On the Problems of the Coinages of Alexander I Sparadokos and the So-Called Thracian-Macedonian TribesAuthor(s): Margarita TačevaSource: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Vol. 41, No. 1 (1992), pp. 58-74Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436224 .Accessed: 07/05/2011 13:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org

ON THE PROBLEMS OF THE COINAGES OF ALEXANDER I SPARADOKOS AND THE SO-CALLED THRACIAN-MACEDONIAN

TRIBES

In the second half of our already retreating century the historiography concerning the Antiquity, including the history of the Balkan land, has many achievements in the different areas of research. They have changed many formulations that were inherited from the 19th century and had become classical, even those based on monographic and other studies conducted both before and after World War II. In many numismatic studies the old inertia has been overcome to a great extent', but not with respect to the coinage of Alexander I and the so-called "Thracian-Macedonian" and Thracian coinage connected with it. What is more, the inaccurate definition "Thracian-Macedo- nian" seems to have a chance of being totally replaced even in the future by "Macedonian"2, a concept totally devoid of any grounds. Actually, the contri- bution of the ancient Macedonians to the 5th century BC coinage should be limited to the establishing of the traditional Thracian image of a warrior with a broad-brimmed hat and two spears near a horse or on horseback as a charac- teristic features of the coinage of the Argeadae in the 5th century BC. This was the conclusion reached by the author after a prolonged study3 of the numis- matic heritage of the Northern Balkan lands in the first half of the 5th century BC, in seeking the place which should be attributed to Sparadokos as a Thracian ruler and to his coinage. The present paper should not be perceived as an encroachment by a historian on the sovereign scientific discipline of numismatics, but as the declared wish for closer contacts between historians and numismatists in the sphere of research. In my opinion, even the errors of a numismatic nature committed by a.nonspecialist could be useful in the future research of numismatists on the ancient Macedonian and Thracian history. Such research could be anticipated after the publication of many museum and private collections in the past decade or so, containing many issues which complement the scanty information on the coinage in the investigated area and epoch. Of particular importance is the publication of the Asyut hoard4 in view of the discussion it evoked. Probably in the long run the comprehensive interpretation of the Thracian-Macedonian coinage will finally involve numis- matists as well, who will help in the solving of a number of problems related to

' Cf. H. S. Cahn, Asiut, SNR 56 (1977), 283. 2 Cf. C. M. Kraay, Archaic and Classical Greek Coins, Univ. of California Press, 1976,

138 sq.: Macedonia (civic and tribal) - Bisalti, Edoni, Orrescii etc. 3 Trakijskijat vladetel Sparadok (Res. The Thracian Ruler Sparadocus, IPr, 1990, 6, 58-70). 4 M. Price, N. Waggoner, Archaic Greek Coinage, The Asyut Hoard, London, 1975.

Historia, Band XLI/l (1992) ? Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart

On the Problems of the Coinages of Alexander I 59

the history of the Northern Balkan lands in the 6th-5th century BC, which is not very rich in other historical sources.

1. On the Problems of the Coinage of Alexander I of Macedon

Many years after the monographic study of D. Raymond on the Macedoni- an regal coinage (1953)5 there are a number of attempts at correcting some formulations established in this remarkable book, and this is the natural result of the enrichment of the source base and of the development of the research methods both in history and numismatics. In my opinion, a big stride forward was the argumented simultaneity of the minting of the Alexander I issues belonging to groups I and 116. I would not rule out the possibility this to be proved for group III as well; it is suggested not only by Raymond's hesitations about some difficult issues in the group II, but also by the possibility of assuming simultaneity in the minting of issues with a more sophisticated or more primitive execution of groups I and III. Another important fact is that the two principal obverses in the coinage of Alexander existed even before they were adopted by him. There are no longer any doubts that Ichnae, Derroni, Bisaltae, etc. minted coins even after some of them were subordina- ted by Alexander7. Consequently, this raises doubts about the attribution of all anonymous issues to his coinage, which are attributed to him.

The first question which needs clarification concerns the initial year of the issues of Alexander bearing his name. The date 480/479 BC, accepted to this day in numismatic literature, is open to serious criticism both from a historical and from a numismatic point of view. Discussions on the possible areas offered by Xerxes as a gift or conquered by Alexander himself after the withdrawal of the Persian troops in 479 BC tend to forget that there were other political and economic forces as well, which could profit from the Persian catastrophe at Plataia. The Persian presence in Eion till 476 BC is also forgot- ten. It probably did not interrupt the coinage of the Bisaltae, or - and this is certain - that of Getas, basileus of the Edones. This was the only Thracian ruler who minted coins with a royal title (basileus) before his name, moreover before the octadrachms bearing Alexander's name8.

The indicated date is usually associated with the conquering of the Bisaltae and of their silver by Alexander, but more recent studies prove with increasing clarity that this took place relatively later and that the conquests in the

5 D. Raymond, Macedonian Regal Coinage (NNM, 126), New York, 1953. 6 C. M. Kraay, The Asyut Hoard: Some Comments on Chronology, NC 107 (1977), 190-191. 7 Cf. M. Prce, N. Waggoner, op. cit. (n. 4), 28 sq., 39 sq. about the mint of Derroni, Bisalti,

Edoni. 8 Cf. below, p. 62.

60 M. TACEVA

Thracian lands and on the Chalkidike Peninsula, mentioned by Thucydides, expanded or perhaps shrunk in the years between 479 and 432 BC. The date does not seem sufficiently reliable also due to what Rosen termed "fantastic" accounts of Herodotus about Alexander's betrayal as a Persian ally before the battle at Plataia (479)9. The date is based on uncertain chronological assump- tions of Alexander's gold statues in Olympia and Delphi and the Strymon (i. e. Bisaltian) origin of their gold; on the uncertain information in Philip's letter about Alexander's conquest in EFon, which Hammond justifiably sought to predate'', and on the evidence of Justinus", whose reliability was denied. In the later ancient tradition there also appears a frequently unconscious tenden- cy, followed by some modern researchers as well, which may be compared with the Roman analysts, namely to present the Macedonian state at the beginning of the 5th century BC as it became a century and a half later under Philip and Alexander of Macedon. The absence of a signed Macedonian regal coinage before 479 BC suggests a delayed realization, compared with the rulers of the Edones, Bisaltae and other Thracian tribes, of the Macedonian political power and prestige through issues designated with the ruler's name or an ethnicon. On the other hand, Alexander's choice of the two obverses, created before him and used simultaneously by other rulers and by the Bisaltae, does not suggest the search for evidence through coins in favour of Macedonian sovereignty or differentiation from the barbarian Balkan envi- ronment of the Hellenic world'2. Being a vassal of the Persian king after the march of Megabazos"3, the Macedonian court of Amyntas probably minted coins to pay its debts'4, placing the "canting" image of the goat on the obverse, and on the reverse - the quadripartite incuse square (which GeiB3 called "Fensterquadrat"), a popular sign in the area and period under investigation"5. Minted using the weight standard of the light Babylonian mina (series II of the so-called Thracian-Macedonian system), they easily formed a part of both the

9 KI. Rose, Alexander 1, Herodot und die makedonische Basileja, in: Zu Alexander d. Gr., Festschrift G. Wirth, Bd. 1, Amsterdam, 1987, 29,38 with the itt.: H. Castriiiis Die Okkupation Thrakiens durch die Perser und der Sturz des athenischen Tyrannen Hippias, Chiron 2 (1972). 1-15.

10 Cf. N. U. L. Harnni0omtdf in: Idem - G. T Griffith, A History of Macedonia, 11. 550-336 B. C., Oxford, 1979, 102 sqq.

Ju.st 7,4,1. 2 Th. R. Martin, Sovereignty and Coinage in Classical Greece, Princeton, 1985, 186 sqq. 3 Herod 7.108,1.

14 Ide,, 6,44,1; 6,45,1. Cf. H. Castrtiu.s op. cit. (n. 9). p. 10 sq. 15 D. RaYniond, op. cit. (n. 5), p. 49 insists that the staters with a goat and a monogram (z, AA

or AA) have had a purely local significance. Her assumption that i is a monogram of Edessa should be discarded after the localization of Aegae near the present day Palatica. 57-59 she insists that the tetradrachms on PI. 2,7-9 belong to the mint of a tribal alliance, led by Alexander 1. As for Kraai: op. cit.. 190 this anonymous coins belong to the mint of Alexander 1. Ensuing from the considerations leading to the dating of the reverse discussed here before 480 BC this view cannot be proved.

On the Problems of the Coinages of Alexander 1 61

Aegean and of the Oriental market. The closest parallel in this respect can be found in the issues of Ainaea. The links with them can be explained with Herodotus' information that Amyntas possessed Anthemus, offering it to Hippias as a gift'6.

The evolution of the reverse with the quadripartite square by its inclusion together with the name of the ruler, the coin magnate, the city or the tribe in an incuse square is observed in the issues of Alexander, Getas, the Bisaltae, Akanthos and Abdera. This evolution was perceived even in 1966 by May17 and it is to be regretted that his publication on the coinage of Abdera did not precede Raymond's book, for which it would have been of great value. Being convinced of the reliability of the established beginning of Alexander's signed coinage ca. 480/479, May hesitated to announce the earliest introduction of this reverse in the coins of Abdera, which, according to his dating, appeared after 476 BC, most probably around 473 BC. The dating of this reverse on the coins of Akanthos is also based on the chronology accepted for Alexander's coins'8.

Recently there is a tendency to predate the coins of Getas after those of Alexander'9, although Raymond has reliably demonstrated the opposite through the palaeography of A in the inscriptions of coins of both rulers20. Undoubtedly, the good relations between the Persian kings and the Edones, Bisaltae and Abdera, whether subordinated by them or not, suggest their similar fate after the battle at Plataia. Their dependence and their links with the Persians must have continued until the fall of Eion in 476 BC21. Abdera announced its newly-acquired political autonomy by the new reverse with the name of the magistrate22. The coinage of Abdera, being well attested and subject to periodization through the coin magistrates, seems to me the only reliable way, at least for the time being, for establishing the relative chronology in the appearance of the reverse in question on the rest of the coins as well. The start of the new inscribed reverse was most probably given by the mints in the two cities, Akanthos and Abdera, which have had established traditions in the course of decades. I believe that their popularity and prestige23 were a

16 Herod 5,94,1. 17 J. F. Mav, The Coinage of Abdera (540-345 B. C.), London, 1966, 86, n. 2. 18 I. e. to 480/479 - 476/475 (RaYniond, op. cit. [n. 51, 78-79, n. 1-6 85 sqq). Much closer to the

Akanthos' reverses seem to be the reverses on the Alexander's issues, dated by Raymond with fair probability in 476/475 BC.

19 C. M. Kraa i Archaic. . ., cit. (n. 2). 139: Getas "was presumably a slightly younger contem- porary of Alexander 1. who followed the Macedonian example by inscribing his name around the incuse square of the reverse".

20 D. Ravnoncd op. cit. (n. 5), 118. 21 Her od 7,107; Thucw 1,98,1. 22 J. F. Mala loc. cit. (n. 17). n. 13. 23 Coins of Akanthos are founded in half of the discovered hoards, dated till ca. 465 BC, i. e.

even more than the Athenian coins represented there, cf. the synoptic table. cit. in n. 37.

62 M. TACEVA

sufficient condition for its successive acceptance by the Bisaltae, Getas, Alex- ander and Mosses-4.

The basic and crucial problem here is the coinage of Getas with his name on the obverse, which, together with the archaic alpha, marks a first stage in his coinage, preceding the stage with the issues with the quadripartite square and the legend on the reverse as well]5. Earlier issues are similar in their obverse with those of the Tyntenoi and Ichnae and with respect to their reverse - with those of Ichnae and with the anonymous coins attributed to the Derroni26. This similarity in the images on the coins suggests a localization of the lands or of the coin mint used by Getas closer to the Axios than to the Strymon. If we recall that the Edones inhabited Mygdonia, separated to the west by the Axios from Bottieis and Ichnae (Her. 7,123 sq.) and that the river Echeidoros flows through it, with Sindos, Chalastra (localized along the river) and with its rich necropolis dated to the mid-6th century BC27, then it might become possible to date the Macedonian conquest of Mygdonia and to determine the silver source for Alexander's octadrachms. The chronology of Getas' coins, proposed above as being both preceding and contemporary to Alexander, as well as the absence of Edonian issues after him, makes possible the dating of this conquest after 473 BC and does not contradict Zahrnt's chronological ordering of the Macedonian conquests mentioned by Thucydi- des (2,99,4)28. Apparently "the so-called Mygdonia" covered also the lands around Bolbe lake, which were conquered later and which were offered by Perdikkas to the Chalkidians29. Both the H-series of light tetrobols and the

24 The cited above Mai's (and Gaehlees) observations on the reverse give grounds for associa- ting the group 11 of Alexander's issues as being contemporary or appearing after the Getas' issues, which actually defines also the approximate order of the mints referred in the text. The same reverse appeared later in the coinage of Berge, Ainaea and Maroneia, cf. MaY, loc. cit. (n. 17).

25 Octadrachms: 1. Head, 201; Weher, P1. 72, 1853, cf. KraaY; Archaic.. ., cit. (n. 2), 139, P1. 26,483 - obv. Naked man with causia conducting two oxen. NOM1IXMA EAON EON BAEIAE- 0X FITA; rev. Wheel in incuse square. 2. Gaebler, 144,1-2 - obv. The same. BAXIAE[YJ HAQNEQN; rev. Quadripartite incuse square. [ETA BAX/IAEY HAQNEQN.

26 Reverse "wheel in incuse square": Ichnae - Weber, P1. 71, 1846; SNG V, P1. XLII. 2267: anonymous (Derroni'?) - SNG III, P1. XXIV, 1279; Reverse "wheel with axle crossed by two transverse bars" in incuse square: Ichnae - SNG V, P1. XLII, 2266; Tynteni - SNG V, P1. XLIV, 2394: Doki(mos) - Head. p. 200: anonymous (Derroni?) - SNG 111 XXIV, 1278. The obverse is similar.

27 Before the Macedonian occupation Chalastra and Sindos were Thracian cities (cf. St. Byz. S. V. XaXX6CnTPa, Ytv6ovCaot), cf. Aik. Despoini, Eiv6og. KcxaTXoyos T? 'EKRkaco5, Athens, 1985, 12.

2x M. Zahrnt, Die Entwicklung des makedonischen Reiches bis zu den Perserkriegen, Chiron 14 (1987), 341 sqq. The Thucydides' passage discussed by him is to be understood, in my opinion. as follows: Initially Mygdonia was conquered, i. e. Mygdonia up to Therme (Her. 7.123,3) in the east, the so-called Mygdonia reflecting the time of Perdiccas when his reign was expanded to Bolbe lake, cf. KI. Ro.sen, op. cit. (n. 9), 36.

29Thuc. 1,58,2.

On the Problems of the Coinages of Alexander 1 63

minting of the mysterious octadrachms of group II Nos 45 and 46 of Ray- mond, which Kraay justifiably considers to have been minted simultaneously with group I30, can be associated with this conquest. The intensity of the coinage of group II issues, combined with that of group 1, was possible precisely after the heavy blow against Mygdonia and the conquest of the lands at the mouth of the Echeidoros river, along which the precious metals were probably transported from the lands of the Krestonaioi. The taenia on the broad-brimmed hat of Alexander's horseman3' appears again, accepted by Hammond32 as a sign of his royal power. Perhaps it was precisely the victory of the basileus Getas over the Edones that provoked Alexander's wish to place the royal insignia on his issues.

The subsequent conquest of the lands of the Bisaltae could not have caused such a boom, insofar as it was undoubtedly partial: the traditional issues of the Bisaltae did not stop, in addition to the uninscribed parallels and the coinage of Mosses33. According to Raymond, the above mint testified to an anti-Athenian union under the aegis of Alexander34, but the historical situa- tion offers no proof in this respect. Moreover, the Athenian campaign of Kimon in 465/464 BC for conquering Ennea-odoi in the Edonian lands was crushingly defeated by the "united Thracians", according to the evidence of Thucydides (1,100,3). There are assumptions in the literature that the Odrysae with Sparadokos were also among these Thracians35. After this event the issues of Alexander I sharply diminished and the Macedonian royal coinage was interrupted, probably with the death of this energetic ruler. His successor Perdikkas restored the coinage around 451 BC with light tetrobols and the traditional Alexander's rider - with the heavy tetrobols minted arou'nd 443 BC36.

30 D. Ravznond4 op. cit. (n. 5), 112 sqq; C. M. Kraai, The Asyut hoard, cit. (n. 6), 190 sq. 31 D. RaYinond, op. cit. (n. 5); Group 11, octadrachms 45, 46, 48; anonymous tetradrachms

60-62: Group Ill, Il 1. 32 N. G. L. Hamm0ond, op. cit. (n. 10), 109. 33 The obverses of the Mosses' issues resemble those of Alexander's group 11, but have a

sligthly differing reverse, where the ruler's name is around a smooth and not a quadripartite square. Cf. the same square on the octadrachm of Alexander, SNG V, P1. XLIV, 2407 and the coins of Abdera (Maf, op. cit. [n. 17]), Group LIl, P1. VIl, P. 108-109 (ca. 473-449); cf. Ra-

r?ond op. cit. (n. 5), 115. 34 D. Ravymond, op. cit. (n. 5), 119. The suggested participation of Alexander I in the conflict in

464 among the Thracians is not to be undertaken. 35 See n. 3 and below, 69 sqq. 36 Cf. D. RaYmond, op. cit. (n. 5).

64 M. TAIEVA

2. Pelasgian or Mycenaean Cultural Characteristics of the Coinage in the Northern Aegean Area

Researchers generally adopt two approaches to the so-called Thracian- Macedonian coinage:

- an international - economic or military - organization is sought in the general weights or symbols;

- the identification and localization of unknown tribes or rulers are sought in their relations with some cults through the religious or mythological images".

These approaches are justified, but they fail to take into account some rather important considerations, such as: the need of distinguishing between the different issues from a commercial point of view, or for the identification of the coin or coin-like production, intended as the dues to the Persian king after the conquest of Megabazos; the possibility of the existence of coin mints, Thracian or Hellenic, which served different institutions; the multivariant functions ascribed by the Thracians to the deities worshipped by them and the impossibility to identify reliable areas of propagation of one and the same cult; the development of the coin images and the importance of the royal power preserved by the Thracians after the Sub-Mycenaean period for the long life of the inherited cultural and historical traditions. On the basis of these considerations, the author has tried to demonstrate and substantiate some possible solutions:

The male naked figure, most frequently with two spears and with a broad- brimmed hat (standing, riding, or charioteer, and connected with a horse or ox) is most closely associated with the Pelasgian past. It is characteristic of the lands from Pelasgiotis in Thessaly to the Thracian Chersonesos and personi- fies the links between the royal and the religious power, preserved in the Samothracian cult of the Kabeiroi and in the cult of Hermes as a Thracian royal cult (Her. 5,7). This phenomenon is considered to contain the roots of Thracian Orphism as a religious-political doctrine of the Thracian basileis38 who outlived the Mycenaean ones.

Centaur or Satyr with Nymph reflects the older Dionysian religiousness of the Balkan agrarian population. If they are compared or opposed to the

37 Ibidem, 48, n. 14; 44. The coinage of the Orrescii is a typical example of the impossibility to link definite tribes with definite deities, having obverse dies connected with three different cults images. Many authors accept one of the two opinions expressed mainly in historical and not in numismatic literature, which has a duty to modern historiography. An encouraging example in this respect is K. Liompis paper at the 5th Symposium "Ancient Macedonia", Thessaloniki, 1989. Although it was delivered in modern Greek, a language unfamiliar to most of the participants, the perspective of her study was clear from the table to the study, which was circulated among them. This synoptic table accurately shows all coin hoards discovered so far from the Northern Aegean area.

38 Al. Fol. Trakijskijat orfizam (Res. Thracian Orphism), Sofia, 1986.

On the Problems of the Coinages of Alexander 1 65

preceding type, they should be associated with the existence of communities or tribal unions, not subordinated to the power of the Thracian basileis. Such have been attested in the ancient tradition by the name of "autonomous" or "abasileuontes", i. e. without kings.

The bull in some coin types could testify to inherited ideas from the ancient Cretan religion, but to me more probable seems to be the connection with the island of Euboea or at least the influence of the Euboean (not Chalkidian) coin types.

The current chronology in numismatic literature concerning the coinage considered here permits in fact to seek the economic or political ties between the different institutions that minted coins with similar or identical images, standards or symbols, assumed in the specialized literature. However, this is not sufficient, because numismatic analyses are still lacking and it is not possible to establish the general and the specific features in this coinage in a vertical or in a horizontal plan. This is the only basis on which it would be possible to draw historical conclusions about the Pentecontaetia in the Northern Balkan lands, for which there are practically no sufficient concrete source data.

For the time being, it would be possible to assume some objective depen- dence - political or economic ties, common mints, etc. - among the coin emissions of: Getas, Ichnae and the Tyntenoi; the Bisaltae, Akanthos and Mosses; the Orreskoi, Lete and Dokimos; the Derroni, Bisaltae, Sparadokos and Abdera39. In this approximate picture it is possible to add more certainty after a new study of the issues without legends, which are identified to this day without any substantiated general view.

Still today, only the localization of Ichnae and the Bisaltae can be conside- red as being reliable, because there is concrete evidence about them in the sources. The lack of information about the Orreskioi, Derroni and other ethnica or names in the legends of coins from the Northern Aegean coast and near Pangaion in Herodotus, Thucydides and their logographic sources does not speak in favour of some modem attempts at their localization40. The search should be directed towards the lands of mainland Thrace and of the Paiones, as well as around the silver and gold ore deposits between Axios and Nestos4'.

The stylistic analysis of the issues minted before Alexander, contained in

39 The indicated links have been made on the basis of the observations presented in this part of the paper. with the exception of those of Doki(mos) and Sparadocus, which will be discussed below.

40 Exempli causa D. Sanlsak.i Les Peoniens dans la val6e du Bas-Strymon, Klio 64 (1982), 341 sqq., where old views elaborated through linguistic arguments are resurrected.

41 Cf. N. G. L. Hammonod, op. cit. (n. 10), 69 sqq, Idem, The Lettering and the Iconography of Macedonian Coinage, in: Ancient Greek Art and Iconography, Madison 1983, 16 sqq, where not all of the localisations are shared by the author of this paper.

66 M. TACEVA

Raymond (P1. II), suggests that the two images used on his obverses (I - horseman with two spears and a broadbrimmed hat, and II - male figure with two spears and a broadbrimmed hat behind a horse) were already in circula- tion through Bisaltic and anonymous issues. Perhaps the earliest appearance of the coin image of the horseman thus described can be seen in the issues of Larissa, minted intermittently between 500-479 and 465-447 BC42. Simulta- neously with the first period there was also minting of similar coins attributed to the mints in the Thracian Chersonesos, which probably have some connec- tion with the Bisaltae43. The lack of a reliable stand about Alexander's mints in numismatic literature to this day is a great obstacle in confirming the observed connections between his issues and their contemporary or earlier parallels. The interpretation given above of the reverse with the quadripartite square with the name of Akanthos, Abdera, the Bisaltae or Alexander suggests the importance of the mint in Akanthos, being the closest to the Bisaltae, Alexan- der (and later Mosses), having long traditions and international prestige, if Alexander did not make use of Larissa, which was closer to his lands. The assumption is also based on the observed hiatus in the issues with the horse- man of this city in the period between 479 and 465 BC, i. e. the time of Alexander's coinage.

The links between Alexander's and the Thracian coinages are also sugge- sted by the helmet used on the reverses by Orreskioi, Derroni and Dokimos. The helmet appeared as a symbol of the obverse also for the Derroni, Mosses and Sparadokos4. These links have been interpreted as a military anti-Athen- ian alliance led by Alexander, though it seems more reliable to accept it as a sign of a mint used by all of them, either independent or subordinated to Alexander. One should not forget the expansion of his aggression to the east, its chronological finale covering the lands of Anthemus, Crestonia and Bisal- tia45.

The considerations expressed so far, together with the data from the sour- ces, are contrary to the current definition of the examined coinage as "Thra- cian-Macedonian", and even less as "Macedonian". The Macedonians, un-

42 Brett P1. 48,875; 800. 43 Ibidem, P1. 47,847-848, cf. AthelL Xl, XII 520 (Loeb). 44 Chronologically the issues suggest that the helmet as a symbol on the obverse is later than

its image on the reverse, judging from the issues of the Derrones, Mosses and Sparadocus. The helmet appears on the reverses of the anonymous tetradrachms, attributed by Ralmonod to Alexander's group I (P1. 4, 8 and 12). In spite of the undoubtedly professional stylistic analysis of the author, this attribution is not indisputable, cf. the cited links of the crested helmet with the coinage of Paeonians and Thracians (op. cit. [n. 51, p. 91 sq. with lit.), not more discussed till present day.

45 Thic. 2,99,6. Cf. M. Zahrnt, op. cit. (n. 28), 334; KI. Rosen, op. cit. (n. 9), 36 sq., n. 29,33. who compares the evidence given by Herodotus (5,94,1) with that of Thucydides (2,99,6). There is not certainty, however, that the Macedonian kings reigned over Anthemus during the entire period fromSllto431 BC.

On the Problems of the Coinages of Alexander 1 67

known in Homer's epic works, reached in their aggression from the inner Balkan lands to the coasts of Pieria and Bottieis, and remarkably soon after the Persian disaster in 479 BC they joined the cultural community of Greeks, Paiones and Thracians between the rivers Axios and Strymon'. This commu- nity shows the preserved cultural heritage from the Pelasgians to the Myce- naean koine not only in the facts pointed out so far, but also in another very important symbol: the armament with two spears, which will be considered in greater detail below. The recently used definition "coinage of the Northern Aegean area" indicates a tendency to correct this error. This definition actual- ly avoids the error, but deprives the phenomenon of its ethnic and cultural characteristics and content. This is why, perhaps, the term "Thracian-Paionian coinage" seems most suitable for the time being, insofar as it reflects not only the situation during Alexander's reign, which is defacto a part of it, but also the preceding and the subsequent periods.

3. The Armament with Two Spears This armament of a male figure (either naked or of a warrior) either on

horseback or near a horse (or oxen) occurs not only on the obverses of coins of Larissa, the Thracian Chersonesos47, the Bisaltae48, the Orrheskioi49, Alexan- der, Mosses50, Sparadokos and Perdikkas51, but also in the black- and red-figu- red vase paintings, on reliefs of Darius from Persepolis and Naks-i-Rustem; on paintings of the Thracian goddess Bendis, called by Hesychius "Dilon- chos", i. e. with two spears, etc. To the best of my knowledge, in the speciali- zed and non-specialized literature there are no argumented views or hypothe- ses. There is an opinion that the two spears on the obverses of Alexander's coins are hunting spears52, but specialists in classical archaeology fail to see in them a manifestation of cultural or religious symbolism. I was tempted to seek such symbolism by two royal Thracian tombs dated to the second half of the 5th century BC, in which two spears have been added to the burial inventory but separately from the armament53. In one of these tombs there was also an Attic red-figured hydria from the last quarter of the same century, featuring probably a Thracian Orphic initiation with a theoxenia of the Kabeiroi-Dios- curi, armed with two spears each54.

46 Here the Paeones are mentioned everywhere separately from the Thracians, although the author accepts the theory of their ethnic and cultural community. Insofar as the counter-argu- ments are not sufficiently overcome, they are not attributed here to the Thracians.

47 Cf. n. 42-43. 48 Cf. D. Ray monid, op. cit. (n. 5), for the obverses of Alexander I and the Bisalti. 49 Head, 195, fig. 112; SNG-R, Pi. 6,252 (without spears). 50SNG-R P1. 11,475,476; SNG IV 1887,1888. 5l See below, p. 70 sqq. 52 N. G. L. Hammond, op. cit. (n. 10), 109: the spears are presumably for hunting. 53 B. Filoi; Die Grabhugelnekropole bei Duvanlij in Suidbulgarien. Sofia, 1934, Fig. 79,128. 54 Ibidem, Fig. 95-99, Taf. XIV. The whole interpretation used here is to be found in the

68 M. TACEVA

Homer's epic works describe the throwing of one or two spears during the combats between the noble participants in the Trojan War; the Thracians that came from the Hellespontos fought with long spears (II. II, 844-850); the Paionian hero Asteropaios came out of the river against Achilleus with two spears which he could throw with both hands, and the Paiones also fought with long spears (II. XXI, 139 sq.). The warriors of unidentified ethnic belong- ing on 8th century BC black-figured vessels are also armed with two spears each55. In 6th century archaic painting Exekias depicts Achilleus, Aias and the Dioscuri also with the same armament56. In the 5th century BC the two spears were a characteristic attribute of Bendiss7 the Dioscuri-Kabeiroi, and the Thracians58 in the red-figured painting. Representatives of the people of Skudra are also depicted with two spears, as subjects and gift-bearers in the reliefs from Persepolis and Naks-i-Rustem59. In the latter relief they are represented separately from the "lonians with a petasos", i. e. the conquered Northern Aegean Thracian and Hellenic population until Thessaly (including the Macedonian court, if we can trust Herodotus' evidence that Amyntas was of Hellenic origin and hyparchos of the Macedonians60). Consequently, Sku- dra was the Hellespontic Thracians, Bisaltae, Orrheskioi and Paiones along the lower course of the Strymon river, conquered by Megabazos.

The conclusion reached on the basis of these observations is that the two spears were the armament of the Thracian and Mycenaean aristocrats, bound by the Pelasgian (?) Orphic cult of the Kabeiroi. The royal power surviving in Thrace preserved them as a divine characteristic feature of the dynast's rule among Paiones, Orrheskioi, Bisaltae and other tribes, or rather of the heirs to the throne, judging by the significance of the Dioscuri during the Roman Imperial period, or by the armament of the two companions of the delegate from Skudra in Persopolis. Probably perceiving of the two spears as armament on Alexander's reverses is also reflected in the images of his contemporary "the Penthesilea artist". While in his early works the spears are the armament of men wearing Thracian clothing, one of the later vessels features a horseman devoid of such an ethnic characteristic6". Obviously, through Alexander's

author's study: Eine Bestattung in Thrakien - Methodenaspekte und Synthesis, in: Schliemann- Tagung in Berlin, 1990 (in print).

55 See Neues Bild der Antike, Bd. 1, Leipzig, 1934, p. 48 sq, Abb. 74; p. 80, Abb. 7. 56 W. Schindler, Mythos und Wirklichkeit in der Antike, Leipzig, 1987, Abb. 16 - Achill

Brettspiel; Abb. 17 - Heimkehr der Dioskuren; Abb. 37 - Rinderraub der Dioskuren (Sikyo- nierschatzhaus in Delphi).

57 C Waizinger, Die griechischen Vasen des Archaologischen Instituts in Tubingen, Reutlin- gen, 1924, 166 - an attic skyphos from the end of 5th sent. BC.

58 H. Diepolder, Der Penthesilea-Maler, Leipzig, 1936, Taf. 7,9 etc. 51 G. Wal/ve; Die Volkerschaften auf den Reliefs von Persepolis, Berlin, 1966: Apadana,

Falttaf. 2, XIX Delegation; Naks-i-Rustem - Falttaf. 1, No. 25 Skudra, No. 26 lonier mit Petasos. 60 Herod 5,20,4. 61 H. Diepolder, op. cit. (n. 58). cf. P1. 7 and P1. 24.

On the Problems of the Coinages of Alexander 1 69

issues the warrior armed with two spears lost his Thracian ethnic characteri- stics.

4. The Thracian Ruler Sparadokos and his Coinage According to a recently published brief paper in Bulgarian numismatic

literature, Sparadokos is an Odrysian ruler, preceding his brother Sitalkes on the throne, who ruled ca. 445-435 BC. Forty issues from three nominals are indicated in this paper:

1. Tetradrachms (16.50-17.10 g) of Attic weight standard. Five issues are known, but the number of the anvil- and punchdies is not indicated.

Obv. - a horseman in easy riding pace to the left, with two horizontal spears, with a short cloak and tall boots, and wearing a small hat (alopekis, according to the publication); in my opinion, the image suggests rather a pilos, the characteristic hat of the Dioscuri.

Rev. - eagle holding a snake in its beak to the left and in an incuse square; XHAPAAOKO.

2. Drachms (3.70-3.97 g), series III of the Thracian-Macedonian system. Ten specimens are known, but the number of dies has not been indicated.

Obv. - horse to the left with raised foreleg, beside him the inscription ElAP/AA/OKO in three horizontal lines, sometimes retrogradely written, border of dots.

Rev. - eagle holding a snake in its beak, in incuse square. 3. Diobols (1.00-1.35 g), following the same weight standard as the drachms.

Twenty-five specimens are reported as being known, without data on the dies. Obv. - horse's promote to the left; border of dots; EHA. Rev. - Eagle to the left with a snake in its beak in incuse square. On the basis of the stylistic and iconographic analysis it is assumed that the

coins of Sparadokos were minted in the big Chalkidician mint of Olynthos, from which the types of the nominals were borrowed and which was at his disposal, owing to this ruler's great influence in Southwestern Thrace. The horseman in the tetradrachms is defined as the "image of the Odrysian ruler himself" - an image that was rather unusual for Olynthos, but also different from the horseman on Alexander's coins62.

Apart from the lack of data on the number of the known dies, which would give an idea about the scope of Sparadokos' coinage, the paper also fails to mention some important characteristics of the images on the coins. For exam- ple, on one of the tetradrachms an additional symbol - the crested helm - appears on the obverse63; some of the diobols also have the letter E (also retrogradely) on the obverse'. The links between the coin types and the

62 /. Yoroutko'a Parvite moneti s ime na odriski viadetel (Res. Les premieres monnaies avec le nom de souverain odryse), Numismatica (Sofia), 1988,2, 3-8, fig. 1-6.

63 Babelon, PI. CCCXXX, fig. 1, No. 1283. 64 SNG-D, P1. 40,95,1; SNG-R. P1. 21, 1065-1067.

70 M. TACEVA

Thracian-Paionian or Macedonian coinage have not been sought, although such links really exist.

The main problem which should serve as a starting point concerns undoub- tedly the mint in Olynthos, the existence of which in the indicated period is rather doubtful. The obverses of the issues bearing the name of Olynthos manifest a number of differences with respect to the drachms and diobols of Sparadokos. According to Raymond, the eagle on the obverses of the coins of Olynthos is the final unit in a tradition of the Northern Aegean mint, whose issues are usually associated with Chalkis of EuboeaK5. But there are some differences in the obverses and in the weight-standards of the coins with the name of Olynthos and those of Sparadokos (drachmas and diobols)'.

The eagle is obviously the linking element among all Sparadokos' issues: it occupies their reverses in different positions, with or without a prey in its beak. Among the Thracian-Paionian issues it is detected only on the coins of the Derroni, where it appeared as a symbol on the obverse after 475 BC, usually carrying a snake, lizard or turtle as a prey67. Consequently, the significance of the eagle in the coins of the Derroni after 475 BC was similar to that of the crested helm (see above) in the earlier issues and suggests the links of Spara- dokos and the Derroni with a definite mint or allied (subordinated) coinage.

The cult and religious monuments from the Roman Age in Thrace contain preserved information about earlier periods with aniconic monuments. There are such monuments of the Zeus cult, which could also explain the coin image of the eagle. The monuments from the upper and middle course of the Strymon river prove the propagation of the cult of Zeus and Hera, as well as the existence of a cult centre of the Thracian deity Zbelsourdos, syncretized with the Greek Zeus68. In the religious symbolism of the same epoch in Thrace and Phrygia the eagle, the snake, the lizard and the turtle appeared in the monuments of Sabazios, syncretized with Apollo or with Zeus. Sabazios was the god to whom Orpheus addressed his solar prayers, the legendary Thracian king and religious reformer, connected with the syncretism between the chtho- nic and solar religion in Thrace during the Bronze Age69. Consequently, it is

65 D. Ravmnonda Northern Horses on Coins at Olynthos, in: Studies presented to D. M.

Robinson, 11, 1953, 197 sqq. 66 The most important dissimilarity is to see in the weight standards. They are also anonymus

"olynthian" diobols more similar with these of Sparadocos, cf. Weber, P1. 73, 1904; BMC p. 87, No 4.

67 N. MuStnov; Anticnite moneti na Balkanskija poluostrov i monetite na balgarskite tzare. Sofia, 1912, No. 6221; T Geravsitnov. Dekadrachma na trakijskoto pleme deroni, IAI 20 (1955) - IGCH 690.

68 Cf. lGBulg IV 2216-2218 and the study of the author, Anticnije kul'ti dolini verhnej i srednej Strumi, in: Spartacus. Symposium rebus Spartaci gestis dedicatum 2050 a. Sofia. 1981, 109 sqq.

69 The Cult of Sabazios in Thracia is interpreted in my book, Eastern Cults in Moesia Inferior and Thracia, Leiden (Brill), 1983, 162 sq.; 187 sqq.

On the Problems of the Coinages of Alexander I 71

not necessary to seek the influence of the Greek religion and the sanctuaries of Zeus through Chalkis or Elis in the 6th century BC, when the contact between Thracians and Hellenes in the Northern Aegean zone already had a centuries- long tradition and realization.

In addition to this distinctive feature on the reverse (the eagle), the coins of Sparadokos had another sign which can be associated perhaps with the possible mint, namely the letter E on the obverse of the diobols. In the numismatic literature the letters EN are connected with the settlement of the Edones Enneaodoi70, i. e. "The Nine Roads", near which the Athenians un- successfully tried to form a colony in 465/464 BC, but were repulsed by the united Thracians7'. This legende is indeed known from issues discovered in this area, but with an obverse which suggests their origin from Euboea or the northern-west Balkan lands72.

The settlement Ennea-odoi is localized near the present-day lake Tachino, which was named Kerkinitis in the antiquity73. Its localization, similar to the related oronym Kerkine known only from Thucydides74 is a frequent problem in the literature.

In the linguistic literature on the ancient Balkan oro- and hydronymy I am not familiar with any study on the origin of the root Kerkin-, which is apparently considered not to be Indo-European. In the modern Bulgarian language there exists the word kerkenez, designated as Turkish in the dictiona- ries, for which the following meanings are given: griffin, eagle, falcon, hunting dog, mineral source. Even the first meaning suggests the Persian vocabulary composition of the Turkish language, the remaining meanings point to royal characteristics: hunting with falcons and dogs, as well as cult places near springs and forests75.

The eagle's name could turn into an adjective for a mountain or lake, which should not be necessarily in geographic proximity, as is most frequently sought in the discussions.

If for the lake Kerkinitis along the lower Strymon it is possible to assume a

70 SNG-A III, Pi. XLIII, 2263-2265, attribution suggested by Sir E. Robinson. 7 Thuc. 1,100,3. 72 Cow standing with calf'. This image belongs to the issues of Apollonia (Illyr.), Dyrrha-

chion, the Illyrian king Monunius, Carystus and Eretria. 73 This is the most accepted localization. E. Borsa in the Bulletin of the Ancient History, 1989

believes that Tachino is to be identifided with Prasias lake (on the basis of Arr. 1,1,5). F Papazog- lou. Les villes de Macedoine a l'epoque romaine, Paris, 1988, 355, n. 21; Kerkinitis must have been the present-day Butkovo. In these opinions usually the closeness to the mountain Kerkine is sought, but this does not follow from Thucydides' text about it (2,98,1). For more details see my paper at the 5th Symposium "Ancient Macedonia", Die politischen Beziehungen zwischen Thrakien und Makedonien im V. Jh. v. u. Z. V, 1989 (in print).

74 Thuic. 2,98,1. 75 D. Klkkian, Dictionnaire turc-franqais, Constantinople, 1911, 1021; Lexicon Nafisi, IV,

Teheran, 1948, p. 2787, s. v. kerkine.

72 M. TACEVA

name obtained from the Persians during the march of Megabazos, this as- sumption is groundless with respect to the mountain between the lands of the Paiones, Sintoi and Maidoi. Its name was known to Thucydides76 probably through the message of the Athenian military leader Hagnon, who accompa- nied Sitalkes in his campaign through this mountain to Doberos and Axios. In this case the root Kerkin- shoud be attributed to the Thracian glosses, as no Persian conquests have been attested in that part of Thrace.

On this basis of the above observations the coins of Sparadokos offer information whose geographic intersection can be localized in the area of the Bisaltae and Edones along the lower reaches of the Strymon river near Ennea-odoi. The coins minted from local silver bore the sign of the eagle as a characteristic feature of the mint of a Thracian settlement near Kerkinitis, or the first letter of its Greek name Ennea-odoi (?). There is no doubt that the ore mines near this settlement, which withstood the repeated aggressions until 436 BC, when Athens finally founded and for a short time ruled over the colony of Amphipolis, was something worth waging a war for. And if Spara- dokos indeed succeeded in reaching the lower Strymon and minted his regale coins, the tetradrachms with the Alexander's obverse in Ennea-edoi, this was possible only after Kimon's defeat in 464 BC. and as a tribut for him77. Sparadokos' conquest in the lower Strymon area and the hinterland of Abde- ra78 seems to be at the expense of Alexander's rule there. An indirect indica- tion in this respect could be found in the coins of Sparadokos, the Derroni and Mosses, with a crested helm as a symbol on their obverse, as well as the already discussed decline of Alexander's coinage ca. 460 BC. The heavy tetrobols of Perdikkas79 with the image of the horseman with the two spears on the obverse from 443 BC onward suggest that Sparadokos had already lost the possibility - political and economic - to place him on his tetradrachms. Consequently, Sparadokos' coinage had its reasonable boundaries between 464 and 444 BC.

This dating of Sparadokos' coins, proposed by a non-specialist in addition to the presented numismatic observations, could provoke either a discussion or a silent neglect on the part of numismatists. For the historians who would

76 Th7u, c 2,95,3. 77 Cf. the opinion expressed by the author, I Pr. (1988), 1 p. 9 sqq, that the name of the

Thracian rulers on the obverse of the coins produced by the Greek citymints should be a sign of their issues minted for the tax to these rulers, guaranteeing the good relations among them. In this sense it could be assumed that coins with the name of the Thracian ruler both on the obverse and on the reverse, e. g. those of Getas or Medocos, mean actually the issues minted on behalf the ruler and the twofold legende is possibly result of the use of a ready punch-die with a new anvil-die, prepared for his own coinage.

'8 The head of an eagle apears on the obols of Abdera during the third period, cf. Malv op. cit. (n. 17). P1. Vill, 123-125.

79 For the rise of Perdikkas cf. R. J. Hof/mnawk Perdikkas and the Outbreak of the Peloponne- sian War, GrRBST 16 (1975) 4,359 sqq.

On the Problems of the Coinages of Alexander 1 73

like to use the proposed chronology it is possible to add two more considera- tions, extracted from the texts of Herodotus and Thucydides.

1. Thucydides knew about Sparadokos only that the latter was the brother of the Odrysian Sitalkes, king of the Thracians, and the father of Seuthes I, who inherited Sitalkes' power8. Sparadokos was not known to Herodotus. The lack of evidence about the political activity of Sparadokos can be explai- ned precisely on the basis of the proposed dating. In Herodotus the informa- tion concerning Thrace is before 464 BC: the expelling of the Persians from Doriskos near the river Hebros, which took place after the text of book VII was written. Thucydides' infonnation was better, being due both to the narra- tive of Hagnon about the activities of Sitalkes during the third year of the Peloponnesian War and to the disputes in Athens concerning the origin of the mythical king Tereus (probably in connection with Sitalkes' march) and his links with Teres, the father of Sparadokos and Sitalkest1. His information, however, was not sufficient to explain the reasons for the talks between Sitalkes and Perdikkas on the eve of 431 BC. Thucydides only knew that Sitalkes penetrated and fought in Macedonia and in the Chalkidike Peninsula in order to revenge on Perdikkas for not keeping his promises82. After the localization presented here of Sparadokos' aggression towards Lower Stry- mon and the subsequent restoration of the Macedonian power of Perdikkas there, it became clear that Sitalkes must have wanted to restore the Odrysian power in the possessions of his brother Sparadokos, lost around 444 BC, the latter being a paradynast or co-ruler83 of the Thracian king in the newly conquered lands. This is also supported by the fact that Thucydides does not mention Bisaltae and Edones either as allies of Sitalkes, or as objects of his march, or among those who were frightened by his campaign.

2. Again from Thucydides we can conclude that Sparadokos belonged to Alexander's generation, although he was a little youngerT. Thus the middle of the 5th century BC proved to be a watershed in the history of the Northern Balkan lands. Alexander, Mosses, Dokymos, Sparadokos and other anony-

5" Thuc. 4,105,5: 2,101,1. xl Thuc. 2,29,2-3. S2 Thuc. 2.95,2.

3 For this phenomenon and its historical roots cf. my paper at the fourth Congress for Thracology, Zu einigen Problemen der Geschichte des mykenischen Thrakiens, Contributions au IVe Congres Intern. de Thracologie, Sofia, 1984, 74 sqq.

84 Following Thuc. 2,101,6; 4,101,5 - the stemma seems to be:

TERES AMYNTAS

SITALKES SPARADOKOS ALEXANDER I SADO S SE I II TI 1

SADOKUS SEUTIHES I 00 STRATONIKA PERDIKKAS II

74 M. TACEVA, On the problems of the Coinage of Alexander I

mous rulers departed from this world to give an opportunity to other Balkan forces to profit from the political vacuum.

University of Sofia Margarita Taceva

Abbreviations Babelon E. Babelon. Trait& des monnaies Grecques et Romaines, 11 Partie, t. IV, fasc.

V. Paris, 1932. Brett A. B. Brett. Catalogue of Greek Coins. Boston. 1955. Gaehler H. Gaebler. Die antiken Munzen Nordgriechenlands, 111, 2. Berlin, 1935. Head B. V. Head. Historia numorum. Oxford, 1911. IAI lzvestija na arheologi6eskij'a institut. Sofia. lGBulg G. Mihailov. Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae. Sofia, I - IV,

1956-1966. lPr lstori6eski pregled. 1945-1989. Sofia. SNG IV SNG IV, 11 (L[ake and General collection). Sicily-Thrace. London, 1972. SNG V SNG V. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Part Ill. Macedonia. London, 1976. SNG-D SNG Deutschland, 2. Heft, T6ibngen. Berlin, 1982. SNG-R SNG. The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals Danish Nat. Museum.

Thrace and Macedonia. New Jersey, 1982. Weher The Weber Collection, II. New York, 1975. SNG Ill SNG 111, 11 Part (Lockett collection). London, 19572. McClean S. V. Grose. Catalogue of McClean Collection of Greek Coins, 11. Chicago,

1979.