Essays on the coinage of Alexander the Great / by Alfred R. Bellinger

8/9/2019 Essays on the coinage of Alexander the Great / by Alfred R. Bellinger

1/147

CO I N AG O F

TH E G R E A T

E L L I NG R

I E S

NNU M SMAT CSO C E T

C r e a

t i v e C o m m o n s A t t r i b u t i o n - N o n C o m m e r c i a l - S h a r e A l i k e

/ h t t p : / / w w w . h a t h i t r u s t . o r g / a c c e s s_

u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


2/147

E S R V E D

NNU M SMAT CSO C E T

G R M AN A T . . AU G U ST N G U C STAD T

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


3/147 C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


4/147 C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


5/147


6/147


7/147


8/147


9/147

cehelleni ue.

omanCoinsintheBritish Museum.

chisc heGesc hic hteIV . 1 B erlin 1925.

y.

carum.

ecarum.

onhistori uedesMonnaiesdeI Empireromain.

agesofDemetrius oliorc etes.

derHoardsII. Demanhur1905.

geoftheEasternSeleucidMintsfrom SeleucusIto

ikenMiin envonMakedoniaund aeonia.

Numorum.

Archeologienumismati ue.

erHoardsI.IntroductionandKyparissiaHoard.

NumismaticSociety.

osKat isson.

nographsAmericanNumismaticSociety.

ft.

aphyofGreekCoinHoardsEd. 2.

esSelectae.

derHoardsIV . O lympia.

ues.

butionofCertainTetradrachmsofAle anderTheGreat

corum.

anderCoinageofSic yonarrangedfromNotesofEdward

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


10/147


11/147

reinsc ribedA AEEA NA O YorA A EEA NA O Y

ney.Notinthe waythatthelawsarethe king slaws:

theresponsiblesourcewith thesamerelationstoall

hisswordandhorsearethe king s:bypersonal

eofbeingmodifiedonlybyhimselfthroughgiftor loan.

entirelyw ithouthisknow ledge amanmayac uire

ecanto anyotherpieceofproperty.Doubtlessthe

yfromhim ashecouldtakeawayhis cattleorhis

man smoneyisnomore vulnerablethananyofhis

mayhavebeenatimewhencoinswere theproperty

teandpersonalsense.Recentlytheinteresting

ethattheywerenot originallyintendedforcurrency

anking smercenariesandthatcirculationwasan

conse uence.2Itisinterestingtoguess attheprocess

nctionabsorbedtheprimaryone.3Itmusthave

rofthe Greekcitieswassurelyintendedascurrency

yc ase byA le ander stimeallthoughtofpersonal

ingandhismoneyhadlongsincebeen forgotten.

hegenitiveongoldand silvermusthavemeantthat

thorityofthe king fromhismetalandthat they

hhisgovernmentpaidhis obligationsandreceived

egaltenderwhereverhispowere tended forboth

iform.

posedtoe ualtheirnominalvalue:asilver

befourdrachmaeofsilver.Yet ifthathadbeen

he nameonlywithoutthetitle.Atsomemints e.g. SidonandAke

s adoptionisnotsimultaneousinthe citieswhereitoccursandit

onalsignificance forsometimesanissuewiththetitle willbesucceeded

E. T. Newell Myriandros-A le andriaKat isson NewYork 1920 p. 33

derandplacingof thewordsvary .

lationsontheOriginsofCurrenc y " Historia1958 pp. 257-262.

rrencywillrememberwithpleasurethedictumof Aristotlethat

iberalstudybuttheprac ticeisnot. olitic sI 4. 1. Hehadnodoubt

richif theywantedtobut thatisnotwhatthey areinterestedin.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


12/147

EOFALEXANDERTHEGREAT

e penseofmanufacturewouldhavebeenbornebythe

avebeenso.Aman whowasaccustomedtoreceive

ght andbymetalcontentifthatwas determined

itha lessamountsimplybecauseitborea device

rkeddumpsincirculationof fullweight.Theremust

ointatwhichthe costofmanufacturewastransferred

tothe userandthereis nowayoftellingwhenthat

Ale ander.Histetradrachmswereincompetitionwith

ting asweknow wasanimportanteconomicasset

wouldnot consciouslylosebytheprocess andthe

nwasto reducetheweightofeachcoinalittle so

ouldbe metale ualtothecost ofmanufacture.

thensdidandwhat Ale anderdidalso.4Howmuch

otknow.Thetetradrachmwassupposedto weigh

maeofsilvermusthaveweighedsomewhatmore

lvesconformtostandardverywell suchother

renot nearlysouniform sothattheattemptto find

n-monetarydrachmisnotlikelyto besuccessful.

edbylawandthedifferenceamatterof record.We

erperiod whatprec autionstheA thenians took tokeep

strue weknowalsothattheywereperfectly

eightwhichwasdifferentfromthe commercial

ge isananachronism butwearedriventoemploy itbec ausewedonot

ksused.Theamountofseignioragein mediaevalandmodemtimes

o covercostsbuttoprovidearevenuefor thesovereign theBureauof

tesisreportedtohavemadeaprof itofover 45 000 000in1957 . B ut

erethecoinagedoesnot havetocompetewithotherswhosebullion

outofconsiderationallotherGreek coinages AthensandAle ander

hat theircoinsshouldbeacceptedwidelyandif theyweretoinvade

neconomyofbarteritmustbe becausetheirbullionvaluewasonly

evalue.Athenspresentsthe conditionswhereitwouldbeeasiestto

fstrik ing andwherethate pensewouldbeleast: invariabletypesand

waswornout. TheAle andercoinagewasalmostassimple:thetypes

yingsymbolsonthe reversemeantthatoccasionally attheendof an

mayhavebeenreversedieswhichwerenot wornoutbutwhichmustbe

use ofhissuccessor.

eWeight-standardsofA nc ientGreeceand ersia " Ira 1938 pp. 65-81

ofa numberofseriesandcalculatesstandardsofwhichthefollowing

ersiandaric 8.43grams siglos8. 52gramsor8. 26grams twostandards ;

rams tetradrachm14. 70grams A le anderstater8.66grams tetradrachm

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


13/147

nciti enswereawarethatthegovernmentwas

ullweighttheyprobablycaredverylittle.The

economywereworthmuchmorethantheamount

truckinthreemetalsand inavarietyofdenomin-

ngarethe mostimportant:

estedCorinthianhelmet

gleft holdingwreathinrighthand sty lisin

htin lion sskinheaddress

nthrone eagleonoutstretc hedrighthand w ith

scepter. L A TEI 1

htin lion sskinheaddress

b L A TEI 29

mbolsonthe reversewhichdistinguishthemints

eoccasionedmuchcomment.Theyarenewto the

areusually thoughnotuniversally regardedas

. Tobesure theirgeneralproprietytoA le anderis

ciente planationwithoutcloserinvestigationinto

representedthispointofv iew :7thetypesof hilip s

werebynomeanssuitedtotheambitiousandsoaring

whothereforeselected allas thepatronessof the

awarlikeNikew itha trophy-stand. Thec uriosity

ever hasnotbeensoeasilysatisf ied andac onsiderable

outthe identificationof allasandNike.In1847

DecreeonMeasuresandWeights endof2ndcentury— beginningof

oeckhhasanelaboratecommentaryonthisinStaatshaushaltungder

. 318-332 whichwasac ceptedbyallsubse uentwritersuntilL ouisRobert

uegrec ue aris 1951 pp. 105-135 provedthatlTE9avT 96pouSpa uc rf

arneddiscussionwerecoinsoftheAthenianNewStyle.It wasun-

ert splantodeal withthearithmeticalaspectsoftheinscriptionwhich

earsinIG. Indeed headdedasmallitemofc onfusionbyprintingSKO T& V

orr6v7revT^KovTa6po iJiA sinthelastlineof thete tonp. 116 . O . V iedebantt

sbesc hluB iiberMaB undGewic ht " Hermes1916 pp. 121-144 hastaken

se insertingtwolineswhichwemustassumetheAbbeFourmontmissed

snowouronlyw itnesstothete t.

ns Cambridge 1883 p. 188.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


14/147


15/147

allas desmonnaiesdeCorinthe 20inwhichhewas

hothoughtthattheadoptionof P allasCorinthien-

romadecisionofthe CouncilofCorinthandwhocould

etweenAthensandAle anderweresuchastomake

mherpossible.This isagoode ampleofanattempt

vidence.Iftherewereno documentsthismightbe

gpossibilitywhich f romfre uentrepetition would

act.Buthere thereisevidence andoneonlyhasto

enaonthec oinsofCorinth P L A TEII 1 andof

ythatit isimpossiblethatthelatter shouldbederived

ander sgoddesshadbeensupposedtobethesame

nthiansilvershewouldhavebeenmadetolook the

uldtherehavebeenfor mentorecogni eher

of thewholeproblemofA le ander simperialc urrenc y

ongroundsofhistoricalprobability thatthegoddess

titwasnotuntilafterhisv isittoIliumthatA le -

owntypesongold.23Kleiner sworkisa connected

disposedofpiecemeal itwillbetreatedmore

tmaybesaidhere that onpurelynumismatic

oisaweakone. A thenaIlias assheisknowntousf rom

I 2 3 , wasadeityofveryspecialappearance:sheworea

rsheheldaf illetedspear andinherotherhandwasa

wasanA natoliandeityw ithmoreorientalthanGreek

adhadherin mindhecouldhaveproducedahead

e asKleinersays thatonlaterc oinsof Iliumthe

orms oneofwhichislikethat onthestaters.But

reversethecultstatueof AthenaIlias onthe

awitharoundA ttic helmet P L A TEII 3 . Thesewere

theheadinCorinthianhelmetcomeslaterunder

thenaIliasasa reversetype.Toassumethatthere

heappearanceofAthena romachusispurely

woformsofAthenaknownearlieron thecoinsandone

AthenaIliasonthe2ndc enturysilver24 P L A TEII 2 .

t n av a l su r l es M o nn a ie s " M e la n ge s n um i sm a ti u e s 4 a r is 1 9 12 p . 2 13 .

hierae A phlasta Stoloi A k rostolia Embola roembolaetTotems

p p . 11 5 f .

n e n B e rl i n 1 9 49 p . 1 9.

beenadvancedbyEsprit MarieCousinery V oyagedanslaMace-

V o l . I p . 2 31 .

roy. SupplementaryMonographs2 TheCoins rinc eton 1961.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


16/147


ena romachusandAthenaIliasmustconclude

ereferredtotheformerandnottothelatter.25A nA thenian

e goldisthereforestillthe mostlikely.26

orthyofremark.Nikehas alongandinteresting

butnoneofherpreviousappearanceshasanyconnec-

initself raisesnodif f ic ulty andwhentheob ec tin

oughttobethef ramefortheerec tionofatrophy it

eauguryofthefuture towhichAle anderwas

s.But itwasearlynoticedthatthe ob ectassumed

d Babelonpresentlyshowedthatitwas infact

ktobe aninstrumentforproppingupthe aphlaston

p.ThenavalsignificancewasacceptedbyErnst

howeverthatwhatwasrepresentedwasactuallya

borneontheadmiral sship. Somepartofhisargument

samenumberof theZ eitschriftfurNumismatikw

aterpassage pp. 31f . seemstometoc ompromisehisposition

easurermusthavebeeninfluentialin thechoiceoftypes Harpalus

aintedwithAthensonhisfirst mysteriousflighttoMegarain333 andhe

cetowardAthensbythecelebratedAthenianhetairai ythionikeand

oreprobablyresponsiblefortheAtheniancharacterofthegoldtypes.

auchamehestenmoglich dieGoldstateremitAtheninZ usammenhang

whyintroducetheTro anepisodeatall

detailoftheobversetype.Thebowl ofthehelmetofAthena when

rryoneoffourdifferentkindsof ornamentwhichhavebeendiscussedby

dertheGreatandthe ersianL ion-Gryphon " JHS1923 pp. 156-161 . The

mmonest isaserpentinwhichL ederersawasymbolofA thena Z fN1922

aremarkableanimalw ithstraightw ings thebodyofalionandthehead

phonbelongstotheperiodaf terA le ander sdeathandtoA siaMinor

A rarervarianthastheheadofalion whichissometimeshorned w ith

-gryphon saysHill wasc onc eivedbytheGreekastheenemypar

sian. ItappearsatA c e- tolemaisandTarsus atSidon orperhapsDamasc us

anditsdatessuggestthatit mayhavebeenusedforashort timeasa

of the ersianpower. TherarestornamentisaGreeksphin usedat

whereintheEast.If itissymbolicits significanceisnowlost.

inkofBrynMawrwhoseattentionIcalledto thismaterialpoints

adedgriffinoccursbyitself inconte tswhereitis surelyapotropaic

ed theenemypare c ellenc eof the ersians. A tthesametimeitap-

sde ersianartsothatonA le ander sc oinsitshowsfamiliarityw ith

heotheranimals alltraditionalasdecorationsonA thena shelmet the

gallopingposeofthebird-headedgriffin.Butthereis nosuree planation

fthem.

ues I aris 1892 pp. 203-217.

ufgriec hisc henMiin en " Z fN1906 pp. 215-226.

k reu , " ibid. pp. 331-334.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


17/147

dhimina discussionmuche tendedfromhisfirst

ttheob ectwasnotpurely hoenician.Itsfunction

e uatelytreateduntil1914whenJeanSvoronos31

strationthat thestyliswasanimageof theprotect-

nof aship.Whateverinterpretationsmaybe

onethingisclear:whatNike holdsinherleft hand

hatdoesraisea difficulty foritis wellknownthat

A le anderhadnof leetandthereforenoreasontoselec tatype

chthis dilemmaismet:1 byassumingthat

entlyaheadtovic toryatsea 2 byassumingthathe

hebeginningof hiscareerbutata latertimewhen

opriate 3 byassumingthatthesty liswaspartof the

nder stypewasbasedandthathec opieditasitwas

elfaboutitsproprietyindetail.

apableofproof butc ertainlynotvery likelyunless

reerhee pectedtohavethehelpof someothernaval

ny plansofhislookingto controlofthesea.

orethanonce.Itsacceptancemeanseitherthat

dinthe firstyearsofhisreign orthathecontinuedto

er P L A TEI 1-3 . Thereis Ithink nodefenderof

foritisc learthatA le anderc annothavec on uered

andtheminesofMacedoniawerestillproviding

thesecondalternativeis theonlyonewhichneeds

yassumedthatthecaptureofTyre isthepointat

mentofnavalsupremacywouldbecomeappropriate.

ryinthe articlereferredto:in332Ale anderfound

he hoenicianadmiralandcouldadopthisinsignia.

Babelonmakestheinterestingobservationthatby

abattles forthecaptureofTyrecanhardly becon-

thearmyoftheGreatKing hadbeendefeatedatIssus

o e pectthattherealvictorywouldbe commemo-

edthenratherthan astrategicsituationwhichwas

alimportanc etohisgreatc on uests.

haveputforwardthetheorythatAle ander s

he beginningofhisreign.It appearsasearlyas

V oyagedanslaMac edoine P aris 1831 thereisa

d A le andre pp. 229-270 . Itisnaiveandc arelessin

ues 4 pp. 199-237.

52 esp. 115-118.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


18/147


gardtothecorrespondenceofte tandillustrations

ewhichhashad fullerandablertreatmentsince:

y Ale anderwerenotthosewithhis owntypesbut

onofthoseofhisfather. Nousnepouvons—nous

nentrantdans1 A sie ilnesoitborneamettreenemission

anslestroismetau " pp. 230f . . Thisisre ec tedby

vedin animpressivepresentation:Kleiner sAle -

tw illbewell however todealf irstw ithCousinery s

reatment thoughthiswill makeitnecessaryto

ofthesilver.

ndedon twoconvictions:first thattheheadon

sinvariablyaportraitofA le ander. Cettetetene

hesays p. 236 ; hef indsc ompleteuniformitynotonly

gAle ander slifetimebutalsowiththeheadin

ssuedby tolemy P L A TEII 4 andthatwiththe

yL ysimachus P L A TEII 5 , whichherightlyrec ogni-

thekingswhomintedthembutof theirdeifiedleader.

ings butnoneof theA le andertypestoletthereader

eof invariablesty le. Hedoes indeed remark that

acedoniaafteritsdivisionbythe Romansare

tthereisno indicationthatheusedthisor anyother

epochstowhichAle andercoinsbelong.Apparently

the earliestMacedoniansilverandonthespread-flan

eededthecollapseofthe Seleucidpower.Hissecond

onethatit wastheGreekcities gratefulfortheir

rsians whichselectedthetypesandmanufacturedthe

tistwouldhardlyfeelcalledonto refutethisbut of

wouldmeanthatthesilver typescouldnothavebegun

reed. Thegold asalreadyremarked hethinkswas

der sv isittoIlium. Theappearanc eofA thenaonthe

conse uenceofthedevotiontherepaidto herby

heNikeof thereverseappearstobenoproblemtotheauthor.

ndercoulduse ersiangoldandsilver buthe

er stypes soitparrespectpoursamemoire soita

smonnaiesavaientac uispartoutoulenomde hilippe

ousleprouvec estlagrande uantitedec espiec es

ec ouvrirdanstoute1 A sie p. 231 . Thislastremark isthe

anfairlybecalledevidenceina fabricofcon ecture

wecantesttosomee tent.Itisessentialto distinguish

ued A le andraleGrand Copenhagen 1855 p. X 4. n. 24.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


19/147

r.Thegold of hilipachievedagreatsuccessasan

itspopularitywassuchthatit certainlywasissued

ecurrencyofthestatersisshownbythe hoardsin

re19suchhoardslisted byNoe:34theycomefrom

Greece A siaMinor Cyprus Syria Egypt Italyand

er ontheotherhand hadamorerestrictedterritory.

henorthit waswellreceived sothatfromthemint

alsowereissuedposthumously.36Thegreatnumber

c hcommonerthanthosec opiedf romA le ander is

ftheoriginalsin thatdirection.Butifthecrossingto

gnsthereweref inancedw ith hilip ssilveraswellas

ntialtoCousinery stheory thehoardsc ontaininghis

usinAsiaMinor.Thereare 24suchhoards andthey

omania GreeceandSicily.37Itcannotbesaid thatthere

mthe territorywithwhichweareconcerned.From

c entislands andnorthSyriaNoe slisthas140hoards

essthan17 whichcontainsilverofAle ander.38And

ilip Thisissurelyenoughto ustifyusinask ing If

edinthef irstc ampaigns whereisit "

nder sc oinageasawhole whichnobodyhaddone

iliaritywiththeliterarysourceswhichnumismatists

ell tomatch.Hehassupportedhisthesis withgreat

assemblingmuchmaterialoniconographywithwhich

bebetterac uaintedthantheyare. Itis uiteim-

otheworkinany resumesinceitisa largebodyofrelated

elc alledupontodisagreew ithhim Ishouldliketodo

spossible.

heimperialcoinage—silveraswellasgold—was

latTyreinthespringof331af terA le ander sreturn

dA . R . B ellinger A HoardofA le anderDrac hms " YakC lassic al

5 pp. 3-45 thec onspectusof theA le andermintsofL ampsakos A bydos

nesiaandSardis pp.13 16 18 20 23 27 .

ibliographyofGreekCoinHoards 2nded. NNM78 , NewYork 1937.

numbers.

0 R o ma n ia 4 6 6 2 4 G r e e ce 2 6 7 3 3 9 4 5 5 A s i a M in o r 63 7 8 4 1 C y p r us

82 E gy pt 8 9 3 22 4 30 I ta ly 1 04 5 S ic il y 1 70 1 09 3 1 09 8.

butionofCertainTetradrac hmsofAle andertheGreat NewYork

4 46 4 47 4 81 5 26 8 66 9 80 R om an ia 2 86 G re ec e 4 9 6 9 3 39 4 61 4 66

7 83 8 34 8 44 S ic il y 2 1 1 70 1 16 4.

4 0 5 1 6 7 7 9 8 2 4 7 5 4 88 6 03 8 46 9 25 9 26 9 91 1 03 3.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


20/147

GEOFALEXANDERTHEGREAT

hattimethatHarpalus inducedbyA le anderto

egara wasreinstatedastreasurer. Itis ofc ourse an

eand importantasystemshouldhavebeenplanned

erationall atonce andthesecondvisitto Tyre

opriatemomentforsuchaninnovation.ButKleiner

opriatenessalone.Likeothers hemaintainstheim-

e susingNikeasadev icebeforethec aptureofTyre

h e d en i es t h at a l la s i s a pr o ba b le d e it y f or h i m to h a ve

earsofhisreign beforehisv isittoTroy pp. 18 19 ;

plicatedpsychologicalargument.In197B.C. to

eGreeks goldpieceswerestruckwiththeportrait

rse andonthereverse w iththeinsc riptionT. Q V INCTI

er sNikew ithapalmsubstitutedforthesty lis P L A TE

rregardsthistobeapresentationofF lamininustheL iberator

andertheL iberator. B uthebelievesthatif thistype

anderatthebeginningofhis reignitwouldhave

moneyofAle andertheDestroyerofThebesandso

hemodelofa typeinhonorofemancipation whereas

fterhisfreeingoftheGreek citiesofAsiaMinor

osuchob ec tion pp. 5 6 . 41

ymind arebasedonprobabilityonlyandare

onfrontedwithevidencetothecontrary.Andwe

nthreeplaces. Thef irstistheabsenc eof hilip s

inor alreadydiscussedinconnectionwithCou-

ike.In discussingtheAle andercoinageofTarsus42

showshowdirectlyitwasbasedon thecoinageofthe

uswhic hprec ededit. NowA le anderenteredTarsus

wonthebattleof IssusNovember12ofthesameyear.44

thosemintsassoonafterfallingintoAle ander s

t obviouslythetheorythatthefirst appearanceofhis

n Mi i n e n v on M a ke d on i a un d a i on i a I I I . X XX V I 1 7 1 8 .

mentaffectingtheuseofhissilver typesbyGreekcitiescelebrating

ciddominationafter189B.C.

der NewYork 1919. Thepointhadbeenmadelongbeforeby J. .

a a i o s " N C 1 8 84 p p . 97 - 15 9 . . 1 0 1 l e s pr e mi e re s m on n ai e s d A l e a n d r e

mmediatementsuiteac ellesdeMa aios " p. 102 L adoneouf inissentles

c ommenc entc ellesd A le andre. IIn yapasdelac uneapparente.

n NewYork 1920.

L aB atailled lssus analysec riti ued untravailmanusc ritduCom-

MemoiresdeI InstitutnationaldeF ranc e 1914 pp. 41-76.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


21/147

331mustbeabandoned.Newelldoesnot undertake

oinsfollowthe ersianonesimmediately thoughhe

tthereareonlytwoother possibilities:eitherthe

to331or c onformabletoKleiner sgeneraltheory

suesbearing hilip stypes. Inthef irstcase some

ed inthesecond theissuesoughttobeidentif ied.

ionsare met Newell shypothesisholdsthefield.46

kenofthearrangementofthe issuesofAmphipolis

DemanhurHoard. 47Theye tendfrom c irca336B . C.

elatterbeingthedateof thehoard sburial p. 135 ; they

is arrangementtheauthor ustifiesonpp.68f.:

dthevariousgroupsof theAmphipoliscoinageare

tentappro imate. B utevenso theyc annotbeinerror

eitherway. Hepointsoutthatimportantcon-

he earliergroupscomesfromahoardburiedat

48Kleiner stheory whichdoesnotaffec tthedateof

ard wouldforceusto compressthismaterialby

egroupsf romeleventosi . How isittobedone Itmay

elfhadrevised anearlierarrangement andsohe

espects.49Therehasbeenmuchnewinformationmade

nterestingto noteinhowmanyinstancesthecustomsandpeculiarities

pearon thesucceedingissuesofAle anderforthesamedistrict.This

sonnel appliancesandtraditionsofamintwereall retainedforthe

.ThecoinageofTarsosis noe ceptiontothisruleand theissuesbearing

andertheGreatareseen tobethedirectsuccessorsofthe localcoins

Myriandros p. 31 Thisfactimmediatelysuggeststhatthefollow ing

ns verysimilarinsty leandc haractertohisTarsianissues wasreally

mediatesuccessiontothe ersicissuesofMa aiosemanatingfromthe

nt.

7-30. TheproblemofSidonandAke Newell TheDatedA le ander

e NewHaven 1916 Kleinerhasmetbyrev isingNewell sdating pp.

discuss.If theprincipleisestablishedbyTarsusit issuperfluoustoargue

sKitionandSalamisin CypruswhosecoinageNewellwouldbegin circa

ot e A l e a n de r s " N C 1 91 5 p p . 29 4 -3 2 2 . B u t i n t he c as e o f Si d on K l ei n er s

ssiblebythe e istenceofa tolemaictetradrachmoftheyear22which

n311/10asKleiner sc alc ulationwouldmakeit. B ellinger A nA le -

B erytus1950-1 no. 140 G. K. Jenkins A nEarly tolemaic Hoard

9 60 p p . 27 f . .

De m an h ur 1 9 05 N N M 19 N e w Yo r k 1 9 23 .

a n de r H oa r ds I N N M 3 , N e w Yo r k 1 9 21 p p . 18 1 9 .

eattribution heidentif iedthec hiefmintas ellainsteadofA mphipolis

burialwas308 insteadof318 datedthefirstappearanceof Basileus

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


22/147


studyandthatneedsto beworkedthrough a

matictreatmentoftheissues of hilipII.Butit is

sarrangementisfallible.Itis foundedoncareful

abetterarrangementisproposed wearenot ustified

fthe coinagebyfiveyears.50

ethatKleinerhasdone usticetotheev idenc eofsty le.

eearliestHeraclesheadsfromthedifferentmintsis

e byGebaurtobediscussedbelow.

eaknessesofoursec ondpossibility weareleftw ithour

A le ander sNikeisc opiedf romonewithwhic hthesty lis

nwasanobviouspossibilityto thosewhobelieved

rsewasA thena romachus butB abelonmadethe

ypointingout51thatNikewitha stylisupona

romachuswaspaintedona anathenaicvaseof336/5

delos.Thisseemedtohimmorethanacoincidenceand

Nikaiwererelateddocumentsofa timeofcordiality

thecity.HilldefendedhimagainstAssmannon

snotc onv inc edbythesuggestionthatA le anderhad

NeitherwasSvoronoswho asalreadyremarked

s timeAle anderwouldhavehadanyreasonto

belonthought.Instead hesuggestedthatitwas

hat theNikeonthe anathenaicvasewascopied

rmaishistori uesdesstateres u A le andrevenaitde

Macedoine. 53Thiswasdismissedby Ledererasim-

snotenoughtimeforthe coinstohavebeenstruck

nasto inviteimitationintheyear336/5after Ale -

CongressofCorinth.54Ontheotherhand heproduced

tionwithAthensanewlydiscoveredgoldstateron

accompaniedbyNikealsoas asymbolbearingan

ob ectwhichhethoughtmightbea stylis.Thisun-

mefiguresasboth ma orandminordeviceheregarded

ylisticallythecoinbelongstoAle ander searliest

ebasedrather onthesilvercoinsthan onthegold.Thedateof the

otparticularlyinvestigated itisassumedto beginin333 Tarsos

butinthec aseofA mphipolisthereisgolddirectlyc onnec tedw iththesilverseries:e. g.

ur327-331 331B . C. andMiiller192f. w ithDemanhur254-265 333/2

u e s 4 p p . 21 0 -2 1 3 I . X IV , 3 .

L ondon 1906 p. 105 n. 2.

-205.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


23/147

l ievedthatitwastheveryf irstdiec utforthenewk ing s

nA thensitself . Moreover hemademorespec if ic an

advancedbyBabelon.GoldenNikaihadbeen

atter halfofthe5thcentury butinthecriticaldays

honee c eption beenmelteddownintomoney. O newas

5othersbyLycurgusinthe late4thcentury.Inthiscase

and inscriptionalevidenceaswell.Thepseudo-

TenO rators 841Dand852B and ausaniasI 29both

gus whowasnotableforthee tenttowhic hhe

stoAthens hadpresentedtothegoddesson the

rthings goldenNikai. Twoinscriptions IG2II 333and

owwhenthe giftwasdatedin336 asunderstoodby

betweenA thens andA le ander sNikeisanobv ious

r p. 202 def initelyholdsthec ointobeinspiredby

eitemthatmakesthisattractiveis thefactthat

tweshoulde pec tf romthe4thcentury whereasit

arestorationof a5thcenturyoriginal.56Unfortu-

sform thetwoinscriptionsarenowdated334/3.57

owever byadaringc on ec tureofHomerA . Thompson:58

ationof336/5wasanac tofmunif ic enc eofA le ander

onofthetypewouldthencommemorateanactof

rwhichhehad recurringmoodsofaffection.We

echesofthelaterAtticoratorstofind thatnotall

es doubtlesshehadmorefriendsthanweknow and

more friendsthanhedid.It isobviousthattheonly

utionis skepticismastosuchcordialrelationsbetween

336.59If thatcanbeaccepted alldifficultiesaremet.

ndorto admitthatthechoicewouldnothavebeen

ogeneralhistoricalprobability.

thesilver wearemetwitha differentkindof

ungHeracleswithalion sskincoveringhadample

n TheGoldenNikaiRec onsidered " Hesperia1944 pp. 173-209.

. c it. p. 189.

guson TheTreasurersofA thena Cambridge 1932 pp. 122f . n. 2.

theA thenianA gora A thenianStudiespresentedtoWilliamSc ott

1940 pp. 183-210.

relationslaterdeteriorated whywasnotthetypec hanged B utthis

t isobviousthatwhatAle anderwantedforhisnewcurrencywas

entimentwasallowedto affecthistypesoncetheyhadbeenchosen.

s inhislifetime varietyintheappearanceoftheminordenominations

coinsthatdidthe mainfiscalworkoftheempire.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


24/147


ncoins havingappearedunderArchelausI 413-399

381-369 erdicc asIII 364-359and hilipII 359-336. 60

ofthe MacedoniankingsfromHeracles whenever

enveryusefultotheir claimtoadmissionamongthe

worldand noreasonbeyondtraditionwasneeded

ro sportraitasadev ice. Kleiner whosetheoryre-

wellasthegoldshould havebeeninauguratedin331

sinterestinHeracleswasnot conspicuousuntilthe

hichhisheroicancestorassumesgreatimportancein

lusionisopentothesameob ec tionsthathavealready

othe gold.Thesimpleste planationisthatthenew

ut foranewdenomination.

estionshouldhavebeenrepeatedlyasked: isthe

fA le anderhimself Therearereally twoindepend-

waysdistinguishedbyinvestigators.Wasitthe intention

ducealikeness whichmightbetruewithoutany

c mostofwhomwouldnothaveseenthe kingat

udge Wasitthegeneralpersuasionthattheheadwas

whichmightbetruewithoutanysuchintent onthepart

Wehavesundrybitsofevidencethatthe secondwas

etradrachmwasissuedinthe 2ndcenturyB.C.by

ctria oneofanumberhonoringhispredecessors.The

eadin lion sskinwiththe inscriptionAAEEANA OY

ATEII y .62HereHeraclesisaltogetherignoredandthe

tthatofthedeified con uerorbutofAgathocles

r.

d- Issumbron ec oinswerestruck inthe1stc enturyA .D.

y leandfabric ontheobverseofwhic hthereisaHeracles

A r ch e la o s h e mi o bo l s p. 1 5 6 9 1 0 I . XX I X 1 8 1 9 A my n ta s h e mi -

I . XX X 1 b ro n e p . 16 0 7 -1 1 I . XX X 7 9 c f. t he c on te mp or ar y br on e

3 0 ; e rd ic ca s d i dr ac hm p . 16 1 r I . XX X 1 4 b ro n e p p. 1 61 f. 2 -5

hilip gold halfstater-eighthstaterpp. 163f . 9-16 I. X X X 28 didrac hm

XI 1 o ct ob ol p . 16 6 2 7 b r o n e p . 16 8 3 7 - 39 4 1 I . XX XI 1 0 1 4- 16 w it h

68 4 0 I . X XX I 1 7 .

12. Itshouldberemarkedthathisargumentreliesheav ilyonthenon-

therecordoftheearly years butsurely consideringthenatureofthe

gumentume silentioisveryrisky . Also someweightshouldbegiventothe

Isocrates Orationto hilip especiallysections104-115.

The ortraitsofA le andertheGreat " roc eedingsof theA meric an

949 p. 414 f ig. 63.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


25/147

h c onsideringthetown mustbeunderstoodasapic ture

on ec oinswereissuedinMac edoniainthe3rdc entury

anderontheobverseidentifiedbythe inscription

TEII 8 . MThemostfavoredportraitseemstobeonewith

obviouslymodelledonthecoinageofLysimachus

eheadinlion ssk inheaddress 65whichshowsthat

odoubtastowho wasrepresented.

aeumstruckabron ec oininthetimeofCarac allaon

tisidentifiedbyinscriptionas Ale andertheFounder

restingmediaevalitemintheDeThematibusofthe

rphyrogenetus 945-959A . D. . 67Speak ingof the

nsideredthemselvesdescendantsofHeracleswho

hereportsthatinsteadof taeniaorcrownorroyalpurple

w iththeskinofalion sheadwhic htheypri edmore

orthyproofof thisisthec oinofA le anderofMac edon

ortrait. SotherewereAle andertetradrachmsto

yandatso lateadatetheanswerto thesecond

headwascommonlysupposedtobethatof Ale ander

ringtoguessthat thesameanswerwouldberight

eventheperiodofA le ander sownlifetime. B utfor

otbe proven.

edebatedandhasbeen.It isunnecessarytorefer

ehadtheirsay sincesomehavenothingnewtooffer.

dis alwaysintendedtobeAle ander.Wehaveseen

ken fordifferentreasonsbyCousineryandby

dalsobysome oftheoldernumismatistswritingin

raandC ilic ia p. 29 nos. 2-4.

ErsteA bteiling. pp. 94-191. Theillustrationsof thispartof theworkare

ealmostunusable andthedatingisvery uestionable.

o . 17 5 I . I V , 1 4 .

h yl i a an d i s id i a p . 2 0 2 n o . 1 I . X XX I II 1 .

hepassageis uotedbytheoldernumismatists e. g. JosephEc khel

e ru m a r t I V o l . 2 V i e n n a 1 8 39 p . 9 9.

danarticlebyKurtLange Z urFragedesBildnisgehaltesbei

hilipsIIundA le andersIII desGroB en vonMakedonien " Wissensc haf t-

eutschenNumismatikertagesinGottingen 1951 Gottingen 1959 pp.27-33

stheoriesandsometimese aggeratedthem.Langebelievesthatthe

raitandwasrec ogni edassuc h atthetimeaswellaslater buthew ill

chmbearsatrue portrait andthenumismaticpartofhis articleis

l.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


26/147


ofabundantillustration sothattheirconclusions

oastoc onv inc etheeye nor indeed weretheirown

eandintimatevisualac uaintancewiththematerial.

eadwas neverintendedasaportrait.Suchis

pportedbyabookishargumentcharacteristicofhistime.

fHorac e EpistlesII. 1. 239-41 :

uissepraeterA pellem

sippoduc eretaera

simulantia.

passagefrom linytheElder H. N. V II. 37. 125 :

tne uisipsumalius uamA pellespingeret uam

uamL ysippuse ac reduc eret andthelaterpassage

retheauthori ationof yrgotelesseemstoapplyonlyto

nsofortifiedtheargumentdoesnot amounttomuch.

whateverformittook musthavebeenthattheking

portraitto anyartistse ceptthosethree.Hecannot

topreventthemakingofcopiesandcopiesofcopies

d.Indeedwehaveancientreferencestootherpor-

officialappointees.71Die-sinkerscouldcertainly

withoutbreakingthe law.

vebeen ofc ourse partsofmoregeneralin uiries

anderinallmedia butwhetherotherk indsareinc luded

vetakenoneof twopositions eitherdeny ingthatthere

raitsofAle anderduringhislifetime oradmittingthat

onsidered.Theformerviewhas theweightyauthor-

whichisheartilysupportedbyTheodorSchreiber.73

puleius F lorida I. 7. 2 whoc arelesslyrepeats linybutsubstitutes

.Theweaknessofthewholetraditioniswell e posedbyAlfredEmerson

Ae andertheGreat aTerrac ottaHeadinMunic h " A A 1886 pp. 408-413

vertheless J. J. B ernoulli DieerhaltenenDarstdlungenA le andersdes

05 p. 28 doesnothesitatetosubscribetothetheorythattheA le anderhead

oinsgoesback toanoriginalof yrgoteles. Ic anseenoreasonforthisbut

p. c it. pp. 375f .

ikenMiin enhellenischerundhettenisierterV olker L eip ig 1885 p. 14.

nasproof.I nthesameplaceheasserts thatthetitleBAIIAEQ Iis

onposthumous butthisisc ertainlyuntrue theinstanc ec itedinn. 1

nisA le andersdesGrofien L eip ig 1903 p. 166 A le anderhatnie

sowenigw ieseinV ater hilip. SoalsoHans orgB loesc h P ersonlic h-

antikenMiin en WinterthurerJahrbuc h1960 p. 62.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


27/147

turewasaninventionoftheHellenisticage andthe

le andertetradrac hmandthene tistobee plained

placeof strikinganddifferenceofdie-sinkers.

ssuesofL ysimac hus P L A TEII 5 and tolemy

rrealev idenc eastotheappearanc eof thek ingtheirmaster.

ble todismissthedifferencessolightlyand

orlessc onvic tion thathereandthereA le ander sown

elion sskin.Itis noticeablethatthenumismatists

ndshownodispositionto citespecifice amples.

e hadstudiedamuc hlargerbodyofmaterialthananyone

eralprinciplethatthe earliestHeraclesheadsofthe

essorsonthecoinsofpreviouskings butthatsome-

onlyaf ter323alikenessappears notasaresultofany

tthe choiceoftheseveralmagistratesorofthe

thereisnoindicationofwhere tolookforthese

cdonald75isveryreticent: Tradition indeed hasit

turesaretobedisc ernedintheheadofHeracles—evenif

theverycircumstancethatportraiturewasintroduced

gundertheshelterof religion ishighlysignific ant. A nd

itiveidentificationwouldcertainlybeappropriate 76

coinsinvariablybearthehead oftheyouthfulHeracles

in—thefeaturesf re uentlyresemblingthoseofA le -

ver whoarewillingtobe morespecific.E.Q .V is-

theking sfeaturesontetradrachmsofRhodesandof

aringthanhisfellownumismatists publishes ahead

ithfeaturesresemblingA le ander s. 78Thec oinisf rom

sabasis KurtGebauerhasafullandc arefulsty listic

thef irstpartofhis A le anderbildnisundAle ander-

A le andreleGrand pp. 12-15. ItisstrangetohaveMullerrepeatingthe

vedartistsas thereasonwhythemakingofhis portraitoncoins

lifetimeof Ale ander.

w 1905 p. 151.

Coins NewYork 1937 p. 13.

e a r is 1 8 11 V o l . I I C h a p. I I R o is d e M ac ed o in e " 1 A l e a n dr a l e

L ondon 1910 p. 103 no. 59 I. V II anenlargementof the

elec tGreekCoins . Themintisnotidentif iedbyHill Newellwasatf irst

bution p. 54 no. 258 I. 30. n butlaterassignedittoA mathus af ter

manhur p. 45 nos. 2703-2707 .

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


28/147


atthef irstpiec esf romthemintofA mphipolis P L A TEI

tent thef irstf romothermints showaheadwhichis

fthemid-fourthcentury.Withinthene thalfdecade

aditionandagreaterfreedomandindividuality

eningintoschemati ation.FromthistheMacedonian

oseofAsia fartherfromtheartisticdominanceof

eritingthetraditionsoflocalschoolsofart produce

FromSidonin327comesa diewhichherecogni es

ofA le anderonac oin P L A TEII g , theef fec tof the

sionofIndia upontheimaginationofagiftedengraver.

nto theimpersonalanduniversalHeracles though

osessomethingof itsoriginalfreshness.Another

sf romB abylonin316 P L A TEII 10 , thistime

ce.Gebauerregardsthedevelopmentoftheheadin

er sdeathasac ombinationof thec onceptionof

hthatofA le anderasanhistoric ruler thevarious

nginthefull tideofHellenisticart.Theportraits

ver of tolemyandonbothsilverand goldof

ablyidentifiableasthedeifiedAle ander.

t clearandwell-chosenillustrations.Itstoneis

thecaseit makesiscertainlyarespectableone.Of

aestheticcriticismishard.Thereis somuchthatthe

beputintoade uatewords.Andtherearesomany

willperceivedifferentthingsasto mattersofe -

edifficultiesareincreasedwhentheargumentisnot

eworksofartbut ashere aboutitemsselectedas

roupwhichhasits innerdifferencesaswellasits com-

hapsanotherscholar workingwiththesamematerial

fthisstudy anditsconclusions.Butitdoesseemto

robableasawholeandsupportedby itsdetails.It

therre ectstheideathatthebroadcastingofhis

ander soriginalplan or indeed thathehadany-

me.A prioriitwouldbe attractivetothinkthatit

ortheimperialcoinage— thatAle anderhadanti-

eucusandDemetrius oliorcetesinmakinguseofhis

It hasbeensuggestedthathehimselfhad been

ndthatthebeardedheadon hilip ssilverwas

chenarchaologischenInstitut AthenischeAbteilung63/64 1938/39 ,

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


29/147

usandforthe king.80Butinthiscasewehave noreliable

vedforcomparisonandtheunprovenpossibilitycan-

thecaseforAle ander.

MissBieber s The ortraitsofAle anderthe

arresult. Asnoneofherpredecessorshaddone she

thedifferentperiodsinwhichthebewilderingvarieties

eservedforushavebeencreated. Heronlyaddition

alinGebauer sartic leistheenlargement asf ig. 32

ofabout320B .C . P L A TEII 11 . 81Shewouldapparently

ythatthef irstc oinportraitc amein327 thoughshe

ne ofherpictureswhichmayderivefromoriginals

anyrelationtotheheadon thefirstcoinsfrom

Sidon andofthesetheseriesfrom Amphipolisissurely

nceofstyle.

me asdoMiillerandHill thattheappearanc e

evementofanindividualengraverorperhapsan

atrap. Ontheotherhand ErikS o v ist publishing

eum82illustrates asaparallel atetradrac hmof

2 83which showsA le ander slikenessinthetraditional

This hebelieves isnotmerelytheworkofasingle

umentofthegradualprocessof thedeificationof

p. 39f. notes12-14 nasamostinterestingc ollec tionofmaterialabout

hisassimilationtoZ eus. Lange op. c it. issurethatboththebearded

rseandtheZ eusheadonhisobversearepic turesof theking. B uthis

ngthanhisproof.

sherf ig. 33Gebauer s L 3. 17 thec oinf romB abylon. B utshe

e about324B . C . Ic annotunderstandwhy. Itisdated asGebauersays

A le anderHoardsIIIA ndritsaena NewYork 1923 p. 20 andthat

ght.

les:a reliminaryNote " B ulletinof theMuseumofFineA rts B oston

maccordingtoTheAle anderCoinageofSicyonarrangedfromNotes

CommentsandA dditionsbySydney . Noe NewYork 1950 p. 12 no.

anyonehavingtoworkfromprintedillustrationsto comparethelife-si e

oe s I. Iw iththeenlargementof thesamec oinwhichisS o v ist sf ig. 2

enceinlighting.S o vistdatesitwithoutargumentto 330B.C.This

tingof 330/25toc . 318B . C. andthat inturnisbasedonNewell s

Hoards: Introduc tionandKyparissiaHoard p. 14 about330B . C .—and

argeissueofstatersand tetradrachmsbearingAle ander stypeswas

ut indiscussinganotherpiec einGroupI Demanhur I. IV , 1= Noe13

7 says EshatmitdenMun envonA mphipolisund ellaeinegew isse

tverstandlichkeitdesAusdruckgemeinsam dersiegegeniiberasiatischen

ellt " anddatesit325-315.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


30/147


nlifetime. Itmarks " hesays thef irstdec isive

iconographythatwastotallynewtoGreekart:

of adeifiedruler. Heenumeratesconvincinglythe

thisseemtobe anactualindividualandnota mere

andhebelievesthatthe originalistheofficialportrait

probablybyL ysippus. Ifwearedealingw ithanof f icial

obe thatfromthistimeon thecoinsshowwith

dsuccessheadsthatarerecogni ablythoseofan

hatideali edtobesure butnotthoseofac onventional

parisonofthedifferentspecimensselectedaslikenesses

sesa certainuneasinessinthemindofthe beholder

dmuchmorematerialthanevenGebauerhaspro-

epatternin thesituation.Ontheonehandthere

Ale anderwithabeardlessheadof Heracles.These

Theyvaryconsiderablyinstyle butitis impossible

tsof thevariousrulerswhostruckthem.84They

ntheotherhand therearetheheadsgenerallyagreed

tsofA le ander issuedby tolemyandL ysimachus.

Ale anderhimselfwhichshouldberelatedto one

utitisnot uiteaseasyasthis fornoonehasyet

mityofthetestimonyof tolemyandLysimachus.

I . I X of H i ll s S e le c t Gr e ek C oi n s P a r is 1 9 27 w h ic h s ho w s

le anderandhistwosuccessorstemptsusto wonder

ni ethelaterheadsbecausetheybear theaccessories

ephant sheadandtheram shorns—andnotbec ause

Wemustneverforgetthatwe aredealingwiththe

e-sinkerswhovariedgreatlyinskillandalso— as

remindsme—insympathyw iththeideaofdiv ini ation.

everac hieved andprobablyneverattemptedthedegree

Athenaheadsof 5thcenturyAthens.Butwhatis

especimenswhichshowconformitywithanofficial

tionsofintentor e ecutionwhichwouldseemto

nenormoustaskawaitssomeheroicscholar:analysis

vebutinc lusiveof thedo ensofdiesofHeracles head

A myntasusestheunbeardedheadonhissmallsilverandbron e a

nhislargesilver foranother therewouldbenoe planationforthe

the MainlandThasiansandtheirsuccessorstheciti ensof hilippi

I. X X 1-9 . Therearetwoentirelydistinc tsty leshereneitherofwhichc ould

of hilipII.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


31/147

onscanbesafelymade.Itmust bedonewithoutpre-

twell endinfailure. erhapssomeguidancecanbe

opsisoftheelementswhichformstyle85 butitis awork

e impatientorthefaintof heart.

tentourselveswithconcludingthatatraditional

anderassuitableforan imperialcurrency which

anempirewiderthan hecouldhaveimaginedand

dinsomeplaces truelikenessesof thek ingandhis

nspiredthehandsofhisartisansso thatmencame

heandHeracleswereone.

blein itsmainfeatures.Z eusisalwaysseatedto

mtionoverhislegsbutisundrapedfromthewaistup on

dheholds aneagle withhisleftheleans uponalong

aredetails withwhichweshalldealpresently that

edZ eusOlympics.86Yetthereareimportantdiffer-

eusthatwasatO lympiainA le ander stime: the

atueby heidias.Theyhavedeterredmostscholars

ander sdeity. O neotheridentif ic ationwasput

eseriouslyconsidered.Eckhel87says Jupiterhie

for Aetophorus hauddubieestBottiaeusilleseu cultus

egionein uasita ella. Impressedby hauddubie

Mullerac c eptedthename 88and inhisearlywork89

oricalflourishwhichhismaturer udgmentallowed

ereverseweseeZ eusofB ottiaea whohadafamous

shonoredthroughoutMac edonia. B utB ottiaeanZ eus

eed.Thesingleancientmentionofhimis byLibanius

ationofAle anderatAntioch-on-the-Orontes or

atertobe founded 90.Anyconnectionwiththe

d ellaisc on ec tureandnothingmore.

mpianZ eusise cellentlystatedbyCookina

nfull. 91 WhenA le andertheGreatplac eduponhis

Analyseetinterpretationdustyle " CongresInternationaldeNumis-

a r is 1 9 57 p p . 37 - 42 .

HistoryofA ncientCoinage 700-300B .C . O ford 1918 p. 426 Seltman

Newell RoyalGreek ortraitCoins p. 13 adignifiedrepresentationof the

c ellenc e O lympianZ eus enthronedandholdingsc epterandeagle.

ol. II p. 100.

A l e a n d r e le G r an d p . 5 n . 1 2.

.

C am b ri d ge 1 9 14 - 19 4 0 V o l . I I p p . 11 8 7 f.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


32/147


ofaseatedZ eus itmighthavebeene pec tedthat

rposethe greatcult-statueatOlympia—andthe

swasa prominentfeatureofhisowndomain.In

hingofthe sort.Hesetasideall theimprovements

nddeliberatelyrevertedtotheold pre- heidiactype.

rachmsontheonehand withthefederalcoinsof

13 , ontheotherw iththeO lympianstatueisinstruc tive:

StatueA le ander sCoins

handhas NikeRighthandhaseagle

handhasscepterLeft handhasscepter

gh

nR ightlegisin

eofrightleg advanceofleftleg

tioncoversleftHimationiswrapped

mas wellaboutlowerlimbs

as highbackThronehasatfirst

ander ignoringtheideali edruleratOlympia

ncientandpopulartype ofZ eusLykaios.Afterall

ledOlympos.Yetsoimmensewasthefameofthe

adrachmsissuedlaterinthe nameandwiththe

ncreasinglyinfluencedbyit.Theleftleg isadvanced

dthethroneismanifestlyassimilatedtothat ofZ eus

anderfailedtoarrestthemoralevolutionofZ eus. To

Whatmotiveledhimtomaketheattempt Whydid

ecoinagetheold eagle-bearerofArkadiaratherthan

tionof heidias " —hehasnoanswertoof fer. 92

euswaslessimportantthanthe factthat like

ev ic es hewaseasyforinhabitantsof thevariousdistric ts

tohimthat themodelmightbetheBaal ofTarsosanditsselection

er sinternationalism. B ut asCookrec ogni es p. 762 n. 2 thisc onf licts

Macedonianissues a uestionthathasalreadybeendiscussed.It

hat whilestylisticallyBaaloncoinsofMa aeusatTarsus ustbefore

ikeA le ander sZ eusf romthesamemint Tarsos passim , thedesigns

es:ontheMa aeussilverthescepterisin frontsurmountedbyaneagle

cepterisbehindandthe eagleheldontheopenhand.Gardner hadrecog-

hic hCook lists. TheTypesofGreekCoins p. 186 TheZ eusofA le ander s

tationin anyclosesenseofthegreat Olympianstatueof heidias but

ucedinhonor ofthegodrepresentedbythat statue.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


33/147

theirown.Seltmanhasputthecase clearly:93 Though

setypesweredestinedto appeale uallytoGreeksand

Ale anderasyetunc on uered forthe hoenic ianwas

ehisowngodMel art theC ilic ianwastoregardthe

a alofTarsus andtheBaby lonian thoughhemight

reeknameofA le ander wastolookonpic turesthat

mesh thelion-slayer andthefigureofBel-Marduk

sreali edthat ne ttoMac edonia thegreatest

etobeestablishedprec isely in hoenic ia C ilicia and

oresightthatthekingshowedin theselectionofthese

ttheearliestpose withthelegsstifflyparallel

t givesplac etoaneasierposition morelikethatof

w iththerightlegdrawnbackandtherightfootappearingin

L A TEII 10 11 . Thisc hangedoesnottakeplac eevery-

butitis generalandisanindicationof dateratherthan

lldifferenceswhichareuseful foramoree act

eirrespectivemints.Notonlydoesthethrone some-

mentionedbyCook butthebackmaybedec oratedw ith

ndtheshapeofthe legsandtheplacingofthe cross-

metimeslaureate sometimestherearelonglockson

ometimesshortones sometimesnone. Theremaybea

neathhisfeet orastraightone orafootstool or

eseitemsalsogoesa constantmodificationofstyle

ssufficienttoprove therelationbetweenreversedies

evariants.

notherminutiaefor thereversesofbothsilver

llaryfigures—thesymbols— orthelettersor mono-

fewe c eptions oc c urinthef ieldof thereversetype.

partsofthe maindesign asisevidentfromthe fact

efigureandthesymbolare uiteunrelated.Scholars

symbols monogramsandlettersalikewereindica-

ng andgreatingenuitywasdisplayedinrecogni ing

ringcities names.Someofthesuggestionsweregood

bylaterworkwithgreaterresources thoughthe

etimesforgotten.Somewere uitefantasticand

gnoranceofancienthistoryandgeography.Itwould

ossibleguessesthathavebeenmade butnoserious

Thesuggestionmentionedintheforegoingnotedoes notappearin

edition.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


34/147


oaredisposedto investigatethischapterinthe

ghtstartwithEc khel slistofhispredec essors 94

dconservativesuggestionsastomints based

postinfelic esaliorumc onatus. 95

eonecommonweakness:theydonotdistinguish

the laterones someofthemverymuchlater.Such

egreatmeritsofwhat isstillthe basicworkinthe

smati ued A le andreleGrand. Toavolumewhic h

ec oinageofA le ander w iththatof hilipIIand

wasaddedanA tlaswhereinisdisplayedinc leartabularform

ohim 1735forA le ander 313fortheelder hilip 142

awingsofthesymbolsandmonograms indicationof

d ofitsfabric.96Thefabricwasarrangedin seven

breadthandflatnessofwhoseflanswasthe signofa

t andtheyareillustratedbyengravingson thefirst

of them onpp. 5-9 97-104 allowsforborder- line

nowbeac c eptedinallitsdetails butitaddedanimpor-

eanalysisof thehugenumberofcoinswithwhich

andmonogramsmorethanonc e pp. 35-49 90-93

hthe convictionthattheyrepresentedtownsordistricts

eadingsareplacenames withlistsofIncertifor the

gthofwhichmighthavegivenhim somecausefor

niahelists15towns followedby61varietiesfrom

ontheleastrec koning wouldamountto11more. Hedoes

mbolsmightbethoseofmagistrates 97butheis sure

ythoseof towns.98Ofcourse additionstohislists

nk therewasnopublished uestioningofhisprinciple

tury later.

eV eterumsiveJosephiEckhelii rolegomenaDoctrinaeNumorum

1-172. Iwouldnot ofc ourse suggestthatthebadguessesstoppedw ith

ol. II pp. 100-103.

obeworthwhileto issueaphotographiccopyoftheAtlasin 1957

e n A. G . B a se l .

in RemarksontheClassificationofSomeCoinsofLysimachus "

nNumismati ued A le andreIonlysay p. 37 thatthesesymbolsarein

ity symbols—Itis possiblethatsomeofthemhavebeenthe escutcheons

rmint masters—butI havenowherefoundsufficientreasonfore plain-

y.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


35/147

ypublished twotetradrachmsofLysimachus

A enos w ithc aduc eusandbee theother Miillerno. 445a

thtorc handbee theywerebothstruc kw iththesame

stome therefore " hesaid asc ertainasanyc on-

b ec twherewearenec essarily lefttoinferenc e thatthe

elongtothesamepartof thecountry andc anonlybe

es. Thisisasfar ashisdisagreementwithMiiller

iousdoubtas tothevalidityofMuller smethodwas

efoundthree statersof hilipIIwiththe same

mwereMiillerno. 88 P hilippi w ithKandtripod the

partofMiillerno. 237 Inc erti w ithKandabroadhat

oncludedthatthesemust allhavecomefromthe

hemintwasnot hilippi. Thesymbols then maybe

issionsandnot ofplaces.Inreviewingthisessaywith

ked Itisbecomingeveryyearmoreand moreap-

cerestson afoundationofsand.Thesymbols

esemblemunicipaldevicesorcoin-types are asDr.

merelythesignetsofthemonetarymagistrates and

tobeacceptedasmint-marks. Thiswassomuchmore

essaysinrevisionthat itdrewacryof distressfrom

ested wasdestroyingthewholefoundationforareason-

e andercoinageandleavingmerechaos.Tothis

te. 104HegrantedthatMuller sC lassesV , V I andV II

citiesafterthe deathofAle ander boresymbols

yinitialletters thedevicesof thecitieswhichstruck

erc oins hee pressedhisc onv ic tionthatthreefourths

magistratesandnotofcities.Head sdoctrinecon-

whoappealedtoitin supportofhisidentificationofthe

ly in1912 Newell inhisReattributionofCertain

hedCoinsofLysimac hus " JV C1869 pp. 1-18 esp. 5f.

endesThrac ischenKonigsL ysimachus Copenhagen 1858 apendant

er.

eitrage urantikenMiin -undA lterthumskunde " Z fN1882 pp. 138

c henaufdenMiin en hilippsIIvonMac edonien " pp. 152-154.

f .

ac hmsofA le andertheGreat " NC1883 pp. 1-17 esp. 14-17.

andertheGreat. A nE planation " NC1883 pp. 18f .

TheMintatB aby lon:aRe oinder. SirHenryHoworth SomeCoins

r. Imhoof -Blumer NC1904 pp. 1-38 hadmadeanall- inc lusiveattac k

tionwhichmusthaveseriouslydisturbedtheSwissscholar forhis

German NZ 1905 pp. 1-8andtranslatedintoEnglishintheartic le uoted.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


36/147


dertheGreat producedsuchawealthofevidenceon

manhurHoardthatthe hypothesisofalargenumber

andonedpermanently.

casesinwhichtruemintmarksdo appear andthey

eposthumousissues fore ample KorKforKitionin

p ho s A f o r Ar a do s I I f or S i do n b u t th e g re a t ma o r it y a s

placesbut forpersons.Whothesepersonswerewedo

ervisionoverparticularissues holdingofficeforaterm

earafter theregularGreekcustom seeingthatthe

intainedandbeingallowedtoputtheir privatemarks

heir chargeasasubordinateguaranteetothegreat

name.

mmonandis muchlesswellknown.Thetypesrefer

rseandreverse thoughnoonehasraisedany uestion

tionsofthe bowandclubvary andthereareletters

atelyhelpin achievinganarrangement butcorre-

bolsongoldandsilver arespasmodicanditislikely

erethecareof separateofficials.Theywerecertainly

uencyandregularityofthegoldand silver.Theserious

egun.

ectsofthe ma orcoinswhichformedtheinter-

ander sempire.

esupplementedatonetimeoranotherbythe

ctions:

er LATEI 4

umberofthesewhichwereevidentlyan important

er LATEI 6

er LATEI 7

TEI 8

TEI 9

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


37/147

ddo notseemtohaveplayedanimportantrole.

adrachm LATEI 10

robablyconfinedtoasingle issuefromBabylon.106

kwithaspearattac king orusonanelephant.

nlef tina ersianc ap holdingathunderbolt

inguponaspearw ithhislef t. Hewearsa

af lyingNike. L A TEI 13

tone traordinary butthetypes c ommemorating

s makeitobv iousthatthesearerathermedallionsthan

heirweightsareproperfor tendrachmae butthey

ndedtobe putincirculation.107

adrachm LATEI 14

perhapsconfinedtothefirstyears ofthereign.108

adrachm LATEI 15

ers.Theycertainlyprovidedanimportantsup-

ms thoughtheirissueseemstohavebeenconcentrated

adrachms LATEI 16

adrachms LATEI 17

adrachms LATEI 18

thesesilverdenominationsarerare.

hoenic ianweight 14. 70gr.

ate

glef t onthunderbolt L A TEI 12

ins p. 213 n. 3.

rterly 1926 pp. 36f . NC1927 pp. 204-206 SNGB erryCollec tion

2 95 .

on p p . I2 f . X V , I . 7 1 .

ger A HoardofAle anderDrac hms " YaleC lassicalStudiesX IV ,

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


38/147


hatthiswasAle ander sfirstissuefrom Mace-

troductionofhisowntypes.110Headwouldattribute

erhapsIndia af terAle ander sdeath111andthiswas

Kleiner however 113returnstoImhoof-Blumer stheory

ointbyG.K. Jenkinsinareview 114andbyDaniel

heargumentofR. B.Whitehead116foraBactrianorigin

hepointisnotofmuchimportanceforus sincethe

ycannothaveplayedanysignificantpartinthe

sofarasI knowtherearenonebesidesthethreein the

erbolt L A TEI 21

glef t onthunderbolt L A TEI 19 20

erbolt L A TEI 22

us L A TEI 23

ebolt L A TEI 24

tofac e onthunderbolt L A TEI 25

s 1 8 8 3 p p . 11 8 f. I . D 8 .

c o-B ac trianandGraeco- IndianCoins " NC1906 pp. 1-16 esp. 1-3

3 n. 6.

M o nn a ya g e d E t a l on p r 6s u me I n di e n o u R ho d ie n ' " R ao u l Cu r ie l a nd

mondtairesd A fghanistan aris 1953 pp. 58-62.

pSophytes " NC1943 pp. 60-72.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


39/147

I 26

gto theearlyissuesofAmphipolis.117Twoother

ybefromSyriaor Cilicia.

e L A TEI 27

directions L A TEI 28

glef t onthunderbolt

o right

I 30

eunitis

b L A TEI 29

enominationsofrealimperialimportanceare:

radrac hmanddrachm.

fmoneywithanythoroughnessinto termsof

needfarmoreinformationthanwepossess butwe

ulindicationsofvalue.The firstpointtobe re-

nder abandoninghisfather sc hoiceofstandardfor

Athensaccordingtowhichthedrachmweighed

into6 obols.Therehasbeenagood dealofdiscussion

hange andtalkofbimetallismwhic his Ithink suf -

odoreReinachwhopointsoutthatthe necessary

llismnevere istedinanti uity .118WhatA le ander

ampleofAthensandstrikea silverdrachmaofthe

2-14.

p or t io n el l e de 1 O r et d e 1 A r ge n t da n s l A nt i u i t6 g r ec u e R N 1 89 3

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


40/147


achmaofwhichtwo madethestater.Oftherelation

speakpresently theissuanceofsilvermoneyonthe

ascertainlynotsurprisingconsideringtheassured

cceptabilityoftheAthenianowls.Schlumberger

schoicewasinfluencednotonlyby theirimportancein

mitationswhichhadbecomesonotableanelement

a. WhatA le anderwantedtodo hesays wastogive

oinagetoanempirewhichdid nothaveoneandto

eto thewholeterritory.119Thislargenessofview

vebeenpossibleata timewhenhecouldforeseethe

sempire. Itthereforef itsSc hlumberger sideathatthe

tbeginwiththebeginningof thereign.Butwiththe

heorywehavealreadydealt.In anycase Ale ander

hichweree ualtoonegold staterinvalue.

totheir possessors Anyattempttoanswerthis

facedbya reminderthatwehavenoevidencefrom

rksoftheorators andthecomediansthereisa con-

omicinformationabout4thcenturyAthens andthis

edbyAugustBockhinhis bookDieStaatshaushaltung

atdealcanbe foundoutabouttherangeof revenues

dowries wages f ines loans andsuchmatters. B utthese

ngandilluminatinginthemselves mustbeusedwith

fMacedoniaorAsia.Nevertheless thereisonefigure

etouseit. Inthelatterpart ofAristotle sConstitution

withtheconstitutionofhisowntime section49records

nsideredthecaseof paupers andanywhowere

minaecapitalandtobephysicallyincapacitated

foodatthepublice pense.In4thcenturyAthens

elevelof baresubsistence.Thisisborneoutby Demos-

e peditionagainstMacedon121inwhichthefootsoldiers

whichwouldkeepthemaliveeven iftheywerenot

.Weknownothingofthecostof livinginthecountry

beenmoree pensivethananytowninMacedonia

mind itissafetoc alc ulatethatasilverdiobolwasabout

ouldget alongonfora day.Thenadrachmawould

atetradrachmfor12.

L A rgentgrec dans1 Empireac hemenide op. c it. p. 27.

1886. TranslatedbyGeorgeCornewallL ewisasThe ublic Ec onomyof

nd o n 1 8 42 .

tions28f .

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


41/147

uesforsilver weneedtoconvertitinto goldand

stater of twogolddrachmae weighed usttw ic ethe

tiobetweengolddrachmaandsilverdrachmawillbe

enthebullionvaluesof themetals.Nowthevalueof

ccordingtosupplyanddemandandwillvary

seinstancesinmoderntimeswheregovernmentcontrol

allism.SinceinGreecethe standardwassilverthe

tuationinthe valueofgoldonly thoughsometimes

edtheinteractionofthemetals.122Thereis evidence

iretherewasaf i edof f ic ialratioof i^la:1 123an

34/3 IGII2. 352 givesaratioofabout14: I two

enturyshowthat bythentheproportionhadsunk

middleofthe4thcenturythe openingoftheminesof

easedtheavailablegoldsupplywhichappearstohave

125andthisseemsto havebeenmaintainedfora

angerousto supposethatitnevervariedduring the

hissuccessors 127butwhattestimonywehaveencour-

0:1wastheusualratio. O negoldstater then e ualling

radrachms wouldbesubsistenceforonemanfor

fortw ic easlong.

andMeans IV . 10 Whengoldbec omesplentifulitbec omesc heaper

o p .c i t. n . 1 18 p p . 7- 9 b u t cf . S ch l um b er g er o p . ci t . n . 1 13 p . 1 6.

5thc entury E. S. G. Robinson Some roblemsintheL ateF if th

s " MN1960 p. 9.

istophanis39-40 P lato Hipparc hus231D.

pp. 146-149 believesthatitwas hilip sminingac tivityandnot

estof theEastthatwastheimportantmomentintherelationofgoldto

. 741 IGII. 22. 1. 1496c ol. Ill of331/0 C IA II. 237 anerrorfor

U. 99-103 Menander 320-292 arakatatheke P ollu IX . 76 ; Herondas

1 1 . 79 9 9 . In R N 1 90 2 L e Ra p po r t de 1 O r a 1 A r ge n t da n s le s C om p te s d e

8 hec allsattentiontothesameratiointheac c ountsof theNaopoioiinthe

importantforhisthesisasto angaeangold foritwasthendated

andercouldhavehadanyeffectonthe goldsupply.ButGeorgesDau

oselythan336/5-332/1 FouillesdeDelphesIII Fasc. horsS^rie n. d. ,

p. 15 C21.

ery inpublishingadif fic ultinsc ription TheRatioofSilvertoGold

nWar: IGI.2301 " NC1930 pp. 16-38 c omestothec onc lusionthat

pire wasconventionallytariffedat10:1althoughthiswas belowits

rwasavailable andalthoughbeforethewarithadbeen14:1 IGI. 2355.

couldfallintothe lacunaeinourevidence.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


42/147


teaboutthebron ewearein greaterdifficulties.

bron emoneywasessentiallyfiduciary:thatits

ytheweightof themetal.Thisisconfirmed though

ved bywhatlittleinformationwehaveaboutthe

econclusiveisthevariationinweightof individual

nation.IntheDramaHoardthere are94bron e

ellpreservedandinaboutthesamecondition 13of

25weighlessthan6. Itisobviousthat therehas

actnessaseventhefractionalsilvershows.129To

ninvaluewouldbeverysmall butifac oinof4. 78grams

he sameasoneof8.09that mustbebecausethe

r.Buttoo muchcanbemadeoftheindifference.

ionstowhichIcamein regardtoSelucidissueswhere

minationsnotdistinguishedbydifferenceintype.130

ethattheweighingof theoriginalf lansforbron ec oins

caseofsilverbecausethebullionvaluewasso much

itistoo drastictoassumethatthebullionvalue wasof

econceptionoftokenmoneywithavalueentirely

l likeourpaper isamodernonewhichcannotfairly

the thirdcenturyB.C.Doubtlesstheultimateworth

theirtheoretic alability tobee c hangedforprec ious

dthemtocirculatefreelyin spiteofvariationinweight

thatoftheir material.Yettheanalogyofsilverand

epeasantorsoldier userofbron ecoins.Theper-

ominationsdistinguishableonlybyweightmustrest

onthatthemoremetalthereis inyourcointhe

ybehelpfulinseparatingdenominationsbutisnoguide

lverissues andwemustlookforother methodsof

lyproposedalternateschemesforidentifyingSeleucid

ehypothesisofe ualitybetweenthelargestbron eandthe

vehadoccasiontoremark 132itis doubtfulwhethera

antiatedforall thekingsfromSeleucusIto Anti-

DuRapportdeV aleurdesMetau moneiairesdans1 Egyptau

es " REG1928 pp.121-196 esp.161f.

c h op. c it. pp. I57f . givethesamek indofvariationfor tolemaic

tDura-Europos. F inalReportV I. TheCoins NewHaven 1949 p. 188.

n eCoinages " ESM pp. 270-274.

aryStudy2. TheCoins rinc eton 1961 p. 13 n. 78.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


43/147

eirmints whichbynomeansissueallthesamede-

ron e.Butasidefromthis hisvaluesareunsatis-

e ander.Accordingtohiscalculationsthepiece

ouldbeeitherJ/8obolor /16obol andthereforel/Kor /96

eofapossiblereductioninweightby AntiochusIV ,

for theearlySeleucidperiod.Onthebasisof con-

theformeroraloweronewouldbe preferable.Thereisno

ebron eunitandthe silverdrachmaissuedfre uently

ommonuse and48:1seemsawidegap letalone96:1.

o silverdrachmwas20:1 and asthetetradrachm

thedrachma therewasaratioof 5:1 betweenthe

minations.Whyshouldtheminoronesbeseparated

avepointedout inthec aseof Iliumthef irstlocalissues

ultiplesof Ale ander sdenominationbutfractions:

96and1/192drachmaacc ordingtoNewell slowerrec koning

ordingtohishigher Thissurelymustbere ectedfromitsin-

usthe serviceofconfutingsomeoftheunsuccessful

essors hasmadeacautioussuggestionasto thevalues

33Sincefrom305B.C.ontheEgyptianstandardwas

hisdef initionsw illnotapplytoA le ander sc oins but

estingprinciplewhichoughtnottobeoverlooked.

says atouteforc ehasarderamontourunsystemede

rraisvolontiersdanslac lassedebron eB deSvoronos ui

re uente 1 obole lapiecediv isionnairepare c ellenc e.

soprominentinthewritersthat itseemsreasonablethat

san actualcoin.Thereisasilverobol butitdoesnot

monenoughtosatisfy there uirement anditistempt-

ec eanobolandsoestablisharatioof6:1betweenthe

epurelyfactualnamechalkous thebron epiece

susedofour unitasit hadbeenusedofthe much-

empttousetokenmoney 134asitwouldpresumably

epiecewhichwastheonlydenominationorthe

velopedsystemsitmayhavebeenconfinedto a

ofdenominations havingitsmultiplesanddivisions

stables butforthisearlyperioditisalmostc ertain

epiecewouldbecalledchalkous.That however

p p . 15 0 f.

lesia usae 11. 815 818.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


44/147


45/147

nderI 498-454B . C. thek ingsofMac edonhadstruc k

asamatterofc oursethat hilipIIandAle anderIII

esi eof hilip soutputwasaltogetherbeyondthat

andA le ander sdwarfedthatofhisfather. O f

hatmadethispossiblewasthat hilipc ameintoc ontrolof the

ngaeandistrict.WhenhetookovertheThasiancolony

velopedtheneighboringgoldminesuntiltheypro-

han1 000talents.3Thatundoubtedlytooktheform

e sRhetoric 1putsabundanceofmoneyatthe be-

ealth followedbyrealestate movables c attleand

onofbullion andwhilewereadof ersianbullion

andofgoldob ec tsinc ludedintheplunder thereisno

sinbullionanymore thanthereisoftransactions

ttheMac edoniankings liketheGreekc ities usednot

ybutaspecieeconomyisofimportancetokeepin

tsof incomewereallgoldtheywouldbe300 000

vertalent totranslateitintoitsc ommonestforms

drac hmsor300goldpiec esataratioof10:1. 6Nowthough

shiscontemporaries generallybelievedthatasupply

hilipdoesnotseemtohaveaccumulatedmuch.None

edonianRegalCoinageto413B . C. NNM126 , NewYork 1953.

A thousandtalents meansgoldtothevalueof1 000silver A ttic

sgoldbut hilipcertainlygothisgreatlyincreasedsupplyof silverfrom

heremaythereforehavebeenathousandtalentsofgold plusanunspecified

Essays on the coinage of Alexander the Great / by Alfred R. Bellinger

Documents

Transcript of Essays on the coinage of Alexander the Great / by Alfred R. Bellinger