
|
4 |
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 with the eagle-reverse small silver coins is also quite uncertain.
|
5 |
Alexander
, pp. 24, 88, and 103–4.
|
6 | |
7 |
Chapter 8, hoard 7.
|
8 |
Chapter 8, hoard 11.
|
9 |
See pp. 91–92, and 53.
|
10 |
Alexander Issue | Denom. | Corresponding Tetradrachm Issue | |
2 | dr. | A1 | |
3 | 2-ob. | A1 | |
3A | ob. | [A1] | This is the coin seen by Price in a private collection. |
7 | dr. | A3 | |
15 | 3-ob. | B3 | |
16 | 2-ob. | (B6) | Described as with wreath between two eagles on reverse, the only coin cited 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. |
17 | ob. | B3 | |
24 | 2–dr. | B6 | |
25, | 25 A 2–ob. | 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 symbol erroneously described 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 obols of groups B and D (issues 26 and 55). |
26 | ob. | B6 | 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. |
30 | ob. | [B7] | Newell in Reattrib. mentions this issue, but I have found no examples. Possibly an ivy leaf was seen as grapes. Compare issue 26. |
33 | dr. | E9 | 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. |
34 | 3–ob. | E9 | 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. |
37 | 2–dr. | C1 | 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. |
40 | 2–dr. | C3 | |
40A | dr. | C3 | |
41 | 3–ob. | C3 | |
42 | 2–ob. | C3 | |
45 | 2–dr. | C5 | |
46 | 2–ob. | C5 | |
47 | ob. | C5 | |
49 | 2–dr. | C6 | |
50 | dr. | F– | See pp. 36–37 for the placement in group F. |
52 | dr. | D1 | |
53 | 3-ob. | (E7) | 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. |
54 | 2–ob. | D1 | The issue exists. See issues 25 and 25A for discussion of its recut symbol. 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 symbol. |
55 | ob. | D1 | |
60 | 2–dr. | D4 | |
62 | 2–dr. | D5 | |
63 | 3–ob. | D5 | |
64 | 2–ob. | D5 | |
68 | 2–dr. | D7/8 | Price calls the monogram but its small size and condition on the known coins make it impossible to be certain whether it is or , or perhaps simply |
69 | dr. | D- | The caduceus is filleted. |
72 | 2–dr. | D9 | |
74 | dr. | D11 | |
77 | dr. | E1 | |
78A | 2–dr. | E2 | |
80 | 2–dr. | E3 | |
81 | dr. | E3 | |
82 | 3–ob. | E3 | |
85 | dr. | E5 | |
86 | 3–ob. | E4 | |
87A | dr. | E6 | |
88 | 3–ob. | [E6] | See p. 21, note a. |
90 | 3–ob. | E7 | See also issue 53. |
94 | 2–dr. | E8 | The sale catalogue reference cited in Alexander has a caduceus, not a bucranium. |
94A | dr. | E8 | The two citations refer to the same coin, and the Giessener (Gorny) coin number should be 221. |
95, 96 | dr. | E8 | The symbol is vertical on 95 and horizontal on 96. |
97 | 3–ob. | 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 Υ of the inscription and the coin thus is part of issue 150. Issue 97 seems to be a phantom. | |
98 | 2–ob. | E8 | |
100 | dr. | E9 | |
101 | dr. | E9 | Issues 33 and 101 both seem to belong to group E. |
107 | 2–dr. | C2 | 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). |
141 | dr. | E?F? | See p. 36 for the placement in group E or F. |
144 | dr. | E– | |
145 | dr. | E– | |
146 | 3–ob. | E– | 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. |
147 | 2–ob. | E– | |
148 | dr. | E– | 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. |
149 | 3-ob. | E– | The eagle is described as standing on a "thyrsus( ?)" and the sole example cited is now in the ANS collection. In fact it is the coin cited under issue 146, with eagle on club. It is from the dies of the Hague (now Leiden) coin also cited under 146, and those of another example of 146 in the Hersh collection. No triobols with eagle on thyrsus have been found, and issue 149 appears to be a phantom. |
150 | 3–ob. | E– | 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. |
151 | dr. | E– | |
152 | 2–ob. | E– | |
153 | dr. | — | Whether one accepts Thompson's attribution of this issue with to Miletus (Miletus 28-31), or Price's to "Macedonia ('Amphipolis')" it does not belong at our mint. |
154 | 3–ob. | E– | See comment at 150. |
155 | 2–ob. | E– | See comment at 150. |
156 | ob. | — | 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 any inscription impossible. All other known obols in this Macedonian coinage have a fulmen as reverse type, and nowhere here in any denomination 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. |
157 | ob. | E– | See comment at 150. |
11 |
Reattrib., p. 17. See p. 92.
|
12 |
"Cavalla," p. 40 (discussion of hoard coin 17).
|
13 |
See p. 21, note a.
|
Obverse links provide by far the most important evidence for the order of the Alexander groups. These links, together with group A's use of symbols found in Philip II's coinage (immediately prior or perhaps for a time contemporary), the presence of the title BAΣIΛEΩΣ on five of the groups, and certain repetitions of reverse markings put all the groups into a firm order, with the one exception 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 considerations, and the small denominations of Chapter 2.
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 incomplete or there would doubtless be more instances of links such as link 3, where a die was used for group B, then for A, and then for B again.
Group A with Group B
Link 1, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 25
Stage 1
A2, stern (215) ANS; ANS
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 1, and become ever larger in succeeding stages.
Link 2, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 28
Stage 1
B7, grapes (219) formerly ANS = Reattrib., pl. 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 = Reattrib., pl. 7, 11, same recut die; Saroglos
Stage 2
A2, stern (221) ANS
The reverse die of 219 and 220 is the same but, when used for 220, group A's stern symbol had been cut over B's grapes. 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.
Link 3, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 47
Stage 1
B2, amphora (222) ANS
Stage 2
A3, double heads (223) ANS; Beirut, same die; ANS cast from Tripolitsa 1921 Hoard, IGCH 84, same die
B2, amphora (224) Berlin, die of 222
Stage 3
A3, double heads (225) ANS; ANS
B2, amphora (226) ANS
In stage 1 there are no breaks in the dotted border at the top of the die, no break between Heracles' brow and the border, and no break in the field at the top of his nose. In stage 2 slight breaks have appeared in all three areas. In stage 3 the breaks in the border and at the brow are more pronounced, and the field behind the lion's mane is starting to deteriorate. Clearly at least some of A's double-head coins and B's amphora coins were struck simultaneously. The last coin listed, 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.
Link 4, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 40
Stage 1
A3, double heads (227) ANS = Reattrib., pl. 1, 8; cast marked "in trade, Cairo," same die; ANS; Knobloch FPL 33, Apr. 1968, 530, same die
Stage 2
B2, amphora (228) London = Alexander 13a; ANS, same die; ANS = Reattrib., pl. 1, 9; ANS
Only in stage 2 are there die breaks at the corner of Heracles' mouth and on his neck below the lion's jaw. 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.
Link 5, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 52
Stage 1
B1, cantharus (229) ANS
Stage 2
A4, fulmen (230) ANS; Egger 10, 2 May 1912, 592. same die, not illustrated but a cast is at the ANS
B1, cantharus (231) Saroglos, die of 229; Coin Galleries FPL 5.3 (1961), C19 = Coin Galleries, FPL 4.3 (1963), C18, same die
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).
Group B with Group D
Link 6, drachms
B6, ivy leaf (232) Hersh = Giessener 58, 9 Apr. 1992, 234
D1, eagle head (233) Hersh; London = Alexander 52 = Weber 2083
See also links 7 and 8.
Link 7, diobols
Stage 1
B6, ivy leaf in center (234) Paris = Traité IV, 2, 900, pl. 311, 7 = Reattrib., pl. 7, 8; London = Alexander 16, same die; Athens, same die; Aberdeen = SNGDavis D 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 1
B6, ivy leaf (237) London = Alexander 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 C with Group D
Link 9, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 102
C2, quiver (239) ANS = Reattrib., pl. 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 the ANS
D1, eagle head (240) ANS; Weber 2082, same die; Reattrib., pl. 3, 10
A cast at the ANS (from link 10's obverse 117 and 240's reverse) associates obverses 110 and 117.
Link 10, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 117
C2, quiver (241) ANS
D1, eagle head (242) ANS; Thomas L. Elder, Remarkable Collection of Greek Tetradrachms... (New York City, n.d.), 71, same die; ANS; ANS; Malloy, 28 Feb. 1972, 322, same die; Berlin
The die is associated with that of link 9.
Link 11, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 116 = 121
Stage 1
C2, quiver (243) 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 D1, eagle head (245) ANS
In stage 2, a die break 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 includes all the remaining three symbols of group C.
Link 12, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 105
Stage 1
C3, grain ear (246) ANS
Stage 2
C2, quiver (247) ANS; Berlin
C3, grain ear (248) ANS
C4, trident head (249) ANS
D5, star (250) Cambridge, Mass. = Dewing 1122
In stage 1, there is a small die break 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.
Link 13, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 107
Stage 1
C1, filleted caduceus (251) ANS; cast marked "Pozzi," same die
D1, eagle head (252) Cambridge, Mass. = Dewing 1117; ANS; cast marked "Mrs. Brett," same die
Stage 2
D1, eagle head (253) ANS, die of 252; Saroglos, same die; ANS
In stage 2, a die break beginning in the field at Heracles' brow has greatly enlarged. The first ANS coin (251) shares a reverse die with another ANS coin whose obverse was used also for coins of C4 (trident head) and C6 (bow).
Link 14, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 109
Stage 1
C5, Pegasus 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 also a break 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, D1 (eagle head), D3 (club), D6 (filleted caduceus M), D8 (caduceus ), and D10 (club ) (see 26–27, 29, 32, 34 and 37) and with a third ANS coin whose obverse was used also for D4 (horse head).
Link 15, didrachms
Stage 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
Stage 2
D5, star (257) ANS
D7, caduceus (258) ANS; St. Petersburg, same die
Below the lower left lock of the lion's hair a small break appears only on the coins of group D.
Link 16, didrachms
C5, Pegasus forepart (259) Hersh = Giessener 58, 9 Apr. 1992, 229; London = Alexander 45 = Reattrib., pl. 7, 1, same die
C6, bow (260) ANS = Reattrib., pl. 15, 2
D4, horse head (261) Hersh = Giessener 60, 5 Oct. 1992, 114
D7, caduceus or possibly D8, caduceus or caduceus (262) Berlin
The last coin, 262, is extremely worn, but the obverse does seem to be that of the other coins.
Group D with Group E
Link 17, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 159
D5, star (263) cast marked "Case"; ANS; ANS, same die
D11, dolphin (264) ANS
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 18, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 361
Stage 1
E3, cock (266) ANS; Parke-Bernet, 16 Oct. 1968, 23, same die; Grabow 14, 27 July 1939, 244, same die; ANS
Stage 2
E3, cock (267) ANS; Münz. 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).
Group F with Group G
Link 19, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 427 = 490
F4, Athena Promachus (269) ANS = Reattrib., pl. 9, 3
G2, Athena Promachus (270) ANS = Reattrib., pl. 9, 4; Petsalis, same die
Group I with Group J
Link 20, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 681
Stage 1
Stage 2
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 702
I3, (274) Stockholm; Berlin, same die
J1, grain ear (275) ANS
The last coin, 275, is in extremely poor condition, but its reverse seems to be as described, without the
Group L with Λ-Bucranium Group
Link 22, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 896
L7, dolphin (276) Athens from Lamia 1901–2 hoard ( IGCH 93 )
Λ 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 smaller 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 the order, when ascertainable, in which the dies were used. Numbers on the brackets are those of the links already described. Dotted brackets to the right indicate multiple identical reverse markings (groups F and G, J and L). As shown, groups G through K/J include the title BAΣIΛEΩΣ in their inscriptions.
1 |
See p. 22, note b.
|
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 through I, seven contiguous groups. Five hoards ending with group J are known. Of these, Akçakale 1958 contained every group except A and the small K, and Demanhur 1905 and Andritsaena ca. 1923 included every group, even K.2
Style
Newell dealt with details of style and iconography, and the progression from group to group, at some length in Reattrib. His analyses cannot be improved by the present author, but such aspects as are relevant to absolute chronology, whether or not treated by him, will be discussed below in Chapter 9.
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 denominations 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 Alexander's types are known after group F.
2 |
See Chapters 8 and 9 for fuller discussion of these hoards.
|
Newell stated in Demanhur , without giving specific examples or illustrations beyond those few presented in Reattribution, that the tetradrachm groups were all bound in sequence by a series of obverse dies linking one group to the next: "... group 'A' will possess certain dies that were used in its production and then were continued in use, in a slightly more worn condition, 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 rarely in Philip's issues, is a possible fourth symbol relating group A to Philip's coinage.6
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).
Groups C and D, linked by no fewer than eight obverse dies, are clearly contiguous. Group D 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, introduced 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.
Following group D, successive obverse links, the introduction and abandonment of the title BAΣIΛEΩΣ, 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 Λ group) as the immediate predecessor of the Λ- or -bucranium and Λ- or -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 suggestion 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 BAΣIΛEΩΣ, once dropped (as it was in group L) would stay dropped, that there would be no brief recurrence. This is surely correct.
Second, he states that group J (the -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 -group) should follow directly on J for two reasons. One is that is an elaboration of : this is of course quite possible but not necessarily so. The second reason is the shared symbols between J and L, which is quite convincing.10
And, as group L first drops the title BAΣIΛEΩΣ,11 Price concludes that there would appear to be no room in the sequence for group K (the Λ-group), which bears the title. It then, he says, will have been the direct predecessor, but at another mint, of the Λ-bucranium and Λ-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 posthumous Philips analogous to group K and those analogous to group J. Moreover, any suggestion that dies might have been transferred from J at our mint to K as the initial group at 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 contemporary Philip groups, some analogous to J and K, some not, but all so tightly and intricately 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 presents no problem. Price's sequence A through I to J to L is preserved, yet K being contemporary with J means that our mint need not be divided into two, at least at the spot Price proposes.
And finally, link 22 above, between group L (with ) and the Λ-bucranium group, seems to rule out Price's sequence at his proposed second mint of group K (with Λ), Λ-bucranium, Λ-torch.
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 I-J links, for K before J 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 J 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.
The last group in this study, L, despite its superficial similarity to group J ( instead of , 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 analogous Philip groups 8 and 9.16 Several hoards contain coins of all or most groups down to and including J, but not L. Group L drops the title BAΣIΛEΩΣ 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 may resemble –indeed may well be an elaboration of –but the two groups of coins are completely different.
3 |
Demanhur
, pp. 65–6.
|
4 |
See discussion following, and comments on link 2, above.
|
5 |
Reattrib., p. 21;
Philippe
, Amphipolis group IIB.
|
6 |
Philippe, pp. 389–90.
|
7 |
Reattrib., p. 40, issue 62;
Demanhur
1582.
|
8 |
Alexander, pp. 86-87, expanding on arguments previously given in his "On Attributing Alexanders–Some Cautionary Tales," in Greek Numismatics and Archaeology. Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson
, ed. O. Mørkholm and N. M. Waggoner (Wetteren,
1979), pp. 241–50, at 247–49.
|
9 |
He adduces obverse links between a coin with 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
J1 (grain ear
alone, 3 coins and 2 reverses known), J2 (crescent alone, 3 coins and 2 reverses known), and J3 (laurel branch alone, 2 coins
and 1
reverse known). Nevertheless, a firm tie between group J 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 symbols: filleted caduceus, grain (or corn) ear, crescent, and laurel branch. Of 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 ( and
filleted caduceus" and 140 (" and laurel branch"). Nevertheless, among the Philip issues analogous to groups J and L there are four or possibly five common
symbols. See p. 53, Table 7, groups 8 and 9.
Therefore, again, group J does seem closely connected to L.
|
11 | |
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 was group J, K, L, Λ or bucranium,
torch, Λ-torch. The use of the letter Λ is not limited in any case to group K and the Λ-bucranium and
Λ-torch groups: it is found in Philip groups 5 and 6, contemporary with 8 (with ), and also in Philip group 9 (with ).
|
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.
|
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 ΦIΛIΠΠΟΥ 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
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 differentiate 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 identical. 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 7 gives the issue markings found in each group, the plate locations of representative examples, 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., K2before the first issue in group 7 indicates that this Philip issue has precisely the markings of Alexander group K, issue 3. Markings given in parentheses 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.
Markings | Plate | Philippe Plate | Initial SNGANS Number | Example Found | |
Group 1, 1 coin | |||||
I1 ? | 279 | 43, 1 | – | 1 | |
Group 2, 9 coins | |||||
bee | 280 | 43, 9 | 571 | 3 | |
amphora | 281 | 44, 1 | – | 1 | |
or ivy leaf | 282 | 43, 10 | 572 | 3 | |
283 | |||||
globule | 284 | 44, 2 | – | 2 | |
( or star) | |||||
Group 3, 16 coins | |||||
amphora (club ?) | 285 | – | 576 | 1 | |
ivy leaf | 286 | 44, 11 | 577 | 7 | |
globule | 287 | 44, 9 | – | 1 | |
star | 288 | 44, 5, 6 | 579 | 3 | |
grapes | 289 | 44, 8 | 580 | 3 | |
290 | 44, 10 | – | 1 | ||
( club) | |||||
Group 4, 7 coins | |||||
star | 291 | 44, 20 | 589 | 2 | |
grapes | 292 | 44, 21 | – | 2 | |
[sic] | 293 | 44, 19 | 590 | 1 | |
club | 294 | 44, 22 | – | 2 | |
Group 5, 13 coins | |||||
(Causia A) | |||||
Causia E | 295 | 44, 29 | 592 | 3 | |
Causia Λa | |||||
Causia M | 296 | 44, 30 | – | 2 | |
Causia T | 297 | 44, 31 | 593 | 2 | |
Causia, globule, A | 298 | 44, 32 | 594 | 4 | |
Causia, glouble, E | 299 | 44, 33 | – | 1 | |
(Causia, globule, M) | |||||
Causia, globule, T | 300 | – | – | 1 | |
Group 6, 45 coins | |||||
Wreath A | 301 | 45, 24 | 600 | 7 | |
Wreath E | 302 | 45, 25 | 603 | 6 | |
Wreath Λ | 303 | 45, 22 | 606 | 6 | |
Wreath M | 304 | 45, 26 | 607 | 7 | |
Wreath T | 305 | 45, 27 | 610 | 14 | |
Wreath | 306 | 45, 23 | 615 | 3 | |
Wreath | 307 | 45, 28 | – | 2 |
Markings | Plate | Philippe Plate | Initial SNGANS Number | Example Found | |
Group 7, 72 coins | |||||
K2 | Λ or | 308 | 45, 5, 6 | 630 | 25 |
309 | |||||
K3 | Λ | 310 | 45, 15, 16 | 643 | 16 |
K6 | Λ | 311 | 45, 11–13 | 638 | 24 |
312 | |||||
Λ | 313 | 45, 14 | 636 | 7 | |
Group 8, 93 coins | |||||
J4 | grain eri | 314 | 46, 3 | 667 | 27 |
J5 | crescent | 315 | 46, 4 | 674 | 25 |
forked branch | 316 | 46, 5 | 683 | 6 | |
aplustre | 317 | 46, 8 | – | 4 | |
profile shield | 318 | 46, 6 | 688 | 6 | |
Trident head | 319 | 46, 1 | 691 | 2 | |
trident head | 320 | 46, 2 | – | 5 | |
Macedonian shield | 321 | 46, 7 | 692 | 4 | |
Group 9, 235 coins | |||||
L1 | forked branch | 322 | 46, 11 | – | 6 |
L3 | aplustre | 323 | 46, 17, 118 | 738 | 86 |
324 | |||||
325 | |||||
L4 | grain eri | 326 | 46, 12 | 736 | 8 |
L5 | crescent | 327 | 46, 10 | 737 | 15 |
L6 | wreath | 328 | 46, 14 | 747 | 17 |
329 | |||||
wreath | 330 | 46, 15 | – | 2 | |
L7 | dolphin | 331 | 46, 9, 19 | 749 | 95 |
332 | |||||
L8?b | profile shield | 333 | 46, 13 | – | 4 |
L10 | axe | 334 | 46, 16 | – | 1 |
Λ | 335 | – | – | 1c |
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 monogram may well be a variant of group 2's or , and perhaps the coin should be included in that group. Group 1's monogram also is identical to one variant in Alexander issue I1, and, as 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 or . 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 and , 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 , included the title BAΣIΛEΩΣ in the inscription, while group L, with , did not. Among the Philip coins, however, the attribution depends solely upon whether the marking is or 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 accidental. Further, there exist numbers of barbaric imitations 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 recognized. Some group 8 and 9 coins are possibly wrongly attributed in Table 7, but the overall 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.
a |
A coin with causia and Λ is reported in
Philippe
, p. 122 and p. 308, 281. The coin is not counted among the examples listed, as I have not seen it.
|
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 occurrence 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 , very likely not made by the same tool which engraved the , and in the Hunter catalogue itself the marking is described as a simple . 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 -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.
|
1 |
See "Tetradrachms Amphipolis" for a summary of later Alexander and Philip issues.
|
2 |
Philippe
, p. 120–24.
|
3 |
Philippe
, p. 120.
|
4 |
See Chapter 5.
|
5 |
See p. 69.
|
6 |
See pp. 63–64, comments on Philippe, pl. 43, 2–8.
|
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 number of obverse dies employed for each group. All conventions are those of Table 2.
Group | Coins | Obverse Dies | Coin Die Ratios | Estimated Obv. Dies |
1 | 10 | 2.5 | 4.00 | 3 |
2 | ||||
3 | 16 | 7.3 | 2.19 | 11 |
4 | 7 | 2.5 | 2.80 | 3 |
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 |
Totals 1–8 | 256 | 86 | 2.98 | 110 |
9 | 235 | 50 | 4.70 | 56 |
Totals | 491 | 136 | 3.61 | 163 |
7 |
See p. 70.
|
8 |
See p. 26.
|
These comments concern three tetradrachms listed in Philippe , p. 124, and illustrated there on pl. 46. They are coins of groups 8 and 9, with the primary markings or .
Plate 46, 8, "aplustre and ." The issue may exist, but this particular coin does have a faint dot within the , and belongs to group 9's very large -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 Münz. u. Med. 13, 17 June 1954, 1096, and from the reverse of 325, both of which clearly show the . The obverse of 324 is not known elsewhere and 325's is known only in group 9: Myers, 11 May 1972, 18, aplustre; 329, wreath; and a cast at the ANS, dolphin.
Plate 46, 9, "dolphin and ." The ANS has a cast of this coin, which does seem to have a dot present, joined to the inner edge of the right perpendicular element of the . As the coin in question would be the only known example of the supposed -dolphin issue, it almost certainly is merely a poorly executed specimen of the extremely large -dolphin issue of group 9, where its poor, flat relief would be typical.
Plate 46, 12, "laurel branch and ." The coin would be the only known example of this supposed issue (note, however, the fractions with a horizontal, quite different branch).9 It seems more likely that the symbol of pl. 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 , e.g. 95–97.
9 |
See pp. 58 and 62.
|
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 ΦIΛIΠΠΟΥ with a nude horseman on reverse. The denomination 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 example or examples. Plate numbers in Philippe 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 8.4
Markings | Plate | Philippe Plate | SNGANS Number | Examples Found |
Group 2, 9 coins | ||||
336 | 44, 4 | — | 2 | |
bee | 337 | 44, 3 | — | 4 |
globule | 338 | — | — | 1 |
or , star | 339 | — | 574 | 2 |
Group 3, 22 coins | ||||
ivy leaf | 340 | 44, 14 | 581 | 4 |
341 | ||||
globule | 342 | 44, 17 | — | 3 |
Star | 343 | 44, 28 | — | 1 |
Star | 344 | 44, 13 | 583 | 3 |
Grapes | 345 | 44, 18 | — | 1 |
grapes | 346 | 44, 15 | — | 2 |
clup | 347 | 44, 16 | 584 | 6 |
uncertain marking | 348 | 44, 12 | 586 | 2 |
Group 2 or 3, 5 coins | ||||
Globule | 349 | 43, 8 | — | 2 |
Amphora | 350 | 43, 6, 7 | 588 | 3 |
Group 4, 9 coins | ||||
star | 351 | 44, 25 | 591 | 1 |
grapes | 352 | 44, 26 | — | 1 |
353 | 44, 23, 24 | — | 7 | |
Group 2, 3, or 4, 6 coins | ||||
Star | 354 | 43, 3–5; | — | 6 |
44, 27 | ||||
Group 5, 13 coins | ||||
Causia A | 355 | 44, 34 | 596 | 1 |
Causia E | 356 | 44, 35 | — | 2 |
Causia Λ | 357 | 45, 1, 2 | 597 | 4 |
Causia M | 358 | 45, 3 | — | 1 |
Causia, globule, M | 359a | — | 598 | 1 |
Causia, globule, T | 360b | 45, 4 | 599 | 4 |
Group 6, 43 coins | ||||
Wreath A | 361 | 45, 30 | 616 | 16 |
Wreath E | 362 | 45, 31, 32 | 621 | 5 |
Wreath Λ | 363 | 45, 29 | 622 | 7 |
Wreath M | 364 | 45, 33 | 625 | 7 |
Wreath T | 365 | 45, 34 | 628 | 8 |
Group 7, 50 coins | ||||
, or | 366 | 45, 7–9 | 650 | 20 |
367 | ||||
368 |
Markings | Plate | Philippe | SNGANS | Examples |
Markings | Plate | Number | Found | |
369 | 45, 21 | 663 | 10 | |
370 | 45, 17–18 | 661 | 13 | |
Λ | 371 | 45, 20 | 658 | 5 |
∧ | 372 | 45, 19 | 660 | 2 |
Group 8, 115 coins | ||||
Grain ear | 373 | 43,2; | 696 | 29 |
45, 10; | ||||
46, 22–23 | ||||
374 | ||||
375 | ||||
376 | ||||
377 | ||||
Crescent | 378 | 46, 24–28 | 706 | 17 |
Forked branch | 379 | 46, 26–27 | 711 | 29 |
380 | ||||
Aplustre | 381 | 46, 31 | 721 | 7 |
Profile shield | 382 | 46, 29, 32 | 731 | 9 |
Trident head | 383 | 46, 20–21 | 723 | 13c |
Macedonian shield | 384 | 46, 30 | 726 | 11 |
Group 8?, 9 coins | ||||
Laurel branch | 385 | 46, 28 | — | 9 |
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 (see below) have the grain ear of group 8 and this horizontal laurel branch. The remaining 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 Λ) only the secondary markings of their group, whose primary marking is Λ; 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 secondary marking, and many of these markings were used both in group 8 (with ), and in group 9 (with ). Table 11 compares the incidence of the symbols found on these problematic fifths with the incidence of the same secondary markings on the tetradrachms of groups 8 and 9.
Group | Tetradrachms | Fifths |
2 | 9 | 9 |
3 | 16 | 22 |
2 or 3 | — | 5 |
4 | 7 | 9 |
2, 3, or 4 | — | 6 |
5 | 13 | 13 |
6 | 45 | 43 |
7 | 72 | 50 |
8 | 93 | 115 |
9 | 235 | — |
Group 8, | Group 9, | |
Tetradrachms | Fifths | Tetradrachms |
Grain ear | Grain ear | Grain ear |
Crescent | Crescent | Crescent |
Forked branch | Forked branch | Forked branch |
Aplustre | Aplustre | Aplustre |
Profile shield | Profile shield | ?Profile shield |
Trident head | Trident head | — |
Macedonian shield | Macedonian shield | — |
— | — | Wreath |
— | —* | Dolphin |
— | — | Axe |
— | — | Λ |
— | Laurel branch | — |
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 )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.
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 exceptions, the tendency is for larger tetradrachm issues to be accompanied by larger fractional issues, and smaller by smaller. A comparison of the five fractional issues in question with the group 8 and group 9 tetradrachm issues bearing their symbols follows in Table 13.
Group 8 Tetradrachms |
Fifths |
Group 9 Tetradrachms |
|
Grain ear | 27 | 29 | 8 |
Crescent | 25 | 17 | 15 |
Forked branch | 20 | 29 | 6 |
Aplustre | 4 | 7 | 86 |
Profile shield | 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 by other Philip issues whose markings repeat those of many Alexanders subsequent to group L, but no Philip fractions of any size are known with these later emissions. The small denominations with Philip's types would seem to have ceased with those of group 8.
a |
The globule (to left, below the end of the horse's tail) and the M (below the causia) are both faint, but definitely present.
|
b |
The globule (to left, below the end of the horse's tail) is again faint but definitely present.
|
c |
Not included are
Philippe
, Pella silver 541–43 (group III, pl. 22). The obverse of 541 is, as
Le Rider states, 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 coins shares an obverse
die
with any other known fifths.
|
1 |
I follow Ulla Westermark in considering the obverse head to be Apollo. See her "Remarks on the Regal Macedonian Coinage ca.
413–359 B.C.," in
Kraay-Mørkholm Essays. Numismatic Studies in Memory of C. M.
Kraay and O. Mørkholm
, 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).
|
* |
See p. 64, commentary on
Philippe, pl. 46, 32.
|
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 tetradrachm 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 local.
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 used in this text to avoid confusion with Alexander's Attic-weight drachms.
|
3 |
See pp. 61–63.
|
4 |
See p. 58.
|
5 |
Cf. 83, 89.
|
6 |
See p. 58 for the eighth symbol, the horizontal laurel branch, and its probable association with the Alexanders analogous
to group 8.
|
7 |
See p. 53, note b, and p. 58, note c.
|
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.
Markings | Plate | Phillippe Plate | SNGANS Number | Examples |
Grain ear | 386 | 46, 33, 34 | 735A | 5 |
Laurel branch | 387 | 46, 35, 36 | — | 3 |
8 |
See note 7, above.
|
Six such coins are known to me, from four obverse and three reverse dies. Their obverses show a head of Heracles as on the standard Alexander coins, and their reverses depict a nude rider holding palm branch, his horse walking right with one foreleg raised as on Philip's contemporary tetradrachms. The combination of types should not be throught of as a hybrid, however, 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.
Markings | Plate | Examples |
grain ear | 388 | 1 |
Grain ear | 389 | 2 |
Crescent (horns down: | 390 | 3 |
391 | ||
392 |
The 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 8.11
The crescent issue is Müller's 273 "tetrobol" (equivalent to octobol in present-day terminology), published in 1855.12 The first crescent coin illustrated here (390), acquired in 1841 by the British Museum, presumably also gave rise to Historia Numorum's citation of such an issue on the Attic standard.13
The unusual orientation of the crescent, with horns down, also points to a placement in group 8. Such an 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, found on a number of the Alexander tetradrachms in group J, contemporary with Philip group 8.14
The weights and axes of the six known specimens are 4.03 ← grain ear; 4.11 ↑ and 4.18 ↑, grain ear; and 4.07 ↓, 4.06 ↓ (holed), and 4.13 ↓, crescent. Clearly drachms on the Attic standard, they are a considerable anomaly, the only silver with Philip's type struck to this standard at any time.15
Private communications have revealed considerable doubt as to the coins' genuineness. First and most important, of course, is 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 a 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 is similar to that on many Alexander tetradrachms of group J,16 the dots cut over a circular guideline are common at this time,17 the incuse effect is 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—is 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. A 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 a very few rare Alexander tetradrachms, and, second, that those Alexander tetradrachms were contemporary with the Philips with the marking (where the -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 is the assumption that during the striking of Philip group 8 and the contemporary Alexander group J Amphipolis was called upon to produce a few Attic drachms and, as all other small denominations at the time bore Philip's types, appropriate Philip types were used for these drachms also.
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 Cambridge, SNGLewis 500. Its obverse
also was used for a coin with grain ear symbol alone (not illustrated).
|
11 |
See p. 23, J1 and J2 (81 and 82).
|
12 |
Müller, 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 (Müller gives 4.07), and for the information that it was "erworben 1852 vom Consul Spiegelthal
in Smyrna." It is not clear whether the coin was purchased "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 circulating in Asia Minor—perhaps because of its Attic weight.
|
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.
|
Plate 43, 2–8. Le Rider has placed these fifths of fine style, with grain ear, amphora, star, and globule symbols, after his lone tetradrachm of group 1 with the single marking . He likens the small coins' obverses to those of certain, most probably roughly contemporary, gold staters of Amphipolis,20 which seems persuasive but which does not necessarily suggest an association with any particular tetradrachm group.
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 . 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 pl. 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 pl. 43, 2–8, together with others bearing the same markings.
Plate 44, 12. The coin, SNGANS 587, with only 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.
14 |
E.g., 87.
|
15 |
I agree with Price that a single known Philip tetradrachm of 16.72 g with a poor and most peculiar obverse
style must be an ancient imitation (
Alexander
, p. 29, n. 1, and K. Dimitrov and V. Penchev, Seuthopolis 2:
The Ancient and Medieval Coins [Sofia, 1984], p. 52, 6, and pl. 1, 5). It is true that the coin has as symbol a crescent (horns
right), but the coin's style seems simply impossible for a 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 standard. See
Alexander
, p. 24, n. 2.
|
20 |
Philippe
, p. 120, n. 1.
|
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.
Group 2 with Group 3
Link 1, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 110
Stage 1
2, globule (393) Munich; Oxford = SNGAshm 2482 = Philippe , pl. 44, 2, same die
Stage 2
3, star (395) Naples = Philippe, pl. 44, 5
In stage 2 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.
Link 2, fifths
3, globule (397) Cambridge, Eng. = McClean 3359
The form of the group 2 monogram is odd, yet the coin must be of this group.
Group 3 with Group 5
Link 3, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 56C
3, grapes (398) Peus 279, 14 Mar. 1972, 16 = Frankfurter 116, 27 Jan. 1969, 417 = Philippe , pl. 44, 8
5, causia M (399) London; Copenhagen = SNGCop 557 = Philippe , pl. 44, 30
Link 4, fifths
3, ivy leaf (400) Berlin = Philippe , pl. 44, 14
5, causia Λ (401) Athens = Philippe , pl. 45, 1
Group 3 with Group 5 and Group 6
Link 5, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 56
Stage 1
3, star (402) SNGANS 579; Athens = Philippe pl. 44, 9
5, causia, globule, T (403) cast marked "Volo"
6, wreath T (404) SNGANS 613
Stage 2
5, causia E (405) Auctiones 5, 2 Dec. 1975, 65
Stage 3
5, causia E (406) SNGANS 592 = Naville 12, 18 Oct. 1926, 1150
5, causia T (407) SNGANS 593; Glasgow = Hunter p. 291, 60 = Philippe, pl. 44, 31
As Le Rider notes, retouching of stage 1 is evident in stage 3, with extra lines added at the back of the crown and below the beard. 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.
Group 3 with Group 6
Link 6, fifths
6, wreath M (409) SNGANS 625; (410) SNGANS 626 = SNGBerry 125
Link 7, fifths Stage 1
3, star (411) SNGANS 583 = Philippe, pl. 52, 5; Paris = Philippe, pl. 44, 13; private coll.
Stage 2
6, wreath M (412) SNGANS 627 = Philippe, pl. 52, 12
Retouching is evident on the obverse of 412, probably occasioned by a rusted die. The effect of the rusting can be seen in the lower portions of the relief.
Group 4 with Group 8
Link, 8, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 100
Stage 1
8, crescent (413) SNGANS 682; St. Petersburg, same die; Dresden; cast marked "Commerce 1929," same die
Stage 2
8, Macedonian shield (414) SNGANS 692
Stage 3
8, 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.
Link 9, fifths
4, (417) Paris = Philippe, pl. 44, 24
8, forked branch (418) London = Philippe, pl. 46, 27
The link is not noted by Le Rider.
Group 5 with Group 6
Link 10, fifths
Stage 1
5, causia A (419) SNGANS 596 = Philippe, pl. 44, 34
5, causia E (420) London = Weber 2061 = Philippe, pl. 44, 35
Stage 2
6, wreath A (421) Budapest, Delhaes = Philippe, pl. 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 5 with Group 6 and Group 8
Link 11, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 80
5, causia E (422) Philippe, pl. 44, 29 (in commerce)
5, causia ?Λ (423) Leiden
6, wreath A (424) SNGANS 600; London
8, grain ear (425) SNGANS 667 = SNGBerry 119
8, forked branch (426) SNGANS 683; Cambridge, Mass. = Dewing 1113, same die; Athens, same die
8, profile shield (427) SNGANS 688; Münz. u. Med. FPL 320, Feb. 1971, 8, same die; Platt, 27 Mar. 1922, 339
Link 12, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 50
Stage 1
5, causia, globule, A (428) SNGANS 595
6, wreath Λ (429) Berlin
Stage 2
6, wreath Λ (430) Frankfurter 123, 8 Mar. 1976, 67, same die
8, grain ear (431) Yakountchikoff; Naville 1, 4 Apr. 1921, 854, same die
Stage 3
6, wreath (433) London = Philippe , pl. 45, 23; SNGANS 615, same die; Gotha, same die
Stage 4
6, wreath M (434) SNGANS 608
6, wreath T (435) St. Petersburg
In stage 2 there is some recutting of the hair at the crown, in stage 3 a small die break has developed directly in front of the eye, and in stage 4 there is a new die break in the hair just above the ear.
Group 6 with Group 8
Link 13, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 41 = 111
6, wreath Λ (436) Paris; M. Ratto, 16 May 1935, 217, same die
8, forked branch (438) SNGANS 684; Oman, same die; Coin Galleries, 19 Nov. 1973, 180, same die
Group 7 with Group 8
Link 14, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 115
Stage 1
Stage 2
8, grain ear (440) London; Paris = Philippe, pl. 46, 3, same die; Coin Galleries, 20 Nov. 1975, 2028, same die
In stage 2 a clear die break has formed in the hair just above the lowest pair of leaves.
Coin 439 is the only Philip II tetradrachm cast from the Zygman collection at the ANS, so the cast pair must certainly be a true one.
Link 15 (fifths)
7, (441) SNGANS 658; London = Philippe , pl. 45, 20, same die
8, trident head (442) Berlin = Philippe , pl. 46, 21
Link 16, fifths
7, (443) Vienna = Philippe , pl. 45, 8
8, grain ear (444) Hersh = Philippe , pl. 45, 10
Le Rider catalogues 444 not with other similarly marked examples (pl. 43, 2, and pl. 46, 22–23) but because of the obverse link together with this group 7 coin.
Link 17, fifths
7, (445) Berlin = Philippe , pl. 45, 21
8, crescent (446) Turin, the crescent cut over 445's ; (447) Wertheim
Coins 445 and 446 are from the same die pair, but on 446 the crescent has been cut over the monogram of 445.
?Group 8 with Group 9?
The following link is highly questionable because of the similarity of the and markings and the careless execution of many coins in these groups. Further, the very existence of the -profile shield issue is doubtful, and thus the validity of the link is doubly uncertain.1
?Link 18, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 121
8, crescent (448) SNGANS 677; London
9, profile shield (449) Paris; Glasgow = Hunter, p. 291, 61 = Philippe , pl. 46, 13, same die
In Figure 5, solid brackets indicate die links between tetradrachms in different groups and dashed brackets show die links between 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.
Tetradrachms: links 1, 3, 5, 8, 11–14, 18?
Fifths: links 2, 4, 6–7, 9–10, 15–17
1 |
See p. 53, Table 7, note b.
|
Hoards provide minimal help in proposing a relative order for the Philip groups here. Several Alexander hoards' contents end with Alexanders parallel to groups 7 and 8.2 These will be discussed in Chapters 8 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 7 and 8. Here we are totally dependent on the evidence of the coins, and this is not clear.
The Philip groups 1–8 are presented here in a linear order, because on a two–dimensional sheet of paper there is no alternative. The evidence strongly suggests, however, that many if not all of these groups were struck more or less simultaneously–or at least that groups 1 (or 2) through 7 were struck concurrently with group 8.
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–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 , and of groups 1 and 2 are variations of Alexander group I's or then group 7's monogram seems even more probably a variation of Alexander group I's unusual monogram 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 unexpectedly 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 shares no dies with any other group. Further, hoard evidence and other observations on the analogous Alexander groups show that, despite its superficial reverse resemblance to group 8, it must be considered a completely separate emission.5
2 |
See Chapter 8, hoards 10, 13–14, 18, 20, and 28.
|
3 |
See Chapter 8, hoards 34–35.
|
4 |
See p. 54, Table 8.
|
5 |
See p. 50.
|
Table 16 summarizes and correlates the chronology of the silver coinage of Amphipolis–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 corresponding 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:
Z = Zeus seated, as on the tetradrachms
E = eagle standing 1. 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 J include the title BAΣIΛEΩΣ in their inscriptions. 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.
Attic Weight Obv. Heracles head | Macedonian Weight Obv. Zeus head (tetradrachms) or Apollo head (smaller denominations) | |||||||
Alexander Tetradr. | Philip Tetradr. | |||||||
Group | 2–dr. | 1–dr. | 3–ob. | 2–ob. | obols | Group | Fifths | Tenths |
A | E | 2E | F | ?a | ||||
B | Z | E | E | 2E | F | |||
C | Z | E | E | 2E | F | |||
D | Z | E | E | 2E | F | |||
E | X | E,Z | E | 2E | F? | |||
F | Z | |||||||
G | ||||||||
H | ||||||||
I | ||||||||
K/J | P | 1-8b | P | P | ||||
L | 9 | |||||||
↓ | ↓ |
Table 17 gives in its second and fourth columns the estimated number of obverse dies employed 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 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, groups A and B must have overlapped at least in part, and C and D may well have also.
The Attic-weight fractions of all denominations, being so few, have not been taken into account. But the Philip fifths corresponding to Philip groups 2–8 were, so far as is shown by 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 Alexander groups K and J 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.
Alexander Group | Dies | Philip Group | Dies | Total Dies |
A | 88 | ? | 88 + | |
B | 49 | 49 | ||
C | 18 | 18 | ||
D | 76 | 76 | ||
E | 241 | 241 | ||
F | 89 | 89 | ||
G | 114 | 114 | ||
H | 109 | 109 | ||
I | 70 | 70 | ||
K/J | 43 | 1–8 | 110 | 153 |
Totals A-K/J, 1–8 | 885 | 110 | 995 | |
L | 232 | 9 | 47 | 279 |
Totals | 1,075 | 157 | 1,232 |
a | |
b |
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 identified. 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.
Hoard | Number |
Abu Hommos 1919 | 24 |
Agios Ioannis 1949 | 37 |
Akçakale 1958 | 18 |
Aksaray 1968 | 41 |
Aleppo 1893 | 40 |
Andritsaena 1923 | 20 |
Asia Minor, S. 1960 | 42 |
Asia Minor 1964 | 8 |
Asia Minor 1964 | See 22 |
Asia Minor 1965 | 23 |
Asia Minor 1966 | 32 |
Asia Minor 1968 | 22 |
Asia Minor 1968 | See 22 |
Babylon 1973 | 5 |
Byblus 1931 | 31 |
Calim 1976 | 11 |
Central Greece 1911 | 13 |
Cilicia 1964 | 12 |
Commerce 1993 | 4 |
Demanhur 1905 | 10 |
Drama 1935 | 28 |
Egypt 1893 | 16 |
Egypt 1894 | 25 |
Karaman 1969 | 43 |
Karditsa 1925 | 15 |
Katò Paphos 1965 | 38 |
Khirbet-el-Kerak 1936 | 14 |
Kuft 1874–75 | 26 |
Kyparissia 1892–93 | 1 |
Lamia (Hagioi Theodoroi) 1901–2 | 45 |
Lebanon 1985 | 6 |
Megara 1917 | 36 |
Mageira 1950 | 2 |
Mavriki 1962 | 44 |
Messene 1922 | 29 |
Near East 1993 | 7 |
Nemea 1938 | 3 |
Paeonia 1968 | 34 |
Paphos District 1945 | 46 |
Phacous 1956 | 39 |
Phoenicia 1968 | 9 |
Sfire 1932 | 17 |
Ràžinci 1961 | 35 |
Sinan Pascha 1919 | 19 |
Tel Tsippor 1960 | 30 |
Thessaly 1971 | 33 |
Tripolitsa 1921 | 21 |
Unknown Provenance ca. 1990 | 27 |
1. Kyparissia, Messenia, 1892–93 (IGCH 76),1 35 coins, 20 Alexanders.
15 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.
2. 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.
3. Nemea, Argolis, 1938 ( IGCH 79),3 3 coins, 1 Alexander.
1 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 value.
4. Commerce 1993, 72 Alexanders.
25 Amphipolis: 3 A, 2 B, 3 C, 2 D, 15 E. See Appendix 1 for a complete listing and discussion.
5. Babylon 1973,4 a large hoard including "many" Alexanders.
12 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 BAΣIΛEΩΣ. 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 AΥ and BAΣIΛEΩΣ AΛE ΞAΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ, 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 ΛY.
Also among Waggoner's material are two Tarsus coins with Nike and two monograms ( Alexander 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 perhaps 321.6
6. Lebanon ca. 1985, 26 Alexanders.
5 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 BAΣIΛEΩΣ ( Alexander 3684), which Waggoner dated to ca. 324/3–323/2,7 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.
7. Near East 1993,8 1,412 Alexander drachms.
Amphipolis: 3 E, 8 E or F (6 , 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 material. 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 drachms, contrary to all previous assumption, cannot be associated with the post–318 tetradrachms of group L with that monogram as primary marking.
8. Asia Minor 1964 ( IGCH 1437),9 88 Alexander drachms.
1 Amphipolis: F (arrow). Price notes that although the hoard contained no Philip III coins, one Alexander drachm from Magnesia was from an issue also struck in Philip Ill's name. Thompson dated the hoard's burial to ca. 321/320. The burial date is thus too late to be of chronological value.
9. Phoenicia 1968 ( IGCH 1513),10 9 Alexanders and 6 Philip III.
4 Amphipolis: 2 G, H, I. The hoard's 8 Babylonian coins include 5 of the Philip III issue with M and ΛΥ (Alexander P181), which Waggoner considered Babylon's second posthumous issue, ca. 322–321 B.C.11
10. Demanhur, Egypt, 1905 ( IGCH 1664),12 8,000+ Alexander and Philip III.
2,005 Amphipolis. To the 1,582 Amphipolis coins listed in Demanhur can be added 423 specimens which Newell recorded after that hoard publication, giving a total of 2,005.
Group | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | K | J | Total |
Demanhur | 161 | 140 | 71 | 147 | 375 | 148 | 167 | 261 | 67 | 1 | 44 | 1,582 |
Newell's Notes | 52 | 41 | 32 | 46 | 81 | 42 | 54 | 56 | 14 | – | 5 | 423 |
Total | 213 | 181 | 103 | 193 | 456 | 190 | 221 | 317 | 81 | 1 | 49 | 2,005 |
This enormous hoard gives us the one securely fixed point in the dating of all lifetime and early posthumous Alexander issues by its inclusion of the dated coins of Ake and Sidon through 319/318 B.C. Of the 8,000+ coins present, some 5,951 can be identified by issue–4,826 in 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.
11. Calim, Bulgaria, 1976,14 3 Alexander drachms.
1 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 burial.
12. Cilicia 1964 ( IGCH 1421),16 22 coins, 4 Alexanders.
2 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.
13. Central Greece 1911 ( IGCH 81),17 37 + coins, 28 Alexanders.
15 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 BAΣIΛEΩΣ and (exact issue not ascertainable), dated to ca. 325–320, and the Aradus caduceus issue of perhaps 322–319 (see comments on this issue in 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 Γ 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. Khirbet-el-Kerak, Galilee, 1936 ( IGCH 1510),18 118 + coins, 40 Alexanders and 13 Philip III.
7Amphipolis: B, 2 G, 2 H, I, J. The latest datable coin is a Sidonian tetradrachm of year 13 (321/20 B.C.), but the coin of group J dates the hoard which is thus of no chronological help. A "considerable number" of coins were said, however, to have been dispersed before the remaining 118 were studied.
15. Karditsa, Thessaly, 1925 ( IGCH 82),19 37 + coins, 30 Alexanders.
15Amphipolis: C, D, 3 E, F, 3 G, 5 H, I. 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.
16. Egypt 1893 ( IGCH 1665), 44 Alexanders.
18Amphipolis: 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.
17. Sfire, Cyrrhestica, 1932 ( IGCH 1511), 84 Alexanders.
1 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.
18. Akçakale, Mesopotamia, 1958,20 163 Alexanders and 27 Philip III.
26 Amphipolis: B, C, D, 9 E, 2 F, 4 G, 4 H, 2 I, 2 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 318/7 B.C.–a year later than Demanhur's latest coins. As Le Rider and Olçay remark, no other hoard coins can be dated later than Philip III's reign, so the hoard's burial can be taken as 317 or perhaps early in 316, a year later than Demanhur.
19. Sinan Pascha, near Afyon-Karahissar, Phrygia, 1919 ( IGCH 1395), 682+ drachms of Alexander and Philip III, the great majority from Asia Minor mints.
3 Amphipolis: E or F (), 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, Sinan Pascha contained a drachm, which she believed contemporary with the tetradrachms of group L, "the immediate successors of coins with alone," which were not present in Demanhur. As the drachms were present in the Near East 1993 drachm hoard buried ca. 322, they are now seen to antedate group L by some years, and are no longer a reason for Thompson's 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.
20. Andritsaena, Elis, 1923 ( IGCH 83),22 145+ coins (lot A, 110; lot B, 35), 102 Alexanders and Philip III (lot A, 74; lot B, 28).
33 Amphipolis:
Group | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | K | J | Total |
Lot A | 2 | 1 | – | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | – | 4 | 22 |
Lot B | – | – | – | 1 | 3 | 1 | – | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11 |
Total | 2 | 1 | – | 4 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 33 |
There are two components of the hoard. Lot A is the 110 coins in Newell's original publication (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 a 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.
A second group of 41 (not 40, as in IGCH) coins forms IGCH's lot B. Newell learned of this group from the Greek collector Empedocles only after Andritsaena's publication.23 Of its Alexanders, 11 are identifiable issues of Amphipolis as shown above.
Several complications arise from this lot. As Thompson noted in IGCH, it included a post–323 coin of Philip II's types with markings of Λ, E, and bucranium (the group which follows Philip group 9 [analogous to Alexander group L]): "If this was part of the original hoard, it may require lowering Newell's burial date of 315 B.C. by a few years."
But there are further complexities. Fortunately still preserved at the ANS is 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 A in one of the bound notebooks in which he kept careful and precise records of many hoards. Six of the tetradrachms of lot B were not transferred from the scrap of paper to the notebook. They included four coins of Philip II: two of Philippe's Pella group II, one of Amphipolis group 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 AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ, Λ in left field and below the throne, and one with BAΣIΛEΩΣ AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ and a 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 mention 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–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 concludes 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.
21. Tripolitsa, Arcadia, 1921 (IGCH 84),27 23 coins, 14 Alexanders.
4 Amphipolis: 2 A, E, I. Newell 28 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.
22. Asia Minor 1968 ( IGCH 1440),29 90+ Alexanders.
32 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 1439 and 1440 as one hoard.30
IGCH 1440 included a Babylon tetradrachm as Alexander 3692, with M and ΛΥ and BAΣIΛEΩΣ AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ, dated by Waggoner to ca. 323-322 B.C.31 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 ( IGCH 1443),34 29 Alexander and Philip III.
5 Amphipolis: D, 2 E, 2 L. The hoard's latest coins were Ake of year 33 (315/4) and two of Sardes whose dates are disputed. The latter two are as Alexander 2645A = Sardes series XVI, 363-67, and similar to Alexander 2671 ff. = Sardes series XX, 393. Thompson dates these two coins to ca. 310-302, 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 listed in Newell's hoard notebook as at Spink's in London in July 1922. They (at least the 30 of 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).
11Amphipolis: 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 Waggoner to ca. 311/10 - 309/8.36
26. Kuft, Egypt, 1874-75 ( IGCH 1670), 190+ Alexander and Philip III.
53 Amphipolis. 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.
Group | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | K | J | L | A-torch | Total |
Nash | 4 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 19 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 3 | – | 5 | 8 | 1 | 71 |
Zervos | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 5 | 6 | 9 | 1 | – | 4 | 8 | – | 53 |
Nash and Zervos dispute the contents of the hoard. Omitted from the Amphipolis coins above are 2 group J 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 follows Nash, but the present writer is convinced by Zervos's arguments, which accord fully with deductions from the material at the ANS and from coins and their provenances listed in Alexander . 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 coin 457 in Alexander —but it bears no punchmarks or countermarks. It therefore would seem correct to consider it, along with the other non-mutilated coins listed by Nash, as not part of Kuft.
As stated above, Alexander follows Nash in its assignation of the British Museum holdings to the 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 Λ-torch coin, bear no countermarks 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 significant 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.
27. Unknown provenance ca. 1990, 77 coins, 69 Alexanders.
28 Amphipolis: A, 2 B, 4 C, 3 D, 14 E, F, G, H, Λ-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 Λ-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 Λ-torch group before ca. 310, an interment ca. 310-308 seems 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 (vrey worn), 8 I, J ("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 J on either the Newell or Troxell chronology. The latest coin of all, however, was an Alexander stater with no markings, 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.
29. Messene, Messenia, 1922 ( IGCH 95),42 31 Alexander and Philip III.
1 Amphipolis: I. The latest coin present was Ake of 310/9 B.C.
30. Tel Tsippor, Judaea, 1960 ( IGCH 1514),43 63 coins, 59 Alexander and Philip III.
6 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.
31. Byblus, Phoenicia, 1931 ( IGCH 1515),44 141 coins, 137 Alexander and Philip III.
8 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.
32. Asia Minor 1966 ( IGCH 1436),45 52 coins, 51 Alexanders.
8–9 Amphipolis: 1 or 2 B, 3 E, G, 2 H, L. Mørkholm's burial date in IGCH is ca. 323, but he seems not to have taken account of one coin listed with "Äher(?)" to left and below the Throne, which can only be L4. This coin dates the hoard, which is therefore, once again of no chonological 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.
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. All of the Alexander issues not of Amphipolis and all those of Philip III 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 IIs present were: 1? group 3, 1 group 6, 3 group 7, 1 group 9, and 1 (2?) of Philippe's contemporary Pella group III.
34. Paeonia 1968 ( IGCH 410),47ca. 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 enormoss hoard of nearly 2,000 coins was silver of Patraos of Paeonia. It also contaieid 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. 316/5.48The 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.
35. Râ?inci, Bulgaria, 1961 ( IGCH 411),492,657+ coins, 1,446 Philip II tetradrachms.
996 Amphipolis : 40 Philippe groups I and II; 47 groups 2–8 (analogous to Alexander groups K and J); 392 either group 8 or 9 (analogous to K and J or to L); 517 group 9 (analogous to Alexander group L). The hoard can be dated only by the latest Philips, and is thus of no chronological value.
36. Megara 1917 ( IGCH 94), 50789+ coins, known are 208 Philip II, 174 Alexander.
65 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 Λ-bucranium. The latest coins known are the Λ-bucianium Philips, which date the hoard.
37. Aghios Ioannis, Cyprus, 1949 ( IGCH 1470),5158+ coins, 54 Alexanders, 4+ Philip III.
6 Amphipolis: C, D, F, G, J, L. The latest coins are Sidon of 307/6 B.C. and Carrhae as Alexander 3818 (WSM 9), dated to ca. 310–302 in WSM, but to ca. 305–300 in Alexander . The hoard must have been buried at least some years after the introduction of group L.
38. Kâto Paphos, Cyprus, 1965 ( IGCH 1471),52 13 coins, 7 Alexander and Philip III tetradrachms, 6 Alexander drachms.
1 Amphipolis: A. Thompson dates the latest Lampsacus drachm present to ca. 305/4, which requires a slight lowering of the IGCH's burial date of ca. 305. In any case, burial was decades after the striking of group A.
36. Phacous, Egypt, 1956 ( IGCH 1678a),53514 coins, 456 Alexander and Philip III.
69 Amphipolis: 4 A, 4 B, 9 D, 23E, 3 F, 5 G, 6 H, 2 I, 5 J, 6 L, 2 Λ-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.
40. Aleppo, Cyrrhestica, 1893 ( IGCH 1516),543,000+ coins, 949 Alexanders and Philip III. 156 Amphipolis: 10 A, 7 B, 3 C, 11 D, 34 E, 11 F, 7 G, 19 H, 8 I, 5 J, 33 L, 4 Λ-bucranium, 2 -torch, 2 Λ-torch. The latest known coins are Sidon of 308/7, Ake of 306/5, and Sardes, Miletus, and Lampsacus drachms of ca. 305–300.
41. Aksaray, Cappadocia, 1968 ( IGCH 1400),5519 coins, 18 Alexander and Philip III.
3 Amphipolis: H, I, Λ-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 propoeed in the original publication.
42. Asia Minor, southern, ca. 1960 ( IGCH 1422),56ca. 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.
43. Karaman, Lycaonia, 1969 ( IGCH 1398),5749 Alexander and Philip III.
2 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 useful.
44. Mavriki, Arcadia, ca. 1962 ( IGCH 122), 30+ coins, 3 Alexanders.
1 Amphipolis: Λ-torch (in superb condition). The later of the other two Alexanders present is one of Pella as Alexander 249 (Müller 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.
45. Lamia District (Hagioi Theodorei), Thessaly, 1901–2 ( IGCH 93),58112 coins, 32 Alexander and Philip III tetradrachms, 3 Alexander drachms.
16 Amphipolis : D, E, H, I, 11 L, Λ-torch. The hoard contaieed 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 Λ-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.
46. Paphos District 1945 ( IGCH 1469),5939+ coins, 38 Alexander, 1 Philip III.
7 Amphipolis: D, 2 E, F, 3 L. The hoard is dated by Mørkholm in IGCH to ca. 310, but Thompson dates a Miletus tetradrachm in the hoard to ca. 300–294.
1 | |
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 rather than paralleled those with Philip's name.
|
6 |
See p. 85.
|
7 |
"Babylon," pp. 273 and 276.
|
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 | |
10 |
List of coins and some casts at the ANS.
|
11 |
"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.
|
16 |
List of coins at the ANS.
|
17 |
List of coins at the ANS;
Philippe
, p. 298, 13; Alexander, p. 51.
|
18 |
Alexander, p. 51.
|
19 |
List of coins at the ANS;
Philippe
, pp. 312-14, 18; Alexander, p. 51.
|
20 |
G. Le Rider and N. Olçay, "Un trésor de tétradrachmes d'Alexandre trouvé à Akçakale en 1958," RN 1988, pp. 42-54. The hoard is mentioned passim in Alexander, but
only as a reference for certain issues; there is no general discussion.
|
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), however, he quoted Empedocles as saying that he had disposed of a number of the coins. Many of Empedocles's coins
are today
in the Athens collection, but Dr. Oeconomides kindly informs me that none can be
identified as from the Andritsaena Hoard. The unique Alexander with Λ and
(79) can be identified as from Andritsaena only because of a very old and poor cast at the ANS so
marked. The cast illustrated was sent by Dr. Oeconomides.
|
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.
|
35 |
Alexander, p. 55.
|
36 |
"Babylon Mint," p. 149.
|
37 |
Daphne Nash, "The Kuft Hoard of Alexander III Tetradrachms," NC 1974, pp. 14-30; Orestes Zervos, "Newell's Manuscript of the Kuft Hoard," ANSMN 25
(1980), pp. 17-29; Alexander, p. 56.
|
38 |
Nash (above, n. 37), p. 18, n. 6.
|
39 |
Zervos (above, n. 37), p. 24.
|
40 |
Alexander
lists Kuft coins on p. 56. To these add 103b (Amphipolis) and 3412 (Byblus), so identified only in the catalogue.
|
41 |
List of coins at the ANS.
|
42 |
List of coins and some casts at the ANS.
|
43 |
Alexander, pp. 56, 490.
|
44 |
Alexander, pp. 56, 490.
|
45 |
List of coins at the ANS.
|
46 |
CH 1, 40; Philippe, p. 318 (mention only, no details);
Alexander
, p. 52. In
Alexander
the hoard is erroneously described as ending with the issues of group J and considered a parallel
to Demanhur—the issues references given are, however, to the correct
issues.
|
47 |
Philippe, pp. 298–304, 14;
Alexander
, p. 50; Sardes and Miletus, pp. 73–74. See also Chapter 12, hoard 10, where the Alexander gold component is discussed.
|
48 |
Sotheby, 16 Apr. 1969, 274. The coin is from Waggoner's obverse 258, the first she lists in her issues VIII, to ca. 317/6,
he datefor
this stater should be ca. 316/5. Price assigns
Alexander
3750 VII is assigned grouping, but his catalogue was completed before he had full access to Waggoner's work.
|
49 |
Philippe
, pp. 304–9, 15.
|
50 | |
51 |
List of coins at the ANS (79 known).
|
52 |
List of coins at the ANS; Sardes and Miletus, p. 95;
Lampsacus and Abydus
, p. 73.
|
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 and Abydus
. P. 73.
|
55 |
Sardes and Miletus, p. 90.
|
56 |
List of the nine known coins at the ANS.
|
57 |
Sards and Miletus, p. 94.
|
58 | |
59 |
List of coins at the ANS;
Sards and Miletus, p. 94.
|
No. | Hoard | IGCH Number | Alexander, Philip III* | Amphipolis | Latest Group |
1 | Kyparissia 1892–93 | 76 | 20 | 15 | D |
2 | Mageira 1950 | 74 | 1 | — | — |
3 | Nemea 1938 | 79 | 1 | 1 | D |
4 | Commerce 1993 | –– | 73 | 25 | E |
5 | Babylon 1973 | – | "Many" | 12 | G |
6 | Lebanon 1985 | – | 26 | 5 | G |
7 | Near East 1993: drs. – | 1412 | 17 | F | |
8 | Asia Minor 1964: drs. | 1437 | 89 | 1 | F |
9 | Phoenicia 1968 | 1513 | 15 | 4 | I |
10 | Demanhur 1905 | 1664 | 5,951 | 2,005 | J |
11 | Calim 1976: drs. | – | 3 | 1 | E?F? |
12 | Cilicia 1964 | 1421 | 4 | 2 | F |
13 | Central Greece 1911 | 81 | 28 | 15 | J |
14 | Khirbet-el-Kerak 1936 | 1510 | 53 | 7 | J |
15 | Karditsa 1925 | 82 | 30 | 15 | I |
16 | Egypt 1893 | 1665 | 44 | 18 | H |
17 | Sfire 1932 | 1511 | 84 | 1 | E |
18 | Akçakale 1958 – | 190 | 26 | J | |
19 | Sinan Pascha 1919: drs. | 1395 | 682 | 3 | L? |
20 | Andri tsaena 1923 | 83 | 102 | 33 | J |
21 | Tripolitsa 1921 | 84 | 14 | 4 | I |
– | Asia Minor 1964: see 22 | 1438 | 70 | 28 | ? |
– | Asia Minor 1968: see 22 | 1439 | 80 | 18 | ? |
22 | Asia Minor 1968 | 1440 | 90 | 32 | G |
23 | Asia Minor 1965 | 1443 | 29 | 5 | L |
24 | Abu Hommos 1919 | 1667 | 750 | 61 | L |
25 | Egypt 1894 | 1669 | 45 | 11 | L |
26 | Kuft 1874-75 | 1670 | 190 | 53 | L |
27 | Unknown Provenance ca. 1990 | – | 69 | 28 | Λ-torch? |
28 | Drama 1935 | 414 | 16 | 11 | J |
29 | Messene 1922 | 95 | 31 | 1 | I |
30 | Tel Tsippor 1960 | 1514 | 59 | 6 | I |
31 | Byblus 1931 | 1515 | 137 | 8 | L |
32 | Asia Minor 1966 | 1436 | 51 | 8–9 | L |
33 | Thessaly 1971 or 1972 | – | 20 | 7 | L |
34 | Paeonia 1968 | 410 | [139] | [93] | [ = L] |
35 | Râ?inci 1961 | 411 | [1446] | [996] | [ = L] |
36 | Megara 1917 | 94 | 174 | 1, [64] | [Λ-bucr.] |
37 | Aghios Ioannis 1949 | 1470 | 58 | 6 | L |
38 | Kato Paphos 1965 | 1471 | 13 | 1 | A |
39 | Phacous 1956 | 1678a | 456 | 69 | Λ-torch |
40 | Aleppo 1893 | 1516 | 949 | 156 | Λ-torch |
41 | Aksaray 1968 | 1400 | 18 | 3 | Λ-torch |
42 | Asia Minor, S., 1960 | 1422 | 9 | 1 | H |
43 | Karaman 1969 | 1398 | 49 | 2 | I |
44 | Mavriki 1962 | 122 | 3 | 1 | Λ-torch |
45 | Lamia District (Hagioi Theodoroi) 1901–2 | 93 | 35 | 16 | Λ-torch |
46 | Paphos District 1945 | 1469 | 39 | 7 | L |
* |
Bracketed groups and numbers are Philip II reissues. Only silver coins are
included.
|
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 evidenee, about the dates of the various coin groups in the decade after Alexander's death. This evidence will be discussed in the following 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 littte 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? At 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—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 difficutty in accepting a start in 347/6.60At 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 Sidoni 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 componett in so many hoards. Waggoner's unpublished thesis closety 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 BA∑IΛEΩ∑.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 obveree 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 equaeed with six calendar years is highly questionable. Obvesee dies are retired when no longer usable. They 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 titles and all are closety 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 ÷ 12 groups = 73. Price, however, woudd date this entire Babylon series to ca. 325–323 B.C.,62when returning soldiers from the east received their pay. I agree with Price's analysis.
Price also suggests that the Babylon issues with M and ΛY bearing either Alexander's OR Philip III's 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-ΛY coins from the series in question could well bring that series, culminating in coins with the title, down a year or two. Thus there rcmains 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 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 aigue 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.
60 |
A. Lemaire, "Le monnayage de Tyr et celui dit d'Akko dans la deuxième moitié du IVesiècle av. J.-C.," RN 1976. pp.
11–24;
Alexander
, pp. 405–7, with other bibliography. Georges Le Rider tells me that Lemaire has further evidence
supporting Tyre. One hopes to see this published soon.
|
61 |
Alexander
3594–3687; "Babylon Mint" and "Babylon."
|
62 |
Alexander
, p. 454–57, dates at p.457.
|
This chapter 1 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 chronologically are discussed below, together with the coins' own internal evidence.
The traditional chronology for Alexander groups A through K and J 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:
The dates here assigned the various groups of the Amphipolis coinage are, perhaps, to a 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—so far as our hoard is concerned—by the latest date found on the accompanying issues of Sidon and Ake. Betwenn 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. Naturally some years would witness a greater production than others, and full account has been taken of this possibility. ... 3
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
In November 333 Alexander fought and won the second of the three decisive battles in his conquest 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, C). 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 single slanting line supported only at the right by a support resembling an inverted horseshoe, or the letter O. 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 footstool.
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 slow 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 drapery at his waist, and the throne with its bell-covers. None of these, except the probable 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.
Plate 18, D, is a silver stater of Perdiccas III, brother and predecessor of Philip II, and Plate 18, E, is a didrachm of Philip 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 immediately 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 —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 edges of the extra-large bottom protuberances do show an attempt at depicting bell-covers.
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.
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 immediately under the throne seat, while 459 has a flowering scepter.
Four more coins, 460–63, have a similar prow symbol. 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 instead of Of the some 145–50 reverses known to me in A, only 11 have 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 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. 11
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 often poorly executed, as if imperfectly understood. Finally, very shortly after their early appearances they drop out. Even though many of them—e.g., the flowering scepter and the footstool—are well known 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 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 Alexander thought to do when suddenly propelled to the throne. Rather, a coinage whose types would be understandable throughout a newly secured empire—and, perhaps more important, whose standard would be universally acceptable there—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 alliance.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 everywhere, his silver on the parochial Macedonian standard was not and its almost total absence from Asia Minor hoards is striking. One must assume that some combination of prepayment 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. 14 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 metal.
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 for a time struck in parallel. In particular, the Philips with the added symbol of the bee 17 might have come from a subsidiary workshop once the main workship using prow, stern, and double heads had switched 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—but it is still only a guess.
1 |
A preliminary version of the chapter has appeared as 'Earliest Silver."
|
2 |
Demanhur
, pp. 26–32.
|
3 |
Demanhur
, p. 68.
|
4 |
See p. 96, Figure 6.
|
5 |
See, e.g., Myriandros, p. 15.
|
6 |
"Earliest Coins." Zervos has been supported by F. de Callata? in "La date des prémiers tétradrachmes de poids attique émis
par Alexandre
le Grand," RBN 1982, pp. 5–25. Price argued for retaining the traditional starting date of 336 B.C. in "Reform"
and in Alexander, pp. 27–30.
|
7 |
See Chapter 3, link 2.
|
8 |
Cambridge = SNGFitz 2112. I thank T. V. Buttrey for verifying that the coin does indeed have a footstool.
|
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 records. Can it
be that XV was an error for XI, the grapes issue of group B, where a Newell coin with footstool is indeed known?
|
10 |
E.g., Grabow 14, 27 July 1939, 220. The ANS has a coin from the same dies. The issue is E8, with bucranium.
|
11 |
See p. 92.
|
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 |
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 concurrently with many shared obverse dies between each pair. From E on (except for J and the very small K) each group appears to have been the only one in production during its period of striking. 20 It could be that there was a hiatus between the striking of D and E, despite the 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.
The Sizes of the Groups
Group E is the largest by far of any of the Alexander tetradrachm groups, employing some 241 estimated 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 essentially 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 ?
Positing a revised starting date for the coinage of 332 instead of mid–336, and spreading the estimated dies out evenly (which is not in any case good practice), one arrives at a date for group E from the end of 329 to the end of 325. 23 This span of several years seems most unlikely, as E stylistically is an extremely homogeneous group, with every indication of having been struck in a concentrated manner 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 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. 24 The same situation would have obtained on the mainland, and the large group E is reasonably explained as struck in expectation 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—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 Macedonian 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., 48). 29 Further, the bucranium symbol is one of the 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 footstool. 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 line (not to be confounded with an exergual line)" (51, 56). 31
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 chronology 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.
17 |
Philippe
, Amphipolis 430–494.
|
18 |
See 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 of coins known to him, Newell called group F "group F, section
1," and
group G "group F, section 2."
|
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 ÷
15). 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 Festschrift fur / Studies in Honor of Leo
Mildenberg, ed. A. Houghton et al. (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 Λ 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.
|
For the start of group G, which introduced the title BA∑IΛEΩ∑ at Amphipolis, there is hoard evidence. 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 BA∑IΛEΩ∑ just as group G was the first at Amphipolis with the title. Newell's chronology for Amphipolis, 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 to particular years (and each to either precisely one or two years) was based on the premise 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 Unfortunately 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, 35 i.e., approximately to 323. It requires no great adjustment to accept that AΛE≡AN∆POY changed to BA∑IΛEΩ∑ A9BE≡AN∆POY 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.
30 |
See p. 88.
|
31 |
Reattrib p. 17.
|
32 |
Chapter 8, hoards 5, 6, and 22.
|
Groups H and I, as discussed in Chapter 3, fall between group G and groups K/J, and require no special discussion.
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 J were struck concurrently, and in any case there would have seemed no need to devote a full year to the minute group K. J was not a very large group either, although it must be remembered that large reissues of Philip II's types were contemporary with K/J.
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÷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—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 J 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 Table 18 Percentages of I and K/J in Groups A through K/J in Hoards Containing 10 or More Macedonian Coins of Groups A through K/J
Coins | Coins | Percentage | Percentage | |||
Hoard | Total A-K/J | I | K/J | I | K/J | |
Hoards ending with K/J | ||||||
10 | Demanhur 1905 | 2,005 | 81 | 50 | 4.0 | 2.5 |
13 | Central Greece 1911 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 20.0 | 20.0 |
18 | Akçakale 1958 | 26 | 2 | 2 | 7.7 | 7.7 |
20 | Andritsaena 1923 | 33 | 6 | 6 | 18.1 | 18.1 |
28 | Drama 1935 | 10 | 8 | 1 | 80.0 | 10.0 |
Hoards ending with L | ||||||
24 | Abu Hommos 1919 | 57 | 5 | 6 | 8.8 | 10.5 |
26 | Kuft 1874–1875 | 45 | 1 | 4 | 2.2 | 8.9 |
Later hoards | ||||||
39 | Phacous 1956 | 61 | 2 | 5 | 3.3 | 8.2 |
40 | Aleppo 1893 | 115 | 8 | 5 | 7.0 | 4.3 |
— | Meydancikkale 1980* | 95 | 10 | 11 | 10.5 | 11.6 |
* |
The Meydancikkale, Cilicia, 1980 hoard was published by A. Davesne and G. Le Rider,
Le Trétsor 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 Λ-bucranium, 7
Λ-torch, 214 Λ-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.
|
33 |
Coins 4446 ff.
|
34 |
Tarsos
, p. 34.
|
35 |
"Babylon Mint," p. 122, and "Babylon," p. 276.
|
36 |
Demanhur
, pp. 68–69.
|
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 Λ-bucranium, -bucranium, and -torch, and the enormous one with Λ-torch. There is no hoard evidence for the absolute date of the introduction of the Λ-bucranium, -bucranium, or -torch groups, 39 but the earliest possible appearance of the Λ-torch group is in the Unknown Provenance ca. 1990 hoard, buried perhaps ca. 308 B.C., although the interpretation of this hoard is problematical. The Λ-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 Λ-torch began to be used in ca. 308-305, there is ample time before that for group L and the Λ-bucranium and Λ-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 Akçakale 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 as its sole marking, an issue which had usually been considered as belonging with group L, where the 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 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 315.
37 |
E.g., Paeonia and Râ?inci (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 Λ-Bucranium, contemporary with the similarly marked Alexanders, but unfortunately the hoard can
only be dated by these Λ-Bucranium Philips.
|
40 |
Phacous, Aleppo, Aksaray, Mavriki, and Lamia (Hagioi Theodoroi) in Chapter 8, hoards 39–41 and 44–45.
|
As discussed in Chapters 4-7, reissued tetradrachms and smaller coins with Philip II's types and name (Philip 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 paralleled 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—but no such coinage is known.
By Newell's chronology, Alexander group I was struck ca. 322-321 B.C., by my chronology, perhaps 320-319. Groups K and J on Newell's chronology would have been issued ca. 320-318, by mine, perhaps 318-317. My best estimate of when these Philip reissues started is, then, 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
The chronology proposed here for Amphipolis's Alexanders, then, is:
Groups A-D | ca. 332 - ca. 326 |
Groups E-F | ca. 325 - ca. 323/322 |
Groups G-K/J | ca. 322 - ca. 317? |
Group L | ca. 316 - ? |
Figure 6 shows in schematic form, on the left, Newell's dating, and the estimated total number of dies found 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. 44
Figure 6 Comparison of Newell and Troxell Dating
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 Alexander 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 BA∑IΛEΩ∑ 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 BA∑IΛEΩ∑ A9BE≡AN∆POY 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 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 of βασ ιλεĩς. Philip III's coinage, struck at a number of mints but, remarkably, never at Amphipolis, often uses the title BA∑IΛEΩ∑, 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 modest legend A9BE≡AN∆POY. On the coins especially intended 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, however.... the legends BA∑IΛEΩ∑ (Ф ıΛππОγ and BA∑IΛEΩ∑ A9BE≡AN∆POY were intended to indicate that these kings were the rightful successors....
This strong statement was made by Newell himself in Reattribution 46 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 understandable 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's supporters. Cassander, returning from the Peloponnese, besieged her and her forces 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 Alexander's half-sister, and founded Cassandreia, named after himself. Cassander also, according to Diodorus Siculus,
... had determined to do away with Alexander's son ... so that there might be no successor to the kingdom; but for the present, since he wished 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
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 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 (άπέσπασε δ έκί тоύς πα ĩδαζ σᴜᴠτρ φεσθαı. 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. Confinement 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—and was—to be.
In 1991 I rashly suggested that the title on Alexander's coins, no matter where struck, might have appeared 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 before it appeared at Amphipolis. 50 In addition, the title was not discontinued at every mint at 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.
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 monnaies macédoniennes des années
323-294/90," BCH 117 (1993), pp. 491-500, esp. pp. 497–500.
|
44 |
The dies are estimated as on p. 25, n. 9.
|
45 |
Tarsos
, p. 34.
|
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.
|
49 |
"Earliest Silver," pp. 60–61.
|
50 |
50 E.g., most recently, the 1993 tetradrachm hoard buried ca. 323 or 322 (Chapter 8, hoard 4), which contained coins with
BA∑IΛEΩ∑ A9BE≡AN∆POY from Citium, Myriandrus, and Aradus, but whose Amphipolis component
ended with E, the penultimate group before the title was added there.
|
This study describes in detail only an early subgroup of the common Alexander staters with symbols 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 cantharus, trident, or fulmen as well as those with Boeotian (?) shield are therefore here assigned, as in Philippe , merely to Macedonia.
Some years ago, Georges Le Rider and the present author began a die study of Alexander III's Macedonian gold coinage—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
Coins | Obverse Dies | Obverse Links between Symbols | Coins Obv. Die | Obv. Links/Obv. Die | |
Distatersa | 141 | 22 | 3 | 6.41 | 0.14 |
Cantharus | 61 | 10.5 | |||
Trident | 43 | 9 | |||
Fulmen | 37 | 2.5 | |||
Staters Published Below | 109 | 30 | 14 | 3.63 | 0.47 |
Cantharus | 38 | 14.2 | |||
Trident | 54 | 13.2 | |||
Fulmen | 17 | 2.7 | |||
Other Statersb | 238 | 78 | 5 | 3.05 | 0.06 |
Cantharus | 28 | 8.5 | |||
Trident | 62 | 21.5 | |||
Fulmen | 109 | 38 | |||
Shield | 39 | 10 | |||
Quarter Statersc | 88 | 16 | 5 | 5.50 | 0.31 |
Cantharus | 23 | 4.5 | |||
Fulmen | 62 | 9.5 | |||
Shield | 3 | 2 |
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 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 19 gives the numbers of coins and obverse dies found for the various denominations and symbols and the obverse 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 staters). What is striking in Table 19, however, is the difference in the number of die links between 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 obverse 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 reattribution to Macedonia seems inescapable.
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, following the catalogue, shows the coins' complex die linkage in schematic form, and Plates 20-23 repeat this arrangement. Bold Troxell numbers indicate dies that were reported by Newell as part of Tarsos . A concordance of Newell's Tarsos die letters and the present author's die numbers appears in Table 20, p. 108 below.
The staters' obverses show a head of Athena right, wearing a Corinthian helmet surmounted by a serpent. The reverses show Nike standing, holding wreath and stylis, and are inscribed AΛE≡AN∆POY. Obverse dies have the prefix 0 and reverses are identified as C, cantharus; T, trident; and F, fulmen. Hoards cited are discussed in Chapter 12.
Series 1 (Plate 20)
Cantharus | |
Trident —— 04–Cl | 1. ANS = Tarsos 14 (dies E-ε; pl. III, 15) (466) |
2. Hess 208, 14 Dec. 1931, 259 | |
Trident —— 05–C2 | 1. London = Alexander 3004 = Tarsos 14 (dies D-δ pl. III, 16) (467; Plate 25, N14) 06–C2 1. ANS (468) |
2. Commerce 1994 hoard 3 (Plate 31, 3) | |
Trident | |
O1-T1 | 1. Alexandria = Tarsos 15 (dies G-ζ pl. III, 18) |
2. Veliko Tarnovo = Samovodéné hoard 58 ( Philippe , pl. 89, 13, obv. only) (469) | |
02-T2 | 1. Paris = Tarsos 15 (dies F–F;pl III, 17) |
2. ANS = R. Ratto, 4 Apr. 1927, 567 = R. Ratto, FPL Dec. 1922, 1947 | |
3. Kovacs 9, 21 Nov. 1988, 3 = Münz. u. Med. 10, 22 June 1951, 240 (470; Plate 25, N15) | |
02-T3 | 1. Athens = Corinth hoard 47 (471) |
2. CNG 26, 11 June 1993, 66 = Malko Topolovo hoard 34a | |
02-T4 | 1. Commerce 1994 hoard 1 (472; Plate 31, 1) |
03-T5 | 1. Athens = Corinth hoard 48 |
2. Coin Galleries, 9 Mar. 1956, 1296 = Malko Topolovo hoard 34 | |
3. Potidaea hoard 5 | |
4. Commerce 1994 hoard 2 (473; Plate 31, 2) | |
Cantharus —— 04-T6 | 1. ANS = Ball 4, 23 Mar. 1931, 1625 (474) |
2. Balkans hoard 27 | |
Cantharus —— 05-T7 | 1. Mid-American, 24 May 1985, 1015 = Balkans hoard 26 |
2. Veliko Tarnovo = Samovodéné hoard 59 ( Philippe , pl. 89, 13, rev. only) (475) | |
05-T8 1. | 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.
Cantharus | |
07-C3 | 1. Veliko Tarnovo = Samovodéné hoard 57 ( Philippe , pl. 89, 12, rev. only) (477). The stylis's cross-bar is in front of Nike's wing, as on T10, T12, and T18–T19. |
08–C3 | 1. ANS = SNGBerry 169 (478) |
08–C4 | 1. St. Petersburg = Tarsos 12 (dies B-α coin cited but not 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-β. The rev. die, however, is Newell's α. |
2. Berlin (Plate 25, N12, second example) | |
Trident —— 010–C4 | 1. ANS = Tarsos 12 (dies A-α; pl. III, 14; p. 23, fig. 10; p. 24, fig. 12) (Plate 25, N12, first example) |
2. Athens = Corinth hoard 46 | |
3. Cast: "Spink, Nov. 1920. Saida hd. ?" = Schweizerische Kreditanstalt FPL 25, Spring 1978, 20 = Cahn 68, 26 Nov. 1930, 1222 (480) | |
4. Veliko Tărnovo = Samovodéné hoard 55 | |
5. Veliko Tărnovo = Samovodéné hoard 56 (Plate 25, P) | |
Trident —— 011–C4 | 1. Rauch 4, 26 June 1970, 2 |
2. Commerce 1994 hoard 5 (481; Plate 31, 5) | |
Trident —— 012–C5 | 1. Berlin (482) |
012–C6 | 1. Sofia = Varna hoard 33 (483) |
Trident & Fulmen —— 014–C7 | 1. Istanbul (484) |
2. Coin Galleries, 19 Nov. 1971, 464 | |
014–C8 | 1. Athens = Corinth hoard 42 (485) |
Fulmen —— 016–C9 | 1.Malko Topolovo hoard 30 |
2. Glendining, 29 Apr. 1954, 2 (486) | |
017–C9 | 1. Verroia = K. Romiopoulou, "Eυρ ήματα από τCυς 'ΔίδυμCυς' MaxεδCѵɩϰύς Tà<Cυς της BέϱCɩaς," A' Ʃυѵàѵτηση γɩα Eλληѵɩστɩϰή Kεϱαμειϰή (Joannina, 1989), p. 35, 3 (inv. 13a), and pl. 15, obv. only (487) |
Trident & Fulmen —— 018–C10 | 1. London = Alexander 168b = Glendining, 14 July 1950, 97 (not illus.) (488) |
019–C10 | 1. London = Alexander 168d |
2. Commerce 1994 hoard 8 (489; Plate 31, 8) | |
020–C10 | 1.Ruse = Ruse hoard 3 (490) |
Trident —— 026–C11 | 1.London = Alexander 168c (491) |
027–C12 | 1. New Netherlands 63, 18 Apr. 1972, 68 (492) |
028–C13 | 1.Stack's, 10 Dec. 1987, 3112 (493) |
029–C14 | 1. Veliko Tarnovo = Samovodéné hoard 53 ( Philippe , pl. 89, 12, obv. only) (494) |
2. In commerce 1976, provenance unknown | |
030–C15 | 1. G. Hirsch 17, 12 June 1958, 17 (495) |
2. Shore FPL 16, n.d., 20 | |
030–C16 | 1. Jasna Poljana hoard 13 |
2. Peus 270, 10 June 1969, 55 (496) | |
030–C17 | 1.Commerce 1994 hoard 7 (497; Plate 31, 7) |
Trident | |
09–T9 | 1. ANS = Tarsos 13 (dies C-γ coin cited but not illus.) (498; Plate 25, N13) |
2. Münz. u. Med. 64, 30 Jan. 1984, 88 = Münz. u. Med. 8, 8 Dec. 1949, 809 | |
3. Platt, FPL "Coll. H. H.," n.d., but ca. 1910–15, 17 09–T10 1. St. Petersburg = Anadol hoard 8 = Tarsos 13 (obv. die 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-γ, but the rev. die is not γ. 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 were added to the right of Athena's neck on 09. | |
2. Lanz 28, 7 May 1984, 195 | |
3. NFA, 10 June 1993, 40 | |
09–T11 | 1. Bucharest = Gîldau hoard 4 (500) |
Cantharus —— 010–T11 | 1. Berk 56, 17 Jan. 1989, 12 (501) |
Cantharus —— 011–T12 | 2. 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. |
Cantharus —— 012–T12 | 1. Milan |
2. Malko Topolovo hoard 31 | |
3. Veliko Tarnovo = Samovodéné hoard 54 (503) | |
012–T13 | 1. ANS (504) |
2. Potidaea hoard 10, 11, or 12 (not illus.) | |
3. Giessener 32, 12 Nov. 1985, 54 | |
013–T13 1. | Ball 6, 9 Feb. 1932, 152 = Ball 4, 23 Mar. 1931, 1626 (505) |
013–T14 | 1. Peus 298, 23 Oct. 1979, 51 (506) |
Cantharus & Fulmen —— 014–T13 | 1. Balkans hoard 25 (507) |
014–T15 | 1. Athens = Corinth hoard 43 (508) |
Fulmen —— 015–T15 | 1. Athens = Corinth hoard 45 (509). This obv. has previously 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 serpent's head and tail, and the hair revealed by the indentation between helmet visor and flap. |
Cantharus & Fulmen —— 018–T15 | 1. Athens = Corinth hoard 44 (510) |
2. Canessa, 22 May 1922, 391 | |
Fulmen —— 021–T16 | 1. ANS (511) |
2. Glendining, 24 Nov. 1950, 1543 | |
3. Commerce 1994 hoard 9 (Plate 31, 9) | |
Fulmen —— 022–T17 | 1. Sotheby, 16 Apr. 1969, 269 = Paeonia hoard |
2. Frankfurter 99, 2 Oct. 1958, 39 | |
3. Münz. u. Med. FPL 281, Oct. 1967, 7 | |
4. Münz. u. Med. FPL 317, Oct. 1970, 2 | |
5. Potidaea hoard 5 | |
6. Commerce 1994 hoard 10 (512; Plate 31, 10) | |
023–T18 | 1. 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. |
023–T19 | 1. Plovdiv (514). The stylis's cross-bar is in front of Nike's wing, as n C3, T10, T12, and T18. |
024–T20 | 1. Commerce 1994 hoard 4 (515; Plate 31, 4) |
025–T21 | 1. Auctiones 10, 12 June 1979, 118 (516) |
Cantharus 026–T22 | 1. Sternberg 11, 20 Nov. 1981, 74 (517) |
026–T23 | 1. Peus 328, 2 May 1990, 111 (518) |
Fulmen | |
Cantharus & Trident 014–F1 | 1. Mende hoard 73 (519; Plate 29, 73) |
Trident 015–F1 | 1. Berk 52, 22 Feb. 1988, 11 (520) |
Cantharus 016–F2 | 1. Gotha (521) |
2. Commerce 1994 hoard 6 (Plate 31, 6) | |
Cantharus & Trident 018–F2 | 1. Oslo (522) |
018–F3 | 1. ANS = SNGBerry 136 (523) |
2. Lanz 48, 22 May 1989, 176 | |
3. Commerce 1993 hoard 20 (Plate 30, 20) | |
018–F4 | 1. Alexandria (524) |
018–F5 | Glendining, 29 Apr. 1954, 3 (525) |
018–F6 | 1.Glendining, 20 July 1976, 2 (526) |
018–F7 | 1.Sofia = Varna hoard 32 |
2. Malko Topolovo hoard 29 (527). There is a die break on Nike's right wing. | |
Trident 021–F7 | 1. Peus 277, 25 Oct. 1971, 80 |
2. London = Alexander 164A = Larnaca hoard 62 (528) | |
Trident 022–F7 | 1. Hamburg = W. Hornbostel, et al, Kunst der Antike. Schatze aus Nord-deutschen Privatbesitz (Mainz/Rhein, 1977) 536 = Münz. u. Med. FPL 258, Oct. 1965, 9 (529) The die break noted under 018–F7 has enlarged. |
022–F8 | 1.Kricheldorf 15, 15 June 1965, 6 (530) |
Figure 7
Die Linkage in Series 1 and Series 2
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 = Samovodéné, 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.
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 Callata?, "Numismatique
d' Alexandre III le Grand. Deux questions," Mémoire présenté en vue de l'obtention du grade de licencié en
Archéologie et Histoire de l'Art (Antiquité) (Université Catholique de Louvain, 1983), pp. 125–28.
|
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 023–030, 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 ringlets to the immediate right of the helmet flap; two or more tightly curled ringlets (as 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 T11 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 now broken by the newly emerged reverse-linked 06, with its loose flowing locks replacing the 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 Cl and C2, the only cantharus reverses known in series 1, have the unusual cantharus of series 2's C3, with no base, and with semicircular handles.8 Finally, of course, there is the feature which was key in Newell's association 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 considering them the output of a single mint—as did Newell. The variations in details of iconography in series 1 and early series 2 can be explained simply enough by experimentation at the outset of the new coinage—compare the initial obverses of Philip II'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 Newell'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.
Newell Die | Newell Issue | Newell Pl. III | Troxell Die |
Newell's First Group, Included in Troxell Series 2 | Newell's First Group, Included in Troxell Series 2 | Newell's First Group, Included in Troxell Series 2 | Newell's First Group, Included in Troxell Series 2 |
Obv. A* | 12 | 14 | 010 |
Obv. B* | 12 | — | 08 |
Obv. C* | 13 | — | 09 |
Rev. α* | 12 | 14 | C4 |
Rev. β | 12 | = α (C4) | |
Rev. γ* | 13 | T9 and T10 |
Newell's Second Group, Included in Troxell Series 1 | Newell's Second Group, Included in Troxell Series 1 | Newell's Second Group, Included in Troxell Series 1 | Newell's Second Group, Included in Troxell Series 1 |
Obv. D* | 14 | 16 | 05 |
Obv. E | 14 | 15 | 04 |
Obv. F* | 15 | 17 | 02 |
Obv. G | 15 | 18 | 01 |
Rev. δ* | 14 | 16 | C2 |
Rev. ε | 14 | 15 | C1 |
Rev. ϝ* | 15 | 17 | T2 |
Rev. ς | 15 | 18 | T1 |
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 symbol. Had he known of these links it is inconceivable that he would have given his first 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 of series 1) to Tarsus cannot be decisively disproved. One might think that the early icon- 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 anticipating 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—the coiffures and helmet crests of 06 and 07 and the shapes of the canthari of C1–C3.11 In addition, 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 Macedonian 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 II'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
Coins | Obv. Dies | Coins/Obv. | Obv. Die Links | Obv. Links/Obv. Die | |
Pella II.l | 513 | 124 | 4.14 | 54 | 0.43 |
Series 1 and 2 | 109 | 30 | 3.21 | 14 | 0.47 |
Pella IIIA | 187 | 47 | 3.98 | 25 | 0.53 |
The three groups' survival rates are very close, and so the frequency of die linkage between symbols in each case is comparable. Both common symbols and similar die linkage associate our staters with Pella's Philips. Further, the earliest canthari of series 1 and 2 are very similar to those of Philippe's Pella 11.1.16
These Alexander staters are a relatively small group compared to the two great outpourings of Philip staters comprising Le Rider's Pella 11.1 and III A. But the three groups' use of the same three symbols and above all their extensive obverse linkage between symbols clearly associate them.
If Philippe's Pella groups truly belong to that city, then seemingly so do these earliest Alexander staters. 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 Amphipolis.17 But whether these "other" staters came from the same mint as the early ones of 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."
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 enlargements, Plate 25, C (C3), D (C4), and E (one of the "other"
cantharus staters not in series 1 or 2).
|
8 |
See enlargements, Plate 25, A–B.
|
9 |
Philippe
, Pella gold obverse dies D1–D4, pp. 129–30, and pl. 53.
|
10 |
See p. 121, Table 23.
|
11 |
See 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, pl. 55–64. Note that the small II.2 is not necessarily considered later than II. 1. See
Philippe
, p. 417. Pella group II contains the last Philips struck there before
the hiatus which ended only with the reissuance of Philip's types after Alexander's
death.
|
14 |
Philippe
, pp. 171–82, 398–516, pl. 65–69. See commentary below (p. 117) on the Samovodéné hoard for 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.
|
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 is possible. Comments on his illustrated examples may however be useful.
Issue | Marking | Comments |
164 | fulmen, | vertical 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. |
164 A | fulmen, | slanted 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 between 164 and 164A merely on the basis of the symbol's orientation seems unwarranted. |
168 | cantharus | 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. |
172 | trident, | vertical None of the illustrated examples is part of series 1 or 2. Coin 172a is one of a subgroup showing three helmet crests. See p. 100, note b. 172b–d belong with the "other staters" discussed on p. 100. |
175 | trident, | horizontal 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. |
176 | shield | The issue is not in series 1 or series 2, but is discussed on pp. 100 and 127. |
3004 | cantharus | Price retains Newell's attribution to Tarsus for this coin, distinguished from issue 168 (itself not a homogeneous output) only by its obverse style. The example illustrated is however here reattributed to Macedonia (series 1, dies 05–C2). |
3005 | cantharus, below wing | The attribution to Tarsus seems correct. |
3006 | trident, vertical | 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 similarities between the Corinth, Samovodéné and Balkans hoards, Price identifies the trident staters of series 2 in Corinth and Samovodéné (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, horizontal (below wing) | As with 3005, the probable attribution is to Tarsus. |
16 |
Compare Plate 25, A–C (C1-C3) with the canthari of
Philippe
's pls. 57–60.
|
17 |
E.g., SNGBerry 136 ff.; Sardes and Miletus, p. 70; and p. 116 below.
|
18 |
See p. 127.
|
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 cantharus, 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—two cantharus-trident, and one cantharus-fulmen. Two links and other representative examples are shown on Plate 24.
Group B (537–39)
The second group, B, is the fulmen– distaters, Sicyon 6–7, for which I have located six obverse 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
Issue | Markings | Distater Obv. Dies | Stater Obv. Dies | Tetradrachm Obv. Dies | Second Symbol? |
1–5 | Youthful figure (athlete? boxer?) | 1 | 2 | 4 | yes |
6–8 | Fulmen a | 6b | 2c | – | – |
9–16 | Similar youthful figure | 1 | 1d | 6 | yes |
No die links connect any of these three sub-groups to another. The fulmen- 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 , shared with the third group. This hardly seems sufficient: this marking, or its possible variant , is found on Amphipolis's Alexander tetradrachms of group K, and on their contemporary Philip II reissues of tetradrachms and smaller coins.4 And perhaps more significantly, it is also found on staters with the other two typical Macedonian symbols, cantharus and trident.5
The rare fulmen– staters' divergent styles are revealing. Whether they truly accompany the 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- distaters from the other Sicyon gold. If they are associated, however, the staters' connections with simple fulmen staters are significant. The obverse shown in Sicyon (Plate 25, J) is very similar indeed to one known with simple fulmen reverses (Plate 25, I; see also Plate 31, 21, 22). And the newly emerged second fulmen- obverse (Plate 25, L) 6 is actually known used with a fulmen reverse (Plate 25, K).
It remains possible that the gold with the youthful figures and its accompanying silver was also struck somewhere in Macedonia. But the new shared stater obverse just mentioned strengthens the suggestion that the fulmen- 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.
Group C (540–48)
But even the three simple markings of cantharus, trident, and fulmen, unaccompanied by any secondary 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 obverses.
In the catalogue below, dies are prefaced by "D" for distater. Thus, e.g., DO1 = 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.
CATALOGUE
Trident & Fulmen D01–DC1 | 1. Commerce 1993 hoard 19. Nike walking (540; Plate 30, 19) |
Fulmen DO2–DC1 | 1. Berlin (541) |
D03–DC2 | 1. ANS = SNGBerry 135. Nike walking |
2. Paris (542) | |
3. In commerce, 1976 | |
Trident | |
Cantharus & Fulmen DO1–DT1 | 1. NFA 1, 20 Mar. 1975, 82 = Parke-Bernet, 9 Dec. 1969, 140 = Paeonia 1968 hoard. Nike walking (543) |
2. Parke-Bernet, 9 Dec. 1969, 141 = Paeonia 1968 hoard | |
Fulmen | |
Cantharus & Trident DO1–DF1 | 1. Paris (544) |
D01–DF2 | 1. Münz. u. Med. FPL 227, Nov. 1962, 434 = Santamaria, 12 Oct. 1949, 16 = Egger, 7 Jan. 1908, 420 (545) |
D01–DF3 | 1. Berk 82, 13 July 1994, 10 (possibly from the Commerce 1993 hoard) (546). See 540 and 547 from the same obverse and from that hoard |
D01–DF4 | 1. Commerce 1993 hoard 18 (547; Plate 30, 18) |
2. Boston = MFA 659 | |
3. Florence | |
4. Paris = De Luynes 1604 | |
5. Schlessinger 13, 4 Feb. 1935, 649 | |
6. Naville-Ars Classica 17, 3 Oct. 1934, 359 | |
Cantharus D02–DF4 | 1. Boston = MFA 658 (548) |
The die links are summarized in the following figure. Reverses in italics are those whose Nikes are shown walking.
Figure 8
Die Linkage among Group C Distaters
This small concentrated output is obviously distinct from group A. The hoards also distinguish group C from the more common distaters of group A, as will be seen in following chapters.
a | |
b |
Sicyon records six obverse dies. A11, 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.
|
2 |
"Peloponnesian Alexanders," pp. 42–44;
Alexander
185–200.
|
3 |
Chapter 12, hoards 4 and 7.
|
4 |
See pp. 23, 53, and 58.
|
5 | |
6 |
See p. 112, note c, above. The obverse link is noted also in the author's "Staters, Serendipity, and Soli," in Xαϱαϰτήϱ. Aφιέϱwμα ατη Máντw Oιϰoνoμίδoν, ed. E. Kypraiou, D. Zafiropoulou et al. (Athens, 1996), pp. 283–86.
|
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—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.
Hoard | Number |
Asia Minor 1950 | 13 |
Balkans 1967 | 3 |
Commerce 1993 | 7 |
Commerce 1994 | 8 |
Corinth 1930 | 1 |
Gîldău 1960 | 11 |
Jasna Poljana 1969 | 9 |
Mende 1983 | 4 |
Paeonia 1968 | 10 |
Ruse ca. 1952 | 5 |
Saida 1829, 1852, 1863 | 6 |
Samovodéné 1954 | 2 |
Varna 1949 | 12 |
INDIVIDUAL HOARDS
1. Corinth, Corinthia, 1930 ( IGCH 77)1
Series 1: 2 staters, from 02–T3 (471), 03–T5
Series 2: 5 staters, 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 are known with certainty. It is also possibly the earliest buried, and thus its interment date, unfortunately uncertain, should be of high importance for the terminal date of the striking of series 1 and series 2.
With the realization that Alexander's Attic-weight tetradrachms were introduced in Macedonia 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 be reexamined. Her arguments, perfectly valid at the time, were that Philip II's coins were all in excellent 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.
42–45: four "Amphipolis" staters, series 2's 014, 015, and 018, "from dies which Newell placed early in the sequence from that mint [Amphipolis]." As Newell's chronology for 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 early in their sequence.
46–48: three "Tarsus" staters, 46 from series 2's 010, 47–48 from series 1'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 symbol. 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 Newell'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.
2. Samovodéné, Bulgaria, 1954 ( IGCH 395)11
Series 1: 2 staters, from 01–T1 (469), 05–T7 (475)
Series 2: 5 staters, from 07–C3 (477), 010–C4 (2 coins) (Plate 25, P), 012–T12 (503), 029–C14 (494)
Other: one "other" stater with fulmen symbol (Plate 25, M). See p. 127.
Samovodéné's two Philip II staters of Philippe's Pella group III (Plate 25, Q and R) were not recognized as from this group 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,14 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 Samovodéné may be dated to ca. 323 B.C. or shortly afterward.
3. Balkans 196715
Series 1: 2 staters, from 04–T6, 05–T7
Series 2: 1 stater, from 014–T13 (507)
Other: none
Le Rider terms this hoard "Commerce 1967," although noting it as "découvert probablement dans la région des Balkans." 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 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 started before 320, "as their style is at first a close development of the latest of the previous staters."16 On this basis, Le Rider dated the Balkans hoard to 323 or a bit later, and Dimitrov agreed.17 Newell's study of Salamis, however, must be revised and amplified. Several obverse 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.
Series 2: 1 stater, from 014–F1 (519; Plate 29, 73)
Other: 10 distaters, 4 "A," 6 "B" (Plate 29, 63–72) The group B coins are from 3 obverse dies and an unknown number of reverse dies.
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. 195221
Series 2: 1 stater, from 020–C10 (490)
Other: none
This small hoard, of four coins only, was surely correctly dated by Dimitrov to ca. 323–320 B.C. Its latest coin was a Miletus Alexander stater: cf. Miletus 127–29, series II, ca. 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–. Also listed by Waddington were distaters 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
III, 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.
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 Samovodéné hoard.23 Westermark dated the stater with trident and to ca. 331 using an invalid comparison with Macedonian tetradrachms with trident symbol. 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 was posthumous. Westermark agreed with Thompson.
7. Commerce 1993
Series 2: 1 stater, from 018–F3 (Plate 30, 20)
Other: 3 distaters, 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).
The hoard is catalogued in full in Appendix 3. Aside from occasional sale catalogue appearances of individual coins, this is its only publication. Its burial would seem to have occurred within a few years of 321 B.C., the date of its latest at least fairly firmly datable coin.
8. Commerce 1994
Series 1: 3 staters, from 02–T4 (472), 03–T5 (473), 06–C2
Series 2: 7 staters, from 011–C4 (481), 016–F2, 019–C10 (489), 021–T16, 022–T17 (512), 024–T20 (515), 030–C17 (497)
Other: 21 staters, 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 full.
9. Jasna Poljana, Bulgaria, 1969 ( IGCH 777)24
Series 2: 1 stater, from 030–C16
Other: 4 staters, 2 trident, 2 fulmen
The latest coin present was from the dies of Abydus 169b, series XI, ca. 318/7 B.C. All scholars agree on a burial date in the neighborhood of 317–315 B.C.
10. Paeonia 1968 ( IGCH 410)25
Series 2: 1 stater, from 022–T17
Other: 7 staters, 2 trident, 4 fulmen, 1 trident-Δ
3 distaters, 1 "B," 2 "C." The two "C" coins are die duplicates and from the obverse of the "C" distaters in hoard 7 above.
Only a portion of the hoard's thousands 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 , and by a Babylon stater as Alexander 3750, struck ca. 316–315/4.26
11. Gîldǎu, Rumania, 1960 ( IGCH 774)
Series 2: 1 stater, from 09–T11 (500)
Other: 4 staters, 1 cantharus, 2 trident, 1 fulmen
The IGCH dated Gîldău's burial to ca. 320 B.C. and Thompson, in Sardes and Miletus, to after 316 because of a Colophon stater that she believed was struck after Philip III's death.27
12. Varna, Bulgaria, 1949 ( IGCH 796)28
Series 2: 2 staters, from 012–C6 (483), 018–F7 Other: 1 distater, "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 "Babylon Mint" dated to that interval. 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 1442)29
No coins of series 1 or 2 Other: 2 staters, fulmen
The IGCH dates the hoard's burial to ca. 310 B.C. because of the presence of a Babylon stater of the same period as that in the previous hoard. Thompson suggested the piece may be intrusive 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.
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.
Hoard | 1 Corinth 1930 Corinth IGCH 77 | 2 Samovodéné 1954 IGCH 395 | 3 Balkans 1967 IGCH – | 4 MendeMende 1983 IGCH | 5 Ruse 1952 IGCH – | 6 Saida 1829–1863 IGCH 1508 | 7 Commerce 1993 IGCH – | 8 Commerce 1994 IGCH | 9 Jas. Pol. 1969 IGCH 777 | 10 Paeonia 1968 IGCH 410 | 11 Glldau 1960 IGCH 774 | 12 Varna 1949 IGCH 796 | 13 Asia Minor 1950 IGCH 1442 | ||
Total Goins* | 51 | 67 | 29 | 80 | 4 | 7000+; 41 known | 42 | Lot A 134 | Lot B 94 | Lot C 20 | 24 | 70 (A/) | 10 | 34 (known) | 24 |
Philip II | 41 | 51 | 24 | 62 | 2 | 6 + | 16 | — | 9 | 20 | 10 | 25 | — | 30+ | — |
Alexander | 10 | 16 | 5 | 18 | 2 | 17 + | 26 | 132 | 80 | — | 14 | 37 | 10 | 4+ | 24 |
Philip III | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2 | 5 | — | — | 8 | — | "some" | — |
Other | — | — | — | — | — | 18 + | — | — | — | — | — | Much | — | — | — |
Philip II | |||||||||||||||
Philippe I | — | — | — | 4 | — | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | 2 | — | — | — |
Philipp II | 41 | 49 | 24 | 56 | 2 | 4 | 2 | — | 1 | 1 | 5 | 7 | — | 30 | — |
Philippe IIIA | — | 2, 323 on | — | — | — | — | 12, 323 on | — | 6 | 4 | 3 | 7 | — | — | — |
Philippe IIIB | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | — | — | — |
Other Mints | — | — | — | 1 Miletus, late 323 on; 1 unc. | — | ? | 1 Lamps., 321; 1 Magn. 322 | — | 1 WAM | 3 Lamps., 323/2–322/1; 11 WAM | 1 Abyd. 317; 1 WAM | 7 WAM | — | — | — |
Alexander | |||||||||||||||
Series 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | — | — | ? | — | 3 | 0–4 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
Series 2 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1? | 1 | 7 | 0–4 | — | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | — |
Other Mac. staters | — | 1 fulmen (see commentary) | — | — | — | 1 shield; 1 trident-; others? | 2 fulmen; 1 shield | 15 fulmen; 5 shield; 3 canth.; 1 "Pella" | 2–3 trident; 1–4 fulmen; 1 shield | — | 2 trident; 2 fulmen | 4 fulmen; 2 trident; 1 trident-Δ | 2 trident; 1 cantharus; 1 fulmen | — | 2 fulmen |
distaters | — | — | — | 4 A, 6 B | — | present | 1 A, 2 C | — | — | — | — | 1 B, 2 C | — | 1 A | — |
Miletus | — | — | — | 2, 325–323 | 1, 323/2 | 2, 325–323 | 2, 323/2 | 13, to 320/19 | 25, to 320/19 | — | — | 2 | 1 | — | 4 |
Salamis | 1 | 1 | 1,323 on | — | — | 2, 323 on | 3 | 12 | 6 | — | — | 3 | 2 | — | 5 |
"Sidon" | 1 | 7 | 1 | 3 | — | 1 | 1 | 5 | — | — | — | 3 | — | — | 4 |
Sidon | — | — | — | 2 | — | 4 | 1 | 9, to 322/1 | 1 | — | — | 1 | — | — | — |
Other | 1 unc. | — | — | — | — | 4 WAM; 1 Cyp; 1 Unc. | 5 WAM; 2 SAM; 1 S&P; 1 A&E; 3 Unc. | 37 WAM; 2 SAM; 9 Cyp; 3 S&P; 7 A&E; 1 Unc. | 25 WAM; 4 SAM; 4 S&P; 3 A&E; 4 Unc. | — | 2 Abyd., to 317; 6 WAM 1&AE | 1 Bab, 316–315/4; 7 WAM; 1 SAM; 1 Cyp; 2 S&P; 5 Unc. | 1 Colophon, 316 1 WAM | 1 Babylon, 316–311 | 1 Babylon, 316–311; 5 WAM; 1 SAM; 1 Cyp; 1 A&E |
Philip III | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1 Sardes, 319/8; 1 Bab., 322–321 | 4 Bab., 322–321; 1 Sardes, 322/1 | — | — | 5 WAM; 1 A&E; 2 Unc. | — | "Some" | — |
Other | — | — | — | — | — | 18 various civic & regnal | — | — | — | — | of Paeonian kings and Philip II to group 9, after ca. 316 | — | — | — |
1 |
G. R. Edwards and M. Thompson, "A Hoard of Gold Coins of Philip and Alexander from Corinth," AJA 74 (1970), pp. 343–50, esp. Thompson, "The Coins," pp. 347–50 (all coins illus.);
Philippe
, pp. 257–59, and 429–30, pl. 87–88 (all coins illus.);
Alexander
, p. 47; M. J. Price, "The Coinage of Philip II," NC 1979, p. 234, and
"Reform," p. 188, n. 20; "Balkan Peninsula," with an illuminating comparative table of the Corinth, Samovodéné,
and Balkans hoards; T. R. Martin, Sovereignty and Coinage in Classical Greece (Princeton,
1985), App. 4, pp. 271–92.
|
* |
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
345–66), whose attribution is somewhat uncertain, see p. 116 above; Unc, uncertain; WAM, Western Asia
Minor.
|
2 |
See pp. 86–90, 101, and 108–9.
|
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 present on all other
examples,
and its harpa issue is thus probably the first—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 | |
9 |
Sicyon, p. 25.
|
10 |
"The Coinage of Philip II," review of
Philippe
, NC 1979. p. 234. The suggested reattribution was that of the present author, in "Peloponnesian Alexanders," p. 44. Price now
specifically suggests Aegeae (
Alexander
185–200). See also Chapter 11, group B.
|
11 |
Philippe
, pp. 259–61, 3, and 430, pls. 88–89 (20 coins listed and illus.);
Alexander
, p. 47; "Balkan Peninsula." 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, 5, and 430, pls. 89–90 (all coins illus.); Coin Hoards 2, 50;
Alexander
, p. 47; "Balkan Peninsula."
|
16 |
"Cypriote Alexanders." pp. 313–14.
|
17 |
Philippe
, 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, pl. 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
, p. 262, 4;
Alexander
, pp. 48–49; W. H. Waddington, "Trouvailles de Saïda et Marmora," RN 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.
|
23 |
See p. 127.
|
24 |
Philippe
, pp. 266–67, 8, Sardes and Miletus, pp. 74–75, pl. 33 (all 24 coins illus.); "Balkan Peninsula," p. 105;
Lampsacus and Abydus
, p. 68.
|
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).
|
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 group. Two earlier publications of the hoard are listed in IGCH. Note that in B. Mitrea, SCN 4 (1968), pp. 327–29, the reverse illustration of hoard coin 4 (from dies 09–T11) is a duplicate illustration of the reverse
of hoard 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–Iaşi (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, pl. 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, "Trésors de statères d'or trouvés á Potidée en 1984 et à Skioné en
1985," RN 1991, pp. 89–96, at pp. 89–94.
|
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 exceptions1 the only coins with these symbols to appear in hoards buried around the time of Alexander's death—i.e., hoards 1–6 or 1–7 in the previous chapter, ca. 323 or perhaps one or two years later.
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 II'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 monarchs 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 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 στατήρες χρυσοῐ φιλίππειοι) 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
Several types of evidence, none conclusive, provide the only help in dating the Alexander staters of series 1 and 2. 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.
1 |
The fulmen staters in hoards 2 and 7, see the preceding chapter. That in hoard 2 was in all probability struck at a secondary
Macedonian mint, and hoard 7 was buried ca. 321 at the very earliest.
|
2 |
Philips in
Philippe
: cantharus staters, Pella groups, II, III, Amphipolis III; trident,
Pella II, III, Amphipolis II, III; fulmen, Pella 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, but silver only of Philip and of Paeonian kings (Chapter 12, hoard 10,
and Table
23).
|
6 |
See Table 23, in particular the Saida hoard.
|
This hoard until recently seemed to provide a firm terminus ante quem for the staters of series 1 and 2. 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 Alexander's reign. But the reasons for dating its interment so early now seem to be not so convincing,8 and there are new reasons for questioning a lifetime burial.
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 (Samovodéné, Balkans, Mende, and Ruse) now provide illuminating comparisons to Corinth. At first, only a portion of Samovodéné was known, which did not include its two post-323 staters with Philip II's types. Understandably, Samovodéné was, because of its remarkable resemblance 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 Salovodéné'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 Samovodéné'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 Samovod6ne'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.
"La date des premiers statères d'or de Philippe," in Xαϱαχτήϱ (above, p. 113, n. 6), p. 268. As these 85 "large staters" are shown by inscription X.A to be equivalent to 170 regular σταήϱοι φιλιππείοι, 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 seeming proof that these particular Alexanders were actually called "Philips." Nevertheless, such a name remains possible, and perhaps even probable, in the light of known second-century practice.
Le Rider also notes the heavy die linkage among the Philips in Corinth, especially among the coins from Amphipolis, which suggested that their striking preceded the hoard's burial by a rather short time.11 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 among the 51 similar coins of Samovodéné. Even the considerably later Varna deposit (hoard 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 II.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. II.2, which shares one obverse die with II.1, employed but 18 obverse dies for its four other symbols.13 Le Rider considers II.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.
Obv. | Corinth | Samovodéné | Balkans | Mende | Varna | |
Dies | Coins | Coins | Coins | Coins | Coins | |
Pella II.1 | 124 | 5 | 24 | 10 | 19 | 16 |
Pella II.2 | 18 | 8 | 5 | 1 | 16 | — |
Amphipolis "II.A" | 48 | 7 | 19 | 11 | 15 | 11 |
Amphipolis "II.B" | 30 | 21 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 3 |
In Corinth the numbers of coins from Pella II.2 and Amphipolis II.B are higher than the numbers 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 Samovodéné, Balkans, and Mende. Why? It may simply be that the reason is purely geographical 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 at Corinth, where Antipater and His successors maintained a garrioon. 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.
7 |
M. B. Hatzopoulos, Actes de vente d'Amphipolis, Meletemata 14 (Athens, 1991), inscriptions VII, X.A, X.B and XI,
and commentary on pp. 84–85. Georges Le Rider has pointed out that Hatzopoulos's restoration 85 ατατήρων
[χρυσϖν φιλιππεί] ων μεγάλων in X.B could equally well be restored with [χρυσϖν άλεξανδρεί],
|
8 |
See pp. 115–16.
|
9 |
See p. 115, n. 1.
|
10 |
See p. 116 for comments on the undated "Sidon" staters.
|
11 |
Philippe
, p. 430.
|
12 |
A 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 II.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.
|
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 questionable.15 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, corresponding to the silver dated years 1 and 2, 333/2 and 332/1 B.C., so that it is a fair assumption that Sidon's gold started only after its silver, perhaps 330–328. The situation is 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—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.
Le Rider in Philippe tentatively assigned a terminus ante quem of 328 B.C. to Philippe's group 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 Alexander, 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 centuries, Alexander's staters may have been known as στατῆρεζ χρυσοῖ φιλίππειοι.20
It is thus not at all clear that the introduction of gold with Alexander's types and name must have produced even a temporary cessation of the coins with Philip's types and name. Certainly in the first four hoards of Table 23, buried probably shortly after 323, Philip's gold was overwhelmingly 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.
15 |
See p. 116.
|
16 |
Tarsos
, p. 24. Despite Thompson's comments (p. 118, above, n. 18) I believe that Newell's
Salamis 1–5 were indeed the earliest emissions of the mint and expect to publish the evidence in a planned
festschrift honoring Georges Le Rider.
|
17 |
Sardes and Miletus, p. 10.
|
18 |
Philippe
, p. 429–430.
|
19 |
See pp. 109–10.
|
20 |
See p. 123.
|
Among the eight earliest gold hoards of Table 23, those most probably burled by shortly after 323, three (Corinth, Balkans, and Ruse) show no helpful disparity in wear between the coins of series 1 and 2 and the hoard' latest coins, and the contents of Saida are not known in detail. But the wear in the four other hoards may be instructive.21
Six of Samovodéné'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 to the two post–323 Philip II staters which date the hoard (Samovodéné 28 and 29, Plate 25, Q–R), both in superb 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 Samovodéné 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 than 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.
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 emphasized several times in this study. Even if Alexander's silver started no earlier than ca. 332, there seems no decisive 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 332, when the silver coinage commenced. By 327, at any rate, overseas gold was certainly being struck.
21 |
Hoards 2, 4, 7, and 8 in Chapter 12.
|
22 |
See p. 143.
|
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 Samovodéné.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 symbol.25 Dimitrov has plausibly suggested that this Samovodéné fulmen stater was struck at a mint other than that which produced the series 1 and 2 staters in Samovodéné.26 These obverse-linked fulmen and shield staters, with their accompanying similarly obverse-linked 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 staters certainly appear in abundance in the Commerce 1994 hoard (Plate 31, 27–31).
More significant, however, than this Samovodéné 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 surely 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 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 presence 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 heaviest silver production of Amphipolis occurred. Unlike the silver, however, the lack of die 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 itself only with the coins of these symbols included in Table 19 on p. 100. It excludes those mentioned
on p. 100,
note b.
|
24 |
"Balkan Peninsula," Samovodéné 52; here Plate 25, M. Note that 52's illustration in "Balkan Peninsula" 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 symbols. Plate 25, E–H, and Plate 31,11–26
show the varying obverse styles. See also pp. 110–11 for the classification of the coins illustrated in
Alexander
.
|
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 , 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 burial.
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 Gîldau, 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 symbol.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
Some staters formerly attributed to Tarsus (Tarsos 12–5) 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 differences 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 common symbols of cantharus, 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 (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.
30 |
See p. 100, Table 19.
|
31 |
Compare 531–36 with Plate 25, M–O.
|
The convenient abbreviations devised by Price for Alexander are used with the addition of one more needed for coins of Philip II. They indicate the placement of the reverse markings.
LF to left
LW to left, below wing, on gold
RW to right, below wing, on gold
RF to right
TH below throne, on silver
EX in exergue
BL below horses' bellies, on Philip II gold
In the spring of 1993 two lots of early Alexander tetradrachms appeared on the United States market. 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.
1 | B | LF prow r. Alexander 1. A1 |
2 | A | LF prow 1. Alexander 4. A1. |
3 | A | LF fulmen. Alexander 8. A4. |
4 | B | LF ivy leaf. Berk 80, 18 Jan. 1994, 54 = Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 63. Alexander 23. B6. |
5 | B | LF caduceus. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 64. Alexander 32. B8. |
6 | B | LF quiver. Celator. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 65. Alexander 38. C2. |
7 | A | LF Pegasus forepart. Alexander 44. C5. |
8 | A | LF bow. Alexander 48. C6. |
9 | A | LF Macedonian shield. Alexander 57. D2. |
10 | A | LF caduceus over . Alexander 66. D7. |
11 | A | LF herm. Alexander 78. E2. |
12 | A | LF cock. Alexander 79. E3. |
13 | A | As 12. |
14 | B | As 12. Berk 82, 13 July 1994, 205 = Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 66. |
15 | B | As 12. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 67. |
16 | B | As 12. |
17 | A | LF crescent. Alexander 89. E7. |
18 | A | LF bucranium. Alexander 93. E8. |
19 | A | As 18. |
20 | A | As 18. |
21 | A | As 18. |
22 | B | As 18. |
23 | A | As 18. |
24 | A | As 18. |
25 | B | As 18. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 68. |
26 | A | LF youthful figure (athlete? boxer?). Alexander 187. Sicyon A3 = A5: new rev. |
27 | A | As 26. Sicyon 3.5 (A4–P7). |
28 | A | LF caduceus. Alexander 1342. Lampsacus I.1: new rev. |
29 | A | LF caduceus; TH . Alexander 1345. Lampsacus I.2a. |
30 | B | LF Demeter standing, holding two torches. Alexander 1351. Lampsacus V: new dies. |
31 | A | As 30. Lampsacus V.22: same rev. |
32 | A | As 30. Lampsacus V.22: new rev. |
33 | A | As 30. Lampsacus V.23: same rev. |
34 | A | As 30. Lampsacus V.23: new rev. |
35 | B | As 30. Lampsacus V.25: new rev. |
36 | A | As 30. Lampsacus V.25: rev. of Lampsacus 24, a die to which was later added the monogram of 37–46 below, becoming the rev. of Lampsacus 25b. |
37 | B | LF Demeter as on 30; TH . Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 69. Alexander 1355. Lampsacus V.27. |
38 | A | As 37. |
39 | A | As 37. Lampsacus V.28: new rev. |
40 | A | As 37. |
41 | B | As 37. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 70. Lampsacus V.28: new rev. |
42 | A | As 37. |
43 | B | As 37. Celator. Lampsacus V.28: new rev. |
44 | A | As 37. Lampsacus V.28: new rev. |
45 | A | As 37. Lampsacus V.29: new rev. |
46 | A | As 37. Lampsacus V.32: new rev. |
47 | B | LF . Celator. Miletus I, but the issue is not in Alexander or Miletus. |
48 | A | LF fulmen; TH Alexander 2086. Miletus 1.24: new rev. |
49 | A | LF grain ear. Alexander 2099. Miletus 111.136a. |
50 | A | LF П; TH A. The right vertical stroke of the П is faint, but definitely present. The issue, with the П to l., is not in Alexander or Tarsos, although it must be from series I. The ANS possesses a coin from the same dies, but with the П incompletely erased. |
51 | A | TH B. Alexander 3000. Tarsos series I, issue 4. |
52 | A | TH plow; TH ʘ; to inner r., globule, Alexander 3019. Tarsos series II, issue 29. |
53 | B | LF prow r. Celator. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 71. Alexander 3094; obv. die of 3091. |
54 | A | LF ; RF BAΣIΛEΩΣ; EX AΛEΞANΔPO [sic]. Alexander 3107. "Cypriote Alexanders" series I, group A, issue 4. |
55 | A | LF dove. Alexander 3116. |
56 | A | LF bow. Alexander 3139. "Cypriote Alexanders" series I, issue 7. |
57 | B | As 56. Celator. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 72. |
58 | A | LF ram forepart; TH globule and ΔA. Alexander 3203. |
59 | B | LF ram forepart; TH ΔA and four globules. Celator. Berk 80, 18 Jan. 1994, 55 = Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 73. Alexander 3209. |
60 | B | As 59. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 74. |
61 | A | LF TH ; EX and RF BAΣIΛEΩΣ AΛEΞANΔPOY. Alexander 3222. Myriandros series III, issue 21, obv. IX. This obverse is not known in issue 21 in Myriandros, but occurs in issues 20 (the same markings and inscription except that the inscription is simply AΛEΞANΔPO) and 22 (see 63 below, without the title). |
62 | A | As 61. |
63 | A | LF ; TH Alexander 3223. Myriandros series III, issue 22. |
64 | A | TH M. Alexander 3240. Ake series I, issue 3, obv. IV. |
65 | A | As 64. |
66 | A | TH O. Alexander 3244. Ake series II, issue 6, obv. V. |
67 | A | As 66, but obv. IX. |
68 B | LF . Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 75. Alexander 3248. Ake series III, issue 10, dies X-e. |
69 | B | LF Σ; TH ; EX BAΣΛEΩΣ. Alexander 3316. |
70 | A | LF . Alexander 3426, where Price notes that the attribution to Byblos is "very doubtful." |
71 | A | LF ; TH M. Alexander 3581. "Babylon Mint" issue I. |
72 | B | LF kylix; TH over M. Celator. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 76. Alexander 3654. "Babylon Mint" issue II. |
73 | B | LF Rose; TH and RF ΔIO. 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 ), six or seven years later than any of the 73 certain hoard coins, it was judged an intrusion.
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. Discussion of Amphipolis is placed last.
Uncertain Greece or Macedonia. Noe in Sicyon assigned a large group of issues to 330/325–ca. 318, but 26–27 are from the first tetradrachm issue there. Alexander places them first in a group given to 336–323.
Lampsacus. Thompson in Lampsacus and Abydus dated series V to 325/4–324/3. Twenty-three obverses were known to her. This hoard's 17 series V coins are from one new die, whose style clearly places it at the head of the series (coin 30), and from seven of Thompson's first 13 dies. 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," Citium, 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 evidence exists.
Byblos. This coin, too (the only one in the hoard showing Zeus with crossed legs) could date from after 323, but the issue is not precisely dated.
Aradus. Coin 69's issue is placed, although early, in Alexander's ca. 328–320 group. It preceded 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.
Amphipolis. 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.
1 |
Chapter 8, hoard 7.
|
2 |
Sicyon:
Demanhur
, pp. 34–35, 75–80; Macedonia: "Peloponnesian Alexanders," p. 44; Aegae (?):
Alexander
, pp. 109–10.
|
3 |
The present author's "Staters, Serendipity and Soli" in χαϱαϰιτήϱ (above, p. 113, n. 6) shows that the proper mint of the
prow-symbol coins
is the Cypriot Soli. "Alexanders from Soli on Cyprus," to appear in a forthcoming festschrift honoring Martin Price, contains
her discussion of the prow-symbol coins in all three metals.
|
4 |
J. D. Bing has recently argued strongly for Issus rather than Myriandrus in "Reattribution of the 'Myriandrus' Alexanders:
The Case for Issus," AJN, Second Series, 1 (1989), pp. 1–32.
|
5 |
See p. 84.
|
6 |
See Alexander, p. 276. I share Price's reservations.
|
7 |
"Near East" coin 1399.
|
Georges Le Rider has obtained photographs of this hoard of 80 gold coins, 62 staters of Philip II and 18 coins of Alexander III (10 distaters and 8 staters). No weights or die axis positions were secured. 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 . Professor Le Rider and I are in accord, however, that no Macedonian Philips are later than Philippe'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 11 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.
PHILIP II
Group IC | |
1–3 | BL grapes. 2 and 3 are die duplicates. |
4 | BL grasshopper. |
Group II.1 | |
5–9 | BL fulmen. |
10–15* | BL cantharus. The obv. die of 10 (probably D44) is known in Philippe only with fulmen symbol. 13 is from the obv. of 8, retouched. |
16–24* | BL trident. 21–23 are from the same obv., 23 and 24 from the same rev. |
Group II.2 | |
25 | BL prow. |
26* | BL prow (?). The rev. is probably Philippe's R268. It and R269 are the only two prow revs, known in Philippe . |
27* | 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. |
28 | As 27. R269'. Philippe's R269 has a prow symbol. On R269' the symbol has been recut to Nike. |
29–34 | BL Nike. 30–32 are from the same obv., 33–34 from the same rev. |
35 | BL lion's skin. |
36–40* | BL profile shield. 37–40 are from the same obv., 37–39 from the same rev., and 36 and 40 from another rev. |
Group II | |
41–42 | BL grain kernel. |
43–44 | BL club. |
45 | BL caduceus. |
46–49* | BL ivy leaf. |
50–54* | BL crescent. 51–52 are from the same obv. |
55* | BL grain ear. |
56–60 | BL trident. |
61* | BL . Cf.. Miletus 22–23 (different dies), from series I, dated to 325–323 B.C. |
62 | BL uncertain or no marking. |
ALEXANDER III
Distater | Group A |
63* | LF fulmen. Alexander 163. |
64* | 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* | LF cantharus. Alexander 167. |
66* | LF trident. Alexander 171. |
Distater | Group B |
67* | LF fulmen; LW Alexander 191. Sicyon A8–P14. |
68* | As 67. Obv. of 67. Sicyon A8; no rev. photo. |
69* | As 67. Obv. of 67. Sicyon A11 (= A8, retouched?); no rev. photo. |
70* | As 67. Sicyon A10; no rev. photo. |
71* | As 67. Sicyon A13–P26. |
72* | As 67. Obv. of 71. Sicyon A13; new rev. |
Stater | |
73* | LF fulmen. Alexander 164 or 164A. This study's series 2, 014–F1. |
74* | LF . Alexander 2078. Miletus series I, 13–14. |
75* | Obv. below, fulmen (off flan); LW . Alexander 2079. Miletus series I, 18. |
76–77 | Obv. on helmet, griffin; RW club. Alexander 3460. Sidon 4. 76–77 are from the same obv |
78 | Obv. as 76. RW grain kernel. Alexander 3464. Sidon 6. |
79 | Obv. as 76. RW filleted palm branch. Alexander 3470. Sidon 11. |
80* | Obv. as 76. LW ΣI; RW filleted palm branch. Alexander 3472. Sidon 13. |
The Mende hoard's latest coins are the Miletus staters of Philip II (61) and Alexander (74–75). All are in Miletus series I, dated by Thompson to ca. 325–323 B.C. Thompson considered the Philip II issue as struck "in the beginning of the reign of Philip III," i.e., at the earliest in late 323 B.C, so that coin 61 furnishes the hoard's 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—it is by far the most worn coin in the hoard—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 Macedonian mint or mints, four of group A (63–66), and six of group B (67–72) with markings of fulmen and . 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.
1 |
See p. 126.
|
2 |
See p. 116 above for questioning the attribution to Sidon.
|
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
reservations, but in any case hoard evidence places Miletus series I to approximately 323 B.C.
|
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 Macedonian 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.
Group II.1 | |
1 | BL fulmen. 67, D31–R54. |
Group IIIA | |
2 | As 1. Berk 80, 18 Jan. 1994, 4 = Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 4 = Celator, June 1993. 413, D185–R305. |
3 | As 1. 436, D197–R324. |
4 | BL cantharus. Berk 79, 2 Nov. 1993, 7 = Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 5 = Celator, June 1993. 455?, D187 ?–R337. |
5 | As 4. Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 6 = Celator, May 1993. D192'–R342. |
6 | As 4. 477, D216–R349. |
7 | BL trident. 491, D185–R358. |
8 | As 7. 498?, D187 ?–R359. |
9 | BL bucranium. D185–R384. |
10 | As 9. Celator, May 1993. 522, D224–R382. |
11 | BL fly r. Celator, May 1993. 540?, D187?–R390. |
12 | As 11. 535, D226–R390. |
Group II | |
13 | BL trident. D64?–R104? |
Group IIIA | |
14 | As 13. Celator, May 1993. 222, D98–R176. |
15 | BL facing head and . Lampsacus VI: new dies. |
16 | BL spearhead and bee. Dies of Thompson, "Posthumous Philip II Staters of Asia Minor," Studia Paulo Naster Oblata, ed. S. Scheers (Louvain, 1982), p. 58, 2. The obv. die had previously been used for an issue ascribed to Miletus. See Sardes and Miletus, p. 50 (but see doubts about this attribution, p. 136 above, n. 3). The rev. markings are those of the new Alexander stater 26 below. |
Distater | Group A |
17 | LF fulmen. Alexander 163. |
Distater | Group C |
18 | As 17. |
19 | LF cantharus. Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 7 = Celator, June 1993. Alexander 167. See p. 114, D01–DF3, for another distater from the obverse of 18–19, which may also be from this hoard. |
Staters | |
20 | Rev. as 17. Alexander 164; obv. of Alexander 168b (with cantharus). Series 2, 018–F3. |
21 | Rev. as 17. Alexander 164. |
22 | LF Boeotian (?) shield. Berk 80, 18 Jan. 1994, 5 = Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 8. Alexander 176. |
See also coin 40, probably a Macedonian imitation.
23 | LF Corinthian helmet 1. Alexander 794. |
24 | LF addorsed horse foreparts and . Celator, May 1993. Alexander 1358. Lampsacus V.105: new rev. |
25 | As 24. Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 9. Dies of Alexander 1358c. Lampsacus V: new dies. |
26 | 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 1.) and 1928 (with ram's head and to 1.). The rev. markings are those of the posthumous Philip II stater 16 above. |
27 | RW bipennis; RF grain ear. Alexander 2095. Miletus III.127a. |
28 | LW grain ear; RW bipennis. Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 10 = Celator, June 1993. Alexander 2096. Miletus III.129: new rev. |
29 | LF serpent. Alexander 2532. Sardes III.8. |
30 | As 29. |
31 | LF BAΣIΛEΩΣ; LW I over BΣ. Alexander 2956. |
32 | LF caduceus and BAΣIΛEΩΣ; LW over Σ (partially off flan). Dies of Alexander 3043c. Tarsos series III, third group, 50, dies N-o. |
33 | LF harpa. Dies of Alexander 3136. "Cypriote Alexanders" series I, issue 4. |
34 | As 34. Alexander 3136. |
35 | LW eagle 1. Alexander 3125; obv. of 3129a (with eagle r.). This and coins of similar style (e.g., Sardes and Miletus, pl. 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, however, that the coins similar to 35 were the earliest emissions of Salaminian gold. |
36 | Obv. to 1., Σ; LF BAΣIΛEΩΣ; LW . Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 11 = Celator, May and June 1993. Alexander 3315. |
37 | Obv. on helmet, griffin; RW fulmen. Alexander 3461. Sidon series I, group A, but the issue is not known there. The issue is known in Alexander and 37's reverse die is that of Balkans hoard 29 (Chapter 12, hoard 3; see Philippe , pl. 90, 29). |
38 | Obv. as 37. RW filleted branch. Alexander 3470. Sidon series II, issue 11. |
39 | Rev. no markings. Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 12 = Celator, May and June 1993. Alexander 3961 (same obv.). The obverse appears to be that of an ANS coin with reverse markings of ram head with Isis crown and ( Alexander 3963), whose corresponding tetradrachm issue is dated to 324 B.C. in "Ptolemy," p. 14. |
40 | LF fulmen. The obverse style differs so drastically from other Macedonian fulmen staters that this coin must be an imitation. |
41 | Obv. on helmet, griffin; LF BAΣIΛEΩΣ; LW Δ1. Apparently unpublished, but from the obv. of Alexander 3994 ("Uncertain East," with BAΣIΛEΩΣ, and LW ). |
42 | Obv. as 41. LF fulmen over , and BAΣIΛEΩΣ . Apparently unpublished. |
Perhaps the latest dated coin in the hoard is 15 of Lampsacus, whose markings are known with Philip III's name and whose issue is 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 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 symbol. 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 II.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.
1 |
See p. 116 above for questioning the attribution to Sidon.
|
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 Münzhandlung of Münich.
Lot B. In May of 1994 at Giessener Münzhandlung, Charles Hersh recorded a lot of 80 staters of Alexander III and 5 of Philip III. Of these, Giessener Münzhandlung 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 "exceptional" staters of Philip II. These coins had also passed through Giessener Münzhandlung, 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 Commerce 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 IIIB, which followed IIIA. They may provide an indication of the end of the Macedonian groups IIIA. But the significant aspect of the hoard for present purposes is the 31 coins present from our Macedonian 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.
Series 1 | |
1 | LF trident. 02–T4. Alexander 172. Sale lot 1108. |
2 | As 1. 03–T5. 1116b.2 |
3 | LF cantharus. 06–C2. Alexander 168. 1154b. |
Series 2 | |
4 | As 1. 024–T20. 1157b. |
5 | As 3. 011–C4. 1107. |
6 | LF fulmen. 016–F2. Alexander 164. 1154a. |
7 | As 3. 030–C17. 1125b. |
8 | As 3. 019–C10. 1125a. |
9 | As 1. 021–T16. 1121a. |
10 | As 1. 022–T17. 1156b. |
Other | |
11 | As 3. 1135b. The coin is from the second cantharus obv. known to me which shows three full helmet crests as on distaters, the rearmost looping to the right directly under the helmet bowl with its tip appearing between the tips of the nearer and central crests. |
12 | As 3. 1136b. |
13 | As 3. 1155b. |
14 | As 6. 1156a. |
15 | As 6. 1123a. |
16 | As 6. 1114a. |
17 | As 6. 1106. |
18 | As 6. 1115a. |
19 | As 6. 1135a. |
20 | As 6. 1155a. |
21 | As 6. 1122a. |
22 | As 6. 1136a. |
23 | As 6. 1113a. |
24 | As 6. 1117a. |
25 | As 6. 1157a. |
26 | As 6. 1111a. |
27 | LF shield. Alexander 176. 1115b. The obverse die is known also with reverses bearing a fulmen symbol. |
28 | As 27. 1123b. |
29 | As 27. 1109. |
30 | As 27. 1112b. |
31 | As 27. 1111b. |
Mr. Lampinen of CNG was kind enough to grade these Macedonian coins with the usual three symbols strictly on the basis of wear and without taking into account any of the other criteria which enter into the usual dealer grading.
VF + or Good Very Fine | Very Fine | Fine | |
Series 1 and 2, 1–10 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
"Other," 11–26 | 10 | 6 | – |
These numbers are hardly dramatic, but it must be remembered that the lot represents the remnants 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 "other" staters.
1 |
Commerce 1993 (Appendix 3) 41–42; lot A, 128–29 (full description on file at the American Numismatic Society).
|
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 illustrations appeared.
|
Unless otherwise noted, all coins are in the collection of the American Numismatic Society. They are identified as ANS only 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.
Most non-ANS coins are known through casts in the ANS cabinet or from its photograph file and library. 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 catalogued.
Plates 1–5, 1–103, Alexander Tetradrachms. See pp. 21–23, Table 1.
1 | ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 13, 13 |
10 | ANS, ex Demanhur 1905 hoard |
14 | ANS = SNGBerry 196 |
25 | ANS, ex Demanhur 1905 hoard |
32 | Location unknown. Demanhur , pl. 11,3 |
34 | ANS, ex Demanhur 1905 hoard |
50 | Artemis FPL 4, June-July 1970, 2 = Artemis FPL 2, 1968, 3 |
55 | Cast at ANS marked "R & F," presumably at one time in the inventory of Rollin and Feuardent, Paris |
71 | Vienna |
72 | Paris |
73 | Petsalis |
75 | London = Alexander 421 |
77 | Location unknown; photo at ANS |
79 | Athens, ex Empedocles and ex Andritsaena ca. 1923 hoard |
81 | London = Alexander 116 |
84 | ANS = SNGBerry 201 |
85 | Petsalis |
92 | Münz. u. Med. FPL 333, Apr. 1972, 12 |
93 | Hersh |
98 | Berlin |
Plates 5–6, 104–30, Alexander Tetradrachms Showing Intra-Group Linkage. See pp. 24–25, Figures 1–3.
122 | London = Alexander 111e |
124 | Dattari |
127 | Cast at ANS marked "Rollin & Feuardent" |
129 | St. Petersburg |
Plate 7, 131–47, Alexander Didrachms. See pp. 30–31, Table 3.
131 | London = Alexander 24 |
132 | Hersh = Glendining, 7 Mar. 1957, 21 |
133 | Saroglos |
135 | Copenhagen = SNGCop 667 |
136 | Hersh = Giessener 58, 9 Apr. 1992, 229 |
137 | ANS = Reattrib., pl. 15, 2 |
138 | Hersh = Giessener 60, 5 Oct. 1992, 114 |
141 | Berlin = Reattrib., pl. 15, 4 |
142 | Berlin = Reattrib., pl. 15, 3 |
143 | Münz. u. Med. FPL 178, Apr. 1958, 8 = Kricheldorf 3, 25 Feb. 1957, 1174 = Coin Galleries, 11 July 1955, 342 = Münz. u. Med. 13, 17 June 1954, 1106 |
144 | Berlin |
146 | Hersh = Giessener 58, 9 Apr. 1992, 232 |
147 | NFA 25, 29 Nov. 1990, 80 |
Plates 7–8, 148–79, Alexander Drachms. See pp. 31–32, Table 3.
148 | Cambridge, Eng. = McClean 3507 |
150 | Hersh = Giessener 58, 9 Apr. 1992, 234 |
151 | Athens |
152 | Hersh |
153 | Hersh |
154 | ANS = Reattrib., pl. 7, 3 (erroneously called hemidrachm) |
157 | Hersh = Malter 49, 15 Nov. 1992, 250 = Glendining, 7 Mar. 1957, 20 |
158 | Hersh |
159 | London = Alexander 95 = Reattrib., pl. 7, = J. Hirsch 13, 15 May 1905, 1126 |
160 | Hersh = Sotheby, 27 Oct. 1993, 412 = Numismatica Ars Classica 5, 25 Feb. 1992, 105 = Leu-Münz. u. Med., 3 Dec. 1965, 236 = Münz. u. Med. 8, 8 Dec. 1949, 807 |
161 | ANS = Sotheby, 1 Dec. 1924, 55 |
162 | London = Alexander 33 |
163 | Hersh |
164 | Glendining, 20 Nov. 1975, 879 |
165 | Münz. u. Med. 13, 17 June 1954, 1098 |
166 | Bank Leu 15, 4 May 1976, 198 |
167 | Hersh = Numismatica Ars Classica B, 25 Feb. 1992, 1274 |
168 | Tradart, 8 Nov. 1992, 71 = Münz. u. Med. 54, 26 Oct. 1978, 184 = Naville 1, 4 Apr. 1921, 862 |
169 | Hersh = Near East 1993 hoard 1 |
170 | Hersh = Near East 1993 hoard 2 |
171 | Hersh = Giessener 44, 3 Apr. 1989, 221 |
173 | Hersh = Near East 1993 hoard 3 |
174 | ANS = Sinan Pascha 1919 hoard 3 |
175 | Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria = Calim 1976 hoard 1 |
176 | Hersh = Near East 1993 hoard 4 |
178 | Near East 1993 hoard 14 |
179 | Hersh |
Plate 8, 180–96, Alexander Triobols. See p. 32, Table 3.
180 | London = Alexander 15 |
181 | Hersh |
182 | London = Alexander 41 = Reattrib., pl. 7, 7 |
183 | Hersh |
184 | Hersh |
185 | Münz. u. Med. 13, 17 June 1954, 1099 |
189 | Athens |
190 | Hersh |
192 | Giessener 58, 9 Apr. 1992, 233 |
193 | ANS = Giessener 62, 20 Apr. 1993, 126 |
194 | Leiden |
195 | ANS = Hess 207, 1 Dec. 1931, 360 |
196 | Hersh |
Plate 8,197–208, Alexander Diobols. See pp. 32–33, Table 3.
197 | Vienna |
198 | Paris = Traité IV.2, 900, pl. 311, 7 = Reattrib., pl. 7, 8 |
199 | St. Petersburg |
201 | AMNG III.2, pl. 31, 21 (rev. only) |
202 | Hersh |
203 | Athens |
204 | Paris = Traité IV.2, 901, pl. 311, 8 |
205 | London = Alexander 98 |
206 | Egger 40, 2 May 1912, 749 |
207 | ANS = Weber 2086 |
208 | Weber 2087 |
Plate 8, 209–14, Alexander Obols. See p. 33, Table 3.
209 | Paris = Traité IV.2, 903, pl. 311, 9 |
210 | Hersh |
211 | London = Alexander 26 |
212 | Berlin = AMNG III.2, pl. 31, 22 |
213 | Hersh |
214 | London = Alexander 157 |
Plates 9–11, 215–78, Links between Alexander Groups. See Chapter 3 for individual coin descriptions.
Plates 12–14, 279–33 5, Philip II Tetradrachms. See pp. 52–53, Table 7.
279 | Paris = Philippe , p. 120, pl. 43, 1 |
280 | SNGANS 571 |
281 | Paris = Philippe , p. 121, pl. 44, 1 |
282 | SNGANS 572 |
283 | SNGANS 573 |
284 | Munich |
285 | SNGANS 576 |
286 | SNGANS 577 |
287 | Parke-Bernet, 9 Dec. 1969, 41b = Philippe , p. 302, 66, pl. 44, 9; ex Paeonia 1968 hoard |
288 | SNGANS 579 |
289 | SNGANS 580 |
290 | Sofia = Philippe , p. 121, pl. 44, 10 |
291 | St. Petersburg |
292 | Commerce = Philippe , p. 122, pl. 44, 21 |
293 | SNGANS 590 = Philippe , p. 315, 34, pl. 44, 19; ex Megara 1917 hoard |
294 | Philippe , p. 122, pl. 44, 22 = Münz. u. Med. FPL 343, Mar. 1973, 11 |
295 | SNGANS 592 |
296 | London |
297 | SNGANS 593 |
298 | Munich |
299 | Munich = Philippe , p. 122, pl. 44, 33 |
300 | Volo |
301 | Cast at ANS, ex ANS |
302 | London = Philippe , p. 123, pl. 45, 25 |
303 | SNGANS 606 |
304 | SNGANS 607 |
305 | SNGANS 610 |
306 | SNGANS 615 |
307 | London = Philippe , p. 123, pl. 45, 28 |
308 | SNGANS 630 = SNGBerry 118 |
309 | Cast at ANS marked "Rous" |
310 | SNGANS 643 |
311 | Stockholm |
312 | SNGANS 639 |
313 | London |
314 | Brussels = de Hirsch 1041 |
315 | SNGANS 674 |
316 | SNGANS 687 |
317 | Oxford = SNGAshm 2477 |
318 | SNGANS 688 |
319 | SNGANS 691 = Philippe , p. 123, pl. 46, 1 |
320 | London |
321 | SNGANS 693 |
322 | London |
323 | SNGANS 740 |
324 | London = Philippe , p. 124, pl. 46, 8 |
325 | London |
326 | Blaser-Frey 19, 7 Sept. 1968, 1077 |
327 | Vienna |
328 | SNGANS 748 |
329 | Münz. u. Med. FPL 309, Feb. 1970, 6 |
330 | Berlin |
331 | SNGANS 756 = SNGBerry 120 |
332 | Glendining, 3 May 1967, 11 |
333 | Coin Galleries FPL 2.1 (1978), C28 |
334 | Leiden |
335 | Philippe , p. 303, 83 = Sotheby, 16 Apr. 1969, 60; ex Paeonia 1968 hoard |
Plates 14–15,336–85, Philip II Fifths of the Tetradrachm. See pp. 57–58, Table 9.
336 | Berlin = Philippe , p. 121, pl. 44, 4 |
337 | Munich = Philippe , p. 121, pl. 44, 3 |
338 | Turin |
339 | SNGANS 574 |
340 | SNGANS 581 |
341 | Berlin |
342 | London = Philippe , p. 121, pl. 44, 17 |
343 | Berlin = Philippe , p. 122, pl. 44, 28 |
344 | SNGANS 583 |
345 | Paris = Philippe , p. 121, pl. 44, 18 |
346 | Philippe , p. 121, pl. 44, 15 = Kunst u. Münzen FPL 7, 1969, 56 |
347 | Wertheim |
348 | SNGANS 587 |
349 | London = Philippe , p. 120, pl. 43, 8 = Weber 2060 |
350 | SNGANS 588 |
351 | SNGANS 591 |
352 | Joannina = Philippe , p. 122, pl. 44, 26 |
353 | Cambridge, Eng. = SNGFitz 2073 |
354 | Wertheim |
355 | SNGANS 596 = Philippe , p. 122, pl. 44, 34 |
356 | London = Philippe , p. 122, pl. 44, 35 = Weber 2061 |
357 | SNGANS 597 |
358 | London = Philippe , p. 122, pl. 45, 3 |
359 | SNGANS 598 |
360 | SNGANS 599 |
361 | SNGANS 618 |
362 | Weber 2062 |
363 | London |
364 | London |
365 | Berlin |
366 | SNGANS 652 |
367 | G. Hirsch 32, 22 Oct. 1962, 2343 |
368 | SNGANS 654 |
369 | Berlin |
370 | Berlin |
371 | SNGANS 658 |
372 | SNGANS 660 = SNGBerry 127 |
373 | SNGANS 696 = Philippe , pp. 120 and 318, 2, pl. 43, 2, and pl. 52, 2; ex Arta ca. 1929 hoard |
374 | SNGANS 697 |
375 | SNGANS 698 |
376 | SNGANS 701 |
377 | SNGANS 704 |
378 | Berlin |
379 | SNGANS 714 |
380 | SNGANS 719 |
381 | Naville 1, 4 Apr. 1921, 860 |
382 | SNGANS 734 |
383 | SNGANS 724 |
384 | SNGANS 726 |
385 | Empedocles |
Plate 15, 386–87, Philip II Tenths. See p. 62, Table 14.
386 | London = Philippe , p. 124, pl. 46, 33 |
387 | London = Philippe , p. 124, pl. 46, 35 |
Plate 15, 388–92, Philip II Attic-Weight Drachms. See p. 62, Table 15.
388 | Cambridge, Eng. = SNGLewis 500 |
389 | Lanz 36, 21 Apr. 1986, 217 |
390 | London |
391 | Berlin = Müller, p. 337, 10, and pl. XXVI, 273 |
392 | Private collection |
Plates 16–17, 393–449, Die Links between Philip II Groups. See Chapter 6 for individual coin descriptions.
Plates 18–19, A– F and 450–6 5, Start of Alexander's Macedonian Silver Coinage. See pp. 86–88.
A | ANS = " Earliest Silver," pl. 11, 5, stater of Mazaeus, struck at Tarsus | |
B | ANS = " Earliest Silver," pl. 11, 6, stater of Mazaeus, struck at Tarsus | |
G | ANS = " Earliest Silver," pl. 11, 7, Alexander tetradrachm, from first issue struck at Tarsus: Tarsos 2 | |
D | SNGANS 112 = SNGBerry 79 = "Earliest Silver," pl. 12, 8, stater of Perdiccas III | |
E | SNGANS 396 = "Earliest Silver," pl. 12, 10 = Philippe , Pella 314c, lifetime didrachm of Philip | |
F | SNGANS 538 = "Earliest Silver," pl. 12, 9 = Philippe , Amphipolis 386b, lifetime or early posthumous tetradrachm of Philip II | |
450 | ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 12, 11 = "Earliest Coins," pl. 44, 1 = Reattrib., pl. 1, 1 | |
451 | ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 12, 12 | |
452 | ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 13, 13 | |
453 | ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 13, 14 = "Earliest Coins," pl. 44, 4 (enlargement of throne only) | |
454 | G. Hirsch 21, 25 June 1959, 21 | |
455 | ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 13, 15 | |
456 | ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 14, 20 | |
459 | ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 14, 18 | |
460 | ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 14, 17 | |
462 | "Earliest Silver," pl. 14, 19 = Santamaria, 25 Oct. 1951, A429 | |
463 | ANS = "Earliest Coins," pl. 44, 3 and 5 (enlargement of throne) | |
464 | ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 13, 16 | |
465 | Paris |
Plates 20–23, 466–530, Alexander Lifetime Staters. See Chapter 10 for individual coin descriptions.
Plate 24, 531–48, Alexander Distaters. See Chapter 11 for descriptions of 540–48.
533 | ANS = SNGBerry 140 |
534 | Canessa 3, 28 June 1923, 41 |
535 | Naville 16, 3 July 1933, 1022 = Naville 10, 15 June 1925, 435 |
537 | Cambridge, Eng. = SNGFitz 2093 = Sicyon 7.1 (A8–P14) |
538 | Athens = ? Naville 14, 2 July 1929, 198 = Ratto, 4 Apr. 1927, 566 = Sicyon 7.4 (A9–P17) |
539 | Cambridge, Eng. = SNGFitz 2092 = Naville 5, 18 June 1923, 1385 = Sicyon 7.17 (A13–P29) |
Plate 25, N12–N19 B and A–R, Gold Comparative Material. See Chapters 10–13.
Tarsos stater issues and obverse dies.
N12 | ANS. Tarsos 12, A–α = O10–C4. |
N12 | Berlin. Tarsos 12, B–α = O8–C4 |
N13 | ANS. Tarsos 13, C–γ = O9–T9 |
N14 | London = Alexander 3004. Tarsos 14, D–δ = O5–C2 |
N15 | Kovacs 9, 21 Nov. 1988, 3 = Münz. u. Med. 10, 22 June 1951, 240. Tarsos 15, F–ϝ = O2–T2 |
N16 | ANS. Tarsos 16, H–η |
N17 | Berlin. Tarsos 17, J–θ |
N18 | London = Alexander 3009. Tarsos 18, K–ι |
N19 | Berlin. Tarsos 19, K–ϰ |
Enlargements of cantharus symbols
A | ANS, O4–C1 |
B | ANS, O6–C2 |
C | ANS, O8–C3 |
D | ANS, O10–C4 |
Late lifetime or early posthumous staters
E | ANS = Tarsos, p. 23, fig. 10 |
F | Leiden = Tarsos, p. 23, fig. 11 |
G | Paris |
H | Stockholm |
Staters with fulmen, or fulmen and , markings
I | Commerce 1994 hoard 21 (Appendix 4) |
J | ANS = Sicyon 8.1 |
K | Cast of coin of unknown provenance |
L | CNG 32, 7 Dec. 1994, 1110, ex Commerce 1994 hoard lot A (Appendix 4) |
Late lifetime or early posthumous staters, perhaps from a second Macedonian mint
M | Samovodéné hoard 52, a fulmen stater not in series 1 or 2 |
N | Oxford = SNGAshm 2520, a fulmen stater not in series 1 or 2 |
O | Brussels = de Hirsch 1049, a shield stater |
Samovodéné hoard coins
P | Samovodéné 56, O10–C4 |
Q | Samovodéné 28, Philip II, Philippe , Pella III A |
R | Samovodéné 29, Philip II, Philippe , Pella III A |
Plates 26–28, Commerce 1993 Hoard, Tetradrachms. See Appendix 1.
With the exception of 1, 47, and 50 in the Hersh collection, all the coins are in commerce, their locations unknown.
Plate 29, Mende 1983 Hoard. See Appendix 2.
All the coins are in commerce, their locations unknown.
Plate 30, Commerce 1993 Hoard, Gold. See Appendix 3.
All the coins are in commerce, their locations unknown.
Plate 31, Commerce 1994 Hoard, Gold. See Appendix 4.
All the coins are in commerce, their locations unknown.
Tetradrachms (Chapter 1) are shown by group letter and issue number. Smaller coins (Chapter 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. BAΣ indicates the presence of the title BAΣIΛEΩΣ 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.
The number of the group where each marking or set of markings is found is given, followed by the known denominations: 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 employed. Brackets enclose issues whose reliably reported examples I have been unable to locate.
Only subjects not covered in the detailed Table of Contents are included here.
1. Macedonian Coins
Alexander III, gold: cantharus, trident, and fulmen-symbol staters other than the earliest, 100–101, 107, 110, 121–22, 127; fulmen-symbol staters other than the earliest: see cantharus...staters and also shield-symbol staters; quarter staters, 100; reattribution to Macedonia 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 (στατῆρεσ χρυσõι φιλίππειοι or nummi aurei philippei at least by late Hellenistic and Roman times, 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; BAΣIΛEΩΣ 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: BAΣIΛEΩΣ 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 Alexander 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, 89, 122
2. Alexander 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 BAΣIΛEΩΣ, 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
Sidon: Sidon 1–7 perhaps 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 BAΣIΛEΩΣ, 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