 |
|
| |
The Dating of the Coinage of Alexander the Great
by Zoë Sophia Kontes
|
| |
Alexander the Great,
only twenty years old when he became king of Macedonia in 336 B.C., was
perhaps the greatest general of all time. He was certainly a great empire
builder. In the course of just thirteen years before his death at Babylon
in 323 B.C., he changed the Mediterranean and Near Eastern world forever
by bringing the territory of the Persian Empire under Greek rule. This vast
region stretched from the borders of India and inner Afganistan in the east
to the Adriatic Sea in the west and from Egypt in the south to the coasts
of the Black Sea in the north. The Hellenistic Near East and the Hellenistic
world beyond the Near East were the product of Alexander's adventure. The
repercussions of his reign were thus profound, and nowhere more so than
in the history of money. Alexander's coins, the most familiar being the
silver issues bearing a head of Herakles on one face and a seated Zeus with
the king's name on the other, were struck throughout the empire. (1) |
| |
 |
| Silver tetradrachm (17.28 gm.) diam. 2.5 cm., Brown University Collection,
gift of Capt. John R. Lewis. |
|
| |
Such coins were not only
minted during Alexander's lifetime but their issue was continued in the
two decades following his death by the Macedonian generals who divided the
empire between them and created the Hellenistic kingdoms. Even as the successor
kings initialed coinages in their own names and with their own types the
"Alexanders" lived on for two centuries during which time they were issued
by independent cities as an international coinage. |
|
Today "Alexanders" still
exist by the thousands. Their very number, however, and the large array
of monograms and symbols used to identify the mints where the coins were
struck and the mint officials who supervised the work, make this one of
the most challenging series for the numismatist. A Sir George Hill wrote
in 1909: |
| |
|
There are few series which present more difficulties in the way of chronological
classification than the 'Alexanders.' The mass of material is so vast and
the differences between the varieties so minute, so uninteresting to anyone
but the numismatic specialist, and so difficult to express in print, that
very little progress has been made since the publication of L. Müllerr's
remarkable work in 1855. . . (2) |
|
| |
But at that moment the
study of the Alexander coinage was about to be revolutionized by a young
American collector and scholar, Edward T. Newell. Newell graduated from
Yale in 1907 and took an MA two years later. He always remained a private
scholar, laboring in his work rooms at the American Numismatic Society in
New York where his collection of Greek coins today forms the backbone of
the Society's world-famous collection. After his premature death in 1941,
his obituary in the American Journal of Archaeology characterized him as
"America's greatest numismatist." |
| |
To understand the revolution
in our knowledge of the coins of Alexander's lifetime and the posthumous
Alexander's that began with Newell's Reattribution of Certain Tetradrachms
of Alexander the Great of 1911 (3), one must go back to
the mid nineteenth century. Ludvig Müller, to whom G.F. Hill was referring
in the quote above, was a Danish scholar whose work of 1855, Numismatique
d'Alexandre le Grand, suivie d'un appendice contenant les monnaies de Philippe
II et III, was the first comprehensive study of the coinage. Müller
was able to distinguish between the early and later coins of Alexander by
examining the size of the flans, which no scholar had previously done. His
observation that the flans became progressively wider and flatter was an
indication of evolvement over time, thus he was able to establish a general
chronology.(4) In addition, Müller carefully studied
the reverse symbols and ligatures found on nearly all of the coins, and
assigned them to mints accordingly. While accepting the possibility that
they might refer to different magistrates as opposed to mints, he believed
that this was not the case. His theory was in fact plausible, since there
are indeed some reverse marks which do repeat well-known city types. For
example, posthumous issues marked with a sphinx are attributed to Chios,
while those with a lion looking back at a star were minted at Miletus.(5)
Though Newell's work, based on a far larger corpus of coins than Müller
knew called into question the general approach of his predecessor, many
of Müller's mint attributions remain uncontested today.(6) |
| |
Newell utilized the technique
of identifying coins struck from a common die (called "die linkage") to
show that coins attributed by Müller to different mints were, in fact,
the products of the same mint because they shared a common obverse die,
even though the symbols and monograms of their reverses were different.(7)
The main body of evidence that permitted Newell to achieve the reconstruction
of the minting of the Alexanders was the Demanhur hoard. This cache of over
8,000 Alexander tetradrachms was found in Egypt in 1905. Newell himself
originally came into possession of some 400 of these, and had personally
examined over 2,000 for his discussion of the coins in Reattribution. By
the time he published Alexander Hoards I2. Demanhur, 1905(8)
in 1923 he had compiled, from his own collection and other sources, a record
of close to 6,000 coins from the hoard. On the basis of his observation
of die links, he divided the tetradrachms into eleven groups, each of which
had 3-12 different control marks.(9) Such control marks
on Greek coins are often interpreted as identifying officials responsible
for a particular issue. In Newell's system, relying on the objective evidence
of the obverse die links, it was apparent that they had a similar function
in the Alexander coinage.
|
| |
Tetradrachms, of course,
formed only a part of the Alexander coinage, and this is the time to review
all the types in silver, gold and bronze. All of the coins were minted on
the Attic standard (unlike his father's coins, of which only the gold was
of Attic weight, while the silver was struck on the local Macedonian standard).(10)
The following are the most common types.
For the gold, obverse: Athena wearing crested helmet decorated
with serpent; reverse: Nike standing facing left, holding wreath
in extended right hand, stylis (a naval standard) in left, vertical legend
ALEXANDROU. |
| |
 |
| Gold stater (8.67g) diam. 1.8 cm.,Museum of Art Rhode
Island School of Design, ex Henry Augustus Greene. |
|
| |
For the silver (tetradrachms and drachms), obverse: head of
Heracles wearing lion skin facing right; reverse: Zeus seated on throne
facing left, holding eagle in outstretched right hand, scepter in left,
vertical legend ALEXANDROU. |
| |
|
| Silver tetradrachm (17.11g) diam. 2.5 cm., Brown University Collection,
gift of Capt. John R. Lewis. |
 |
| Silver Drachm (4.09g) diam. 2.0cm.,Brown University Collection. gift of
Capt. John R. Lewis. |
|
| |
The bronze unit has, obverse: head of Heracles in lion skin
facing right; reverse: bow in case and club, legend ALEXANDROU. |
| |
 |
| Bronze unit ( 6.03 g.) diam. l.8 cm., Brown University Collection. |
|
| |
Alexander's coinage continued
to be struck after his death in 323 B.C.. His immediate successors continued
to use his types, although eventually substituting their own names for that
of Alexander. Both lifetime and posthumous Alexanders were struck in Macedonia,
as well as in mints throughout the empire. During Alexander's lifetime,
twenty-five mints were producing his coins: two in Macedonia, one in Egypt,
and twenty-three in Asia.(12) In the years immediately
following his death that number increased to thirty-one, possibly including
a Peloponnesian mint at Sicyon. In the last quarter of the third century,
over a hundred years after his death, fifty-one mints were still producing
Alexanders, mainly the tetradrachms.(13) Thousands upon
thousands of these coins are extant, found in a multitude of hoards. Approximately
forty-six hoards containing silver and thirteen containing gold from the
main mint in Macedonia have been documented in greater or lesser detail.(14) |
| |
Newell divided the Alexander
tetradrachms into groups, and assigned his groups the letters A-K, basing
his chronology on style, die links between groups, and the addition and
subsequent removal of the title BASILEOS to the coinage. This title appeared
first on coins of Babylon around 325 B.C., became widespread, then disappeared
just a few years later. The basis for putting group A first was that this
group's reverse control marks include some also found on coins of Philip
II: a prow, stern, janiform head and sometimes a rudder.(15)
His hypothesis is still accepted today. In addition, he was now able to
offer conjectures about mint location on a new basis. The late Philips (Georges
Le Rider's Group II B, see footnote 15) were closely die linked, indicating
to Newell that indeed they must be from the same mint. Since Philip's lifetime
coins were most likely only minted in Macedonia, the earliest Alexanders,
group A, must have also been minted there. Newell placed the first Alexanders
in 336 B.C., at the beginning of the reign. Newell's chronology depended
on evidence from the great Demanhur hoard in another respect. In this hoard
were found Alexander coins bearing dates. These are the coins minted at
Sidon and Ake where issues made before Alexander's conquest bore Phoenician
numerals dating the coins according to the regnal year of the local king.
Alexander's issue continued this system.(16) During the
siege of Tyre Alexander had his base in Sidon, which had a well-established
mint. In addition, Alexander was in possession of great sums of money seized
from the Persians at the Battle of Issus. These two factors, along with
the necessity of clearly establishing himself as the leader of a new empire,
immediately led to the minting of coins. Two Alexander coins of Sidon bear
Phoenician letters which signify Year 1 and Year 2. These first two years
of the Sidonian era refer to either the first two years of Alexander's power
in Asia Minor (beginning with his success at Issus) or the rule of the local
king Abdalonymos, whom Alexander appointed at this time. These would have
been the years 333-332 and 332-331.(17) Thus, the inauguration
for the minting of these Alexander coins at this time is historically appropriate,
and supported by numismatic evidence. The dated obverse dies of the tetradrachms
of Sidon and Ake continue until 319/318 B.C., giving us a fixed point for
the lifetime and early posthumous coinage of Alexander up to that year.(18)
Newell's chronology for these coins has stood the test of time and is not
likely to be affected by any further discoveries. However, his dating of
the actual beginning of Alexander coinage overall to 336 B.C., long accepted
by most scholars, has become the subject of great debate. |
| |
In his "Alexanders
Reichmunzen" of 1947 Gerhard Kleiner proposed that Alexander did not begin
to mint his own coins at the beginning of his reign.(19)
He contended that the young king did not take this step until 331 B.C.,
two years after the Battle of Issus, and that he did so at Tyre, upon his
return from Egypt. In the meantime Alexander relied on the continued minting
of coins of his father Philip and his own so-called 'eagle' tetradrachms,
augmented by existing coins of Athens and Persia. Kleiner's theory was based
on the style of the seated Zeus on the reverse of Alexander's silver tetradrachm,
which he argued was derived from Cilician coinage minted under Mazaeus,
the most recent Persian satrap.(20) In arguing these
lower dates, he had to amend Newell's dating of the coinage of Sidon and
Ake from 333/332 to 331, an amendment that would later prove to be incorrect(21).
His ideas were generally dismissed at the time, but more recent scholars
have revived his work, with additions of their own. We will leave Kleiner
for now, to continue with our chronological study, but the debate over the
dating of the Alexanders, begun by him, is probably the most highly contested
and engaging question regarding the current study of the Alexanders. |
| |
In 1955 Margaret Thompson
and Alfred R. Bellinger published a work detailing the Alexander drachms
of Asia Minor.(22) While Newell had included drachms
in his study of this coinage, the tetradrachms were not his main focus.
Thompson and Bellinger's work was the first of its kind, and made clear
a fact noted by Newell: Alexander's mints had different functions. Some
mints, principally the seven discussed in their work, were established for
the express purpose of minting small silver for the empire, while others,
particularly those in Macedonia, were responsible for the larger coinage.
Thompson and Bellinger proposed that this was not an arbitrary system set
up by Alexander, but a logical progression based on existing local coinages.
Persian sigloi, not minted on an Attic standard, were commonly used in Asia
Minor. Therefore the drachm, rather than the tetradrachm, would have been
more familiar means of exchange for the people of this area.(23)
The drachms were a significant part of the overall coinage, and their sequences
are entirely separate from the tetradrachms. Thompson and Bellinger established
the arrangement of drachms from the seven main mints (along with the staters
associated with them (24)) based on the close die links
among the coins. They used three important dates as the backbone of the
chronology for this arrangement: 334, the year in which Alexander began
his campaigns in Asia Minor, 323, the year in which he died, and 317, the
death of Philip III. None of the Alexander drachms of Asia Minor can have
been produced before 334, any coins that bear Alexander types but the name
of Philip III must be after 323, and no coinage of Philip III can have been
minted later than 317 .(25) This study added an important
piece to the overall study of Alexander's coinage, in organizing the coinage
as well as providing the basis for determining its chronology. |
| |
In 1977, Georges Le Rider
published a first and only comprehensive study of the coins of Philip II,
Alexander the Great's father. (26) This work established
the chronology of Philip's coinage, and in doing so provided a new perspective
on the history of Philip's reign in general. Philip's large gold coins were
struck on an attic standard and began late in his reign (according
to Le Rider), with obverse: laureate head of Apollo facing right; reverse:
Nike in a chariot drawn by two horses, with the legend PHILIPPOU.
A fractional issue had obverse: head of Herakles r. and reverse: kantharos,
bow and club, with the legend PHILIPPOU. The large silver denomination
was struck on the local Macedonian standard of approximately 14.52g, with
obverse: laureate head of Zeus facing right. The reverse had two forms.
Between 359 and 348 it showed horseman facing left with kausia, raising
right hand in salute, PHILIPPOU. The second reverse struck between
348 and 336 was jockey facing left with palm branch, PHILIPPOU. The
Philip coinage also included bronze units with obverse of a young head with
taenia, and reverse of a horseman with the inscription PHILIPPOU. |
| |
 |
| Gold stater (8.63 g.) diam. 1.8 cm. Museum of Art Rhode Island School of
Design, ex Henry Augustus Greene. |
 |
| One quarter Stater (2.50 g.) diam. 1.1 cm., Brown University Collection,
gift of Capt. John R. Lewis. |
|
| |
|
| |
 |
| Silver tetradrachm (14.34 g.) diam. 2.5 cm. Museum of Art Rhode Island
School of Design, ex Henry Augustus Greene.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Le Rider set the
beginning date for Philip's silver coinage at his accession of the throne
in 359 B.C.. He divides the coinages into two series, the first commencing
in 359 at Pella, and the second in 357 at Amphipolis.(28)
The striking of both series continued until 329/8, (although perhaps with
a brief cessation in 336) then resumed again c. 323/2, after the death of
Alexander. The posthumous issues at Pella continued until c. 315/4, while
those at Amphipolis were struck all the way until 294 B.C., when Demetrius
Poliorcetes began striking his own types. Le Rider places the first striking
of the gold issues later in Philip's reign, perhaps 345 B.C. or even as
late as 342. He asserts that like the silver, the gold stops in 329/8, and
resumes in 323/2.(29) At both mints, the gold was last
minted around 310. Le Rider's dates are important to our study of the dates
of Alexander's coinage. If Philip's coinage was being minted in 336 B.C.,
then either the two were minted simultaneously, or Alexander did not start
minting until later. If the silver did stop for a bit in 336, (perhaps due
to Alexander's short lived eagle coins) while the gold continued, this perhaps
can be explained by the fact that the gold was minted on an Attic standard,
as were Alexander's coins. Le Rider argues that if the coinage of Philip
did not stop immediately upon the minting of the new Alexanders, then it
was not long afterwards. He provides as evidence the fact that the common
symbols shared by the two issues (prow, stern, janiform head, rudder) do
not occur again in Alexander's lifetime. Yet he mentions a group of Philips
which have all the same symbols with the addition of a bee, hinting perhaps
that this group continued later than the others.(30) |
| |
In 1982, Orestes Zervos
discussed Alexander's earliest coins, championing Kleiner's theory of a
lower date, which had been for the most part dismissed. His article was
essential in that it posed a serious challenge to the traditional dating
system worked out by Newell, spurring much discussion among scholars. As
of today, opinion is quite divided on the subject; there are as many proponents
of low dates as high. This was not the case after Kleiner's article was
published, and Zervos deserves the credit for being the first to provide
successfully an alternative to a well-established tradition.(31)
In his article Zervos argues that while difficult to comprehend, Kleiner's
argument was essentially correct. He reorganizes and explains Kleiner's
ideas, corrects them as necessary and provides additional evidence for his
theories. Zervos emphasizes not only the iconographic but also stylistic
characteristics of the early Alexander coins, and provides sufficient numismatic
evidence for his proposals. Kleiner had not done this, having based his
dating system on iconography and history, and having attempted to alter
the numismatic evidence to suit his theory by lowering the date of the Sidon
and Ake coinage. |
| |
Zervos principally details
Kleiner's theory regarding the silver tetradrachms.(32)
Kleiner argues that the seated Zeus type on the Alexander tetradrachms was
based on the Cilician type of the Baal of Tarsus, which implies that Alexander
(or his officials) had seen these coins before minting his own. Because
the figures of Zeus of the earliest Alexander coins of Tarsus and the earliest
of Amphipolis are so similar, Kleiner argues that the Baal minted by Mazaeus
was the prototype for the Zeus at the same mint for coins issued by Alexander,
and from them the Zeus of Amphipolis was derived. In other words, the Alexander
coins were first minted in Tarsus, and minting in Amphipolis began subsequently.
Zervos outlines five characteristics of the coins showing eastern ('oriental')
origin in style. These five characteristics are: 1) the figure's legs fixed
stiffly together, 2) the unnatural position of the hand extended and holding
the eagle (all fingers visible), 3) the awkward twisted position of the
torso, 4) the large roll of drapery at his waist, and 5) the design of the
throne on which the figure sits (particularly the 'bellcovers' on the legs).(33)
These eastern elements are found on the earliest tetradrachms of Amphipolis,
in contrast, Zervos claims, to the classical styles of the local Macedonian
coinage of the time (the Alexander gold coinage as well as the posthumous
Philip II gold). With regard to the obverse head of Heracles, Zervos agrees
with the traditional theory that this type was derived from the Heracles
used on the coins of Alexander's predecessors. Yet he does not believe that
this contradicts his theory; rather he explains the types as having been
introduced separately at Tarsus and Amphipolis. Used first at Tarsus to
compliment the Zeus reverse, when later adopted at Amphipolis, the head
was an independent continuation of Macedonian type in a local style unconnected
to the iconography at Tarsus. Therefore since the two types are decidedly
distinct, the style of Heracles cannot be used in argument against the lower
dating system.(34) |
| |
Zervos provides evidence
from three hoards containing Alexander tetradrachms. First, the hoard of
Kyparissia, whose burial Newell dated c 328-327 B.C.(35),
contains more Amphipolis tetradrachms than those of Tarsus. Previous scholars
had argued therefore that Amphipolis must have been minting first. Zervos
believes that this is not necessarily true, as Amphipolis produced more
coins in general. Secondly, in examining the Demanhur hoard, he argues that
as Newell described them, a greater percentage of the Tarsus coins than
those of Amphipolis were worn. Thus, Tarsus had been minting prior to Amphipolis.
Thirdly, in the small hoard of Mageira, thought to be the earliest hoard
containing Alexander coins, only one lifetime coin was foundaó tetradrachm
from Tarsus.(36) Zervos, while admitting that none of
these hoards provides solid evidence, they at least cannot be used to contradict
his theory.(37) Next taking Alexander's gold into consideration,
Zervos is able to correct Kleiner's original hypothesis that the beginning
of the Alexander coinage came in 331 after the fall of Tyre. This seems
to have been Kleiner's chief confusion, which was based on the gold types.(38)
Kleiner regarded the obverse of a helmeted Athena (with reverse of a Nike
holding a wreath and stylis--a naval standard, a cause for much discussion
among modern scholars as to its 'Panhellenic' reference), as representing
naval activity. Therefore, because of the stylis, he dated the coinage to
after the Battle of Tyre (where Alexander did in fact use ships). As he
did not separate the commencement of the gold minting from that of the silver,
he dated both to 331. In order to make this date feasible, however, Kleiner
had to lower the dating of the coinage of Sidon and Ake, established by
Newell in 1916 as beginning in 333/2, in order that the Tarsus coins would
be the first. Zervos argues that because of the common coin types at both
mints, the coinage must have been planned in Macedonia and in Tarsus, and
since the silver was based on the Tarsus silver, the gold too must have
been minted later than the Tarsus silver.(39) If this
is the case, then the beginning of the silver coinage can be dated to 333
B.C., after the battle of Issus. More importantly, the date concurs with
the evidence of the dated coins of Sidon and Ake, which Newell found to
have begun in 333/2. |
| |
Zervos's theories were
questioned by Martin Price, and the two scholars amicably published their
views side by side in the Numismatic Chronicle of 1982.(40)
In examining the characteristics common to the Zeus of Tarsus and the Zeus
of Macedonia, Price finds that each of them could have been introduced on
the coinage independently in Macedonia. The styles used are not uniquely
'oriental,' and all have precedence in earlier Greek coinage. In particular,
he argues that the outstretched hand is not an unnatural pose at all, but
one proper for holding a bird. The hand is depicted in this manner at the
main Macedonian mint during Alexander's lifetime, while at another significant
mint the hand is rendered more 'classically,' or naturally. But, as Price
argues, the 'unnatural' pose must have been acceptable to the classical
aesthetic as well, and had been presumably prescribed by Alexander or the
controller of his coinage, only changing after the king's death.(41)
Price also argues against the hoard evidence given by Zervos. He asserts
that Zervos's interpretation of the evidence of wear in the Demanhur hoard
to mean that 46% of the Tarsus coins were struck before 81% of the Macedonian
coins is faulty. It merely indicates that the hoard contained a large number
of late lifetime and early posthumous Alexanders. Price maintains that Alexander
began minting his silver coins immediately upon becoming king. Three years
later, in 333 B.C., he set up a new mint in Tarsus after his success in
the Battle of Issus. Tarsus was an administrative center close to Issus,
and his mint was established at the mint which had been used by the Persian
satraps of Cilicia. At this point, as is accepted by scholars in general,
eastern influence can be seen on the Alexander coins, since the die-engravers
were the very same who had produced the coins for the satraps.(42) |
| |
Price calls on the evidence
of two separate factors: the chronology of the main mint of Macedonia, and
the historical probability. At the main mint, the latest issues of Philip
II are closely die-linked, as well as having the same symbols on the reverse
(prow, etc.) These same symbols are found on the first Alexander coins of
the mint, and are not found again on either, indicating that the two issues
were contemporaneous. Price asserts that no group of Philips can be placed
later than the first Alexanders, and believes that the Philips must have
directly preceded the first Alexanders. Although this alone does not testify
to a striking in 336 of Alexanders, Price notes that the silver issues of
Philip were not minted again until after Alexander's death, perhaps indicting
that Alexander was not interested in striking Philip's coinage during his
reign. As every other of Alexander's actions was for the purpose of installing
himself solidly as king and promoting himself among the Greeks, it is unlikely
that in all of his preparations for war he would not have included his own
coinage. In 1991, Price again upheld these theories in his large work on
the coinage of Alexander, which began as a catalogue of the British Museum
collection and evolved into a comprehensive study of the coinage in total.
With regard to dating, his work essentially follows Newell. |
| |
In the same year, 1991,
H.Troxell published an article entitled "Alexander's Earliest Macedonian
Silver (43)," joining the great date debate. She takes
up the theme of this article in her more recent publication of 1997(44),
a detailed study of Alexander's coinage in Macedonia (the site of his most
prolific mints, which used close to 750 obverse tetradrachm dies during
the period of Alexander's lifetime and for the first decade after his death
(45)). She does not address the question of which mint
might have been the main one (most likely Amphipolis or Pella). In this
work she discusses Alexander's lifetime and posthumous issues, including
both tetradrachms and the smaller issues. She also outlines the post-323
posthumous issues of Philip types which Le Rider did not address in his
work of 1977. Troxell follows Newell with regard to most of the aspects
of the Macedonian issues, with one major exception. She, like Zervos, believes
that the Alexander coins did not begin to be minted until c. 332. Her argument
adds to that of Zervos, and indeed has convinced many, including Le Rider,
that the lower dates were correct. Like Price, Troxell is unconvinced by
the five eastern elements which Zervos cites as evidence that the Tarsiote
Zeus preceded the Macedonian Zeus. Only the bell-covers present on perhaps
a few early Macedonian tetradrachms, she argues, are evidence of this eastern
influence with no precedent in Greece. She also suggests that there are
two additional elements from Tarsus coins found on the earliest coins of
Macedonia, the so-called 'flowering scepter'(46) and
the footstool. First of all, she clarifies the identification of the initial
issues. Two coins in Newell's group A established as the earliest group
by their relationship to the latest Philips prove to be the earliest in
the early group. Troxell uses two characteristics to identify them as such:
first, the style of the Heracles' hair (a double row of locks which differs
from the single row of curls found on most other early Alexanders of this
mint and on coins of Philip's predecessors), and second, the prow symbol
on the reverse facing right (rather than left, as it does on most others).(47)
Having identified these as the earliest coins, Troxell then points to other
aspects of eastern influence. The reverse side of both coins show Zeus holding
a flowering scepter, a type found on the earlier coins of Mazaeus. In addition,
one of the coins seems to have the bell-covers on the throne legs. Three
other coins with the reverse mark of a prow facing left are used with the
obverse die on which the head of Heracles has the double row of locks. Two
of these coins at least appear to have bell-covers. In addition, another
coin from the same die (but with the prow facing right and reverse symbol
of a fulmen) has a footstool clearly derived from the Tarsiote model, which
consists of a line raised on one end by some sort of support.(48)
Citing a few other examples of bell-covers, footstools, and flowering scepters,
Troxell concludes that these eastern elements are found only on very early
issues from Amphipolis, and do not endure. While some of these elements
had existed before in Greek art, they are the exact elements found on the
coins of Tarsus and their presence must be explained by the fact that they
were known in some way to the die cutters at Amphipolis. Therefore, the
Amphipolis Zeus had to have been minted subsequent to the Tarsiote Zeus.
The results of Troxell's findings struck another blow to the traditional
dating system, and it seemed as though the series of lower dates would in
fact hold court with most numismatists (excepting Price of course). Yet
the battle was far from over. |
|
At the very end of the 20th
century, in fact just this past December, 1999, Patrick Marchetti published
an article which attempts to once again establish the accuracy of Newell's
traditional chronology.(49) His argument has nothing
to do with the tetradrachms of Tarsus, rather it is based on the epigraphical
evidence recording the money of the Amphictionic league. After the earthquake
at Delphi in 373 B.C., the Amphictionic council set up a group called the
naiopoioi to oversee the reconstruction of the temple of Apollo and be responsible
for the collection of dues from the members of the Amphictionic League.
Their work was interrupted by the Third Sacred War in the years 356-346
B.C., when the Phocians took over the treasury and used the money stored
there to pay their mercenaries. After their defeat at the hands of Philip,
they were required to pay an indemnity of 60 talents a year. In addition,
and significantly, their seats on the Amphictionic council were taken over
by two representatives of Philip. The amount of money which the Phocians
paid to the Amphictionic council was recorded each year, and the epigraphical
evidence shows that the amount was reduced first to thirty talents, then
to ten talents by the year 335 or 334. The payments were suspended for two
years between 343 and 334, most likely at the time of the Fourth Sacred
War in 338.(50) In this war Philip put down the resistance
of the Thebans and Athenians at Chaironeia and as a result secured his place
as the hegemon of Greece. It is directly after this success that a new Amphictionic
coinage was instituted. The new money was based, like previous Delphic money,
on the Aeginetan standard. It had an obverse with a head of Demeter with
a reverse of Apollo seated on the omphalos with the inscription AMPHICTIONON.
Treasurers were appointed to manage the money at Delphi, and their accounts
dated with the name of the archon were inscribed twice a year, in spring
and fall. One of these accounts is particularly important. It has four columns:
the first, the name of a mint; the second, the amount of each denomination;
the third, the apousia; the fourth, the remainder. The apousia was the difference
between the theoretical total weight of the coins of each denomination taken
in, and the actual weight of the metal when melted down. The actual weight
would then be the amount of metal restruck in the new Amphictionic type.(51)
The result was less than what would have been expected if the old coins
weighed their face value. This account was inscribed during the archonship
of Dion at the fall meeting of the treasurers in 336, and so the institution
of the new money must have taken place under his predecessor, Palaios, in
337. |
|
A second fragment refers
to the 335 B.C. spring meeting under Dion. It records that forty-four talents
of Amphictionic money was posted as forty-five talents of Attic money. However,
this conversion does not make any sense based on the rate of exchange between
the two standards (seven Aeginetan drachmae to ten Attic drachmae). What
then, is going on here? According to Marchetti, we must reevaluate what
is meant by the apousia in this situation. Marchetti defines the apousia
as discussed above: ". . .l'écart entre le poids théorique
des exemplaires dénombrés et le poids réel que devront
peser les futures monnaies amphictioniques."(52) In this
situation, however, the apousia is not the actual result of the recoining
but an estimate of the same: |
|
|
Il n'est à a mon sens qu'une manière
d'interpréter le passage: là oú les trésoriers
auraient dû inscrire l'équivalent de 44 Talents . . .amphictioniques,
résultant de l'estimation préalable à la frappe suite
au décompte "arithmo" de l'apousia, ils n'ont pu que transcrire,
après décompte (arithmo), donc après avoir dénombré
les pièces, 45 talents . . .attiques. Ce qui vient à dire
que l'on a recompté en monnaies attiques (attikou arithmo) une somme
qui avait été évaluée précédemment
(amphictionikou arithmo), comme devant fournir le métal indispensable
à la frappe de 44 Talents, 18 Mines . . . d'amphictionique, après
soustraction de l'apousia. Le fait de retrouver le terme "arithmo" joint
à "amphictionikou" et à "attikou" dans le compte 76 nous place
logiquement dans une situation comparable à celle du début
de la session-automne, soit avant la frappe des monnaies amphictioniques.
Ce qui nous mène à la conclusion que la frappe du nouvel amphictionique
a dû être interrompue avant la refonte des monnaies attiques
qui constituaient une partie du stock remis à Dexios. Et l'on aurait
alors compté à nouveau, pièce par pièce, à
raison de 6.000 drachmes par talent, les espèces « anciennes
» d'étalon attique qui avaient été précédemment
estimées, pour leur poids réel, à 44 Talents, 18 Mines
. . . amphictioniques.(53) |
|
|
|
There is, in my opinion, only one way
to interpret the passage: there where the treasurers should have had to
list the equivalent of 44 (in round numbers) Amphictionic talents, resulting
from the estimate before striking following the subtraction (arithmo) of
the "apousia" based on the number of coins, they could not transcribe, after
the subtraction (arithmo), thus after having counted the coins, 45 Attic
talents (in round numbers). This is to say that one recounted in Attic money
(attikou arithmo) a sum which had been estimated previously (amphictionikou
arithmo) as providing the metal needed to strike 44 talents, 18 mines, (in
round numbers) of Amphictionic money, after the subtraction of the "apousia."
The fact that the term "arithmo" is joined to "amphictionikou" and to "attikou"
in Account Number 76 places us logically in a situation comparable to that
of the beginning of the autumn session of the treasurers, before the striking
of Amphictionic money. This leads us to conclude that the striking of new
Amphictionic money must have been interrupted before the reissue of the
Attic money which constituted a part of the stock handed over to Dexios.
And one would therefore have counted again, piece by piece, on the scale
of 6,000 drachmas per talent, the old coins of the Attic standard which
were previously estimated, according to their real weight, to 44 talents,
18 mines, (in round numbers) of Amphictionic money. |
|
|
As this passage indicates,
the treasurers recounted in Attic values the group of coins that had already
been figured in Amphictionic value, but not yet minted as such. So the apousia
then is an estimate of what would have been the difference had the coins
actually been restruck. The decision to coin new money on an Attic standard
was an unexpected one, and the Amphictionic money was only struck for one
year, between the fall of 336 and the spring of 335. This fundamental change
in the coinage is supported by another inscription, the epikatalage, which
stated that a new exchange rate would be followed between the two standards.
Instead of a ratio of 7 Aeginetan drachmae to 10 Attic drachmae, it was
now 7.5 to 10, benefiting the Attic standard.(54) |
| |
Realizing the importance
of the Amphictionic League and Delphi to a ruler trying to establish himself
as hegemon of Greece, we can understand the importance of these inscriptions.
The new Amphictionic money was set up under Palaios, the last archon during
the reign of Philip. The decisive battle of the Chaironeia essentially united
all of Greece under Philip. It is not hard to imagine then that the striking
of a new Amphictionic coinage would be at the behest of Philip, identifying
himself as the hegemon. Following that then, as Marchetti argues, Alexander
would have wanted to establish himself at Delphi as soon as possible upon
his accession to the throne. The abrupt cessation of the newly created Amphictionic
money must have been ordered by Alexander. If this money was stopped before
the recasting of money on an Attic standard, as Marchetti has shown, then
the use of the Attic standard cannot be separated from Alexander's use of
the Attic standard for his own coinage. Therefore, Alexander's coinage must
have already been in effect. (55) |
| |
The scholarship of the Alexander
coinage has advanced greatly since Newell's first works in the early part
of the twentieth century. But his work has been the basis for all advancement
in the field, and will continue to be the foundation of future study. Is
it possible that his assumption that Alexander began minting his coins at
the beginning of his reign is incorrect? This question has not been answered
fully. While Zervos, adding to the work of Kleiner, seems to give valid
reasons for the lower dates, Price has just as much proof to support the
higher dates. Troxell, on the other hand, adds sufficient evidence to Zervos's
argument, which indicates that in fact Price's dating scheme (following
Newell) may not be valid. It remains to be seen how other scholars will
respond to Marchetti's arguments; whether or not they will accept that the
striking of new money in Delphi on the Attic standard was necessarily at
the behest of Alexander. If so, then the traditional chronology set up by
Newell will once again hold sway. Regardless, the date debate will no doubt
continue, as Marchetti's evidence is, in the last analysis, indirect. We
will have to look forward to when and if new numismatic evidence becomes
available for an answer to this intriguing question. |
| |
This paper was originally written for a graduate seminar entitled
"Value and Exchange," given by Professor R. Ross Holloway in the Spring
of 2000 at the Center for Old World Archaeology and Art at Brown University.
I would like to thank Professor Holloway for dedicating his time and energy
to this project, and for his steady guidance and support, without which
this paper would not have been possible.
|
| Back to Article Index |
|
|
|
| |
Notes:
-
The two faces of coins are referred to as the "obverse"
and the "reverse." The obverse of a coin is obtained from a die set into
an anvil; the reverse from a die striking from above. In the Alexander
tetradrachms the Herakles head is the obverse type, the Zeus figure the
reverse.
-
G.F. Hill, "Notes on the Alexandrine Coinage of Phoenicia,"
Nomisma 4 (1909) 1-15, at 1
-
American Journal of Numismatics 45, (1911)
-
A.R. Bellinger, Essays on the Coinage of Alexander the
Great, American Numismatic Society Numismatic Studies II (1963) 24
-
M. Price, The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great
and Philip Arrhidaeus (1991) 35
- From a cursory count of reverse marks based on the list provided
by M. Price in The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip
Arrhidaeus, (a new British Museum catalogue that provides a thorough
study of the coinage, detailing the Alexanders of the museum plus many
more for a total of over four thousand coins) it appears that almost
three hundred different marks are known, as well as well over a thousand
letter variations. With all of the possible combinations, this number
is staggering; to suppose that each combination represents a separate
mint is out of the question.
-
Newell was not in fact the first to employ this method.
Kurt Regling's Terina: Sechsundsechzigstes Programm zum Wincklemannsfeste
der Archaeologischen Geseellschaft zu Berlin (1906) was the first large
scale die study.
-
American Numismatic Society Numismatic Notes and Monographs
19 (An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards, ed. M. Thompson, O. Mørkholm,
and C.M. Kraay [1973] 1664)
-
ibid., 20
-
An exception to this is the group of so-called "eagle"
tetradrachms, minted on the local Macedonian standard, crudely designed,
and short-lived. It is generally accepted that this coinage preceded the
minting of Alexander's imperial coinage. See H. A. Troxell, Studies in
the Macedonian Coinage of Alexander the Great, American Numismatic Society
Numismatic Studies 21 (1997) 75
-
O. Mørkholm, Early Hellenistic Coinage (1991)
42
-
M.J. Price in The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the
Great and Philip Arrhidaeus (1991) gives one mint the general title of
Macedonia, the other Aegeae, which is strictly an arbitrary division. He
argues that coins were not begun to be minted at Pella until after Alexander's
death, and not at Amphipolis until the reign of the successor king Cassander
in the late fourth century. The question of the mints in Macedonia has
not yet been sufficiently answered. For purposes of clarity, in this paper
Amphipolis will be considered the main mint. The other mints will also
be referred to, particularly when discussing the coinage of Philip II,
which Georges Le Rider categorizes by specific mint.
-
M.J. Price, The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the
Great and Philip Arrhidaeus (1991) 72-78
-
H. A. Troxell, Studies in the Macedonian Coinage of Alexander
the Great, American Numismatic Society Numismatic Studies 21 (1997) 73
-
G. Le Rider (Le monnayage d'argent et d'or de Philippe
II frappe en Macédoine de 359 à 294, [1977] 389-391) divides
the Philip silver coinage into two mints, Pella and Amphipolis, and the
coins from each mint into groups. His Amphipolis Group II, minted from
348/7 to 329/8, is distinguished from Group I by a new type of reverse,
and is itself divided into two groups. Group II A, consisting of eight
issues, was struck at a similar pace and output as that of Group I. Group
II B, beginning around 342/1, was struck in much larger numbers, and includes
a series with the reverse marking of a bee. This group, distinguished by
the common reverse marks of a prow, stern, janiform head and sometimes
a rudder was struck until c. 329/8. Thus, the chronology of the Philip
series places Group II B during the time period of the death of Philip
and the rise of Alexander. Comparison between the coins of Alexander and
these late Philip coins then allows, as Newell has done, for placement
of the Alexander coins marked with the same control marks at the beginning
of his coinage on the whole.
-
E.T. Newell, The Dated Alexander Coinage of Sidon and
Ake, Yale Oriental Series, Researches 2 (1916) 24. It was customary for
these mints to date their coinage from the accession of each ruler. Numbers
in Phoenician script were eventually replaced by numbers in Greek script
beginning with K, signifying the tenth year of Alexander's reign.
-
ibid., 27-28
-
The dated coinage actually continues until the year 306/5,
but began to be struck in the name of Philip III (Alexander's mentally
disabled half-brother who officially assumed the throne with Alexander's
son after the conqueror's death) on the coins marked with the years 13-16
(by this time indicated with Greek rather than Phoenician letters). Since
Philip III died in 317 B.C., we know that Alexander's coins must have ended
sometime before then. Counting down from the established beginning date
of 333/2, the year 13 corresponds to 319/18. ( I.L. Merker, "Notes on Abdalonymos
and the Dated Alexander Coinage of Sidon and Ake," American Numismatic
Society Museum Notes 11 [1964] 13)
-
Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akadamie der Wissenschaften
zu Berlin 5 (1947)
-
Mazaeus subsequently became satrap of Babylon, which
he surrendered to Alexander in late fall of 331. Alexander reinstated him
after his surrender, and he held this post until his death in 328. ( O.
Mørkholm, Early Hellenistic Coinage [1991] 48)
-
I.L. Merker, "Notes on Abdalonymos and the Dated Alexander
Coinage of Sidon and Ake," American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 11
(1964) 13-20, at 15
-
A.R. Bellinger and M. Thompson "A Hoard of Alexander
Drachms," Yale Classical Studies 14 (1955) 3-45
-
ibid., 7
-
Hoards of Alexander and Philip III drachms also include
gold staters of Alexander and posthumous staters of Philip II.
-
A.R. Bellinger and M. Thompson "A Hoard of Alexander
Drachms," Yale Classical Studies 14 (1955) 3-45, at 10
-
G. Le Rider, Le monnayage d'argent et d'or de Philippe
II frappe en Macédoine de 359 à 294, (1977).
-
O. Mørkholm, Early Hellenistic Coinage (1991)
41.
-
It is important to remember, however, that due to a lack of sufficient
evidence these mint names are purely hypothetical.
-
There are many theories as to why Philip's coinage was
reintroduced subsequent to Alexander's death. For the need for posthumous
Philips, Newell (Reattribution, 45) argues that the Balkan tribes surrounding
Macedonia preferred Philip's money, and that they never used Alexanders
at all. Therefore, for trade purposes the Macedonian mint was compelled
to issue both Alexanders and Philips. Price (Coins of the Macedonians,
23) agrees with Newell, adding that the standard of the Philip coins would
have been better suited to these tribes. Le Rider does not accept the idea
that the northern tribes were simply fond of Philip's coins. This argument
is based on the hoard evidence; the majority of hoards in the north contained
posthumous Philips. But other hoard evidence, Le Rider suggests, shows
otherwise. Some hoards show equal numbers of both Alexanders and Philips,
and in two hoards of Bulgaria buried about 315 numerous Philip tetradrachms
with one or two notches are found. These notches suggest that they were
used not as coins but as merely pieces of metal tested for quality, so
the fact that they were Philips is not important. ("Les deux monnaies Macédoniennes
des années 323-294/290," Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique
(1993), 491-500, at 476) Zervos introduces the idea that the "eagle" coinage
of Alexander, agreed by most scholars to be his earliest coins, were not
imperial coinage at all, and Alexander may or may not have commissioned
them. With the introduction of the "eagle coinage" and shortly thereafter
their termination, Zervos explains the interruption in minting of Philips,
arguing that his coins began to be produced again directly after the end
of the "eagles." Thompson argues that the Philip staters were reinstated
to be used for political propaganda by Philip III. This theory works for
Asia Minor and Macedonia, but since the staters continued to be minted
under Cassander this does not seem to fit. (Le Rider, Les deux monnaies,
497) Also, at many mints in Asia Minor coins of Philip III had his name
inscribed below Alexander's, sometimes even replacing it, which did not
occur in Macedon. Le Rider argues that the posthumous Philips were produced
for use as a local coinage. At the time of Alexander's death his coinage
was used throughout the entire empire. Antipater, ruling in Macedonia in
Alexander's absences, could not make a widespread change in this system,
but by minting coins of Philip in Macedonia he created a type of local
coinage. This coinage could be used throughout Macedonia, and for commercial
activity in surrounding areas, including the Balkans. The production of
this coinage ceased when Demetrius Poliorcetes introduced his own types
which replaced the Philips as the local money. (Le Rider, Les deux monnaies,
499)
-
G. Le Rider, "Les deux monnaies Macédoniennes
des années 323-294/290," Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique
(1993) 491-500, at 492
-
O. Zervos, "The Earliest Coins of Alexander the Great
1. Notes on a Book by Gerhard Kleiner," Numismatic Chronicle 12 (1982)
166-79. Zervos has been supported by F. de Callatay in "La date des premiers
tetradrachmes de poids attique emis par Alexandre le Grand," Revue Belge
de Numismatique (1982) 5-25, and more recently by H. Troxell in "Alexander's
Earliest Macedonian Silver," in Mnemata: Papers in Memory of Nancy M. Waggoner,
ed. W.E. Metcalf (1991) 49-62 and Studies in the Macedonian Coinage of
Alexander the Great, American Numismatic Society Numismatic Studies 21
(1997)
-
G. Kleiner, "Alexanders Reichsmunzen," Abhandlungen der
Deutschen Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 5 (1947) 9-17
-
O. Zervos, "The Earliest Coins of Alexander the Great
1. Notes on a Book by Gerhard Kleiner," Numismatic Chronicle 12 (1982)
166-179, at 168
-
ibid., 170
-
E.T. Newell, Alexander Hoards I. Kyparissia, American
Numismatic Society Numismatic Notes and Monographs 3 (1921) (An Inventory
of Greek Coin Hoards 76)
-
An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards, 74
-
O. Zervos, "The Earliest Coins of Alexander the Great
1. Notes on a Book by Gerhard Kleiner," Numismatic Chronicle 12 (1982)
166-179, at 172
-
G. Kleiner, "Alexanders Reichsmunzen," Abhandlungen der
Deutschen Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 5 (1947)17-23
-
O. Zervos, "The Earliest Coins of Alexander the
Great 1. Notes on a Book by Gerhard Kleiner," Numismatic Chronicle (1982)
166-179, at 172
-
M.J. Price, "The Earliest Coins of Alexander the Great
2. Alexander's Reform of the Macedonian Coinage," Numismatic Chronicle
12 (1982) 180-90.
-
ibid., 184
-
O. Mørkholm, Early Hellenistic Coinage (1991)
45
-
Mnemata: Papers in Memory of Nancy M. Waggoner, ed. W.E.
Metcalf (1991) 49-62
-
H. A. Troxell, Studies in the Macedonian Coinage of Alexander
the Great, American Numismatic Society Numismatic Studies 21 (1997)
-
H. A. Troxell, "Alexander's Earliest Macedonian Silver,"
in Mnemata: Papers in Memory of Nancy M. Waggoner, ed. W.E. Metcalf (1991)
49-62, at 50s
-
Also, in some cases a row of dots below the throne: H.
A. Troxell, Studies in the Macedonian Coinage of Alexander the Great, American
Numismatic Society Numismatic Studies 21 (1997) 87
-
ibid.
-
ibid., 88
-
P. Marchetti, "Autour de la frappe du nouvel Amphictionique,"
Revue Belge de Numismatique ( 1999) 99-113
-
ibid., 102
-
E.J.P. Raven, "The Amphictionic Coinage of Delphi, 336-334
BC," Numismatic Chronicle 110 (1950) 1-22, at 4
-
P. Marchetti, "Autour de la frappe du nouvel Amphictionique,"
Revue Belge de Numismatique (1999) 99-113, at 104
-
ibid., 107-108
-
ibid., 109
-
ibid., 112
|