Mnemata: Papers in Memory of Nancy M. Waggoner / Ed. by William E. Metcalf

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 19:01 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.
39015029214437
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike / http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#cc-by-nc-sa-4.0
Mnemata: Papers in Memory
of Nancy M. Waggoner
EDITED BY
William E. Metcalf
The American Numismatic Society, New York
Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 19:01 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015029214437

Copyright 1991
The American Numismatic Society
New York
ISBN 0-89722-243-1
The American Numismatic Society
Broadway at 155* Street
New York, NY 10032
212/234-3130
Printed in the United States of America
Contents
Contributors to the Colloquium iv
Preface v
Nancy M. Waggoner, 1924-1989 vi
Bibliography of Nancy M. Waggoner ix
MARGARET THOMPSON, A Personal Reminiscence 1
CHARLES A. HERSH, A Fifth-Century Circulation Hoard
of Macedonian Tetrobols 3
THOMAS R. MARTIN, Silver Coins and Public Slaves
in the Athenian Law of 375/4 B.C 21
HYLA A. TROXELL, Alexander's Earliest Macedonian
Silver 49
MARTIN J. PRICE, Circulation at Babylon in 323 B.C 63
ARTHUR HOUGHTON, The Antioch Project 73

CARMEN ARNOLD-BIUCCHI, Arabian Alexanders 101
Contributors to the Colloquium
Mr. and Mrs. Richard B. Arnold
Ellen A. Bauerle
Denyse P. Berend
George S. Cuhaj
Priscilla Elliott
Joan M. Fagerlie
Harry W. Fowler
Sallie S. Fried
Jay M. Galst, M.D.
William S. Greenwalt
Henry Grunthal
Charles A. Hersh
Arthur A. Houghton
Silvia Hurter
Jonathan H. Kagan
John D. Leggett, Jr.
Brooks Emmons Levy
The Alexander S. Onassis
Irwin L. Merker
William E. Metcalf
Leo Mildenberg
Robert A. Moysey
Robert J. Myers
Martha Waggoner Nakamura
Martin A. Rizack
Jonathan P. Rosen

Faith Ford Sandstrom
Robert Schonwalter
Laurence Silbert
Deborah Thompson
Homer A. Thompson
Hyla A. Troxell
Robert A. Weimer
Kerry K. Wetterstrom
Center for Hellenic Studies
Preface
The news of the death of Nancy Waggoner, so soon after her retire-
ment and following upon reports that were as optimistic as circumstances
permitted, carried more than the usual shock that accompanies death.
I heard the news in Princeton, to which I had departed for a term at
the Institute for Advanced Study just before Nancy's formal retirement,
and thus had not yet experienced life at the Society without her.
The determination of the need to commemorate her and the form the
memorial should take was instant and easy. The theme would be Nancy's
longest-standing interest, the fourth century; the conference would bring
together her friends, colleagues, and students. John D. Leggett, Jr.,
formerly Treasurer of the Society and currently Chairman of its Stand-
ing Committee on Greek Coins, undertook to secure the necessary
funding; it is a pleasure to acknowledge the generosity of the donors nam-
ed on p. iv.
There was no shortage of prospective speakers at the colloquium, and
their willingness not only to participate but to provide their manuscripts
on short notice has made this publication easier. The arrangement of the
volume reflects the order and the substance of the presentations at the
colloquium on May 19, 1990, with the single exception of my own
remarks, which were not intended for publication. In their stead we
reprint by permission the obituary which appeared in American Journal
of Archaeology 93 (1989), pp. 597-98.

William E. Metcalf
Nancy M. Waggoner, 1924-1989
Nancy Waggoner, Curator of Greek Coins at the American
Numismatic Society, died on April 10, 1989, at the age of 64. She had
undergone surgery for cancer a year earlier, soon after the selection of
students for the Society's 1988 Graduate Seminar, during which she
supervised several projects even while undergoing almost daily radiation
treatments; but her deteriorating health forced her into early retirement
at the end of September.
For Nancy, scholarship was a second career. She was a political science
major at Smith College, from which she graduated in 1946; after her mar-
riage in 1948 she raised two daughters while accompanying her husband
in the foreign service. After settling permanendy in the New York area
she began graduate work in the history of art at Columbia University,
where she studied with Edith Porada and the late Margarete Bieber, but
it was her encounter with numismatics, in the first seminar offered at
Columbia by Margaret Thompson, that would prove decisive for her
future. Like many others, she was encouraged to explore areas in which
E.T. Newell's groundwork was preserved through his collection and notes;
Nancy's investigation culminated in a dissertation treating the mint of
Alexander the Great at Babylon. Her interest in hellenistic coinages would
continue throughout her life, but for many years she was frustrated at
her inability to set in precise order all the issues of Babylon, which
employed one of Alexander's most inscrutable control systems. Nancy
finally put the problem behind her, in hopes of returning to it in retire-
ment, in the Festschrift for Margaret Thompson (1979), of which she was
co-editor with the late Otto M0rkholm.
Nancy joined the staff of the American Numismatic Society in 1968.

Almost immediately a second coincidence, which would prove pivotal
for her, steered her interest toward the beginnings of Greek coinage. A
large hoard of early Greek silver was discovered at Asyut in Egypt in
1969, and prior to dispersal records of the contents were made at both
the British Museum and the ANS. Nancy and Martin Price, then Assis-
tant Keeper of Greek Coins and now Deputy Keeper, proved natural
and congenial collaborators, and the resulting publication, Archaic Greek
Silver Coinage. The "Asyut" Hoard (London, 1975), set the chronology of
Nancy M. Waggoner
vii
the early Greek coinage on a new footing. Not everyone was satisfied
with their conclusions, and Nancy herself came to revise some of the views
presented there; but the publication remains the most fully and cogently
argued treatment of the problems, the basis from which all other discus-
sion must depart. On one occasion a spirited defense appeared in the
pages of the American Journal of Archaeology Q.H. Kroll and N.M. Wag-
goner, "Dating the Earliest Coinages of Athens, Corinth, and Aegina,"
AJA 88 [1984], pp. 325-40), but the new chronology was not something
that interested Nancy solely for proprietary reasons; it was typical of her
to reconsider or gracefully abandon earlier interpretations, even her own,
in the face of new evidence.
Her commitment to making this evidence available was most con-
spicuous in the efficient arrangement of the collection under her care and
her continuing involvement in its publication. Though she produced on-
ly one fascicle of the Society's Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum herself, after
her appointment as Curator of Greek Coins in 1976 she supervised the
preparation of three other fascicles; and she was the author of Early Greek
Coins in the Collection of Jonathan P. Rosen (1983), a volume in the ANS
series, Ancient Coins in North American Collections, that made available
a wealth of interesting material now dispersed. This last publication was
criticized for its inclusion of unprovenanced material, but Nancy's at-
titude was that no accident subsequent to departure from the mint ought
to interfere with the exploitation of a single piece of the fragmentary
evidence available to us.
In all her numismatic work Nancy had little patience with those who

did not work direcdy from the coins, insisting that they first be understood
on their own terms before being integrated into a historical record that
often contains as much preconception as fact. In spite of her highly
developed sense of style, she much preferred the "hard" evidence of coin
dies and their interrelationship for fixing community of origin and se-
quence of issue.
The ANS Graduate Seminar in Numismatics gave Nancy annual
responsibility for several students, and after Margaret Thompson's retire-
ment in 1979 she also had charge of the seminar in Greek numismatics
that had proved so determinative for her own career. In both these
environmentsperhaps chastened by her own experience with
Babylonshe attempted to select for her students topics that would both
introduce the basic techniques of numismatic study and lead to useful
conclusions. The number of papers by her students published in the Socie-
ty's Museum Notes and elsewhere is a tribute to her success.
viii
Nancy M. Waggoner
During her final illness Nancy showed a fortitude and optimism that
impressed but hardly surprised those close to her. She was frustrated at
her inability to visit "her" collection after leaving the museum in
September, but the brief retirement she enjoyed at least permitted her
to reflect with satisfaction on a career of successes. The last onethough
she never knew itwas the designation of one of her students as the ANS's
first Margaret Thompson Curator of Greek Coins, which secured her
own place as the vital link between an illustrious past and a promising
future. Her students and colleagues already miss a dedicated scholar and
teacher and a loyal friend.

William E. Metcalf
Bibliography of Nancy M. Waggoner
Eighteen Seal Impressions in the Collection of Edward R. Gans: their Seleucid Con-
text. Thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Arts. Columbia
University, Department of Art History and Archaeology, 1966.
The Alexander Mint at Babylon. Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of Doctory of Philosophy. Colum-
bia University, Department of Art History and Archaeology, 1968.
"The Early Alexander Coinage at Seleucia-on-the-Tigris," ANSMN 15
(1969), pp. 21-30.
Review: G.K. Jenkins, The Coinage of Gela, AMUGS 2 (Berlin, 1970),
in AJA 75 (1971) pp. 448-49.
"The Importance of Coins in Archaeology," Popular Archaeology 2 (Jan.
15, 1973), pp. 29-33.
"The Coinage of Phraates II of Parthia: Addenda," in Dickran Kouym-
jian, ed., Studies in Honor of George C. Miles (Beirut: American Univer-
sity of Beirut, 1974), pp. 15-26.
Review: R.T. Williams, The Silver Coinage of the Phokians, RNS Special
Publication 7 (Oxford, 1972), in AJA 78 (1974), pp. 97-98.
(with Martin Price), Archaic Greek Silver Coinage. The Asyut Hoard (Lon-
don: V.C. Vecchi, 1975).
"Three Recent Greek Accessions," ANSMN 21 (1976), pp. 1-9.
(with William E. Metcalf), "New Collection at the American Numismatic
Society," Archaeology 30 (May 1977), pp. 194-95.
Review: CM. Kraay, Archaic and Classical Greek Coins (London and
Berkeley, 1976), in AJA 81 (1977) pp. 569-71.
(with Hyla A. Troxell), "The Robert F. Kelley Bequest," ANSMN 23
(1978), pp. 1-41.

(with Otto Merkholm, ed.), Greek Numismatics and Archaeology. Essays in
Honor of Margaret Thompson (Wetteren: Editions NR, 1979).
"Tetradrachms from Babylon" in Greek Numismatics and Archaeology: Essays
in Honor of Margaret Thompson, pp. 257-68.
Bibliography
"The Propontis Hoard (IGCH 888)," RN 1979, pp. 7-29.
Review: M.J. Price and B.L. Trell, Greek Coins and Cities. Architecture on
the Ancient Coins of Greece, Rome, and Palestine (London and Detroit, 1977),
in AJA 83 (1979) pp. 248-49.
"Coins in the Collection of William P. Wallace," ANSMN 25 (1980),
pp. 1-15.
Review: A. Furtwangler, Monnaies grecques en Gaule, Typos 3 (Fribourg,
1978), in AJA 84 (1980), pp. 248-49.
"Another Alexander Tetradrachm of Audoleon," in S. Scheers, ed.,
Studia Paulo Naster Oblata I. Numismatica Antigua (Leuven, 1982), pp.
99-102.
"Further Reflections on Audoleon and His Alexander Mint," RBN 1983,
pp. 5-21.
Early Greek Coins from the Collection ofJonathan P. Rosen, Ancient Coins in
North American Collections 5 (New York: The American Numismatic
Society, 1983).
"Seal Impressions in the Manner of the Seleucids," in A. Houghton,
S. Hurter, P.E. Mottahedeh and J. A. Scott, eds., Festschrift fur/Studies
in Honor of Leo Mildenberg (Wetteren: Editions NR, 1984), pp. 259-68.
(with John H. Kroll), "Dating the Earliest Coins of Athens, Corinth,
and Aegina," AJA 88 (1984), pp. 325-40.
"Cassander in Babylon?," SAN 16 (May 1986), p. 68.
Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. The American Numismatic Society 7. Macedonia
I: Thraco-Macedonian Tribes, Paeonian Kings (New York: The American
Numismatic Society, 1988).

(with Carmen Arnold-Biucchi and Leslie Beer Tobey), "A Greek Ar-
chaic Silver Hoard from Selinus," ANSMN 33 (1988), pp. 1-35.
(with Georges Le Rider, Kenneth Jenkins, and Ulla Westermark, eds.),
Kraay-Merkholm Essays: Studies in Memory of CM. Kraay and 0. Merkholm,
Numismatica Lovaniensia 10 (Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut Superieur
d'Archeologie et d'Histoire de l'Art, Seminaire de Numismatique
Marcel Hoc, 1989).
"A New Wrinkle in the Hellenistic Coinage of Antioch/Alabanda," in
Kraay-Merkholm Essays: Studies in Memory of CM. Kraay and 0. Merkholm
(Louvain-la-Neuve, 1989) pp. 283-90.
A Personal Reminiscence
MARGARET THOMPSON
Those of us who had the privilege of knowing Nancy will have many
personal memories. My own go back some twenty-five years to the time
when she first came to the ANS as a student in the Columbia Seminar
in Greek Numismatics. She was then working for her Ph.D. and at a
loss for a dissertation topic. Her obvious interest in coins and her ability
to do numismatic research led eventually to an excellent treatise on Alex-
ander's mint at Babylon. Although never published in its entirety, the
study established the basic chronology, which Nancy generously made
available to anyone interested in that coinage.
Appointment to the ANS staff came in 1968 and from then on Nancy's
contributions to the work of the Greek department were numerous and
significant, ranging from routine housekeeping and servicing chores to
the publication of numismatic material from the ANS and other sources
as well as an important role in organizing the International Numismatic
Congress of 1973. It was a sad loss to the ANS and to numismatics when
she was forced into premature retirement by the crippling illness against
which she had fought so valiantly.
Others, now far from Audubon Terrace, will have carried away their
own memories. Many Summer Seminar students will remember Nancy's
skillful guidance in their introduction to Greek numismatics and the
sincere interest she took in their subsequent careers. Visiting scholars
will remember the gracious hospitality with which she entertained them
in her Rye home. All who knew Nancy will remember a fine numismatist,
a courageous human being and a loyal friend.

Mnemata: Papers in Memory of Nancy M. Waggoner
1991 The American Numismatic Society
A Fifth-Century Circulation Hoard
of Macedonian Tetrobols
(PLATES 1-8) CHARLES A. HERSH
During 1989 a fifth century1 circulation hoard of at least 223 tetrobols
was unearthed, probably in eastern Macedonia, which later in the year
came onto the numismatic market in Munich. Of the coins, 197 were
royal Macedonian silver pieces, 196 light tetrobols and 1 heavy tetrobol,
covering virtually the entire range of light tetrobols struck by the Macedo-
nian kings during the fifth century. Only the initial issue, struck by Alex-
ander I,2 and the last one, of Archelaus,3 were missing. This hoard is
the first find of any sizable number of tetrobols; all previously-found
tetrobols were either small parts of larger hoards including a number of
mints, or occasional finds, primarily from excavations.4
A short review of the obscure history of Macedonia during the fifth
century is perhaps in order here, to explain better the background, both
political and economic, of the regal coinages to be discussed.5
1 All dates are B.C.
2 D. Raymond, Macedonian Regal Coinage to 413 B. C., ANSNNM 126 (New York, 1953),
p. 84, no. 34.
3 H. Gaebler, Die Antiken Munzen Nordgriechenlands, Vol. 3, Makedonia undPaionia (Berlin,
1935), p. 156, no. 7
4 For hoards containing tetrobols of Alexander I and Perdiccas II, see IGCH nos. 359,
364, 366, 375-77, 382.
5 The standard work on the subject, followed here, is N. G. L. Hammond and G. L.
Griffith, A History of Macedonia, Vol. 2 (Oxford, 1979).

Charles A. Hersh
The entire fifth century saw only four kings on the throne ruling
Macedonia: Amyntas I, his eldest son Alexander I, Alexander's third
son Perdiccas II, and Perdiccas's son Archelaus. The history of the cen-
tury began ca. 510 when Amyntas I ruled a small kingdom with a pastoral
economy, primarily on the western side of the Thermaic Gulf in nor-
thern Greece. Its capital was at Aegeae, but it controlled the important
crossing of the Axius River near the coast at the head of that gulf. Amyntas
and Macedonia had made considerable territorial gains to the north on
either side of the Axius valley following the defeat of the Paeonians, the
most powerful tribal group in the area at that time, by the invading ar-
my of Darius I of Persia in 511, when the Paeonians chose to fight rather
than to submit to Persia. During the next year the Persian commander
Megabazus demanded and received the submission of Amyntas peaceful-
ly, and Macedonia was occupied by his army and came under Persian
control for the next 30 years. To solidify his position, Amyntas gave his
daughter Gygaea in marriage to Bubares, the son of Megabazus, and
was confirmed in the possession of the territories he held by the Persians.
Amyntas died ca. 495.
He was succeeded by his eldest son Alexander I, who was elected king
by the assembly of the Macedonian people, as there was no custom or
principle of primogeniture in force for succession to the throne. Prior to
his becoming king, Alexander had participated in the Olympic games
as a sprinter and in the pentathlon, and he was well-known in Greece
as a strong personality. During the Ionian Revolt of 498-493 both Amyn-
tas and Alexander remained loyal to the Persians and caused no problems,

unlike many of the southern Greek city-states. In 492 when Mardonius,
son-in-law of Darius, advanced into Europe with a great army and navy
through Thrace and Macedonia, he met with no resistance from the king.
Alexander was in active charge of the Macedonian contingent6 in the ar-
my under Mardonius when it was defeated at Marathon in 490 by the
Athenians and the Plataeans, and he retreated northward subsequently
with the Persian army. Darius died in 485 and was succeeded by his son
Xerxes I, whose forces invaded Europe again in 480. Alexander again
personally headed the Macedonian troops in the Persian army, but he
also had ties to the Greeks. He was said to have urged the Greeks to
withdraw from their forward positions at Tempe and later to have disclos-
ed the Persian battle plans to the Greek leaders. After the Persian army
6 This contingent consisted principally of cavalry, as the Macedonian infantry was not
very highly regarded at that time.
Hoard of Macedonian Tetrobols
forced the pass at Thermopylae and burned Athens, which had been aban-
doned by its citizens, the navy of the Greeks destroyed the Persian fleet
at Salamis while Xerxes watched. Xerxes returned to Asia and Mardonius
was left in charge of the Persian land forces.
In 479 Mardonius and Artabazus met the Greek army at Plataea and
after Mardonius was killed during the battle, the Persians were routed.
Alexander again led the Macedonian contingent of the Persian army,
but he still kept contacts with the Greeks, especially the Athenians. Follow-
ing the defeat at the battle of Plataea, Artabazus and a Persian army
of at least 40,000 men retreated through Macedonia and Thrace back
into Asia, but the Macedonians did not attack the Persian forces as they
withdrew. Alexander was permitted by the Persians to fill the power void
caused by their withdrawal and to annex most of the land between the
Axius and the Strymon rivers that Persia had controlled, including the
Bisaltic silver and gold mines near Lake Prasias (Theodoraki). Up to that
time Macedonia had had no major source of precious metals, and had
not issued any royal coinage. These newly-acquired mines changed the
situation, and silver coins began to be struck, as these mines produced
at least a talent of silver per day. Alexander's later rule resulted in con-
flicts with both the Athenians and the Edones, a major tribal power in
the Strymon river basin. In the 450s Macedonia declined in strength,
with the resultant loss of the Bisaltic mines to the Edones for a number
of years, a decided setback to the kingdom's economy. Alexander died
a violent death in ca. 452.
He was succeeded by his third son, Perdiccas II. This was a period

of weakness for Macedonia. Internally, Perdiccas struggled for power with
his elder brothers Philip and Alcetas; externally, some territories annexed
by Alexander I were lost, including Bisaltia. It was not until ca. 435 that
Perdiccas managed to secure all of the power that went with the throne.
In the 440s he had problems with Athens, which had expanded into the
Thermaic Gulf, and with the Bisaltic tribes, which had taken control of
the mines near Lake Prasias under Alexander I's rule and which now
gained their complete independence from Macedonia. After 434 Perdic-
cas became involved in the war between Athens and Sparta. The Athe-
nians set up his eldest brother Philip as a pretender to the Macedonian
throne until his death in ca. 430. Perdiccas also fought with Derdas, king
of Elimiotis, and later with Sitalces, king of much of Thrace, who set
up Amyntas, the elder son of his late brother Philip, as a pretender to
the throne. This dangerous threat was blunted when Perdiccas married
his daughter Stratonice to Sitalces' son and heir Seuthes. Seuthes became
Charles A. Hersh
king in 424, succeeding his father, and this situation ameliorated. Dur-
ing the reign of Perdiccas, Macedonia was weak militarily and the king
had to use his considerable political skills for himself and his nation to
survive among very powerful enemies. He died in 413.
Archelaus was elected to the throne in that year, following the death
of his father. Like his grandfather Alexander I, he was a strong personali-
ty, and a fortunate one. Late in 413 the defeat of Athens at Syracuse
severely weakened the naval and economic power of Macedonia's chief
rival in the north of Greece. Athens now needed Macedonian timber to
reconstruct her fleet and ceased her hostility toward Macedonia. Archelaus
was able to recover the Bisaltic mines and other territories lost under Per-
diccas. He helped to protect the kingdom for the future by improving
the military road system and building fortified strong points in border
areas, and he anticipated Philip II by upgrading the quality of his military
forces, both the cavalry and more especially the infantry. His court was
noted for its culture: Euripides was a member of it and the king knew
Thucydides. Archelaus was assassinated in 399.
THE COINS
The standard reference work on the fifth-century coinage of Macedonia
is that of Raymond, a carefully researched study of all the material then
available, published by the American Numismatic Society in 1953.7
As we have already seen, the Macedonian kingdom lacked a major
source of silver at the beginning of the fifth century, and had not issued
any coins at all up to that time, although a number of Thraco-Macedonian
tribes had struck large silver bullion coins as early as the sixth century.

These pieces were struck primarily for export, especially to Persia and
Egypt. These tribes had utilized silver from Mount Pangaeum, Paeonia,
and the mines near Lake Prasias. In the period following the Persian
retreat from northern Greece in 479, Alexander I took over the mines
near Lake Prasias and began to strike silver coins in large (octodrachm
and tetradrachm) and small (tetrobol) denominations, probably at a mint
in his capital city, Aegeae. During the long reign of his successor Perdic-
cas II only heavy and light tetrobols were issued, along with a few frac-
tional silver pieces, a sure sign of Macedonia's weak economic position.
The heavy tetrobols had a theoretical weight of 2.45g and were of a good
7 Above, n. 2.
Table 1
LIGHT TETROBOL DIES
Obv.
Rev.
Combi-
Speci-
RAYMOND:
dies
dies
nations
mens
Remarks
Alexander I
Group I (34-44, 125)
11
12
23
Group IP (76-95)
16
20
29
aH Series
Group III (122-24, 126-30)

omitted
Total
35
21
40
60
Perdiccas II
Group IV
Series 1 (131-47)
13
14
17
22
Series 2 (148-61)
14
14
14
19
Series 3 (162-69)
12
Series 4 (170-75)
12
Total
38b
36
45
65
bOne die used
in both Series
Raymond Overall
73
57
85
Charles A. Hersh
silver alloy, being used primarily for external trade, while the light
tetrobols had a theoretical weight of 2.18g, were of a poorer alloy and
were used mostly internally.8
In fact, both groups of tetrobols fall short of these theoretical weights.
The hoard under study contained only tetrobols, mostly those struck by
Alexander I and Perdiccas II. It was composed of 197 regal coins, of which
196 were light tetrobols and 1 was a heavy tetrobol. Raymond had noted
that in the excavations at Olynthus in the Chalcidike only 6 light tetrobols
were uncovered, as compared with 34 heavy ones. This would appear
to bear out the position that the heavy tetrobols were used primarily for
external trade.
A comparison of the number of light tetrobol dies and light tetrobol
specimens that were known to Raymond and those in the present find
shows how much additional material is now available.
The dies of these small coins are very difficult to differentiate from one
another, especially the obverse dies. Even when working with original
coins (many of which had considerable wear), it was extremely hard to
distinguish between various dies. Raymond, who worked primarily with
plaster casts and some photographs, had an almost impossible task, and
a sizeable number of errors became obvious as I worked with the
photographs in her book and the actual coins from the hoard. It was
therefore not feasible to integrate the die information from both sources,
and in Table 1 they are shown as two separate entities. In any case, the
number of light tetrobols from the new find increases by 150% the coins
of this denomination known from her volume, with the pieces of Alex-

ander I being slightly more numerous than those known in Raymond
and those of Perdiccas II from the find being more than twice the number
available to her. This new material, and the resultant increase in the
number of new obverse and reverse dies, particularly associated with the
light tetrobols of Perdiccas II, makes his coinage of these pieces far more
substantial in size than Raymond's work suggested. Although the fineness
of the silver alloy of these coins was not high, there were no plated coins
in this find.
CATALOGUE OF THE FIND
Each die combination is numbered serially; the first entry (the Ray-
mond column) indicates the number of her combinations known in the
8 C. M. Kraay, Archaic and Classical Greek Coins (London, 1976), p. 142.
hoard. Reference is made to her catalogue numbers, as follows:
34 = same dies as Raymond 34
34/ = same obverse die as Raymond 34
/34 = same reverse die as Raymond 34
= dies not recorded by Raymond
The second column indicates the number of coins of each die pair found
in the hoard. In the third and fourth columns, die numbers indicate obverse
and reverse dies recorded by Raymond; die letters (upper case for obverse,
lower case for reverse) indicate new dies from the hoard. In each case,
unless otherwise noted, coin (a) is illustrated. Die axes are randomly
distributed and have not been listed. Except in the case of obvious errors
(e.g. no. 125 and various tribal issues), Raymond's order of presenta-
tion has been followed.
ALEXANDER I
Dies
Horse
Helmet
No. Ravmond
Coins Obv.
Rev.
faces
faces
Reference, remarks
Group I
Archaic Hor
1A

1. /35
(a) 2.24, author
2. 40/39
16
(a) 2.02, author
3. --
1B
(a) 2.01, author
4. 41
27
(a) 2.06, author; (b) 2.12
5. 41/
17
(a) 2.12, ANS
6. 44/
1 10
(a) 2.07, author
7. -
1C
(a) 2.26
8. 125
10
Charles A. Hersh
Dies Horse Helmet
No.
Raymond
Coins
Obv.
Rev.
faces
faces
Reference, remarks
Group II (continued)
A on obv.
14.
l0v.
(a) 1.87, author. A on ex-
ergual line. See 36-38.
15.

(a) 2.03, author. A on ex-
ergual line. Rev. die of 42.
16.
88/81
21
l0v.
(a) 2.19, author. A above
horse. See 36-38.
17.
88/90-95
21
14
(a) 2.41, author. A above
horse.
18.
/90-95
14
(a) 2.02, author; (b) 2.27;
(c) 1.95. A above horse.
19.
94
25
14
(a) 2.05. A above horse.
Edones
20. 99-101/ 1
21. 107 2
22. /107 1
23. 1
11
Dies
No. Raymond
Coins
Obv.
Rev.
Group II (continued)
31. 82
16
10
32. /79.80,
10
82,83
33. /79.80,
10
82,83
34. ,79,80,
10
82,83

35.
36. /81
10v.
37. /81
l0v.
38. /81
l0v.
39. /85
11
40. /86
12
41. /86
12
42.
43.
44.
45.
12
Charles A. Hersh
PERDICCAS II
Dies
No.
Raymond
Coins
Obv.
Rev.
Reference, remarks
Group IVSeries 1
Helmet r. in a single linear square
56.
AH
aa
(a) 1.63.
57.
AI
ab
(a) 1.84.
58.
132
44
31
59.
132/
44
ac

(a) 2.13, author; (b) 2.03.
(a) 1.95.
60.
/132
AJ
31
(a) 2.02.
61.
/132
AK
31
(a) 2.06.
62.
/132
AL
31
(a) 1.91.
63.
133
45
31v.
(a) 2.08, author; (b) 2.10;
(c) 1.77. Not Raymond's
rev. die 31.
64.
136/
48
ad
(a) 1.93; (b) 2.20; (c) 2.09.
Obv. dies of 136 and 137
are different.
65.
13
Dies
No.
Raymond Coins
Obv.
Rev.
Reference, remarks
Group IV
-Series 1 (continued)
Helmet r.
in a single linear square
84.
AV
al
(a
1.94.
85.
AW
al
(a
1.98.
86.
AX
(a

am
1.69.
87.
AY
an
(a
1.96.
88.
AY
ao
(a
2.54.
89.
AZ
ao
(a
1.96, author.
90.
BA
ap
(a
2.11.
91.
BB
aq
(a
1.62; (b) 1.63; (c) 1.90.
92.
BC
aq
(a
2.24.
93.
BD
ar
(a
14
Charles A. Hersh
Dies
No. Raymond Coins Obv. Rev. Reference, remarks
Group IVSeries 2 (continued) Helmet r. in a double linear square
120.
CA
bl
(a) 1.82.
121.
CB
bm
(a) 1.98, author.
122.
CC
bn
(a) 2.11.
123.
CD
bo
(a) 1.87.
124.
bp

CE
(a) 1.99.
125.
CF
bq
(a) 1.98.
126.
CG
br
(a) 1.96.
127.
CH
bs
(a) 1.97, author; (b) 1.92.
128.
CI
bs
(a) 1.91.
129.
cj
bt
(a) 2.02; (b) 1.95; (c) 1.76.
Dies
No. Raymond Coins Obv. Rev. Horse Square Reference, remarks
Group IVSeries 3 l~l sometimes below horse on obv.;
horse prances or walks;
linear square single or double
130.
/151
CK
47 Walks
Double
(a) 2.22, author. No 11.
See 139.
131.
/151
15
Dies
No. Raymond Coins Obv. Rev. Horse Square Reference, remarks
nEPAlK on rev.
(a) 1.98, author.
(a) 2.05, author.
Group IVSeries 4
144. 175/170, 1 81
171
145. 170 1 78
146. 174 1 80
147. 173 1 78v.
63 Prances Partly
Double
63 Prances Partly
Double
64 Prances Double
64 Prances Double
(a) 1.99, author.
(a) 2.10, author. Obv. die
is not Raymond 78.
Dies Linear
No. Raymond Coins Obv. Rev. Square Reference, remarks
Barbarous imitations of Perdiccas II
148.
da
Single

DA
(a) 1.95.
149.
DB
db
Single
(a) 1.66.
150.
DC
dc
Single
(a) 1.59, author.
151.
DC
dd
Double
(a) 1.31, author.
152.
DD
de
Double
(a) 1.72.
153.
DE
df
Double
(a) 1.77.
154.
DF
dg
Double
(a) 1.35.
Heavy tetrobol
n below hors
155. cf. 216,
16
Charles A. Hersh
on its reverse a goat's head r. in a linear square within an incuse square,
rather than a helmeted head in an incuse square like the remainder of
the group. The obverses of this group all show archaic-style horses, in-
cluding Raymond 125 which obviously belongs here.
Group II. Coins 13-19, with an A on the obverse dies above the walk-
ing horse or on the exergual line and with a helmeted head on the reverse,
belong to this group. It portrays a more finely executed and later-style
horse on the obverse, as do coins 31-46, which lack the A on the obverse
but share reverse dies in a number of cases with coins 13-19.
The attribution of coins such as nos. 20-25 in this hoard to the Edones,
a Strymon-basin tribe, was originally made by Nicholas Hammond and
is almost certainly correct.9 Hammond writes, "There are other peculiar
features about the 'H' series (Raymond 96-107). No other Alexander coin
has an 'H', or a horse of such slight short-barrelled build (as Raymond
on page 114 remarks), or a crested helmet of the odd kind appearing on
one 'H' coin (reverse die 22Raymond 107), or such poor technique,
especially when the technique of the 'A' series of the same group is the
most advanced.10 ... These peculiarities can be explained only by con-
cluding that series 'H' is not Macedonian at all. That 'H' stands for
HAONEON the tribal name...is an obvious and perhaps obviously cor-
rect suggestion."
There are two other tribal issues in this hoard, which were called "frac-
tional issues'' by Raymond although they are of normal light tetrobol
weight. These are hoard coins 26-27 (shown on Raymond pl. XI, a),
and 28-30 (shown on Raymond pl. IX, a). Although these pieces have

a fine-style horse on the obverse, similar to that of Group II, and are
clearly later than the archaic-style coins of Group I, they have quadripar-
tite squares as the types on their reverses. Once coins in an issue are struck
with specific types on the reverse, representing an advance from the pun-
ches or squares of various forms used on the earliest of issues, the return
to the more primitive quadripartite squares would mark a definite
retrogression, especially when the light tetrobols of Alexander I were
originally issued with a regular type on the reverse. It appears uniformly
true, as far as the issues of this area are concerned, that no such backward
step took place.
Group III. The reverse type now uniformly shows an Illyrian helmet
facing r., instead of the earlier helmeted head.
9 Hammond and Griffith (above, n. 5), p. 107.
10 Raymond coins 76-95.
17
Group IV. Series 1 has as its reverse type an Illyrian helmet r. in a single
linear square, while Series 2 has a similar helmet r. in a double linear
square. These are evidently two distinct and separate issues of light
tetrobols of Perdiccas II, as, to my surprise, there do not appear to be
any obverse die links between the two series. Series 3 oftentimes has a
n on the obverse die below the horse, which is now shown prancing as
well as walking. The helmet on the reverse may be in either a single or
a double linear square. Series 4 has the legend IHEPAIK on the reverse
around a helmet to the right, generally in a double linear square. The
obverse shows a prancing horse to the right.
Archelaus. His light tetrobols in this hoard portray a rearing horse l. on
the obverse and an Illyrian helmet l. on the reverse, with APXEAAO
around it. The rare and probably later tetrobol issue of this king with
the same obverse type and an eagle with spread wings facing l., head
r., is missing from this hoard."
Raymond dated these light tetrobol issues of Alexander I and Perdic-
cas II as follows:
The contemporary copies of the coins of Perdiccas II were undoubted-
ly struck by tribes that lived on the fringes of Macedonian territory, most
probably in this case somewhere in the Strymon valley region. Normally
these rather crude copies were made by less artistically-developed tribal
groups, imitating the common currencies circulating in the areas that
11 See Gaebler (above, n. 3), p. 156, no. 7; pi. 29, 16. Also missing from this find is
a variety of hoard coins 156-59, which has the horse and helmet to r. (Gaebler, p. 156,
no. 5; pi. 29, 14).

Dating
Alexander I Group I
Group II
Group III
Perdiccas II Group IV
Series 1
Series 2
Series 3
Series 4
480/79-477/6
476/5-ca. 460
460-451
451/0-447/6
446/5-438/7
437/6-435/4
415-413
Barbarous Imitations
18 Charles A. Hersh
they inhabited or in which they traded. These imitations are unplated,
but, as is quite common, they are well under the normal weight of the
pieces imitated.
Table 2
WEIGHTS OF LIGHT TETROBOLS
OF ALEXANDER I AND PERDICCAS II
Alexander I Perdiccas II
Range
Coins
Coins
2.65-2.69
.8
2.60-2.64
2.55-2.59
2.50-2.54
.5
2.45-2.49
.8
2.40-2.44
1.6
.8

2.35-2.39
2.30-2.34
4.0
2.25-2.29
4.8
2.20-2.24
4.8
1.6
2.15-2.19
11
8.9
1.6
2.10-2.14
13
10.5
4.9
2.05-2.09
16
12.9
18
9.8
2.00-2.04
20
16.2
20
11.0
1.95-1.99
17
13.8
48
26.3
1.90-1.94
12
9.7
33
19
Weights
The weights of the light tetrobols of Alexander I and Perdiccas II, in-
cluding both the coins known to Raymond and those in the present hoard,
are summarized in Table 2.
As compared to the theoretical weight of 2.18g for light tetrobol issues,
those of Alexander I peak at 2.00-2.04g and those of Perdiccas II peak
at 1.95-1.99g. However, from Table 2, it is clear that very many of the
coins of Alexander are above the peak weight, while the great majority
of those of Perdiccas are below the peak weight.
SUMMARY
This fifth century silver circulation hoard, although it contained only
about 200 regal Macedonian light tetrobols, has more than doubled the
number of coins known of this denomination struck by Alexander I, and
almost trebled those published of Perdiccas II, as recorded by Raymond.
There are at least 33 obverse dies and 26 reverse dies of Alexander I that
were unknown to her, and 64 new obverse dies and 52 new reverse dies
of Perdiccas II.
This hoard indicates that the light tetrobol issues of these kings were
substantially larger than she envisioned. The silver used for these coins
was a poor alloy, but none of the royal pieces in the hoard shows any
sign of plating. The weights of the light tetrobols do not show any severe
reduction between the issues of the two kings, although the reign of Per-
diccas II was even more fraught with political and economic perils than

those faced by his father Alexander I.


Charles A. Hersh
Plate 2


Charles A. Hersh
Plate 4

Plate 5
Charles A. Hersh
99
81 82 83 84 85
0Wt
86 87 88 89 "90
91 92 93 94 95
96 97 98 99 100

Charles A. Hersh
Plate 6

Plate 7
Charles A. Hersh

Charles A. Hersh
Silver Coins and Public Slaves
in the Athenian Law of 375/4 B.C.
(PLATE 9) THOMAS R. MARTIN
When I was a student in the Graduate Seminar of the American
Numismatic Society in the summer of 1976, Nancy Waggoner encouraged
me to pursue my interest in the intersection of the evidence of coins and
of literary and documentary sources for ancient Greek history. In this
contribution to honor her memory, I have followed the same approach
in investigating the implications of the provisions of an Athenian law of
375/4 B.C. concerning a special problem in the allocation of power that
silver coinage created for one of the principal ideals of Athenian
democracy. In Athenian public service, ideally no one was supposed to
exercise a power over others that was not subject to regular and effective
review by the citizen body, but the official scrutiny of coinage necessari-
ly represented an anomaly in the system. This anomalous power was all
the more striking in that it resided in the hands of public slaves.
The text from 375/4 B.C. that sheds light on this remarkable situation
is an inscription of 56 lines, discovered in the American excavations of
the Athenian agora in 1970 and published with extensive commentary
by Ronald S. Stroud.1 For the arguments of this paper, it will fortunate-
ly suffice to summarize the text.2 After a brief opening that records the
1 R.S. Stroud, "An Athenian Law on Silver Coinage," Hesperia 43 (1974), pp. 157-88.
For periodical abbreviations see Numismatic Literature 123 (March 1990), pp. xiii-lxiii. All
dates are B.C.
2 To give a full translation would require extensive discussion of epigraphical uncertain-
21

ties and gaps in the Greek text caused by damage to the stone, for which this is not the
22
Thomas R. Martin
year in which this law was passed and naming Nicophon as its proposer,
the body of the text begins in l. 3 with the programmatic statement that
Athenian coinage that has been shown to be of silver and to carry the
public coin type must be accepted in financial transactions. (See Plate
9, 1 and 2 for Athenian tetradrachms of the fifth and fourth centuries
respectively). The dokimastes (that is, the public slave who works as the
official certifier of the coinage) is to take his seat among the "tables"
(presumably those of the bankers and money changers of the agora) and
is to be available there every day to certify coinage according to the
specifications listed above, except on the days when financial payments
are being made to the city-state, when he is to be in the council house.
If someone presents a foreign silver coin to the certifier that has the same
type as Athenian coinage (that is, the category of coins that modern
scholars call imitations, to which we will return), the certifier is to return
it to the person who presented it. (Whether the text specified that the
imitation had to be "good" remains controversial; see below.) The cer-
tifier is to cut through all counterfeits such as plated subaerate coins and
deposit them with the council under the guardianship of the Mother of
the Gods (see Plate 9, 3 for an example of a plated tetradrachm wihout
such a cut, and Plate 9, 4 for a subaerate with a cut.) If the certifier does
not appear at his designated post or certify coinage according to the pro-
visions of the law, the appropriate magistrates are to punish him with
50 lashes of the whip. Anyone who refuses genuine silver coins that have
been certified is to have confiscated all the merchandise that he had on
sale for that day.

appropriate place. Stroud provides a complete English translation with his publication of
the editio princeps. For an English translation that takes into account different suggestions
for restoration published during the period from the appearance of Stroud's article until
1983, see Translated Documents of Greece and Rome, vol. 2: From the End of the Peloponnesian War
to the Battle of Ipsus, P. Harding, ed. and trans. (Cambridge, 1985), no. 45, pp. 61-64. The
following items propose restorations that differ from Stroud's: M.H. Hansen, Eisangelia
(Odense, 1975 = Odense University Classical Studies 6), p. 28; R. Bogaert, Epigraphica
///(Leiden, 1976), no. 21, p. 25; J. and L. Robert, Bulletin Epigraphique 1976, no. 190;
F. Sokolowski, "The Athenian Law Concerning Silver Currency (375/4 B.C.)," BCH 100
(1976), pp. 511-15; P. Gauthier, "Sur une clause penale de la loi athenienne relative a
la monnaie d'argent," Revue de Philologie 52 (1978), pp. 32-35; T. Fischer, "Das Athener
Miinzgesetz von 375/74 v. Chr.," Hellenika: Jahrbuch fur die Freunde Griechenlands (1981),
pp. 38-41; F. Bourriot, "Note sur le texte de la loi athenienne de 375/4 concernant la cir-
culation monetaire (loi de Nicophon)," ZPE 50 (1983), pp. 275-82; T.R. Martin, reported
in Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum 33 (1983), no. 77, p. 22; H. Wankel, "Bemerkungen
zu dem athenischen Miinzgesetz von 375/4," ZPE 52 (1983), pp. 69-74; H. Engelmann,
"WegegriechischerGeldpolitik,"ZP60(1985), pp. 165-76; G. Stumpf, "Ein athenisches
Munzgesetz des 4. Jh. v. Chr.," JNG 36 (1986), pp. 23-40.
Coins and Slaves at Athens
23
There follow provisions for lodging accusations about offenses under
this law with the appropriate magistrates according to the location at which
the alleged refusal to accept certified coinage took place. Cases concern-
ing less than 10 drachmas are to be handled by magistrates; cases of more
than that amount are to be taken before a court of citizens. Those who
make successful accusations are to receive half of the confiscated goods.
Slave merchants, both male and female, who are convicted under the
provisions of the law are to receive 50 lasnes. Magistrates who fail to act
in accordance with the provisions of the law are to be brought before
the council, which is to remove a convicted magistrate from his post and
fine him up to 500 drachmas.
Then, in ll. 36ff., the council is instructed to acquire another certifier
of the coinage who is to work at a set location in the Piraeus, the harbor
district, for the benefit of shipowners, merchants, and "all the others."
If a certifier cannot be found among the city's current stock of public
slaves, one is to be purchased. The overseers of the market are to see
to it that the certifier for the Piraeus takes his position at the location
specified and that the law is followed. Inscribed copies of the law are to
be set up at the separate locations where the two certifiers will regularly
work. The new certifier for the Piraeus will receive the same payment
as the certifier in the agora, whose payment will henceforth be taken from
the same source as those to the mint workers. The law then closes with
the standard provision for eliminating any earlier law that is in conflict
with this new one.
This fascinating document has aroused scholarly comment and

disagreement on a wide range of issues, such as the treatment of imita-
tions of Athenian coins, the nature of the work of the dokimastes, inter-
pretation of the law as a legal tender act, the identification of tralatitious
material from earlier legislation reiterated in ll. 3-36 of this text of 375/4,
and the economic and political circumstances surrounding its passage and
the passage of earlier legislation on the same topic.3 Controversy has
3 In addition to the items listed above (n. 2), see A. Giovannini, "Athenian Currency
in the Late Fifth and Early Fourth Century B.C.," GRBS16 (1975), pp. 185-95; R. Bogaert,
"L'assai des monnaies dans l'antiquite," RBN 122 (1976), pp. 5-34; T. Fischer, SM 26
(1976), pp. 20-21 (commenting on Giovannini, GRBS 16 [1975]); H. Wankel, "Zur For-
mulierung von Strafbestimmungen in dem neuen attischen Miinzgesetz," ZPE1\ (1976),
pp. 149-51; J. Diebolt and H. Nicolet-Pierre, "Recherches sur le metal de tetradrachms
a types atheniens," SNR 56 (1977), pp. 79-91; L. Migeotte, "Sur une clause des contrats
d'emprunt d'Amorgos," AC 46 (1977), pp. 128-39; J. and L. Robert, Bulletin Epigraphique
1977, nos. 146 and 147; A. Giovannini, Rome et la circulation monetaire en Grece au He siecle
24
Thomas R. Martin
even arisen over the appropriate English translation of the Greek term
dokimastes. I have employed "certifier of the coinage," which seems to
convey the sense of the Greek term with the least awkwardness in
English.4
Other significant issues arising from this text have not yet, to my
knowledge, been raised in the scholarly debate: the anomaly of the power
exercised by the certifiers of the coinage at Athens and the question of
why they were public slaves. The significance of these issues will emerge
from a discussion of the appearance of imitations of Athenian coins in
circulation at Athens, the disruption of the established pattern of monetary
circulation at Athens at the end of the Peloponnesian War, and the
characteristics of the Athenian institution of public slavery.
Numismatists have long recognized that silver coins imitating the types
of Athenian silver coinage were minted outside Attica, especially in the
avant Jesus-Christ (Basel, 1978), pp. 39, 68; T. V. Buttrey, "The Athenian Currency Law
of 375/4 B.C.," in Greek Numismatics and Archaeology. Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson,
O. Merkholm and N. Waggoner, eds. (Wetteren, 1979), pp. 33-45; D. Placido, "La ley
aticade 375/4 a. C. y la politica ateniense," Memorias de Histmia Antigua 4 (1980), pp. 27-41;
J. and L. Robert, Bulletin Epigraphique 1980, nos. 195 and 196; T. V. Buttrey, "More on
the Athenian Coinage Law of 375/4 B.C.," NumAntClas 10 (1981), pp. 71-94; J. Cargill,
The Second Athenian League (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1981), pp. 140-41; M. H. Hansen,
"Initiative and Decision: The Separation of Powers in Fourth-Century Athens," GRBS
22 (1981), p. 356; T. V. Buttrey, "Pharaonic Imitations of Athenian Tetradrachms," Pro-
ceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Numismatics. Berne, September, 1979, T. Hackens
and R. Weiller, eds. (Louvain-la-Neuve/Luxembourg, 1982), pp. 137-40; E. Ercolani Cocchi,

"II controllo statale sulla circolazione di moneta straniera nelle citta greche," Rivista storica
dell'antichita 12 (1982), pp. 53-59; O. Merkholm, "Some Reflections on the Production
and Use of Coinage in Ancient Greece," Historia 31 (1982), pp. 290-96; S. Alessandri,
"II significato storico della legge di Nicofonte sul dokimastes monetario," AnnaliSNSPisa
14 (1984), pp. 369-93; T. V. Buttrey, "Seldom What They SeemThe Case of the Athe-
nian Tetradrachm," Ancient Coins of the Greco-Roman World. The Nickle Numismatic Papers
(Waterloo, Canada, 1984), pp. 292-94; J. K. Davies, in The Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd
ed., vol. 7, pt. 1 (Cambridge, 1984), p. 281; T. Eide, "Merisai and Dounai in Athenian
Fourth-Century Decrees," Symbolae Osloenses 59 (1984), pp. 21-28; O. Picard, "Sur deux
termes des inscriptions de la tresorerie d' A'i Khanoum,'' Hommages a Lucien Lerat 2 (Besan-
con, 1984), pp. 679-690; D. Bellinger, "Wahrungsordnung im griechischen Altertum: das
Miinzgesetz Athens," Die Bank 12 (1986), pp. 644-50; M. R. Cataudella, "Aspetti della
politica monetaria ateniese fra V e IV secolo," Sileno 12 (1986), pp. 111-35; G. Le Rider,
"A propos d'un passage des Poroi de Xenophon: la question du change et les monnaies
incuses d'ltalie du Sud," in Kraay-Morkholm Essays. Numismatic Studies in Memory of C. M.
Kraay and 0. Morkholm, G. Le Rider et al, eds. (Louvain-la-Neuve/Luxembourg, 1989),
pp. 159-72.
4 Correspondingly, I will use "certification" as the translation for the work done by the
dokimastes, that is, the dokimasia of coinage. On the question of the translation of dokimastes,
see Buttrey in Greek Numismatics and Archaeology (above, n. 3), p. 38. I am grateful to Dr.
Buttrey for his illuminating correspondence on Athenian imitations and the law of 375/4.
25
Near East and above all in Egypt. The style and the legends of these
imitations, to say nothing of their proveniences, clearly revealed their
non-Athenian origins to the eyes of trained observers.5 T.V. Buttrey has
now suggested, however, that huge numbers of imitations were also
minted in Egypt whose style so closely resembled that of official products
of the Athenian mint that modern scholars and collectors have long
mistaken them for authentic Athenian coins (see Plate 9, 5 for an exam-
ple of one such coin identified by Buttrey). These nearly indistinguishable
imitations apparently began to be minted in the late fifth century, and
their production continued well into the fourth century. Buttrey has re-
ferred to these coins as being so numerous as to constitute an Egyptian
national coinage in this period. Since they have been found as far west
as Sicily, they presumably made their way into monetary circulation
throughout the Greek world, including Athens.6
It is important in this context to emphasize that imitations, whether
easily distinguishable by their style and legends from authentic specimens
produced by the Athenian mint or not, are not counterfeits in the sense
that subaerate specimens are. As the text of the inscription shows, Athe-
nian law recognized a difference by according imitations different legal
treatment at the hands of the certifier from that mandated for counterfeits.
Imitations differ from counterfeits because they are made of silver and
are not meant to cheat or deceive by disguising a core of base metal to
5 On the general phenomenon of imitations of Athenian coins, see C. M. Kraay, Archaic
and Classical Greek Coins (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1976), pp. 73-74, 76-77; cf. G. K. Jenkins,
"Greek Goins Recently Acquired by the British Museum," NC 1955, pp. 144-50; M. Price,

"New Owls for the Pharaoh," Minerva 1 (1990), pp. 39-40. G. Stumpf./AfG 36 (above,
n. 2), p. 30, refers to a forthcoming publication in the series Xenia by Peter Franke on Per-
sian satrapal imitations of Athenian owls in 415-405 B.C. (non vidi). The phenomenon
of imitations of course extended well beyond classical Athens. See, for example, J.-B. Giard,
"Les jeux de l'imitation: fraude ou necessite?," NumAntClas 14 (1985), pp. 231-38, for
the suggestion that Rome tolerated the production of imitations (mainly in bronze) in the
western provinces during times of "genuine necessity," notably wartime, and specifically
during the reign of Claudius. Goldsmiths in fourteenth-century Venice apparently minted
imitations of the coins of foreign states on a large scale until the practice was forbidden
in 1354. See F. C. Lane and R. C. Mueller, Money and Banking in Medieval and Renaissance
Venice, vol. 1, Coins and Moneys of Account (Baltimore, 1985), p. 158. (I owe this reference
to Alan Stahl.)
6 Buttrey, Proceedings (above, n. 3), pp. 137-40 and Ancient Coins of the Greco-Roman World
(above, n. 3), pp. 292-94. John H. Kroll has kindly informed me that, among the small
number of silver coins that have been found in the excavations of the Athenian Agora,
there are a few possible imitations, which may or may not be genuine Athenian coins. I
am grateful to Professor Kroll for sharing with me information from his forthcoming work
on the coin finds of the Agora Excavations and for his helpful advice on the subject of im-
itations and counterfeits.
26
Thomas R. Martin
appear as precious metal. The provision that imitations are to be return-
ed to their owners recognizes the value such coins represented, if only
as bullion. Even if minted in good faith by a non-Athenian mint, however,
imitations could represent less value than authentic Athenian coins of
the same denomination since their silver might not be as pure as that
of products of the Athenian mint.7 Moreover, even imitations of good
style, once successfully identified as non-Athenian coins, presumably could
not command the same value in commercial exchange as the interna-
tionally recognized coinage of Athens.8 In any case, from our
Athenocentric perspective, such silver coins are called imitations to dif-
ferentiate them from base-metal frauds meant to deceive, that is, to
distinguish them from genuine counterfeits, to coin an oxymoron.9
In his publication of the law, Stroud restored a damaged portion of
the text (l. 9) to say that the certifier was to return a foreign imitation
to its owner "if it is good," that is, if it was minted from silver. He fur-
ther concluded that "good" imitations were thereby certified for man-
datory acceptance in circulation, just as authentic Athenian silver coins
certainly were. Some scholars have agreed with Stroud that the text means
that the certifiers of coinage certified imitations in the same way as authen-
tic Athenian coins and that such coins after certification had to be ac-
cepted as legally valid payment under penalty of law; others have rejected
this conclusion on historical and on epigraphical grounds.10 Personal in-
7 Buttrey, Proceedings (above, n. 3), p. 139, reported that the weight of the Egyptian imi-
tations was good and that specific gravity analysis of a few selected examples revealed a
fineness of 95 to 99 %. The regular fineness of authentic Athenian silver coins apparently

registered toward the upper end of this range and above. See Diebolt and Nicolet-Pierre,
SNR 56 (above, n. 3), pp. 79-91, Buttrey, NumAnt Clas 10 (above, n. 3), p. 82, and Le
Rider, Kraay-Mtrkholm Essays (above, n. 3), p. 162. The analysis by Diebolt and Nicolet-
Pierre of a small sample of imitations and authentic Athenian coins suggests that even im-
itations whose style very closely copied that of authenic Athenian coins had a fineness
somewhat less than that of authenic Athenian coins and that imitations of rougher style
tended to exhibit a lower level of fineness still, but the results of their scientific tests were
less clear for fifth-century than for later fourth-century specimens. The Greeks perhaps usually
worried litde about the fineness of coinages that were familiar. See Le Rider in Kraay-Mtrkholm
Essays (above, n. 3), p. 162. Coinages of uncertain pedigree, like imitations, probably created
considerably more disquiet on this topic for those who were asked to accept them as payment.
8 On the difference between the intrinsic, the nominal, and the commercial value of
coinages and the high valuation of Athenian coinage in the last category, see Le Rider in
Kraay-Mtrkholm Essays (above, n. 3), pp. 161-67.
On the phenomenon of ancient counterfeiting in general, see J. Graf, "Miinzver-
falschungen im Altertum," NZ 35 (1903), pp. 1-130; P. Grierson, Numismatics (Oxford,
1975), pp. 158-61.
10 For those agreeing with Stroud on this issue, see the references above, notes 2 and 3,
to J. and L. Robert (1977) and (1980), Cargill (1981), and Engelmann (1985). For those
27
spection of the stone some years ago in Athens convinced me that the
restoration "if it is good" is epigraphically unsound." My own conclu-
sion is that the law simply instructed the certifier to return to their owners
all imitations minted from silver, without specifying anything about their
being "good". Imitations not of silver, that is, plated coins or coins made
from detectably fraudulent alloys, would of course count as counterfeits
and be confiscated. In this way, the financial interests of the owners of
imitations minted from silver were protected, as they would not be if such
imitations were confiscated as equivalent to counterfeits. Imitations were
neither certified for mandatory acceptance nor barred from circulation.
The decision whether to accept them or not in financial and commercial
transactions and what value to place upon them was left to the judgment
of the individuals concerned, as with other foreign coinages or bullion.
"Genuine counterfeits" would be confiscated regardless of their place
of origin, which of course would be indeterminable anyway.
It is impossible to speculate with confidence about the relative impor-
tance of imitations in creating the historical and monetary circumstances
at Athens that led to the laying down of the instructions to the certifier
of the coinage as preserved in the opening section of this text. Difficulties
arise not only because the text, in the fashion of much Athenian legisla-
tion outside honorary decrees, offers no direct statement of the reasons
for its existence. The Athenian lawmakers knew why they had passed
these provisions and therefore felt no need to pad the text with what they
all already knew. Equally troubling is uncertainty about the date at which
the instructions for the certifier, including the provision for returning im-

itations, were originally laid down. This uncertainty stems from the re-
cent argument identifying as tralatitious all the provisions of the law of
in disagreement, see Giovannini (1975), Bogaert (1976), Diebolt and Nicolet-Pierre (1977),
Migeotte (1977), Buttrey (1979) and (1981), Bourriot (1983), Wankel (1983), Alessandri
(1984), Davies (1984), Bellinger (1986), Cautadello (1986), Stumpf (1986), and Le Rider
(1989). Sokolowski (1976) suggests certain imitations were made legal tender at Athens by
international agreements, while Fischer (1981) says imitations had the same status de facto
as Athenian coins.
For alternate restorations of the end of 1. 9 that yield quite different senses having nothing
to do with the "goodness" of imitations, see the references above, note 2, to Sokolowksi
(1976), Bourriot (1983), Martin (1983), Wankel (1983), and Engelmann (1985). Robert
Kallet-Marx has kindly informed me per litteras of his unpublished suggestion of e\pikop-
sas] (aorist participle of epikopio).
11 The paper that I delivered at the International Epigraphic Congress in Athens in 1981
in which I argued for this restoration has unfortunately been stalled indefinitely in the press
28
Thomas R. Martin
Nicophon in ll. 3-36, which precede the provisions for purchasing a se-
cond certifer to work in the Piraeus.12 The purchase of this new certifier
for the harbor district and the attendant financial arrangements would
then be the only new provisions passed in 375/4. If this identification
is correct, the instructions to the certifier on certifying coinage occur in
the part of the text that was passed down from an earlier law, and their
date must lie at some unspecified time in the period before the passage
of Nicophon's law in 375/4. The resultant uncertainty about the date
of the instructions on certification complements the uncertainty that
prevails over the date at which Egpytian imitations of good style began
to be minted in large numbers and presumably to make their way to
Athens.13
Whatever the larger historical circumstances may have been, the for-
mulation of instructions for the certifier of the coinage was at the im-
mediate level a response to the refusal of merchants at Athens to accept
genuine Athenian coinage, or to the fear that they would do so. The text
does not reveal whether anyone had so far actually refused coins that had
been certified by the certifier as authentic Athenian issues, as opposed
simply to refusing coins that had not been certified, but the provision
for punishment for anyone who does refuse duly certified coins shows
that such a situation was envisioned as a possibility. Since the refusal
of merchants to accept Athenian coins would obviously have had an
adverse affect on commerce and other financial transactions at Athens,
the provisions of the law were certainly designed to facilitate the smooth
operation of these sorts of activities, a necessary condition for the well-

being of the city in general. Unfortunately we lack any means to measure
just how significant the presence of imitations in the monetary circula-
tion at Athens, or the suspicion that they were present, may have been
in making merchants reluctant to accept Athenian coins.
That reluctance can hardly have been unrelated to the unpredecented
and unsetding changes in the character of monetary circulation at Athens
that transpired between the closing years of the Peloponnesian War and
the passage of the law of Nicophon in 375/4. Athenians in the fifth cen-
12 See Alessandri, AnnaliSNSPisa 14 (above, n. 3) who dates the earlier legislation to
402-399, regarding it as a response to the confused monetary situation at Athens following
the Peloponnesian War. Stumpf.yM? 36 (above, n. 2), pp. 23-40, dates the original law
to 378/7 B.C. in connection with the foundation of the Second Athenian League.
13 On this latter uncertainty, see the brief Addendum to Buttrey's paper in Ancient Coins
of the Greco-Roman World (above, n. 3), p. 294.
29
tury had been accustomed to a comforting and reliable sameness in their
silver coinage. The exigencies of fighting a prolonged war against Spar-
ta and its allies, however, eventually disrupted the stable conditions of
monetary circulation at Athens. So strapped for money to pay war ex-
penses did Athens become in the last decade of the fifth century that in
406/5 the city took the drastic step of recalling its pure silver coinage from
internal circulation and replacing it with bronze coins thinly plated with
silver (Plate 9, 6).14 A gold coinage (Plate 9, 7) had been initiated in the
previous year to help meet the financial emergency in making external
payments.15 When the Athenian treasury was once again sound enough
to reintroduce genuine silver coins into domestic circulation, the official
subaerate issues were demonetized and recalled. The date was sometime
before the production of the Assemblywomen of Aristophanes in ca. 393-391,
in which ll. 815-822 allude to this event.
The reintroduction of Athenian silver coinage into domestic circula-
tion probably depended, initially at least, largely on the reuse of older
coins. Even after the mint had resumed the actual minting of new coins
once again, the volume of its production of silver coins appears to have
been significantly reduced during the early decades of the fourth cen-
tury, as compared to its robust output in the fifth century.16 A relative
scarcity of Athenian silver coinage in the early fourth century may have
helped to create a demand for silver coins to which an influx into Athe-
nian circulation of Egyptian imitations minted from good silver could
have been a response. Foreign imitations thus probably contributed to
the uncertainty about Athenian coinage that arose from the emergency

coinages minted as a result of the pressures of war.
A period of low mint production would also have represented an op-
portunity for counterfeiters, who could hope that difficulties in acquir-
ing coinage to use would make the public more willing to take whatever
14 J.H. Kroll, "Aristophanes' ponera chalkia: A Reply," GRBS 17 (1976), pp. 329-41.
Athens did not begin to mint a regular bronze coinage until the mid-fourth century. See
Kroll, "A Chronology of Early Athenian Bronze Coinage, ca. 350-250 B.C.," in Greek
Numismatics and Archaeology. Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson, O. Merkholm and N. Wag-
goner, eds. (Wetteren, 1979), pp. 139-54. The bronze coin dated to before 393 B.C. by
E. Paszthory, "Zu den friihen Bronzemunzen in Athen," SM 30 (1980), pp. 1-3, is a fake.
See J.H. Kroll, "A Spurious Athenian Bronze Coin," SM 32 (1982), pp. 59-60.
15 E.S.G. Robinson, "Some Problems in the Later Fifth Century Coinage of Athens,"
ANSMN9 (1960), pp. 1-15; W.E. Thompson, "The Functions of the Emergency Coinages
of the Peloponnesian War," Mnemosyne 19 (1966), pp. 337-43.
16 See Stroud (above, n. 1), p. 171 with n. 45.
30
Thomas R. Martin
coins they could get than they would have been in less pressured cir-
cumstances. In any case, counterfeit coins were always something to worry
about in antiquity, like the plated tetradrachms from a hoard of 350-325
that was buried in the Athenian agora (Plate 9, 8)."
All these conditions made the certifiers of the coinage invaluable,
especially in the disturbed conditions of monetary circulation at Athens
that had begun in the last years of the Peloponnesian War. The city-state's
certifiers provided both a public and a private service: for the state, they
certified the coinage that was being used to make payments to it, such
as taxes and fines; for private individuals, they certified coins for use in
commercial and financial transactions with other individuals. Private
bankers and money-changers at Athens, as elsewhere, presumably had
always exercised a kind of de facto certification of coinage as part of their
normal business practice, either examining coins themselves or hiring
their own certifier.18 But the law of 375/4 is , as Stroud points out, the
earliest direct attestation for the certifier of the coinage as a public func-
tionary, whose decisions carried the force of law.19 The provisions of the
inscription of course show that the post had been established at some
earlier, unspecified date.20 Stroud suggests that a public certifier was
already in place by 398/7, when the first reference occurs in the
Hekatompedon accounts to "the counterfeit staters sealed in a box from
Lakon."21
The certification of the city's coinage had presumably always been a
necessary and important function at Athens, as in any ancient state,
because the value of ancient currency was directly related to its intrinsic

value as precious metal. Recognized coinages of course earned a premium
A.S. Walker, "Some Plated Coins from the Agora at Athens," in Proceedings of the Ninth
International Congress of Numismatics. Berne, September, 1979, T. Hackens and R. Weiller, eds.
(Louvain-la-Neuve/Luxembourg, 1982), pp. 131-36. He has kindly informed me that he
no longer regards these coins as official issues but rather as the products of a counterfeiter.
J.H. Kroll in his forthcoming publication on the coins found in the Athenian Agora remarks
on the high percentage of counterfeits among the relatively scarce finds of silver coins there.
18 For Athens, see Menander, frag. 581 (Korte). For dokimastai in private transactions
elsewhere, see J. Hangard, Monetaire en Daarmee Verwante Metaforen (Groningen, 1963), pp.
26-27; R. Bogaert, Banques et banquiers dans les cites grecques (Leiden, 1968), pp. 44-47, 238, 318.
19 Stroud (above, n. 1), p. 165. U. Kohler, "Attische Schatzurkunde aus dem Ende des
vierten Jahrhunderts," AM 5 (1880), p. 279, had suggested on indirect evidence that Athens
had a dokimastes who was a public slave.
20 Stroud (above, n. 1), p. 166.
21 Stroud, pp. 176-77. See also S. Alessandri, "Gli stateri falsi para Lakonos," An-
naliSNSPisa 12 (1982), pp. 1239-1254.
31
in exchange over bullion, but the value of coins as units of exchange still
arose primarily from their intrinsic value.22 When a citizen paid his
taxes or a fine to the city, the city needed to be certain that he was paying
with valuable currency, that is, in silver coins minted by the Athenian
mint, and not with counterfeit coins. The same need applied to com-
mercial transactions. My guess is that Athens had had a need for cer-
tification of coinage from practically the moment that the city began to
accept payments in coin, and I would be surprised if no arrangements
for certification had been made earlier in the fifth century, when enor-
mous quantities of coinage were flowing into and out of the state treasury
during the height of the Athenian Empire.23
The importance of the task performed by the public certifiers of the
coinage is given further emphasis by the care with which the law specifies
their duties: they must certify Athenian coinage according to the provi-
sions of the law; they must be present at specified locations, they must
return all imitations to their owners, and they must mark and confiscate
all counterfeits.24 These provisions are clearly intended to serve and pro-
tect the financial interests of the state and of the public. The instruction
that the certifier is to return all imitations is especially relevant with regard
to the interests of individuals. Imagine, for example, the situation that
the certifier would have faced when someone presented him with an imi-
tation Athenian coin, if Athenian law had only taken into account two
categories of Athenian coinage, authentic and counterfeit. Since the imi-
tation was not an official issue of the Athenian mint, it could not have
been certified as authentic for mandatory acceptance in financial

payments. But if the coin did not belong to this category, the only category
left for it would have been that of counterfeits. To do his job according
to instructions and therefore protect himself from punishment, the cer-
tifier would have been compelled to confiscate the imitation, thereby of
course depriving its owner of the value of the confiscated property. Under
2 The premium was usually 5% or more. See Merkholm, Historic 31 (above, n. 3), pp.
290-96, and Le Rider in Kraay-M$rkholm Essays (above, n. 3), pp. 164-65.
23 Those arrangements, I suppose, could have been ad hoc rather than permanent. That
is, to envision one possibility, the state could have from time to time contracted for a period
of service from a certifier who normally was employed in the private sphere by a banker
or money changer.
24 The Athenians and others who made use of the certifiers' services obviously had to
place a great deal of trust in these slaves. See Y. Garlan, L 'esclavage dans l e monde grec. Recueil
de textts grecs et latins. Centres de Recherches d'Histoire Ancienne, vol. 60, Annales Litteraires de
l'Universite de Besancon, 305 (Paris, 1984), no. 26, pp. 56-59.
32
Thomas R. Martin
these conditions, a dishonest certifier could even have confiscated imita-
tions on the grounds that they were indeed counterfeit, as they were by
definition not authentic, and then pocketed them for later disposal as
bullion for his private gain in the knowledge that they were in fact made
of silver. The provision that imitations minted from silver must be
returned, and, as I believe, returned unconditionally, prevented any
abuses of this sort and thereby protected the financial interests of those
who might unknowingly present imitations to the certifier.
It might be objected that Athenian lawmakers would have been unlikely
to bother themselves with laying down regulations to control the behavior
of slaves, as the certifiers were, because slaves could simply be punished
whenever they failed to perform satisfactorily. This objection might have
force if it were applied to the relations between a slave owner and a private-
ly held slave working under close supervision. A master who observed
his slave misbehaving could simply correct and punish him forthwith.
Different conditions obtained, however, in the case of public slaves, who
often worked without direct and constant supervision.25 As an inscrib-
ed Athenian law of the late second century makes clear, for example,
public slaves had the opportunity to engage in just the sort of financial
impropriety concerning citizens who used their services as that envision-
ed above for a dishonest certifier handling imitations.26 One of this in-
scription's provisions, unfortunately damaged so that its full text is
unavailable, is well enough preserved to show that the public slaves placed
in charge of the standards for official weights and measures were to be
punished "if they charge anyone money ,.."27 In other words, the

25 On Athenian public slaves, see S. Waszynski, De servis Athmiensium publicis (diss. Berlin,
1898); O. Silverio, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des attischen Staatssklaven (diss. Munich, 1900);
G. Busolt and H. Swoboda, Griechische Staatskunde, vol. 2 (Berlin, 1926), pp. 979-81; O.
Jacob, Les esclaves publics a Athenes (Liege and Paris, 1928; repr. New York, 1979); A.M.
Andreades, A History of Greek Public Finance, vol. 1, rev. ed., Carroll Brown, trans. (Cam-
bridge, Mass., 1933), pp. 250-51; W. L. Westermann, The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman
Antiquity (Philadelphia, 1955), pp. 9-10; V. Ehrenberg, The People of Aristophanes (New York,
1962), pp. 173-75; N. Brockmeyer, Antike Sklaverei (Darmstadt, 1979), p. 109; T.E.J.
Wiedemann, Greek and Roman Slavery (Baltimore, 1981), chap. 8; Wiedemann, Slavery. Greece
& Rome New Surveys in the Classics, no. 19 (Oxford, 1987), chap. 5; and Y. Garlan, Slavery
in Ancient Greece, rev. ed., Janet Lloyd, trans. (Ithaca, NY, 1988), pp. 68-69.
26 IG ii2 1013, with Hesperia 7 (1938), p. 127, no. 27. On the political and economic con-
texts of this decree, see L. Breglia Pulci Doria, "Per la storia di Atene alia fine del II sec.
a. C. U decreto sui pesi e misure: IG ii2 1013, Melanges de L'Ecolefrancaise de Rome. Anti-
quite 97 (1985), pp. 411-30. The text is translated in M.M. Austin, The Hellenistic World
from Alexander to the Roman Conquest (Cambridge, 1981), no. 111.
27 L. 44.
33
possibility was envisioned that these public slaves might try to cheat people
by charging them for a service that was supposed to be free or that they
might accept bribes from crooked merchants who wanted to use short
measures.
The frequent lack of supervision was only one of the characteristics
of public slavery at Athens.28 A public slave belonged not to any single
individual or family but to the city-state as a whole. The Athenian term
for public slave, demosios, expressed this relationship clearlythe slave
was the property of the demos, of the people, just as were the ballots in
the courts or the dinnerware in the city's official dining hall, which were
inscribed with the same adjective.29 To paraphrase Aristotle, public
slaves were the living tools of the polis.30 Such slaves were acquired as
captives in war, from confiscated private property that had been taken
away from Athenians as a penalty for conviction of a serious crime against
the state, and by purchase from the international traffic in slaves.31 The
law of Nicophon illustrates this last alternative, as it mandates the pur-
chase of an additional public slave to serve as the certifier of coinage in
the Piraeus, if one cannot be found among the current stock of public
slaves. Purchase was probably the most common method of acquiring
public slaves, especially if their competence to do a particular job was
at issue, as in the case of the certification of coinage. Buying a slave on
the market gave the purchaser the opportunity to inspect the prospective
purchase and find out if he possessed the skills needed to do the job for
which he was being purchased.32
This consideration would have been especially important in selecting

a slave to work as an official certifier of the coinage because that post
called for highly specialized skills. First of all, the slave had to speak Greek
in order to deal with those who presented coins to him. Even more im-
portantly, he had to be believed to possess sufficient technical skill in
scrutinizing coinage to inspire confidence in the reliability of his judgments
Privately owned slaves in the category known as "those who live outside the household"
(choris oikountes) seem also to have operated without much direct supervision, such as the
slave merchants mentioned in the text of the law of Nicophon. On this category of slaves,
see Garlan, Slavery (above, n. 25), pp. 70-71.
29 For illustrations of these artifacts, see J. Camp, The Athenian Agora (London, 1986),
p. 95, pi. 70, and p. 108, pi. 80.
30 Pol. 1, 1253b32.
31 Jacob, Les esclaves (above, n. 25), p. 9.
32 Jacob, Les esclaues, p. 11.
34
Thomas R. Martin
concerning which coins were authentic Athenian coins, which were imi-
tations, and which were counterfeits.33
We have no direct evidence of the methods that the Athenian certifiers
relied on to do their job. Perhaps they used some of the tests mentioned
by Epictetus in his comparison of the philosopher's need to test proposi-
tions with the techniques followed in the certification of coinage at the
time of the early Roman Empire.34 The certifier, he remarked, employs
sight, touch, smell, and, finally, sound, by listening to the noise the coin
(in this case a silver denarius) makes when repeatedly thrown down,
presumably against a hard surface.35 The absence of any mention here
of a touchstone is probably to be explained by the inaccuracy of this
method in testing silver coinage, as opposed to gold coins.36 A certifier
could also have used a scale to verify the weights of coins, but we hear
nothing of this technique in official use at Athens.37 Aristophanes refers
to sound being used as a criterion for good quality.38
The special group of slaves to which the certifiers belonged, that of
public slaves, performed a broad range of both skilled and unskilled tasks
33 Petronius has Trimalchio remark on the difficulty of the job of a certifier (nummularius
in Latin)like a doctor, he has to divine what is invisible on the inside from what is visible
on the outside (Satyricon 56). As we shall see later, all that could realistically have been achieved
was for people to believe that the slave who was to serve as an official Athenian dokimastes
had the ability to determine the status of different kinds of coins whose appearances were
extraordinarily similar, namely, authentic products of the Athenian mint and high-quality
imitations such as those Buttrey has identified as coming from Egypt. Belief, not proof,
was all that could be achieved because no empirically decisive tests existed to tell the coins

apart.
34 Arr. Epict. Diss. 1.20.7-9.
35 Epictetus uses the term argyronomon to refer to a certifier. See Pollux, Onomasticon 3.84
for a list of such terms. For the use of the sense of smell as a test, see the case of the renown-
ed antiquary Friedlander, who is reported to have sniffed coins as a check on their quality
(RE 17, s.v. "nummularius," cols. 1418-19 [Herzog]).
36 On the touchstone and other methods of testing coins, see Bogaert, RBN 122 (above,
n. 3), pp. 5-34 and G.C. Boon, in Coins and the Archaeologist, 2nd. ed., John Casey and
Richard Reece, eds. (London, 1988), p. 148, notes 19-20. Naturally, a certifier did not
use cupellation to test silver coins, unless they were going to be melted down anyway for
reminting or bullion. For example, Livy 32.2 records that Roman quaestors employed
cupellation to confirm their suspicion that the Carthaginians were paying their war indem-
nities with a silver coinage of inferior fineness.
Aesch. Ag. 437-38, apparently the sole reference in classical Greek literature to the use
of a balance scale for weighing precious metal, does not refer to the weighing of coins, ac-
cording to Picard, in Hommages...Lerat (above, n. 3), pp. 685-86. Nor do we hear anything
about magnets, which could have been used to detect coins with an iron core. And, of course,
Archimedes's test of specific gravity had not yet been invented in 375/4.
38 Frogs, ll. 721-24.
35
in and for the city-state of Athens. Oscar Jacob, in his monograph
published in 1928 that remains a standard survey on Athenian public
slaves,39 drew a broad distinction between two kinds of public slaves
distinguished by their functions: those who were workers or laborers (les
esclaves publics-ouvriers) and those who were attendants or servants (les
esclaves publics-employes).110 His distinction, then, was between those
public slaves who performed manual labor and those whose duties were,
to use modern terminology, more white-collar in nature. Many public
slaves in both these categories performed tasks that carried great respon-
sibilities and had direct effects on the lives of citizens. Nevertheless, as
we shall see, all of them except for the certifiers had one limit in com-
mon regardless of how important or unsupervised their jobs were: they
had no power to make decisions on their own affecting the lives and pro-
perty of others.
The public slaves who were workers and laborers had more physically
strenuous and generally less attractive jobs than than did the attendants
and servants.41 Public slaves, for example, had the onerous job of main-
taining the maze of streets and alleys of the city in good repair and keep-
ing them clear of debris.42 The citizen officials called astynomoi had public
slaves at their disposal to remove and bury the corpses of persons who
had died in the streets and whose families were presumably too destitute
to give them proper burial.43 Public slaves probably formed the core of
the work force in the state mint of classical Athens.44 A complement of
public slaves also performed manual labor as a maintenance crew attached
to the sanctuary of the Mysteries of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis.45

39 See above, n. 25.
40 Jacob, Les esclaves (above, n. 25), pp. 4-5. See below on the Scythian archers, whom
he placed in an intermediate category of their own.
41 Jacob, Les esclaves (above, n. 25), pp. 13-52. The dirtiest job in Athens, that of the
manure gatherers who collected dung and filth from the streets and dumped it outside the
city walls, was probably performed not by public slaves, but rather by hired workers. See
Jacob, Les esclaves, pp. 13-19.
42 Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 54.1.
43 Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 50.2. Jacob, Les esclaves (above, n. 25), pp. 17-18, thinks these slaves
had a more elevated job than the ordinary worker public slaves, and Aristotle does call
them "servants"(Aji/wreto) rather than "workers." Nevertheless, the exigencies of their job
surely placed them in the ranks of the workers, at least from a modern perspective.
44 Andocides frg. 5 (schol. At. Wasps 1007).
45 Public slaves are attested as having been entertained at the public expense with meat
and wine at the Choes festival at Eleusis. Two of them were even initiated into the Mysteries.
36
Thomas R. Martin
Other public slaves had official responsibilities that potentially invol-
ved danger because they required the use of force against persons. At
Athens, a board of citizen magistrates called The Eleven were in charge
of arrests, imprisonments, and executions. The Eleven were served by
a contingent of public slaves who, on the orders of The Eleven, did the
actual hands-on dirty work of seizing condemned persons or their pro-
perty.46 These slaves served as prison warders, as the public executioner,
and as the official torturers who were called upon to exact testimony under
duress from slaves and unprotected foreigners who became embroiled
in legal cases. Employing slaves for these confrontational and sometimes
violent duties made sense in several ways. Since the slaves could stay
in their posts for years, while citizen magistrates rotated in and out an-
nually, the slaves over time could develop the necessary hard shell that
the constantly changing citizen officials might lack. More importantly,
this employment of public slaves allowed citizens to maintain an arm's
length separation from the application of force or violence to fellow
citizens, especially when the task incurred a risk of ritual pollution, as
in the case of putting a fellow citizen to death.
The same consideration explains the make-up of the only police force
that Athens ever had. For about 75 to 100 years, the Athenians had as
their policemen a cadre of public slaves who were bowmen from
Scythia.47 The existence in the heart of the city of hundreds of armed
slaves must rank as one of the most striking anomalies in Athenian soical
history. These barbarian archers primarily served as guards against
riotous or violent behavior by citizens on public occasions such as meetings

of the assembly. The citizen magistrates in charge of such occasions would
See IG ii2 1672, ll. 204, 207 (329/8 B.C.); cf. Ps.-Dem. 59.21. These two were initiated
because there were needed to work inside the sanctuary, but no uninitiated person was
allowed inside the godessess's compound. Therefore, these public slaves gained initiation
not through any dispensation that was concerned with their fate as individuals but rather
as a necessity so that their labor could be available to the administration of the cult. See
Jacob, Les esclaves (above, n. 25), pp. 40-43.
46 Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 52.1. See Jacob, Les esclaves (above, n. 25), pp. 79-87 and P.J.
Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford, 1981), p. 580. Jacob ranks
these slaves among the attendant or servant category, but I see the nature of their duties
as aligned with those in the worker category.
47 Seejacob, Les esclaves (above, n. 25), pp. 53-78; V. Ehrenberg, The People of Aristophanes
(New York, 1962), p. 175; M.F. Jongkee-Vos, Scythian Archers in Archaic Attic Vase-Painting
(Groningen, 1963); K.-W. Welwei, Unfreie im antiken Kriegsdienst. Ersten Teil: Athen undSparta
(Wiesbaden, 1974, Forschungen zur antiken Sklaverei V), pp. 8-22, 50-54; and H.
Strasburger, Zum antiken Gesellschajtsideal (Heibelberg, 1976), pp. 61-62.
37
direct the Scythian archers to remove any disruptive participants. But
these slave policemen never took action on their own; as living tools, they
merely followed the instructions of citizen magistrates. The Athenians
apparently dissolved the force early in the fourth century as a cost-cutting
measure.
The white-collar category of public slaves covered a wide range of im-
portant duties and competencies.48 The jobs of public slaves in this
category in general demanded more education than did those of the
workers or police. For instance, many such slaves needed the ability to
read and write. In fact, the rate of literacy of attendant or servant public
slaves probably exceeded that of the general population of Attica by a
wide margin.49 As an ancient commentator said with reference to a
mention of a public slave in Demosthenes, "the Athenian demos makes
a practice of buying slaves who know their letters."50
Literate and numerate public slaves filled many important clerical posts
in Athenian public administration. A public slave, for example, was
assigned as a servant to the Athenian council and given custody of the
records of the financial obligations that were made by the city's contracts
board and then were cancelled after settlement by the board of
receivers.51 A public slave also had charge of the records kept in the
shrine of the Mother of the Gods, the Metroon.52 Presumably fulfilling
a similar function, a public slave is on record as having the responsibility
for writing down what was found in the Chalcotheke, a kind of municipal
warehouse on the Acropolis.53 A public slave served as an assistant to
the magistrates in charge of the city's naval arsenals, for which he helped

maintain inventories of equipment and verify complicated financial
Jacob, Les esclaves (above, n. 25), pp. 79-145. Jacob presumably regarded the dokimastes
of coinage as a member of the attendant or servant group of public slaves, since his only
mention of the dokimastes (p. 110, n. 1) comes in a note in the section on the public slaves
who guarded the weights and measures of the city-state, who definitely belong to the atten-
dant class.
49 W.V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, Mass., 1989), p. 114, sets the range of
literacy for the entire population of Attica between 5% and 10%, a rate much lower than
that often assumed.
50 Schol. Dem. 2.19.
51 Ath. Pol. 47.5, 48.1. See P.J. Rhodes, The Athenian Boule (Oxford, 1972), pp. 141-43,
on the attendants of the council.
52 Demosthenes 19.129; IG ii2 463, U. 28-9; 583, U. 5-7.
53 IG ii2 120, U. 11-13.
38
Thomas R. Martin
records.54 Public slaves served as financial assistants and accountants to
citizen officials on military expeditions and in other financial activities
for which record keeping was needed, such as the recording of the pay-
ment of arrears in taxes and the recasting of sacred objects.55
Yvon Garlan in his study of ancient slavery offers an explanation of
the seeming paradox that the Athenians used public slaves "in responsi-
ble administrative positions." The Athenian "principles of annual rota-
tion of office-holders, and of the distribution of responsibility among
various members of a board of magistrates ... made it difficult for essen-
tial technical information to be transferred from one year's magistrates
to the next. Continuity had to be provided by subordinate ad-
ministrators."56 Public slaves, who continued in their posts indefinite-
ly, constituted these subordinates, who possessed a level of technical ex-
pertise in their speciality that their notional superiors, the citizen
magistrates, would have been hard pressed to equal. Moreover, the public
slaves' lack of the kind of social and family ties that citizens had to one
another served as some control against corruption and favoritism. Not
being owned by any particular citizen and lacking normal social ties,
public slaves would not have obligations to particular citizens and could
thus be expected to be less susceptible to influence and social pressure
than citizen officials.
The hellenistic Athenian inscription previously mentioned concerning
weights and measures testifies to the level of trust that the city could place
in public slaves. It directs the citizen who was "appointed to [provide]
the measures and weights" to hand them over to public slaves, so that

the "measures and weights may remain for [future] time."57 That is,
this legislation entrusts public slaves with the supervision of the official
Athenian standards for weights and measures that were kept on deposit
in several locations and whose use was compulsory on merchants and
tradespeople. In this latter sense, this legislation is analagous to the legal
provisions preserved in the law of Nicophon that mandate the acceptance
of the norms established by the Athenian assembly and specify
punishments for those who fail to conform. Citizens serving in the govern-
ment had general responsibility for oversight of these slaves, but the slaves
54 IG ii2 1631, col. b, l. 197; col c, U. 381-82.
55 Demosthenes 8.47; 22.70; IG ii2 839, l. 42.
Slavery in Ancient Greece, rev. ed., Janet Lloyd, trans. (Ithaca, NY, 1988), pp. 41-42.
57 IG ii2 1013, ll. 38-40.
39
apparently operated largely on their own.
Indeed, official supervision of public slaves other than the police and
the assistants of The Eleven could apparently be extremely loose. A.R.W.
Harrison, in his work on Greek law, has even called public slaves a
"privileged class" whose "legal status approximated closely to that of
metics."58 A section of an oration by Aeschines provides a revealing
glimpse of the relative freedom enjoyed by at least some public slaves
at Athens in the fourth century. According to Aeschines, the public slave
Pittalacus had lots of money to spend and a home of his own, no doubt
an apartment that he rented rather than owned. Pittalacus socialized with
citizens and ran a dicing and cock fighting emporium in his home that
citizens patronized.59 The story of Pittalacus implies that the status of
a public slave could appear at least superficially, in terms of everyday
living conditions, to be not much different from that of a free person of
low social status.60
Further evidence for the special status that public slaves enjoyed, at
least compared to that of most of their counterparts owned by private
citizens, is that they received regular payments for their support in return
for their labor. The amount that they received was no more than a living
wage at best, but they received it every day, it appears, a regularity that
58 The Law of Athens. The Family and Property (Oxford, 1968), p. 177.
59 After some citizens roughed him up, Pittalacus brought suit against his attackers, with
whom he had been embroiled in sexual and gambling matters and then had a falling out.
Aeschines, in his section on Pittalacus (1.53-65), gives no indication that Pittalacus required
a patron to intervene on his behalf in court, a status not enjoyed by Athenian women and

children. Cf. Harrison, Law (above, n. 58), p. 177. Furthermore, the citizen Glaucon rescued
Pittalacus when Hegesandrus, one of the citizens with whom Pittalacus was at odds, claim-
ed Pittalacus in fact belonged to him as his personal property and was not a public slave.
This claim was Hegesandrus's counterattack to Pittalacus's suit against him. It was an ef-
fective tactic because Pittalacus dropped his suit, realizing, according to Aeschines, that
he could not be successful in a legal fight against men of higher status. The terminology
that Aeschines uses for Glaucon's rescue of Pittalacus {aphaeresis eis eleutherian) is the same
term used to describe the rescue of a free man who had been wrongly enslaved by another
individual. On this terminology, see Harrison, Law, pp. 178-80. He does not mention its
application to the case of Pittalacus. On Pittalacus, see also Douglas M. MacDowell, The
Law in Classical Athens (Ithaca, NY, 1978), p. 83. Jacob, Les esclaves (above, n. 25), pp.
158-62, believes that the use of this term means that Pittalcus had been a public slave at
one point but had been subsequently manumitted.
60 Of course, the resemblance was genuinely superficial. The children of public slaves,
for example, were not entitled to citizenship, as shown by the case of Nicomachus (Lysias
30.2, 27-8). Employed as a transcriber for the nomothetai, he was alleged to have been the
son of a father who was a public slave. This accusation was designed to cast doubt on the
right of Nicomachus to the citizenship and to his post, in which he was accused of malfeasance.
40
Thomas R. Martin
an ordinary free laborer could not enjoy.61 Private slaves certainly could
not automatically count on being granted the privilege of receiving an
allowance or wage. And public slaves could hope not just for regular
material rewards but also for the chance to win a certain level of esteem
in the eyes of free citizens. Demosthenes even implies that slaves in public
administration enjoyed a better reputation for trustworthiness and in-
tegrity than did citizens.62 Some public slaves became well enough
known to be chosen by name for important posts by vote of the
citizens.63
The provisions for punishment in the text on weights and measures
also reveal that public slaves were too valuable simply to dismiss or ex-
ecute if they failed to perform their duties satisfactorily. Like the cer-
tifiers of the coinage, they could be whipped for misbehavior, but other
provisions included making them replace any items that they lost or
destroyed, and cutting off the payments for their work if they failed to
hand in a proper inventory of the items over which they had supervi-
sion.64 In other words, various punishments were available according to
the offense. I take one of the significances of the existence of this range
of punishments to be that the Athenians found it more cost effective to
discipline public slaves in the hope of restoring them to duty rather than
to discard them like broken tools. The legislation on weights and measures
in fact reveals that public slaves as malefactors could be lumped together
with non-slaves: "If anyone is apprehended committing an offence con-
cerning the measures and weights ..., whether he is a magistrate or a
[private citizen] or a public slave, he will be punished according to the

law passed about [the punishment] of malefactors."65
In sum, then, public slaves, especially those in what I have called the
white-collar category, apparently enjoyed a degree of independence in
their personal lives and often occupied positions of considerable respon-
sibility and status in the Athenian government. Nevertheless, regardless
of the amount of responsibility, expertise, knowledge, money, weapons,
or freedom from supervision that these public slaves possessed, none of
For public slaves receiving a daily allowance of three obols, see IG ii2 1672, U. 4-5
(329/8 B.C.). Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 49.4, reports that the disabled in this same period receiv-
ed a daily subsistence grant of two obols a day, on which see P.J. Rhodes, (above, n. 46),
p. 570.
62 Demosthenes 22.71.
63 IG ii2 839, ll. 52-53.
64 IG ii2 1013, U. 49-54.
65 IG ii2 1013, ll. 58-62.
41
them, with the striking and anomalous exception of the certifiers of the
coinage, made official decisions on their own that affected the lives or
property of Athenian citizens. They had no real power, in other words.
For instance, in the case of the public slaves who supervised the stan-
dards of weights and measures, the legislation specifically states that "the
magistrates whose duty it is under the law shall make standard measures
corresponding to the copies that have been made ..."66 The public
slaves had only the mechanical, albeit important, duty of (to paraphrase
the text) preserving the standards and giving copies to the magistrates
and to all others who need them. The slaves are specifically enjoined from
altering the standards or removing them from the buildings in which they
are stored. So, too, the other white-collar public slaves who served as
scribes and clerks could be very knowledgeable about the information
under their management, but they made no decisions about what to in-
clude or exclude or any other kind of decision affecting the citizens of
Athens. Nor did the slave assistants of The Eleven or the Scythian ar-
chers of the police force act on their own. They made no decisions on
whom to drag off; they only acted on the orders of the presiding
magistrates.
The special significance of the certifiers of the coinage is therefore that,
unlike all other public slaves, they on their own made decisions in the
course of doing their jobs that directly affected the interests of citizens
and others at Athensthey decided which coins were certified and which
were not, which coins would circulate at full value with the sanction of
the law mandating their acceptance and which would not. This unique

ability as slaves to exercise power over the property of citizens (and non-
citizens as well) made the certifiers of the coinage anomalous in the Athe-
nian system of administration.
The anomaly seems all the more striking because the power of the post
of certifier did not lend itself to the kind of precise and regular scrutiny
that was otherwise absolutely standard in Athenian public administra-
tion. Elaborate processes of scrutiny not only of their credentials but also
of their performance in office awaited citizen magistrates before, dur-
ing, and after their terms. Indeed, an audit was a formal requirement
if the official had performed any duties having to do with the finances
of Athens. Various kinds of law suits could also be brought against citizen
magistrates.67
66 IG ii2 1013, ll. 7-8.
67 See J.T. Roberts, Responsibility in Athenian Government (Madison, WI, 1982), for a full
discussion of the elaborate mechanisms of Athenian government for insuring the account-
42
Thomas R. Martin
By contrast, the nature of the certifier's work meant that no reliable
mechanisms were available to assess the the exercise of his power in deter-
mining the status of coins, except perhaps concerning the identification
of plated coins. Their base metal cores could be exposed by the simple
expedient of cutting into them to verify their interior contents. Just such
coins have been found in Athens (e.g. Plate 9, 4).68 This physical test
was presumably not foolproofthe cut might not go deep enough or the
base metal core, if produced as a silvery-looking alloy, might have the
deceptive appearance of silver. Nevertheless, a cut did offer at least some
sort of physical evidence for the nature and the value of the coin in ques-
tion. In the case of other, more sophisticated forgeries, however, no
comparable physical test existed to reveal their fraudulent nature. As
Buttrey has well pointed out, forgeries would have been physically
undetectable if they were of the proper weight, carried good copies of
the official Athenian types, and had been made from an alloy of base
metal and silver whose admixture of base metal was too low to be visible
and thus detectable by a cut but still high enough to insure a fat profit
for the counterfeiters.69
In all cases except those of plated coins, then, the certifier's personal
judgment about a coin had to decide the case. Since neither touchstones
nor any other available technology could provide physical evidence to
distinguish effectively between these kinds of counterfeits and authentic
Athenian coins, a certifier could do his job only by performing a scrutiny
of coins whose accuracy the other interested parties could not easily assess
or control. Perhaps the certifier did acquire some objective and helpful

evidence about the coins he was passing judgment on by sniffing the coins
brought to him or dropping them to hear their ring or scrutinizing their
style, but in truth he had to base his decision primarily on his overall
personal judgment, just as numismatists today must do unless, like
Buttrey, they have the opportunity to study die links in a large body of
material.70 If a certifier said a coin was not a genuine Athenian silver
ability of officials. The power of citizen officials was subject to control by dokimasia (scrutiny
of one's credentials before taking up office), apocheirotonia and eisangelia (forms of impeach-
ment during the term of office), and euthynai (audit upon leaving office). Graphai could be
brought against them in the courts.
68 Stroud (above, n. 1), pp. 173-74.
69 NumAntClas 10 (above, n. 3), pp. 81-82.
70 G.C. Boon, in his essay on counterfeit coins in Roman Britain in Coins and the Ar-
chaeologist (above, n. 36), p. 104, remarks that "the nummularius had neither the time nor
43
issue, legally it was not, and no one could definitively prove him wrong.
And there was no effective appeal from the decision of a public certifier,
as opposed to that of one working for a private business. That is, if some-
one took a coin to a private certifier in the employ of a banker or a money-
changer and received a negative opinion on the status of a coin, it was
always possible to move on to the next table for a second and perhaps
different opinion. Not so with the public certifier.
Review of the certification of coinage would have become even more
problematic once it was realized that imitation Athenian coins made from
silver, as opposed to counterfeit, plated coins, had entered into the system
of monetary exchange at Athens. Cutting a gash in an imitation coin
did no good; its core was silver, just like that of a coin produced by the
Athenian mint: Plate 9, 9 shows an imitation that has been cut. Yet the
certifier's decision that coins were imitations meant significant financial
loss for their possessor. Such coins appear to have been discounted at
least five per cent in exchange, if anyone was willing to take them as pay-
ment.71 Potentially more serious than this loss was the possibility of the
supposedly liquid capital that the coins represented being effectively frozen
if no one would accept them. In this way, the certifier certainly exercised
a power of decision that directly affected the financial interests of those
who used his service.
That the law specifically stated that a certifier was to perform his duty
according to its provisions reveals a concern for control over him. Never-
theless it remained true that, because there was no truly indisputable test
to differentiate between authentic and imitation Athenian coinage, there

was no simple method for proving that the certifier's judgmenthis ex-
ercise of powerwas faulty, certainly not in the way that an audit could
reveal maladministration in the accounts of a citizen magistrate. Of
course, it would have been possible to convene a board of people who
were believed to be able to distinguish genuine from imitation coins, as
indeed from base metal alloy forgeries, and have them give the certifier
a test to see if he could distinguish imitations that had been previously
identified by the board and then mixed in with genuine coins in a kind
of official shell game. Some such method may even have been used in
selecting slaves to become certifiers in order to weed out slaves who ap-
peared to have the ability to do the job from those who did not. But this
need for elaborate tests: the appearance, feel, weight, ring and even the smell of coins were
the basis of a judgment which with practice must have become subliminal."
71 See above, n. 22.
44
Thomas R. Martin
mechanism for control would have been cumbersome for regular use,
and there is no indication that a certifier ever worked as part of a
board.72 The law implies that each certifier worked alone.
In any case, the task of distinguishing genuine silver coins from imita-
tions did not lend itself to scientific accuracy under the technological con-
ditions prevailing in ancient Athens. There was enormous room for
disagreement and dispute under any circumstances. A check on the work
of a certifier would have been a far less precise and manageable affair
than, say, the audit of the financial records of a citizen official. Control
of the certifiers in the end would have reflected only the general power
of the state to control its slaves, not a regular control on the power of
the certifier to make decisions on his own, a power which by its nature
remained immune to simple or regular review.
A further question then arises from the remarkable double anomaly
that certifiers were slaves making decisions about the property of citizens
and other free persons and because the power of these slaves was essen-
tially not subject to review on objective, easily establishable criteria. Why
did the Athenian government not fill the post of certifiers with citizens
or metics (resident aliens)? In the case of citizens, the traditionally low
social status that Athenian upper-class citizens ascribed to financial ac-
tivity as an occupation probably would have made many Athenian men
reluctant to serve in the post of certifier.73 In keeping with this cultural
bias, for example, citizens largely shunned the roles of banker and money-
changer, leaving those trades to non-citizens like the famous Pasion, an
ex-slave, or to metics. One Greek comedian of the fourth century placed

bankers at the head of a list of malefactors, labeling them the most
abominable breed of all, more despicable even than fish mongers.74 In
Aristotle's vision of the ideal city-state, "the citizens must not lead the
life of workers or merchants, for this kind of life is ignoble and contrary
to virtue."75 And acquiring wealth by exchange, Aristotle declared, "is
rightly censured; for it is not according to nature, but involves people
72 In fifteenth-century Venice, by contrast, the Assay Office had a board of three
assayers. Binding decisions on the purity of precious metal normally consisted of the agree-
ment of two out of the three officials concerning the case at hand. See Lane and Mueller,
Money and Banking (above, n. 5), pp. 147-51.
73 See R. Bogaert, Banques et banquiers dans les cites grecques (Leiden, 1968), pp. 386-97.
74 Antiphanes fr. 159 Kock (Athenaeus 6.226d-e).
75 Pol. 7, 1328b39-41.
45
gaining from one another."76 Furthermore, the restriction that the cer-
tifiers always had to be at work meant that such a job would have left
no time for the social and political activities that the propertied citizen
regarded as part of his very identity. Xenophon, for example, condemn-
ed the occupations that left citizens "no free time in which to attend to
their friends or their city-state; those who practice such occupations seem
to be bad at being useful to their friends and as defenders of their
homelands."77
These social views naturally reflected the sensibilities and expectations
of the minority of the male citizens at Athens who possessed enough
income-producing property that they did not have to work for wages to
earn a living. Among the pool of poor men who made up the majority
of Athens' male citizenry and metic population, there were surely those
who would have been willing to endure the snobbish sneers of the rich
in order to earn a salary as one of the city's certifiers of the coinage. Why
were they not hired? It is difficult to say whether financial considerations
entered into the decision. Buying a public slave to do the job could have
made good financial sense for the city-state if his purchase price and his
daily payments added up in the long run to a smaller expenditure than
the wages that would have been paid to a free man in the position. In
a sale of confiscated slaves that took place in 414, for example, the most
expensive slave was a Carian goldsmith priced at 360 drachmas.78 A cer-
tifier would presumably not have cost more than that amount. An in-
scription of 329/8 records a daily payment to public slaves that amounts
to half a drachma.79 Regular wages, by comparison, seem to have been

on the order of one-half drachma a day for unskilled workers and one
drachma for skilled workers by the late fifth century, but they rose to
one and a half for the former and two to two and a half for the latter
by 329/8, as the same inscription reveals.80 If a slave certifier who cost
360 drachmas was paid a half a drachma a day, while a free man would
76 Pol. 1, 1258bl-2.
77 Oec. 4.2-3.
78 A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B. C., Russell Meiggs
and David Lewis, eds. (Oxford, 1969), p. 247.
79 IG ii2 1672. See above, n. 61.
80 P.J. Rhodes (above, n. 46), p. 691. As Rhodes comments with respect to the daily
allowance of half a drachma paid to Athenian jurors, such an amount was "inadequate
as compensation for earnings" by the later fourth century B.C. A public slave expected
to support himself on that amount would be a comparative bargain for the city-state.
46
Thomas R. Martin
have earned one drachma, the state would have broken even on its in-
vestment after only 720 days. A slave certifier could have been expected
to last a lot longer than 720 days. Slaves who were hired out by their
masters, however, could earn the same daily wage as free workers.81 If
a certifier had to be paid at the same rate as a free man, it would have
been cheaper to hire a citizen or a metic, whose employment would not
have incurred any purchase price as a start-up cost. Unfortunately, we
cannot make a reliable calculation about the cost effectiveness of using
public slaves as certifiers because the law of Nicophon does not reveal
how much a certifier was to receive.
In any case, I suspect that a different consideration, which stemmed
from the very nature of the work of certification itself, is considerably
more significant in trying to understand why the certifiers were not citizens
or metics than is any estimate of the costs associated with providing the
service. The Athenians took the protection of their currency seriously:
a law mandated the death penalty for counterfeiters.82 At the same time,
as we have seen, the decisions made by the certifier of coinage necessari-
ly lay outside any easy or regular system of citizen control. The changed
conditions brought on by the appearance of imitations in Athenian cir-
culation made the certification of Athenian coinage a more problematic
activity than ever because imitations of silver in good style could be so
difficult to distinguish from authentic Athenian coins. Under these con-
ditions, the certification of the coinage posed a special problem of the
allocation of power for Athenian democracy because it necessitated one
person exercising a largely unauditable power over others in a way that

did not fit with the normal practice of that system. The certification of
coinage was a process for which there was essentially no opportunity to
institute the kinds of checks to be performed by other citizens on those
exercising power that normally characterized the practice of Athenian
democratic government. A certifier could be punished for not showing
up for work where and when he was supposed to, or for exacting illegal
fees, or for taking bribes, but his power as enshrined in his judgment
per se on the status of coins was beyond punishment because it existed
outside the effective control of the state or of individual citizens. Athe-
nian democracy was a system that characteristically rejected the invest-
ment of such power in individual citizens, to say nothing of metics.
81 M.M. Austin and P. Vidal-Naquet, Economic and Social History of Ancient Greece: An In-
troduction (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1977), no. 73, p. 276.
82 Demosthenes 20.167; cf. 24.212-213.
47
Ironically, then, the special kind of power invested in the post of of-
ficial certifier of the coinage, so difficult to subject to regular scrutiny
in traditional Athenian fashion, was better invested in an unfree person
like a slave than in a citizen or a metic. The slave's marked lack of power
as a person, the result of his lack of citizen status and its rights, counter-
balanced his power of decision on the job. For this reason, a slave, unlike
a citizen, could be disciplined and punished without any proof at all having
to be offered of his not having done his job correctly, proof that would
have been impossible to obtain so far as the status of imitations and clever-
ly alloyed forgeries was concerned.
It is a mark of the special nature of silver coinage in ancient Athens
that it accentuated the anomalous situation of the dokimastes, the one kind
of public slave who had the power to make decisions affecting the pro-
perty of citizens. And we should not be surprised that coinage could create
such an anomaly in Greek culture. After all, as the law of Nicophon
testifies, coins found to be false were not simply destroyed, but rather
put under the safekeeping of a divinity to keep them out of circulation,
almost as if they were objects with a pernicious magic power that had
to be kept in thrall by a greater power. The story of the dokimastes and
his anomalous power emphasizes that in ancient Athens, coinage and
power were linked in ways that went beyond the conventional historical
relationship between money and influence in human society.83
KEY TO THE PLATE
1. Fifth century Athenian tetradrachm (ANS).
2. Fourth century Athenian tetradrachm (ANS).

3. Plated tetradrachm (ANS).
4. Subaerate tetradrachm with cut (ANS)
5. Imitation tetradrachm (ANS).
6. Emergency Athenian bronze (ANS).
7. Emergency Athenian gold diobol (ANS).
8. Plated tetradrachm (Agora H-1936).
9. Imitation with cut (ANS).
I would like to acknowledge the help of the ANS staff in supplying many bibliographic
items, especially Carmen Arnold-Biucchi and Frank Campbell, and of the ANS Photographic
Department and the Photographic Department of the Agora Excavations in Athens for sup-
plying the photographs for illustrations.

Plate 9
Thomas R. Martin
Alexander's Earliest Macedonian Silver
(PLATES 10-14) HYLA A. TROXELL
In 1911 Edward T. Newell published his epochal Reattribution of Cer-
tain Tetradrachms of Alexander the Great, which firmly established the cen-
tral, nay crucial, place of die study in numismatics.1 Here also for the
first time the overall structure of Alexander's chief silver mint was
established, the Macedonian mint which is our subject today. Twelve
years later, in 1923, Newell again dealt with this mint in publishing the
great Demanhur Hoard, found in Egypt in 1905.2 He corrected his
earlier dating, firmed up and formalized his earlier outline, but offered
little detailed proof. After 1923 Newell never again turned his interest
to this mint, nor has anyone else paid it much attention since, with the
one exception, which we will discuss later, of questioning his assump-
tion that the coinage started promptly upon Alexander's sudden acces-
sion to the throne in 336 B.C.
Whether this Macedonian mint was situated at Pella or at Amphipolis
is not dealt with here. Frankly I do not think it matters too much, and
furthermore I have no idea at all at which city it was located. But the
mint was Alexander's most active by far; and, if Athens be excepted,
perhaps the most prolific in all of ancient Greece, employing by my count
New York, 1912; reprinted from American Journal of Numismatics 45 (1911). There the
mint was thought to be Pella; Newell changed the attribution to Amphipolis in Demanhur
(below, n. 2) without, unfortunately, giving his reasons.
2 Alexander Hoards II. Demanhur, 1905, ANSNNM 19 (New York, 1923).

49
50
Hyla A. Troxell
nearly 750 tetradrachm obverse dies during the 15 to at most 20 years
with which we shall be concerned.
The purpose here is to present some observations which seem to con-
firm that Newell's basic outline of the mint's structure was absolutely
correct; and other observations which I believe support suggestions by
other scholars, namely Orestes Zervos, that the starting date must be
lowered by a few years.3 Further, such a downdating, if accepted, will
be seen to have a number of most satisfactorily tidy consequences.
Those familiar with Newell's work will know how he established the
structure of our mint, and how he arrived at one fixed point, a few years
after Alexander's death, in the coinage. It is worth summarizing, however,
because it is such a really beautiful example of what close observation,
careful methodology andalsogood luck can accomplish.
First, the structure. Through patient study of thousands of
tetradrachms, Newell showed in Reattribution that many, many issues
previously attributed to scattered cities shared obverse dies, and thus must
have been struck at a single location. For instance, an issue with prow
symbol had been given to Magnesia in Thessaly, and one with double
Janus-type heads wearing a polos had been attributed to an uncertain
city in Macedon. But the issues had many obverse dies in common (e.g.
Plate 10, 1 and 2). A third issue, whose symbol was the stern ornament
of a galley, had been assigned to Histiaea in Euboea; but this issue too
was obverse-linked to the double-heads issue (e.g. Plate 10, 3 and 4).
Many more obverse dies connect coins with these three symbols, and with
two others as well, and all were thus shown to be the strikings of a single

mint.
Newell separated out eleven such groups of issues, each group con-
taining from three to twelve different issue markings, and each group
tightly bound internally by multiple shared obverse dies.
Progression of style, occasional obverse links between groups, and the
introduction and subsequent abandonment of the title BAZIAEQZ add-
ed to the initial simple AAEEANAPOY allowed Newell to assign all the
groups to one mint, and to put them into relative chronological order.
O. Zervos, ''The Earliest Coins of Alexander the Great 1. Notes on a Book by Gerhard
Kleiner," JVC 1982, pp. 166-79. M. J. Price has argued for retaining Newell's starting
date of 336 B.C. in "The Earliest Coins of Alexander the Great 2. Alexander's Reform
of the Macedonian Coinage," NC 1982, pp. 180-90; and F. de Callatay has supported Zervos
in "La date des premiers tetradrachmes de poids attique emis par Alexandre le Grand,"
RBN 1982, pp. 5-25.
51
In 1923, in Demanhur, he assigned his 11 groups letters, from A to K;
the issues just discussed are from Group A. Stylistic details clearly placed
this group first, but so did another crucial observation: these three sym-
bols of prow, stern, and double heads appear also on coins of rather late
style issued under Alexander's father Philip II (e.g. Plate 12, 9, with
prow);4 and these issues of Philip are also closely die-linked to each
other. Except for a bit of territory he controlled to the south, Philip ruled
only in Macedon, and thus his coins must have been struck there; and
the Alexanders with the same symbols will have been their immediate
successors, placing our prolific mint firmly in Macedon.
Table 1
OUTLINE OF NEWELL'S GROUPS A - K
Group Inscription
AAEEANAPOY
AAEEANAPOY
AAEEANAPOY
AAEEANAPOY
AAEEANAPOY
AAEEANAPOY
AAEEANAPOY BAZIAEOZ
BAZIAEOZ AAEEANAPOY
BAIIAEOZ AAEEANAPOY
BAZIAEOZ AAEEANAPOY
BAZIAEOZ AAEEANAPOY
BAZIAEOZ AAEEANAPOY
F-
G-
it;

[ [ fftt
etc. AAEEANAPOY
52
Hyla A. Troxell
Table 1 presents an outline of Groups A through K. Remember that
this is a huge coinage; that each group contains a number of separate
issues; and that the groups are defined by the multiple obverse links
between issues within each group. My investigations have found the few
obverse links between groups indicated by the brackets to the left with
the arrows on the brackets showing, where ascertainable, the order of
use of the obverse dies. The dotted bracket to the right between Groups
F and G indicates that their reverse markings are the same: G differs
from F only in the introduction of the title.
Group A, whose symbols repeat Philip's, must be first, but the direc-
tions of some of its links with B show that here alone there must have
been some overlap in time between the two groups. Then, the multiple
links between C and D all seem to show that C preceded D. E is again
linked to F; and F to G. In G the title is introduced, placed either on
the right or the left of the die; from H through K it is invariably on the
left; after K it never recurs. I again precedes J, and from J on double
markings come into play: two monograms, or a monogram and a sym-
bol together. Group K may effectively be ignored; it is minute compared
to the others, and there are some peripheral clues that it may have been
contemporary with J. The break after Group K marks the end of the
issues present in the Demanhur Hoard; below that line, the title is drop-
ped and the inscription reverts to the original simple AAEEANAPOY,
which remains until the end of the mint's activity many decades after
Alexander's death.
Now to dating. What we know of the absolute dates of our coins, and

of many if not most of the lifetime and early posthumous Alexanders
struck anywhere at all, depends ultimately on a most endearing practice
employed at some Phoenician cities: they placed annual dates on many
of their coin series, including the Alexanders which came to be struck
there. The dates were always simple numerals: 1, 2, 3, and so on, and
the trick of course is to determine just what local event or era each set
of dates refers to. Here again we are indebted to Newell, and to luck.
Table 2 presents a simplified summary of the dated Alexanders of Sidon,
which Newell published in 1916.5
Reattribution (above, n. 1), p. 21; see also G. LeRider, Le monnayage d'argent et d'or de
PhilippeIlfrappeen Macedoinede359 a 294 (Paris, 1977), Amphipolis Group II.B, pp. 98-111.
5 The Dated Alexander Coinage of Sidon and Ake. Yale Oriental Series, Researches 2 (New
Haven and London, 1916).
53
Table 2
DATED ALEXANDERS OF SIDON
City- Year-
Initials Letter Year Date Inscription
Y X 1 Oct. 333-332 AAEEANAPOY
y 3 2 Oct. 332-331 AAEEANAPOY
I or II 3 Oct. 331-330 AAEEANAPOY
I or II 4 Oct. 330-329 AAEEANAPOY
1 or II 5 Oct. 329-328 AAEEANAPOY
I or Zl 6 Oct. 328-327 AAEEANAPOY
II N 7 Oct. 327-326 AAEEANAPOY
II \fc 8 Oct. 326-325 AAEEANAPOY
1 9 Oct. 325-324 AAEEANAPOY
II "\ ,K 10 Oct. 324-323 AAEEANAPOY
11 Oct. 323-322 (No coins known)
II M 12 Oct. 322-321 AAEEANAPOY
II N 13 Oct. 321-320 AAEEANAPOY
oiAinnoY
II E 14 Oct. 320-319 <DIAinnOY
II O 15 Oct. 319-318 <t>IAinnOY
II n 16 Oct. 318-317 oiAinnoY
II P 17 Oct. 317-316 AAEEANAPOY
II I 18 Oct. 316-315 AAEEANAPOY

and 10 more years, inscribed AAEEANAPOY
54
Hyla A. Troxell
The coins start with both city-initial and date in the Phoenician
alphabetic system, then change to Greek city-initials in year 3, and to
Greek year-letters as well in year 10. Now it is all very well to have this
tidy list of numbers, but what is the era to which they refer? We know
that this Alexander coinage can hardly have started before Alexander took
possession of the city, which the sources tell us was very late in 333, in
the Macedonian year which ran from October 333 to October 332. But
did the coinage and its era start promptly then, in 333/2, or perhaps later?
To digress for a moment: after Alexander's death in 323 his generals
patched up an uneasy truce with the agreement that the succession,
technically, would be shared by Alexander's unborn child, should it turn
out to be a son, and by Alexander's mentally deficient half-brother, now
dubbed Philip III. The child was male, and became Alexander IV. These
two ill-fated individuals, the near-idiot and the infant, then lived for some
years in the custody of one or another powerful generalbut nominally
they were the Kings of Macedon, and are often referred to in the sources
simply as "the Kings," oi PooiXeic,.
Here and there, at various mints in the empire, coinage in the name
of Philip III was struck, with exactly the types of Alexander but with
Philip's name replacing Alexander's. Philip's name never occurs on coins
from our Macedonian mint. But here we are lucky again, for his name
was used at Sidon, as can be seen in Table 2, in years N through
or 13 through 16. Now, given Philip Hi's towering insignificance, it is
a safe assumption that coinage in his name did not outlast his death in
317and thus Sidon's year 16 will not be later than where it falls in this

summary, October 318-October 317. Counting back, then, year one falls
in 333/2, the year of Alexander's arrival in Sidon, and we can be quite
sure of the absolute date of these Sidonian Alexanders.
On them, and on other dated coins from Ake, rests the one beautiful
fixed point we have for our Macedonian mint. The great Demanhur hoard
contained thousands upon thousands of tetradrachms of Alexander and
of Philip III, including virtually all known issues of all mints then active.
Among these were numerous coins of Ake and of Sidon through year
15, with omicron, October 319-318 B.C. And another recendy-published
hoard from Akcakale in eastern Turkey,6 similar but smaller, contained
dated coins through the following year, with pi (October 318-317 B.C.).
Both hoards contained manythe Demanhur hoard thousandsof our
G. LeRider and N. Olgay, "Un tresor de tetradrachmes d'Alexandre trouve a Akcakale
en 1958," RN 1988, pp. 42-54.
55
Macedonian coins, but nothing after Groups J and K.7 Thus the
horizontal line near the bottom of Table 1 can be understood as a cut-off
date no earlier than 317 B.C. Again, it was just after this that the title
BAZIAEQZ was abandoned. We will return to this change in the in-
scription. All of this, save for.the Akcakale Hoard bringing the cut-off
date down from 318 to 317, has long been established. Now for the con-
troversial question of our mint's starting date. Newell assumed (there
is no other word for it) that Alexander initiated his own coinage in
Macedon shortly after his sudden accession in 336, following his father's
assassination. Our mint would thus have been the first of Alexander's
many mints to open, well before he set off for Asia in 334. Newell's
assumption was, barring evidence to the contrary, certainly a reasonable
onebut there does seem to be evidence to the contrary.
Now, as yet one more example of the general rule that no mint can
be studied adequately in isolation, we must turn our attention to still
another city which struck Alexanders, Tarsus in Cilicia. Tarsus had been
a major administrative center of the Persian Empire, and shortly before
Alexander's arrival had been under the control of the Persian satrap
Mazaeus. Mazaeus struck in his own name several series of staters, all
of which depicted Baaltars, the Baal of Tarsus. Two of the most com-
mon varieties are represented on Plate 11,5 and 6. Both coins show Baal's
stiff archaizing posture, not the normal classical style of the later fourth
century; the dotted shaft of his scepter; and the so-called "bell-covers":
what look like circles of parallel hanging leaves over the two lowest (and
largest) protuberances on the throne legs. On Plate 11,5, where the god's

head is in profile, his hair is shown rolled at the back; and here also his
feet rest on a footstool, depicted rather sketchily as a slanting line sup-
ported only at the right by a sort of inverted horseshoe resembling the
letter omega. On Plate 11,6, Baal holds the so-called "flowering scepter,''
its shaft topped by a floral ornament.
All these features were transmitted to the Zeus on the Alexanders struck
at Tarsus after Alexander's arrival there in late 333 (e.g. Plate 11, 7).
Note the stiff posture, the rolled hair, the flowering scepter with its dot-
ted shaft, the footstool just like Baal's, and the bell-covers on the throne
legs. That this Zeus of Tarsus derived from the Baal of Tarsus has been
universally recognized by scholars before Newell, by Newell himself, and
7 And the next group, where the title is dropped, was a very large one: had it been in
circulation at the time of the hoards' deposits, it would surely have been present.
56
Hyla A. Troxell
by all after him.8
The real question is whether the Zeus of Macedon then derived in turn
from the Zeus of Tarsus. No one, naturally, can accept the possibility
that Alexander in Macedon in 336, before he left for Asia, would have
modeled his coinage directly on that of the satrap Mazaeus, a small,
limited-circulation coinage from distant Tarsus, deep in the Persian
Empire.
The Macedonian coins on Plate 10 are typical of the vast majority of
early coins from our mint, and it is true that they do not particularly
resemble the Tarsiote Alexanders. The general aspect of the figure of
Zeus is close to that of Baal, but none of the supposedly "oriental"
elements is present, save the dotted shaft of the scepter, and whether or
not this is a strictly eastern depiction the present author is not qualified
to say. But the Macedonian Zeus here has long, not rolled hair; his scepter
terminates in a ball; there is a dotted exergue line, but no footstool; and
there are no bell-covers on the throne legs. Virtually all of our Macedo-
nian coins, at least in Groups A through E, are like those on Plate 10.
Zeus never does have rolled hair on our Macedonian coins (except much
later, and then very rarely), but this finds a ready explanation in the hand-
some Zeus heads on Philip II's tetradrachms (e.g. Plate 12,9) where Zeus
always has long hair. But Dr. Zervos has identified a number of elements
at Macedon which he believes show the influence and hence the priority
of the Tarsiote Alexanders.9 These are the frontal extended hand of
Zeus, his twisted torso, his stiffly parallel legs, the stylized roll of drapery
at his waist, and the throne with its bell-covers. The most convincing

of these, to the present writer, is the probable presence of the bell-covers
on a very few early Macedonian coins. Long and leisured access to the
unparalleled collection of Alexanders at the ANS has enabled me to realize
that two further eastern elements, the flowering scepter and the footstool,
are also found in the Macedonian outputand, significantly, that they
are found only on a few demonstrably early and demonstrably contem-
porary reverses, after which they drop out. Their execution, too, is
noticeably hesitant and poor, especially that of the footstools', but they
are unmistakably present.
The obverses of the coins on Plate 10 are typical of Group A, in the
8 E. T. Newell, Myriandros-Alexandria kat'lsson (New York, 1920); reprinted from AJN53.2
(1919), pp. 1-15. The Baal-Zeus resemblances are of course discussed in the works cited
in n. 3 above as well.
See above, n. 3.
57
distinctive, simple, dry Macedonian style. In particular, the single row
of curls, rather like snails, at Heracles' brow is almost invariable. Plate
12, 11 and 12, however, show a quite anomalous obverse of Group A,
distinguished by a triple row of very finely worked lion's locks on the
headdress and even more by the nearly unique double row of curls at
Heracles' brow. There are but one or two other similar dies in Group
A, and their prototypes are quite obviously the coins of Alexander's im-
mediate predecessors Perdiccas III (e.g. the stater, Plate 12, 8) and Philip
II (e.g. the didrachm, Plate 12, 10). This Alexander obverse on Plate
12, 11-12 would thus seem a very early one; and the accompanying
reverses are two of only five known in all the large prow issue in which
the prow faces right rather than left, just as the symbol had been placed
on Philip's immediately prior tetradrachms (e.g. Plate 12, 9). On Philip's
coins the orientation to the right is the natural one, but on the Alexanders
it is awkward, with the prow rather disconcertingly about to sail right
into Zeus. The vast majority of prow reverses have the prow facing left,
away from Zeus, and would seem to come after these few awkward ones
with the prow sailing to the right. Thus all indications, both obverse and
reverse, are that the coins on Plate 12, 11 and 12 are among the very
earliest in all the Macedonian coinage. The significant detail on these
two coins is the flowering scepter, clearer perhaps on 12 than 11, but
present on both. No. 12 also appears to have bell-covers on the throne legs.
The remaining three reverses with prow right are all found with a se-
cond obverse. The two ANS examples are shown on Plate 13, 13 and
14: the obverse has but two rows of lion's locks but, most unusually, still

has the double row of locks at Heracles' brow. Both these coins seem
to have rudimentary bell-covers on the throne legs. The coins are worn,
so that the vertical divisions between the hanging leaves are lost, but the
scalloped lower edges of the bottom protuberances show that these pro-
tuberances are not the simple spools which appear higher up on the legs.
The lower decorations do seem to be rather halfhearted attempts at
bell-covers.
From the same obverse die is the coin show on Plate 13, 15: its reverse
has the fulmen symbol, one of the other minor symbols of Group A. Here
is a rather awkward footstool, conflicting a bit with the exergual line,
but a footstool unmistakably on the Tarsiote model: a single line, resting
on a sort of inverted horseshoe at the right.
The coin shown on Plate 13, 16 has an even more awkward footstool,
cut right over the exergue line; and a flowering scepter on the same
reverse.
58
Hyla A. Troxell
The coins on Plate 14 all have the left-facing prow as symbol. Nos.
17 and 18 have flowering scepters on their reverses; nos. 19 and 20 have
footstools.
There is a handful of other flowering scepters in Group A, and a few
other probable instances of bell-covers (no other known footstools,
however). But that is all: the eastern, or Tarsiote, elements promptly
disappear. In all of Group B there is but one example of any of the eastern
featuresfootstool, flowering scepter, or bell-coversand in C and D
none whatsoever. One sole instance recurs in E, and then from F on the
eastern elements appear rather frequently.
So at the outset of the coinage these eastern details are admittedly rare,
found on very few reverses indeed, only one or two on a given die, and
are often hesitantly or poorly executed. But these distinctive features,
precisely those standard on the Tarsiote coins, are found on Macedo-
nian dies some of which seem to be among the very first dies cut in the
entire coinage. They are found on reverses used simultaneously, coupled
with common obverses; their awkward execution is easily explained by
imitation of foreign and perhaps ill-understood prototypes; and they disap-
pear shortly after the initiation of the coinage. There seems no way to
explain this early, simultaneous, unsure, fleeting use of all the eastern
details except by knowledge of the eastern tetradrachms.
The conclusion seems inescapable, then, that Alexanders from Tar-
sus must have made their way to Macedon before the introduction of
the Alexander coinage there. I believe we must accept Dr. Zervos's posi-
tion that the young Alexander introduced his tetradrachm coinage only

in Asia, certainly no earlier than the autumn of 333 B.C. when he oc-
cupied Tarsus, and more likely very late in 333 or early in 332, after
the decisive battle of Issus in November 333 when he routed the Great
King, captured his war chest, a great treasure, and effectively took con-
trol of the Persian Empire. And then at some point shortly afterward other
mints, including ours in Macedon, also started to strike the young king's
new coins.
A number of satisfactory observations follow from this proposed down-
dating of the start of the Macedonian silver, to perhaps 332 B.C. These
observations, however, are not to be understood as proof; only the bell-
covers, footstools, and flowering scepters count as proof.
First, the coins' weight standard and reverse type. Philip's silver had
been struck to a local, parochial Macedonian weight standard, while Alex-
ander adopted for his the universally-accepted Attic standard. The Zeus,
too, so like Baal, would have been familiar throughout Persian territory.
59
How much simpler it is to explain both the new standard and the new
type by the needs of the empire the young Alexander had just acquired,
rather than by some extraordinary prescience of his back in Macedon
before even setting out on his campaigns, whose wildly successful out-
come he could hardly have anticipated.
Table 3
SIZE OF ALEXANDER COINAGE FROM MACEDONIA
Obverse
Dies
Newell
Dates
Obv. Dies
per Year
Group
Inscription
72
336
AAEEANAPOY
335
36
334
36
44
22

333
AAEEANAPOY
332
22
16
331
16
AAEEANAPOY
60
330
30
AAEEANAPOY
329
30
190
328
95
AAEEANAPOY
327
95
72
326
72
AAEEANAPOY
92
325
92
BAZIAEOZ AAEEANAPOY
97
324
49
BAZIAEOZ AAEEANAPOY
323
49
56
60
Hyla A. Troxell
Second, the sizes of the various groups in the coinage. Table 3 gives
a simplified outline of the groups. The first column list the groups, A
through K; the second gives the number of obverse dies I have located
for each group. The third column gives Newell's dates for each group,
and the fourth the number of obverse dies used each year on his
chronologyaveraged out, of course, for the groups he assigned to more
than one year. The year 336 is omitted because Alexander acceded only
late in that year. The fifth column gives, as before, the inscription, which
reverts permanently to a simple AAEEANAPOY after Group K.
The heaviest minting, in Groups E, F, and G, falls on Newell's dating
from 328-325 B.C. Why should this be? Our knowledge of the history
of this period is pretty good, and there is no apparent reason. Things
were, so far as we know, quiet in Greece and in the north at this time,
and Alexander was at his farthest distance from home ever, in Bactria
and India.
We have seen that the horizontal line near the bottom of the table,
the cut-off date of ca. 318 suggested by the Demanhur hoard, can be
lowered to ca. 317 by the evidence of the new Akcakale hoard. Further-
more, the minute Group K is hardly adequate, compared to the other
groups, to occupy an entire year. There is no problem toward the bot-
tom of the table in lowering Newell's dates a bit. And if we can now bring
the start of the coinage down a few years, say to ca. 332 B.C., and shift
all the dates downward, then the heavy minting from Group E on can
be understood as payment to the troops who were returning home, as
our sources tell us, from 325 B.C. on. It is precisely to the few years star-

ting in 325 that Margaret Thompson has dated the heaviest coining in
Alexander's Asia Minor mints, for the pay of returning mercenaries.10
The same need for ready cash, and lots of it, would have existed also
in Macedon from 325 on.
Finally, in a lower dating we have a tidy explanation of the phenomenon
of the introduction, and the subsequent abandonment, of the title
BAZIAEQZ, which came in during Group G and was dropped for good
after Groups J and Kthat is, at some point after 317 B.C. If E can
be dated to ca. 325, then G will fall just after Alexander's death in 323.
Newell's dating put the introduction of the title in about 325, and it has
rather vaguely, I believe, at least in conversation, been somehow
10 M. Thompson, "Paying the Mercenaries," in A. Houghton, et al, eds., Festschrift fur
Studies in Honor of Leo Mildenberg (Wetteren, 1984), pp. 241-47.
61
associated with Alexander's known attempts late in life to assume divine
honors. But I am aware of no attempt to account for the title's abandon-
ment after 317.
The obvious explanation is that the title, at least on these Macedonian
coins, refers not to Alexander the Great but to his young son Alexander
IV, one of oi |3acuXl<; together with Philip IIIwhose coins often use
the title. In charge of Macedon during Alexander's absence on his cam-
paigns, and until his own death in 319, was Antipater, thoroughly loyal
to the royal house, who would have had every reason to emphasize the
young boy's legitimacy as ruler by putting his title on the coinage. This
is what the coins with BAIIAEQI AAEEANAPOY do, I believe: they
declare that the young child Alexander IV is the great Alexander's son
and heir to the kingdom.
But following a period of uncertainty after Antipater's death in 319,
control of Macedon passed in 317 to Cassander, ever an enemy of the
royal house. And it was precisely in 316, after the murder in 317 of Philip
III, that Diodorus Siculus tells us that Cassander placed the seven-year-
old Alexander IV and his mother under close guard, took away the boy's
pages, the attendants due to royalty, and announced that the young Alex-
ander '' should no longer have royal treatment but only such as was pro-
per for any ordinary person of private station."" Thereafter, Diodorus
continues, Cassander conducted himself as king. Surely here is the ex-
planation of the dropping of the title: it referred only to Alexander IV,
no longer recognized as heir to the throneand its introduction will have
occurred only after the great Alexander's death in June of 323.

And now, to quote my late good friend and mentor Nancy Waggoner,
"one bottomless pit leads to another." I hope we have climbed at least
part way out of one pit, but some further intriguing questions do arise.
For instance, does the appearance of the title on Alexander's coins usually
occur only after his death? If so, have we here a useful criterion in some
cases for distinguishing posthumous issues? And what, if any, are the
political implications at the various mints around the empire of the use
of the names of one, or another, or both, of the joint kings Philip III
and Alexander IV? I have no plans to address these questions, but hope
that someday someone will.12
11 Diod. Sic. 19.52.4-5.
12 An expanded version of this preliminary study will appear as part of a volume now
in preparation for the ANS Numismatic Studies.
All coins illustrated are in the collection of the ANS, except Plate 14, 19, from P. and
P. Santamaria, Oct. 25, 1951, A429.

Plate 10
Hyla A. Troxell

Hyla A. Troxell
Plate 11

Plate 12
Hyla A. Troxell

Hyla A. Troxell
Plate 13

Plate 14
Hyla A. Troxell
Circulation at Babylon in 323 B.C.
(PLATES 15-17) MARTIN J. PRICE
Nancy Waggoner and I worked together on many projects. One of these
provides the material for this offering in her honor. It concerns a hoard
which both of us heard about first at the International Congress held in
New York and Washington in 1973. During this very enjoyable and suc-
cessful event, Nicholas Diirr from Geneva came up to us on the terrace
one lunch time and showed us coins from a new hoard that immediately
created great excitement. It was tragic that Dr. Diirr died in 1982, but
he had been able to produce a note on this find.1 It is he to whom credit
must be given for the careful recording of the greater part of it. Nancy
and I decided that we should take on the publication and the cloak has
now fallen upon me. It is with the greatest pleasure that I offer you this
picture of a hoard found in Iraqapparently, as stated at the time, at
Babylon itselfjust before the Congress of 1973.
The hoard contained the Alexander coinage with which Nancy was
so preoccupied for a few years before 1973 and for many years thereafter.
The coins attributed to the mint of Babylon were first struck under the
aegis of Alexander, and the work that Nancy was doing was extremely
1 N. Diirr, "Neues aus Babylon," SM 1974, pp. 33-36. During my brief stay in New
York at the time of this symposium, I was given a great deal of information on this hoard
gathered by Nancy, mainly of imperial issues of Alexander and of lion staters. This was
studied at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, to the director and members of
which I extend my sincere thanks. The list at the end of this article gives a general picture
of the contents. I am equally grateful to the staff of the ANS for their hospitality and for
63

their generosity in making the material available.
64
Martin J. Price
exciting. The bulk of the Alexander tetradrachms in the hoard was of
the group signed by M and a monogram, O and M, or <S> and Z. It is
a series which exercised Nancy considerably, and she published a study
of this group in the Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson. '2 The issues of
this group may be subdivided by the symbols which accompany the let-
ter and monogram. Among the plethora of varieties, there are no less
than 14 which appear to have been in production at the time of the in-
troduction of the royal title. They are found both with and without the
title BAZIAEQZ. I deduce from this, and from the close interlinking of
the many varieties by obverse dies, that they were probably struck
concurrently.
Once the title was adopted on the coinage it remained as a distinctive
feature. The picture is of a mint producing an immense coinage in a short
period of time.3 We do know that this particular group of coinage,
which may be termed the second coinage at "Babylon," was struck not
long before Alexander's death. It forms a very nice parallel to the coinage
from "Amphipolis," the main Macedonian mint, where there was a
notable increase in coinage at the time of the introduction of the royal
title. I think that we can interpret this as an exceptional coinage struck
over a very short period of time with possibly as many as 14 different
anvils or officinae in operation at once. It may have emanated from
Babylon, and it is to be dated just before Alexander's death.
It is well known that, at that particular time, his soldiers wanted to
go home, tired of their long campaign, having struggled out to India and
having returned so far westward. There is in my mind no doubt at all

that this particular coinage belongs to the period when Alexander was
entertaining the idea of sending them back home with at least some money
in their pockets.4 The issues in this hoard go down to this point in the
sequence of the main eastern mint, and then come to an abrupt halt with
2 N.M. Waggoner, "The Alexander Mint at Babylon," in O. Morkholm and N.M.
Waggoner, eds., Greek Numismatics and Archaeology. Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson (Wet-
teren, 1979), pp. 269-80.
3 I differ in my interpretation of this coinage from Nancy, who accorded six to seven years
for the duration of the second coinage. The evidence is strong, however, to suggest a much
shorter but very intense period of coining.
4 He also paid enormous debts incurred by his soldiers and friends: see Arrian 7.5.3; Cur-
tius 10.2.10; Plutarch 70.3. Coins would almost certainly have been required for these.
For coinages connected with the return of the mercenaries, see M. Thompson, "Paying
the Mercenaries," in A. Houghton et al., eds., Festschrift fir/Studies in Honor of Leo Mildenherg
(Wetteren, 1984), pp. 241-47.
Circulation at Babylon in 323 B. C.
65
the beginning of the next issue signed by M and AY. There was no
representation of the first issues with the name of Philip Arrhidaeus which
were struck during the period of the M-AY variety. On the evidence of
the Alexander coinage, this hoard found at Babylon was buried almost
certainly in 323/2 B.C., before the coinage in the name of Philip had
gained currency.
In the hoard there were also coins which are immensely impressive
to those who handle them (1-8). These are from the same second issue
at "Babylon," as is clear from the M and monogram, but they are
dekadrachms weighing over 40g and naturally Nancy was amazed to see
this sort of material present. One of the pleasures of numismatics is that
coins constantly amaze. Someone who is fortunate to work in a museum
such as the ANS finds that the unexpected occurs surprisingly often. In
1989 three more dekadrachms of this Alexander type surfaced in trade
in a group that is of very similar composition to the hoard of 1973. If
this group is from the hoard, as seems most probable, it adds some ex-
citing pieces to those recorded earlier. If it is a later find, it corroborates
perfectly the evidence of the hoard. The two lots are here considered to
be from the same hoard and are listed together. Two of the three Alex-
ander dekadrachms in the recent group are of a completely new variety
which Nancy did not know, with the symbol bee (Plate 15, 7). It is salutary
to remember how much our knowledge of ancient coinage relies on the
chance survival of the coins. Inevitably, there is much to be learned in
the future.
The next section of the hoard comprised silver coins which may be

termed 5-shekels (9-13) and 2-shekels (14-24), and they provided the
greatest surprise.5 The medallic designs of the larger piece have long
been known, and the coin has acquired the name of the "Porus
medallion," celebrating, as it does, Alexander's victory over India. The
smaller piece was previously unpublished, though an example had lain
for some time in a private collection. Serious doubt was expressed on
the authenticity of the new pieces, until it was recognized that they are
linked to the 5-shekel by the use of the same issue marks, ~ and monogram
AB. The elephant reflects the design of the larger denomination, but
See M. Price, "The 'Porus' Coinage of Alexander the Great: A Symbol of Concord
and Community," in S. Scheers, ed., Studia Paulo Naster Oblata 1, Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 12 (Leuven, 1982), pp. 75-85. An attempt by P. Bernard to attribute this issue
to Eudamos ("Le monnayage d'Eudamos, Satrape grec du Punjab et 'maitre deselephants',"
in G. Gnoli and L. Lanciotti, eds., Orientalia Josephi TucciMemoriae Dicata 1 [Rome, 1985-],
pp. 65-94) is discredited by this hoard which gives a date of issue during the lifetime of
Alexander.
66
Martin J. Price
placed on its own on the coin it carries no hint of the defeat of the Indian
forces. Indeed, it would seem to give the opposite symbolic message
here is the elephant as an element of the Greek army proudly displayed
by the conqueror. (Compare Hannibal, later.) The other side of the coin
displays an archer who is also not a figure from Greek iconography. The
long bow and the hairstyle clearly mark him as an Indian, and his beard
emphasizes that he is no Greek. Again, this symbolizes Indians fighting
alongside the Greeks. The presence of these coins in the Babylon hoard
allows us to state with certainty that they belong to the lifetime of Alex-
ander. The designs chosen are dramatically different from the Macedo-
nian imperial issues showing Herakles and Zeus and underline Alex-
ander's policy of blending the cultures that he conquered with his Macedo-
nian traditions. There is an interesting parallel in the tomb of Hephaes-
tion, who was given a sumptuous funeral. A frieze of Greek and Persian
weapons decorated the tomb and these would seem to symbolize the union
of the two great cultures rather than the conquest of Persia as Diodorus
states.6
A further 2-shekel issue (25-27), previously unknown,7 clearly relates
to the oriental iconography of 14-24, and is of the same weight standard.
The example found in 1973 is in Paris. In 1989 two further examples
appeared, one of which has been generously donated to the ANS (Plate
15, 27). They depict a chariot with horses leaping to the right and a
bowman firing like a figure from an Assyrian relief. The date of issue
must shortly have preceded the burial of this hoard, and so a date ca.
325 may be attributed to it. For the moment we may only guess at its

origin, but it is worth recalling the 80 talents of stamped silver given to
Alexander by Omphis (Taxiles), king of Taxila. Hollstein8 has recently
linked this with the "Porus" coinage, but the use of Greek letters as issue
marks would make that theory somewhat unlikely. The local coinage of
Taxila at this time, as exemplified by the Bhir Mound hoard (IGCH 1831),
was of small stamped ingots, which would well fit the description of this
particular gift; but if coins of Greek form were involved, these new In-
dian pieces with chariot and elephant might be interpreted as the coinage
of this Indian monarch.
Another important section of the hoard is the local coinage of Babylonia
struck under Alexander and continuing after his death. From their designs
6 Diodorus 17.115.4.
7 H. Nicolet, "Monnaies a l'elephant," BSFN 33.7 (July 1978), pp. 401-3.
8 W. Hollstein, "Taxiles' Pragung fur Alexander den Grossen," SNR 68 (1989),pp. 5-7.
Circulation at Babylon in 323 B. C
67
these coins are known as lion staters, but they are probably shekels on
the local standard. Parallels in the issue marks are to be found with the
Macedonian imperial issues, and the latest group in the hoard again
displays the M-AY of 323. The earliest of these issues from Babylonia
were signed in Aramaic by Mazaeus (Plate 16, 67). He left Cilicia, where
he had been satrap for Darius III, and was appointed governor in
Babylonia from 331 until his death in 328. He took with him from Cilicia
the designs used for the lion staters, including the figure of the Baal of
Tarsus.9 This coinage is in urgent need of a full numismatic study,
which is clearly impossible here. However, this hoard does allow a few
remarks concerning the sequence during the lifetime of Alexander. Two
pieces (Plate 16, 68; 69) show the name of Mazaeus erased from the die,
and these may surely be dated to the time of his sudden death in 328.
The next issues display Greek letters and symbols. The letters do not
parallel the imperial issues, but there are sufficient parallels in the sym-
bols to suggest that the lion staters and the imperial coinage at this time
came under the same mint authorities. An important coin in the hoard
(Plate 16, 86) shows T clearly engraved over A. This gives the sequence
A-T and finally comes the M-AY group. Further evidence for the dating
of these to the lifetime of Alexander is available from the Hillah hoard
(IGCH 1752) and from the more recently published group from Abu
Qubur,10 where the T issue is present with a drachm of the imperial se-
cond coinage of Alexander. More evidence is required to show where
the varieties 130-31 come in the sequence. It must be borne in mind that
these, like the imperial Alexander issues, may have been struck at more

than one city. Their presence in this hoard would suggest that they too
should be viewed as lifetime issues.11
The Hillah hoard also contained a selection of locally struck
tetradrachms imitating those of Athens. The Babylon hoard included a
particularly rich section of these. One piece (135) came from Memphis,
signed in Demotic Egyptian "Artaxerxes Pharaoh." This can be dated
securely to 343 when Persia regained control of Egypt after a campaign
led by the Great King himself. The "Sabakes" issue from Memphis (136)
9 A.R. Bellinger, Essays on the Coinage of Alexander the Great, ANSNS 11 (New York, 1962),
pp. 62-64.
10 M. Amandry, "Les monnaies." Northern Akad Project Reports 4 (1989), pp. 34-37.
11 O. Merkholm, "A Coin of Artaxerxes III," NC 1974, p. 1, n. 1 suggests that the vari-
ety with pentagram symbol, here no. 130, was issued after Alexander's death. The evidence
of this hoard would suggest that it is a lifetime issue.
68
Martin J. Price
can be dated equally firmly to before, probably not long before, his death
at Issus in 333. His successor, Mazakes, was rewarded for his surrender
of Memphis to Alexander by some official position in Babylonia. His
coinage, both in Egypt and in Mesopotamia, is well known,12 but the
importance of the group in this Babylon hoard is to show that in
Mesopotamia there were at least two mints producing for him the imita-
tion Athenian tetradrachms, some bearing his name in Aramaic and his
symbol in the field (Plate 17, 148 and 188) and some anonymous (Plate
16, 161). The different mints may be distinguished by a marked difference
in fabric, those of mint "B" being much thicker and smaller in diameter
and with a distinctive treatment of the head of Athena.
In addition to these local tetradrachms, which are well paralleled in
the Hillah hoard, the Babylon hoard included a small group of Phoeni-
cian imitation owls. One, certainly from Gaza, bears ayin andyod on the
cheek of Athena. Another is previously unpublished. It bears the Phoeni-
cian letters LB(M) to the left of the owl. A further coin from regions to
the east of the Mediterranean is a unique shekel (7.25g, Plate 17, 134).
It belongs in general terms with the "Philisto-Arabian" coinages, hav-
ing designs borrowed from other coinages. On the obverse is the Baal
of Tarsus; on the reverse the King fighting a lion, an Achaemenid theme
used on coinage at Sidon. It fits with the group attributed to Hierapolis-
Bambyce,13 although it is uninscribed, and must date not long before the
deposit of the hoard. From Hierapolis at this time there was an issue nam-
ing Alexander in Aramaic, and the city is named by Newell as a possible
mint of Alexander's imperial coinage.14

The coinage to be found in Babylonia in 323 is well documented by
the contents of this hoard. There existed in addition the gold issues in
the name of Alexander, many of which belong to the massive second
coinage from the main eastern mint. Double darics were also struck at
the same mint, and may be linked by symbol to the first coinage under
Alexander. The picture is not that of a conqueror imposing Macedonian
weights and coinage on the defeated Persian empire. The coinage fits
12 G. Le Rider, "Tetradrachmes 'au lion' et imitations d'Athenes en Babylonie," SM
85 (Feb. 1972), pp. 1-7.
1 H. Seyrig, "Monnaies hellenistiques xix. Le monnayage de Hierapolis de Syrie a
l'epoque d'Alexandre," RN 1971, pp. 11-21. The weight of these issues is that of the shekels
("Attic" didrachms) of Tyre. No. 134 is a little light, but could belong there.
14 Alexander Hoards II. Demanhur, 1905, ANSNNM 19 (New York, 1923) pp. 114-15, no.
2897.
69
other aspects of Alexander's policies, policies that made him unpopular
with Greeks at home and in his army. There is clear evidence that he
blended his imperial coinage with others that were more fitted to the tradi-
tions of the areas over which he held sway. Local coinage and imperial
coinage were combined in the wealth represented by the Babylon hoard
secreted in 323/2. Two stray pieces which came from the area in 1989
and very probably formed part of the find emphasize the travel of coin
from the west. A tetradrachm of Philip II (Plate 17, 297) is a most unlikely
find from Iraq, but it symbolizes the movement of a person from
Macedonia to Babylonia. Similarly the coin of Cos (Plate 17, 298) is ex-
ceptional. These two pieces underline that the Babylon hoard, though
illustrating the coins to be found in circulation at Babylon in 323 B.C.,
was not itself taken directly from a single payment in circulation.
However, it remains a document of great importance both for the in-
dividual coins that it contained and for a picture of Alexander's policy
as regards coinage in the territories that he conquered.
The Babylon, 1973 Hoard (CH 1 [1975], no.38)
(With additions seen 1989, probably from the same hoard)"
Alexander the Great
Imperial dekadrachms
7*
41.72
43.23

41.78
42.99
41.89
ANS Annual Report 1974, p. 11, 1 = Nat. Arbejdsmark
1974, p. 94, 11
CH 1 (1975), fig 6.3
1989
Sotheby's, June 19, 1990 (Hunt), 102 = Coin World,
Nov. 19, 1980, p. 3 = Bank Leu Apr. 29, 1975, 129
CH 1 (1975), fig. 6.1
CH 1 (1975), fig.6.2; M in exergue.
1989 Rev. to l., bee
1989 Rev. as 7.
Large numbers of tetradrachms were present, but it is not possi-
ble to present a full picture here. On good authority it was stated
that there were issues of Alexander inscribed M and AY, but no
coin was recorded in the name of Philip III.
a The asterisk indicates that the piece is illustrated on Plates 15-17.
70
Martin J. Price
Five shekels
r9 l
40.74
Copenhagen = Nat.Arbejdsmark 1974, p. 95, fig. 12
- 9A J
40.98
Classical Numismatic Review 15.3 (1990), 1
9B
38.96
Bank Leu May 26, 1988, 132 = Hollstein (above, n.
8), 2
- 10 -,
39.88
Paris = BSFN1978 (above, n. 7), p. 405, no. 2 = CH
1 (1975), fig. 6.4
- 11 -1
40.94
Sotheby's, June 19, 1990, 103 (Hunt) = Coin World
Nov. 19, 1980, p. 3 = Price (above, n. 5), pi. 9, 3
- 12*
40.04
1989
13
38.73
Bank Leu Apr. 29, 1975, 130
E::l
16
17

Two shekels
18*
19
20
21
22
23
24*
15.38 BM = Price, pi. 10, 5 = BMSocBull Mar. 18, 1975, 9
Private coll. Austria = SM 1974 (above, n. 1), p. 36,
d = Price, pi. 11, 6
14.72 Bank Leu Apr. 29, 1975, 131 = Hollstein 1
SM 1974, p. 36, b
15.99 1989
Paris = SM 1974, p. 36, c = BSFN 1978, p. 405, 3
CH 1 (1975), fig. 6.7
15.80 1989 = NumCirc 1990, 6632
16.30 SM 1974, p. 36, a = Am Annual Report 1974, p. 12,2
SM 1974, p. 36, 2
16.14 1989
''Indian'' Two shekels:
Obv.: Elephant r. on which two figures one turning around and carrying
a long standard, the other, in front, holding a goad.
Rev.: Bowman and charioteer in quadriga r.
15.99 Paris = BSFN 1978, p. 405, 1 = Bank Leu Apr. 29,
1975, 132 = Hollstein 3
15.74 1989
16.20 1989 = ANS
Lion staters
28-49 No inscription, letter or symbol
50-68 Mazaeus: Baal and lion l., H M I
67* Mazaeus: Baal and lion r., H H I
68*-69 Mazaeus: Baal and lion r., name erased
71
70-84
A (incl. NC 1974 (above, n. 11), pi. 1, 2)
85*
A (imitation)
86*-121
122-23
Baal l., sickle; lion l., T
124-25
Baal i., bee; lion i., T
126*
Baal l., star; lion i., T
127*-28*
"I. (incl. NC 1974, pi. 1, 4)
129*
Baal l., M; lion i., AY, in exergue, H (CH 1 [1975], fig. 6.8 =
Price pi. 11,8)
130*
Baal l.; lion l., above, pentagram (NC 1974, p.l, n. 1)
131
Baal l., below throne, 11; lion i., above, thunderbolt
132
Lion half-stater (NC 1974, pi. 1, 3)
133
Lion quarter-stater (NC 1974, pi. 1, 1)

HIERAPOLIS-BAMB YCE?
134*
Obv. Baalseatedr.; rev. king fighting lion, 7.25(C7/1 [1975], fig.
Imitations of Athenian "owls": MEMPHIS
6, 5)
135
Artaxerxes Pharaoh (Copenhagen, 17.06 = NC 1974, pi. 1,7 =
Nat.Arbejdsmark 1974, p. 90, fig. 3)
136
"Sabakes" (NC 1974, pi. 1, 2 * Nat.Arbejdsmark 1974, p. 91, fig. 4)
BABYLONIA
137-47
Mazakes Mint A, to r., (incl. Nat.Arbejdsmark 1974, p. 92, fig.
9 = NC 1974, pi. 1, 6)
148*-54
Mazakes Mint A, to r., symbol and 0
155-58
Mazakes Mint A, no letter or symbol
159-60
Mazakes Mint A, uncertain inscription
161*-85
Mint A, AGE (incl. Nat.Arbejdsmark 1974, p. 92, fig. 10 = NC
1974, pi. 1, 5)
186-87
Mint B, no inscription
188*
Mazakes Mint B, to r., 0
189-94
Mazakes Mint B, no letter or symbol
195-99
Mazakes Mint B, uncertain inscription
200
Mazakes Mint B, Owl i.
201-2
Imitations of fifth cent, types (worn)
203-71
Imitations of fourth cent, types to pi V
272
Imitation of fourth cent, type; obv. countermark, wreath?
273
Imitation of fourth cent, type; obv. countermark, o
274
Imitation of fourth cent, type; obv. punch, fl
72
Martin J. Price
PHOENICIA
275*
Gaza. Obv. on cheek, O N
276* Rev. to l., W tJ i-
277-78
279-84 Phoenicia?
285-89 Memphis?
290*-94 Uncertain origin, owl l.
295 Uncertain origin, Athena head l.
296-97 Uncertain origin, probably Mesopotamia
Drachms
SARDES
298
Persian siglos
Philip II, Macedonia
299*
1989 Rev. below r., garlanded altar (Le Rider [above, n. 12], not)
COS
300*

1989 Dion

Martin J. Price
Plate 15

Plate 16
Martin J. Price

Martin J. Price
Plate 17
The Antioch Project
ARTHUR HOUGHTON
In a discussion that this author had some years ago with Georges Le
Rider, the subject arose of the many new Seleucid coin types and issues
that had come to light since the publication some 50 years ago of E.T.
Newell's Western Seleucid Mints.1 We considered the possibility of a full
revision of Newell's work. We concluded, however, that such an under-
taking would be enormous and would still be limited in scope, since WSM
covers only the coinages of the first six Seleucid rulers, beginning with
the issues of Seleucus I and ending with those of Antiochus III. These
considerations led to the thought that a detailed study given to the ac-
tivity of a single mint, Antiochthe most important of the Seleucid
empirewould still be of potentially great value to the understanding
of Seleucid mint practices and financial policy, as well as of the economic
and political forces at work in the hellenistic world.
No such study exists. Newell himself first surveyed the Seleucid coinages
of Antioch in 1918. In an extended article he sought to establish a
methodology for the attribution to Antioch of coins struck by the Seleucids,
and gave to that mint 461 issues that could reasonably be assigned
there.2 Newell revised and incorporated his SMA attributions through
1 Known familiarly and cited here as WSM. E.T. Newell, The Coinage of the Western Seleucid
Mints from Seleucus I to Antiochus III, Numismatic Studies 4 (New York, 1941). The volume
was reprinted in 1977, with "A Summary of Recent Scholarship. Additions and Correc-
tions," by Otto Merkholm incorporated as pp. i-ix. See also the extensive bibliography
of Seleucid numismatic literature in Th. Fischer, "Seleukiden," Chiron 15 (1985), pp. 285-389

2 E.T. Newell, "The Seleucid Mint of Antioch," AJN 51 (New York, 1917-18), pp.
1-151, abbreviated SMA.
73
74
Arthur Houghton
Antiochus HI into WSM and added others, more than quadrupling the
number of early Seleucid issues he had originally assigned to Antioch.
He assembled sufficient material to enable him to make die links between
a number of issues, and on the basis of these and other analytical elements
(border conventions, monograms, style, etc.) established relative
chronologies for the coinages of the early Seleucid rulers at Antioch that,
despite some later changes, have remained intact until the this time.
Scholars have revised and added much to the body of material assign-
ed by Newell to Antioch. Otto Merkholm's examination of the coinages
issued by and in the name of Antiochus IV, for example, revealed that
a series of drachms and tetradrachms with Antiochus' portrait, struck
immediately following the reign of Alexander I Balas (150-146/5 B.C.),
that Newell had given to Apamea were in fact produced at the Seleucid
capital, likely at a time of political uncertainty in the wake of Alexander's
death.3 Somewhat later, Merkholm attributed to a child of Seleucus IV
silver coins that Newell had earlier given to a joint rule at Antioch of
Antiochus IV and his son, Antiochus.4 Merkholm's most important
single contribution to Seleucid numismatics and history, however, was
his quantitative study of the coinages of Antiochus IV at both Antioch
and Ake-Ptolemais, which permitted him to draw fundamental conclu-
sions about this ruler's political and financial policies as he consolidated
his rule, reorganized the administration of his empire, and struggled to
establish Seleucid hegemony over Ptolemaic Egypt.5
Various scholars have made other revisions and additions to the known
production of hellenistic Antioch. Studies of Seleucid rulers or periods

of Antioch's mint history have been made by Henri Seyrig (Tryphon,
142-139 B.C.);6 Le Rider (the co-regency of Laodice, wife of Seleucus
IV, and her son, 175 B.C.);7 this author and Le Rider (the first reign
of the young Antiochus VIII, 128 B.C.);8 and, with respect to the rule
3 O. Merkholm, "A Posthumous Issue of Antiochus IV of Syria," NC 1960, pp. 25-30.
4 O. Merkholm, "The Accession of Antiochus IV of Syria: A Numismatic Comment,"
ANSMN 11 (1964), pp. 63-76.
5 O. Merkholm, Studies in the Coinage of Antiochus IVof Syria (Copenhagen, 1963); followed
by Antiochus IV of Syria (Copenhagen, 1966).
6 H. Seyrig, Notes on Syrian Coins, ANSNNM 119 (New York, 1950).
7 G. Le Rider, "L'enfant-roi Antiochos et la reine Laodice," BCH 110 (1986), pp.
409-17.
8 A. Houghton and G. Le Rider, "Un premier regne d'Antiochos VIII Epiphane a An-
tioche en 128," BCH 112 (1988), pp. 401-11.
The Antioch Project
75
at Antioch of Tigranes the Great of Armenia, Bedoukian9 and Foss.10
Published notes on individual coins have added to our knowledge," as
has the recent debate on the metrology of Antioch's bronze coinages.12
Finally, the publication of the coins found at the Antioch excavations and
other archaeological sites in Asia Minor and the Near East, the continu-
ing discovery of new hoards, the publication of public and private collec-
tions, and the appearance of otherwise unknown Antiochene varieties
in a multitude of sale catalogues has added a wealth of material to the
corpus of issues known to be from Antioch.13
There have been, in sum, numerous changes to NewelPs original, now
very outdated survey, that underscore the need for a new publication
of the mint of Antioch, to provide at a minimum a revised and essential-
ly complete catalogue of the mint's production. Other reasons support
such an endeavor. The metrological data on Antioch's silver coins that
have been compiled to this time, for example, do not make fully clear
the evolution of the Attic tetradrachm standard at that city.14 No
metallurgical study of the production of a major hellenistic mint has yet
9 P. Bedoukian, Coinage of the Artaxiads of Armenia, RNS Special Publication 10 (London,
1978).
10 C. Foss, "The Coinage of Tigranes the Great: Problems, Suggestions, and a New
Find," in NC 1986, pp. 19-66, discusses the coinages of this king at Antioch and other
cities and reviews the earlier work of Bedoukian (above, n. 9).
'1 Examples include the possible reattribution to Antioch of coins of Seleucus II and An-
tiochus III assigned by Newell to Apamea in A. Houghton, "Traik Darreh (Kangavar)
Hoard," ANSMN 25 (1980), pp. 38-41; and Houghton, "A Victory Coin and the Par-

thian Wars of Antiochus VII," Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Numismatics.
London, September 1986, I.A. Carradice, ed. (in press).
12 E. Schlosser, "Denominations and Weights of Bronze Coins of Antiochus IV of Syria
and Their Relation to the Silver Coinage," SM 138 (May 1975), pp. 33-66; Schlosser,
"Multiples and Fractions of the Seleucid Chalkous of Attic Standard," in Proceedings (above,
n. 11)followed by the counterarguments offered on the basis of the quantitative study
of Seleucid bronze issues by J.M. Doyen, Monnaies antiques du Tell Abou Danne et d'Oumm
el-Matra (Campagnes 1976-1985) (Brussels, 1987), esp. pp. 33ff.
13 The Antioch Excavations: D.B. Waage, Antioch-on-the-Orontes, vol. 4, pt. 2: Greek,
Roman, Byzantine and Crusaders' Coins (Princeton, 1952). Hoards with important Antiochene
material have been published by D.B. Cox, "Gordion Hoards III, IV, V and VI," ANSMN
12 (1966), pp. 19-55; C. Boehringer, Zur Chronologic mittelhellenistischer Munzserien 220-160
v. Chr., AMUGS 5 (Berlin, 1972); H. Seyrig, Tresors du Levant, anciens et nouveaux. Tresors
monetaires seleucides, 2 (Paris, 1973); and A. Davesne and G. Le Rider, Gulnar II. Le tre'sor
de Meydancikkale (Cilicie Trochee, 1980) (Paris, 1989). The increasing number of published
collections that add to SMA include the SNG and ACNAC series.
14 E. Schlosser, "Das Gewicht der Tetradrachme des Antiochos IV. von Syrien," SM
134 (May 1984), pp. 29-33, divides the coinage of Antiochus IV into three metrological
76
Arthur Houghton
been made, although it is clear that such a study would yield significant
results.15 Finally, there has been no methodical study that would
establish the number of obverse dies employed at Antioch over the course
of its history and that might, then, shed light on the volume of coinage
that the city produced. Such information, in combination with the analysis
of the circulation of coins in the region, can be essential to the develop-
ment of meaningful conclusions about the financial policies of the
Seleucids, and of the economics of Syria and its surrounding regions in
the hellenistic period.
For these reasons, a study that both updates the catalogue of Antiochene
coins and incorporates die, metrological, and metallurgical data, seemed
well worth the effort. A question that lingered after my discussion with
Georges Le Rider was whether it might be too ambitious. Clearly, the
coin production of Antioch, involving the reigns of some 30 rulers (28
Seleucids, some of whom had multiple reigns, as well as Ptolemy III and
Tigranes) over the 235 years of its existence as a hellenistic city, was
voluminous. Could such a study be done?
In an attempt to answer the question, I undertook a number of short
surveys of the Antiochene silver coinages of selected rulers of the third
and second centuries B.C. Detailed review was given to the tetradrachm
issues of Seleucus III, Seleucus IV, Demetrius I, Antiochus VI, and
Tryphon, and the second reign of Demetrius II (for the regnal periods
of these kings, see Table 1).
The results are given in the following pages. They were obtained dur-
ing the course of a two-year period of intermittent work, involving the

collection of materialcasts and photographs of coins from major public
and private collections, and photocopies of catalogues and other
publicationsits arrangement into die and monogram sequences (dated
series, where these existed), and its recording and analysis. While the
periods as opposed to the two proposed by Merkholm (Studies,above, n. 5). For other rele-
vant material on Antioch's metrology, see O. Merkholm, "The Attic Coin Standard in
the Levant during the Hellenistic Period," S. Scheers, ed., Studia Paulo Naster Oblata I.
Numismatica Antiqua (Leuven, 1982), pp. 139-49; Merkholm, "The Monetary System in
the Seleucid Empire after 187 B.C.," W. Heckel and R. Sullivan, eds., Ancient Coins of
the Graeco-Roman World, The Nickle Numismatic Papers (Calgary, 1984), pp. 95-97; and E.
Schlosser, "Gewichte der attischen Tetradrachman der seleukiden aus der Munzstatte An-
tiocheia am Orontes," SM 143 (August 1986), pp. 62-66.
15 An exemplary recent discussion of the metallurgy of an ancient coin series is included
in K. Schmitt-Korte and M. Cowell, "Nabataean CoinagePart I. The Silver Content
Measured by X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis," NC 1989, pp. 33-58.
The Antioch Project
77
resulting thirty-four-year cross-section of Antioch's output represents less
than fifteen percent of the mint's history in the hellenistic period, it may
cover twenty percent of the mint's total coinage production (Table 1).
Taken together with the results of other studies, as much as one-fourth
of all tetradrachm obverses produced by the Antioch mint may now have
been charted.16 An important conclusion of these surveys has been that
the project is feasible.
The Antioch Project is likely to yield surprises as it proceeds; indeed,
it has already done so. Some unexpected results of the surveys include:
several exceptionally long lives for dies used under Seleucus HI and
Seleucus IV; the clear and dramatic break in Antioch's silver produc-
tion during the reign of Demetrius I while the mint was reorganized,
coinage of a new style and flan size was designed, and a decision was
made to date the mint's silver issues for the first time (Table 4); and
evidence indicating the reattribution to another mint, likely Apamea, of
a short but important series of tetradrachms struck by Antiochus VI at
the very outset of his reign.17
A more fundamental finding is that over the course of its history, An-
tioch may have produced no more than 1,400, and perhaps less than
1,200, tetradrachm obverse dies. This seems very low. As Merkholm and
Le Rider have pointed out, non-Seleucid coins circulated freely alongside
Seleucid issues in an open currency system that prevailed through the
third and most of the second century B.C., lessening the need for the
extensive production of coins by the Seleucids at Antioch or elsewhere.18
Still, the initial information now available on the apparently limited die

production at Antioch has implications for our views on the purpose of
such currency during the hellenistic period. Simply stated, could the pro-
duction of coins at Antioch and other mints have met the monetary needs
16 With the exception of the material on Tryphon, which at this point remains under-
represented, the sample sizes of the surveys give a high degree of certainty that only a few
obverse dies, if any, from each of the reigns involved may remain undiscovered (following
the statistical methodology developed by Marriott and Raven and more thoroughly reviewed
by W. McGovern, "Missing Die Probabilities. Expected Die Production and the Index
Figure," ANSMN 25 [1980], pp. 209-93).
17 The attribution and historical circumstances surrounding the issue of Antiochus'
tetradrachms with thyrsos (see SMA 220-21; 228-34) are to be discussed in a forthcoming
paper.
18 See G. Le Rider, "Les alexandres d'argent en Asie Mineure et dans l'Orient seleucide
au III' siecle av. J.-C. (c. 275-c. 225): remarques sur le systeme monetaire des Seleucides
et des Ptolemees," Journal des Savants 1986, pp. 3-51, esp. pp. 32-39; and O. Merkholm,
(Ancient Coins, above, n. 14).
78
Arthur Houghton
of the populations of the Seleucid Empire? Or was the retail trade only
enhanced by currency, but denominated in and carried out by other
means? The answers to such questions are not fully clear, but a thorough
review of the production of Antioch and other mints of the period may
help to resolve them.
A number of areas are high on the list of priorities for examination
in the near term. These include the linkage between Alexander I Balas'
dated and undated coinages that can establish whether they were struck
in parallel or series. Another is the chronological relationship between
the regular, Apollo-type drachms of Antiochus VI, and his so-called
helmet drachms that appear to advertise Tryphon's usurpation of power
in 142 B.C. A major question that may be answered is whether, in fact,
Antiochus VIII and Antiochus IX, half-brothers who fought each other
for dominance in Syria, Phoenicia, and Cilicia, reigned four times each
at Antioch, as Newell hypothesized in SMA, or less, as is suggested by
review of their coinages struck at other Seleucid mints.19 Yet another,
mentioned above, is whether the Attic weight coinage of Antioch followed
a more or less continuous decline through the second half of the second
and early part of the first centuries B.C., or whether programmatic ad-
justments may have been made to the standard then in use.20
Whatever the answers may be to these questions, the Antioch Project
19 Newell, SMA, pp. 92-107, followed by A.R. Bellinger, "The End of the Seleucids,"
Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Sciences, 38 (June 1949), pp. 66-74 and Excursus
I, pp. 87-91. Bellinger supported the view that each king ruled at Antioch four times in
succession. The recent appearance of a number of late coins of Antiochus VIII at Damascus

(A. Houghton and W. Miiseler, "The Reigns of Antiochus VIII and Antiochus IX at
Damascus," SM 159 [August 1990]) and careful review of the issues of these kings at Tar-
sus indicate that they ruled at these cities fewer than the number of periods that have been
ascribed to them (with regard to Tarsus, see D.B. Cox, "The Coins," H. Goldman, ed.,
Excavations at Gozlii Kale, Tarsus I. The Hellenistic and Roman Periods [Princeton, 1950], pp.
38-83). Antioch may also have experienced less political turbulence than Newell proposed
in SMA.
20 O. Merkholm (Studio Naster, p. 144; Ancient Coins, p. 96, above, n. 14) states that the
Attic tetradrachm was maintained at ca. 16.8g after 172 B.C. with a few vacillations of
minor importance, until an abrupt reduction occurred in 105 B.C. that brought the weights
of Attic tetradrachms down to a new standard of ca. 16.3g. Table 8, supplemented by
Schlosser (above, n. 14) indicates that the tetradrachm standard at Antioch remained relatively
stable through the reign of Alexander II (128-123/2 B.C.), then went into a more or less
continuous decline through the end of the Seleucid period. It was stabilized again in the
first century B.C. during the reign of Antony and Cleopatra: A. Houghton and S. Ben-
dall, "A Hoard of Aegean Tetradrachms and the Autonomous Tetradrachms of Elaeusa
Sebaste," ANSMN 33 (1988), p. 74 and n. 9.
The Antioch Project 79
promises rewards fully equal to the challenges that face it. Georges Le
Rider and I believe that Nancy Waggoner, whose first and greatest
fascination was the Alexander coinage that marked the beginning of the
hellenistic period, would surely have agreed.21
This note is dedicated to Nancy M. Waggoner with affection and gratitude for her

help over two decades.
80
Arthur Houghton
Table 1
ANTIOCH: OBVERSE DIE SUMMARYTETRADRACHMSa
Ruler/Period (B. C.)
No. of Obvs./Year Total Obv. Dies
Recorded Estimated Recorded Estimated
Seleucus I, ca. 300-280
Antiochus I, 280-261
Antiochus II, 261-246
Ptolemy III, 246-243
Seleucus II, ca. 243-226/5
Seleucus III, 226/5-223
Antiochus HI, ca. 223-187
Seleucus IV, 187-175
Antiochus, son of Seleucus IV, 175
Antiochus IV, 175-164
Antiochus V, 164-162
Demetrius I, 162-150
Alexander I and posthumous issues
of Ant. IV, 150-146/5
Demetrius II, 1st reign, 146/5-144
Antiochus VI, 144-142
Tryphon, 142-139
Antiochus VII, 138-129
Demetrius II, 2nd reign, 129-128
Antiochus VIII, 1st reign, 128

Alexander II, 128-123/2
Cleopatra and Antiochus VIII,
123/2-121/0
Antiochus VIII, 2nd-3rd reign
Antiochus IX, 121/0-95
Seleucus VI, 95-94
Antiochus X, 94-93
Antiochus XI, 93
Demetrius III, 93-89
Philip I, 89-84/3
Tigranes, 84/3-69/8
Antiochus XIII, lst-2nd reign,
69/8-64
Philip II, 67/6-66/5
Totals
2+
2-3
3+
2-7
8-16
10-14
5- 6
6- 7
under 1
2-3
under 1
under 1
1-2
1- 2
2- 3
6-9
10-14
8-12
10-12
10-12
2-4
10-12
10-12
10-12
1-2
10-15
10-12
under 1
The Antioch Project
81
Table 2
ANTIOCH: SELEUCUS III (226/5-223)TETRADRACHM ISSUES3
No. of Coins per Obverse Die
II
III
IV
VI
Monogram/
t to I.
to r.
to I.
$ to I.
to I.
$ to I.
Symbol
V to r.
above rose
PI to r.
ZQ? to r.
to r.
WSM
1029
_b
1024
1025

1030
1026
Die
Al
33
A2
A3
A4
A5
21
A6
Totals
68
a Not Antioch: WSM 1031,
with V to 1
. (recorded with one obverse die, six
reverses, from
seven coins).
b The only known example of this issue is recorded by C. Boehringer, Chronologic (above,
n. 13), p. 178, 24.
a "Recorded" obverse dies are given in Tables 2-7, or as indicated below.
b No coinage has been recorded for Ptolemy III at Antioch.
0 Merkholm, NC 1960 (above, n. 4).
d Merkholm, Studies (above, n. 5).
'Houghton and Le Rider, BCH 1988 (above, n. 8).
f For the three known obverse dies of Antiochus XI, see A. Houghton, Coins of the Sclcucid
<
CM CO CM
to
CO
CT> CO O CO io
CM
O cm m
Q <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

82
Arthur Houghton
t/3
CO
CO
CO.
<
J!
~' '3
>O
>0
1/3
go
6 1
7 5
8 1
9 1 11 1
29 1
21 2
A 1
A24 1
Totals 55 7 12 19 21 12 1 6 H
a Not Antioch: SMA 31, symbol-riar; perhaps a Cilician mint. SMA 33, symbol-M'; attributed to Tarsus by O. Morkholm, "Seleuco Coins from Cilicia,
ca. 0-150 B.C.," ANSMN 11 (1964), p. 58, but likely struck at another, perhaps Cilician mint. ~.
b G. Le Roer, Su ou r Suucso
r -A2 faris, 19A2), p. 2, ,0. S-
03

09
Table 4
-NTIOCH: DEMETRIUS I (162-O9)TETR-DR-CHM ISSUES3
No. of Coins per Obverse Die
A: Undated Series (162-O5/4)
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX
Al or ZA or
Mono A.m - arm o*
97-98;
SMA O-89 81,84 89 83,86 82,O 87 959 - 191
18
Die
-l
-2
-3
A5
-7
22
a Not Antioch: SMA 90, from a north Syrian or Cilician mint. SMA 91, probably from a Cilician mint.

The sequence of groups I-XI has been determined through die and monogram linkages, and the chronology of inscriptions (ZflTHPOZ being added
toward the end of the undated series). The sequence of groups XII-XIX is provisional.
X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX
Alor
KEYHEIAAIAR HAY
926;
93 - 94 85 199 - -

I 2
t SV
62V
I 82V
* ^2V
I 92V
S2V
* *2V
2V
^. V
2 I I2V
| I 92V
s 6
E- 2 8IV
I L\W
S siV
HV
S IV
I 2
c nV
S oV
l 6V
CO
to
nq
otV
zw
Sw
9tV
LW

8tV
6tV
osV
2SV
sSV
991 S8 *6 - 6 191 - 66'S9 LS O8 98'8 68 *8'l8 98-6 VfYS
99 8uA2
AVM aVIVVI3HA3adHZVyMt2lV - W V <"W
- - V2 - |V
XIX IIIAX IIAX IAX AX AIX IIIX IIX IX X XI IIIA IIA IA A AI III II I
LV
KV
SLV
9LV
LL\
8V
9LV

00
9GV
8O
9O
99
I9
S9
*9
S9
99
89
99
OZV
UV
LW
O-89
Mono
to
CM CM
CM CM
!N ^ N ID
CO^inirNcoa>9^
Si cococococococooio-)
Q <<<<<<<<<
CM

88
Arthur Houghton
926;
199
<
co
Us
CTl
CD
CO
CTl
97-98;
191
<<
959
CO
82,O
89 83,86
81,84
<
The Antioch Project
89
Table 4
ANTIOCH: DEMETRIUS I (162-150)TETRADRACHM ISSUES"
No. of Coins/Obverse Dies per Year
B: Dated Series (155/4-150)
YearS.E. HNP 0NP EP AEP BEP
158 S.E. 159 S.E. 160 S.E. 161 S.E. 162 S.E. (155/4 B.C.) (154/3 B.C.) (153/2 B.C.) (152/1 B.C.) (151/0 B.C.)
Die
Al-
A15
A14-
A25
A26-
A34
A35-
A51
A51-
Totals
60
46
42
72
A62
62b
"Table 4B monograms have not been differentiated according to dies. The first
tetradrachm series of S.E. 158 carries a single monogram, ISJ or W . Thereafter all

tetradrachms of Demetrius include this and a second monogram, as follows (coins current-
ly recorded):
S.E. 158: Al A hPAlMI
159: Al AhPM?
160: Al A hP
161: Al AhPAMI % t
162: Al A|-P[&1 ffl IT1
b Includes three octodrachms struck with identical tetradrachm dies, see CSE 164.
IV
IV
I I
I t I O
I I j9V
II
2 L\
I9
2I
t8W
SI
I I W
II
>KI
OA2 A2 St souO u 9 2 \ 9 > - ZTS KWS
oa 2/Et--cui as do oa /w-69 as dEO oa ^5*1-891 as dEH w>a
aiQ 3SJ3AqQ A2ad suiog jo Of^

esanss WHOvaavaiai(2i--H) a snHooxNV :hooxnV
9->-
o ^_ u CO
= CM .> <
~h~h~h-<^~hCMOJCMCMCMCM cj
<<<<<<<<<<<< f-
.a

The Antioch Project
91
^ oj C O m <
CM CO
a.
in
>
>
J3
<
So
<
a. 3
j3 -5
2 <~
<
a <3
>H
a<
>a
>i
> = *
>S
a <n
ax 2
oo
<
s o i cm CO
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

92
Arthur Houghton
c/3
1/3
<
(2
<
CI
cu
><
<
>
! O

The Antioch Project
>>
e/3
<
<5
S3
v in
3 (Jj
in id k o: d o .2
<<<<<<< K
3 J8
J3 <
OL, <
CO
<
a.
'c
> c
> iii e
> HI <z
Ml w
H III O <m
a in < <x
CO
-<<
- tJ- (N iD N CO CO
O -h (N
<<<<<<<<<<<<

94
Arthur Houghton
(4
C/3
ii
<
00 a,
cm 35
...
co
at
Totals
35
a Not Antioch: SMA 318-19, both attributed to Tarsus by H. Seyrig (A. Houghton, "The Second Reign of Demetrius II of Syria at Tarsus," ANSMN
24 [19O], pp. 111-16).
b Examples include Kricheldorf Feb. 19, 1973, 131.
c One recorded example, private U.S. collection.
d Examples include Seyrig, Tr.or (above, n. 13), 30.106-7.
r Examples include SNGB rry 1391.

f Examples include Seyrig, Tr or , 30.105.
96
Arthur Houghton
Table 8
ANTIOCH: TETRADRACHM FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION3
Reigns Seleucus III Antiochus IIIb Seleucus IV Antiochus, s.c (226/5-223) (223-187) (187-175) of Sel. IV (175)
Weight (g)
Over 17.40
17.30-17.39
17.20-17.29
17.10-17.19
11
12
17.00-17.09
18
47
33
12
16.90-16.99
13
46
16

16.80-16.89
11
25
13
16.70-16.79
12
16.60-16.69
10
16.50-16.59
16.40-16.49
16.30-16.39
16.20-16.29
16.10-16.19
16.00-16.09
15.90-15.99
(1 belov
The Antioch Project
97
Antiochus IVd Antiochus Vc Demetrius I Antiochus VI Tryphon Demetrius II,
(175-164) (164-162) (162-150) (144-142) (142-139) 2nd reign
I II III Undated Dated (129/8)
10
12
20
22
11
22
22
12
49
52
26
13
20
27
18
45
58
18
16
20
18
29
47
42
18
11
15
52
27
14
12

Arabian Alexanders
(PLATES 18-21) CARMEN ARNOLD-BIUCCHI
Arabian Alexanders' are coins that relate to the lifetime issues of
Alexander III of Macedonia by their types and weight standard and that
have been foundand were presumably minted in the region of an-
cient Arabia,2 on the left side of the Persian Gulf (see Fig. 1). The
history and culture of this region are not easily understood; they fall be-
tween two continents, between Hellenism and Islam. The ancient sources
are scant. Archaeological excavations will no doubt shed new light on
1 Nancy Waggoner devoted the major part of her scholarly life to the coinage of Alex-
ander III of Macedonia and the Arabian Alexanders, as will be shown below, very likely
represent the last issues of the monetary system introduced by the Macedonian conqueror.
Moreover, Nancy herself must have found these coins intriguing and interesting since she
bought two rare specimens for the Greek collection, a tetradrachm of Abyatha (Annual Report
of the American Numismatic Society 1986, p. 11, fig. 3), and a drachm of the same ruler (Annual
Report 1987, p. 12, fig. 6). Thus the topic seemed appropriate for a colloquium in her memory
when it was chosen in the fall of 1989. In the meantime, however, two excellent syntheses
on this subject have appeared: G. Le Rider, "Le Golfe persique a Pepoque seleucide: ex-
ploration archeologique et trouvailles monetaires," RN1989, pp. 248-52, and O. Callot's
study cited in full in n. 5 below. They render my contribution even more modest.
2 For the ancient sources the article of D.H. Muller, RE 2 (1896), s.v. "Arabia," cols.
344-59, remains fundamental. See also A. Dietrich, Der Kleine Pauly 1 (1964), cols.483-85.
In the past 20 years archaeological excavations in the Gulf region have generated a renew-
ed interest in the history of ancient Arabia and the bibliography is extensive. See for in-
stance: F. Altheim and R. Stiehl, Die Araber in der alien Welt, vol. 1 (Berlin, 1968); Arabic

orientale. Mesopotamie et Iran meridional: de I'age dufer au debut de la periode islamique, directed
by R. Boucharlat and J.-F. Salles (Paris, 1984); Hellenism in the East: the Interaction of Greek
and non-Greek Civilizations from Syria to Central Asia after Alexander, eds. A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-
White (London, 1987); L 'Arabic preislamique et son environnement historique et culturel. Actes du
Colloque de Strasbourg, 24-27 juin 1987, ed. T. Fahd (Leiden, 1989).
99
100 Carmen Arnold-Biucchi
Fig. 1. Reproduced from Hellenism in the East, A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White, eds. (Lon-
don, 1987), p. 77.
the centuries following the death of Alexander and those leading to the
rise of Islam.:) Perhaps the very classification of some of these issues as
Greek is questionable but the term pre-Islamic explains the coins even
less satisfactorily. These issues after all derive from a Greek prototype,
and belonged to a monetary system that was created in the Greek world.
The first complete study of Arabian coins is Sir George Hill's admirable
BMCArabia, published in 1922. Otto M0rkholm classified and published
the coins found in the Danish excavations of Failaka and Bahrain. Henri
Seyrig discussed some earlier Arabian imitations.4 Christian Robin was
the first to study in detail the coins from northeastern Arabia. At the mo-
3 A Danish expedition has been excavating on the island of Failakaancient Ikaros
off the coast of Kuwait, from 1958 to 1963, see Merkholm 1960 and 1979 (below, n. 5),
and since 1983 a French mission has been working theresee the latest report, Failaka.
Fouilles Jranfaises 1986-1988, directed by Y. Calvet and J. Gachet, Travaux de la Maison
de l'Orient 18 (Lyon/Paris, 1990). Excavations have also taken place in Bahrain ancient
Tylosand in the U.A.E. at ed-Dour.

4 "Une question de numismatique greco-arabe," BEtOrient 25 (1972), pp. 1-3.
Arabian Alexanders
101
ment Olivier Callot is planning a detailed publication of all the coins from
the French excavations at Failaka and Daniel Potts is preparing a book
on pre-Islamic coins.5
Robert Morris's donation of 58 coins to the ANS in 1989 awakened
the interest of the present author.6 The provenance of all these coins is
known: they were found in the 1960s in Saudi Arabia, along the nor-
theastern coast, roughly between Jubayl and Hofuf. Several private col-
lectors have since made their collections available for study, and some
new specimens have been added to the ANS collection.
It would be premature to attempt a complete and exhaustive study of
Arabian Alexanders and of Arabian imitations of Greek coins in general
since so much material is being uncovered in excavations and stray finds.
The intent of this paper is therefore to present a summary of these coinages
and of the problems they raise. Only the main groups and types will be
described and the chronology and possible mint attributions will be
discussed.
The Arabian imitations of Alexander's coins can be divided preliminari-
ly into two broad groups: 1) issues of good silver on the Attic standard
from the second half of the 3rd century B.C.; and 2) debased silver and
bronze issues from a later date.
1. THE THIRD CENTURY SILVER ISSUES
Five main groups of silver tetradrachms with their subdivisions
drachms, hemidrachms, and obols can be distinguished.
5 The following works are referred to by abbreviation:
Callot

O. Callot, "Les monnaies dites 'arabes' dans le nord du Golfe arabo-
persique a la fin du Ille siecle avant notre ere," in Failaka, Fouilles Fran-
coises 1986-1988, (above n. 3), pp. 221-40.
G. Le Rider, Suse sous les Seleucides et les Parthes, Memoires de la Mission
Archeologique en Iran 38 (Paris, 1965).
O. Nforkholm, "Greek Coins from Failaka," Kami 1960, pp. 199-207.
O. Msrkholm, "A Hellenistic Coin Hoard from Bahrain," Kuml 1972,
pp. 183-202.
O. Merkholm, "New Coin Finds from Failaka," Kuml 1979, pp. 219-36.
D. Potts, "A Preliminary Report on Coins of Seleucid Date from North-
eastern Arabia in the Morris Collection," a paper read at the Seminar
for Arabian Studies, Cambridge, July 17-19, 1984. This paper is un-
published but the manuscript is available.
C. Robin, "Monnaies provenant de l'Arabie du Nord-Est," Semitica
24 (1974), pp. 83-125.
6 The Morris collection has been discussed by Potts; the acquisition is described in the
Annual Report of the American Numismatic Society 1989 (New York, 1990), pp. 10-11.
Le Rider
Merkholm 1960
Merkholm 1972
Merkholm 1979
Potts
Robin
102
Carmen Arnold-Biucchi
A. Coins With the Vertical shin
Obv.: Head of Herakles r., unbearded, wearing lion's skin. Border
of dots.
Rev.: Unbearded, youthful male figure, seated to l. on a seat without
back; the legs are crossed and draped in a himation; in the
extended r. hand he holds an eagle; the l. rests on a long dot-
ted scepter. In field l., $ vertically. To r., along the scepter,
AAEEAMASOY . Smooth exergue line. Border of dots.
AR tetradrachm, 16.59g (Plate 18, 1), ANS ex Newell.
The known specimens from this group are fairly numerous: the ANS
has two other tetradrachms;7 the hoard from Bahrain (IGCH 1765)8 con-
tained 212 tetradrachms of this type, and four were found in hoard 5
at Susa.9 To these can now be added some obols from Failaka described
by Callot10 and others from the Morris collection, but these probably
belong to a later period and are discussed below.
The types obviously derive from those of the tetradrachms of Alex-
ander the Great but differ in some significant details from the prototypes.
On the obverse the open jaw of the lion's skin on Herakles' head has
been stylized into a horn, reminiscent of the Ammon horn of the deified
Alexander on the coins of Lysimachus. The "Zeus" of the reverse has
become a more youthful figure: he is unbearded and seems to be wear-
ing a leather cap (?) over his long hair. The Greek legend AAEEAN-
APOY is maintained but the letters are barbarized, as the rho on the
ANS tetradrachm (Plate 18, 1)." The letter in field left, similar to a
Greek sigma, is a South Arabian shin.

The style, though imitative, is of good quality. As Merkholm and Le
Rider12 have already remarked, it was perhaps inspired by the later
Alexanders of Susa or Seleucia ad Tigrim. The crossed legs of the "Zeus"
also suggest a later prototype. A study of the metrology was beyond the
scope of this paper and a more representative sample is necessary, but
7 From the E.T. Newell Collection, as the one described above: 16.58g and 16.09g.
8 Merkholm 1972, pp. 183-202.
9 Le Rider, p. 201, nos. 495/1-4.
10 See Callot, nos.67-69.
"See Merkholm 1972, fig. 3, 1-14, for all the variations found in the Bahrain hoard.
12 Merkholm 1972; Le Rider, p. 442.
Arabian Alexanders
103
the silver of this group is of good quality and the weights follow the Attic
standard. Callot has calculated the average weight at 16.64g.13
The series with the vertical shin has always been associatedrightly
with the rare tetradrachms bearing the full name of Shams. Only five
specimens are known: three from the Bahrain hoard,14 one in Paris
(Plate 18, 2) of unknown provenance,15 and one in Vienna (Plate 18, 3).
The obverse and the reverse are very similar to the one described above
in style and in the rendering of the details: compare for instance the hair
of the "Zeus" falling on the left shoulder in two beaded braids and the
lettering of the name AAEEANAPOY. The major difference is the in-
scription in left field. The shin has been interpreted as an abbreviation
of the full name. The throne on the tetradrachm in Vienna has a back.
A silver fraction from a private collection can now be added to this
group, since it bears the same inscription in South Arabian letters on
the reverse:
Obv.: Male head to r., unbearded, with short hair, wearing diadem.
Rev.: Seated "Zeus" to l., as on the tetradrachm above, with
crossed legs, holding eagle on extended r. hand and resting
l. hand on long scepter; in the field l., n 3 5
AR obol (?), 0.88g (Plate 15, 4).
The coin is said to have been found in the United Arab Emirates, along
the coast, not far from the ancient site of ed-Dour. The obverse presents
a remarkable variation: instead of an imitation of the Herakles head, it
bears a royal portraitidentifiable as such by the diademmodeled on
a Seleucid coin.

The interpretation of the type of Shams on these imitations is com-
plex. Markholm saw in him "a variant of the Semitic sun-god Shamash,
who played a prominent role among the Arabs" and concluded "The
Greek Zeus...has thus been interpreted by the Arabs as a picture of their
own great god of the heavens, Shamash."16 In fact the matter is not so
simple: no doubt, as Robin already observed,17 the name is that of a god
13 Callot, p. 226. To my knowledge no metal analyses have been done, but, as we shall
see below, the later series very obviously contains less silver.
14 Merkholm 1972, fig. 2, series A.
15 Illustrated by Robin, p. 91, pi. 1, 8.
16 Merkholm 1972, p. 196.
17 Robin, p. 95, n. 1 and p. 123.
104
Carmen Amold-Biucchi
and not that of a living person. The name of Alexander himself on this
series, struck at least a century after the king's death, is to be interpreted
as that of a god, the deified conqueror. So Alexander, Zeus, and Shams
are equated. Apparendy the Arabian divinity could be masculine or
feminine18 and is not attested in southern Arabia. Many problems re-
main open but they will be better dealt with by the historians of oriental
religions. Nevertheless the iconography of the coins seems to reinforce
the reattribution of these issues to Northeastern Arabia and not to the
kingdoms of the South as we shall see in more detail below.
B. The Coins with the horizontal shin
Obv.: Head of Herakles wearing lion's skin to r., as on 1, but of
more barbarous style.
Rev.: Seated figure of Zeus/Shams to l., as on A. To r., AAEEAN-
APOY, in field l., W horizontal.
AR tetradrachms, 16.77g (Plate 18, 5), ANS ex Newell, dies of Merk-
holm 1960, 12; 16.02g (Plate 18, 6), ANS from the Syria 1972 hoard.19
The ANS has another tetradrachm from the the Syria 1972 hoard and
still another acquired in 1954. This second group of tetradrachms seems
to represent a smaller issue. Most known specimens come from the Failaka
excavations. There were 12 examples in the 1960 Failaka hoard (IGCH
1767),20 four in the Failaka 1961 hoard21 and one more found on the
surface.22 Two tetradrachms were found in Gordion hoard I (IGCH
1406)23 and one in Gordion hoard V (IGCH 1405).24 The Syria 1972
hoard contained three of these tetradrachms.25 One specimen from the
Seyrig collection is at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris.26

18 F. Altheim and R. Stiehl (above, n. 2), vol. 3 (1966), pp. 126-28; Robin, p. 95; Potts,
p. 11-12.
19 CH 2 (1976), no. 81.
20 Nforkholm 1960, p. 205, fig. 3, 2-13.
21 Nforkholm 1979, p. 220, 5-8, fig. 2.
22 Merkholm 1961, p. 232 and fig. 4, 1.
23 D.H. Cox, A Third Century Hoard of Tetradrachms from Gordion (Philadelphia, 1953), nos.
49-50.
24 D.H. Cox, "Gordion Hoards III, IV, V and VII," ANSMN 12 (1966), p. 38, 35.
25 Above, n. 19; 2 at the ANS.
26 Callot, p. 227.
Arabian Alexanders
105
Except for the position of the shin, the types are the same as those of
the previous group, The style, however, is much more barbarous, with
very little of the original prototype remaining.
Callot has calculated an average weight of 14.89g for the coins from
Failaka but until a frequency table with a greater number of coins can
be established, such figures have little meaning.27
C. The Coins of Abyatha
Obv.: Head of Herakles wearing lion's skin to r.
Rev.: Male figure seated to l. on throne with back, unbearded, the
hair cut like a wig, holding a pipe in r. hand and a dotted
scepter in l.; the legs are draped in a himation and the feet
rest on a footstool; in field l., ft ; to r., 8 ? n ft . Dotted
border.
AR tetradrachms, 16.57g (Plate 19, 7), ANS; 15.71g Plate 19, 8), ANS
ex Morris.
AR drachm, 4.02g (Plate 19, 9) = Numismatik Lanz, May 25, 1987,
400.
Some 16 specimens from this issue have been published to date: a
tetradrachm in the collection of the University of Aberdeen28 was the
only one known until the discovery in 1956 of the Mektepini hoard (IGCH
1410), which contained two tetradrachms of this type.29 The Danish ex-
cavations at Failaka brought to light first a stray drachm,30 then two
tetradrachms and six drachms in the 1961 hoard.31 Gordion hoard V
contained one tetradrachm.32 The tetradrachm from the Morris collec-
tion, found in Thadj and now at the ANS, has already been published

by Robin.33 Another tetradrachm appeared in a sale in Germany in
27 Callot, p. 227.
28 First published by B.V. Head, "On a Himyaritic Tetradrachm and the Tresor de
San'a," NC 1880, pp. 303-5, pi. 15, 3; then by G.F. Hill, BMC Arabia, pp. lxxxii-lxxxiv,
pi. 50, 5; SNGDavis 474.
29 N. Olcay and H. Seyrig, Le tresor de Mektepini en Phrygie, Institut Francais d'Archeologie
de Beyrouth. Bibliotheque Archeologique et Historique, Tome 82 (Paris, 1965), nos. 654-55.
30 Merkholm 1960, p. 207 and fig. 5, 1.
31 Merkholm 1979, pp. 231-32, fig. 2, 9-16.
32 Above, n. 24, pi. 12, 38.
33 See Robin p. 87, pi. 1, 2 and Potts, p. 2, fig. 1. This is the specimen from Thadj.
106
198734 (Plate 19, 7). The coin was purchased by the ANS from Bank
Leu in Zurich.35
The fabric, the metal, and the style of this group are of high quality
but the differences from genuine Alexanders are even more evident than
in the previous groups. The mane of the lion's skin on the obverse is
very stylized, rendered in regular rows of small tufts of hair; the jaw
resembles an Ammon horn. The eyes of Herakles are bulging. On the
reverse, the Zeus/Shams is more oriental in appearance, with the hair
in "Egyptian" style. The object held in the right hand has been described
as a flower by Head, Hill, and Merkholm and as a rod by Cox, but Seyrig
was no doubt right in seeing a pipe.36 The feet of "Zeus" rest on a
stool. The name of Alexander has been replaced by an inscription in
Sabaean South Arabian letters, Abyatha, and the letter in field left is an
alif. The name has been interpreted as that of a local ruler or king.37
D. The Coins of Harithat, king of Hagar
Obv.: Head of Herakles wearing lion's skin to r.; circle of dots, bar-
barous style.
Rev.: Male figure seated on throne with back, to l., as on C, but
holding a horse forepart in the extended r. hand. To r., in
South Arabian letters: "YrM?l + ID41, framed by a
dotted line to r.; l. in field, a palm tree.
AR tetradrachm, 16.85g (Plate 19, 10), Paris, from Susa hoard 5.
In addition to this specimen only two others are known: a second one
from Susa, now in Teheran38 and another in Winterthur.39 The style is
34 Numismatik Lanz, May 25, 1987, 399.

35 Annual Report of the American Numismatic Society 1986, p. 11, fig. 3.
36 Mektepini (above, n. 29), p. 24. On pipe smoking in antiquity see J. Carcopino, "Sur
l'existence de la pipe et l'usage de fumer chez les Romains," Memoires de la Societe Nationale
des Antiquaires de France 4 (1968), pp. 9-18. Of course it was not tobacco that was smoked,
since tobacco was exported from the American colonies to Europe only in the sixteenth
century, but probably some form of cannabis.
37 Robin, p. 99, suggested that it is the same name mentioned in two Arabian texts but
W.W. Miiller rejected this hypothesis ("Abya/a und andere mit yt gebildete Namen im
Friihnordarabischen und Altsiidarabischen," Die Welt des Orients 10 [1979], pp. 23-29); see
also Potts, pp. 2-3.
38 See Le Rider, nos. 497/1 and 2.
39 Robin, pp. 87-88, pi. 1, 3; see also Callot, p. 229.
Arabian Alexanders
107
even more barbarous than in the previous series. The South Arabian
Himyarite inscription has been read as "Harithat, king of Hagar.40
E. The Coins of Abiel
Obv.: As D.
Rev.: As D, but Aramaic inscription: fcSWhHy'ihW
AR tetradrachm, 15.71g (Plate 19, 11), ANS ex Morris.
This fifth group is the largest and consists mainly of tetradrachms: two
tetradrachms were in Susa hoard 5;41 another one from the Seyrig col-
lection is in Paris42; one is at the British Museum.43 The tetradrachm
found in Thadj and cited by Robin and Potts is now at the ANS (Plate
19, ll).44 The Bahrain hoard (IGCH 1765)45 contained 77 tetradrachms
of this type, some with an ox's head or a letter under the palm tree in field.
The style, very angular and schematized, and the fabric of these coins
are very similar to those of the coins of Harithat. The Zeus/Shams holds
a forepart of a horse which Merkholm interpreted as a rhyton.46 The
legend, now in Aramaic, has been difficult to decipher but the most plausi-
ble reading seems to be that given by Robin: "Abi'el son of
Tlbs/Tbll."*1
THE DRACHMS AND FRACTIONAL SILVER COINAGE
Smaller silver denominations of Arabian Alexanders exist as well. They
can be related to the two largest groups of tetradrachms described above:
those with the vertical shin and those of Abiel.
J.M. Unvala, "Notes de Numismatique (Fouilles de Suse 1934). I. Monnaies a legende
semitique aux types d'Alexandre le Grand," RN 1935, pp. 155-58; R. Dussaud, "Sur le
chemin de Suse et de Babylone" Melanges Franz Cumont. Ann. de I'Inst. de Phil, et d'Hist.

Orientales et Slaves, 4 (1936), pp. 143-50.
41 Le Rider, nos. 498/1 and 2.
42 1973.1.446. J. Teixidor, "Bulletin d'epigraphie semitique," Syria 47 (1970), pp.
365-66.
43 Robin, p. 89, pi. 1, 4.
44 Robin, p. 89, n. 4; Potts, p. 3. 1ll. in Altheim and Stiehl (above, n. 2), fig. 38
45 Merkholm, 1972.
46 Merkholm 1972, p. 197.
47 Unvala (above, n. 40), p. 157; R. Dussaud (above, n. 40), p. 150; J. Teixidor, (above,
n. 42), pp. 365-66, n. 54, fig. 1; Le Rider, p. 202; Robin, p. 90.
108
Three examples of the first type at the ANS seem to be of good silver;
they show on the obverse a youthful unbearded male head to r., with
short hair, combed in parallel rays (Plate 20, 12, 0.96g), or sometimes
a very smooth, almost typeless obverse (Plate 20, 13, 0.67g) which at
first seems worn from circulation but in fact must have been struck in
that manner intentionally, since the reverses of this issue present no similar
signs of wear. The seated Zeus/Shams figures on the reverse, with a ver-
tical shin in field l. These fractions can probably be considered obols.
Another specimen from a private collection (Plate 20, 14, 0.94g) shows
on the obverse a diademed head of Seleucid inspiration, similar to the
obol with the legend fl 5 (Plate 18, 4) discussed above. On the reverse
with the seated Shams the Greek letters (Z)EAEY for the name of Seleucus
appear to r., along the scepter. A further 10 examples of the more nor-
mal type (Plate 20, 12) from the Morris collection and from another
private collection, are of more debased metal and of much more linear
and schematized style. Their weights range from 0.3 to 0.6g.
The ANS has one drachm that can be associated with the Abiel
tetradrachms (though it does not bear his name) through the horse pro-
tome held by Zeus/Shams and the palm tree on the reverse (Plate 20,
15, Numismatik Lanz, May 22, 1989, 396). The style is very different
from that of the tetradrachms: the relief is much flatter, the face and head
are rendered by hasty strokes, and the pointed chin is perhaps intended
to indicate a beard. Smaller fractions of this group, again probably obols
(Plate 20, 16), present on the obverse the same unbearded head as the
obols with the vertical shin (Plate 20, 12), and have the same reverse as

the drachm. To the r. along the scepter there are possibly letters or
monograms on some specimens, but it is not possible to make anything
of them. Other obols have an almost typeless obverse like that of the shin
group, and a more abstract reverse. The metal is of lesser purity.
This fractional coinage does not appear in the published hoards and
is difficult to date. The style and the progressive debasement of the metal,
as well as the denomination itself, previously unknown, can all be inter-
preted as indications of a later date.
2. DEBASED SILVER AND BRONZE ISSUES
FROM A LATER DATE
The latest phase of these Arabian issues imitating the coins of Alex-
ander the Great is the most astonishing as a development of Greek
Arabian Alexanders
109
coinage. It consists of debased silver coins and bronze coins of which only
a few representative examples will be discussed and illustrated here. They
can be considered a second class of imitationsimitations of imitations
and, like the fractional silver coinage, they can be roughly divided into
two groups: the vertical shin type and the Abiel type.
Both the silver and the bronze coins from the Morris collectionall,
as mentioned above, found in the area of Thadj and Hofufpresent a
typeless, smooth and convex obverse. The reverses still bear the seated
Zeus/Shams to l., holding an eagle in his extended right hand and a long
scepter in his left. In field l. we find the vertical shin. To the right, along
the scepter, there is sometimes a pattern of designs which may be in-
tended as letters of the South Arabian alphabet; though I cannot inter-
pret them, they are certainly not Greek. The style becomes increasingly
abstract and "cubistic" and the original prototype of the Zeus on the
coins of Alexander III can only be recognized if one has followed the
development of these imitations from the beginning.48
The largest coin of the debased silver group with the vertical shin is
about the size of a tetradrachm and weighs 10.64g (Plate 20, 17).49
Another similar example weighs 6.30g (Plate 20, 18).50 The eagle is still
clearly recognizable, the head and body of Shams maintain realistic,
rounded contours.
The bronzes present a more and more stylized Zeus (Plate 20, 19,
11.76g)51 which becomes a stick figure (Plate 20, 20, 5.64g).52 The figure
is still recognizable as seated, but the body becomes amalgamated and
confused with the throne and the arms with the scepter and the eagle.

The most extreme examples show a geometric pattern of lines and circles
(Plate 20, 21, 4.76g). These are found in very small sizes and denomina-
tions as well (Plate 21, 22, 23, 24, 0.56g, O.llg, 0.10g). The increase
in schematization and geometrization of the figure of Zeus on the reverse
seem to parallel the reduction in the size of the coins. It is more plausible
to assume that these issues of different denomination were not
simultaneous but succeeded one another, from largest to smallest. In other
48 When I first looked at some of the Morris coins, I separated these issues as non-Greek.
49 Potts, p. 9, fig. 14.
50 Potts, p. 9, fig. 13.
51 Potts, p. 10, fig. 15.
52 Potts, p. 10, fig. 17.
110
words, probably only one denomination was issued at a time and became
more and more debased.
The debased imitations of the Abiel type that I have seen all come from
the U.A.E. and were probably found between Abu Dhabi and the site
of ed-Dour. It is interesting to note that they all maintain the obverse
type of the deified head of Alexander III with the Ammon horn. They
show on the reverse the seated Shams holding not only a protome but
a full small horse in his extended right hand; in front of him is the typical
tree. To r. there is often a monogram, l-E , and along the scepter an in-
scription: K FT K ^ The three illustrated examples (Plate 18, 25, 26, 27,
16.35g, 3.67g, 0.90g) are all of very debased silver, but the stylization
of the reverse never attains the degree of abstraction encountered in the
imitations with the vertical shin. These issues may therefore have been
struck over a shorter period of time.
THE CHRONOLOGY
When they first discussed the tetradrachm of Abyatha in Aberdeen and
Minaean coinage, Head and Hill dated the Alexander prototype around
200 B.C. and its imitation in the second century B.C.53 Since then
several hoards containing Arabian imitations of Alexander the Great have
come to light and have allowed a more precise dating than the style alone
for the five groups of good silver described above. Most scholars, including
Callot, have agreed with Merkholm and placed them generally between
240 and 200 B.C. Only Robin54 has argued in favor of different dates
for the different groups: he considered the three kings whose names are
inscribed on the coins as successors of the same dynasty and placed

Abyatha first, around 220-200 B.C.; then Harithat, around 180-160 B.C.,
and Abiel around 150-140 B.C. The series with the horizontal shin in
his opinion preceded the one with the vertical shin and was issued around
220-200 B.C. The vertical shin would be contemporary with the Abiel
series, around 140 B.C.55 Robin also favored a later date for the
Harithat and Abiel issues on the basis of linguistic and epigraphical
53 Above, n. 28.
54 Robin, pp. 98-102.
55 O. Merkholm's publication of the Bahrain hoard must have coincided with Robin's
article and the evidence of this important hoard could not be fully taken into consideration
by Robin.
Arabian Alexanders
111
arguments: according to him the Aramaic script is later than the South
Arabian and supplanted it in the second century B.C.56
The Hoard Evidence
Understanding of the chronology requires a brief summary of the hoard
evidence:
IGCH
Name
Burial Date
Contents
Imitations
1765 Bahrain 1970
1767 Failaka 1960
Failaka 1961
1405 Gordion 1961
1406 Gordion 1951
1410 Mektepini 1956
Syria 1972"
1804 Susa 1933
240-230 B.C. 292 tetr.
210-200 B.C.
210-200 B.C.
205-200 B.C.
190 B.C.
190 B.C.
140 B.C.

13 tetr.
16 tetr.
ca. 205 B.C. 100 tetr.
114 tetr.
752 tetr.
90 AR
97 AR
212 J
77 Abiel
12.W
4W
8 Abyatha
1w
1 Abyatha
2W
2 Abyatha
3W
2 Harithat
2 Abiel
4*
We are dealing only with the published hoards, all of which are dated
by their Seleucid contents.58 The hoard of Bahrain is dated by an
overstrike on a coin of Antiochus I which cannot have been struck before
280 B.C., and by comparison with the evidence of the other hoards.59
The latest coins in the two Failaka hoards are tetradrachms of Antiochus
III from the mint of Susa, dated to the beginning of his reign (223-213
B.C.).60 The only significantly later hoard is Susa 5, but Le Rider dated
the Alexander imitations in the third century B.C. by comparison with
56 Robin, pp. 111-18.
57 Merkholm 1972, p. 201, n. 5; CH 2 (1976), no. 81 (photos on file at the ANS).
58 M.J. Price has kindly given me information about at least two additional hoards on
record at the British Museum. They are of later date and will be important for the chronology
of the later imitations.
59 Merkholm 1972, p. 199.
60 Merkholm 1960, p. 207; 1979, p. 231.
112
the coins from Failaka.61 The numismatic evidence, in its present state,
supports a date in the last quarter of the third century B.C. for the Ara-
bian Alexanders. The archaeological excavations of Failaka62 support a
Seleucid occupation of the site at the end of the third century B.C. This
chronology has to be accepted until the linguistic arguments are proved
to be more solid.
Moreover the hoard evidence does not really support the chronological
sequence of the five issues as supposed by Robin. One could argue that
the hoards show the contemporaneity of the Abyatha issues and the ones
with the vertical shin, as they appear together in the two Failaka hoards
and in the Gordion hoard. The same reasoning could be applied to the
Abiel issues and those with the vertical shin, which are found together
in the Bahrain and in the Susa 1933 hoards. The burial dates, however,
are not different enough nor precise enough to prove a chronological suc-
cession of the issues.
The later fractional issues and the debased silver and bronze issues
discussed above are more difficult to date. Two hoards on record at the
British Museum show that some of the bronze issues have been found
with coins of Characene, datable in the first century A.D. According to
Potts,63 the area of Thadj was occupied until about A.D. 300, and
possibly some of the very geometric issues of bronzes (Plate 21, 23-27)
could have been struck as late as that. More evidence is needed, however,
for a more precise date.
MINT ATTRIBUTION
We have been able to place the Arabian Alexanders in time, roughly

in the years 240-200 B.C. It remains to localize the issues more precisely
than in Arabia in general. Who minted these imitations of Alexander
the Great and where?
Head and Hill attributed the Abyatha tetradrachm to the kingdom of
the Minaeans in Southern Arabia. Since the discovery of the different
hoards discussed above, however, this view has been abandoned and there
is general agreement that the Arabian imitations must have been struck
in Northeastern Arabia, in the region of the Gulf.
61 Le Rider, p. 442.
62 Above, n. 3.
63 Potts, p. 12.
Arabian Alexanders
113
The coins themselves answer the question in part: Groups C, D, and
E described above bear personal names and the rare tetradrachms of D
mention the kingdom specifically: "Harithat, king of Hagar." This name
of a city, tribe or country appears in ancient Akkadian texts and in the
Hebrew and Graeco-Roman literature. It has been identified with the
Agraioi of the classical sources. Scholars have placed Hagar either in nor-
thern Arabia near Dumat, about halfway on the caravan road from the
mouth of the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers to Petra, in the land of the
Nabataeans; or, more often, on the east coast of Arabia, in the el-Hasa
district, between the oases of Thadj and Hofuf.64 We have remarked
above the stylistic similarity between the coins of Harithat with Himyarite
legend and those of Abiel with Aramaic legends. The findspot of the lat-
ter, Bahrain and Thadj, supports the localization of Hagar along the Gulf
coast.
The coins with the vertical and horizontal shin have usually been at-
tributed to Gerrha.65 The localization of this site has been much
discussed but now seems to have been settled by Potts who identifies Ger-
rha with Thadj and Hagar.66 The coins from Bahrain and from the
Morris collection once again reinforce this hypothesis.
The question of mint authority has to be addressed as well. If the coins
with rulers' names and those with the vertical and horizontal shin were
all issued in the same period, it is difficult to believe that they were all
issued by the same mint. Moreover we have observed definite differences
of style in the lettering, in the engraving, and in the degree of stylization
of the Arabian Alexanders, as well as the use of different alphabets. This

cannot be explained simply by different engravers' hands. Certainly the
issues of Abyatha, Abiel and Harithat must be separated from the
anonymous series with shin. Callot has advanced the very interesting pro-
position that the coins of better style with the vertical shin, found in
Bahrain, were minted there, probably in Gerrha; and that the series with
the horizontal shin be regarded as imitations of them, minted in Failaka,
64 RE 7 (1912), s.v. "Hagarenoi,"cols. 2188-89 (J Tkac); Robin, pp. 102-11, for a
thorough discussion of the texts. He favors the localization of Hagar near the oasis of Dumat
in the north; so does Le Rider, pp. 201-2. Merkholm 1972, p. 200 and 1979, p. 232, on
numismatic evidence opts for the region near the coast of Bahrain.
65 Merkholm 1960, p. 206; 1972, p. 200; 1979, p.231; Le Rider, p. 201; Robin, p. 123.
In his forthcoming corpus of the Alexander coinage, M.J. Price attributes them to Gerrha
as well.
66 "Thaj and the Location of Gerrha," Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 14
(1984), pp. 87-91.
114
ancient Ikaros.67 According to him the coins of the kings of Hagar must
have been minted in a region not far from Gerrha. Callot rightly observes
that if the identity of Thadj and Hagar as suggested by Potts is accepted,
it creates problems with the numsimatic evidence, since it would be hard
to explain the simultaneous issue of a "royal" and an anonymous series.
C allot's argumentation is convincing and the later series of debased
silver and bronze reinforce his point. Robin had already observed that
the bronze coinagepractically unknown when he wrote his article
would be a very important element in the mint attribution since bronze
hardly ever circulates outside its area of origin.68 We have been able to
establish that the later imitations with the vertical shin were found in the
area of Thadj and those of the Abiel type in the region of ed-Dour in
the U.A.E. The first lose their obverse type and the second maintain the
divinized Alexander head: they were certainly issued by different local
mints. There are most likely other styles and other local mints yet
unpublished.69
I would like to suggest that in the second half of the third century B.C.,
there were more than one or two mints in the Gulf area: possibly
Failaka/Ikaros issuing coins with the horizontal shin, Bahrain/Tylos is-
suing the coins with the vertical shin, and Thadj/Gerrha issuing one of
the ruler series, most likely that of Abiel. Hagar issued the coins of
Harithat; whether it can really be identified with Thadj will be deter-
mined by the archaeologists. Perhaps Abyatha was further north near
Failaka. Robin has already suggested the possibility of a federation of
states70 grouped around the cult of Shamsas some of the Greek cities

were grouped around the cult place of Athena Ilias or Artemis Pergaia.
Perhaps the word "king" in the Himyarite inscription in the name of
Harithat had the general meaning of "ruler", and one could imagine
a federation of the rulers in the region of the Gulf, settled in the oases
along the caravan route to Babylon and Petra, much like today's emirates.
The coinage of tetradrachms of good silver on the Attic standard seems
to have stopped at the beginning of the second century B.C., but the
Arabian Alexanders continue to be issued sporadically in smaller denom-
inations and in more debased metal at least into the first century A.D.
It is not surprising that the coinage of Alexander remained the cur-
67 Callot, pp. 230-34.
68 Robin, p. 90.
69 Potts is currently writing a book titled The Pre-Islamic Coinage of Eastern Arabia.
70 Robin, p. 121.
Arabian Alexanders
115
rency of the Arabian Gulf region for such a long time. Through the third
and second century B.C., it represents the real Seleucid money and at-
tests to the presence and influence of this dynasty. No Seleucid coins have
been found in Northeastern Arabia; the Arabian Alexanders, on the same
standard and of the same general appearance as the real Alexanders, were
an acceptable substitute in the Seleucid trade empire and continued to
be used in the local economy long after the political power had
changed.71
1 Georges Le Rider has admirably presented and explained the economic system of the
Seleucid empire in "Les alexandres d'argent en Asie Mineure et dans l'Orient s&eucide
au IIIe siecle av. J.-C. (c.275-c.225). Remarques sur le systeme monetaire des Seleucides
et des Ptolemies," Journal des Savants (Jan.-Sept. 1986), pp.3-51. See now also A. Davesne
and G. Le Rider, Gulnar II. Le Tresor de Meydancikkale (Cilicie Trochee 1980) (Paris, 1989),

pp.238-40.

Plate 18
Vertical shin:
1; Shams: 2-4; horizontal shin: 5-6.

Plate
Abyatha: 7-9; Harithat: 10; Abiel: 11.

Plate 20
@@
Imitations of the vertical shin:12-14, 17-21; Imitations of Abiel: 15-16.

Plate 21
Imitations of the vertical shin: 22-24; Imitations of Abiel: 25-27.

Mnemata: Papers in Memory of Nancy M. Waggoner / Ed. by William E. Metcalf

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mnemata: Papers in Memory of Nancy M. Waggoner / Ed. by William E. Metcalf

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 19:01 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.

Mnemata: Papers in Memory

The American Numismatic Society, New York

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 19:01 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015029214437

The American Numismatic Society

The American Numismatic Society

Broadway at 155* Street

New York, NY 10032

Printed in the United States of America

Contributors to the Colloquium iv

Nancy M. Waggoner, 1924-1989 vi

Bibliography of Nancy M. Waggoner ix

MARGARET THOMPSON, A Personal Reminiscence 1

CHARLES A. HERSH, A Fifth-Century Circulation Hoard

THOMAS R. MARTIN, Silver Coins and Public Slaves

in the Athenian Law of 375/4 B.C 21

HYLA A. TROXELL, Alexander's Earliest Macedonian

MARTIN J. PRICE, Circulation at Babylon in 323 B.C 63

ARTHUR HOUGHTON, The Antioch Project 73

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 19:01 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015029214437

CARMEN ARNOLD-BIUCCHI, Arabian Alexanders 101

Contributors to the Colloquium

Mr. and Mrs. Richard B. Arnold

Jay M. Galst, M.D.

John D. Leggett, Jr.

Brooks Emmons Levy

The Alexander S. Onassis

Martha Waggoner Nakamura

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 19:01 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015029214437

Faith Ford Sandstrom

Center for Hellenic Studies

ment and following upon reports that were as optimistic as circumstances

I heard the news in Princeton, to which I had departed for a term at

longest-standing interest, the fourth century; the conference would bring

together her friends, colleagues, and students. John D. Leggett, Jr.,

formerly Treasurer of the Society and currently Chairman of its Stand-

ing Committee on Greek Coins, undertook to secure the necessary

funding; it is a pleasure to acknowledge the generosity of the donors nam-

There was no shortage of prospective speakers at the colloquium, and

their willingness not only to participate but to provide their manuscripts

colloquium on May 19, 1990, with the single exception of my own

remarks, which were not intended for publication. In their stead we

reprint by permission the obituary which appeared in American Journal

of Archaeology 93 (1989), pp. 597-98.

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 19:01 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015029214437

Nancy M. Waggoner, 1924-1989

Nancy Waggoner, Curator of Greek Coins at the American

supervised several projects even while undergoing almost daily radiation

at the end of September.

she began graduate work in the history of art at Columbia University,

it was her encounter with numismatics, in the first seminar offered at

Columbia by Margaret Thompson, that would prove decisive for her

Nancy's investigation culminated in a dissertation treating the mint of

Alexander the Great at Babylon. Her interest in hellenistic coinages would

employed one of Alexander's most inscrutable control systems. Nancy

finally put the problem behind her, in hopes of returning to it in retire-

co-editor with the late Otto M0rkholm.

Nancy joined the staff of the American Numismatic Society in 1968.

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 19:01 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015029214437

Almost immediately a second coincidence, which would prove pivotal

large hoard of early Greek silver was discovered at Asyut in Egypt in

and congenial collaborators, and the resulting publication, Archaic Greek

sion must depart. On one occasion a spirited defense appeared in the