You are on page 1of 509







THE B R I TIS II x I L" SEC:\ ( S' v ISS :\ C I\ II S x 1:\ T 1(: SO (: I E TY








VOL. 1






Foreword page 7 Preface 9 AbhreviatioDi 10

Argos 161 Hermione 162 Pellene 162 Megalopolis 160 Messene 163

Uncertain Peloponnese 164 Uncertain Greece or Macedonia 166


The scope of the catalogue 24 Alexander's need for coinage. 25

The earliest coinage of Alexander 27

The designs used for the 'imperial' coinage 29 The royal title 32

Portraiture 33

Symbols and monograms 34 Attributions 36

Methods of study 36 Denominations 38

Weights 41

The hoard evidence 46 Circulation 65 Countermarks 67 Graffiti 71

Periods of issue 71

The end of the Alexander coinage 79 The format of the "Catalogue 80

The British Museum collection 82

The Black Sea

The Black Sea mints 173 Cabyle 174

Callatis 175 Dionysopolis 179

Istrus 180

Mesembria 180

Odessus 191

Tomi 196

Tyra(?) 196

Lysimacheia 1 '17

Sestos 197

Sinope 198

Heraclea Pondca 202 Uncertain Black Sea 204

MaadODia and Greece Macedonia 85 'Amphipolis I 89

Eagle coinage 103 Macedonian gold 106 Aegeae{?) 109

'Pella' 111

Bronze issues 116 Amphipolis 130 Uranopolis(?) 139

Later Macedonian issues 141 Pella 150

Astibus(?), Paeonia 151 Dyrrhachium 153 Sarnothrace 153 Ambracia 154

Chalcis 154

Carystos 154

The Peloponnese 155 Corinth 155

Sicyon 159

Western Alia Minor Cyzicus 207

The drachmae mints of Asia Minor 208 Lampsacus 209

Parium 221

Pergamum 222

Abydus 225

Alexandria Troas 234

Assos 236

Tenedos 237

Cyme Z37

Myrina Z39

Temnos 240

Methymna 243

Mytilene 244

Clazomenae 246

'Colophon' 247

Colophon 248

Ephesus 260

Erythrae 261

continued overleaf

Magnesia ad Maeandrum 264 Miletus or Mylasa 274 Miletus 276

Phocaea 291

Priene 292

Smyrna 293

"Teos' 294

Teos 298

Chios 299

Samos 307

Alabanda 308

Antioch. Caria 31 t

Cnidus 311

Euromus(?) 312 Halicarnassus 312

Mylasa(?) 313

Mylasa 315

Cos 315

Nisyros 316

Rhodes 317

Sardes 320

Uncertain of West em Asi2 Minor 337

Soathem Asia MiDor Southern Asia Minor 346 Phase lis 349

Aspendus 353

Magydus 358

Perga 358

Side 362

Sillyum 366

Uncertain Pamphylia 367 Sagalassus 367 Termessus 368 Nagidus(?) 369

Tarsus 369

Uncertain of Southern Asia Minor 379

Cypnu Amathus 382 Citium 384 Curium 386 Lapcthus 387 Marium(?) 387



L. Muller, Numismatiqut d'Alexarulre le Grand i15

L. Miiller, Die Munzm des tltralcischen Konigs Lysimachos 534

A. von Prokesch-Osten, Ustt des AlexanJrts de rna collection qui ne se trouvent pas dans le catalogue de M,. L. Muller 535

A. von Prokesch-Osten, Suite des monnaits inUitts d'or et d'argmt d'Altxarulre

le Grand 540

Paphos 388 Salamis 390 Soli(?) 396

Syria and Phoenicia Antigoneia(?) 397 Antioch, Syria 398 Damascus 398 Hierapolis-Bambyce 401 Myriandrus 401 Laodiceia 404

Ake 405

Aradus 414

Berytus 429

Byblos 430

Carne 432

Gabala 432

'Marathus' 433 Marathus 435

Sidon 435

Simyra 444

Tyre 444

Uncertain Syria or Phoenicia


Africa and the East The eastern empire 451 'Babylon' 453

Seleuceia ad Tigrim 480 Babylonia 481

Carrhae 481

Susa 484-

Ecbatana 489

Gerrha(?) 495

Memphis 496 Alexandria 499

Cyrene 500

Uncertain of the East 500

Uncertain 503

The 'barbarous' iuaes in the British Museum 506

Modem forgeries 511

IDdexes Hoards 542

Issues of Philip III and Lysimachus 547 Issue marks: symbols 548

Issue marks: Greek letters and

monograms 571

Issue marks: Aramaic letters and other signs 630

General 633

The Plates 639


In 1909 G. F. Hill wrote: 'There are few series which present more difficulties in the way of chronological classification than the" Alcxandcrs". The mass of material is so vast and the differences between the varieties so minute, so uninteresting to anyone but the numismatic specialist, and so difficult to express in print, that very little progress has been made since the publication of L. Muller's remarkable work in 1855 .... According to the scheme for the cataloguing of the Greek coins in the British Museum. the local Alexandrine coinage is not included with the other coinages of particular districts. but reserved for a separate volume, the appearance of which cannot be regarded as an imminent event. "

This compilation of the coinage in the name of Alexander and Philip Arrhidaeus began in 1969 as the catalogue of the substantial holdings of the British Museum. In fact, it had previously been reported to the Trustees of the Museum, on 11 June 1910, that a catalogue of this section of the collection was in preparation, but the complexity of the series prevented that publication, and indeed any other attempt to create a list of varieties to supersede that of Ludwig Muller. A very great deal of progress has been made in the twentieth century to unravel the chronology and mint attributions of these coinages, pioneered in particular by Edward Newell and his successors at the American Numismatic Society, Sydney Noe, Margaret Thompson, Nancy Waggoner and Heidi Troxell. This book utilises the work of these scholars to a very great extent. After cataloguing the coins in the British Museum collection it became clear that there was need for a more comprehensive work to gather the many varieties that have surfaced since Muller's book was published, and to review in one place the many contributions that have been made in more recent years and which lie scattered in a great variety of books and journals.

The difficulties in marshalling this large body of material would not have been surmounted without the cooperation of many friends and colleagues. I am deeply indebted to the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, for providing the opportunity to steep myself in the details of the subject, to my colleagues at the British Museum who made possible a long stay in Princeton in the winter of 198617. to the staff of the American Numismatic Society for making available their incomparable resources for the study of Alexander's coinage, and to the curators of many other collections where over the years I have enjoyed a warm welcome. Charles Hersh has been a constant source of encouragement, and I was fortunate in the final stages of preparation to have the advice and support of Georges Lc Rider, Ian Carradice, Philip Kinns and Jennifer Warren (Mrs Cargill Thompson). To the last named I am particularly indebted for her patient work on checking cross-references and preparing printed overlays for the plates. Sue Crundwell also spent long hours pasting up overlays and Ray Gardner patiently drew over twelve hundred signs and monograms. Terence Yolk read the whole text in detail, suggested significant changes to improve the style. consistency, and accuracy of abbreviations and references, and eliminated a number of errors. Teresa Francis and Julie Young at British Museum Press and the typesetters at Rowlands displayed admirable patience at my insistence upon certain unusual and complicated aspects of this book. To all I am most grateful.

1. G. F. Hill, 'Notes on the Alexandrine coinage ofPhocnicia', Nomisma 4 (1909), 1-15, all. Prior to this E. H. Bunbury (,Additional tetradrachms of Alexander the Great', NC 1883, 1-17, at 1) could write: 'The subject will doubdess before long receive much light from the publication of the extensive series of coins of this class in the British Museum'. It is to be hoped that even after a century of delay this volume will be found to be useful.

Abdy ACNAC Adana

Afyon (1976) A lIN AiD-Tab AJN




'AI Mina' excavations

Aleppo (1893) Aleppo (1930) Amandry




A NSMN ArchDelt ArchEph Armenak

- app

Ars Classica

Asia MiDor (1964) Asia Minor (1973/4) Asia MiDor (1984) A,ia Minor (1988) Alia Minor (1989) Athens

Athens (Empedokles) AthMiu




(Bibliography, collections, hoards and excavations)

Sir Robert Abdy collection: Sotheby (14 Jun 1841)

Ancient Coins in North American Co llea ions , New York (ANS)

D. H. Cox. A Tarsus Coin Collection in the Adana Museum, New York, 1941 (NNM 92)

Afyon hoard, before 1976: CH 3 (1977). no. 30 Annali dell'Instituto Italiano di Numismatica

Ain- Tab (Aintab) hoard: IGCH 1542; references to Seyrig, Trisors, no. 13 American Journal of Numismatics

A",trir"tt]tturmd tif Philningy

A. Akarca, Les monnaies grecques de Mylasa, Paris, 1959 (Bibliotheque Archeolog;que et Historique de l'Institutfran{ais d'Archeologie d'lstanbul 1) Ak~kale hoard: G. Le Rider and N. Okay. 'Un tresor de teeradrachmes d'Alexandre trouve a Akc;akale en 1958', RN 1988,42-54, pI. v-x. Akkar hoard: IGCH 1559; references to Seyrig, Tresors, no. 18

E. S. G. Robinson, 'Coins from the excavations at Al Mina (1936)', NC 1937. 182-96. pI. ix

Aleppo hoard, 1893: IGCH 1516 Aleppo hoard, 1930: IGCH 1562

M. Amandry, 'Le monnayage d'Amathonte', Amathonte 1. Testimonia, 1. Auteurs anden«, monnayage, etc. (eds. P. Aupert and M.-C. Hellmann), Paris, 1984 (Etudes Chypriotes 4; Editions Recherches sur les Civilisations - Ecolefrall{aise d'Arhenes, Memoires 32), 57-76, 6gs. 11-20

Die an,iken Munzen Nord-Griechenlands (eds. F. Imhoof-Blumer, T. Wiegand), 1-3, Berlin. 1898-1935

Anadol hoard: rCCH 866; references to I. E. M. Pridik, 'The Anadol hoard of gold staters' (in Russian), lzvestija Imperators1eoj Archeologilesleoj Komisii 3 (1902), 59-92, pl. viii-xii

The American Numismatic Society, New York American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 'A()Xawloyt,wv deA tlov

'A()Xawloytm} 'EtJnIlJEpi~

Annenak hoard: IGCH 1423; references to M. Thompson, 'The "Armenak" hoard (IGCH 1423)" ANSMN 31 (1986), 63-106, pl. vi-


M. Thompson, 'Appendix. Armenak coins recorded by Newell but not purchased', ibid., 96-103

Ars Classica (W. Kiindig, Geneva; L. Naville, Geneva), auction-sale catalogues, Lucerne

Asia Minor hoard, 1964: rCCH 1437

Asia Minor hoard, 1973/4: CH 1 (1975), no. 56 Asia Minor hoard, 1984: in commerce

Asia Minor hoard, 1988: in commerce

Asia Minor hoard, 1989: in commerce

National Numismatic Museum, Athens

Ernpedokles collection: National Numismatic Museum, Athens Mitteilungen des deutschen archaoiogischen Instituts: Athenische Abteilung

S. Atlan, 'Die in Side gepragten Munzen mit Alexandertypen', Belletm (Tiirk Tar;h Kurumu) 31 (1967), 497-511 (Turkish version: Side 'de basilmi~ [skender tipii sikkeler Buyuk lskender (328-323), ibid., 483-96)

Auctiones AG, auction-sale catalogues, Basel

Ayaz-ID Bab

Babelon, • Aradus' - Traite

Babylon (1900)

Babylon (1973) Baiyada Balkans (1988) Barron


'Bassit' excavations

Bitipni Bauslaugh


Bellinger. Essays

- , Troy

- , 'Philippi'

Bement Berlin Berlin 1


BMC Arabia, etc.

BMC Celt;c 1

BMC Caria

BMC Central Greece


BMC Cyrenaica

BMC Galatia, etc.

BMC Greele and Scyth;, Kings

BMC Ionia

BMC Lycaonia, etc.

BMC Lycia, etc.

BMC Mysia

Ayaz-In hoard: IGCH 1413; references to Seyrig, Tresors, no. 8

Bab hoard: IGCH 1534; references to Thompson/Bellinger, 'Alexander drachms', 31-45

E. Babelon, 'Aradus', RN 1891, 283-314, 402-32, pI. xi-xiii

id., Traite des monnaies grtc'luts et romaines, 2, Description historioue, 1-4, Paris, 1907-32

Babylon hoard, 1900: IGCH 1 n4; references to K. Regling, 'Hellenisrischer Miinzschatz aus Babylon', ZjN 38 (1928), 92-132. pI. VUl-XW

Babylon (Mashtal, Baghdad) hoard, 1973: CH 4 (1978), no. 33 Baiyada hoard: IGCH 1541; references to Seyrig, Trisors, no. 10 Balkans hoard, 1988: in commerce

J. P. Barron, The Silver Coins of Samos, London, 1966

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Rtsearth in Jerusalem and Baghdad G. Le Rider, 'L'atelier de Posideion et les monnaies de la fouille de Bassit en Syrie', BCH 110 (1986), 393-408, at 395-9 ('monnaies au nom et aux types d' Alexandre')

Bara~ani hoard: CH 2 (1976), no. 65

R. Bauslaugh, 'The posthumous Alexander coinage of Chios', ANSMN 24 (1979), 1-45, pI. i-xvii

Bulletin on Counurfeits

Bulletin de correspondence htllmique

A. R. Bellinger, Essays on the Coinage oj Alexander the Great, New York, 1963 (ANS Numismatic Studies 11)

id., Troy: the Coins, Princeton, 1961 (Supplementary Monographs 2) id., 'Philippi in Macedonia', ANSMN 11 (1964), 37-54, pl. vii-xi C. S. Bement collection: N aville (28 Jan 1924)

Miinzkabinett, Staatliche Museen, Berlin

Kiinigliche Museen zu Berlin: Beschreibung der antiken Munzen, 1. Tauristhe Chersonesus, Sa nnatien , Dacien, Pannonien, Moesien, Thraden, Thrac;scht Kiinige, Berlin. 1888

The British Museum, London

G. F. Hill, Arabia, Mesopotamia and Persia (Nabataea, Arabia Provincia, South Arabia, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Assyria, Persia, Alexandrine Empire of the East, Persis, Elymais, Characene), London, 1922 (Catalogue of Greele Coins in the British Museum)

D. Allen, Catalogue oj the Celtic Coins in the British Museum, with supplementary materialfrom other British Collections, 1. Silver Coins of the East Celts and Balkan Peoples (eds. J. Kent and M. Mays), London, 1987

B. V. Head, Caria, Cos, Rhodes, etc., London, 1897 (Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum)

B. V. Head. Central Greece, London, 1884 (Catalogue ofGreele Coins in the British Museum)

G. F. Hill, Cyprus, London, 1901 (Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum)

E. S. G. Robinson, Cyrenaica, London, 1927 (Catalogue of Greele Coins in tht British Museum)

W. Wroth, Galatia, Cappadocia and Syria, London, 1899 (Catalogue of Greele Coins in the British Museum)

P. Gardner, The Coins of the Greek and Scythic Kings of Bactria and India, London, 1886 (Catalogue of Indian Coins in the British Museum)

B. V. Head, Ionia, London, 1892 (Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum)

G. F. Hill, Lycaonia, Isauria and Cilicia, London, 1900 (Catalogue ofGrtele Coins in the British Museum)

G. F. Hill, Lycia, Pamphylia and Pisidia, London, 1897 (Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum)

W. Wroth, Mysia, London, 1892 (Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum)

BMC Phoenicia

BMC Ptolemies

BMC Thrace

BMC Troas I etc.

Boehringer. Chronologie

Bonham/Vecchi Bourgcy Breitenstein

BSFN Bujnurd


Bunbury, 'Alexander' (1)

- 'Alexander' (2)


Byblos Cancio

Caria (1986) Cavalla (1951)


Centennial Publication


Christie Cilicia (1986) Coin Galleries Combe

Congress. . . Berne

Congress . . . London

Cordova (l)

- (2)

Corinth (1938)

Corolla Numismatica

Credit Suisse

Curium excavations

de Callatay "Tresor'

G. F. Hill, Phoenicia, London, 1910 (Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum)

R. S. Poole, The Ptolemies, Kings of Egypt, London, 1883 (Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum)

B. V. Head and P. Gardner, Thrace, London, 1876 (Catalogue of Greek Coins in tht British Museum)

W. Wroth, Troas, Aeolis and Lesbos, London, 1894 (Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum)

C. Boehringer, Zur Chronologie mittelhelltnistischer Munzser;en, 220-160 v. Chr., Berlin, 1972 (Antike Munzen und Geschnittene Steine 5)

Bonham/V. C. Vecchi & Sons, auction-sale catalogues. London

E. Bourgey, auction-sale catalogues. Paris

N. Breitenstein, 'Studies in the coinages of the Macedonian kings', Acta Archaeologica (Copenhagen) 13 (1942). 242-58

Bulletin de fa sodet~ jranraise de numismatique

Bujnurd hoard: M. T. Abgarians and D. G. Sellwood, 'A hoard of early Parthian drachms', NC 1971, 103-19, pl. xx-xxiii

E. H. Bunbury collection. Sotheby (7 Dec 1896)

E. H. Bunbury, 'On some unpublished teeradrachms of Alexander the Great', NC 1868. 308-20

id., 'Additional tetradrachms of Alexander the Great'. NC 1883, 1-17, pl. l-U

Buyi.ik~ekmece hoard: IGCH 867: references to M. Thompson. 'A countermarked hoard from Biiyiik~kmecc'. ANSMN 6 (1954), 11-34. pl. i-vii

Byblos (Byblus) hoard: IGCH 1515

1. Cancio collection. Washington (DC) Carla hoard, 1986: in commerce

Cavalla hoard, 1951: IGCH 450; references to M. Thompson, 'The Cavalla hoard (/GCH 450)" ANSMN 26 (1981). 33-49. pI. iii-ix

Cercle d'etudes numismatiques. Bulldin

The CentennUlI PubliUltion of the American Numismatic Society (ed. H. Ingholt), New York. 1958

Coin Hoards

Christie. Manson & Woods. auction-sale catalogues, London Cilicia hoard. 1986: in commerce

Coin Galleries. fixed-price list. New York

T. Combe. Veterum populorum et regum num; qui in Museo Britannico adservantur, London, 1814

Acles du t)trrtt Congres International de Num;smatique, Berne, Septembre 19791 Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Numismatics, Berne, September 1979 (OOs. T. Hackens and R. Weiller), Louvain-la-Neuve/Luxembourg, 1982 (Association Intemationale des Numismates Professionels Publication 7) Proceedings ojthe 10th International Numismatic Congress, London, September 1986 (ed. I. A. Carradice) (forthcoming)

S. Cordova. 'Some drachms of Alexander the Great', SAN 14.3 (1983), 57-8; with SAN 15.1 (1984), 18 (corrections)

id., 'Some drachms of Alexander the Great', SAN 15.4 (1984/5), 70, 78 Corinth hoard. 1938: IGCH187; references to E. T. Newell, 'The Corinth hoard of 1938', ANSMN 10 (1962), 9-41, pJ. ii-xii, at 9-37, pl. ii-Ix Corolla Numismalica, Numismatic Essays in honour of Barclay V. Head (ed. G. F. Hili), London, 1906

Credit Suisse/Schweizerische Kreditanstalt, auction-sale catalogues, Berne

D. H. Cox, Coins from the Excavations at Curium, 1932-1953, New York, 1959 (NNM 145)

F. de Callataj; 'Un tresor de drachmes aux types d' Alexandre Ie Grand conserve au Cabinet des Medailles a Bruxelles', RBN 129 (1983), 23-60. pl. vi-vii

de Luynes Demaahur

- add.

de Nicola Denizli (1982) Deppert-Lippitz

de Shazo Devonshire

Dimitrov, 'Western Black Sea'

Diyarbakir (1955)


Draganov, 'Cabyle'


E. Macedonia


Ehrhardt 'Amphipolis'

EphesllS (1912)


Essays . . . Robinson

Essays . . . Thompson

Failaka Favorito Florence Gaeblcr


Galerie des Monnaies Gardner, 'Greek coins


- , 'Samos'

- , Types

Gerassirnov, 'Cabylc'

- , 'Odessos'

Glendining Glendining/Seaby Gordian I (1951)

Gordion V (1961)

Gorna Orjahovica

J. Babelon, Catalogue de la collection de Luynes, 1-4, Paris, 1924-36 Demanhur hoard: IGCH 1664; references to E. T. Newell, Alexander Hoards II, Demanhur, 1905, New York. 1923 (NNM 19)

O. Zervos. 'Additions to the Dernanhur hoard of Alexander tetradrachms', NC 1980, 185-8

L. de Nicola, fixed-price list, Rome Denizli hoard: see de Callatay, "Tresor'

B. Deppert-Lippitz, Die Milets von vierten bis ersten jahrhundert v. Chr., Aarau, etc. 1984 (Typos 5)

A. S. de Shazo collection, Metairie (Louisiana)

Duke of Devonshire collection: Christie (18 Mar 1844)

K. Dimirrov, 'The initial coin strikings of Alexander types on the western Black Sea' (in Bulgarian), MllK Musies et Monuments de la Culture 27.4 (1987), 55-9 and 62

Diyarbakir (Diyarbekir) hoard, 1955: IGCH 1735; references to Seyrig, Trisors, no. 4

Dniye hoard: IGCH 1538; references to Scyrig, Tresors, no. 5

D. Draganov, 'The minting of silver coins of Cabyle and of King Cavarus', Etlldes Balkaniques 4 (1984). 94-109

Drama hoard: IGCH 404: references to Bellinger, 'Philippi', 37-52 and pI. VU-Xl

East Macedonia (Drama-Amphipolis road) hoard: CH 3 (19n), no. 23; "'1. Caramessini-Oekonomides, NOJ.luJ~'tl.x6 MOUOELo 'A 8T)vrov , ArchDelt 31.B' (1976), 4-6, at 5

Bruder Egger, auction-sale catalogues, Vienna

C. Ehrhardt, 'A catalogue of issues of tetradrachms from Amphipolis 318-294 BC',jNFA 4.4 (March 1976). 85-9

Ephesus hoard, 1912: IGCH 1282; references to Milne. 'Countermarked coins', 395-7

E. T. Newell, The Coinage of the Eastern Seleucid Mints from Seleucus r to Antiochus III, New York, 1938 (ANS Numismatic Studies 1)

C. M. Kraay and G. K. Jenkins (eds), Essays in Greek Coinage presented to Stanley Robinson. Oxford, 1968

O. Merkholm and N. M. Waggoner (cds), Greek Numismatics aud Archaeology. Essays in honor of Margar(t Thompson, Wetteren, 1979

Failaka hoard: IGCH 1767

A. Favorito collection, Boston (Mass.) Musco Archeologico, Florence

H. Gacbler, Die atrtiken Miinzen von Makedotlia u"d Paioni«, Berlin, 1935 (AMNG 3.2)

Galata, fixed-price list, Wolverhampton

Galeric des Monnaies SA (Geneva), auction-sale catalogue, New York P. Gardner, 'Greek coins acquired by the British Museum in 1885', NC 1886, 249-64, pl. xi

id., 'Samos and Sarnian coins', NC 1882, 201-90, pl. viii-xiii

id., Tire Types of Greek Coins: an Archaeological Essay, Cambridge. 1883 T. Gerassimov, 'The Alexander tetradrachms of Cabyle in Thracc', Centennial Publication, 273-7, pl. xvi

id., 'Beitrag zur Miinzkunde von Odessos', Bulletin de la Sociere Arlheologique a Varna 11 (1960), 59-69, at 60-2. pI. i (= p. 68)

Glendining. auction-sale catalogues, London

Glendining/B. A. Seaby Lrd., auction-sale catalogue, London

Gordion I hoard, 1951: IGCH 1406; references to D. H. Cox, A TI'ird Centll'Y HQard oITetradrachmsJrom Gordion, Philadelphia, 1953 (Unh'ersity of Pennsylvania Museum, Monograph)

Gordion V hoard, 1961: IGCH 1405; references to D. H. Cox, 'Gordion hoards 111, IV, V, and VII', ANSMN 12 (1966). 19-55, pI. iii-xxi, at 33- 51

Gorna Orjahovica hoard: IGCH 521

Gorny Hague (The)

Hamburger Hardy

Haughton Haymaaa

Head, Coins of the Ancients

- , 'Graeco-Bactrian

. .


- • Principal Coins2




Hersh Hess Hess/Leu

Hill. Buker

- • 'Greek coins 1914- 1916'

- • 'Greek coins 1917- 1918'

- , 'Greek coins 1923'

- . 'Greek coins 1926'

- , 'Greek coins 1927'

- , 'Greek coins 1928'

- , 'Phoenicia'

Hirsch HNz





Istanbul Izmir (1884) Izmit

D. Gorny (Giessener Munzhandlung). auction-sale catalogue, Munich Koninklijk Kabinet van Munten. Penningen en Gesneden Stenen, Leiden (formerly at The Hague)

L. Ham burger, auction-sale catalogues, Frankfurt am Main

D. B. Hardy, 'An unpublished tetradrachm of Alexander the Great', The Turtle (North AmericanJoumal of Numismatics), 6.5 (1967), 147-9

H. L. Haughton collection: Sotheby (30 Apr 1958)

Haymana hoard: G. Le Rider and N. Oleay, 'Le tresor de Haymana', RN 1988, 55-63, p1. xi

B. V. Head, A Guide to the Principal Gold and Silver Coins of the Ancimtsfrom eire. BC 700 to AD 1, London, 1889 (British Museum)

id., 'The earliest Graeco-Bactrian and Graeco-Indian coins', NC t 906, 1- 16, pI. i-ii

id., A Guide to the Principal Coins of the Creeks from eire. 700 BC to AD 27OZ, London, 1959 (British Museum)

J. A. Svoronos and B. V. Head, The Illustrations of the Historia Numorum: an Atlas of Greek Numismatics (reprint, with English text, of the plates to Svoronos's Greek translation of the first edition of HN, Athens 1898), Chicago, 1968

C. Heipp, Un.ersuchungtn zu den hellenis.ischen Munzen der Lykischen Stadt Phaselis (Doctoral Dissertation, Universitat des Saarlandes, 1987)

O. Helbing Nachfolger, auction-sale catalogue and fixed-priced list, Munich

C. A. Hersh collection, New York

A. Hess AG. auction-sale catalogue, Lucerne

A. Hess AG (Luceme)/Bank Leu & Co. AG (Ziirich). auction-sale catalogues, Lucerne

G. F. Hill, Becker the Counterfeiter, London, 1924

id .• 'Greek coins acquired by the British Museum. 1914-1916', NC 1917. 1 -30, pI. i-iii

id., 'Greek coins acquired by the British Museum in 1917 and 1918', NC 1919, 1-16, pl. i-ii

id., 'Greek coins acquired by the British Museum in 1923', NC 1924, 1- 32. pI. i-ii

id., 'Greek coins acquired by the British Museum in 1926', NC 1927, 193- 208, pI. ix-xi

id., 'Greek coins acquired by the British Museum in 1927', NC 1928, lIS, pl, i-ii

id., 'Greek coins acquired by the British Museum in 1928', NC 1929, 181- 90, pl. viii

id., 'Notes on the Alexandrine coinage of Phoenicia', Nomisma 4 (1909), 1-15

G. Hirsch, auction-sale catalogue, Munich

8. V. Head, Historia Numorum: A Manual of Creek NumismaticsZ, Oxford. 1911

H. H. Howorth, 'Some coins attributed to Babylon by Dr ImhoofBlumer" NC 1904. ] -38, pI. i-iii

G. Macdonald, Catalogue of Greek Coins in the Hunterian Collection, University of Glasgow, 1. Italy, Sicily, Macedon, Thrace, and Thessaly, Glasgow, 1899

H. Engelmann and R. Mcrkclbach, Die Inschrijten von Erythrai und Klazomenai, 1-2, Bonn, 1972-3 (Inschriften gritchische Stiidte aus Kleinasien 1-2)

M. Thompson. O. Merkholm and C. M. Kraay (eds), Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards I New York, 1973

Archaeological Museum, Istanbul

Izmir (Smyrna) hoard, c. 1884: IGCH 1313

Izrnit hoard: rGCH 1365; references to G. Le Rider. Deux tresors de monnaies grtcques de la Propontide (IV" siecle avant J.-C.), Paris, 1963


Jenkins, 'Acquisitions'

- • 'Punic Sicily'

- • 'Greek coins 1959'

- 1 'Monetary systems'



JNG jourSav KaDDaviou Karayotov


Khan CheikhouD

Kilkis Kinns

Kinns, Colophon - , Erythrae

- , Ionia

- , Teos Kirazh


Kleiner, 'Pergamum'

- , 'Rhodes'



Kovacs Kraay-M"rltholm Essays

Kress Kricheldorf Kurt


(Bibliotheque Archeologique et Historique de l'Institut frail fa is d'Arciliologit d'lstanbu/18)

R. Jameson, Colleaion R. Jamfson Ides monnaies grettJues it romalnes imperiales], 1-4, Paris, 1913-32

G. K. Jenkins, 'Recent acquisitions of Greek coins', British Museum Quarterly 29 (1965) 89-93, pI. xxii

id., 'Coins of Punic Sicily, 4', SNR 57 (1978), 5-68, pI. i-xxiv

id., 'Recent acquisitions of Greek coins by the British Museum', NC 1959, 23-45, pI. v-vi

id., 'The monetary systems in the early hellcnisric time, with special regard to the economic policy of Ptolemaic kings', Tile Pattern of Monetary Development in Phoenicia and Palestine in Antiquity. Proceedings of the International Numismatic Convention, Jerusalem, 27-31 December 1963 (cd. A. Kindler). Tel Aviv/Jerusalem, 1967

Journal of Hellenic Studies

Journal Internatio"al d'Archiologie Numismatique Journal of Numismatic Fine Arts

Jahrbuch flir Numismatile und Geldgeschichte journal des Savants

Kannaviou hoard: IGCH 1468

I. Karayotov, 'The chronology of Mesembrian retradrachms' (in Bulgarian), Numumatic« (Sofia) 18.4 (1984). 5-15

G. Kastner, auction-sale catalogues. Munich

Khan Chcikhoun (Khan Sheikhun) hoard: IGCH 1547; references to Scyrig, Trtson, no. 14

Kilkis hoard: IGCH 480

P. Kinns collection, Newbury

see Kinns, Ionia, at 328-31 and 579-81 see Kinns, Ionia, at 144-8 and 465-7

P. Kinns, Studies in the Coinage of Ionia: Erythrae, Teas, Lebedus, Colophon, c. 400-30 BC (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1980) see Kinns, Ionia, at 220-1 and 519-20

Kirazh hoard: IGCH 1369; references to G. Lc Rider and N. Okay, 'Lc tresor de Kirazh (pres d' Amasya): IGCH 1369', Anatolia AntiqualEslci Anadolu, Retueil de Trauaux pubUes par l'lnstitut jran{ais d'Etudes Ana,oliennes d'istanbul (ed. B. Remy), Istanbul/Paris, 1987 (Varia A"atolica 1) 23-34

Kirikhan hoard: CH I (1975), no. 87 A and 87B; references to Scyrig, Tresors, no. 23 ('Cilide')

F. S. Kleiner, 'The Alexander tetradrachms of Pergamum and Rhodes', ANSMN 17 (1971). 95-125, pl. xxi-xxxiv. at 96-104. pl. xxi-xxiv

i<J., 'The Alexander tetradrachms ofPergamum and Rhodes'. ANSM N 17 (1971), 95-125, pl. xxi-xxxiv, at 105-14. pl. xxv-xxxiv

R. P. Knight, Numm; veteres civ;tatum, regllm, gelltium. et provinciatum Londini in Museo Ricard; Payne Knight asservati, ab ipso ordine geographico descripti, London, 1830

Kosseir hoard: IGCH 1537; references to Seyrig, Trisors, no. 7

F. Kovacs, mail-bid catalogue and fixed-price list, San Mateo (California) G. Le Rider, G. K.Jenkins, N. M. Waggoner, and U. Wcstermark (eds.), Kraay-Mlrkholm Essays, Numismatic Studies in memory of C. M. Kraayand O. MITleholm, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1989 (Publications d'Histoire de l'An et d'Archeolog;ede I'Vn;J1ers;te Catlwliquede Louvain 59; Numismatica Lovaniensia 10)

K. Kress (Miinchener Miinzhandlung), auction-sale catalogues, Munich H. H. Kricheldorf, auction-sale catalogues. Stuttgart

Kuft hoard: IGCH 1670; D. Nash, 'The Kuft hoard of Alexander III tetradrachms', NC 1974, 14-30: O. Zervos, 'Newell's manuscript of the Kuft hoard', ANSMN 25 (1980), 17-90, pl. iii

Lamia hoard: IGCH 93


Larissa (1968)


Latakia (1759) Lederer, 'Goldsrater"

- , 'Miinzbildnis'


Le Rider. '1\ lcxandrcs d'argcnt'

- • Monnaies critoises

- • 'Monnaics grccqucs'


- , 'Monnaics grecques'


- , Philippe 11

- • Suse




Maaret en NumaD Mir .. ti


Mathisen, 'Amphipolis' (1)

- , 'Amphipolis' (2)

- , 'Amphipolis' (3)

- , 'Antigonus'

- , 'Bronze coinage'

Mavrogordato, 'Chios'

May, 'Paphos·


H. Lanz (Numismatik Lanz), auction-sale catalogues, Munich

Larissa (Sitochoro) hoard. 1968: IGCH237; references to M.J. Price. 'The Larissa, 1968 hoard (IGCH 237)'. Kraay-M_rlcholm Essays, 233-43. pl. livIv

Larnaca hoard: IGCH 1472; references to Price. 'Greek coin hoards'. 4-8 Latakia hoard, 1759: IGCH 1544; references to Seyrig, Tresors, no. 11

P. Lederer. 'Ein Goldsrarer Alcxanders des GroBen', ZfN33 (1928). 185- 205, pI. vii-viii

id .. 'Ein Beitrag zum Miinzbildnis Alexanders des Grossen', SNR 28 (1941). 7-23

State Hermitage Museum, Leningrad

G. Lc Rider. 'Les Alexandres d'argent en Asie Mineure et dans l'Orient Seleucidc au 1I1~ siecle avo J.-C. (c. 275-c. 225). Rcrnarqucs sur lc systemc moneta ire des Seleucidcs ee des Ptole rnees '. JourSall 1986. 3-57

id .• Monnaies aitoises du Vr- au Ir-, siecle all.}.-C., Paris, 1966 (Ecolejranfaise d'Alhbaes, E,,,des Crttoises 15)

id.. 'Monnaics grecques recernment acquises par le Cabinet des Medaillcs', RN 1961. 7-26. pl. i-jii

id .• 'Monnaies grecques recemrnenr acquiscs par lc Cabinet de Paris', RN 1969, 7-27, pl. i-ii

id., Le monnayaxe d'argnlt et d'or de Philippe I1frappi en Macedoine de 359 a 294. Paris. 1977

id .. Suse sous les Stleucides et les Parthes. Les trouvailles monetaires et l'histoire de fa ville, Paris. 1965 (Memoires de la Mission jranfaise en Iran 38)

W. Leschhorn, 'Ein Schatzfund sidctischcr Miinzen', Side: Miinzpragung, Inschrf.ften, und Geschichte finer anti/ten Stadt in der Tiirkei. Beitrage zu einer Austellung in Saarbriicken, ... (eds, P. R. Franke. W. Leschhorn, B. Maller. and J. Nolie), Saarbriicken, 1988, 23-42

Bank Leu AG, Numismatische Abteilung, auction-sale catalogues. Zurich

K. Liampi, 'Zur Chronologie der sogennanten "anonymen" makedonischen Munzen des spaten 4.Jhs. V. Chr.',jNG36 (1986),41-65, pl. iv-vi

Maaret en Numan hoard. 1979: CH 6 (1981). no. 37; CH 7 (1985), no. 98 Mara§~ti hoard: IGCH958; G. Poenaru Bordea, 'Le tresor de Mara§e§ti. Les stateres en or des cites du pont gauche et le probleme des relations avec le monde grec et les populations locales aux IV~ - I~r siecles avo n. c.', Dacia2 18 (1974). 103-25

F. H. Marshall, Catalogue oftheJewellery. Gretk, Etruscan and Roman, in the Department of Antiquities, British Museum, London. 1911

R. W. Mathisen. 'The administrative organization of the mint of Amphipolis in early Anrigonid Macedonia (c.280-270 BC)', SAN 14.1 (1983), 10-12. 18

id .• SAN 14.2 (1983), 24-7 id .• SAN 14.3 (1983). 44-6

id .. 'Anrigonus Gonatas and the silver coinages of Macedonia circa 280- 270 BC', ANSMN 26 (1981). 79-124. pI. xvii-xxi

id .• 'The shield/helmet bronze coinage of Macedonia'. SAN 10.1 (1979), 2-6

J. Mavrogordato, 'A chronological arrangement of the coins of Chios, 3'. NC 1916, 281-355. pI. x-xi

J. M. F. May, 'The Alexander coinage of Nikokles of'Paphos, with a note on some recently identified tctradrachms from the Dcmanhur find', NC 1952. 1-18. pI. i

S. W. Grose. Fitzwilliam Mflseum. Catalogue of the McClean Collection of Greek Coins, 2. The Greek Mainland, 'he Atgaean Islands, Crete, Cambridge. 1926

Mesopotamia (1914-8)



Milne. 'Counter-marked

. .




Monnaies et Mcdailles Montagu

Moore, Pella

Merkhclm, 'Kebenhavn 1975'

- , 'Kebenhavn 1979'

- , 'Pamphylian Alexanders'

- , 'Pergamcnc coins'

- , 'Uncertain era'

- , 'Wreath coinages'

MOlul (1862-3) Mowat


Muller, Lysimachus

Miinzen und Medaillen

Mushmov, Ancitnt coins

Munich Mylasa NA-CF NAC(QT) Naville

Naville (with date) Navi1Je, Cyrinaiqut


NCirc Newell, Ake

- , 'Cypriote "Alexanders" · - , Demanhur

Mesopotamia hoard, 1914-8: IGCH 1769; references to G. K. Jenkins. 'A hellenistic hoard from Mesopotamia', ANSMN 13 (1967),41-56, pi. xiiiXIX

Mcydancikkalc (Gulnar) hoard: CH 7 (1985). no. 80; A. Davesne and G. Le Rider, Le tresor de Medanclkkale (Cilici« Trathie, 1980), Paris, 1989 (Illstitllt

franfa;s d'"Etudes Anatoliennes, Gulnar 2)

Mektepini hoard: ICCH 1410; references to N. Olcay and H. Seyrig. Tresors Monetaires Seleucides, 1. Le trisorde Mekttpilli en Pllrygie, Paris, 1965 (Bibliotheque Archiologique et Historique de l'Institut franrais d'Archiolog;e de Beyrouth 82)

J. G. Milne. 'Countermarked coins of Asia Minor', NC 1913, 389-98

T. E. Mionnet, Description de medailles antiques grtcques et romaines, 1-6, Paris, 1806-13; Supplement, 1-9. Paris, 1819-37

F. Imhoof-Blumer, Monnaies grecques, Paris/Leipzig, 1883 Monnaies et Medailles, SA. see Miinzen und Medaillen H. Montagu collection: Sotheby (15 Mar 1897)

N. J. Moore, The lifetime atld early posthumolls coit,age oj Alexander tire Great

from Pella (Doctoral Dissertation, Princeton University, 1984)

O. Merkholm, 'Den Kgl. menr- og Medaillesamling, Kebenhavn 1975', NNA 1975/6, 202-12

id., 'Den Kgl. Ment- og MedailJesamling, Kebenhavn 1979', NNA 1979180, 166-76

id., 'The era of the Pamphylian Alexandcrs'. ANSMN23 (1978),69-73, pI. ix

id., 'Pergamene coins in Copenhagen', Studies. . . M ildmberg, 181-92, pI. xxvii-xxviii

id., 'The Ptolemaic "coins of an uncertain era"'. NNA. 1975/6.23-58 id., 'Chronology and meaning of the wreath coinages of the early 2nd cent. BC', NAC(QT) 9 (1980). 145-58

Mosul hoard, 1862-3(?): IGCH 1756

R. Mowat, 'Trois contrernarques inedites sur des tetradrachmes de Side. Extension de l'union monetaire cistophoriquc', Corolla Numismatica, 189- 207, pl. x

L. Muller. Numismatique d'Alexandre le Cratld, suivie d'un apptndiu come"ant les monnaies de Philippf' II et Ill, Copenhagen, 1855

id., Die Manze" des thracischen KOlligs Lysimachus, Copenhagen 1858; translation of 'Den thraciske Konge Lysimachus's Mynter', K. DatlSkr Videnskabernes selskabe Skrifter, Historisk- og PJ,ilosoplziskqfdeliug6, 2 (1857). 331-419, pl. i=ix

Miinzen und Medaillen AG (= Monnaies er Medailles SA). auction-sale catalogues. Basel

N. A. Mushmov, Ancient coins of the Balka" peninsula and the coins of lire Bulgarian czars (in Bulgarian), Sofia, 1912

Sraatliche Miinzsammlung. Munich

Mylasa hoard: IGCH 1289

National Art-Collections Fund, London

Quaderni Ticinesi di Numismatica e Ant;chita Classicht L. Naville collection. Geneva (dispersed)

Naville & Cie, auction-sale catalogues, Geneva

L. Naville, Les monnaies d'or de fa Cyrb,aiqur de 450 a 250 avant J.C., Geneva. 1951

Numismatic Chronicle

Spink's Numismatic Circular

E. T. Newell, The Daud Alexa"der Coinage qfSidotl and Akr, New Haven! Oxford, 1916 (Yale Oriental Series; Researches 2), 7-38. pl. i-v

id., 'Some Cypriote .. Alexanders .. •• NC 1915. 294-322. pI. xii-xv

id., Alexander Hoards II. Demanhur, 1905, New York, 1923 (NNM 19)

Newell, Demetrius - .ESM

- , 'Kition'

- , Miscellanea

- • 'Myriandrus'

- , 'Paphos'

- , 'Rearrriburion'

- • 'Salamis'

- , Sidon

- • 'Sinopc'

- , 'Tarsos'

- , Tyre

-, WSM


Nickle ... Papers



Noe, 'Argos'

- , 'Counter-marked coins'

- , • Megalopolis'

- • Sicyon

Nova Zagora (1966)

Numismatics Ars Classica NZ

Olympia (1922)

Ox us

Pamphylia (1m) Paris

Parke-Bernet Pasargardae II (1963) Parras


Peloponoese (1970) Prnrbrokf


id .• The coinage of Demetrius Poliorcetes, London, 1927

id., The CO;Mge of the Eastern Se/eucid Mintsfrom Seleu(Us I to Antiochus Ill, New York. 1938 (ANS Numismatic Studies 1)

sec Newell, 'Cypriote uAlexanders''', at 301-6, pl. xii

id .• Miscellanea Numismatica: Cyrene 10 India, New York, 1938 (NNM 82) id., 'Myriandros- Alexandria Kar'Isson', AJN 53.2 (1919 [1920)), 1-42,2 plates

see Newell, 'Cypriote "Alexanders''', at 316-20. pl. xv

id., 'Rcatrribution of certain tetradrachms of Alexander the Great'. New York, 1912; reprinted with continuous pagination from AJN45 (1911). 1- 10, pl. i-vii; 37-46, pl. ix-xiv; 113-25, pI. xvii-xviii; 194-200; AJN 46 (1912), 22-4, pI. vi-viii; 37-49, pI. ix-xv; 109-16, pI. xix-xxiii

sec Newell, 'Some Cypriote "Alexandcrs''', at 306-16, pI. xiii-xv

id., The Dated Alexander CoinaRe ofSitlon and Ake, New Haven, 1916 (Yale Oriental Series; Researches 2), 39-68, pl. v-x

id., 'The Alexandrine coinage of Sin ope', AJN 52 (1918 [1919)), 117-27,2 plates

id., 'Tarsos under Alexander', AJN 52 (1918 (1919]), 69-115, 8 plates id., Tyrus Rediviva, New York. 1923

id., The Coinage of the Western Seieucid Mints from Seleucus I to Ant;ochus III, New York. 1941 (ANS Numismatic Studies 4)

Numismatic Fine Arts, Inc .• auction-sale catalogues, Beverly Hills A,uitnt Coins of the Graeco-Roman World. The Nickle Numismatic Papers (eds. W. Heckel and R. Sullivan), Waterloo (Ontario), 1984

Nordisk Numismatisk Arsskrift

NNF-NYTT. Norsk Numismatisk TidsskriJtlThe Norwegian Numismatic Joumal

Numismatic Notes and Monographs, New York (ANS)

S. P. Noe, 'Alexander-type tetradrachms of Argos', ANSMN 10 (1962), 37-9, pl. x-xi (addendum to 'The Corinth hoard of 1938')

id., 'Counrerrnarked and overstruck Greek coins at the American Numismatic Society', A NSMN 6 (1954), 85-93, pl. xiv

id., 'Alexander-type tetradrachrns of Megalopolis'. ANSMN 10 (1962), 39-41, pI. xii (addendum to 'The Corinth hoard of 1938')

E. T. Newell and S. P. Noc, The Alexander Coinage ojS;cyon, New York, 1950 (ANS Numismatic Studies 6)

Nova Zagora hoard. 1966: IGCH 839; references to B. Rousseva, 'Tresor monetaire en argent de la haute epoque hellenistiquc decouvert dans la region de Nova Zagora (IGCH 839)' (in Bulgarian), Numismatica (Sofia) 22.4 (1988),3-12

Numismatica Ars Classica (I. Vecchi), auction-sale catalogues, Zurich Numismatisthe Zeits(hr~ft

Olympia hoard. 1922: IGCH 176; references to E. T. Newell, Alexander Hoards IV. Olympia, New York, 1929 (NNM 39)

Oxus River hoard: IGCH 1822

Pamphylia hoard. 1977: CH 5 (1979). no. 43; CH 6 (1981). no. 34 Cabinet des Medailles, Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris Parke-Bernet, auction-sale catalogue, New York

Pasargadae II hoard, 1963: IGCH 1794

Parras hoard: rGCH 186

E. M. Pegan, 'Die friihsten Tctradrachmcn Alcxanders des GroBen mit dem Adler, ihrc Hcrkunfr und Entstchungszeit' .JNC 18 (1968), 99-111, pI. x-xii

Pcloponnese hoard, 1970: CH 6 (1981), no. 28 Earl of Pembroke collection: Sorheby (31 Jul 1848)

Pergi hoard: IGCH 455; references [0 I. Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou, 'Musees et collections d'Arhenes: Musee Numismatique', BCH81 (1957), 497-500, pl. ix-x (part of'Chronique des fouilles et decouvertes en Grece en 1956', 496-636, pl. ix-xx)

Pet Moguili

Peus Phacous Phayttus

Phillipps Picard

Pick (1)

Pick (2)

Plovdiv (1907)

Pocnaru Bordea 'Mara~e~ti' Pocnaru Bordea 'Stateres

Ouest-Pontiques' PO (1)

PO (2)


Potidaea Pozzi

Price. 'Black Sea'

- , 'Greek coin hoards' Prilepec

Princeton Prokesch-Osten (1)

Prokesch-Osten (2)


Prowe Qazvia Rauch RBN

Regling, 'Istros'

- , Priene Ritter


Robinson, 'Aspeisas'

- , 'Greek coins 1935- 1936'

Rouvier (1)

Rouvier (2) Rouvier (3)

Pet Mogili hoard: IGCH 856; references to B. Rousscva, 'Un tresor d' Alexandres du village "Pet Moguili" (IGCH 856)' (in Bulgarian), Numismatica (Sofia) 20.1 (1986). 11-34

Dr Busso Peus Nachfolger, auction-sale catalogues, Frankfurt am Main Phacous hoard: lGCH 1678

Phayttus hoard: lGCH 159; references to P. R. Franke. 'Zur Gcschichte des Antigonus Gonatas und der Oitaioi, Ein Schatzfund griechischer Miinzen von Phayttos', Archaolog;schtr Anxeiger (1958). 38-62

Phillips, Son, & Neale, auction-sale catalogues, New York

o. Picard, Chalcis et la conjedtration eubetnne. Etude de numismatique et d'histoire (IV" - In siecle}, Paris, 1979 (Bibliolhique des £coles jran{aises d'Athenes et de Rome 234)

B. Pick, Die antiken Munzen von Dacien und Moesten, 1, Berlin. 1898 (AMNG 1)

B. Pick and K. Rcgling, Die antiktn Munzttl votJ Dacien und Moesie«, 2.1. Die Munzen von Odessos und Tomis, Berlin, 1910 (AMNG 1)

Plovdiv hoard. 1907: IGCH 869

sec Miri,e,ti

G. Poenaru Bordes, 'Les stateres Ouest-Pontiques de type Alexandre lc Grand et Lysimaque, RBN 125 (1979), 37-51

see Prokesch-Osten (1)

see Prokesch-Osten (2)

R. S. Poole, 'On a copper coin of the class struck after the death of Alexander the Great by his generals, before they assumed regal titles', NC 1861, 137-9

Poeidaea hoard. 1984: in commerce

S. Boutin, Catalogue des monnaie« grecquts antiques dt l'ancienne collection Pozzi. Monnaiesfrappees en Europe, Maastricht, 1979

M. J. Price, 'Mithradates VI Eupator, Dionysus. and the coinages of the Black Sea', NC 1968, 1-12, pI. i-iv

id., 'Greek coin hoards in the British Museum', NC 1969, 1 -14, pI. i-iv Prilepec hoard: lCCH 448; references to D. Vuckovic- Todorovic, 'Le depot de monnaies grecques du village Prilcpcc pres de Prilcp', Glasnik, Socitle des Musees et de l'lnstitut de Conservation (Skopje), 1.12 (1958), 213- 52, pI. i-xviii

firestone Library collection, Princeton University. Princeton

[A.] von Prokesch-Osten, 'Liste des Alexandres de ma collection qui ne sc trouvent pas dans le Catalogue de Mr. L. Muller', NZ 1 (1869 [1870]),31- 64

id., 'Suite des monnaies inedites d'or et d'argent d'Alcxandre Ie Grand'. NZ 3 (1871 [1873)), 51-72

Propontis hoard: IGCH 888; references to N. M. Waggoner, 'The Propontis hoard (IGCH 888)" RN 1979, 7-29, pl. i-x

T. Prowe collection: Egger (2 May 1912)

'Qazvin' hoard: CH 1 (1975). no. 58

H. D. Rauch, auction-sale catalogues, Vienna Revue Belg« de Numismatique

K. Regling, 'Neue Konigsretrachmcn von Istros und Kallans', Klio 22 (1928), 292-302

id., Die Munzen von Prime, Berlin, 1927

E. & J. Ritter (Munzhandlung Ritter). fixed-price list. Dusseldorf Revue Numismatique

E. S. G. Robinson, 'Aspeisas. satrap of Sus ian a' NC 1921. 37-8. pI. iii.l id., 'British Museum acquisitions 1935-1936'. NC 1937. 233-59. pI.

. ..


J. Rouvier, 'Numismatique de villes de la Phenicie, [1] Arados',JIAN 3 (1900), 124-68. pl. 6'-~'

id., '[3] Botrys ... Camf,jIAN 4 (1901).35-66, pI. a'-W id .• '[41 Dora - Orthosia', JIAN 4 (1901), 125-52, pl. t,'

Rouvier (4) Rudnik

Sacred Animal Necropolis excavations


Salonika (1918)


Sardes basis (1911) Sardes pot (1911) Sardis excavations

Schindel. 'Antigone Gonaras'

- • 'Hcmidrachmcs'

Schlessinger Schulman Scione Sevcrcanu

Seyrig, 'Aradus' (1)

- , 'Aradus' (2)

- , 'Aspendos'

- • 'Botrieens'

- • 'Monnaies contremarquees • - , 'Parion'

- . 'Peonic'

- , 'Pcrgc'

- • 'Sardes'

- , Scripta Numismatica

- • 'Srateres'

- , Tresors


Sicurella Silistra Sinan Pascha

id., '(6] Sidon',J/AN 5 (1902), 99-134. pl. v-vii Rudnik hoard: CH 2 (1976). no. 98

M. J. Price, 'Appendix J. Coins', The Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara. The Southern Dependencies of the main Temple Complex, London, 1981 (Egyptian Exploration Society, Excavation Memoir SO) 156-65. pl. xlivxlvi

Saida hoard: TGCH 1508; references to U. Westermark, 'Notes on the Saida hoard (IGCH 1508)'. NNA 1979-80, 22-35

Salonika (Thessalonika) hoard, c. 1918: TGCH 413; references to Price, 'Greek coin hoards', 8-9, pl. ii

SAN, Journal of the Society for Ancient Numismatics Sardes (basis) I hoard. 1911: IGCH 1299

Sardes (pot) hoard, 1911: IGCH 1318

T. V. Buttrey, er al., Greek, Roman, and Islamic Coins from Sardis, Cambridge (Mass. )/London, 1981

P. Schindel. 'Un terradrachme inedit d'Antigone Gonatas (2nI276- 2401239)" CENB 25.2 (1988), 25-9

id .• 'Contribution a la numismatique d' Alexandre Ie Grand: localisation des ateliers frappant des hemidrachrnes er suggestion pour une meilleure definition des criteres d'atelicr', CENB 20.1 (1983), 1-5

F. Schlessinger, auction-sale catalogues, Berlin-Charlottenburg J. Schulman BV. fixed-price list. Amsterdam

Scionc hoard. 1985/6: in commerce

G. Severeanu, 'Etude sur lcs terradrachmes type Alexandre Ie Grand frappees dans les villes pontiques de la Moesie infericurc', Buletinul Societalii Numismatice Romane 51/2 (1924), 50-9 pl. ii

H. Seyrig, • Monnaics hellenistiques, 12. Questions Aradiennes: 3. Aradus, La Peree et les Lagides', RN 1964, 43-6 (= Scripta Numismatica, 113-20)

id., "Andquites syriennes, 49. Aradus et sa peree sous les rois Seleucides', Syria 28 (1951), 206-20

id .• 'Monnaics hcllenistiques, 9. Aspendos', RN 1963, 52-6. pI. vi (= Saipt« Numismalica, 56-60)

id., 'Monnaies hellenistiques, 3. Philippe V ou les Bottieens', RN 1963. 14-8 (= Scripta Numismatica, 18-22)

id .. • Anriquites syriennes, 67. Monnaics contrernarques en Syric', Syria 35 (1958), 187-97, pI. xvii

id., 'Parion au 3c- siecle avant notre ere', Centennial Publication, 603-25 (= Scripta Numismatica, 189-214)

id., 'Monnaies hellenisnques, 2. Royaume de Peonic', RN 1963. 12-4. pl. i (= Scripta Numismatica, 16-8)

id., 'Monnaies hellenistiques, 8. Perge', RN 1963, 38-51, pl. iv-v (= Scripta Numismatica, 42-55)

id .• 'Monnaies hellenistiques, 7. Sardcs', RN 1963,35-8, pl. iii (= Scripta Numismat;ca.39-42)

id., Scripta Numismatica, Paris, 1986 (Bibliotheque Archeologique et Historique de 1'1mlilul.lran(ais d'Archeologie du Proche-Orient 126)

id .. 'Monnaies hellenisriques, 14. Stareres d'or pseudalexandrins', RN 1969, 36-9 (= Scripta Numismatica, 147-50)

ids., Tresors Monitaires Seieucidrs, 2. Trisors du Levant anciens et nouveaux, Paris" 1973 (Bibliotheque Archeologique et Historique de l'lnstitut jran(ais d'Archeologie dt Beyrouth 94)

H. Collitz, F. Bechtel, and O. Hoffmann (eds.), Sammlung der griechischtn Dialekt-Inschrifien. 1-4, Gottingen, 1884-1915

N. Sicurella collection, New Brunswick (NJ)

Silistra hoard: IGCH 891

Sinan Pascha hoard: IGCH 1395; references to Thompson, Drachm Mints I, 86-9, pl. xxxviii

Six (1)

Six (2)

Six (3)



SNG Blackburn


SNG Delepierre

SNG Fitz

SNG Lewis

SNG Lockett SNG Manchester


SNG Stockholm

SNG Tubingen

SNG II. Au/oek SNR

Sofia Sophikon

Sotheby Spaer

Spink Stancomb Sternberg

Studia . . . Nasur

Studies . . . Mildenberg Subhi

Sumen (1941) Susa excavations Sua 0 (1948/9) Susa V (1933/4) Susiana (1965)

Syria (1959)

Syria (1960)

Svoronos, Christodoulos

- , nToMpai(J)'V

J. P. Six, 'Monnaies grccques inedites et incertaines', NC 1890, 185-259, pl. xvii

id., 'Monnaies grecques inediees et incertaines', NC 1897, 190-225. pI. ix id., 'Monnaies grecques inedites et incertaines', NC 1898, 193-245, pI. xv Schweizer Munzbliitter

Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum

SNG. The Burton Y. Berry Collection, 1. Macedonia to Attica, New York,

1%1 (ANS) .

SNG {Great Britain/8. The Hart Collection, Blackburn Museum, London, 1989

SNG. The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish National Museum [9] Mactdonia 2: Alexander I-Alexander Ill, Copenhagen, 1943 (nos. 478- 1(66)

id., (10) Macedonia 3: Philip Ill-Philip VI, Maudoni4 under the Romans, Kings of Paeoni«, Copenhagen, 1943 (nos. 1067-14(6)

SNG. Bibliotheque Nationale, Cabinet des Midailles: Collection Jean et Marie Delepierre, Paris, 1983

SNG {Great Britain} 4. The Fitzwilliam Museum: Leake and General Collections, 3. Macedonia-Acarnania, London, 1951

SNG [Great Britain} 6. The Lewis Collection, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 1. The Greek and Hellenistic Coins, London, 1972

SNG [Great Britain] 3. The Lockett Collection, 1-5, London, 1938-49 SNG (Great Britain) 7. Manchester University Museum: the Raby and Guterbock Collections, London, 1986

SNG [Great Britain} 5. The Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 3. Macedonia. London, 1976

SNG Sweden 2. Royal Coin Cabinet, National Museum of Monetary History, 2. Thrace-Buooi«, Stockholm, 1976

SNG Deutschland. Munzsammlung der Un;IIersitiit Tubingen, 2. Tauristhe Chersones-Korkyra, Berlin, 1982

SNG Deutschland. Sammlung H. lion Aulock, 1-18, Berlin, 1957-68 Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau

National Archaeological Museum, Sofia

Sophikon hoard: IGCH 179; references to J. N. Svoronos, EiJQtlJla l:oq>&.XO'U 'EJtt6auQtas, JIAN 10 (1907), 35-46, pI. i

Sotheby, Wilkinson, & Hodge, auction-sale catalogues, London

A. Spaer, 'A new type of Alexander the Great?' Israel NumismaticJournal5 (1981), 1-3, pI. i

Spink & Son Ltd., auction-sale catalogue, London W. M. Stancomb collection, Bishop's Stortford

F. Sternberg, auction-sale catalogue. Zurich

S. Scheers (ed), Studia Paulo Nasser oblata, 1. Numismata antiqua, Louvain, 1982

A. Houghton et al. (eds), Studies in honorC?fLeo Mildenberg, Wetteren, 1984 Subhi Pacha collection: Sotheby (20 Feb 1878)

Sumen hoard, 1941: IGCH 898

see G. Le Rider, Suse

Susa II hoard, 1948/9: IGCH 1799; references to Le Rider. Suse,243-4 Susa V hoard, 1933/4: IGCH 1804; references to Le Rider, SUSt, 246-8 Susiana hoard. 1965: IGCH 1806; references to A. Houghton and G. Le Rider, 'Un tresor de monnaies hellenistiques trouve pres de Suse', RN 1967, 111-27, pl. iv-x

Syria hoard, 1959: ICCH 1535; references to Boehringer, Chronologie, 158-61

Syria hoard, 1960; IGCH 1533; references to Seyrig, Trisors, no. 3

J. N. Svoronos, Synopsis de mille coins faux du faussaire Christodoulos, Athens, 1922

id., Ta vo"uCfJJaTa TOO ~TOV~Taw nTOAEl"aiwv, 1-2, Athens, 1904

Tarik Darreh

Tarsus excavations

TartoDl (1987) Tell HaW Tell Kotc:hek Thessaly (1968)

Thessaly (1983) ThonuJs

Thompson, 'Biiyuk ~ekmece'

- , 'Cavalla'

- , Drachm Mints 1

- , 'L ysimachus'

- , 'Mercenaries'

- • Miletus

- • Mylasa

- , 'Posthumous ...

staters' - , Sardes

- • 'Side'

Thompson/Bellinger, 'Abydus'

- , 'Alexander drachms'

- , 'Colophon'

- , 'Lampsacus'

- , 'Magnesia'

- , 'Miletus'

- , 'Teos'

Tbrace (1980) Tkalec/Rauch

Tresor ae numismatique

Troxell. 'Peloponnesian Alexanders'


Turkey (1973/4) urea


Varna (1955) Vatican


Vecchi Vedrines Vienna

Vinchon Vrastama Waddell Waddington

Tarik Darreh hoard: CH7 (1985), no. 78; references A. Houghton, 'Tarik Darreh (Kangavar) hoard', ANSMN 25 (1980), 31-44, pl. iv-v

D. H. Cox, 'The coins', Excavations at Gozlii Kule, Tarsus (ed. H. Goldman), 1 The Hellmist;c and Roman Perioas, Princeton, 1950, 38-83 Tartous hoard, 1987: in commerce

Tell Halaf hoard: IGCH 1763

Tell Kotchek hoard: IGCH 1773; references to Seyrig, Tresors, no. 15 M. Caramessini-Oeconomides, '9r)aa'U~ VOJ.'LOI.ICi'tOJ'V tx e£(J(JaA'a~ 1968', ArchEph 1970, 13-26, pl. vi-ix

Thessaly hoard, 1983: in commerce

T. Thomas collection: Sotheby (8Jull844) see Biy6k~ekmece

see Cavalla (1951)

M. Thompson, Alexandtr's Drachm Mints. 1. Sardes ana Miletus, New York, 1983 (ANS Numismatic Studies 16)

id., 'The mints ofLysimachus', Essays Robinson, 163-82, pI. xvi-xxii

id., 'Paying the mercenaries', Studies Mi/denberg, 241-7, pI. xxxviii-


id., Drachm Mints I, 43-68, pI. xxi-xxxi

id., 'The Alexandrine mint of Mylasa', NAC(QT) 10 (1981), 207-17 id., 'Posthumous Philip II staters of Asia Minor', Studia ... Naster, 57-64

id., Drathm Mints, 5-42. pl. i-xx see Cavalla (1951), at 44-8

see Thompson/Bellinger, 'Alexander drachms', at 16-7

M. Thompson and A. R. Bellinger, 'Greek coins in the Yale collection, IV. A hoard of Alexander drachms', YCS 14 (1955),3-45

see Thompson/Bellinger, 'Alexander drachms', at 20-2

see Thompson/Bellinger, 'Alexander drachms', at 13-5

see Thompson/Bellinger, 'Alexander drachms', at 23-4

see Thompson/Bellinger, 'Alexander drachms', at 25-6

see Thompson/Bellinger, 'Alexander drachms', at 18-9

Thrace hoard, 1980: CH 7 (1985), no. 60

A. Tkalec & H. D. Rauch, auction-sale catalogues, Vienna

P. Dela roche and C. Lenormane, Trisor at nf:,4m;sIfI4t;que d de glyptique, [7.] Numismat;que des rois grees, Paris, 1849

H. A. Troxell. 'The Peloponnesian Alexanders', ANSMN 17 (1971), 4t- 94, pl. ix-xx

Raccolte Numismatiche Torinesi, Museo d' Arte Antica (Palazzo Madama), Turin

Turkey hoard, 1973/4: CH 1 (1975), no. 56

Urfa hoard: IGCH 1772; references to Price, 'Greek coin hoards', 10-4, pl. iv

Archaeological Museum. Varna Varna hoard, 1955: IGCH 859

Medagliere, Biblioteca Aposeolica, Citta del Vaticano (Rome)

W. S. W. Vaux, 'Select coins from the cabinet of Major Rawlinson, CB'. NC 1850, 70-85

V. C. Vecchi Be Sons, fixed-price list, London J. Vedrines, auction-sale catalogue. Paris

Bundcssammlung von Medaillen. Munzen und Geldzeichen, Kunsthistorisches Museum. Vienna

J. Vinchon, auction-sale catalogue, Paris Vrastama hoard: in commerce

E. Waddell, fixed-price list, Bethseda (Maryland)

E. Babelon, lnvenla;re somma ire de la colleaion Waddington, Paris 1897

Waggoner, 'Audoleon'

- , BQbylon

- , 'Greek coins 1986'

- , 'Greek coins 1987'

- , 'Greek coins 1988'

- , 'Seleucia '

Wahler Weber

Wells (1) - (2)

Wester mark

Whittall Wilkinson


Wroth, 'Greek coins 1889'

- , 'Greek coins 1890'

- , 'Greek coins 1892'

- • 'Greek coins 1893'

- , 'Greek coins 18%'

- , 'Greek coins 1900'


YCS Zagreb

Zervos. 'Ptolemy'

N. M. Waggoner, 'Further reflections on Audoleon and his Alexander mint" RBN 129 (1983),5-21, pI. i-v

id., The Alexander mint at Babylon (Doctoral Dissertation, Columbia University. 1%8)

id., 'The coin cabinet: Greek I coins acquired 19861'. Annual Report of the ANS 1986, 10-2

id .• 'The coin cabinet: Greek [coins acquired 1987]'. Annual Report of the ANS 1987, 10-2

id., 'The coin cabinet: Greek [coins acquired 1988)'. Annual Report of the ANS 1988, 11

id., 'The early Alexander coinage at Seleucia on the Tigris', ANSMN 15 (1969), 21-30, pi. iii-v

W. H. Wahler collection. Palo Alto (dispersed)

L. Forrer, Descriptive CtUaloglle of the Collection of Gruk Coins formed by Sir Hermann Weber, MD, 1823-1918, 1-3, London, 1922-9

H. B. Wells. 'Ancient gold-plated coins', SAN 9.3 (1978). 39-40, 52. id., 'More gold-plated Alexander staters'. SAN 12.3 (1981), 54-5

U. Westermark, Das Bildnis des Philetairo« von Pergamon, Corpus dey Munzpriigung, Stockholm. 1960

J. WhittalJ collection, Smyrna: Sotheby (10 Jul 1884)

J. S. Wilkinson, 'Unpublished ancient Greek coins', Comucopia«, Official publication of the AtIC;tnl Coin Society 4 (1979), 2-5

H. Bloesch, GritcJr;scht .\.Iun.un in Winterthur, 1. Spanien, Gal/ien, Italien, Moesien, Dakien, Ssrmatien, Thrakien, .\.1akedonietr, Hellas, lnseln, Winterthur. 1987

W. Wroth. 'Greek coins acquired by the British Museum in 1889', NC 1890, 311-29, pI. xix

id., 'Greek coins acquired by the British Museum in 1890', NC 1891,117- 34, pI. iv

id .. 'Greek coins acquired by the British Museum in 1892', NC 1893, 1- 20, pI. i

id .. 'Greek coins acquired by the British Museum in 1893', NC 1894, 1- 17, pI. i

id., 'Greek coins acquired by the British Museum in 1896', NC 1897.93- 118, pl. iii-vi

id., 'Greek coins acquired by the British Museum in 1900', NC 1900.273- 96, pI. xiii-xiv

E. T. Newell. The Coinage of the Western Se/eucid Mints from Seleucus I 10 Antiochus Ill, New York. 1941 (ANS Numismatic Studies 4)

Yale Classical Studies

Archaeological Museum, Zagreb

O. Zervos, 'Early tetradrachms of Ptolemy 1', ANSMN 13 (1967),1-16. pl. i-iv

Zeitschr!ft rur Numismatik


The scope of the catalogue

The coinages of Alexander fall into three distinct groups. First there is the coinage in gold. silver and bronze instituted by him as his regal currency and later struck at mints in several areas of his empire. This was created through a dramatic coinage reform \ v hich laid the ground for issues which came to be widely used far beyond the Macedonian territory. This 'imperial' coinage is the starting point for this book.

The second group of coinages comprises those designed by Alexander or his governors for local circulation. In Macedonia, the coinages with 'eagle' reverse fall into this category, and these have been included in this catalogue since they arc essentially royal Macedonian issues. However, there arc several other series struck by Alexander's governors in areas that were previously under Achaemenid rule, which arc not listed here. They have been published previously in sections of the Museum's Greek catalogues, such as those devoted to Egypt. Cilicia and the Alexander Empire of the East, and they arc here included, as relevant. only in the discussions of the imperial coinage,

The coinage of Alexander's imperial type continued under his successors unchanged, except in details, and the posthumous issues are distinguished only by style and the subsidiary mint symbols.' This provides the third group of coinages. These issues form a natural succession to the imperial issues of Alexander himself, but, as posthumous issues, they are of a very different nature. This coinage continued to be struck until the early first century BC, and came to be of purely civic significance, adopting the quasiregal types in order to proclaim that the pieces were good money. The 'Alexander' coinage must be seen side by side with the coinages struck with the cities' own designs, and although perhaps of different weight standards, local and Alexander coinage must be studied in parallel. The lists that arc here given of the varieties of the Alexander coinage thus include both lifetime issues and those struck posthumously, but for the latter it must be remembered that they form only part of the currency picture. The local autonomous coinages have, of course, been published in their respective areas of the' Museum catalogue.

Alongside the posthumous Alexander coinage there arc also the coinages of his successors. Philip Arrhidacus began the custom of placing the monarch's own name on coins of the types instituted by Alexander. These issues are gathered here. as are those of Alexander type issued by Lysimachus. The Scleucid and other issues of this type have been published in other catalogues ofthc Museum's collection. The regal coinages of later monarchs. similarly. do not have a place in the lists presented here. but are of course relevant to the discussions. These include the coinage of Philip Arrhidaeus which adopted the designs instituted by Philip II. Although the symbols and monograms show that they were struck together with the coinage of Alexander type, it has not been thought appropriate to make a full listing of these types here. 2 The third-century AD coinage naming Alexander but struck by the Maccdonian Koinon also has no place in this volume.

I. The idea of posthumous coinages was fully appreciated by Miiller, but P. Kinns has pointed out to me that early scholars such as Eckhcl found it difficult (0 accept (he idea of a continuing posthumous Alexander coinage.

2. A full list of the varieties of the coinage of rhc types of Philip II from Macedonia is to be found in G. Le Rider. 1.( III(1,maY41g( tI'aP"g("rI! et d'c), tit' PI,i/ippc II j;appi til M41dd(l;"t' tit' 359 Ii 294, Paris, 1977. The varieties struck in Asia Minor under Philip III have been gathered by M. Thompson in 'Posthumous Philip II staters of Asia MiIlOT', SlIItii41 .. , Naslt" 57-64. For gold and silver pieces of the third century AD. sec H. Gaebler, 'Die antiken Munzen von Makcdonia und Paionia', Berlin. 1906 (AMNG 3.1), 192-6. An Auic weight drachma ofHcrakles/horscman' type in the name of Philip, with ((Jm-("arsymbol parallel to variety 116, Lanz sale (24 Apr 1986) 217 i .. probably an octobol ('didr:achm') 011 the local standard as .\;\;'(; Lew! ( no. SO(). Cf Muller 27~


The original scope of the Museum's Greek catalogues has been expanded. Here the main emphasis has been to create a list of as many varieties as have been found in carrying out the research necessary to produce the Museum catalogue. To this the details of the Museum's holdings have been appended. and these are the examples used as illustrations on the plates. Although this has more than doubled the number of varieties published by Muller. it is still not possible to claim that the list is at all complete. Almost every hoard or large collection produces new varieties of greater or lesser importance. and in the final stages of the preparation of this list far too many new varieties have been recorded. some of which have even provided evidence for mints not previously known to have struck this coinage. I However, the catalogue does provide a serviceable list which will offer scholars not intimately concerned with the minutiae of the Alexander coinage a guide through the complexities of the series. This book is an attempt to gather in one place what has been published in the past, and to act as a springboard for work in the future.

Alexander's need for coinage

The availability of metal and the need for payments to be made in coin are of paramount importance in any attempt to decide when and where coins were minted. Not enough is known in detail of Alexander's income and expenditure- to allow a really significant statement of accounts to be presented; but this section gathers some of the references to such matters in the main literary sources and underlines occasions when payments in coins rather than in metal as bullion may have been required.

Alexander inherited in the summer of 336 Be debts of 500 talents (Curtius 10.2.24; Arri:m 7.9.6) incurred by Philip, presumably for military preparations. Against these could be placed only 60 talents in the treasury and some gold and silver vessels, and Alexander had to borrow a further 800 talents (Arrian 7.9.6). His expeditions in the Balkans at the beginning of his reign brought in substantial financial gains. Booty was sent back from Thrace (Arrian 1.2.1 and 4.4). Booty seized at Thebes was sold for 440 talents, and Alexander took over 100 talents owed to Thebes by the Thessalians (Curtius 1). In addition to these sums, the silver mines of Macedonia were presumably fully active in producing new silver, as they had been for Philip II. Despite. therefore, the costs of the Balkan expeditions and of his own preparations for the invasion of Asia Minor. for which large quantities of coinage must have been required. Alexander's debts had fallen by spring 334 Be from 1,300 to 200 talents, Against this he had 70 talents in the treasury and maintenance for his army for thirty days.

The capture of Sardes in summer 334 BC is mentioned as providing a rich Persian treasury for the Macedonians (Arrian 1.17.3; Diodorus 17.21.7; Curtius 3.12.6; Plutarch 17.1) and officers were at once appointed to oversee the collection of tribute (Arrian 1.17.1 and 7). MiJesians were sold into slavery. as Thebans had been previously. (Diodorus 17.22.5), but the general financial position was already so much more hcalrhy-' that the Carian cities were exempted from taxes (Diodorus 17.24.1), and Ephesian taxes were to be paid to the temple of Artemis rather than to the Macedonian cause (Curtius 2).

From this moment on there was a constant income from victory:

333 Be Aspendus fined 50 talents, later increased to 100 talents and annual tribute (Arrian 1.26.3 and 27.4).

Soli fined 200 talents (Arrian 2.5.5; Curtius 3.7.2).

Capture of Persian treasury at Damascus. 2,600 talents of coined money (nearly four million

1. Varieties noted since the c21210gue was numbered in 1987 have been given the suffix A. Occasionally the same suffix has also been given 10 minor variations considered to be engravers' varianrs rather than issues in their own right. Numbers omitted from the catalogue refer to varieties found to have been quoted in error and deleted after the material had been numbered and the index compiled. It is hoped that this will not cause confusion.

2. See K. J. Beloch, Gritchisch~ G~SLhjchtt 4.1. Berlin, 1925. 41-3; A. M. Andreadcs. '10f0()UU1'~' e.U'1V''''''' tw,poota) olHOVOf.'ta!;, 2. t ." H ""poa{a ol"O'VOIlla TOil MeytiJ.ov • ~ctv6(Hw. Athens, 1930; id., ales finances de guerre d' Alexandre le grand. A""Qles d'histoirt rconomiqw (t $()o(itdt; t.3 (1929), 323-33; Bellinger, Esuys, 73-80.

3. f. Rebuffat (,Aleundre le grand et lcs problemes financiers au d~but de son rcgne', RN 1983, "'3-52. at 51) is correct to underline that Aleunder was not long in financial straits.


tetradrachms) and 500 pounds, about 6 talents, of wrought silver (Curti us 3.13.16), including an amount sent to Damascus by Darius with Cophen (Arrian 11.15.1).

332 BC Three thousand citizens ofTyre and others ofGaza sold (Arrian 2.24.5 and 2.27.7).

At Memphis Mazakes gave Alexander 800 talents (Cunius 4.7.4).

Tax collectors were appointed for Phoenicia and Asia (Arrian 3.64) and the revenue from Egypt was estimated at 6.000 talents (Diodorus 17.52.6).

331 Be After the battle of Gaugamela, 4,000 talents (Curtius 5.1.10) or 3,000 talents (Diodorus 17.64.3) were taken at Arbela.

Considerable treasure was captured at Babylon (Diodorus 17.64.3: Curtius 5.1.11-23) and tax collectors were appointed (Arrian 3.16.4).

The treasure at Susa was 50,000 talents (Arrian 3.16.7; Curtius 5.2.11), reported to consist of 40,000 talents in gold and silver and 9,000 talents in darics (Diodorus 17.66.1; Plutarch 36.2). At Persepolis there were 120.000 talents (Diodorus 17.71.1; Curtius 5.6.9). Alexander kept some for war expenses and sent the rest to be guarded at Sus a (Diodorus 71.2; Strabo 15.3.9).

At Pasagardae there were 6,000 talents (Curtius 5.6.10).

After the revolt of Agis, Achaea and Elis were ordered to pay 120 talents (Curtius 6.1.20).

The treasure from Mesopotamia amounting to 180,000 talents was concentrated at Ecbatana, 1 and from this moment further income to maintain the army in the field was readily available from conquests. Two references to coins are interesting: the Indian king Omphis (Taxiles) gave Alexander 80 talents of coined silver (Curtius 8.12.15), and Abulites, governor of Sus a, brought 3,000 talents in coin (Plutarch 68.7) at a time when Alexander was in need of provisions. Alexander's displeasure during this incident shows that possession of funds did not necessarily enable him to feed and equip the army from the surrounding countryside. 2

The expenses of the expedition were, of course, colossal, and Alexander's natural generosity resulted in very large sums, by Greek standards, being paid to his friends. 3 It has been estimated+ that on the day of the battle ofGaugamela the cost of the Macedonian army present at the battle was 46,000 drachmae (PI3 talents) and that the whole arm y required some 20 talents per day (nearly 7,500 talents per year) in addition to subsistence. Over the eleven years of the campaign this army pay thus amounted to over 80,()()() talents. This was not required to be paid on a day by day basis, but had to be made available at the end of the campaign. The payments to soldiers are likely to have been made in coin. the final payment being made only when they reached home. There are regular mentions of money being used:

333 BC Cleander sent to the Peloponnese with money to raise troops (Curtius 3.1.1). 500 talents given for the defence: of the Hellespont.

600 talents given for the defence of the Greek cities (Curtius 3.1.20).

332 DC Repayment of money paid by Mytilene for the war (Curtius 4.8.13).

33t Be Governors sent to Babylonia and Cilicia with 1,000 talents each (Currius 5.1.43). 1,000 talents left at Babylon (Diodorus 17.64.5) or Susa (Arrian 3.16.6-11).

330 Be Discharge of troops at Ecbatana with full pay and 2,000 talents (Arrian 3.19.5; Plutarch 42.5), a total of 13,000 talents (Diodorus 17.74.5).

Money given to those settled in colonies (Curtius 7.11.29).

1. Arrian 3.19.7; Diodorus 17.80.3; cf. Strabo 15.3.9.

2. For tbe logistical problems of making provision for me army. see D. W. Engels. Alt:tlltuln Iht Grellt tlltd tlte Logistics oJ'''t MlICtdo,.;Mt Army. Berkeley, 1978. On the coinage ofTaxiles see below p. 452. note 9.

3. E.g. Ten talents given to tycon (Plutarch, Altx#lUltr 29.6). Under this heading could come the prizes that he gave the troops. such as the twelve talents (Arrian 4.18.6) or ten Wcnts (Curtius 7.11.12) for the first to scale the: rock sides of a citadel. Arrian mentions that further prizes were given down to three hundred darics, an interesting use of the Ac:haemenid currency system by the Mac:edonians which presu.mably dates from the period before the imperial coinage of Alexander was available in quantity from eastern mints.

4. N. G. L. Hammond, AltxandntM GrNt: King, Co",mand«, and 514lls",a", London. 1981. 156.


3r1 Be 1,000 talents in coin given to Taxiles (Plutarch 59.5).

1 gold coin given to every woman in Persia (Plutarch 69.1) following earlier Achaemenid custom. The use of darics or double darics for this purpose cannot be excluded.

324 Be Nine thousand gold cups provided for the wedding feast at Susa.

9.870 talents of debts paid on behalf of the guests (Plutarch 70.3) or of the soldiers (Curtius 10.2.10). Debts amounting to 20.000 talents paid for the soldiers (Arrian 7.5.3). The payment of debts must have involved relatively small sums. and payment in coins is very probable.

10,000 talents spent on Hephaestion's tomb (Plutarch 72.5) or 12.000 talents spent on his funeral (Curtius 10.4.3).

Harpalus absconds with 5,000 talents (Diodorus 108.6; Curti us 10.1.45).

Discharge of 10,000 veterans at Susa with back pay and 1 talent each (Arrian 7.12.1; Cunius 10.4.3; Plutarch 71.8).

500 talents sent to Phoenicia/Syria to raise seamen (Arrian 7.19.5).

Various occasions during Alexander's lifetime, therefore, suggest the need for coinage. and very large sums in coin would have been required for the payments of debts and for the discharge of troops. The sources are silent on Alexander's policy for setting up mints, but there is much to be gleaned from the study of the coins themselves. The chronology of the coins and the attribution to mints are discussed in this volume so that such evidence as there is may be gathered in one place.

The earliest coinage of Alexander

The problem of the date at which Alexander carried out the reform creating a coinage of new weights and new designs has been much debated recently. In 1982 O. Zervos' restated the arguments ofG. Kleiner, which had long been ignored, and listed five elements in the design of the seated Zeus which seemed to him to have an oriental origin and directly to reflect the Baal of Tarsus on the Achaemenid coinage of Cilicia. He concluded that the silver coinage of these new types could only have begun after the capture of Tarsus by Alexander in 333 BC, and he saw some reflection of this in the surviving hoard evidence. The stylistic elements that were reckoned to provide evidence for an eastern origin for the iconography were:

1. the hand held extended with all fingers and thumb visible;

2. the twisting torso of Zeus, with frontal shoulders and profile head and legs;

3. the two legs placed stiffly side by side;

4. the stylised folds of drapery, and the thick roll at the waist;

5. the particular form of stool on which Zeus sits.

In reply I attempted to show that each of these stylistic elements had some parallels in the Greek world, and that the numismatic evidence, linked to historical probability, overwhelmingly suggested that the reform of the coinage was one of Alexander's first acts. F. de Callatay,2 who had apparently reached the same conclusion as Zervos independently, reviewed the evidence, and while accepting that four of Zervos' criteria were not exclusively oriental, he reiterated firmly that the mouldings and struts of the stool must have derived from the East. and that the stool has no place in Greek iconography.

1. O. H. Zervos. 'Notes on a book by Gerhard Kleiner', NC 1982, 166-79, pI. xliii-odv, a contribution to a debate on 'The c:arl~st coins of Alexander the Great' with M. J. Price ." Alexander's reform of the Macedonian regal coinage', ibid., 180-90, pI. xlvi-xlvii. Zervos is followed by A. Weigelt. 'OCT sitzende Zeus auf den Alexandertrtradrachmm der Miinzstatte Tarsos', SM 132 (1983), 77-80.

2. F. de Callauj. 'La dace des premiers t~tradrachmcs de poids atnque em is par Alexandre: le Grand', RBN 128 (1982). 5-25.

I am not persuaded that our knowledge of furniture fashions in Macedonia is sufficient to outweigh the numismatic and historical arguments. An Apulian amphora in the Louvre! displays a figure of Zeus with his hand outstretched to receive a flying Nike. This and the throne were of sufficiendy marked similarity to the figure of Zeus on the Alexander coinage for Richter to place the two illustrations together, even though the coin chosen came from the mint ofEcbatana in the far cast of the empire. The mouldings on the legs of the stool on the Apulian vase are closely similar to those on Alexander's early Macedonian issues (PLATExvm). The band mouldings around the legs are clear. but not heavy, with that at the base a little thicker than those above. The Achaemenid coin issues ofCilicia have much more prominent, globular. mouldings. often hiding the vertical shaft of the leg and terminating at floor level in a large bell moulding.P This form of throne-leg is adopted on the Alexander coinage attributed to Tarsus (PLATE LXXXIV). but. despite the protestations of Zervos and de Ctillatay. I continue to maintain that the stool-legs on the early issues from Macedonia differ significantly from those at Tarsus. and. with several parallels such as the Apulian amphora. are perfectly at home in a Greek milieu. It is indeed important to remember that the traditional culture of the Macedonians did have close ties with Anatolia. The legs of the couches in the tombs at Vergina.> with their ornate scrolls and palmenes, arc of a quite different pattern from the stoolthrones of Alexander's coinage from Macedonia. The square-sectioned legs of the tomb couches are in fact to be seen on later Alexander coins of Tarsus (PLATE LXXXVI.3o.uff.) This style is not evident on the coins of the Macedonian region, and it is certain that this style did not reach Tarsus through the coinage. Such a style could have evolved independently in Cilicia, and with a parallel of this sort it is not possible to claim that the stool type of Alexander's Macedonian coins could only have been designed in Macedonia under the influence of Cilician coins. The struts between the legs of the stool do not appear in the Apulian parallel illustrated by Richter, but arc to be seen on the stool with low back on the east frieze of the Parthenon. Struts with sculptural decorations were also particularly prominent on Pheidias' throne of Zeus at Olympia.

As will be seen elsewhere. the silver coinage of Philip II terminated with a dramatic group of issues. closely interlinked by obverse dies. It is essential to overcome the temptation to view a single variety as a year's issue. and there can be no reasonable doubt that in this case several varieties were being struck at the same time. The same symbols, with similar interlinking. are to be found on the earliest imperial coinage of Alexander. and it is clear that Alexander's reform of the coinage took place while this heavy minting was in progress. The moment of accession in 336 BC. when Philip had been actively preparing for his invasion of Asia to liberate the Greek cities," fits perfectly the picture presented by the coinage. Alexander's need for coinage at his accession to stave offhis debtors is well known. His first issues reflect the continuation of Philip's policies. with no break in the minting arrangements.

There are two issues of coinage which, because of their transitory nature, have been put forward as possibly representing a brief, early coinage of Alexander prior to his first imperial issues. Both bear his name. but arc on the weight standard of the coinage of Philip II. That with 'eagle' reverse has been included here (nos 14Z-3). but it is clear from the above sketch of Alexander's reform that the issue does not come from the main royal mint. It therefore does not provide evidence of a period of regal coinage under Alexander's rule during which the old weight standard continued in usc.

I. G. M. A. Richter. T1tt FNmilUtt oftM Grttlts. Etrus(ans, a"d RIJItkIHS, London. 1966. 19-23 and 38-43. with fig. 76. The parallel Alexander tetradrachm (fig. 75). an issue of the mint of Ecbatana of the variety listed below at 3931. provides a throne thal is not SO dose to that of the Apulian vase as the less ornate thrones shown on Macedonian issues. The statue of Asdepius by Thrasymedes at Bpidaurus, as depicted on the fourth century BC silver coins of that city. also incorporates a throne of this type: cf. L. Lacroix. us reproductions dt statuts sur Its monnaits RrtcqNts, Liege, 1949 (B;blioth~tfUt dt la Facultt dt Pltilosopltit tI Uttrts dt ,'U,,;vrrs;ti tit LitRt 116). 301. Note also the stool on which lokastos sits on the fifth century Be tctradrachms of Rhegium: H. Herzfelder. us mon"aits d'argmt tit Rhig;o" Jrappits mtTt 461 et It mi/itu dN IV" sitelt av.J.-c., Paris. 1957. pI. i-vi.

2. Price. n. 1 above, pl. xlvi.4-7.

3. M. Andronikos. VnrgiNa, Tht Royal Tombs and the Ancirnt City, Athens. 1984. 122. fig. 75.

4. Oiodorus 17.2.4.


The other issue is known from two pieces in Sofia, with "head of Zeus' on the obverse and "seated Zeus' on the reverse, a mixture of designs that led Mushmov' also to suggest an intermediate period between the coinage of Philip and that of the reform under Alexander. The two coins are from the same pair of dies. and since the style of the head of Zeus in no way fits the styles of the late lifetime of Philip II. it is very unlikely that these are in fact authentic issues. Mouchmov considered but rejected the possibility that they were of Celtic origin. It is more probable that they are modern forgeries.

The designs used for the 'imperial' coinage

For silver at least the reform that created Alexander's new coinage thus occurred early in his reign. It is probable that the first gold issue also preceded the departure of the expedition to free the Greek cities of Asia Minor. It must be remembered that Alexander, as Philip before him, set great store by being elected general of the Corinthian League of Greek states, and it is in the context of the events of 336-334 BC that the new coinage designs must be interpreted. It was believed in ancient timess that Philip was personally responsible for the coin design that celebrated his victory in the Olympic games, and it would seem very probable that Alexander had a personal interest in the designs chosen to replace those of his father. Their message is clear - that the new Macedonian king was a Greek leading the Greeks, and that if the gods looked favourably upon their expedition, there was every expectation that victory would come to the Greek cause.

The gold coinage Staters and half staters:

obv. head of Athena r. in crested Corinthian helmet, decorated with coiled snake.

rev. Nike standing to 1. holding wreath in outstretched right hand, and mast (sty lis) in her left hand. There arc occasional minor variations in the designs which would seem to have little significance for their interpretation.

As a motif decorating the helmet, the snake is occasionally replaced by:

1. Griffin with eagle's head and straight wings (Asia Minor);

2. Lion-griffin with curved wing (East);

3. Sphinx seated r. (Babylon, Susa, Uncertain East 4003-4);

4. Flying duck or dove (Susa 38Z6A).

Occasionally, and mainly in the Black Sea region, no emblem is found on the helmet.

The snake. griffin and sphinx all have some relation to the cult of Athena. since all are to be found associated with images of Athena at Athens; but it does not follow that the adoption of these designs was in some way intended to appease the Athenian people.> Athena, the goddess of wisdom and bringer of victory and freedom, was a natural choice for a coinage designed to provide finance for a military expedition to free the Greeks of Asia Minor. If any political allusion was intended, it is more probable that it was to the Athena of Corinth, the city on which the league of Greek cities formed to challenge the Persian empire was centred. The significance of the lion-griffin (2) and the bird (4) is obscure, although the former is drawn specifically from Persian iconography.

The reverse design is a reference to naval victory.+ On a few issues the stylis is replaced by a palm (Miletus 2142, 2146, 2149, Seleuceia 3785) or a trident, but such occasions have no apparent significance, and may be attributed to the whim of individual die-cutters. On occasions figures of Nikai stand on the arm of the slylis (Miletus 2122, Tarsus JO.tO). Victory to be hoped for is a theme that must have been

1. N. A. Mushmov. 'La nurmsmanque au Musec Nanonal de Sotia', Ar~tltust, 2 (ltflS). pp. iii-v, ar iv-v. Compare the Attic weight issue of the types of Philip II found in excavations and recently published by K. Dimitrov and V. Penchev. &",II01ol;s 2: Tilt anc;ttlt ami mtditllal coins, Sofia, 1984. 52.6, pI. i.S. This must be an ancient imitation.

2. Plutarch, Altxandtr 4.

3. Ikllingcr, Essays, 4-6, with earlier bibliography.

4. W. B. Kaiser. 'Alexanders Goldmiinzen', SNR 65 (1986), 41-57, pl. vi-viii.


attractive both before the expedition set out, and throughout the rest of the reign, but the explicit naval reference has one very significant explanation: the memory of the previous victory of the Greeks over the Persians at the battle of Salamis. On that occasion the Macedonians were conspicuous by the negative part that they had played in the Greek success; but in the mid 330s Be Alexander, as leader of the league of Greek states, could with good political judgement recall that great victory. The Victory of Salamis symbolically offers Alexander the crown for new victories. It has recendy been argued that the crossing of the Hellespont was itself a notable victory at sea. and that this was the victory commemorated. I It should, however. be remembered that the forces of Philip were already encamped on Asian soil in 336 Be. It is symbolism rather than any specific historical reference which is more likely to have led to this coin design. The superiority of the Greeks at sea is the theme. and the memory of the battle of Salamis had been kept alive in Greek tradition.

Quarter staters:

ob". as staters.

rev. bow and dub. Eighth staters:

ob.,. as staters.

rev, thunderbolt.

These fractional denominations in gold occur only amongst the earliest varieties of the mints at which they were issued: Pella, Lampsacus, Miletus, and Sardes. The designs of the reverse echo those of the silver coinage, the quarter stater celebrating Herakles, and the eighth Zeus.

The silver coma.e

Decadrachms, tetradrachrns, didrachms. drachmae, and larger fractions: obv. beardless head ofHerakles r.

rev, Zeus seated on stool-throne 1., holding eagle on outstretched right hand and sceptre in left.

On four occasions at 'Pella' (204,213, 213A, and 215). once on bronze (288), and three times at Cyrene (3985-7), the obverse design faces to left. There can be no particular significance in this. On one occasion. at Aegeae(?) (200), the head of the eagle held by Zeus is reverted in the manner of the reverse designs of Alexander's local Macedonian coinage. Again, although this may confirm the Macedonian origin of the issue, there can be no symbolic significance in this detail. The details of the throne on which Zeus is seated would repay greater study than is here possible. It is shown with and without back. The back first appears in the East in the large group 3599-3670 and on contemporary issues of 'Side' (2948-65). Sometimes figures of Nike decorate the back of the throne, particularly in the Peloponnesian region (PLATES XXXVDl-XXXlX), and this might suggest that a particular figure of Zeus was at that rime being copied. In Babylon (3643) and Egypt (3977) eagles are placed on the back of the throne. and at Parium (1466) there are sphinxes in that position. On two occasions the back of the throne is linked to a symbol: at Mesembria (1032) a heavy thunderbolt lies across it horizontally; and at Aradus (340S) a palm-tree is placed upon it. clearly a motif of civic significance. Such variations occur only on posthumous issues. The mouldings on the legs of me throne show interesting variations, with sphinx and thunderbolt mouldings fairly common in the issues of the later third and second centuries Be. However, the design set by Alexander was most certainly not a particular statue. The figure changes dramatically during the lifetime issues, and later the position of the legs is changed so that one leg is pulled back behind the other. This occurs first at Sidon in 325/4 Be (3487), and becomes the recognised design for the posthumous issues.2 The original design shows the two legs set stiffly side by side. The outstretched hand of Zeus is shown at first with all fingers visible, so that the eagle can perch on the thumb or wrist. Later this is changed to show the hand in profile. with the eagle standing a little unnaturally on the palm. On later posthumous issues at many mints a

1. Kaiser, p. 29 n. 4 above, 48-9; d. Diodorus 17.2.4.

2. Ak~e. p. 52.

border of dots encircles obverse or reverse design, and on two varieties at Erythrae (1911-2) a wreath is used for this purpose, following the fashion of design of the period.

Philip had adopted the head of Zeus for his staters, and there can be no doubt that the choice of this figure for the reverse reflects Alexander's acceptance of his role as leader of the Greek states, as well as marking a continuation of his father's coinage iconography. Herakles, similarly, had played a role on Philip's coinage, and on earlier Macedonian regal issues. Alexander had a particular veneration for Herakles, I and it was through the hero that the Macedonian royal line could claim to be of truly Greek descent. This was clearly important at the beginning of the reign, when Alexander's position was somewhat tenuous.s and the choice of the warrior hero was equally suitable for a coinage of a military nature.

Small ... fl'actioDi

During Alexander's lifetime obols and half obols were struck in the East, with designs echoing those of brger denominations. In Macedonia the local 'eagle' coinage was designed to provide a medium for daily transactions. Again it is Zeus and Herakles whose cults are thus celebrated.

The bronze coiDale

The most common varieties of Alexander's bronze coinage bear the following designs:

Unit (AE), half unit (lhAE). quarter unit (14AE) "bu. beardless head of Herakles r.

KII. quiver placed on bow. and club (variety of positions).


Double unit (2AE), unit CAE). half unit (lhAE), quarter unit ('/4AE) obv. beardless head ofHerakles r.

Tell. bow in bow-case and club (variety of positions).


H21f unit (IhAE)

obv. beardless head of Herakles r.

rev. eagle, head reversed. standing on thunderbolt or other symbol.


Half unit (1hAE), quarter unit (V4AE) obv. young male head diaderned r. 'til. horse running r.


Half unit (lhAE). quarter unit (1/4AE)

obu. round 'Macedonian' shield, the central boss decorated with a variety of symbols. rtv. crested 'Macedonian' helmet with cheek-pieces.


The coinage for circulation in Macedonia falls into four groups. The 'eagle' coinage takes its designs from the local fractional silver of Alexander, including for a smaller denomination (PLATECXLIV.t9) the reverse th.mdtrb91t of Zeus that is to be found on tll(' .. ilvcr obol (PLATE cXLm.26). The obverse of the bronze piece is, however, a laureate head of Apollo. This cult. though much represented by Philip II on coinage, occurs only on this single occasion on Alexander's lifetime coinage. and. derived from the gold of Philip 11, on bronze issues of the time of Philip III (437 and P3-S). The second group of bronze issues (338-

1. Diodorus 17.4.1; Arrian 1.4.5.

... J. R. Ellis, 'Amynus Perdikka, Philip II and Alcxand~ the Great; a study in conspiracy',jHS 91 (1971). 15-24.

70) depicts a young diadcrncd head, which dearly derives from the head that had decorated Macedonian coinage in the early fourth century Be. The same head is found on the small group of silver fractions from Macedonia 434-36A, P5A. Although often identified as Apollo. there is no certainty in the attribution, and the depiction is very different from that on the bronze 437-7 A, P3-5, and the gold of Philip II. It seems more likely that he is to be related to the 'horse' on the reverse, which is also a common design in early Macedonian coinage. From the diadem an identification as the mythical founder of the dynasty, Caranus, seems probable.' On one occasion (371 and 371A). a horseman replaces the horsc.? as on earlier Macedonian regal coinage, and a horseman, again derived from the coinage of Philip II, occurs on coinages of the time of Philip III in Macedonia (434-37A. P3-P5A) and at Milctus (2131-3 and P64-5). The 'horsemen' 372 and 372A arc attributed to Macedonia, but this must be considered unccrtain.>

The third and largest group of bronze coins returns to the theme of Hcraklcs, with his head on the obverse, and his weapons on the reverse, variously shown as the 'quiver, bow and club', or 'bow in bowcase and dub'. These designs arc used at several mints in the empire, but much more evidence needs to be gathered to settle questions of mint groupings. The fourth group of coinage is likewise of an imperial nature, and its designs proclaim a military message, the round shield of the Macedonian army and a conical helmet fitted with a high crest. The shield is charged with various motifs, and it is interesting that such a shield is also to be related to Hcrakles. The 'Gorgone ion . found on issues of this type from Asia Minor and Cyprus may be identified as the head of Fear (<P6Jk>~), as described in the Homeric poem on the shield of Hcraklcs.:' The head of Hcrakles himself wearing the lion-skin is also found on the shield at Sardes and in south-west Asia Minor. The royal title is always present on this last group. The E. Macedonia hoard com bincs these 'shield/helmet' varieties with bronze Issues that arc clearly lifetime, and it IS possible that the designs for this fourth group of bronze coinage were chosen during the final years of Alexander's hfe.

The royal title

The appearance of the title BAl:IAEQI is to be found on the following issues, some or all of which in each group belong to the period 325-3 Be.

Macedonia vanenes 320,373-420

Sardes 2546, 2573

Side 2948-64

Tarsus 3033-35
Amathus 3085-87
Citium 3106-10
Paphos 3117
Myriandrus 3219-22,3228
Aradus 3306-35
Carne 3430
Babylon 3671-87
Sus a 3825-42 1. N. G. l. Hammond. 'The coinage of Akxandcr and other Balkan kings'. in N. G. L. Hammond and F. W. Walbank. A Hist(lry I?f Maudqnia, J. 336-167 Be, Oxford. 1988, CJ2 (cf. Le Rider. P/riiippt 11,368). The hero Rhesus is another possibili(y; d. Hammond's idenuficarion of the horseman here 011 the coins of Alexander I: N. G. L. Hammond and G. T. Griffiths. A History '!fMllif'do"ia, 2.5.50-336 Be, Oxford, 1979. 105.

2. Attributed to Alexander II by Gaeblcr (161.1), but style. the th,,"Jt'moit symbol and the evidence of the Drama hoard require that this is an exceptional issue- of Alexander the Great.

3. The presence of 372 A ill the Caria (1~) hoard in addition to ~ style of the head of Hcrakles which is not typical of the Maccdonian region suggests that :111 attribution to the Cu:i.1J1 or Ionian region is preferable,

4. 'Hesiod', The ShitfJ ~,. Hrralt/('s, 144. This type of coinage has now been studied by K. Liampi, 'Zur Chronologie dcr sogennanren .. anonymcn" makcdonischcn Miinzen des spaten 4.Jhs. v. Chr.", JNG 36 (I 98(»). 41-()5, pl. Iv-vi.

The distaste that the word Basiteus held for the Greeks is well known, and Alexander's assumption of the ride King of Asia did nothing to allay the fears of the Greeks who saw Alexander making himself a Persian-style dictator over the whole of the known world. The appearance of the title on coinage can be pinpointed with some accuracy. It occurs first in Babylon, South Asia Minor and Phoenicia amongst those issues which appear to have been designed to payoff the veterans sent home in 324 BC.I In Macedonia itself the title first appears on the silver issues immediately preceding the n group (122-7). This was the last group of the Maccdoman region to be found in the great Demanhur hoard, and can therefore be dated c. 320-17 Be. It is probable that in Macedonia the title was officially adopted c. 323 Be or even a little earlier, since it is found, in abbreviated form, on the 'shield/helmet' bronzes. For a short time it became fairly common practice to usc the title 011 the coinage, although it was by no means obligatory. On later posthumous issues it is mainly found in the regions of the Black Sea and in {he Peloponncse.


The only certain portraits of Alexander's lifetime on coins arc those of the bronze issue of Memphis (3960)2 and the figure shown 011 the five-shekel (dccadrachm), normally related [0 his defeat of Porus (PLATE CLlX.G-H). Atrcmprs to show that the head of l Ierakles was intended to disguise a portrait of the king·' arc ar best conjectural, and there is certainly no reason to believe that Alexander had intended it [0 be so at the beginning of the coinage, The early posthumous portrait struck in Egypt, depicting Alexander in elephant scalp headdress and wearing an aegis." shows features that arc not dissimilar to heads of Herakles struck during his lifetime; but in the absence of clear indications of portraiture it is better not to indulge in guesswork as to when the head of Hcraklcs became a portrait of Alexander. The young features arc lacking in particular chararrcristics, and comparison with the same head on the silver issues of Philip II and Pcrdiccas III should be sufficient to warn the unwary not to jump to conclusions too quickly.

Later generations certainly looked upon this head of l Icraklcs as a portrait of Alexander. The idea of placing the monarch 's image on regal coin issues was in fact introduced by the diadochi, extending the practice of Persian satraps and Lycian dynasts. Once this had become the fashion, the head on Alexander's coinage would also be interpreted as a portrait of the king. Agathocles of Bactria, S for example. issued a terradrachm coinage of Alexander types (. 175 Be. The reverse is signed with his own name as current ruler. The obverse 'Hcrakles' is dearly labelled' Alexander, son of Philip.'

There was no such fashion of using portraiture on regal coinage in the time of Alexander, and although he followed in Egypt the practice of the Persian satraps, this would be no evidence that in 336 Be he rmghr have introduced a disguised portrait onto the imperial comagc, either in Macedonia or in the eastern part of his ern pire.

The introduction in Egypt soon after Alexander's death of a head in an elephant-scalp, parallel to but distinct from the head of Hcrakles in lion-scalp. is a dear mdicarion that the portrait of the conqueror was intended. The elephant scalp has two connotations. The first is to depict the king as conqueror of India,

1. Thompson, 'Mercenaries'. 241-7. Dr. Irving Pinkel has drawn my attention 10 the contemporary mentions of Ale-undcr in Babylonia. In 331/0 Be he IS named as 'king of the world' (A. J. Sachs and H. Hunger, .ismmomi(al Dienes a"d rrlaud rexrs/rpm Bab}'ltlma 1. Vienna 1988. 179 Rev. II). In 330/.329 Be he is called 'king of the lands' (ibid., 181.B.obv.1). Both these are AthOiClllenid nrlcs adopted immediately upon his entrv into Babylon.

2. M. J. Pnce, 'Et Alexander den Store portreu t"r:l Egvpr/ A portrait of Alexander the Great from Egypt'. NXFNY7T. 10.1 (1981).24-37.

3. Bellinger. Essays. 14-21: cf M. Bieber. 'The portraits of Alexander the Great'. P'~(ttdi"gJ ofthr .immean Philosophic,,' Sodetv , 93 (1949).373-427 .. n388; and o. Palagia, 'Imuarion of Herakles In ruler portraiture. A survev from Alexander (0 Maxirninus Daza'. Boreas. A·l.inJ(trischr Brirriig€' .. wr Af(hiiolo.~,('9 (1986),137-51, at 137-44. Similarly the recent insistence that the obverse of the silver tctradrachms of Philip II represents Philip's portrait (A. N. Oikonomides. 'A portrait of King Philip 11 of Macedonia '. HIt llncirnt J.i,'orld 20. t /2 (1989), 5- t 6, at 10) is conjectural and unpro va ble. The laurel wreath IS an arrnbutc of Zeus.

4. BMr. Pr~ltmits. 1. 1-2.5.

5. 8MC Gruk a"d S(yrlti( Kitrg.l• xxviii and 10.1.

and, possibly for similar reasons, the same headdress was adopted by Demetrius of Bact ria in the second century Be. In addition the elephant has significance in connection with eternity and deification, which it symbolises. for example, in the (Mstcratio coinage of the Roman empire. More closely connected with Akxander are the elephants which draw the quadriga bearing his deified image on the gold coinage of Ptolemy I and (his was a feature of annual processions in Alexandria. 1

Alexander did not discourage those who sought to deify him. His divine parentage is underlined, for example, by depicting him holding a thunderbolt on the five-shekel (PLATECLIX.G-H) and in the portrait painted by Apelles at Ephesus.? At Memphis engravers may have been influenced by his bronze coinage (3960), and so may have consciously introduced the king's features into their depiction ofHerakles. Even so, it would be an extension of customary practice for the king to assume the attributes of'Herakles and to take the place of the divine hero on the royal coinage. It is unlikely that Alexander intended this to occur.

Symbols and monograms

The bewildering array of marks that identify individual issues are here indexed for the first time. The purpose in including them in the design was to mark the products of a particular issue, and it may be assumed that the most common reason for this was to guard against adulteration of the metal or other malpractice on the part of those responsible for the issue's production. For the purposes of modern scholarship these marks can help to determine the place and date of each issue. There is, therefore. a temptation to recognise in a symbol a design that reflects a city's autonomous coinage and in a variety a mark that represents a year of office. While both such assumptions on occasion may be correct, it is salutary to remember that the structure built by Muller on the assumption that the place of minting was usually to be found in the symbols or letters has crumbled under the detailed scrutiny of the dies and style of the coins.J

Among the lifetime issues of Alexander it is useful to consider the symbols, letters and monograms as marks identifying individuals. Such practice has a long precedent in Greek coinage. beginning with the issues of Abdera around 500 Be. Philip introduced a similar system to the regal Macedonian mint, perhaps influenced by the contemporary practices at Corinth where the mid fourth century Be saw enormous issues of staters to support Timoleon 's expedition to Sicily. 4 There, one 'senior official' signed the coinage with letters denoting his name, and these arc found with a number of different pictorial symbols which may be presumed to represent the sealmarks of other officials who changed more frequently or were working at the same time. On the other hand it is important to keep in mind that there arc other possible interpretations for these marks. It may have been necessary, for example. to mark batches of metal by stamping the ingots with a symbol or monogram to indicate the source, and at times of heavy productivity the products of each batch of metal could have been easily identified by placing the same mark in the coin dcsign.5 Instead, therefore, of having several 'magistrates' in office at one time, the interlinking of different varieties at times of heavy production may signify the concurrent striking of different batches of metal.

1. Athenaeus 5.202A.

2. On the works of Apelles in which Alexander was placed on a par with the gods, sec Pliny, Nt'tNral Hist~n'ts 35.92-3. For rejection in India of Macedonian claims that Alexander the son of Zeus, sec Strabo 15.1.68. On deification in Alexander's lifetime, see C. A. Robinson, 'Alexander's deification', AJP64 (1943),286-301.

3. The undermining of Muller's arrangement began with A. von Sallct: 'Beirrsge zur antilcen Miinz- und Alrerthurnskunde', ZfN9 (1882): 'Die Beieeichen aufden Miinun Philipps II von Macedonien', 152-4. This was summarised by B. V. Head, 'Notices of recent numismatic publications', NC 1882, 296-7. Banbury 'Alexander' (2), 14-9 could not believe that such a major rearrangement would be necessary, but B. V. Head ('Coinage of Alexander the Great: an explanation', NC 1883, 18-9) underlined that the symbols were more likely to represent 'official signets of monetary magistrates'.

4. R. J. A. Talbert, 'Corinthian silver coinage and the Sicilian economy, c.340 to c.290 BC', NC 1971, 53-66.

5. cr. M. Thompson. Th« New Stylt Silver C~jrUlgt of Alltms, New York, 1961 (ANS Nwmis",.,i( Slaulies 10). 613-22.

It is interesting that the gold coinages both of Philip II and Alexander were given special treatment in this regard. The symbols trident-head, cantharus and thunderbolt appear on both coinages from the inception of those of Philip and. apparently, throughout the reign of Alexander and later. Indeed. the trident head and tl,underbolt occur regularly on Macedoni:m issues in gold, silver and bronze. All three symbols reappear at Tarsus on gold issues (3004-9) soon after the mint changed to the striking of Alexanders. It seems most improbable that one such unchanging symbol could represent the work of a single person, and it is rather unlikely that they became copied with the Nikc as part of a typt immobilislt.lndeed, the thundtrbolt of3OO9 was joined by the plough, a symbol that became clearly representative of the Tarsus mint. One possible explanation is that these symbols reflected families whose trusted position in the minting procedure was handed down from father to son. The possibility that such figures travelled in the retinue of Alexander may explain why his main' Macedonian' gold issues do not appear to fit into other mint sequences, and yet could be linked by symbol to the mint of Tarsus.

The introduction ofIetters indicating a place of minting rather than a person occurs with the coinages of Cyprus and Phoenicia. At Aradus (3306), towards the end of Alexander's life, the monogram of the city's name is joined on a gold stater by an Aramaic formula derived directly from the earlier autonomous coinage of the city. Similarly the coinage of Sidon is marked with the city's name from soon after 330 BC. Amongst later posthumous issues, when the nature of the Alexander coinage had changed from being a 'royal' coinage to one struck at the instigation of civic authorities, the city emblem becomes more common. The long issues of the third and second centuries BC marked with a sphinx or with a lion looking back at a star can be attributed without any doubt to Chios and Miletus respectively. and Muller's identifications for such coinages have often withstood the test of time.

There can be no doubt that an alphabetical sequence of letters may also represent a sequence of periods of time, and the assumption that this is an annual sequence is reasonable. In this manner the sequences in Pamphylia and Phoenicia I permit an identification by years. It is not possible, however. to generalise from this that the same is the case with the symbols. which have sometimes been considered to represent annual periods of office. At the time of Alexander's accession it is clear that at 'Amphipolis' the issues of three symbols were being produced at the very same time. When the royal tide was introduced at the same mint there are also three symbols that are found both with and without the tide. It is reasonable to assume that at this mint there was a system, probably throughout Alexander's reign, under which three symbols were used together. 2

At Babylon the introduction of the royal title occurs at a time of enormous production and there are fourteen different symbols found both with and without the title. Unlikely as it may seem, it is very probable that all these were being struck simultaneously. With later posthumous issues it is fairly common to find that large issues are made over a short period of time. with dies interlinking a number of different issuing authorities. At Rhodes. for example, it is probable that the names and monograms indicated those responsible for issues made at the very same time.

Sequences of numbers at Ake (3250-3302). Aradus (3365-85), Carne (3431-2), Gabala (3~3) and Marathus (3452-3) are unquestionably to be interpreted as dates based on eras particular to each city. The letter sequences in Pamphylia and Phoenicia may be interpreted in the same way, showing that it was certainly possible for the authorities to indicate issues belonging to a fiscal year. However, it is extremely dangerous to postulate further that regular periods of office were intended to be recognised in the monograms and symbols of other issues. While it may be true that some marks do indicate years, it is equally true that some marks belong to a group issued concurrently. It is not uncommon for a constant symbol or monogram to be accompanied by a variety of other 'secondary' marks. The temptation to recognise in the primary symbol an official appointed for a fixed term must be resisted.

t Below, 348 (table E) and 417-19 (table H).

2. Under Antigonus Gonatas there may have been three 'officials in office' in Macedonia at the same time: sec Mathisen, Amphipolis (3), 44-7 and Boehringer, Chr"n"logit, 100. For the suggestion that regular periods of office may be involved and that these were used for dating, sec Mathisen, ibid., and Thompson/Bellinger, 'Alexander drachms', 11-2.

Letters also appear occasionally on the obverse. Their function is normally similar to the letters on the reverse, but when the same letter appears in this unusual position at different mints at about the same time, there may be some significance for the organisation of minting arrangements. The following occur on a single occasion at a single mint:

obv. Letter A Citium AU 3105

~ Aradus AU 3306, 4dr 3307 K Miletus dr 2090A

1: Aradus AU 3315

.., Macedonia AE 315

~ Sardes dr 22S8A, 2S69A

The following parallels may be noted between different mints:

obv. Letter B Asia AU 2702, Tarsus 4dr 3049,3051, Aradus 4dr 3308 A Aradus AU 3314, Berytus AU 3411

M Teos AU 2305, Aradus 4dr 3304, Babylon AU 3691, PtlO

At Sardes, Aradus and Babylon it can be shown that the letter on the obverse is merely a variant of issues that have the same letter on the reverse, but there are three occasions where letters on the obverse are clearly more important. At Paphos (3118-23) tetradrachms are signed with the name of Nikokles in the hair of the lion scalp, and this would appear to represent an attempt on the part of the king to sign pieces struck under his authority in such a way as to cause no displeasure. 1 This is a strange phenomenon, at a time when Balakros at Tarsus even replaced Alexander's name with his own, (PLATE CLvm.x) but it must represent the cautious approach of a king who knew the consequences of provoking Alexander.

On two occasions amongst the late posthumous issues letters appear on the jaw of the lion scalp in such a way as apparently to represent the signature of the engravers. At Mesembria both varieties (1095, 1098) are to be found with and without the signature. At Aradus (3403) the issue comes at the end of the sequence, and is dated 184/3 BC.


The need to give the name of a city to a particular group of issues has resulted in a certain confusion. By attributing the coins to a city, numismatists place the coins in a defined historical context. It is very important not to mislead historians by letting hypothesis become proof merely through habitual use. On the other hand, confusion amongst numismatists themselves must be kept to a minimum. It will become apparent that I find the now accepted attributions of some important groups to be either wrong or, at best, lacking any evidence at all. In these cases it has been felt that the use of inverted commas or a questionmark will warn the reader not to accept too readily the attribution to a particular city. Such names are retained for convenience.

Methods of study

The recognition that obverse dies could link issues of different varieties has revolutionised the study of this coinage. 2 The material may be grouped according to the die-links and to dose affinities of style observed. Such groups create the basis of the series to be attributed to mints. Newell was the first to exploit to any great extent this empirical form of study, and under his critical eye the structure described by Muller has collapsed. Once the essential study of the dies of extant examples is complete, and, despite the good work at the American Numismatic Society, this will not be for many years, the problem of the attribution of the

1. May, 'Paphos', 2-6.

2. Newell, 'Reattribution', 6. In 1909, for example, Hill ('Phoenicia', 9) stated that attribution to Sidon of sixty-seven varieties that he listed 'may be regarded as certain'. By 1918 Newell ('Sinope', 123-7) had reartributed twenty-five of me varieties to Sinope.

groups of issues to mints and to particular times remains. It is always tempting to see in symbol or monogram some hint of the city of issue, but it is important to use such evidence as is otherwise available before resorting to such arguments.

Style is a most important factor. As Alexander moved eastwards, he entered areas where coins were already being produced under the Persians, and it is a reasonable assumption that on several occasions mint workers would have turned from Achaemenid coinage to that of Maeedonian imperial designs. The style and fabric of the resulting coins in the name of Alexander may. therefore. reflect the earlier work. Similarly, amongst the diadochi, comparison of the Alexander issues with those in the names of the various successor kings allows immediate identification of issues from the same mint. The discovery of die-links between tetradrachms of Alexander type struck by local rulers and issues in the name of Alexander permit, for example, the sure identification of mints at Cabyle (882) and Dyrrhachium (661). This in turn gives a secure identification of the style adopted in those areas.

In practice, however, there is still need for great caution. Newell found that the groups to be attributed to Sidon and Ake were themselves linked by the use of the same die (Sidon 3467 = Ake 3238). and concluded, quite rightly, that this represented the movement of a member of the mint personnel, with a die, between the two cities. I The two groups cannot be dovetailed into each other and the die-link is a single occurrence seen for what it was only when the whole of the material relevant to the two groups had been collected. Four other such die-links have been noted:

Time of Philip III Aradus 3332 = Marathus P16S Late posthumous Colophon 1844 = Phocaea 2223

Miletus 2166 = Priene 2242 Magydus 2914 = Aspendus 2890

The existence of such links does not jeopardise the general assumption that gathering the material by style and die-links can produce mint sequences, but it is clear that there is need for caution in making deductions too readily. The three later links raise the possibility, as do the 'transferred dies' in other coinages.s that issues outwardly purporting to come from two different cities were in fact minted at the same establishment. Centralised minting facilities may have been more common in the later hellenistic period than is at present realised, particularly for coinages such as the Alexanders which could have served the purpose of an alliance coinage, as is suggested for the Peloponnese in the later third century Be.

Similarly, unlikely as it may seem, there are issues in the name of Philip III which appear to have been made posthumously. The same die, for example, links PI67 attributed to Manthus with an issue of Seleucus I (WSM 1242) as well as with 3450 in the name of Alexander. 3 The chronological deductions which may be made from the link with Philip III have to be viewed within the framework of all the evidence, and general common sense must be exercised rather than adherence to preconceived notions. When other evidence failed, Newell sometimes resorted to the geographical position of the city as a criterion for deciding whether it might have possessed a mint of Alexander coinage (e.g. Amphipolis, Abydus and Myriandrus). This should be resisted, since the pattern of mints must have followed the sources of the silver rather than the likely trade routes.

1. It is important not to confuse this phenomenon with the sharing of dies between 'barbarous' imitations that copy iSSW:5 frC)m differ~nt mints; so, for example. the sharing of obverse dies between SNC Cop 863 (after variety 816. uncertain of Greece) and SNG Oxford 2853 (after variety 2948, 'Side'), I am grateful to Dr A. S. de Shazo for these references.

2. For transfers of dies of Lysimachus. see below. 210 (Lampsacus). Cf. N. K. Rutter. 'Table of die-transferences'. C,mp,,.iiUI Coill4ges 475-380 BC, Edinburgh, 1979. 102 for Campania; M. Thompson. The Agrinion Hoard, New York. 1968 (NNM 159). 1~2 for Achaean League issues; I. Nicolaou and O. Merkholm. Paphos, 1. A Prole,,",;, CO;" Hoard, Nicosia, 1976.99. for Ptolemaic issues of Cyprus.

3. K. Dimitrov publishes a further link between a coin in the name of Philip UI (as P229) and a coin of Seleucus I (WSM780). in COttgrtsJ ... London 1986. 17-19.


Alexander inherited from Philip a carefully planned currency system that had totally altered that of Philip's predecessors. On ascending the throne in 336 Be one of Alexander's first acts was to create a further currency reform which radically changed the denominations. increasing the weight of the silver stater by 20% but retaining the gold stater. In contrast to this seemingly impetuous act, the evidence of the style of the heads ofHerakles on the fractional issues proves that Alexander continued to mint gold issues of the types and in the name of Philip in Macedonia.

Like Philip, and the Chalcidian League before him, Alexander based his reform on the gold and silver stater. The period around 336 BC was one in which the ratio between gold and silver was falling, but whether this was because of the mining of new gold or through a falling off in the availability of silver in other parts of Greece is not yet understood. The relative weights of the gold stater and the silver stater were fixed by the Chalcidian League in the fifth century BC and were taken over by Philip. at a time when the ratio of silver to gold was 13113: 1 (1 gold stater = 8 silver staters). There must have been some difficulty in the exchange of the two metals when the ratio fell to 12: 1 or below. Philip introduced fifths and tenths of the silver stater which may have been intended to alleviate the problem of exchange (at 12: 1. 1 gold stater = 7 silver staters and 1 fifth).l In 336 BC the ratio had fallen to 10:1, where it then stabilised. Alexander's radical reform must be seen in the light of the apparent difficulties in making a practical coinage system out of the existing currency weights, as well as of the need to finance the imminent expedition into Persian territory. At the 10: 1 ratio of gold to silver six of Philip 's silver staters would in fact be the equivalent of the gold stater. and this must be the reason why they remained popular in circulation until the third century BC. The change to the Attic standard. though instigated perhaps by the need for reform, was probably carried out in order to bring the Macedonian weight system better into line with that of the Greek world. It is interesting that although he was contemplating an invasion of the Persian empire, Alexander did not return to the 'Persico standard used by his uncle and grandfather. before the reign of Philip II. and prevalent in Achaemenid areas. such as Tarsus.

At a ratio of 10:1 five of Alexander's new Attic tetradrachms (twenty drachmae) would pass for one gold stater. This coinage was supplemented in Macedonia by frequent issues offractions in silver of the 'eagle' type. It is however notable that the fractional denominations in gold occur amongst the earliest issues, both in Macedonia and at Lampsacus, Miletus and Sardes. At a ratio of10:1 the gold quarter stater was equivalent to five silver drachmae, and the eighth of two and a half drachmae. Their issue may have been required when silver was not readily available in small denominations. The imperial drachma was minted for the most part in the cities of western Asia Minor. although there were times when series of smaller denominations were struck at mints such as Tarsus (3012-5). Myriandrus (3219-27), Aradus (33t5-9) and Babylon (3594-3607). These may well represent the need to make exceptional payments. Fractions smaller than the drachma, other than those of the Macedonian 'eagle' type, tended to be struck in the eastern part of the empire.

Alexander made two issues of silver staters (t42-3) of the standard used by Philip 11, but there is no reason to believe that he continued to strike the silver staters of Philip beside the new Attic-weight tetradrachms.s They were reintroduced under Philip III. and it is interesting to note that there was an increased need for the silver fifths. on this occasion perhaps to help in maintaining an exchange between the two weight standards that he was minting simultaneously (1 Macedonian (Philip) silver stater and 1 fifth = Attic tetradrachm). The silver staters of Philip II continued to be struck in Macedonia throughout the reign of Cas sander beside the coinage of Alexander's types.

There is one further innovation of Alexander's reform which has not been previously recognised. We are told by Polyaenus (3.10.14) that in Macedonia there were five drachmae to the silver stater. What we

I. Lc Rider. Plailippt II, 359.

2. Le Rider's date for the end of his Period II relied on the Corinth (1930) hoard believed to have been buried in 329/8 BC. This has been undermined by the recognition that issues once attributed to Sicyon were in fact minted in Macedonia: see M. J. Price. 'The coinage ofPhiJip II', NC 1979, 230-41, .at 234.

tOday call 'tetradraclims' were In many C2Ses known to the sneiene MaCe<10nlanS as pentaaracnms, and ems is evident in the inscription ME'Vba(TJ on the fractional <coinage of Mende which is today wrongly termed a tetrobol (BMC 8-10). The feminine form can only refer to the word'J. As stated above, Le Rider has shown that the 'tetrobols' of Philip II were in fact fifths, not sixths, of the silver stater, and there can be no doubt that these were termed drachmae and the 'tetradrachm' was a pentadrachm. After increasing the weight of the stater, Alexander adopted the Greek system offour drachmae to the Attic tetradrachm. It is interesting that there is in fact a connection between this weight standard and a local standard used at Aegeae. Philip's predecessors struck coinage of 'Persic' weight, with a stater of 10.5 g, the drachma of which would be 2.10 g. Although this was never struck as a coin, the weight does appear as that of a drachma inscribed on silver kalyx cups in the 'royal' tomb at Vergina. Other cups, kylixes, in the same tomb are inscribed with their weight in Attic drachmae. J Since the 'Persic' fifths are the equivalent of an Attic half drachma, the new weight standard introduced by Alexander in 336 Be was easily equated with the earlier standard at Aegeae, which apparently continued as a commercial weight.

Philip III established a pattern of silver issues which continued under his successors. There is an exceptional pentobol issue at Sidon (P173), but the drachma mints became well established in Ionia, and particular care was taken to provide a varied sequence of denominations at Susa. At Babylon under Antigonus a light drachma, a fifth of the tetradrachm, and a light obol, a thirtieth, were used for a short period. With the establishment of the successor kingdoms and the local coinages of the diadochi there was clearly no further need for small denominations of the Alexander coinage, and after the Ionian mints closed at the beginning of the reign ofLysimachus, the drachma was only issued on rare occasions such as at Temnos (1684) and Magnesia (2044-5). Similarly, the gold stater gave way to the gold issues of individual monarchs except on the occasions, mainly around the Black Sea, when payments were clearly required to be made in Alexander staters.

The possible existence of a late posthumous tridrachm has been noted by Muller. 2 The coin is Alabanda 2463, in Copenhagen, and weighs 13.37 g, but the style strongly suggests that it is a contemporary imitation. Muller no. 1375a, once in a private collection in Trieste, and said to be a tridrachm of the variety of By blos 3426, may also have been of a 'barbarous' issue. Prokesch-Osten also publishes a'tridrachm', possibly of the type of Tarsus 2992. but this was rightly ignored by Newell in his study of that mint.

The relation of the bronze denominations to the silver is a problem for which there is no conclusive evidence. It is unwise to postulate that the most common bronze denomination must be the most common small denomination in silver, as does Bellinger. J and it is necessary to think in terms of what might have been practical for daily transactions.

The weights of the bronze coins vary more widely than those of silver. although it must be remembered that a variation of .05 g in silver is the equivalent of some 6 g in bronze. A combination of weight. diameter. and type determines the denomination of a bronze coin, and it is clear that there are three regular denominations in the coinage in the name of Alexander and Philip III. The largest pieces, the' quiver, bow, club' and 'bow in bow-case. club' types normally weigh between 5 and 8 g, and the same types have a quarter denomination (267, 271, 327-8, Pl28, 31-46-77, 3493) weighing between 1.2 and 2.2 g. A similar denomination is evident as a fraction of the Macedonian 'eagle' coinage, with 'thunderbolt' reverse (19, 56). The 'eagle' pieces themselves are approximately the double of this, weighing 3.3-4.2 g and would seem to be the same denomination as the Macedonian 'horse' type (338-770), although the latter pieces

1. Andronikos. p. 28 n. 3 above, 157-9. I am grateful to David Gill for drawing my attention to these inscriptions. The use of tile Attic weight might confirm the early date of Alexander's reform, if the tomb were of Philip II; but since that standard was already prevalent in the Greek cities of Macedonia, the point should not be pressed. There may be some significance in the fact that the 'Persic' weight was used for the kalyx cups, the shape of which derives from Achaemenid work, while the Attic standard was used for the Greek kylixes. nus must, however, await the full publication of all the cups, inscriptions. and weights from the tomb.

2. MiilIer, p. 258 note 16. Cf. Proltesch-Osten (1) 276.

3. Bellinger. Essays, 32-4.

tend to be a little heavier with more examples over 4 g. There is also a rare half denomination of this 'horse' type (343). The 'shield/helmet' type is the exact equivalent of the 'horse' type, and also has a half denomination (2065, 2807,3160). It is a fair assumption to deduce from this that the regular denominations fell into the ratio 1 :2:4, and if there were eight chalkoi to the obol in Macedonia, as at Athens. these would translate into the chalkous (hemitetanemorion), the tetarternorion, and the hemiobol. On one occasion the double unit (Curium 3112) would represent the obol. The middle denomination. the II:zAE nos. 417-8, in fact carries two pellets which could be taken to represent two chalkoi or tetartemorion, and there is one further piece of evidence that might help to confirm this. The Macedonian kings were amongst the first of the Greeks to accept the idea of a bronze coinage. I In the late fifth century Be it is most probable that the chalkoi denominations were replacing their silver equivalents as fractions of the obol, retartemorion (1/4) or hemiretartemorion (1/8). rather than providing a new system of smaller denominations. In this way was instigated a system of bronze denominations in which the chalkous would be the eighth of an obol, In Sicily the same process created a twelfth of a litra by replacing the uncia with bronze equivalents. and it was this system which apparently travelled to the Peloponnese.s It has recently been proposed> that there may have been fractions of Alexander's chalkous, a half and a quarter ('lepton'), and that the smallest denomination should be equated with this. There is. however, no evidence for the existence of so small a fraction as the half chalkous in the fourth century BC. nor is there evidence for the existence of a denomination named a lepton. It is most unlikely that the currency system should have provided no denomination between the obol, whether of eight or twelve chalkoi, and the chalkous.

The solution to be proposed for the bronze denominations of Alexander is:

V4AE chalkous (hemitetartemorion) 10-13 mm 1.2-2.2 g

IhAE dichalkon (tetartemorion) 14-17 mm 3.3-4.2 g

AE 4-chalkous (hemiobol) 16-20 mm 5-8 g

A system such as that outlined above creates an extremely practical currency for small transactions. and is in accordance with such evidence as exists. but it can only be offered as a tentative solution. The system was taken over by the Seleucid kings, and the issue of Susa included here (3878-81) neatly fits the tetartemorion denomination.

1. M. J. Price. 'Early Greek bronze coinage', Essays ... Robinson, 90-104, at 99.

2. M. N. Tod, 'Epigraphical notes on Greek coinage, 2. XAAKOYl:', NC 1946.47-62.

3. M. Bar, 'Consid&arions sur la circulation des monnaies d''appoint frap~ au nom d' Alexandre le Grand et plaidoyer pour I'~ude de ccs pieces', CENB 20.2 (April-June, 1983),25-8.


With the great spread of place and time. there is a need to consider closely the weights to which the coins were struck, to determine whether the 'Alexander standard' remained constant from place to place. For this purpose the coins of the Museum collection have been divided into areas and, where relevant, into periods. The tables illustrate this by using different letters for the different groups. Each letter represents one coin, and in this manner comparison of different groups is straightforward. While the sample is not particularly large, it appears to be fairly representative. and certain comments can be made.

i The gold coinage Distaters: 17.20 g --- (3)

17. t 5 -------- (8)


Macedonia (m). Aegeae (g), Pella (I)

Salamis (s), Aradus (a), Ake (k), Sidon (0), Tyre (t). Babylon lifetime (b). Babylon posthumous (p) 8.65 g kop

8.60 m mmgggsssk kkaaoooooooootttbbpppp

8.55 mmmmmmmmmllsssssskkkkkkaoooooooooooootrtbbbpppppppppppppppp 8.50 mmmmmikkkkkkkaoooppppppppp

8.45 mssk

8.40 p

The careful adjustment of the weight of these pieces causes no surprise, and it is clear that there is no appreciable difference between the lifetime and posthumous issues. The large majority of specimens weigh between 8.48 g and 8.62 g and this shows the close adherence to the gold standard' adopted by Philip II.

ii The tetradrachml

The tables (pp. 42-5) compare the weights of tetradrachms at different places and at different times, in order to gauge the consistency of what might be termed the Alexander standard.

TABLE A Weights of the early tetradrachrns

The letters D and K represent specimens which derived from the Demanhur and Kuft hoards respectively. 0 denotes all other specimens in the collection except those that have lost <l significant amount of weight after minting, through being pierced. for example, or corroded and broken. Since the Ashmolean Museum also holds coins from these two hoards, the weights. taken from the Syllo~r Nummorum Grat'Corum, have been added in brackets to supplement the holdings here published. The annotation 023(6), therefore, means 23 coins in the British Museum collection and 6 in the Ashmolean, all from the Demanhur hoard. The weight interval is one tenth of a gramme, so that the weight 17.0 g represents all pieces weighing between 16.95 and 17.04 g.

The early coinages of Alexander are of good Arne weight. AI1 mints exhibit occasional pieces which rise above 17.25 g. but in fact only on one occasion (SNG Oxford 2605 as Amphipolis 116) is the weight actually higher than 17.30 g (17.31 g). It has recently been asserted- that the weight standard under Alexander and Philip III lay between 17.30and t 7.40 g. This was based on the assumption that an arbitrary figure of I to 1.5% should be added to the actual weights to take into account weight lost through

1. Le Rider, Philippt 11, 408.

2. o. Merkholm, 'The Attic coin standard in the Levant during the Hellenistic period', Srudia ...• Naste«, 139-49. at 143. E. Schlosser, 'Bestimmung des Gewichtes der Tetradrachmen Alcxanders des Grossen', Gtldgeschi(/lIlichr N.d"richttn 108 (1985), 160-2 works statistically [0 a figure of 17.28 g for the tetradrachm and 4.32 g for the drachm. The Attic tetradrachm is computed to be a little heavier at 17.52 g. Compare a) so the tables of weights prepared by Lc Rider, M.yMDClkkale. 244-8 (tetradrachms) and 241.) (drachmae).

circulation or through the conditions in which the coins have been held in the ground. The figure of 1- 1.5% seems excessive. and it is interesting to note that the coins from the Kuft hoard. which were almost all maltreated in Egypt by punches and countermarks, do not show any particularly marked loss of weight when compared with specimens of the same issues deposited in the earlier Demanhur hoard. Given the fairly wide spread of weights at which the coins were struck. illustrated by the well-preserved specimens from the Dernanhur hoard weighing less than 17.0 g. it is probably safe to ignore all but the most severe wear or corrosion in this discussion and assume that the standard to which the coins were struck lay between 17.25 and 17.30 g. Most specimens fall within 2% of this range of weights. This may be compared with the results of the recent detailed study of the weight of the Alexander drachma by F. de CallataY.l Few pieces exceeded 4.33 g in weight.

Amphipolis Amphipolis Amphipolis Amphipolis
a. before title b. with title c. n groups d. torch group
17.3 g (01) 02. (02) Kl, (02)
17.2 023(6), Kl(2), 016(9) 06(12), (K4), 016(3) 02(2) 012(3)
17.1 035(2), K2(8), 023(9) D2, K2(4). 09(4) K1,04(1) 013(5)
17.0 03, K5(1). 06(3) K I, 05(2) (K 1), 02(1) 016
16.9 D1. 02(1) DI, 04(1) 01 04(2)
16.8 D2,03(1) KI 01 05(1)
16.7 01,02(1) 01 (1) 02(1)
16.6 D2,ol(1) (Kl) 03(1)
16.5 Dl.ol 03(5) 01 04(1)
and less
Tarsus Tarsus a. Ake to [241 b. Ake [25-91
a. before title b. title to Nike group Aradus before title Aradus with title
Sidon to [101 Sidon M (12) to n [161
17.3 g D2,01 01(1)
17.2 D7(1),05 DI(3). KI(I). 05(1) DtO. K 1, 03(3) D3, (K6), 06(4)
17.1 D6, Kl(2), 05(1) Dl(I). K3(1), 04 DI3, K 1 (2), 04(1) D6, K3(5), 011 (3)
17.0 K2,05 K3(3),ol D4.04 K2(4). 07(2)
16.9 (K3) (K 1). 01 (Kl) KI (1). 02(2)
16.8 01(1) (01) Dl,ol (02)
16.7 (01) (01)
16.6 (01) (01) 01(1)
16.5 D2,01 DI 01, (01)
and less
c. Ake r30 to cnd] Babylon Babylon Babylon
Sidon P [171 to end a. before title b. title to Hdios c. wreath group
17.3 g 01 03
17.2 (k2), 02(4) 028(1). K 1. 0] 8 D3. Kl(3). 012(1) 02
17.1 K 1 (2), 02(6) D3, K5(5), 016(4) K6(7),oI3(3) K2(4}, 011(3)
17.0 K2.06(2) (Kl),06(1) 02(3) (K2),06(4)
16.9 (K 1), 07(2) D1. Kl(I). 05(2) 03(2) 09
16.8 02(1 ) 01(1) 01 02(2)
16.7 05(2) D2. (K 1). 04(1) 01(1) 02
16.6 01 03, (Kl). 01(3) 02
16.5 01(2) xi, 01(3) 03(1)
and less 1. de C~lat~y, "Tresor', 40-1. tableau II.

It has further been suggested that there was a slight adjustment downwards of the weight in 317 BC, or shortly thereafter. I This is evident in the Babylon wreath group. where only two coins reach 17.15 g. but at Amphipolis, although a somewhat greater proportion of coins weigh around 17.00 g than in the previous groups. there are still sufficient pieces weighing around 17.20 g to suggest that it was not the standard that had been lowered. but rather that there was a tendency to strike a greater proportion of slightly lighter coins. This is of interest since any change in the ratio of gold to silver. caused for example by the influx of gold into Greece following Alexander's successes in the East. might well be reflected in the weight of the tetradrachm. There is no reason to believe that it was.

TABLE B Weights of the later tetradrachms

The following table lists coins of the later third and second centuries B<": from various areas. The coins in the Museum's collection arc supplemented by those published in the Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum series for Copenhagen and Oxford. placed in brackets. to distinguish them from the Museum pieces. Each letter represents a single coin. the letter denoting the particular group from which it comes.

Black Sea Ionia Rhodes Pamphylia
c = Mesembria 871-1035 f = Phaselis
d= " 1039-1070 c = Colophon 1845-1873 a = Aspcndus
m= " 1071-1131 a = Magnesia 2004-2062 m= Magydus
i = Odcssus 1146-1158 m: Milcrus 2155-22Z2 p = Perga
k = " 1162-1184
0= .. 1166-12tO
17.75 g
17.3 g -(-)
17.2 arnm
17.1 caam ----(--) f
17.0 (i) a(aa}mrn(m) ---(-) fffampp
16.9 c(i) caamm -------(-) ffaaaaap
16.8 eei(k)m caamm (-) ffffaaa(a)ppp
16.7 eeceiidktk) cca(a)mmmm -(-) (t)aaaa(a)ppp
16.6 eed(d)k am ffa:l;aapppp
16.5 edddkk(kkk)mmo cam fff(tl)aaapp(p)
16.4 edddkk(k)oo m ffaappfpp )(a.uaa)
16.3 eddkkmmooo( 0) -(--) faaa(aaaa)pp
16.2 (dd)kooo(o) m --(-) aa
16.1 dd(k)mmm(m)o f(a)pp
16.0 ko aaaapp
15.9 (e)kmmmo aaaap(p)
15.8 rno ap(p)
15.7 rn ap(p)
15.6 dd(d)(k) a aa(a)pp
15.5 edmm f(;a)pp{p)
15.4 d(m) pep)
15.3 (p)
15.2 kmo f
less than
15.0 14.61 m 14.62 g fappp (down to 13.47 g) t. Merkholm note p. 41 n. 2 above. ]43.

It is clear that by 200 BC an Alexander tetradrachm weighing less than 17.00 g was perfectly acceptable.

Merkholm has shown! that a lowering of the standard is evident in Syrian coinage c. 172 BC, at the end of the first issue of Antiochus IV. After this date almost all specimens of the Seleucid coinage weigh less than 17.00 g. A similar lowering of weight is evident in the Alexander coinage at an earlier date. The Alexander coinage of the Black Sea mints is regularly below 17.00 g from the mid third century BC, with a wide spread of weights which results in many pieces being less than 16.00 g. At Rhodes, where the coinage was struck over a short period at the end of the third century BC, a similar spread of weight is evident, but there are still sufficient pieces over 17.00 g to suggest that there can have been little. if any, decrease in the 'standard' of the Alexanders, and there is one remarkable piece of ]7.75 g (2524b). The same is true of the Ionian mints, but in Pamphylia the issues are consistently below 17.00 g and are of an overall pattern of weight which provides a good precedent for the Seleucid reduction of 172 BC. It is to be noted that it is precisely these issues which are found in the Syrian kingdom and which are often countermarked. We may be sure that the irregularity of weight did not escape the notice of the users in ancient times, even though the nature of the coinage may have required the acceptance of each piece at face value provided that it was of good silver.

The small but significant reduction in weight noted in the Seleucid tetradrachms c. 172 BC coincides with a more marked reduction at Pella in the tetradrachrns of Perseus. 2 This latter coinage was clearly the result of an emergency reform at the time of impending war with Rome, to conserve stocks of silver. Seen in the broader context of hellen is tic coinage, this emphasises the dramatic changes that took place in the period 180-150 BC. At this time-' the Pergamene kingdom abandoned the Attic regal coinage for the lighter weight 'cistophorus' coinage, a reform presumably also concerned to preserve stocks of silver.

These widespread reductions in the weight of the silver coinage coincide with a sharp rise in the value of silver, as illustrated by the ratio of silver to bronze in Egyptian papyri. -4 In 183/2 BC the price of silver rose from 60 to 120 bronze drachmae for one silver drachma. In 173 BC the price rose again from 120 to 480 bronze drachmae. The cause of this inflation is without doubt to be linked to the cause for the reduction in weight of the hellenistic regal coinages, and may lie in the power of Rome at that time to control the movement of newly mined silver to the East. The introduction of the 'cistophorus' may indeed be directly linked to the rise in the price of silver which affected Egypt in 183/2 BC. The marked movement of Alexandcrs and autonomous coinages eastwards into the Seleucid kingdom in the following years was caused by the continuing rise in the value of silver.

Just as the introduction of the 'cistophori' was accompanied by the countermarking oftetradrachms of full Attic weight, so the lowering of the standard of Seleucid coinage was accompanied by the application of the anchor and other countermarks on the many Alexanders which circulated in the Syrian kingdom.

I. O. Merkholm, "The monetary system in the Seleucid Empire after 187', Nickle ... Papns, 93-113, 96; and id., p. 41 n. 2 above, 14) and 148, confirmed by E. SchlolKr, 'Das Gewidtc der Tctradrachmcn des An1:icx:hus IV von Syrien', SM 134 (1984).29-33, at 30-3.

2. P. R. Franke, 'Zur Pinanzpolitik des rnakedonischen Konigs Perseus wihrend des Krieges mit Rom 171-168 v.Chr.', JNG 8 (1957), 31-50. pl. ii-iv, at 45-6.

3. O. Merkholm, 'Some reflections on the early cistophoric coinage', ANSMN 24 (1979), 47-61, pl. xviii-xix, at 47- 50; and id., 'Some reftections on the production and use of coinage in ancient Greece', Historia 31 (1982), 290-305; M. J. Price, 'The Larissa 1968 hoard (IGeH 237). Kr",)'-M.,/cItolm Es.s')'5, 233-43, pl. liv-Iv.

4. T. Reekmans, 'Monetary history and the dating of Ptolemaic papyri', Sttuiia Htlitnicil 5 (1948), 15-43, at 23-4 and 26.

The following table brings together the figures of the previous tables in order to give a simple overview of
the weights of the tetradrachms at different places and periods. The groups are indicated by the following
Aa Amphipolis before title Ba Babylon before title
Ab Amphipolis with title Bb Babylon title to Helios group
Ac Amphipolis n groups Bc Babylon wrtath group
Ad Amphipolis torch group Ea Euxine early
Ta Tarsus before title Eb Euxine later
Tb Tarsus title to Nilu group I Ionian cities
Pa Phoenicia early R Rhodes
Pb Phoenicia middle P Lycian and Pamphylian cities
Pc Phoenicia later
[ 336-2S Be] [ 325-17 Be ] [ 317-295 Be 1
Aa Ta Pa Ba Ab Tb Pb Bb Ac Pc Be Ad Ea Eb R P
17.3+ g 1 3 3 4 2 3 1 3
17.2 57 13 17 48 41 12 19 20 4 8 2 15 3 2
17.1 79 21 21 33 21 10 28 29 6 11 20 18 4 6 1
17.0 18 7 8 8 8 7 15 5 4 10 12 16 1 6 4 7
16.9 4 3 1 10 5 2 6 5 1 10 9 6 2 5 8 8
16.8 6 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 4 6 3 2 5 1 11
16.7 4 1 8 2 2 7 2 3 6 3 8 ., 9
16.6 4 1 1 8 5 2 7 2 4 2 3 2
16.5 1 1 1 1 1 11 3 10
16.4- 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 13
16.3 1 t 1 1 1 10 3 10
16.2 1 1 7 1 3 2
16.1 1 1 8 4
16.0 1 1 1 2 6
15.9 1 1 5 6
15.8 1 2 3
15.7 1 1 3
15.6 4 1 5
15.5 1 3 5
15.4 1 2 ")
15.3 1
15.2 3 1
less than 15.00 g 5
Although these tables have been based on a relatively small quantity of material. they do serve to illustrate
certain deductions that may be useful in future work.
The loss of weight of the drachma from wear through circulation was given special attention by de
Callaray.! The presence of eountermarks applied at Byzantium and Calchedon provided a terminus post 1. de CallataY. "Tresor', 23-60. On caution in using a fixed figure of weight-loss per year. see G. Le Rider, 'Sur le frai de certaines monnaies anciennes et contemporaines', Mlillngt:s ... offtrt$ a And,; Tuilier, Paris, 1988 (MilaHges de 14 Bibliothtque de III Sorbon~ 8). 70-83. at 76. Le Rider stresses that Alexander's drachmae continued in circulation even longer than the teeradraehms, op. cit .• 78-9.

quem of24O BC for the deposit of the DenizH hoard which he was publishing, although few of the pieces in the hoard could actually have been struck after 300 BC. The phenomenon of the survival of the drachmae in circulation a century after their minting is well attested. but de Callatay is careful to underline that his conclusions on the loss of weight must be used with caution. The measurement ofloss of weight by wear must assume that the coins adhered closely to the standard. Since there was a fair spread of weights at minting, this assumption could be misleading. Similarly there is no guarantee that coins from different sources and in different contexts would have had the same history of circulation. While some allowance may be made for such assumptions, it would be extremely dangerous to adopt a particular figure of weight 105s per year in order to make wider generalisations on the period of circulation of a particular group of coins.

It is, however, clear that gold and silver issues in the name of Alexander could remain in circulation for a very long time after minting and fourth century BC silver issues regularly survived into second century Be hoards. Such pieces were dearly acceptable even after they had received considerable wear, and would be measurably lighter than they had been in the fourth century BC. This may help to explain why the later posthumous issues tend to have a much greater spread of weights. Whereas it must have been known that the standard for the Alexander tetradrachm was c. 17.30 g, many Alexanders in circulation weighed less than 17.00 g and were still fully acceptable. The fashion for striking these coins in the late third and second centuries BC may owe something to the fact that the cities could strike slightly lightweight Attic pieces of Alexander type and still have them accepted as a popular coinage.

The hoard evidence

The hoards of coins struck in the name of Alexander show at a glance the general development of the coinage from its beginning in 336 BC until the final issues of the first century Be. A mint by mint index of the varieties present in hoards is dearly desirable, bur would be too lengthy for inclusion here. There are nearly four hundred and fifty hoards containing coins of Alexander listed in IGCH and CH. and many others remain unpublished. It is hoped to publish an index to this material at a later date. In the meantime hoards which provide a skeleton framework for the chronology of the coinage arc listed here; where relevant. brief comments arc given on their contents. date of burial and significance. Coins from these hoards and now in the British Museum's collection arc also listed.

There arc six recent publications in which groups of hoards have been studied.

1. G. Le Rider. PI,i/ippe II; gold hoards at 257-84; silver hoards at 309-19.

Although concentrating on the varieties of Philip II. Lc Rider here provides details of several important hoards of the late fourth century Be in which coins of Alexander type also occur. The parallels between the posthumous issues in the name of Philip II and varieties of the Alexander coinage make this account equally relevant to the present study.

2. M. Thompson. Drachm Mints 1, 69-98.

Thompson lists and comments upon sixty-six hoards, mainly of staters and drachmae, relevant to the study of the mints of Miletus and Sardcs. The issues of these two mints arc listed in detail; those of others are mentioned, as relevant. Descriptions arc given of hoards not previously published.

3. F. de Callaray, 'Un trcsor de drachmcs aux types d'Alexandrc lc Grand conserve au Cabinet des McdaiJJcs ~ Bruxcllcs', RBN 129 (1983), 23-60, pl. vi-vii.

The author takes the opportunity offered by the publication of a hoard from Denizh(?) to comment on the patterns of weight-loss due to circulation in drachmae deposited long after the}' had been minted. The study includes a statistical analysis of other drachma hoards.

4. G. Lc Rider, 'Lcs Alexandres d'argcnt en Asic Mincurc et dans l'Oricnt Sclcucidc au Illv sicclc avo j.-C. ((.275-(.225). Rcrnarqucs sur Ie systemc monctairc des Sclcucidcs cr des Ptolemees',j''lf4rSav 1986.3- 57.

This wide-ranging study brings together discussions of relevant hoards from the mid-third century BC. including notes on the large Meydanakkale (Giilnar) and Kinzh finds. He underlines. in particular. the vast quantity of earlier Alexander coinage which continued in circulation throughout the century.

5. C. Boehringer. Chronologie.

As well as detailing a number of finds. Boehringer at 190-8 provides an index by mint of hoarded posthumous Alcxanders, Several of the hoards described are otherwise unpublished; there is a good discussion of their significance.

6. H. Seyrig, Trisors.

A brief publication of forty-cight hoards of the second and first centuries BC most of which had been recorded during the author's residence in the eastern Mediterranean. Many contain Alexander issues.

Lifetime and early posthumous hoards

References to the variety number for the Alexander issues arc to the numbers of this catalogue.

Hoards of gold coins (staters unless otherwise indicated) Burial c. 330 BC or later

Corinth, Greece. 1930 (IGCH 77; Le Rider, Philippe II, 257.2) Samovodene, Bulgaria. 1957 (IGCH 395; Lc Rider. Philippe 11, 259.3) Balkanl(?), t 967 (Le Rider. Philippt II, 263.5: CH 2 (1976). no. SO)

These three hoards are of remarkably similar composition. All contain staters of Philip II, apparently of Le Rider's group II only: 41 in Corinth. 51 in Samovodene (although many of these cannot be identified with certainty) and 24 in Ballwu(?).

The Alexander issues are:
hoard issue speCImens
Corinth Macedonia 168 2
172 3
MileNs(?) 2098 1
Tarsus(?) JOO6 2
Salamis 3136 1
Sidon 3458 1
Samovodene Macedonia 164 1
168 1
?172 *
?175 *
Tarsus(?) 3006 1
Salamis 3136 1
Sidon 3457 1
3458 3
3460 1
:w63 1
unidentified 3
* two stdtm with trident symbol may belong to ISSUes 172 or 175
Balkans{?) Macedonia 172 1
Tarsus 3006 2
Salamis 3149 1
Sidon 3461 I The attribution of early gold issues to Tarsus (below. 371). is now under review and the appearance of 3006 in all three of these Balkan hoards may suggest that. despite its very different obverse style. this variety ought to be placed in Macedonia. The Sidon issues. however, are unquestionably of Phoenicia. evidence of gold's coming back to Macedonia while Alexander's army was still marching eastwards. These findspots cannot, therefore, help in identifying mints. The exact date of burial of these hoards is impossible to determine, but they appear to have been deposited well before the Saida hoard.

Burial c. 330-c. 325 Be

Mende. Greece, 1983 (in commerce)

A group of gold distarers and staters was recorded in commerce, clearly part of a much larger hoard that would appear to have been deposited during Alexander's lifetime. Note that issues of Sidon are again present.

The Alexander varieties recorded are:


2AU Macedonia



2AU Aegeae(?)



163 2
167 1
171 1
191 2
2077 1
2079 1
3460 3
3464 1
3470 1
3472 1 Bun'al c. 323-c. 320 Be

Saida, Lebanon, 1829-63 (IGCH 1508~ Thompson, Drachm Mints I, 70~ U. Westermark, 'Notes on the Saida hoard (IGCH 1508)", NNA 1979-80. 22-35)

This hoard was found in three separate lead vases and clearly comprised a single deposit. Although the total of coins exceeded 7,000, only 41 can now be identified. Despite their extremely disappointing number, these are enough to show that the deposit must have been made c. 323-c. 320 Be. A single example of Ptolemy I, attributed to the lot found in about 1860, was probably not from the hoard.

The Alexanders are either lifetime issues or slightly later. They include dated specimens from Sidon, to year 10 (J490), while the issues of Ake are reported to go down to year 24 (3259).

The 17 identifiable Alexanders arc:
issue specimens
Macedonia 176 1
Pella(?) 207 1
Lampsacus 1358 1
Miletus 2OT1 2
Sardes 2531 1
2532 1
2533 1
2537 1
2539 1
2557 1
2592 1 Citium Salamis

Ake Sidon

3100 3128 3137 3149 3259 3 .. 90

1 1


In addition, notes made by W.-H. Waddington {'Trouvailles de Saida ct Marmora', RN 1865, 1-66, pl. i-ii. at 3-25. especially 6-8) enable several other Alexander issues to be attributed to this deposit:

2AU Macedonia 163
AU 164
2AU 167
AU 168
2AU 1730d74
AU 175
AU Aegeae(?) 188
2AU 191
2Al' 196
AU 197
AU Abydus 1497
.\U Magnesia 1917
AU Tarsus lOO9
AU 'Amathus' 3092 or3093
AU Aradus 3315 Four other hoards of gold issues. all from the N. Balkans. are quoted as lifetime or early posthumous deposits, but in the absence of a full publication their value is as evidence for Alexander coinage's travelling into the Celtic world at an early date.

Gorno Cerkoviste, Bulgaria. 1923 (lCCH 396) Topolcane, Yugoslavia, 1917 (lCCH 399) Drencova, Romania, 1882 (TGCH 4(0) Nicoretti, Romania. before 1932 (IGCH 401)

Bur;al c. 315 Be or later

Lergoutsch, USSR. 1963 (TCCH ROO~ Le Rider. P/lilippt II, 264.7)

The hoard includes 16 staters in the name of Philip II, including 11 specimens issued under Philip Ill; Larnpsacus (4), Abydus (3), 'Colophon' (1). Magnesia (1). 'Teos' (1), ?Co)ophon (as P42).

The Alexander issue are:
issue specimens
Abydus 1518 1
Lampsacus 1358 1
PH 1
Byblos 3422 I
Sidon 3458 1 Asia Minor(?), 1964 (TGCH 1441; Le Rider. Philippt II, 270.12)

There arc 17 issues (12 staters. 1 half-stater, 4 quarter-staters) in the name ofPhiJip II, including 5 of the time of Philip III: Lampsacus (1). Abydus (1), and "Teos' (3).

The Alexander issues are:
IS$ue specimens
Asia 2707 1
1J4Au Sardes 2538 1
Babylon 3724 2
37.35 1
unidentified 13
Those of Philip III arc:
issue specimens
Abydus 6
Sidon as PI76 t
Babylon PI78 1
PI93 1 Skione, Greece. 1985/6 (in commerce)

Paeonia, 1968 (lGCH 410; Le Rider. Philippt II, 298.14)

A group of gold staters was associated with a large hoard of silver coins ofLykkeios. Parraos, and Philip

II. It was stated at the time of discovery that the gold and silver issues were found together. The gold coins included eight in the name of Philip III. The presence of an example of the group with the Babylon monogram in wreath (3699ft) suggests that the gold might have been deposited a little after the silver.

These four hoards illustrate the developments of the currency during the reign of Philip III and a little later. The lifetime issues. and issues in the name of Philip II. continue to playa significant part in the gold coinage in circulation. and it is only the chance presence of certain varieties datable to Philip III that permits a more accurate terminus post quem for their burial. With the wide acceptability of Alexander's issues. coins could stay in circulation for a very long period.

Hoerds of .ilver coins (retradrachrns unless otherwise indicated) Burial c. 330-c. 325 Be

Qasr Nuba, Code Syria. Syria. 1930 (lGCH 1506)

A useful hoard mainly of pre-Alexander fractions of Phoenicia and some double shekels of Sidon. The Alexander component comprises:


Issue Sidon Babylon

3476 3581

specimens 1


Cyparilsia, Messenia, Greece, 1892/3 (IGCH 76~ Le Rider. Philippt II, 295.8) This important lifetime hoard contained two groups of Alexander tetradrachms:

Macedonia 1
73 Tarsus 2993

2999 3000 3001

Mageira, Elis. Greece, 1950 (lCCH 74; Le Rider, Philippe II, 2%.9) A single Alexander was included:

issue Tarsus


specimen 1

Nemea, Argolis, 1938 (lCCH 79; Le Rider, Philippe 11, 297.11) This small hoard included one Alexander issue as Macedonia 57.

The three Pcloponncsian hoards (Cyparislia, Mageira, Nemea), all containing coins of Philip II and of central Greece, illustrate the currency of the area during Alexander's lifetime. The regular appearance in Greece of coins of Tarsus in silver as well as in gold recalls the statements of Curti us (1.1) that Cleander was sent back to the Peloponnese from southern Asia Minor with money to acquire troops and (1.20) that six hundred talents were sent to Antipater to build a navy. Both these payments were: made before Alexander had occupied Tarsus and therefore before that mint had been opened; but they indicate how the imperial coins might quickly move from eastern mints into Greece.

Burial c. 323-c. 320 Be

Babylon, Iraq, 1973 (CH 1 (1975), no. 38; CH2 (1976), no. 49; CH3 (1977), no. 22; M.J. Price. 'The "Porus" coinage of Alexander the Great: a symbol of concord and community'. S.udia ... Nester, 75- 88. at 75-8). PLATE CLIX

This large hoard illustrates circulation in Babylonia at the time of Alexander's death. Both the 'lion' staters and imperial Alexander issues go down to the variety inscribed MAY (3692). an issue which shares control marks with the first variety struck in the name of Philip III. The date of323 Be for the deposit of this hoard is assured. so that the full publication of the Alexander material will be particularly welcome. At this time the 'Porus' coinage and other elephant varieties clearly played an important role in the area; note, too. that Athenian tetradrachrns and their imitations were still circulating in quantity (nearly 50% of the total).

Asia Minor, Turkey, 1964 (ICCH 1437: Thompson, Drachma Mints 1, 81-4)

All varieties in this important drachma find arc of very early date; there arc no issues in the name of Philip III. It therefore provides a good picture of the drachmae in circulation at the time of Alexander's death. or a little thereafter. A drachma of Ake (32SS) .. dated to year 22. gives a terminus post quem of325/4 Be for the burial. In fact. the most recent coins ofSardes (2599 and 26(2) are later than varieties whieh share control-marks with issues in the name of Philip III (as P66-P70). Thus a date shortly after 323 Be is to be accorded the deposit. Of the eighty-eight recorded coins. only one piece is of Colophon, confirming that this mint cannot have opened before 323 BC. The various Alexander varieties present in the hoard arc noted in the catalogue.

Central Greece, 1911 (IGeH 81; Le Rider. Philippe 11,298.13) Karditsa, Thessaly, Greece. 1925 (IGCH 82)

Asia Minor, 1968 (ICCH 1439 and 1440)

Khirbet el Kerak, Galilee. Israel. 1936 uccn 1510)

None of these hoards contains an issue in the name ofPhi1ip III. but all contain the first Alexander issues with the royal tide. The Maccdonian issues in Central Greece go down to the n group of c. 323 Be (ll2ft), emphasising that its deposit cannot have been long before that of the Demanhur hoard.

Burial c. 320-c. 317 Be

Demenhur, Egypt. 1905 (IGCH 1664: CH 7 (1985) 49; O. H. Zervos, 'Additions to the Dcmanhur hoard of Alexander tetradrachms', NC 1980, 185-8)

The publication of this great find of some 8,000 tetradrachms was a turning point in Alexander numismatics. paving the way for a dear appreciation of the lifetime and early posthumous coinage. There are issues in the name of Philip III from six mints. The thirty-three coins of Sidon present in the hoard only go down to year 15 (319/8 Be) and the seventy-eight of Ake to year 29 (318/7 Be). The deposit can therefore be firmly dated to 318 or 317 Be. The implications of the find are noted at various points in the text and there is a cross-reference in the last column of the catalogue to every variety. The deposit is of prime importance for establishing the sequence of major issues such as those of Macedonia and Babylon.

The following specimens in the British Museum collection are from Demauur:

Macedonia: 4e-f, 5b, 6b, Sa, 9,10,11, 12, 13b, 14-e-b, 20, 23b-e, 29a, 32a, 36, 38, .tUb-e, 4Sa, 57a, 57e, 58, 59b, 6la-b, 66a-d, 70a-d, 7Ia-b, 73b, 75a-c, 7Se, 78e-f, 83e, 84b, 87a-b, 89f, 103a, 103e, 104b, 104d,, 10Se-d, l06b-e, 100c, 11Oc, 112e-g, 113c-d, 113f-g, 114b;

Aegeae:187b, 189,195&;

Larnpsacus: 1351b, 13558;

Miletus: 2099&-c;

Side: 29-t8b, 294ge-e;

Tarsus: 2991, 2992, 2993a-e, 2995b,2996, 2998a-b,3000b-d,3001b,3016b, 3018b,30 38b,3048e,3052, 3OS3b, 3OS5;

Am:ahus: 309".-1,;

Citium: 31068, 31078, 3107c-e, 31088; Paphos: 3116b-c, 3118, 3119a, 3122, 3123; Salamis: 3139a-d, 3139£, 3t39h;

Damascus: 3200, 3202b, 3203a-b, 3203f, 3204b-d, 32088, 3208d-f, 321Od-e, 321-t8-b, 3215., 321Sc; Myriandrus:3218a-b,3221a-b,3222,3223b,3228c,3229b,3231b;

Ake: 3238a-b, 32408-c, 32 .... -d, 3248a-b, 32S0a-b, 3256;

Aradus: 3303b-d, 3304, 3305, 3309d, 3316a, 332Od, 3321b, 3324b, 3325c, 33 29, 3332b-c; BybJos: 34248, 342M;

Sidon: 3467.-c, 3468a-b, 3479&-e, 3485, 34918; Babylon:3579b,358tc-d,3S81~3583,3584,3S89,360la,3602,J609,3610,3613b, 3616, 362Oc, 3621, 3622a-b, 3626a-b, 3629, 36318-b, 363-t8-b, 3636, 36378, 3637c-d, 3640, 3642b, 3645, 3648, 3649, 3654a, 365Sa, 3656b, 3657, 3658, 3661b, 36638, 3673d,3674, 3676;

Barbarous: B23

Theaaly, Greece. 1971 (CH 1 (1975). no. 40; Le Rider, Philippt II, 318)

A small but interesting parallel from mainland Greece to the DemaDhur hoard. It contained several posthumous issues of Philip II including at lease four of the A. group of Amphipolis (421ff), but none with the torch. As at Dernanhur, this group was accompanied by examples of the n group (129, 132, 133 (4 specimens) and 140).

Sinan Pasch8 (Afium Kara Hissar), Turkey, 1919 (lCCH 1395; Thompson, Drachm Mints 1, 86-9) An example of the rare drachma issue 141 in fresh condition and a full record of the drachmae struck in the name of Philip III argue for a burial date for this large drachma hoard of c. 317 Be or soon afterwards. It therefore makes for interesting comparison with Ali. Minor (1964) (lGCH 1437), and enables a clear distinction to be drawn between lifetime and early posthumous issues. Thompson gives full details of the varieties not from mints in western Asia Minor.

Hoard. of bronze coins (units unless otherwise indicated)

The study of Alexander's bronze issues has been much neglected. Although a start to marshalling the material has been made here, there is much to be done, particularly by recording the varieties present in the many hoards held in local museums. Very few hoards have been adequately published. This section allows some general remarks to be made, but the picture can hardly be said to be clear.

Burial c. 323-c. 320 Be or a little later

Drama, Macedonia (lCCH 404; A. R. Beninger, 'Philippi in Macedonia', A NSMN 11 (1964),29-52 at 37-52, pl. vii-xi)

series Issue specimens
Cyzicus nymph/tripod 1
Philippi Heraklesl tripod 167
Philip II A polio/horseman 352
2AE Apollo/horseman 3
Alexander Macedonia as 266-337 dub II quiver + bow 129
and variants
1/2.\£ as 371 diademed head/horseman 1
as 385 quiver + bow II club 2
Asia as 2799 bow in bow-case II club 1
Salamis as 3143 club II quiver + bow 1 This hoard is crucial for the arrangement of the bronze issues. The presence of three examples (385 and 2799) with the royal title shows that it must have been deposited after 325 Be. In fact it is probably a deposit of the reign of Philip III. It has been suggested elsewhere (see below, 71) that the lion-head countermark to be found on the example of2799 was applied for Lysimachus; if so, this piece must be much later than the rest of the coins in the hoard. Bellinger raised the possibility that the bronze coinage of Philip II continued after the king's death and that Philippi may have acted as a mint for the regal issues. There is still insufficient evidence to support or to deny these ideas. but the more worn condition of Philip's bronzes in the E. Macedonia hoard precludes the possibility that they were in reality issues of Philip III. It seems unlikely that posthumous bronzes of Philip II were issued in Alexander's reign.

MogiloYo, 1966 (IGCH 844; K. Dimitrov, "Tresor avec des monnaies de bronze de Philippe II. d' Alexandre Ie Grand et de Seuthes du village de Mogilovo, departement de Stara Zagora' (in Bulgarian), ArcMtologia (Sofia), 28 (1986) 32-40)

series issue specimens
Seuthes III 1
Philippi Herakles/tripod 96
Philip II Apollo/horseman 84
Alexander Macedonia as 266--316 club II quiver + bow 28
as 268 quiver + bow II club
as 321-36 club II quiver + bow 8
and variants
Sardes as 2551 bow in bow-case II club 1 This recently published find is very similar in content to the Drama hoard, but contains no issue with royal title. The presence of the Sardes issue shows bronze travelling within the empire.

Pelin, Romania, 1977 (CH 1 (1975). no. 45; CH2 (1976), no. 53)

series issue specimens
Lampsacus BMC Mysia 53-4 1
Philip II Apollo/horseman 147
Alexander Macedonia etc. 56
Asia as 2799 bow in bow-case II dub 2 E. Macedonia (Dramal Amphipolis road), 1975 (CH 3 1977) 23; M. Caramesine-Oeconomidou, 'NOf.U.of.UlTLxO Mouoelo ' A8T)vOOv'. ArchDdt 31.W (1976), 4-6 at 5, pl. i)

This hoard was recorded in two sections. One was recovered and donated to the National Numismatic Museum. Athens; the other was seen in trade. It was rumoured, but not confirmed. that some silver fractions were also present: Philip II. fifths (2 specimens); Philippi, tctrobols (3); Larissa, drachma (1). The bronze coins were:

series Philippi Philip II Alexander



A polio/horseman eagle

quiver + bow II club and variants

quiver + bow II club BA shield/helmet

specimens 106




30 48

E. Macedonia is of considerable interest since, like the Drama and Mogilovo hoards, it contains a good quantity of Philippi and Philip II bronzes. It was noted, however, that these issues were consistently more worn than those of Alexander. The 'eagle' varieties all showed little wear. It would seem, therefore, that although there were many issues with the royal title, the deposit was made not many years after 323 Be. The presence of , shield/helmet' issues indicates that these should be considered a coinage of Alexander and not merely issues of the diadochi.

The early posthumous coinage clearly continued wirh types and denominations of Alexander's lifetime, but it is remarkable that in all but one of these hoards varieties of the half-unit with 'diademed head I horseman' arc absent. It is possible that the half-units were struck in western Macedonia. perhaps at Aegeae where the horse was a traditional motif; but note that 197 examples were present in the Langhadikia hoard (CH I (1975). no. 42), some 35 km to the cast ofSalonika.

Ephesus, Turkey, before 1912 (IGCH 1282)

srries issue specimens
Alexander Macedonia 11
Miletus 2110 bow in bow-case II club I
Asia 2799 bow in bow-case II club 4
Tarsus 3028 club II bow in bow-case 1
3029 club II bow in bow-case I The date of2799 and of the lion-head countermark (below, 71) applied to all four examples present in Ephesus, as to so many of the extant coins from other sources, may have to be revised. Style, the broad flan, and the connection of the (ion-head with Lysimachus have argued for a date at the very end of the fourth century Be; but the composition of this hoard and the presence of 2799 in the Drama and Pelin hoards suggest that the date can hardly be later than 315 Be.

Hoards of the late fourth century

Gold coins

Burial c. 300 Be or a liule taler

Larnaca, Cyprus. 1870 (IGCH 1472; Le Rider, Philippe II, 277.16)

This important find is known only from the pieces acquired by Berlin and by the British Museum. but it marks the first appearance of the gold coinage ofTyre, together with dated pieces of Ake down to year 35 (312/1 Be) and Sidon down to 309/8 BC. The Abydus issue 1568 and Sardes 2669 are close to the time of Lysimachus' rise to power in Asia Minor, and the Salamis varieties 3178-9 are close in time to the arrival of Demetrius Poliorcetes. The Babylon issue 3775 was also present. A date for the deposit of c. 300 BC or a little later is fairly certain. The British Museum examples are:

Macedonia 16.tA, 792, 801 Black Sea 1317

Lampsacus 1370, Pit

Abvdus 1504, 1518a, P30a, P36a, IS24.-b~ 1536, 1559, 1568 Colophon 178Sa

Magnesia 1920, P59

Miletus 2079, 2085


Sardes 2533~ 2620, 262tb, 2642, 2669b Asia 2697-8

Side 2959b, 2963 Tarsus 3006 Amathus 3092

Salamis 3149b, 3163, 3178-9 Aradus 3340

Bvblos 34228

Sidon 3463., 3500, 3513, 3516 T yre 3528, 3530, 3533, 3554

Babylon P193e, P203, 3707, 37098, 3716b, 3724, 3745, 3749b, 3775 Susa 3825, 3845, P207

Memphis 3965&, 3966-7, 3982

East 399Z, 3995, 4002

Hoards of silver coins

Burial c. 315-310 Be

Andritlaena, Elis, Greece. 1923 (lGCH83; Le Rider. Philippe 11,309-10.16) Tripolitsa, Greece, 1921 (IGCH 84; Le Rider. Philippe 11,311.17)

Mepra, Greece 1917 (IGCH 94; Le Rider. Philippe 11,314-6.20)

Agioi Theodoroi, Lamia, Greece. 1901-2 (IGCH93; Le Rider. Philippe II, 316-7.21) Abu Hommol, Egypt, 1919 (IGCH 1667; Thompson. Drachm Mints, 89)

The first tWO are probably from the same find, but it is now known that an issue in the name of Philip as 432, of the A with bucranium group of Macedonia. was present in the Andritseena hoard. Variety 430, of the same group. was in the Meger. hoard. and 445 of the A with torch group was in the Lamia hoard. The monogram in wreath group of Babylon was also in the three last hoards. Ake year 35 (312/1 Be) was in the Lamia hoard and 36 (311/0 Be) in Abu Hommol. A date of burial c. 310 BC or a little later is probable for these hoards and they provide important evidence for the chronology of the major posthumous groups at Amphipolis and Babylon.

Burial c. 310-305 Be

Byblos, Lebanon, ]931 (lCCH 1515)

Tel Tsippor, judaea. Israel, 1960 (ICCH 1514)

The-large Babylon group with MI and symbol (3745-71) first appears in the Byblos hoard with dated coins of Sidon to year 24 (310/9 Be) and Ake (309/8 Be). Both these hoards contain early issues of Ecbatana, and the Tel Tsippor hoard marks the first appearance of the Carrhae group 3803-9.

Aleppo, Syria, 1893 (ICCH 1516)

This large hoard contained a long series of Sidon to year 2 of the new era (308/7 Be) and Ake year 10 of the new era (306/5 Be). There were no examples of the neighbouring Tyre mint, and no issues in the name of Selcucus I. Issues of Calla tis quoted in the rCCH cannot have been of that mint, and have been ignored by recent commentators on Black Sea coinage.

Kuft, Egypt, 1874/5 (TCCH 1670; CH2 (1976), no. 55 and 7 (1985), no. 53; Thompson, Drachm Mitlts, 89)

Pbakous, Egypt. 1956 (lGCH 1678a; cf. Kuft p. 26)

These hoards show a clear picture of the Alexanders in the last decade of the century soon after the change from the Attic to the Ptolemaic standard. As a result of the conditions prevailing in Egypt, these Attic weight tetradrachms were removed from circulation at the time of the reform c. 305 BC. A coin of Tyre (3538b) acquired by the Museum with the coins of the Kuft find has a quite different patina and probably did not come from the hoard. The coins acquired from Kuft by the Museum are:

Macedonia Sa, 13<:,22, 76, 93e, t048, t0ge, 11tb, l1ld, 12Gb, 122a, 132b, t36a Pella 213d, 217, 229, 232a, 2.f8b

Amphipolis 457

Greece 843

Lampsacus 1355b

Miletus 2108a-b, 2109, 2120a, 2t2Oc Sardes 2622

Asia 2715

Side 28488, 2951a, 2952, 2955b-d

Tarsus 2995a, 3000f, 3011, 3033, 3036b, 3037, 3039&, 3042b, 3048b, 3050a A marhus 3085b

Citium 3110c

Salamis P129a

Damascus 3203e, 3215b

Myriandrus 3219, PI36

Ake 3262b, 3283a-b, 3293.

Aradus 3322, 3324e, Pl44, P147

Marathus PI61

Sidon 3479, 3491b, 3501, P175a-b Phoenicia 3573

Babylon 3612, 3614, 3619, 362Oc, 3630, 3635, 3652&, 3663b, 3678, 368Oa, 3685b, PI81c-d, P182h, Pl89a,P194,J708d,3723,3726,3763b

Babylonia 3786

Carrhae 3803, 3805, 3807. Susa P216

Memphis 3962&, 3971e, 3974a-b, 3976c:, 3977

Burial c. 305- 300 BC

Asia MiDor, 1961 (lGCH 1444~ Thompson, Drachm Mints, 90-1)

This large hoard of drachmae contained a good sequence ofissues down to, but not including, issues in the name of L ysimachus.

Megara, Greece, ]904 (IGCH 137; Thompson, Drachm Mints, 93-4) Thrace, Greece. 1980 (CH 7 (1985), no. 60)

Both these hoards contained a few varieties in the name ofLysimachus. In the Megara hoard these are Lysimacheia Lt, Lampsacus LU, and Magnesia L3 •. The Thrace hoard was recorded in commerce. and the Lysimachus issues were:

Lampsacus LU(2)

Colophon L27(3). and L28(3). The Museum was able to preserve a few pieces from this find:

Lampsacus 1.18, 1 ... 3 Abydusl520-1. 1529, 1565 Colophon 1757, t815, t822, 1837 Magnesia 1939, 19.2

Miletus 2091

Mylasa 2.f88a

Sardes 2S6.f, Pt17

Asia 2778. 278t

Hoards of bronze coins

Burial c. 315-310 Be

Salonika, Greece, c. 1918 (IGCH 413)

A small find of Macedonian issues acquired by [he Museum, five examples of Philip II. and five Alexander varieties all with BA. The hoard was clearly buried before the introduction by Cassander of bronze coinage in his own name. The Alexander pieces are:

Macedonia: 3738, 376cl-e, 382c-d, 385, 386a

Amathus, Cyprus. 19n (CH 5 (1979). no. 31)

A useful group of the 'shield/helmet' varieties 3157-62, which can be linked by control marks to the silver issues. and confirms the Cypriote attribution.

Hoards of the early third century

Gold boards

Burial 300-280 BC

Epidaurus, Greece 1977 (CH 7 (]8SS), no. 64)

Maiko Topolovo, Bulgaria. 1946 (IGCH 853; Le Rider, Philippe II. 279.17~ Thompson, Drachm Mints, 79)

Graveaa, Epirus, Greece. before 1922 (lGCH 148.; Le Rider. Philippe II, 280. ]8; Thompson. Drachm Mints, 80)

The presence of varieties of Demetrius Poliorcetes in the first two hoards and of Seleucus I in the last distinguish them from the fourth century Be hoards. It is not surprising that most of the Alexander varieties belong to the fourth century Be, but the late Miletus issue 21.1 was present in the Gravena hoard.

Burial c. 280-270 Be

North Greece, 1959 (IGCH 801; Le Rider, Philippe II, 273.13) Potida_. Greece. 1984

These hoards contain varieties which may be associated with the rise to power of Antigonus Gonatas.

North Greece (1959) had a single example of608, and Potidaea had no fewer than 56 examples of the variety 608 out of a total of 129 staters. The latter hoard also contained one example of the new gold coinage in the name of Antigonus. Skione (1985/6) included similar material. but no late variety which could allow a date of burial under Aneigonus, and is here placed with hoards buried c. 315 Be and later. A clearer picture of a11 these hoards will be available with the study of Macedonian gold by G. Le Rider and H. Troxell. It is interesting to note that the chance preservation of a single piece may radically alter the date of burial that can be attributed to a find.

Hoards of silver coins

Burial 300-290 Be

V rastama, Macedonia. Greece, 1985

A large and important hoard seen in commerce. The majority of pieces come from the long Amphipolis torch group (443-97), but it is to be noted that many of these varieties do not appear in the later Armenak hoard and that there is a clear period of coinage within this group which is present at Armenak but not at Vrastama. With the deposit ofVrastama during the issue of this large group it is possible to distinguish with certainty between earlier and later varieties. The hoard is also rich in earlier Macedonian varieties. but contained no issues of other regal coinage.

Burial c. 285-275 Be

Qazvin, Iran. 1964 (ICCH 17%, CH 1 (1975), no. 58)

Alia Minor(?), 1970 (CH 1 (1975), no. 55; Thompson. Drachm Mints, 94-5)

Both these hoards arc composed mainly of eastern issues with Seleucid material of the 2805 Be. Qazvin contained two pieces of Ecbatana in the name of Antiochus I. now believed to have been struck during his joint reign with Seleucus. It is interesting that in addition to issues from Ecbatana, this hoard is also rich in the anchor groups attributed to Aradus and Marathus. It is suggested below that these groups should have originated in the eastern part of the empire.

Prilepec, Yugoslavia. 1950 (448)

Kilkis [Poutofivadbc), Macedonia. Greece, 1961 (IGCH 445~ Thompson, Drachm Mints, 96)

The A wirh torch group predominates. PriJepec contains five pieces of the Uranopolis group (509-23), together with an example 0(500. of the thunderbolt group. Pontolivadbo also appeus to have contained 629. of the helmet group. These hoards thus illustrate the development in North Greece after the end of the A with torch group.

Myron, Thessaly, Greece. 1970 (ICCH 150; CH 6 (1981). no. 23) Thessaly, Greece. 1979 (CH 6 (198J). no. 24)

TheuaJy. Greece, 1983

These three hoards from Thessaly give a good picture of circulation at the beginning of the reign of Antigonus Gonatas. None contained any of his new regal coinage. The Myron and the (1983) hoard contained lifetime Lysirnachus retradrachms. The issue of Pergamum 1472 in the Thessaly (1979) hoard is important for the chronology of the first Alexander issues at that mint. The Myron hoard contained an example of Cyzicus 1339.

Cavalta, Greece. 1951 (Thompson. Drachm Mints, 97; M. Thompson, 'The Cavalla hoard (ICCH 450)', ANSMN 26 (1981). 33-49)


A large hoard of tetradrachms and drachmae of similar date. with the Macedonian issues down to the Uranopolis group. Coins of Demetrius Poliorcetes and Selcucus were also present.

Menia, Cilicia, Turkey. 1966 (lGCH 1424)

A hoard of similar date from the Near East. It contains the thundetholt group. but also provides the first appearance of the Sicyon boy with lamia (708). All the Selcucid coinage is ofScleucus I, and the deposit is not likely to have been after 280 BL

Denizli, Turkey. 1982

A hoard recorded in trade. with a fine array of tctradrachms of Lysimachus accompanying the Alcxandcrs, but apparently no Seleucid material. The deposit is likely to have been in or before 281 BC, and is of importance since it contained an example of 558 of Macedonia.

Alia Minor, 1927, 'Armenak' (IGCH 1423; M. Thompson. 'The "Armcnak" hoard (lCCH 1423),. ANSMN 31 (1986).63-106, pl. vi-xxvi)

This large hoard provides one of the crucial points in early third century Be chronology. The varieties present are noted in the catalogue. The fine representation ofLysimachi and Alexandcrs is joined by a few issues of Seleucus I. and a date of burial soon after 280 Be is certain. The drachmae ofErythrae, Magnesia. Prienc, and Chios represent the beginnings of a new phase of coinage. The Museum came to possess a single specimen from the find. Macedonia 564.

Hoards of the mid third century

Gold hoards

BJlriai c. 230-225 Be

Aoadol, USSR, 1895 (lCCH 866; H. Seyrig, 'Monnaies hellenistiques 15: Date ct circonstanccs du tresor d'Anadol', RN 1%9,40-5, pl. iv=v; Lc Rider, PI,;/ipp( II, 282-3.22; Thompson, Drachm Mints, 79)

Tarik Darreh, Iran. 1974 (CH 7 (1985). no. 78)

The large An.dol hoard consists mainly of Alexanders (694 examples) and Lysimachi (250 examples), with a rich representation ofissues from the Black Sea area. The date of deposit was recognised by Seyrig who equated the control marks of the Alexandria Troas variety 1591 with a tetradrachm of Antiochus Hierax. A date after c. 230 Be is therefore required for [he deposit, but with the absence of the late Lvsimachi of Byzantium a date before 220 Be is probable.

In contrast, the recent hoard from the Seleucid kingdom contained only two Alexander staters amongst thirty-two Sclcucid pieces. The Alexanders did not hold the place in circulation within the Scleucid kmgdom that they had in the West.

Hoards of silver coins

Bun('; 275-260 Be

Pergi, Macedonia. Greece, 1955 (ICCH 159; Mathisen, 'Antigonus'. 82-5)

The Alexanders of this hoard provide a good picture of the issues struck in Macedonia in the years after Demetrius Poliorcetes. There is also a single specimen of the regal coinage of Antigonus Gonatas. A date of burial after 275 BC is certain.

Phayttus, Thessaly, Greece, 1956 (lCCH 159)

Coins in silver and bronze of Antigonus Gonatas date the burial of this hoard to the 260s BC. Variety 847, previously believed to be of Aradus. is Macedonian in style, but otherwise the Macedonian groups are those of hoards deposited earlier. In one of the two lots that made up this hoard (Varoucha, 497-8, group b) there were issues ofCyzicus (1339) and Pricnc (2239), and in the other lot there was an example of Lampsacus 1451. These all represent a new period of coining Alexanders in western Asia Minor, which can therefore be dated before c. 270 BC. These varieties were not present in the large Armeaak hoard.

Burial 265-240 Be

Peloponnese, Greece, 1962 (lCCH 172; H. A. Troxell, 'Peloponnesian Alexanders', 66-7) Peloponnese, Greece, 1970, 'Ritter' hoard (CH 6 (1981), no. 28)

Olympia, Greece, 1922 (IGCH 176; Troxell, 'Pcloponnesian Alexanders', 86)

The publication of the Peleponnese (1962) hoard enabled Troxell to make a new arrangement of the Peloponnesian Alexanders. The Peloponnese (1970) hoard is very similar in many respects and may, indeed, be a further part of the same hoard. Both hoards were almost entirely made up of'local issues. and the 1962 hoard contained an example in the name of King Areus of Sparta. This coinage in the Peloponnesc clearly belonged to the time of the Chremonidean war or a little later. The Olympia (1922) hoard was more mixed, but still the Peloponnesian mints predominated.

The dearth of hoards attributed to this period in Asia Minor reflects the lack of new issues. Hoards which did not happen to contain the varieties struck after 275 Be cannot be recognised today as deposits of the mid third century BC.

Burial 240-225 Be

Thessaly, Greece, 1938 (lGCH 168; CH 7 (1985). no. 75)

With issues of Antigonus Gonatcs, a tetradrachm of the Aetolian League, and an example ofPergamum (Weslt'rmark Period III) the deposit of this hoard was well after 250 BC. The Alexander drachmae, however, many in apparently fresh condition, were mainly struck before .300 BC. and the interesting tetradrachrn variety 867 is also of much earlier date. The related variety 868 was in the Thessaly (1983) hoard. This illustrates well the continuation of Alexander coinage in circulation throughout the third quarter of the third century BC, when relatively few new issues were being made.

Meydancillale, Gulnar, Cilicia, 1980 (CH7 (1985), no. 80; Le Rider. 'Alexandres d'argenr', 16-7.2; A. Davesne, G. Le Rider et al., Culnar 11: Le tresor de Meydan(,kkale (Paris, 1989»

I am most grateful to Georges Le Rider for sharing with me information on this and the following find prior to their publication. The large MeydaDC1kkale hoard contained 2,554 Alexanders with accompanying groups of Lysimachus, Seleucid, AttaJid, and Ptolemaic issues. Important varieties are noted in the catalogue, and the model presentation of the hoard publication illustrates most coins. A date of deposit c. 240-235 BC is certain. and so the hoard provides vital information on the circulation of the mid third century BC. Unfortunately the hoard was published only when this volume was in the hands of the publishers, and only cursory note could be taken of the authors' conclusions.

Kirazli, Amasya, Turkey, 1939 (IGCH 1369; G. Le Rider and N. Okay. 'Le Tresor de Kirazli (pres d'Amasya) IGCH 1369', Anatoli« AntjqualEskj A.nadolu (Istanbul/Paris. 1987). 23-34)

This hoard contained 15 staters, 150 tetradrachrns and !>YO drachmae of Alexander coinage, groups of Lysimachi, and Seleucids, 2 Demetrius Poliorcetes, 1 Attalid, and 2 autonomous tetradrachms of Sin ope and Perga. The date of burial was c. 230 BC, and this is confirmed by the presence of a drachma countermarked at Calchedon with the head of Apollo mark. The same countermark is found in the Denizb (1963) hoard of Alexander drachmae (CH 6 (1981). no. 61; de Callatay, "Tresor'). It is only the preseneeof this countermark that ena hies the burial of this hoard to he dated c. 230 BC. Otherwise it consists mainly of fourth century BC drachmae.

Biayiik~kmece, Istanbul, Turkey. 1952 (ICCH 867)

This hoard contained a rich assortment of counterrnarks of Chalcedon and Byzantium. The presence of a coin of Antiochus III shows that the final deposit was not until after 220 BC, and that the Alexander material had been in circulation for many years.

Hoards of the late third century

No significant hoards of Alexander gold seaters are known after the burial of the Aaadol hoard until the first century Be.

Hoards of silver coins

Burial c. 225-215 Be

Sophikont Epidaurus, Greece, 1893 (IGCH 179) Megalopolis, Greece, 1947 (ICCH 180) Corinth, Greece. 1938 (ICCH 187)

Patras, Greece, 1850 (lCCH 186)

The first appearance of coins from the mint of Megalopolis heralds a new period of minting of Alexanders in the Peloponnese. These four hoards illustrate the development. SopbikoD contained no Peloponnesian Alexanders, but is mainly a hoard of drachmae. The presence of a tetradrachm of Ptolemy III (Svoronos, Ur:O).,EJ,Ul{WV 996a) allows a date of deposit in the later 220s Be. This is the tetradrachm of an issue the bronze varieties of which are found regularly in the Peloponnese and never in Egypt. The issue was struck specifically to send as a subsidy to the Peloponnese at the time of war between Sparta and the Achaean League. The Megalopolis hoard was deposited during the same period. but contained three of the new Alexander tctradrachrns of Megalopolis. The Corinth hoard was buried a little later. but well before the Patras hoard which illustrates the latest phase of Alexander issues in the Peloponnese. For the latter. a date of burial c. 21817 Be or a little later, at the lime when the army of Philip V was in the vicinity is probable.

Burial c. 215-200 Be

Asia Minor, 1929 (TCCH 1370; Boehringer. Chronologie. Beilage 2) s. Asia Minor, 1963 (IGCH 1426)

Syria, 1960 (lCCH 1426)

Syria, 1959 (lGCH 1535)

Gordion I, 1951 (/CCH 14(6)

Gordion V, 1961 (lGCH 1405)

These hoards illustrate the dramatic changes of the final years of the century. There are abundant issues coming from the mints of western Asia Minor in a burst of activity. The dated issues of Phaselis and the Pamphylian towns make their first appearance, and the Black Sea cities are also seen to be more active in striking retradrachms,

Hoards of the early second century

Burial c. 200-188 Be

Mesopotamia, Iraq, 1914-8. Dunne's hoard (IGeH 1769)

With an example of Aspendus year 10. Attalid tetradrachms down to period V, and Seleucid issues of Antiochus III. this is fairly typical of a hoard c. 200 BC. The Museum acquired six Alexanders:

Abydus 1528d Milerus 212tc

Asia 2792, 2'794, 2823 Aspendus 2889&.

Diyarbakir, Armenia, Turkey, 1955 (IGeH 1735; Seyrig, Trisors no. 4) Doiye, Phoenicia, 1952 (IGCH 1538; Seyrig, Tresors no. 5)

Latakia, Syria, 1946 (IGCH 1536; Seyrig, Tresors no. 6)

These three hoards illustrate circulation soon after the tum of the century. The latest dated coinages present are:

Diyarbam Perga 10 (212/1 Be), Aradus 44 (216/5 Be) Dniye Phaselis 26 (193/2 Be), Aradus 42 (21817 Be) Latakia Phaselis 10 (209/8 Be). Aradus 61 (199/8 Be)

Diyarbakir included Attalid to Westermark Period VIA. as well as autonomous tetradrachms of Side. and Latakia Seleucid to Antiochus III.

Kosseir, Antakya. Turkey, 1949 (IGCH 1537; Seyrig, Tresors no. 7) Mektepiai, Phrygia, Turkey. 1956 (IGCH 1410; Seyrig, Mtkttpinr) Ayaz-In, Phrygia, Turkey, 1953 (IGCH 1413; Scyrig Trisors no. 8) Sardes, Lydia, Turkey, 1911 Pot hoard (IGCH 1318)

The period of struggle between Rome and the kingdoms of the East resulted not only in massive issues of Alexander coinage. but also in several hoards which can be dated c. 190 Be. The latest dated coinages from these four are:

K.osseir Phaselis 24 (195/4 Be), Perga 20 (202/1 Be). Aspendus 19 (194/3 Be). Aradus 69 (192/1 Be) MektepiDi Phasclis 18 (201/0 Be), Perga 29 (193/2 Be). Aspendus 19 (194/3 Be). Aradus 64 (192/1 Be) Ayaz-In Phaselis 26 (193/2 Be), Perga 29 (193/2 Be). Aspendus 20 (193/2 Be), Aradus 63 (197/6 Be) Sardes Phaselis 5 (214/3 Be). Perga 29 (193/2 BC). Aspendus 20 (193/2 Be), Aradus 62 (19817 Be)

All included Seleucid coinage down to Antiochus III and autonomous tetradrachms of Side. and the last three tctradrachms of Alabanda in the name of Antiochcia. which must certainly precede 190 Be. The Attalid coinage at MektepiDi went down to Westermark, Period VI B. The model publication of the MektepiDi hoard provides an excellent reference point for circulation to 190 BC. and the details are listed in the catalogue here.

Burial c. 188-170 BC

PamphyUa, Turkey, 1977 (CH 5 (1979). no. 43 and 6 (1981). no. 34)

This hoard recorded in commerce falls well after 190 Be and provides an excellent comparison with the earlier hoards to show the beginnings of the next phase of coinage in Asia Minor. The issues of Chi os , for example. begin to show the name of the magistrate in full (2409-10,2412) and at several mints there are similar changes in design and in method of controlling output. The latest dated coinages are:

Phaselis 33 (186/5 Be). Perga 33 (189/8 Be). Aspendus 26 (187/6 Be). and Aradus 64 (196/5 Be).

The deposit of the hoard falls. therefore, after the end of the dated sequences of Phaselis and Perga.

None of the coins were countermarked in the manner that distinguishes slightly later hoards. and there were no Alexander issues of either Alabanda or Temnos. The Seleucid coinage goes down to Seleucus IV

and the Atralid coinage to Westermark Period VII. The whole appearance is of a circulation pattern later. but not much later, than that offered by the hoards of 190 BC, illustrating the changes that occurred as a result of the political reorientation after 188 BC. The date of burial must be c, 180-175 BC.

The following examples were secured for the Museum:

Cyme 1615

Colophon UW9, 1866, 1868-9 Chios 2409- to, 2412

Antioch 2470


Phaselis 2874-5

Perga 2947

Pamphylia 298.

Aradus 3402

Baiyada, Phoenicia. Syria. 1949 (IGCH 1541; Scyrig, Trisors no. 10)

The burial of this hoard also falls after 190 BC, but there were none of the counterrnarks of the post-170 Be hoards. There was present however an Alexander issue ofTemnos, and this may prove an important context for this interesting issue.

Burial c. 170-165 Be

Latakia, Syria. 1759 (tGCH 1544; Seyrig, Trisors no. 11)

This hoard. like that from Mektepini, provides a key point in the chronology of the Asia Minor mints.

The atl(hor counterrnark of Syria makes its first appearance, together with early eetradrachms of Antiochus IV and the autonomous coinage of the Ilian Confederacy. Neither Ternnos nor Abbanda is represented in the Alexander series. and it has been argued that they must have been struck later. They were, however, present in the Ain-Tab and PropoDtis hoards, which present a very similar picture to that of Latakia, and in the Baiyada hoard which would seem to be earlier. A date of burial c. 170 BC is assured.

AiD-Tab (Gaziantep), Commagene, Turkey, 1920/1 (lGCH 1542; Seyrig, Tresors no. 13) KhaD CheikoUD, Syria. 1940 (IGCH 1547; Seyrig, Ttisors no. 14)

These two hoards are markedly similar in composition. Both include Alabanda and Temnos Alexanders. A Helios-head counterrnark joins the anellor noted at Latakia (1759), and a similar date of burial is required. K.han CheikhoUD also included autonomous tetradrachms of Side, all counterrnarked with the anchor. The Ht/ios counterrnark also occurs in the Aleppo (1931) hoard (ICCH 1546; Seyrig, Trisors no. 12) in conjunction with tetradrachrns of Antiochus IV of a date a little later than those at Latakia.

Propontis, Turkey, 1950 (IGCH 888; CH 7 (1985). no. 93)

This hoard is notable for the presence of countermarks applied at the time of the introduction of the cistophorus coinage in the Attalid kingdom. As argued below. a date of 185-175 BC is certain for the application of this mark. There was also a countermark of Cyzicus in the hoard, but none of the anchor or Helios countermarks present in hoards from the Seleucid kingdom. Alexander issues of Tcmnos were present, although considered to be a later addition in the publication. The date of burial is far from clear, but, even if the Temnos issues were present in the original deposit, a date c. 170 BC would be perfectly acceptable.

Oreua, Euboea, Greece, 1902 (IGCH 232) Larissa, Greece, 1968 (IGCH 237)

The date of burial can be gauged with some certainty through the Macedonian coinage present. Oreus was deposited before the war with Rome, c. 172 BC, and contained the last group of Alexanders from Macedonia (633) struck a few years previously. Larissa was buried 168/7 BC, or a little later, just after the

defeat of Perseus, and contained the new coinage of the First Macedonian Republic. Both hoards show that Alexanders played little part in the circulation of northern Greece under Philip V and Perseus.

Hoards of the mid second century

Burial c. 165-150 Be

Maaret en Numan. Syria, 1979 tCii 6 (1981), no. 37 and 7 (1985), no. 98) Babylon, Iraq, 1900 (lCCH 1774)

The new hoard from Syria provides an excellent parallel to the Babylon hoard in displaying the latest phase of Alexanders in Asia Minor, together with the dramatic autonomous coinages of the 170s Be and 160s Be. The latest dateable coin in the Syria hoard is of Antiochus V (163/2 Be). The Seleucid material in the Babylon hoard goes down to Demetrius I. and a deposit in the 1505 BC is assured.

Urfa, Mesopotamia, Iraq. 1924 (IGCH 1772)

Although the Selcucid material went down to Antiochus III and the Attalid to Westermark Period V, the counterrnarks anchor and Helios were present and a date of burial after c. 170 Be must follow. There may also have: been present an autonomous rctradrachm of Cyme, which lowers the final burial date further to the middle of the century. This provides an early context for the Athenian New Style tetradrachms.

The Alexanders in the Museum collection arc:

Heraclea 1280 Tenlnost669,1679 Mytilene 1699b. 1709 Chios 2432

Aspendus 2903e, 290Sb

Pcrga 2916-1, 2928b, 2929, 293Sb, 2943b, 2946

Burial c. 150-140 Be

Tell Kotchek, Mesopotamia. Iraq, 1952 (lGCH 1773; Seyrig, Trisors no. 15)

This hoard contains important sequences of Alexanders of Alabanda and Temnos, together with ocher issues of the period after 188 BC. A counrermark applied at Temnos is present on a coin of Alabanda, and this is also known to have been applied to an autonomous tctradrachm of Cyme of the 150s BC. This requires a date no earlier than c. 150 Be for the deposit of this hoard.

Kirikhan, Cilicia, Turkey, 1972 (CH t (1975). no. 87; Seyrig, Tresors no. 23)

This hoard is notable for the presence of the many autonomous coinages chat succeeded the Alexanders in western Asia Minor. It contained Seleucid issues of Antiochus VI and Demetrius II. down to 143/2 Be and a representation of later Alexanders including Tcmnos and Alabanda.

Hoards of the later second century

Tarto\1l, Syria, 1987

Bassit, Syria, 1978 (G. Le Rider. 'Un tresor de Bassit (1978),. BCH 107 (1983),451-6)

These two hoards illustrate the continuation of Alexanders in circulation in the Seleucid kingdom.

Bauit contained a coin of Antiochus VIII (119/8 BC). but otherwise consisted of a group of Alcxanders, six ofTemnos and three of Alabanda, all in fresh condition. Tartoul is reported to have ninety-four Alexandcrs. including at least one example of Temnos, and Seleucid issues down to 125 BC.

The only area in which Alexander coinage was being struck after 150 BC was in the Black Sea mints of

Odessus and Mesembria, A number of hoards witness to this continued activity. with relatively local circulation. The Alexanders are often associated in the hoards with the late tetradrachms of the Macedonian First Republic. Thasos, Maroneia, and late L ysimachi of Byzantium. The following hoards are representative:

Bulgaria: IGCH 521-2. 525-6. 898-904. 921. 928

CH 1 (1975). no. 92; CH 3 (1977). no. 74 = 6 (1981). no. 43 Romania: IGCH 527

The first century


Marile.ti, Romania, 1909 (ICCH958; CH 1 (1975). no. 93; CH 3 (1977). no. 44; Le Rider. Philippe II, 284.24

This important find contained late Lysimachi of the Black Sea mints. and the final burial must be placed in the early first century Be. The bulk of the find is of the mid third century Be, and probably represents an old deposit to which the late Lysimachi were added.


SUII VI, Iran, 1947/8 (lGCH 1812)

The composition of this find is much as those of the mid second century Be, but the presence of a coin of Tiraios of Characene brings the final deposit down to c. 90 Be. The Alexanders consisted of a single batch of5O pieces from Tcmnos, Other finds at SUIa (lCCH 1804-6, 1808-9) are apparently of the late second century Be, and show the continuation of Alexander coinage in that area with Bactrian, Parthian. and Seleucid issues.


From the very beginning the Alexander coinage in gold and silver travelled widely. There can be no doubt that the reform in 336 Be was specifically designed to make the tetradrachms an international form of coinage, and Alexander's military successes first in Thrace and Greece and later in Asia ensured that his coinage spread across the whole of the known world.! The Alexander coinage soon became established in the areas where the Athenian tetradrachm had previously circulated as the recognised coin of large denomination. and even in the West it is not uncommon In the later fourth century Be to find Alexander issues mixed with local Sicilian and Carthaginian gold and tctradrachrns.s

1. For the presence of coins from eastern mints in hoards from Greece. see above 48. 51. The funds of Alexandra spread from (he Bhir Mound, Pakistan (ICCH 1831) to Spain (ICCH 2319-20), with even a reported provenance from

Britain, at Brough. East Yorkshire (P. Corder. 'Excavations at Brough. E. Yorkshire', Tmnseaions ojlltr East Ridi"l A",iqHarit1n S",itty 28 (1939), 3-35. at 32).

2. Gold: Gela, Sicily, 1883 (TGCH 2143) and Taranto, It a ly, 1883 (IGCH 1932; Le Rider, PhiJipp~ 11,266.8). possibly tWO portions of the same hoard. CallUU'ina. Sicily. 1980 (eH 7 (1985). no. 59). Gela. Sicily. 1918 (lCCH 2196). Morgantina. Sicily. 1966 (IGCH 2204; Lc Rider, Pltjlipp~ ll, 281.20). AillU'OI Riv .. , Italy, 1879 (/GCH 1955).

Silver: Camarina. Sicily. 1976 (Cll 7 (1985). no. 58). Gela, Sicily. 1976 (CH 3 (19n). no. 21). Pacbino. Sicily, 1957 (lGCH2151). Pschino, Sicily. 1921 (lCCH 2186). Cefalu, Sicily, 1925 (IGCH 2154). Buccheri, Sicily, 1904 (IGCH 2159). AidoDe. Sicily. before 1900 (IGCH 2160). Melar. Hybl ... Sicily, 1966 (lGCH 2180). Capo Soprano. Sicily. 1955 (lCCH 2183). MCKlanti ... , Sicily. 1987/8 (10 commerce). Syrac ..... Sicily. 1899 (TCCH 2230). Syracuse. Sicily. 1927 (IGCH 2191).

From an early date there was considerable movement of coinage of Philip II and of Alexander into the north Balkans. to areas where Celtic tribes were settled. I The number of hoards which are dated to this period from Bulgaria. Romania. and Yugoslavia bear eloquent witness to this phenomenon. It is necessary to be somewhat wary of the date of burial accorded these hoards since the date of issue of the latest coin might be rather a long time before the burial of the hoard itself. There is. however, no doubt that with the return of mercenaries and through contacts of various sorts Alexander's coinage was moving into these regions during his lifetime. This had a tremendous impact on the monetary system of the area. with the result first that the Celts regularly demanded payment in this type of coinage. and later that they struck imitations of it locally.

The bronze coinage of Alexander equally has a circulation pattern that is exceptionally wide-ftung. It is not unusual to find eastern issues in Macedonia, and Macedonian issues in the East.2 Perhaps more surprisingly this coinage also circulated into the north Balkans where bronze coinage had not previously been used, and several large hoards have been recorded from Romania and Bulgaria>' The bronzes, even more than the precious meta) coinages. represent the movement of people. and it is interesting that. as a result of the political unity created by the empire. these relatively worthless tokens of small change might have had currency far from their place of origin.

The large issues made by Alexander and his successors in precious metals resulted in an enormous quantity of coins being put into circulation by 300 Be. It has been stated+ that some 1.800 obverse dies arc to be found in the drachmae that have survived from the mints of western Asia Minor. This permits an estimates that there might have been nearly 2,800 obverse dies actually employed in the twenty-five years or so of their coinage. These could have struck hover fifty-fi ve million drachmae. that is over 9,000 talents in drachmae alone. The Alexander standard was a term used for drachmae in the Attalid kingdom of Pergamum even in (he second century sc.? The gold staters in a short time completely replaced the darics, and remained in circulation as the main gold unit throughout the hellenistic period.

1. Hoards buried apparently in Alexander's lifetime or very soon afterwards:

Gold: BalaDa, 1967 ten 2 (1976). no. 50). Samovoclene. Bulgaria. 1957 (IGCH 396). Juna poljana, Bulgaria, 1969 (IGCH 777). Breltov%a, Bulgaria, 1968 (IGCH 778). Krivodol, Bulgaria, 1 %7 (IGCH 4(8). Topol~e, Yugoslavia. 1917 (TCCH 399). Drencova, Romania, 1882 (ICCH 4(0). Nicoret'i. Romania. before 1932 (IGCH 401). Glldiu, Romania, 1960 (IGCH n4~ CH 6 (1981). no. 15). Coldea. Romania. 1899 (lGCH 4(9).

Silver: Gostilica. Bulgaria. 1958 (lCCH 397). Bjala, Bulgaria. 1939 (IGCH 398). Mahala, Bulgaria, 1926 (ICCH n2). Bulgaria. 1939 (IGCH n3).

2. E.g. Salamis (Cyprus) in the Drama hoard (Drama 143); Macedonia (as Drama 89 and 98) at Sardes (Sardis excavations. 17.11-2).

3. Bulgaria: en 6 (1981), nos. 16-9,22; CH 7 (1985), no. 63; rCCH 779-93.

Romania: CH 1 (1975). no. 45 (= CH2 (1976), no. 43; and CH 3 (1977), no. 26).

4. Thompson/Bellinger, 'Alexander drachms', 30-1. The number of dies used at Miletus and Sardes can now be compared with Miss Thompson's more recent study (Drachm Mints I):

Miktus: 143 ('Alexander drachms') 152 (Drachm Min/1 1) Sardes: 245 (,Alexander drachms') 255 (Drachm Min's 1)

Clearly the figures given by Thompson/Bellinger, ·Alexander drachms', arc fairly accurate.

5. de Callatay. 'Tresor', 55.

6. de Callatay. 'Tresor', uses a figure of 10,000 coins per die, and thus arrives at a smaller total of twenty-eight million coins. The recent work ofP. Kinns on the inscription concerning production for the Amphictionic coinage of336 Be ('The Amphictionic coinage reconsidered', NC 1983, 1-22. pl. i-iv) proposes a figure of30.000 coins per obverse die. Bearing in mind the low relief of the Alexander drachmae. this seems to be a more realistic possibility than 10.000.

7. l. Robert, 'Monnaies dans Ies inscriptions grecques', RN 1962, 7-24. at 8, note 4. In the Meydaacakkale hoard, deposited c. 240-35 Be. 2.417 tetradrachrns (79"0) were Alexanders from before 294 Be and in the Kirazh hoard. deposited c. 230 BC. 86% were Alexanders from before 294 BC: G. Le Rider, 'Alexandres d'argenr', 28-9.


The countcrrnarks applied to Alcxanders fall into two categories. On earlier coins, such as those from the Kuft hoard, the form of the countermark is often that ofa banker's mark, a personal stamp to prove the metal and to indicate that the piece had been approved. In this the countermark is a refinement of the rough punch, round or square in section. which was applied to break through the surface of the coin as a test of the metal. and which is often found ill conjunction with such counrerrnarks. There are two possible exceptions: as Nash realised 1 the eagle and Ii?! countermark found on coins from the Kuft hoard corresponds to the symbol and monogram found on the 'Alexander in elephant-scalp/ Athena Alkidcmos' tetradrachms of Ptolemy I. suggesting that the countermark may have been applied in Egypt at the time of the introduction of this new, reduced-weight coinage. 310-305 Be. The bee countcrmark found on many of the Kuft coins may have been applied at the time of the further reform c. 305 Be.

The counrermarks on later coins tend to be of a more official nature. and are significant for the history of the coin's circulation. The two types of countermark are here separately indexed, and to the earlier group are appended those punches which differ from the simple square or round sectioned 'nails'.

On silver

Early countermarks

120b, 217, 843, t355b,2120a,212Oc,2951.,1036b,3037,3039a, 3042b,3048b,30SOa,308Sb,311Oc,3262b,329la,3322,3324c,350t, 3613c, 362Oc, 3962&, 3974b, 3976c, 3977, P175b, P181d, P182b, P216 3692&

l0ge, USb, 31 tOc, 3324c, PI7S. 13c, ius, sen, 3332e



2t08a-b, 3048b, 3085b, P129 3708d, Pt82d


104a, 214d, 217, 843,1037,3325b lOSe

122a, t36a,2955d,30tl,3974a I11d, 36918, Pl83b




l1tb (apparently Cypriote in origin; see Amathus 3085-6)


Eagle I., 191
Shell S~r Swastika

Vase. amphora omocho«


Circ/t Cresan:

Cr05S TreJoil Trianglt Star




78e, 1048, 122a,214d,2108c,2955e,lOOOf 13c, I03b, lltd,3000f

PI«, P20tb





1. D. N2Sh, 'The: Kuft hoard of Alexander III tetradrachms', NC 1974, 14-30. at 15. note 3.

Later c:ountermarks Anchor

Heraclea 1280 Alexandria, Troas 1596

Phaselis 2837, 2839, 2850-1, 2864, 2868,2871 Aspendus2889b,289Oa,2891b,2895,2902,2903a-b,2903e,2909a-b, 29t1b,2912b

Perga 2916-7, 2928b, 2929, 293Oa-b, 2935b, 2937b, 2938-9, 29"'2b, 2943b,2946

In addition to the mints represented here, Seyrig! has published examples on Pella 633 and uncertain of Asia 2823, and another was in the Babylon (1900) hoard- on an Alexander of Myrina as 1654-8. Examples are also regularly found on autonomous terradrachrns of Side.? The frame may be oval or rectangular. but it is dear that over a fairly short period of time this countermark was widely applied in the Scleucid kingdom where the anchor, as the symbol of the reigning dynasty, gave official sanction to the circulation of the foreign coins.

The evidence of hoards conclusively places the application of this mark c. 175-170 BC, just before the deposit of the AiD Tab and Latakia (1759) hoards. It is possible to date it even more accurately. It has been noted+ that in 172 Be there was a slight but perceptible fall in the weight of the Seleucid tetradrachm which coincided with a sharp rise in the value of silver in terms of bronze in Egypt in 173 BC. The increase in the value of silver no doubt contributed to the Row of Alexander tetradrachms into Syria, and the countermark applied to these issues may be directly connected with the reform that lowered the weight of the Syrian tetradrachm.

Anchor, ~ Tell K.otcbek 308 and 516, 011 Alabanda 2456 and 2464

This is clearly also a Seleucid countermark, possibly a little later than that previously described. The significance of the monogram is uncertain.

Aphlaston SNG Oxford 2875 on Perga 2941; Noe, 'counrerrnarked coins', 88, pI. xiv. 10

Bow in bow-case. l:AP Bow in bow-case, A4PA

The place of application could very well be Aradus, where the type occurs on bronze issues of similar date. The aphlasto" is also the emblem held by Nike on the autonomous tetradrachms of Aradus. A date at the time of the introduction of the new tetradrachms c. 174/3 BC is very likely.

Bow in bow-case, nEPr A Propontis 79 on Phasclis Mionnet 3, p. 473 note a.

Noe, 'Countermarked coins'. 86 on Aspendus 2884 Propontis p. 28.16 on Perga 2941

Noe, 'Counterrnarked coins'. 86 on Aspendus 2891 Noe, 'Countermarked coins', 86 on Perga 2928 Mowat, 197. note 2

Bow in bow-case, TPA

Bow in bow-case, AnA Mionner 3, p. 473, note a

This group of counter marks with the same symbol includes letters that clearly indicate the cities of Pergamum, Sardes, Adramyttium. Tralles, and Apamea. They may with certainty be linked with the introduction of the cistophoric coinage.f probably no later than 180 BC. Their application clearly

1. H. Seyrig, 'Antiquites syriennes, 67. Monnaies conrremarquees en Syrie', SyritJ 35 (1958), 187-97. pI. xvii: pI. xvii. 1 I and 10. BauaJaugh. p. 15 quotes in example on Chios 2356.

2. K. Regling, 'Hellenisnscher Miinzschatz aus Babylon', 4fN 38 (1928). 92-132. pI. viii-xiii at 106.16.

3. Seyrig, n. I above. pl. xvii.9.

4. Above, 44.

5. O. Merkholm (,Some reflections on the early cistophoric coinage', ANSMN 24 (1979). 47-61. pl. xviii-xix, at 50) argues for a date c. 175. On the evidence of a cistophorus in the Lari ... (1968) hoard, I believe a date c. 180 or even earlier is preferable: M. J. Price. 'The Larissa 1968 hoard (ICCH 237)" Krtlay-M.rkholm Essays, 233-43. pI. !iv-Iv. R. BausJaugh in a detailed study NC (forthcoming) has independently confirmed the earlier dating. but divorces the countermark from the issues of cistophori. For conspectus of the Side issues see Leschhorn, 33-42.

permitted the circulation of the Alexander coins in the years following the reform. The same countermarks, with the addition of several other city names are to be found on tetradrachms of Side.

KAA corn-ear 1406g

KAA in lorn-wreath Ars Classica Sale 2. vii.30, 509 on a drachma of uncertain variety.

Both these countcrmarks may be attributed to Callatis. I The former is found with the htad of Apollo counrerrnark of Calchedon on 1406g, and is apparently the earlier of the two. A date c. 240 Be seems probable for irs application. It is also found on a Seleucid tetradrachrn of Alexander type, WSM 1249 in conjunction with the head of Apollo. f( countcrrnark.

KYZI in oak-wreath PropoDtis p. 24-5. 93 (Aspendus 2899)

Noc, 'Counterrnarked coins', 86 (Aspendus 2901)

The same design appears on autonomous gold of Cyzicus and a 'wreath encircling a torch' is the tetradrachm type present in the Babylon (1900) hoard. A date c. 170 BC for the application of this mark is probable.

Grapes atJd tendril Tell Kotcbek 348

Noe, 'Counterrnarked coins', plate xiv.S on Alabanda 2460

This countermark has been attributed to Tcrnnos- since a similar design is to be found on the city's bronze coins. The same mark appears on an autonomous tctradrachm ofCyme,\ so that a date of c. 155 Be or later follows for its application.

Head of Apollo r. 1690b

This countermark, on a coin of'Tcrnnos, is much later than the Calchcdon counrcrrnarks below. In style the head is very similar to that of Apollo on the autonomous tetradrachms of Colophon in the 150s Be and of Alexandria, Troas in the mid second century Be. Its application is to be connected with the production of the group of autonomous tetradrachrns in western Asia Minor in the 150s BC, and its function is probably similar to that of the city counrcrrnark of Priene (1676b), also to be found on terradrachrns of Ternnos.

Head of Apollo. K Head of Apollo, Jc(


864&, 14061, t802c

The presence of these marks in the Buyuk~ekme~e hoard from near Istanbul proves that they emanate from Calchedon. Their application is directly parallel to that of the prow countcrmarks from Byzantium. The date is probably in (he decade 235-225 BC. but could be a little earlier or later. ~ The reason for the counrermarking was the introduction of an autonomous coinage with a terradrachm c. 13.9 g in parallel at both mints, and this reform dearly required that the heavier Attic weight coinage be countermarked to continue in circulation.

Head ofDemeter veiled r., K or I« Buyuk~ekmece 82 Head of Demeter veiled r .• K or 1«. behind, A Buyiik~ekmece 83

Head of Demeter wtaring comwreath Pick (1), plate i. 19

These heads of Demeter are distinct from those of Apollo, but with the first two appearing in the Biiyuk~kmece hoard" it is very probable that they, too, stem from Calchedon, at about the same period.

1. V. Clain-Stefanelli. 'Contribute 01110 studio delle monere di Callaris'. ,'\lultlisIHdli(4 (Rome) 13 (1947), J- 7:

Thompson, 'Buyukcckmece', 26-7. 2. Sevng, Trisors, 70.

J. Naville (4 Apr 1921) 2300.

4. de Callaray, 'T resor', 58-60; cf. Le Rider, . AJexaJldr~s d'argenr', 49.

5. Thompson. 'Biiyukc;ekmC'(."c·. 23-5.

Phaselis 2863

Aspendus2896a, 2903a, 290Sb Perga 2930b

The counterrnark was apparently applied in Syria, 1 and it has a circulation pattern similar to that of the anchor. On 2903& it has been placed over the t3n,hor counter mark showing that its application was not before 172 BC, and probably that its function was rather different. There is no evidence to suggest where

Head of Htlios facing

the counrerrnark was applied.

Head of Tvch« r. Tell Kotchek 250ff. on Alabanda.

Possibly a countermark of Smyrna.s but since the coins so countermarked regularly appear in a Syrian context, it is not yet possible to be certain. The same mark was applied to an autonomous tctradrachm of Cyme-' issued no ca rlier than the 150s BC, so that a date for the mark after c. 155 Be follows. This would suit the period of the introduction of the autonomous teeradrachms at Smyrna where the 'head of Tyche' is fairly similar.

Prow, ny

Prow, nY, dolphin Prow, nv, ~

Buyuk~ekmece 42-3 Buyuk~ekmece 44 93e

Buyuk~ek.mece 55-6 Buyiik~ekmece 63-5

de Callarav, 'Tresor', 29.35 Propontis 144

Prow, nv, ~ Prow, nv, f\ PrOIV, BY

The prow countcrrnarks were plentiful in the Buyuk~kmece hoard," and clearly indicate the mark of the city of Byzantium. Seleucid and Lysimachus issues also bear the countermarks and there are several varieties of monogram which may be equated with the names of the hieronmemones who signed the first issues of the Phoenician weight coinage. Like the Apollo-htads of Calchedon these countermarks were applied at the lime of the reform of the weights of the coinage. It has been remarked that the marks of the two cities do not appear together on any specimen, and it may be assumed that the application by one city was accepted in the other as validating the coin, at a time when there was clear cooperation in monetary policy.

Thvrsus? with '/j[fets Noe, 'Countermarked coins'. plate xii. 9 on Colophon IBM

The significance of this mark is not known.

Tr~od 2903d

The same countermark is found on a tetradrachm of SelCUCl1S IV in the Larissa (1968) hoard buried

c. t 65 BC. A date c. 175-170 Be for its application is fairly certain, but the origin is not known.

nPIH. 6 1676b

This was clearly applied at Priene, but the significance of the letter 6 is uncertain. It has been suggested that it may stand for the word Demos.f but it could equally be a number or year. The counterrnark nPIH without the other letter has surfaced in a hoard from Side to be published in full by Dr. W. Leschhorn. The date must fall in the second quarter of the second century. probably c, 172 BC.

1. Scyrig. Trrsors, 58.

2. Scyrig, Trrsors, 70; G. Le Rider. 'Un tresor de Bassil (1978),. BCH 107 (1983). 451-6. at 456, note 23.

3. SNG Ct.p r19). Atolij.L~sbos. Copenhagen, 1945. no. 104.

4. Thompson, 'Buyukcekmece', 21-3 and 29-30. These countermarks occur also on rctradrachms of Lysimachus, Demetrius Poliorcetcs, the Scleucids and Ptolcmies: E. Schonert-Geiss. Die MunzpriiRul1R von Byzartliol1, 1. AUlonomt' Zeit, Berlin. 1970 (Schrifu" zur G~S(hi(hlt' uutl Kultur tltr A"tikt 2).62-3.

5. K. Regling, Die Miinutl ",lit Prien«, Berlin. 1927. 43-4: for the counrermark without ~. see Leschhorn, 38. The hoard context would suggest a date r. 170 Be for its application.

On bronze

Caduceus P2a

LiM' head 2799, 2800

This mark recalls the lion symbols that are prevalent on the coinage ofLysimachus of Alexander type.

On the evidence of a hoard said to have come from Ephesus, Milne! suggested that this counterrnark should be attributed to Lysimachus' occupation of Ephesus in 302 BC or 295-80 BC. If the connection with L ysimachus could be proved. the former period would be more likely, 2 since a very large proportion of the coins of these varieties appear to have received the countermark, which was probably applied, therefore, close to the date of their minting.

Trim·lts 373b

Greal god rulinint I.; above,

Pick (2) 2190

;nvtrttd amphora

The same countcrmark occurs on bronzes of Philip II, Lysimachus, and Odessus. The type is also used 011 the coinage of Odes sus and so the place of application is certain. The date is not known, but the inverted amphora recalls the Alexander varieties 1152 fT .• and a date at the end of the third century Be is likely.

P 3061c; Hunter, 328.298 on Tarsus 3062


Greek A




Ptt9 3491 2108b

22.79, 105a. 10Sd, 10ge, 12Gb, t36a,3219,3479,P147

Aramaic ..,1.,.. ?~I.f





898 1515 93c 3283 PI,.

Periods of issue

The following provisional lists of mints have evolved from this study and, even in this schematic form, they are of some help in understanding the function of the Alexander coinage. They provide an overall view of the coinage by period, and the quantity of varieties normally gives a fair indication of the size of [he coinage at a particular time. For sake of convenience attributions that are uncertain have been listed without question marks, completely uncertain varieties have been ignored, and where a group

1. Milne, 'Counterrnarked coins', 395-7.

2. In both the Ephesus and the Drama hoards (Drama 144) this countermark is associated with bronzes of the lifetime of Alexander. A fourth century Be date is hardly to be questioned. and further hoard evidence may even prove the connection with L ysimachus to be wrong.

3. for graffiti on the Ptolemaic issues from the MeydaDctkkale hoard. some in Cypriote syllabary, see A. Davesne and O. Masson, 'A propos du tresor des monnaies de Giilnar en Cilicie; problemes numismatiques er «graffiti. monetaires', R~"u~ Archtologiqut 1985.1. 29-46, at 35-46 (Masson). For AramaiC graffiti on Alexanders from (he Demanhur hoard, sec C. C. Torrey. Ara,"aic graffiti on coins l!f Dmtanhur, New York. 1937 (NNM 77); and from the Tel Tsippor hoard, see L. Y. Rahmani. '/\ hoard of Alexander coins from Tel Tsippor', SM 64 (1966), 129-45, at 130- 33.

of issues straddles the periods chosen for listing here, the numbers have been repeated under the two lists. Issues in the name of Philip III and Lysimachus have been omitted unless they provide the sole coinage for the period. The index of issues of these monarchs (below p. 534) provides a conspectus of their cornage.

The abbreviations for the denominations are as follows:

AU Gold

lOdr Decadrarhms
4dr Tetradrachms
2dr Didrachms
dr Drachmae
FR Fractional silver
AE Bronze 336-323 Be

Piau and varitty nos.

Macedonia 1-121, 142-84,266-370

Aegeae 185-200
Asia Minor Lampsacus 1342-61
Abydus 1496-1510
Magnesia 1917-35
Miletus 2077-91
Sardes 2528-84
Side 2948-74
N agidus 2988-9
Tarsus 2990-3035
Cyprus Amathus 3085-90
Citium 3100-11
Curium 3112-4
Paphos 3116-24
Salamis 3125-47
Syria Damascus 3197-3215
Hierapolis 3216
M yriandrus 3217-33
Phoenicia Ake 3238-58
Aradus 3303-35
Byblos 3421-8
Came 3429-30
Sidon 3456-96
East Babylon 3578-87
Susa 3825-42
Egypt Memphis 3960-72 Denominations AU, 4dr. 2dr. dr, FR,AE


AU, 4dr. dr

AU, 4dr. dr

AU, dr

AU, 4dr. dr

AU. 4dr. dr, FR, AE AU, 4dr. dr


AU. 4dr. dr, FR. AE

4dr, dr, FR, AE

AU, 4dr, dr, AE


4dr, AE

AU, 4dr, dr, FR, AE



4dr, 2dr, dr, FR, AE

AU, 4dr, dr, FR AU, 4dr, dr, FR, AE AU, 4dr, AE


AU, 4dr, dr, FR, AE

AU, lOdr, 4dr,

2dr, dr, FR

AU, 4dr, dr, FR

AU, 4dr, AE

The impressive list of twenty-three mints on Asian soil and one in Egypt, all used to strike Alexander's imperial coinage during his lifetime, shows that there was a conscious policy of providing this form of money on an empire-wide basis. There is a clear emphasis on providing sufficient fractional coinage for the requirements of daily exchange. even in areas where there had been no such practice under the Persians. Regular supplies of gold staters and tetradrachrns were also assured.

It has been underlined I that there was a considerable increase in output in the years 325-323 Be. and mints appear to have opened at this date at Magnesia. Miletus, Side. Amathus, Cieium, Curium, Paphos. and Susa. A good part of this increase may be associated with the return from the East of the mercenaries. Gold issues were first struck in Phoenicia under Alexander. and a regal coinage was for the first time produced in Mesopotamia.

323-317 Be

Macedonia 122-41. 163-84, 371-420 Pella 201-47

Pe1oponnese Sic yon 707

Asia Minor Lampsacus 1362-80 Abydus 1511-86 Colophon 1750-71 Magnesia 1936-48 Miletus 2092-2134 T cos 2259-77 Sardes 2285-2662 Side 2966-7" Nagidus 2988-9 Tarsus 3036-63

Amathus 3091-9



Citium 3100-11 Lapethus Pt27-8 Marium 3115 Paphos 3116-24 Salamis 3148-62 Soli 3190

Damascus 3197-3215 Myriandrus 3234-5

Ake 3259-80

Aradus 3303-38 Berytus 3406-20 Byblos 3421-8 Marathus 3434-51 Sidon 3497-3501

Babylon 3688-98 Susa 3825-51

Mem phis 3973-9




AU. 4dr. AE AU,4dr


AU. dr

AU. dr


AU. dr

AU. 4dr. dr, FR, AE AU. dr

AU, 4dr, dr, AE AU, 4dr. dr


AU, 4dr. AE

AU, 4dr, AE AU, 4dr, dr, AE AE


4dr, AE

AU. 4dr. dr. AE 4dr



AU, 4dr, AE

AU, 4dr, dr, FR, AE AU, 4dr, FR

AU, 4dr, AE

AU, 4dr, FR

AU, 4dr, FR

AU, 4dr, dr, FR

AU, 4dr, dr, FR


The coinage of the period of Philip III continued and extended the arrangements of Alexander's reign. New mints were opened in most areas and in western Asia Minor the concentration of some mints on producing gold staters and silver drachmae, without accompanying tetradrachrns, becomes more pronounced.

1. Thompson. 'Mercenaries', 241-7.

317-300 Be

Macedonia 373-420 AE
Pella 248-65 4dr
Amphipolis 438-97 4dr
Peloponnese Corinth 667-96 4dr
Thrace Lysimacheia 1215-6 AU, dr
Sestos 1217 AU
Asia Minor Lampsacus 1381-1437 AU, 4dr, dr
Abydus 1527-60 AU, 4dr, dr
Alexandria 1587 AE
Colophon 1772-1831 AU, dr, FR
Magnesia 1949-2003 AU. 4dr. dr
Teos 2278-2307 AU, dr
Mylasa 2476-80 dr
Sardes 2663-88 AU, 4dr. dr
Cyprus Salamis 3163-89 AU, 4dr. dr
Syria Antigoneia 3191-5 4dr
Phoenicia Ake 3281-3302 AU,4dr
Aradus 3339-64 AU, 4dr. dr, FR
Marathus 3434-51 AU, 4dr, FR
Sidon 3502-26 AU,4dr
East Babylon 3699-3779 AU, 4dr. FR
Seleuceia 3779A-84 AU,4dr
Carrhae 3787-3824 AU. 4dr, dr, FR
Susa 3852-3881 AU, 4dr. dr, FR, AE
Ecbatana 3882-3840 AU, 4dr, dr, FR, AE
Africa Alexandria 3980-2 AU
Cyrcne 3983-90 AU. 4dr. AE The late fourth century Be saw the establishment of the posthumous Alexanders, and in Asia Minor many of the coinages can be connected with the military activities of Antigonus Monophthalmus and Lysimachus. The popularity of this form of coinage for military purposes is to be seen in the term 'alliance' drachmae, which apparently refers to the Alexander coinage.' In Macedonia the mint of Amphipolis becomes prominent. while in the East the activities of Babylon wane and give way to Selcuceia and Ecbatana. Bronze coin is issued in the far East for the first time.

1. J. R. Melville-jones, '''Symnuchic'' coins in Greek inscnpnons '. in CoutffSj ... 8ml€' 1. 129. Three thousand such drachmae were presented to Colophon by a Milesian. together with three hundred gold coins also, presumably, staters of Alexander-type: 8. D. Merritt, 'Inscriptions of Colophon'. AJP 56 (1935). 358-97. at 363. lines 153-4. The mention in the preamble of the freedom given to Colophon by Alexander and Anngonus Monophthalmos makes it virtually certain that the coms of talliance' type are those in the name of Alexander. Two lines previously a Macedonian is listed as donating • AA.t!;(lv6~lO bQa.x~~ ~\lQi(l~. It may be that these were drachmae of Alexander's 'eagle' type, which were prevalent in Macedonia, and a die from which was also used at Miletus (below, 276). The need to distinguish between the 'eagle' and imperial types may have led to the adoption of the unusual term 'alliance' coinage for the Alexander drachmae that Antigonus was strikmg at several mints and which was universally accepted in western Asia Minor.

300-280 Be



Asia Minor

Syria Phoenicia East

Amphipolis 438-508 AU,4dr
Uranopolis 509-23 4dr
Paeonia 643-60 4dr
Chalcis 665-6 4dr
Corinth 667-96 4dr
Sicyon 708 4dr
Lampsacus 1438-43 AU, dr
Abydus 1561-86 AU, dr
Colophon 1832-43 dr
Ephesus 1874-8 AU, 4dr, dr
Miletus 2135-44 AU, 4dr, dr
Chios 2316-30 4dr, dr
Mylasa 2476-80 4dr, dr
Sardes 2689-90 4dr
Antioch 3196 4dr
Tyre 3528-62 AU,4dr
Babylon 3m-9 AU,4dr
Seleuceia 3779A-84 AU,4dr
Ecbatana 3941-55 AU, 4dr, dr, FR, AE The early third century Be saw a marked decrease in the numbers of gold staters and drachmae minted, and cetradrachms came to be the staple Alexander coinage. The formation of the Ptolemaic regal coinage on the lighter, Phoenician standard brought an end to coinage of Attic weight in the kingdom of Egypt, and elsewhere the coinages of the diadochi began to replace the Alexander coinage. Prior to this the issues in the name of Alexander were struck by the diadochi partly as an indication of their right to the succession and partly for usc as an 'alliance' coinage for military purposes.

c. 280-270 Be
Macedonia Pella524-30,569-604~621-32 4dr
Amphipolis 531-68, 605-20 AU,4dr
Greece Dyrrhachium 661 4dr
Black Sea Odessus 1132-76 AU,4dr
Sinope 127SA-77 4dr
Asia Minor Cyzicus 1339-41 4dr
Lampsacus 1444-56 AU,4dr
Parium 1458-66 4dr
Pergamum 1.70-90 4dr
Alexandria 1588-90 4dr
Tenedos 1611 4dr
Mytilene 1697 4dr
Clazomenae 1740-2 4dr
Erythrae 1887-99 4dr, dr
Magnesia 2004-30 4dr, dr
Miletus 2146-63 4dr
Priene 2231-8 4dr, dr
Smyrna 2246 4dr
Chios 2316-30 4dr, dr This decade marks a turning point in the Alexander coinage which continues even more prominently in the torrn of tetradrachms, The first issues of the Black Sea region are to be found. and on several occasions

in Asia Minor it is clear that the coinage was struck for the specific purpose of paying protection money to the invading Celtic tribes. 1 It is significant that the hoards show the circulation of Alexander coinage into Bulgaria and Romania in the fourth century Be, so that it would be natural for such payments to be demanded in Alexander coinage.

c. 270-225 Be

Black Sea

Asia Minor



Callatis 890-946 AU,4dr
Istrus 961-3 AU
Mescmbria 971-1038 AU,4dr
Odessus 1132-76 AU,4dr
Tyra 1214 AU
Lampsacus 1457 AU
Parium 1467-9 4dr
Alex:mdria 1591 AU
Magnesia 2004-30 4dr
Chios 2331-74 AU, 4dr. dr
Aradus 3365-79 4dr
Marathus 3452 4dr
Simyra 3527 4dr
Gerrha 3957-9 4dr, FR There is a marked decrease in the number ofissues in this period, pardy as a result of the vast quantities of Alexander coinage which must have been in circulation by the early third century, and partly because of the dominance of the hellenistic monarchies in Greece and Asia Minor. In the Black Sea. however, there is a notable increase in the issues of gold and tetradrachms, which may well represent payments to the Celtic tribes. The exceptional issues of gold at Lampsacus and Alexandria, Troas are to be connected with the troubled period during the ascendancy of Antiochus Hierax. In addition to the issues listed. an important group of uncertain varieties of the Peloponnese (757-80) should also be noted for this period.

c. 225-200 Be


Black Sea

Samothrace 662 4dr
Ambracia 664 4dr
Carystus 666A-B 4dr
Corinth 697-706 4dr
Sicyon 709-26 4dr
Argos 727-40 4dr
Hermione 741 4dr
Pellene 742 4dr
Megalopolis 743-53 4dr
Cabyle 882-9 4dr
Dionysopolis 947-60 4dr
Istrus 970 4dr
Mesembria 971-1038 4dr
Odessus 1132-6 AU,4dr
Tomi 1211 4dr
Sin ope 1218-75 AU, 4dr, dr
Heradea 1278-1311 4dr 1. The city of Erythrae is known to have made payment at this time to the chieftain Leonnorios (JEry 24) and later Byzantium made regular payments to me tribes of the interior (Polybius 4.46.3).

Asia Minor

Syria Phoenicia

Pergamum 1491-5 4dr
Assos 1599 4dr
Cyme 1612-34 4dr
M yrina 1648-58 4dr
Methymna 1691-4 4dr
M ytilene 1698-1705 4dr
Clazomenae t 7.3 4dr
Colophon 18« 4dr
Erythrae 1900-10 4dr
Magnesia 2031-48 4dr, dr
Miletus 2164-94- 4dr
Phocaea 2223-6 4dr
Priene 2240-5 4dr
Smyrna 2249-57 4dr
Teos 2308-12 4dr
Chios 2575-2404- 4dr
Samos 2446-50 4dr
Cnidus 2471-3 4dr
Mylasa 24,.. 4dr
Cos 2498-2503 4dr
Nisyros 2507-8 4dr
Rhodes 2509-27 4dr
Phaselis 2831-59 4dr
Aspendus 2876-92 4dr
Magydus 2914 4dr
Perga 2915-35 4dr
Side 2975 4dr
Sillyum 2976-81 4dr
Termessus 2986-7 4<lr
Laodicea 3236-74 dr
Aradus 3380-9 4dr
Carne 3.t31-2 4dr
Gabala 3.t33 4dr
Marathus 3.t53 dr The late posthumous Alexanders develop into a coinage almost exclusively of tetradrachms. with very rare issues of drachmae, and gold only in the Black Sea region. The clear indication of civic symbols within the design marks these pieces as city coinages struck for specific purposes, and there are several occasions on which military activity clearly resulted in the striking of Alexander issues. The geographical grouping of the mints permits the suggestion that in several cases these issues in the name of Alexander should be viewed as a form of 'alliance' coinage. This is underlined by die-links between mints. such as Miletus (2166) and Priene (2242), and Magydus (2914) and Aspendus (2890). The Phoenician issues also follow a pattcrn that shows cooperation between mints.

c. 200-190 Be

Greece Black Sea

Asia Minor


Messene 754-6 4dr
Mesembria 971-1038 4dr
Tomi 1212-3 4dr
M yrina 1648-58 4dr
Temnos 1665-6 4dr
Methymna 1691-4 4dr
Clazomenae 1744-8 4dr
Colophon 1845-72 4dr, dr
Ephesus 1879-86 4dr
Magnesia 2049-55 4dr
Miletus 2164-94 4dr
Phocaea 2227-30 4dr
T eos 2308-12 4dr
Chios 2375-24M 4dr
Halicarnassus 2475 4dr
Rhodes 2509-27 4dr
Phaselis 2860-71 4dr
Aspendus2893-2901 4dr
Perga 2936-47 4dr
Sagalassus 298S 4dr
Aradus 3390-3401 4dr The tetra drachm issues continued into the early second century Be, with occasional issues of drachmae. but no gold. In Greece itself there are only issues from one mint, and in the Black Sea there is also a reduction in the number of mints.

c. 190-165 Be
Macedonia Pella 633-42 4dr
Samothrace 66J 4dr
Black Sea Mesembria 971-1038 4dr
Asia Minor Alexandria 1592-8 4dr
Assos 1600-10 4dr
Cyme 1635-44 4dr
M yrina 1659-64 4dr
Temnos 1667-90 4dr. dr
Methymna 1695-6 4dr
M ytilene 1706-39 4dr
Clazomenae 1749 4dr
Colophon 1870-2 4dr
Erythrae 1911-6 4dr, dr
Magnesia 2056-62 4dr
Miletus 2195-2222A 4dr
Teos 2313-4 4dr
Chios 2405-45 4dr
Samos 2451-2 4dr
Alabanda 24S4-68 4dr, dr
Antioch 2469-70 4dr
Euromus 2474 4dr
M ylasa 2.a5-6 4dr
Cos 2504-6 4dr Sardes 2692-4 4dr. dr
Phaselis 2872-5 4dr
Aspendus 2902-13 4dr
Perga 2946-7 4dr
Phoenicia Aradus 3402-5 4dr
Marathus 3454-5 4dr The settlement of the Peace of Apamea in 188 BC resulted in large issues of Alexander tetradrachms from cities of Asia Minor declared free. With their civic symbols they clearly represent an autonomous form of coinage. and the preference for Alexander types rather than purely autonomous designs may have resulted from the need to produce issues that were recognised to be good money and of neutral political implication. The end of this period of Alexander issues c. 165 BC comes when the cities turned to striking fully autonomous issues which directly replace the Alexanders at a number of mints.

After 165 Be

Black Sea

Mesembria 1039-1131 Odessus 1177-1210

4dr 4dr

The final phase of Alexander coinage is limited to the Black Sea area. where the popularity of the coinage with the Celtic tribes no doubt caused a constant demand for such pieces. Like the Lysirnachi, which during this period were struck in gold and silver from Black Sea mints, the Alexanders continued to be minted until the early first century BC.

The end of the Alexander coinage

The new-found freedom of the cities of Asia Minor in 188 Be manifested itself in a burst of Alexander tetradrachm coinage. The issues were distinguished by normally including in the design a clear symbol of the city of origin. In the 170s B(; this coinage was joined by rerradrachm issues struck in the name of religious sanctuaries. Most prominent are [he issues of the confederacy of cities that centred on the cult of Athena llias at Ilium. 1 but such issues arc also known at this period from Parium (Apollo Aktaios), Pergamum (Athena Nikephoros) and Clazomenae (Zeus Soter Epiphanes).2 Like the Alexanders, this form of coinage could serve the purpose of an 'alliance' coinage, and is evidence for the continuing preference for Attic weight coinages at a time when the royal Attalid coinage consisted of lightweight cistophori, In the 160s and 150s BC the autonomous tetradrachm issues of the area blossomed, J and as a result there was no further need for the neutral form of coinage that the Alexanders had provided. Their disappearance in the 160s Be may be linked with that of the posthumous Lysimachi which had performed a similar function in northern Asia Minor. On the western coast of the Black Sea, however, both

1. A. R. Bellinger. Troy: th« Coins, Princeton. 1961 (Sl4ppitnltntary M(mo.fraphs 2), no. 23, present in the Latakia (1759) hoard; cf. L. Robert. Monna;("s antiqllts ttl "(roddr, Geneva/Paris. 1966 (Hauus Etudrs Numisnklt;qutS 1). 39-46.

2. Pergamum in (he- Larissa (1968) and Maar.t en Numan hoards; Clazomenae in the Tartoos (1987) hoard. a coin which supplements the reading of the only other example known: H. Seyrig. 'Monnaies bellenlstiques. 21. Un tetradrachmC' enigmatiquC", RN 1971. 24-5.

3. For those of Asia Minor, sec P. Kinns, 'Asia Minor', Thr Co;na~t ~rtht Roman World in tht LAir Rtpublic: Pro(tedings ofa Colloquium Iltld at the British Museum in Stpttmbrr 1985 (eds. A. M. Burnett and M. H. Crawford). Oxford, 1987 (British Archaeological Rep(ms fntemat;otufl Series 326), 105-19. at 106-7. In Greece, in addition to the new Style tetradrachms of Athens. may be quoted Sarnothrace (BabyloD (1900) and Maar.t .a NUmaD hoards), Macedonia First Republic (Larissa (1968) hoard), Chalcis. and Eretria (Babylon (1900) hoard). Theories that suggested that the wreathed coinages of this period were a form of monetary all:iance or were instituted by Rome have now been discredited: e.g. O. Picard, 'Les Romains et les emissions aux types d'Alexandre', AllN 29 (1982).245-50.

Alexanders and Lysimachi were to continue to be minted into the first century ac.' The special circumstance that led to this was clearly that the tribes of the Thracian hinterland, who continuously threatened the Greek cities of the coast, demanded payments in these particular coinages in order to assure the safety of a city. It was only after the defeat of Mithradates that the coinage of Alexanders finally came to an end.

The end of the Alexanders in Asia Minor is also to be linked to the rise in the value of silver that resulted from the Roman victories over Antiochus III and Perseus. 2 Large quantities of silver moved westwards in the form of booty and indemnities, and access to sources of newly mined silver was seriously restricted. The introduction of the cistophorus c. 180 Be and the decrease in the standard of the Seleucid tetradrachrn and of the coinage of Perseus of Macedonia c. 172 Be can be directly related to the need to conserve stocks of silver. This phenomenon can also be linked to the rise of the price of silver in Egypt which in t 73 Be increased four times in value. The popularity of the Alexanders as a widely accepted. neutral 'alliance' coinage of full weight was undermined and the lighter weight coinages drove them from circulation. The final issues of Alexanders from Asia Minor are those of Alabanda and T emnos, both of which had ceased by 16817 BC, and in Phoenicia the final issue at Aradus is of 166/5 Be. The coinages continued in circulation. and the issues of Asia Minor that were drawn towards Syria were countermarked to ensure their use within the Scleucid Kingdom.

The format of the catalogue

Each variety has been allotted an identifying number, occasionally followed by the letter A or B when the variety is of a minor nature or has been added to the catalogue in the last stages of preparation. Separate sequences have been maintained for the coinage of Philip, prefixed by the letter P t and for the coinage of Lysimachus of Alexander types, prefixed by L. An asterisk against the sequence number indicates that the variety is to be found in the Museum collection. and that an illustration will be found in the plates. Details of the Museum coins will be found as footnotes to the main list and are linked to it by the sequence number.

The second column indicates the denomination of the variety in a simple abbreviated form. The

following abbreviations are used:

AU gold stater. Multiples and fractions of the stater are shown as 2AU. I/:zAU, V .. AU. I/sAU. 4dr tetradrachm.

st silver stater on the local Macedonian weight standard. A fraction. a sixth. of this weight is

shown as V6St.

dr drachma. Multiples and fractions are shown as IOdr. Zdr, and lhdr.

ob obol. Multiples and fractions are shown as 2ob, Ihob, and V40b.

AE bronze unit. Multiple 2AE, fractions V2AE. V4AE.

The letter B in brackets after the denomination indicates that the royal title is present on the coin. On silver drachmae and retradrachms this is normally written in full. On silver fractions and bronzes the title is often abbreviated. The plates illustrating specimens from the Museum collection will give a general idea of the form of the title in a particular series.

1. M. J. Price, 'Black Sea', 7-11. To the post-Mektepini Lysimachi of Byzantium and Calchedon (H. Seyrig, 'Monnaics hellenistiqucs de Byzance et de Calcedoine', Essays ... Robinson, 183-200, pl. xxiii-xxv, at 197-200). should be added those from Chersonesus Taurica (H. Seyrig, 'Monnaies hellCnisriques, 22. Un pseudo-Lvsimaque de Crimee', RN 1971. 25), Halicamassus (BabyloD (1900». and-Perinthus (Maant en Numan).

2. Above. 44.

The fourth column gives details of the variety in a form that allows dear identification of the differences.

The monograms and symbols arc shown with abbreviated indication of their position in the design.

<LF> in field to left

<Rf> <LW> <RW> <fH> <EX> obv.

in field to right

below wing to left (gold coins) below wing to right (gold coins) under throne (silver coins)

in exergue (silver coins)








Where more than one mark appears in the same position, the symbols and monograms are listed reading from tOP to bottom and from left to right. The sign - has been used to indicate the separation of'letters by a symbol or part of the main design. In a few exceptional cases it has been necessary to add further explanations of the position of the marks. These have been placed in angled brackets to show that they indicate position in the design. Marks found on the obverse arc placed before those of the reverse, and are separated from the reverse marks by the oblique sign I.

Brief descriptions arc given for small fractional and bronze coins. These should be self-explanatory to those used to numismatic terminology. The symbol II indicates the position of the inscription in designs that contain more than one main element. Arrows are used to show that symbols have been placed on their side (~or~) or upside down ( l ), particularly when this feature distinguishes a variety from one with the same symbol in the upright position. The handle of club and the tiller end of rudder are assumed to represent the top of the symbol. Other cases should be self-explanatory. Marks enclosed in curly brace { } have been erased from the die.

The description of the variety is followed by references to comparable material. That to L. Muller, Nl4misnlalique d'Alexandre le Gratld is given first in a separate column. and a full concordance to that work and to the lists prepared by A. Prokcsch-Osten is to be found on page 5 t 5. A reference placed in square brackets indicates that the reading is 3 slight variant. but probably represents the variety there published. The other references in the right-hand column provide a concordance with other major studies of particular groups, and to these have been added references to private and public collections, sales, hoards, and other places where the variety has been noted. Hoards arc placed first, in bold type-face. There has been no attempt to give more than a sample of references, and each reference is not necessarily to a separate coin. This is not a list of specimens, but simple cross-referencing which may help to document the reading of the particular variety. As Muller and Prokesch-Ostcn found, the study of this coinage has been much confused by misreadings from specimens that may not have been in the best condition; but every attempt

has been made to check the readings and elements of monograms here presented. Occasional comments on the citations of cross-referenced material are contained in square buckets.

In selecting hoard material for inclusion in this section, a few key hoards, such as Demanbar, A_dol, and Mektepini have been noted in full. Considerations of space require that in general hoards are noted only when there is some particular significance for the variety in question.

A great number of abbreviations has had to be used in the reference section. A full list is given above, page 10. Those referring to the main mint monographs are to works that are also listed at the beginning of each mint section. Sales are indicated by the name of the firm, followed by the date of sale in brackets, and followed by the lot number.

References to the plates of this volume are given in bold, but are only included when the variety may be a little difficult to find. The coins in the name of Philip III and L ysimachus follow those of Alexander under the particular denomination. The plates are arranged by denomination:

Gold distaters PLATE I

Gold staters PLATE I-XVO

Gold fractions


Silver decadrachm PLATE XVD

Silver tetradrachms PLATES XVlD-CXX

Silver didrachms PLATE CXXI

Silver drachmae Silver fractions Eagle coinage


Bronze issues PLATES CXLIV-CL

These are followed by plates ofbarbarous issues (PLATES CLI-CLm) and modern forgeries (gold PLATES CLIV-CLV, silver PLATES CLV-CLVI). Supplementary material is placed on PLATES CLVO-CLIX. The coins illustrated on PLATES I-CLm arc all from the British Museum collection.

The British Museum collection

Details of the pieces in the British Museum are placed below, normally at the bottom of the page, linked to the main listing of varieties by the variety number. Where the Museum possesses more than one example of the same variety, a lower case letter is appended for each of the examples. All pieces are illustrated on the plates unless accompanied by the sign 0. Die-links between examples are indicated by linking lines, obverse links to the left of the serial number and reverse links to the right of the number.

The weight is given in grammes, qualified by the letters H (pierced), P (plated), ore (clipped or broken) to indicate that loss of weight has been significant.

The axis relationship of obverse to reverse is indicated by an arrow.

The provenance normally gives the name of the person from whom the coin has been acquired and the date of acquisition. In a separate column may be added the name of the hoard from which the specimen comes and further published references.

Notes of particular interest on individual coins are placed after the references to provenance and publication.

At the end of the main listing has been placed a group of coins in the British Museum collection, the examples of which are to be termed 'barbarous', imitations made, mainly officially, in mints on the fringe of the Greek world. These varieties bear the prefix B. In addition, since this listing will be much used by collectors. a brief account of modem forgeries in the Museum archives is given with numbers prefixed by F.

The plates are arranged by metal and denomination subdivided ifnecessary by the designs. Coins in the name of Philip III and Lysimachus are placed together at the end of the sequence of the particular denomination. 'Barbarous' issues and forgeries are placed at the very end, also divided into denominations.

It will be seen that the Museum collection gives a good overall view of the coinages of Alexander and Philip III. In Combe's catalogue of 1814 there were only sixty-two coins. twenty-two of which had been acquired from the C. M. Crachcrodc bequest in 1799. The collection was soon enriched by 280 coins from the R. Payne Knight bequest in 1824, and at about this time E. Hawkins was able to catalogue a further nineteen gold, one hundred and sixteen silver. and six bronze coins additional to those published in 1814. forty-four of which had been acquired from Lord Elgin. The addition of the Royal collection (1825). the Bank of England coJlection (1865), and the Burgon (1841) and Woodhouse (1866) collections made the Museum's holdings one of the foremost collections of this material in the nineteenth century. The Museum was fortunate to benefit from the dispersal of several important hoards. In 1871 and 1872 Sir Robert Lang presented ninety-six pieces from the hoard of gold staters found at Lamaca (Citium) in Cyprus. In the 1880s a hundred coins were acquired from G.J. Chester andJ. L. Strachan-Davidson from the large hoard from Kuft, Egypt. E. T. Newell. with characteristic generosity. donated important sections of the great Dent.nhul' hoard during the period 1910-1913. at a time when the Museum catalogue of the series was contemplated, and other examples from the hoard were no doubt acquired. though not identified as coming from Demanhul', with the groups purchased from Rollin, Lincoln and Reynolds between 1910 and 1912. A further group from this hoard was given in 1929 by Calouste Gulbenkian. In 1927 and 1928 a number of gold staters was acquired from the collection of Grand Duke Alexander Mihailovitch, many of which may have come originally from the Anadol hoard.

From 1930 to the present day there has been a steady stream of additions to the collection with some very important acquisitions. Just before the catalogue went to press the National Art-Collections Fund donated a superb group, mainly of gold coins. which had been bequeathed by the late Mrs R. B. Lewis from her husband's collection.

The presentation of the Museum collection in this form is intended to act as a spur to Alexander studies.

The Museum's collection will continue to grow, particularly with varieties that are not known at this point in time. There is a great deal that needs to be done to sift and interpret the evidence, and with much of what has been done in the past concentrated in this one place, it is to be hoped that scholars in the future will fed less daunted to tackle the details of this complex series.


t ~ Dyrrhachium






oJ J J



• Astibus




.- 1L

Amphipolis r-\ ./ __::"":

• r

~ '£-d ~

11 c ..31. II;

·A 7 ."

Aegeae. ~ M "C T

I ..s...~~~'(1:

~--~~ ~ £

~----~,~ r--

~ J'


Samothrace: __ ---w











The mint organisation within the kingdom of Macedon under Alexander must be considered in the context of what was happening before his accession in 336 BC. The reign of Philip II saw a dramatic transformation as much in the coinage of the kingdom as in the territories brought under the direct influence of the monarch. In his excellent study of the coinage of Philip II Le Rider! sets out a relative sequence of the king's issues that requires at least two mints to be in operation in 336 Be. Reviewing Le Rider's book.>I was obliged to offer a slightly different picture. It is necessary to summarise the two views here.

The silver coinage of Philip II is of two types, distinguished by their reverses: '''king'' on horseback' and Jockey with palm'. Both gold and silver coins of Philip appeared to Le Rider to fall into two parallel sequences, which he affirmed to be the product of two mints. These he located at the cities of Pella and Amphipolis. At both mints Le Rider gave ro Period I the' "king" on horseback' silver issues, placing these before the 'jockey' issues. In re-evaluating the evidence I saw a dear stylistic break in the silver issues ofLc Rider's 'Pella' Period I1A.l. I noted, too. that the heads ofHerakles on the fractional issues of Period II arc distinctly closer in style to the heads on the coinages of Philip's brother and predecessor. Perdiccas Ill; and. conversely, those of Period I arc more akin [0 the heads 011 the early coinage of Alexander. This coincides with the hoard evidence to prove, in my opinion, that the 'jockey' type (beginning with Le Rider 'Pella' 165) preceded (he issues of 'Pella' Period I as a whole. Since 'Pella' Period I itself runs parallel to 'Amphipolis' Period I and cannot, therefore, be accommodated after the issues beginning with 'Pella' 165. the evidence is strong that • Pella' 1-164. including the whole of Period I, should be placed at yet a third mint.

The coinages that preceded Philip's accession in 359 Be were meagre, and the state of the kingdom was such that there is no need to reject Le Rider's view that there was very little coinage during the period 359-6 Be. If the 'jockey' type did indeed commemorate a royal victory in the Olympic games of 356 Be. then a terminus post quem of 356 Be is assured. It is still fair to assume. however. that the silver issues corresponding to Le Rider's 'Pella' 165ff. were struck at the mint previously used by Perdiccas III. It has been assumed that Pella became the administrative capital of Macedon under Archclaus (413-399 BC). It was certainly the administrative centre under Philip II and Alexander, which is why Le Rider placed one of the former's mints there. Pella had, however, been captured by the Chalcidian League in 383 Be and was, therefore. for a time lost to the Macedonian kingdom. For this period Acgeac, the traditional and spiritual capital of the kingdom, must have housed all the administration of Amyntas III. including his mint. It is very probable thar the mint of his son, Perdiccas Ill. was also located at Aegeae, given that the growing power of the Chalcidian League again threatened the eastern part of the kingdom. The usc ofthc horse on the staters of Perdiccas would therefore continue a theme which at Aegeae goes back to the time of Alexander I. Thus there is every reason to believe that Philip. when he began to strike coinage, also had his mint at Aegeae and that the horse theme was adapted to suit his Olympic victory.

1. Le Rider. Philippe II, 325-32.

2. M. J. Pnce, The coinage of Philip II', NC 1979. 230-41. A new bronze Issue of Philip II has surfaced (now 111 the collection of Charles Hersh): obi'. head of Herakles: r~I'. butting bull. The reverse is that of Philip's predecessor (Gaebler, 161.4) and (he style of the obverse is so dose to that of this and other coms of Perdiccas III (Gaebler, pI. xxx, 14-6) that continuation of minting at the same city seems proven. The probability of a mint for Philip II at Aegeac is thus strengthened. I am grateful to Mr Hersh for this information.

Le Rider's 'Pella' 165-432 therefore very probably represent the issues of a mint at Aegeae. The two other sequences 'Pella' 1-164 and 'Amphipolis', both beginning with the Period I type of '''king'' on horseback', must have been struck elsewhere. There is no evidence to suggest that these two sequences started as early as that placed at Aegeae, and it seems possible that, like the gold, these issues should be placed after the destruction of Olynthus and the Chalcidian League in 348 Be.

The attribution of all three sequences must be considered in conjunction with the coinage of Alexander that succeeded them. There arc at least three groups of lifetime coinage from Macedonia. The main mint (1-121) begins with a group of issues closely interlinked through shared obverse dies. The issues of Philip II of the sequence attributed by Lc Rider to 'Amphipolis' end with a group similarly interlinked and including the same distinctive symbols: prow, stern, ja,,~r(mn vase , and rudder. These arc in two parallel sequences, with and without an additional bu symbol, and form the total silver coinage of , Amp hi polis' Period liB. Lc Rider believed that the coinage of this Period continued after Philip's death until 329/8 Be, but it can be shown! that for neither the gold nor the silver issues is this particular date by any means secure. Indeed it seems far more probable that the interlinked issues of' Amphipolis' Period liB are the final issues of Philip's reign and that they were continued at once by the reformed coinage of Alexander that bears the very same symbols. The expedition that Philip had planned to free the Greeks of Asia Minor was already under way, and the debts that Philip had incurred were no doubt connected with this. The frantic coinage of' Amphipolis' Period lIB surely represents an intensive minting in preparation for the expedition. Alexander continued the minting arrangements of his father for the reformed coinage struck in anticipation of the planned invasion of Persian territory. and, prior to that, of his expeditions in Thrace and against Thebes. This mint in due course became Alexander's main mint in Macedonia.

In normal circumstances it might be assumed that Alexander's main mint was at his administrative capital, Pella. Newell, however, reviewed this assumption and concluded" that 'the numerous later coinages of the same mint appear to prove conclusively' that the mint was located at Amphipolis and not at Pella. The specific reasons were never laid out, but it is possible to reconstruct why Newell was so positive in his attribution. He placed as no. 1582 in the publication of the Demaahur hoard the variety here numbered .25. This became his 'Amphipolis' group K and was placed immediately after group J, the n group (here numbered 122-7). In fact, as Newell recognised, group K consists of several varieties, all signed with the Greek letter A (.21-6) which links them with the subsequent groups of A with bu(ranium (.29-33) and A with torch (.38-97). It is this last long issue, produced at the main mint employed for the silver coinage of Cas sander, that identifies the mint of Amphipolis. The prominent torch symbol, which lasts over .. great number of issues , can hardly be the symbol of a single individual and is almost universally accepted as being the racing torch that is the badge' of Amphipolis on all that city's fourth century Be issues. It would appear, therefore, that Newell understood the sequence at Alexander's main mint as: group J, group K, A with butranium, A with torch; and so the attribution appeared secure. The bucranium, a possible reference to Artemis Tauropolos, the great goddess of Amphipolis. is equally appropriate as a city symbol.

It is, however, necessary to point out that there has been omitted from this sequence the important group with f01 (128-.1). These very common varieties were absent from the Demanhur and Thessaly (1971) hoards and yet the monogram is clearly related to the n of 122-7. The sharing of the symbols dub with .tillets (127, 128), (om-tar (122, 131), crescent (123, 132). and la"rel-brat,,11 (124, 140) between the J01 monogram group and the n group proves that the fOl monogram group must follow upon the Il issues. Variety 12. (Il with laI4rel-branch) is in turn die-linked to 117 on whieh the laurel-brand: symbol appears by itself. Variety It7A (crescent) in (he Meydanclkkale hoard is also die-linked to 124. The die-links prove that the Il group followed directly upon the group with symbols alone. The significance of all this evidence is (hat (he royal title was dropped towards (he end of the Il group and continued to be omitted

3. M. J. Pnce, 'Alexander's re-form of the- Macedonian regal coinage'. Nr. 1982. 180-90, pl. xlvi-xlvii, at 186-9; and above. 38.

4. Newell, Dmranllllr. 67; cf. Bellinger, !isSilYS, 44. note 37.

during the [OJ monogram group, while it is present on all varieties of the A group (421-8) and absent again from the A with butranium (429-33) and A with torch {4038-97) groups. The assumption that the royal tide once dropped from the design should not reappear briefly IS in agreement with the evidence of the Demanhur and Thessaly (1971) hoards, and the logical conclusion must be that there were two parallel sequences and not the one sequence which Newell may have supposed:

122-4 n group (Newell group J). with title 421-8 A group (Newell group K), with title

126-7 n group (Newell group J), without title .29-33 A with butranium, without title

128-41 101 monogram, without ride 438-97 A with torch, without title

Varieties 122-41 are the dear successors of the main Macedonian mint. and so the attribution to Amphipolis begins to look a great deal less certain. As ifundcrlining that there was no continuity from the main mint of Alexander's lifetime, the royal title on 421-8 begins at the bottom left of the design in a manner that cannot be paralJeled in any of the earlier issues.

The tetradrachms with the types of Philip II arc equally important in helping to solve the sequence during and after the reign of Philip III. ~ It is virtually certain that all the varieties ofLe Rider's Period III arc to be dated after 323 Be. Die-links establish a sequence between a group with monogram ~ as the dominant mark (Le Rider, pl. xliv.1-2),fo a group with monogram PJor N(Le Rider, pl. xliv.5-11). a group with ka'isia symbol (Lc Rider, pl. xliv.29-33), and a group with wreath symbol (Lc Rider, pI. xliv.22-8). The last group includes amongst the subsidiary marks the letter A and the monogram t, found in the later group in which A becomes the dominant mark (Lc Rider, pl. xlv. 5-16). This, in turn, is clearly parallel to the Alcxanders 421-8 (Newell group K). The Philip issues also contain the A with bucranium and A with torch groups also to be found a mong the Alcxanders. Le Rider placed the I\. group before the wreath group. There is, however. a die-link between fifths of the wreath group and those of the itausia group. This observation is supported by the fact that all five subsidiary letters of the kausia group;lre also found in the wrl'ath group, while none occur in the A group. Le Rider also attributes the nand 101 monogram groups to this mint, placing [hem before the A with bucranium group; but neither style nor the method of marking the issues supports this. The preferred sequence in the Philip coinage is:

f¥t without parallel Alcxanders

.AJ or N without parallel Alexanders

kausia without parallel Alexanders

wreath without parallel Alcxanders

A with parallel Alexanders

A with bllcranium with parallel Alexanders A with torch with parallel Alexanders

The nand rol monogram groups of this coinage of Philip III, as in the Alexanders, form a quite separate sequence, and provide the continuation of the issues of Alexander's main mint, presumably at Pella. They appear to have no immediate successors. The Amphipolis mint, later identified by the torch symbol, appears to have begun to strike Philip coinage only c. 323-320 Be and did not become the main Macedonian mint until the reign of Cassander.

5. Le Rider, Philippt IT, lists the main varieties at 120-4. The- e-xistence of a posthumous issue- with 1\., f01- e.g. PaeoDi. hoard. Setheby (10 Apr 1969). pI. ii.60 - may have suggested to Newell a connection between the rol group and the A group. but the single variety is not sufficient evidence to outweigh other arguments; cf the Uranopolis st.r on cont symbol below. 139. note 3. Le Rider (PI,ilippt Il, 397 note 5) and Margaret Thompson (Drachm Mira's I. 88 note 90) would place the A group before the n group. In the face of the hoard evidence this solution does not seem convmcmg. 6. The same monogram appears at the main Macedonian mint on issue 118. Shared obverse dies linle this variety to issues 120 and 121. The monogram is too com mon to demand that 118 be placed with the group of the Philips. In

March 1990 Heidi Troxell discovered an obverse die link between a Philip issue wnh~, A and another of the n group as 122. While this establishes the relative sequence of these: particular issues. the A issue: bemg the earlier. I find the relative sequences outlined here to be convincing. and suggC'S-t that the die was transferred from one mint to another.

Newell distinguished a second Macedonian mint in the Alcxandcrs, which he naturally placed at the capital, Pella, (here, 201-32). This has been the subject of study by Nancy Moore." whose die-sequence shows that the issues arc fairly small and that several varieties arc die-linked. There are four main groups, here 201-19, 220-36, 237-45, and 246-65. To the group 220-36 belongs the single issue from Macedonia in the name of Philip III (P1). There are also posthumous issues of the coinage of Philip II (Le Rider Period Ill) which exactly parallel varieties in all four groups. The exceptional obverse head facing to left that distinguishes the issues 204, 213, 213A, and 215 occu rs, too, on the posthumous Philips which parallel the first three of these varieties. It is very probable, therefore. that almost all the issues attributed to this mint arc of the time of Philip III and later. Thus we have a third mint, functioning at the time of Alexander's death or a little thereafter, the issues of which arc parallel to, and not part of, the two main sequences outlined above.

Moore precedes these 'Pella' issues with the group oflifetime Alcxandcrs transferred to Macedonia by Troxell," here called Aegeae(?) (185-200). This is an attractive possibility, but the stylistic link is not so dose as to prove the connection. Some varieties of 'Pella', such as 201-12, arc possibly of Alexander's lifetime, and it seems preferable to retain separate sequences until such a time as the full die-study of all the relevant coinages has been completed.

A further main coinage of Alexander's lifetime from this area is of gold (163 ff.). The 'Aegeae' and 'Pella' mints produce issues in this metal. including distaters, chat arc similar to varieties in silver. but the main gold sequence docs not easily relate to any of those in silver. It has been suggested above that a mint might even have travelled with Alexander. v but it is more likely that in the Macedonian region the gold is a separate sequence that may have [0 be attributed to a different city.

A further issue which presents a separate sequence during Alexander's lifetime is the 'eagle' coinage.

Several of the fractions fit well with issues of the main mint sequence with parallel symbols, but the staters 142-3, together with a small group of fractions and the bronze, form a separate group. It has recently been suggested 10 that 153 should be attributed to the mint of Miletus, since there is a close stylistic relationship, if not an actual die-link. with 2088. but the remainder of the group 144-62 must remain firmly in Macedonia. It is preferable to view this isolated link between Macedonia and Miletus as the result of a member of the mint personnel travelling to Asia Minor to prepare the imperial coinage of the newly opened Alexander mint.

To summarise. there arc at least two mint sequences amongst Alexander's lifetime issues - those given to · Arnphipolis' and to Aegcae(?) - with the possibility of a third devoted to the striking of gold. One of these may also have struck the 'eagle' staters 142-3. There appear to be three mints operating at the end of the reign of Philip II, and three at the beginning of the reign of Philip III. Amphipolis may be identified for the I\. with I"r(h series of Cas sander . 11 The two preceding I\. groups take back the history of the mint to the time of Philip 111. but it is by no means certain that any of the groups of lifetime Alexanders should be attributed to Amphipolis. On present evidence it seems that the main Macedonian mint was not at Arnphipolis, bur it is less muddling to retain here the accepted names, with the proviso that historians should be aware that the attributions of lifetime issues arc purely tentative.

A glance at the history of Macedon ian coinage in the early fourth century Be will show that the choice of AmphipoJis as a major mint for the coinage of Philip II and the main mint of Alexander is a little surprising. The autonomous coinage of the city before its capture by Philip is meagre. particularly in comparison with Acanthus where regular coin issues bear witness to major mine workings prior to the

destruction of the Chalcidian League. In addition, there IS the city of Philippi, founded by Philip in the mining region itself. where the dramatic coinage struck at the foundation of the city appears to have no successor. These with Acgeac and Pella would all seem to have a prior claim over Amphipolis to a mint around 336 Be.

Macedonia (' Amphipolis')

- ----------



Title Variety

Muller Other references

336-c. 323 Be


cu» pro \v r.

Demanhur 1-4; Newell, 'Rcattribution' 1

A1(Ciea" 3507; SN(; Cop 692



obv, Herakles/eaglc r .. head reverted. on thunderbolt: <Rr:> prow r.

obi!. Hcrakles/2 eagles on thunderbolt: <ar> prow r.

obll. Hcraklcs/thundcrbolt: <below r. > prow r. !

<rs> prow I.






Private collection (19M9)




Demanhur 5-55: Hersh: SNG Cop 658

Demanhur 56-90; SNG Cop 659; Newell .: Rcartribution' 5

Demanhur 91-131; Hersh; SNG Cop 660: Newell. 'Rcattribution' 3



<LF> stern r.




<u» janiforrn-head vase


- -- - ---- ---- ----
No. Weight Axis Provenance Other references Notes
.--.- ---- --- -
4a 17.12 If Gulbenkian (I (29) Oemanbur
bO 16.84 .r Newell (1913) Oemaabur
CO 17.14 \. NC'\ v cll ~1913} Oemanhur
dO 17.13 " Newell (1912) Oemanhur
eO 17.18 If Newell (1913) DemaDhur
f 17.12 It" Newell (1912) Demanhur
gO 17.12 " Louisides (1907)
h 1S.12H '\ not recorded (before: Gardner. ·rypt.~,
1825) pl. xii. 1 and 15
17.12 Davidson (1881) Kuft ob«. 2 punch rna rks.'
rev. scrape marks
h· 17.09 '\ Gulbcnkian (1929) Oemaahur
CO 17.07 » Lincoln (1911)
6a 17.20 f Reynolds (1912)
bO 15.72 ,/ Ncwdl (1913) Demanhur
e 17.U \. Rollin (1()11)
tJO 16.69 /' Knight (1824) Knight. 79.{E) 56;
Muller 853 No. Den. Title Variety Muller Other references
7 dr obv. Heraklesl eagle r., head Bellinger, Essays, pl. i.19
reverted. on thunderbolt:
<RF>janifor~-head vase
8* 4dr <Lf> thunderbolt ,.if 3 Demanhur 132-50; Hersh:
SNG Cop 661; Newell,
'Reattribution' 2
9* 4dr <Lf> large thunderbolt Demanhur (132); Hersh
10* 4dr <LF> rudder Demanhur 151-8; Hersh;
Newell, 'Reattribution' 4
11* 4dr <LF> rudder ~ DemanhUI' 159-61; Newell,
'Reattribution' 4
12* 4dr <LF> cantharus 194 Demanhl1l' 254-65; Hersh;
SNG Cop 664; Newell,
'Reattribution' 7
13* 4dr <Lf) amphora 527 Demanhur 162-97; Hersh;
Newell, 'Reattribution' 6
14* 4dr <Lf> wreath 548 Demanhur 229-39; Newell,
'Reattribueion' 8
15* 1/2dr obv. HeraklesJeagle 1. on PLATECXLm
thunderbolt: <RF> wreath
16* 20b Db.,. Herakles/2 eagles on PLATECXLm
thunderbolt: <between> wreath
17 ob ob», Herakles/thunderbolt: Newell, 'Reattribution',
<RF> wreath p. 13. VIII; Babelon, Traite, pl,
cccxi.9 No. Weight Axil Provenance Other references Notes
+ Sa 17.21 \i Newell (1912) Demanhur
l bO 17.21 '\ Lincoln (1911)
c 16.95 \ Knight (1824) Knight. 8O.(E) 77;
Muller 3
9 17.15 '\ Gulbenkian (1929) Demaahur
10 17.18 \ Gulbenkian (1929) Demanhur
11. 17.10 ! Gulbenkian (1929) Demanhur
bO 17.07 '\ Gulbenkian (t 929) Demanhur
12 17.16 '\ Gulbenkian (1929) Demanhur
13. 17.17 A Burgon (1841) Muller 527
bO 16.78 \ Newell (1913) Demanhur
[ c 17.()4 1 Davidson (1881) KaCt obv. countennark:frog,
punchmark: (ross
1 •• 17.13 ~ Newell (1912) Demanhur
bO 17.20 " Gulbenkian (1929) Demanhur
c 16.82 ~ Woodhouse (1866)
15 2.06 - Baldwin (1955)
16 1.18 \. Knight (1824) ----- --_.
No. Den. Title Variety MuDer Other references
18 1f2AE obv. Heraklcs/eagle r., head Newell, 'Reattribution',
reverted, on: thunderbolt: p.13.VIIl
<LF> wreath
19* 1f4AE ob». Apollo/thunderbolt: Newell, 'Rcatrribution', p. 12-
<Rf> wreath 3. VIII; PLATE CXLIV
20* 4dr <Lf> mast (stylis) DemaDhur 240-2; Hersh; SNG
Cop 663; Newell, 'Rcattribution'
21* 4dr <LF> Attic helmet r. DemaDhur 243-6; Newell,
'Rcattribution' 9
22* 4dr <LF> Attic helmet 1. [ 191) Demanhur 243-6
23* 4dr <Lf> ivy-leaf 244 Demanhur 266-301; Hersh;
Newell. 'Reattriburion' 10
24* 2dr <u> ivy-leaf PLATECXXI
25 20b obv, Hcrakles/2 eagles on Hersh; Newell, 'Reattribution',
thunderbolt: <between> ivy-leaf pl. vii.8
2SA 20b obv: Hcraklcs/2 eagles on Private collection (1989)
thunderbolt: <RF> ivy-leaf
26* ob ob», Herakles/thunderbolt: Hersh; PLATE CXLm
<RF> ivy-lea f
27* 1f2AE obv . Herakles/eagle r .• head PLATECXLIV
reverted, on thunderbolt:
<RF> ivy-leaf
28* II2AE obv . Hcrakles/eagle r., head Hersh; PLATE CXLIV
reverted, on thunderbolt:
<above 1. > ivy-leaf - ---.--. ---------
No. Weight Axis Provenance Other references Notes
-- - -- - - ... -~---------- -_ -- --
19 1.85 Ie'" Bank of England
20 17.10 /I Gulbcnkian (1929) Demanhur
21 17.16 II' Lincoln (1907)
22 17.03 t Davidson (1881) Kurt rev: graffito: X
l3a 17.08 /' Curt (1847) Muller 244
bO 17.15 "" Newell (1912) Demanhur
c 17.19 - Newell (1913) Dernanhur
14 8.26 - Oman (1947)
26 0.66 f Cracherode (1799) Combe, 118.1;
'Reattribution', p. 13
4.10 Bank of England
28a 4.16 f Cureton (1838)
b 3.34 1 Lincoln (1911)
CO 3.29 » Rollin (1910) No. Den. Title Variety Miller Other references
29* 4dr <LF> grapes 306 Demaabur 198-228; Hersh;
SNG Cop 662; Newell,
'Reattribution' 11
30 ob obv, Herakles/thunderbolt: Newell, 'Reattribution', p. 13.XI
<Rf> grapes
31 lhAE obv . Herakles/eagle r., head Bellinger, 'Philippi', 49
reverted, on thunderbolt:
<RF> grapes
32* 4dr <u:> caduceus 207 Dem.abur 247-53; Newell.
'Rcattribution' 12
33* dr obv. Herakles/eagle r. on Newell, 'Rcattribution',
thunderbolt: <RF> caduceus ---+ p. 13.XII; PLATE CXLm
34* Ihdr obv, Herakles/eagle r. on Newell, 'Reattribution',
thunderbolt: <RF> caduceus ---+ p. 13.XII, pl. vii.6; PLATE
35* I/:ME ob«. Heraklesl eagle r., head PLATECXLIV
reverted. on thunderbolt:
<above I.> caduceus ---+
36* 4dr <LF> caduceus with fillets Dem.abur 332-9; Hersh;
Newell, 'Reatrribution' 12a
37 2dr <LF> caduceus with fillets Hersh
38* 4dr <u» quiver 591 Demaabur 302-16; Newell,
'Reattribution' 13
39 4dr <LF> corn-ear Demaabur 317-26; SNG Cop
665; Newell. 'Reattribution' 16
39A 4dr <LF> corn-ear "- ANS; Hersh
40 2dr <LF> corn-car ANS; Glendining (18 Apr 1955)
40A dr obv. Hcraklcs/caglc 1. on Athens
thunderbolt: <RF> corn-ear No. Weight Axil Provenance Other references Notes
29a 17.06 II' Newell (1913) Demaahur
bO 16.71 II' Lang (1913)
CO 17.10 ~ not recorded (before
328 17.11 II' Gulbenkian (1929) Demanhur
bO 17.17 ~ Knight (1824) Knight. 8O.(E) 75
CO 17.13 » Gulbenkian (1929) Demanhur
33 4.08 II' Montagu (1897) 123 Newell,
'Reartribution', p. 13
2.05 t Burgon (1841) Newell,
'Rcattribution', p. 13
35 3.19 ~ Lincoln (1911)
36 17.17 II' Gulbenkian (1929) Demanhur
38 17.13 II' Gulbenkian (1929) Demaahur No. OeD. Title Variety Muller Other references
41* lhdr ob". Herakles/eagle 1. on Newell, 'Reattribution', pI. vii.7;
thunderbolt: <RP> corn-ear PLATECXLID
42 20b ob". Herakles/2 eagles on ANS; Pozzi 1721
thunderbolt: <Rf> corn-ear
43* 4dr <LF> trident-head ~ Demallhur 327-31; Newell,
'Reattribution' 14
44* 4dr <LF> Pegasus-forepart r. ~ 602 Demallhur 340-60; Hersh;
SNG Cop 666; NeweJl,
'Reattribution' 15
45* 2dr <Lf> Pegasus-forepart r. ~ ANS; SNG Cop 667; PLATE
20b ob". Herakles/2 eagles on Gaebler, pI. xxxi.21
thunderbolt: <RF> Pegasus-
forepart r.
47 ob ob". Heraklesl thunderbolt: Newell, 'Reattributioo',
<RF> Pegasus-forepart r. p.13.XV
48* 4dr <Lf> bow r. 587 Demanhar 361-72; Hersh;
Newell, 'Reattribution' 17
49 2dr <LF> bow r. [588] ANS; Newell, 'Reattribution',
pl. xv.2
50* dr <LF> arrow ~ 857 Asia Minor (1964); Sill8D
PalCha 1-2; Hersh
5t* 4dr <LF> eagle-head I. Demallhur 313-94; Hersh;
Prokesch-Osten (1) 70; Newell,
'Reattribution' 18
52* dr ob», Herakles/eagle r. on Hersh; Weber 2083; PLATE
thunderbolt: <RF> eagle-head 1. CXLDI
No. Weight Axil Proveaaac:e Other refereaces Notes
41 2.06 \ Lambros (1892) Wroth, 'Greek coins
1892', 3.5, pl. t.s,
'Reattribution' ,
pl. vii.7
43 17.11 \ Rollin (1910)
44a 17.03 t Borrell (1850)
bO 17.20 \ Newell (1912) Demanhur
CO 17.22 /' Newell (1913) DemaDhur
45 8.40 ,/ Montllgu (1897) 122 Newell.
'Reattribution' ,
pI. vii .•
48a 17.17 "- Newell (1912) Demaahur
bO 17.04 ,/ George III (tnt) Miiller 587
so 4.24 ,/ Burgon (1841) MiiUer 857
51. 17.15 \, Lincoln (1907)
bO 17.03 t Rollin &. Feuardent
52 4.25 Howorth (1922) Webn 2083: Bunbury
(1896) 798 No. Den. Title Variety MUlier Other references
53 1hdr obI'. Heraklesl eagle r. on ANS
thunderbolt: <RF> eagle-head r.
54* 20b ob«. Heraklesl2 eagles on SNG B~rry 197; PLATE CXLID
thunderbolt: <RF) eagle-head r.
S5 ob ob". Herakles/thunderbolt: Hersh
<below> eagle-head r.
56 1/4AE obI'. Apollo/thunderbolt: ANS; Pozzi 1723
<below> eagle-head r.
57* 4dr <LF> round shield 223 Demanhur 395-421; Hersh;
SNG Cop 668-99; Newell,
'Reattribution' 21
58* 4dr <Lp) club ~ [135] Demanhur 422-5; Newell.
'Reateribueion' 22
59* 4dr <LF> horse-head 1. 528 Demanhur 490-500; Hersh;
SNG Cop 671; Newell,
'Reattribution' 24
60* dr obI'. Herakles/eagle r. on Hersh; SNG Cop 694; Newell,
thunderbolt: <RF> horse-head 'Reattriburion', pl. vii.2; PLATE
r. -+ CXLm
6t* 4dr <Lf> star [154] Demaahur 501-8; Hersh;
Newell. 'Reattribution' 23
62 2dr <LF> star ANS
63 V:zdr obv, Heraklesl eagle I. on Athens; Hersh
thunderbolt: <Rf> star
lob obv, Herakles/2 eagles on Paris
thunderbolt: <RF> star
65 4dr <LF> M, caduceus Demanhur 426
66* 4dr <Lf> caduceus +--, .!i:l Demaahur 472-80; Hersh;
Newell. 'Reattribution' 20.
pl. ivA No. Weight Axis PrOVeD8DCe Other references Notes
54 1.35H ! Millingen (1840)
57. 16.88 "- Newell (1913) Demanhur
bO 17.16 f Whittall (1858)
CO 16.99 ~ Newell (1913) Demaahur
[:. 17.14 ~ Newell (1912) Demanhur
17.21 ~ Rollin (1911)
bO 17.17 ! Gulbenkian (1929) Demanhur
60 3.99 '\ Spink (1922) Wtbtr2085
61. 17.13 It:'" Gulbenkian (1929) DemaDbur
bO 17.18 _..JI Gulbenkian (1929) Demanhur
66a 17.16 '\ Gulbenkian (1929) Demaahur
bO 17.15 ,/ Gulbenkian (1929) Demaabur
CO 16.57 "'- Newell (1913) Demaahur
dO 17.06 ~ Gulbcnkian (1929) Demanhur No. DeD. Tide Variety Muller Other references
67* 4dr <LF> caduceus +-, A. D.maahUl' 481-9; SNG Cop
670; Newell, 'Reattribution' 20.
pl. iv.8
68 2dr <LF> caduceus +-, .A. ANS; Prokesch-Osten (1) 278;
Newell. 'Reattribution', pI. xv.4
69 dr ob.,. Herakles/ eagle r. on Newell. 'Reattribution', pl, vii.3
thunderbolt: <Lf> e;
<Rf> caduceus .-.
70* 4dr <Lf> club ~. ~ D.manhul' 427-54; Hersh;
Newell. 'Reattribution' 19,
pl. iv.3
71* 4dr <uo club=-e, .A. 138 DemanhUl' 455-71; Newell,
'Reattribution' 19, pl. iv.2
72 2dr <Lf> club .-., ~ Newell, 'Reattribution', pI. xv.3
73* 4dr <LF> dolphin 1. 539 DemanhUl' 509- 13; Hersh;
Newell. 'Reattribution' 25
74 dr obv. Herakles/ eagle r. on ANS; Pozzi 1719
thunderbolt: <RF> dolphin r.
75* 4dr <LF> aplustre r. 281 DemanhUl' 514-9; Hersh;
Newell, 'Reateribution I 26
76* 4dr <LF> rose 116 DemanhUl' 520; SNG Cop 672;
Newell. 'Rcattribution' 27
77 dr ob», Herakles/eagle r. on ANS
thunderbolt: <Ilf> rose No. Weight Axis ProveDaDC:e Other refereDces Notes
--- .--
67. 17.04 '\ Louisides (1910)
bO 16.83 » Ready (1910)
70a 17.11 \, Newell (1913) Demanhur
bO 17.12 ! Newell (1913) Demaahur
CO 17.11 /' Newell (1913) Demaahur
dO 17.18 ~ Newell (1913) Demaahur
eO 17.14 t Louisides (1910)
71. 17.14 t Gu1benkian (1929) Demanbur
bO 17.06 /' Newe11 (1913) Demaahur
CO 17.03 ,/ Chester (1885)
738 17.11 » Louisides (1910)
b· 17.19 l Gu1benkian (1929) Demaahur
[ ':0 17.14 ,/ Gu1benkian (1929) Demaabur
17.06 » Gu1bcnkian (1929) Demanbur
c· 16.55 '\ Newell (1913) Demaabur
76 17.02 , Davidson (1881) Kaft rev, punch mark: T No. Den. Title Variety Mii1ler Other references
78* 4dr <LF> herm 1. Demanhur 716-91; Hersh;
SNG Cop 676; Newell,
'Reattribution' 30
78A 2dr <LF> herm 1. Mtinzen und Mcdaillen (17 Jun
1954) 1106
79* 4dr <LF> cock 1. 392 Demanhur 792-894; Hersh;
SNG Cop 677; Newell,
'Rcattribution' 28
80 2dr <LF> cock I. Hersh; Prokesch-Osten (1) 277
81 dr <LF> cock 1. Cavalla (1951) 16
82 Il2dr obv, Herakles/eagle r. on ANS
thunderbolt: <RF> cock-head r.
83* 4dr <LF> ~ 181 Demanhur 536-78; Hersh;
SNG Cop 673; Newell.
'Reartribution' 31
84* 4dr <LF} j Demanhur 529-35; Newell,
'Reattribution' 31
85 dr obv. Herakles/cagle r., head ANS; Newell, 'Reattriburion',
reverted, on club -+: <RF>:r pJ. vii.4
86 Ihdr obv. Heraklesl eagle I. on ANS
thunderbolt: <RF> "E
87* 4dr <LF> pentagram 378 Demanhur 521-8; Hersh;
Newell, 'Reattribution' 34
87A dr obv. Heraklesl eagle r. on Leningrad
thunderbolt: <RF> pentagram
No. \Veight Axis ProveDaDce Otbel' refel'eDCeS Notes
78a 17.16 r Reynolds (1912)
bO 17.16 J Sambon (1869)
CO 17.12 r Newell (1913) Dernanhur
dO 17.13 II' Ready (1910)
eO 17.06 "- Newell (1913) Demaahur ~bv. punchmark:
r 17.14 /' Gulbenkian (1929) Demanhur
79a 16.92 II' Ready (1910) '(OJ'. graffito: X
b 17.12 » Knight (1824) Knight, 79. (E) 27
CO 16.97 » Scott (1928)
8380 17.14 » Curt (1857)
bO 17.15 ! Reynolds (1912)
CO 17.12 '\ Newell (1912) Demaahur
dO 17.07 II' Rollin (1911)
e 17.13 f Knight (1924) Knight, 79.(E) 28
twa 17.09 of- Ro1lin (1911)
bO 17.17 '\ Newell (1912) Demanbur
tria 17.03 II' Gulbenkian (1929) Demanhur
bO 17.13 \ Gulbenkian (1929) Demanhur No. Den. Tide Variety Mill.r Other references
88 1f2dr obll. Herakles/eagle r. on Newell, 'Reattribution t ,
thunderbolt: <Rf> pentagram pI. 14.XXXIV
89* 4dr <u> crescent 259 Demanbur 579-613; Hersh;
SNG Cop 674; Newell,
'Reattribution' 29
90 V2dr obv, Herakles/eagle r. on Hersh; Newell, 'Reattribution',
thunderbolt: <EX> crescent p. 14
91* IhAE obv, Herakles/eagle r., head PLATECXLIV
reverted, on thunderbolt:
<above I.> crescent
92 IhAE obv . Herakles/eaglc r., head Newell. 'Reattribution', p. 14
reverted, on thunderbolt:
<RF> crescent
93* 4dr <u> bucranium 97 Demanbur 656-715; Hersh;
SNG Cop 675; Newell.
'Reattribution' 33
2dr <Lf) bucranium ANS; Numismatica Ars Classica
(29 Mar t 989) 144
94A dr <LF> bucranium Hersh; Gorny (3 Apr 1989) 44
95* dr obv, Herakles/eagle r. on Newell, 'Reattribution', pI. vii.S;
thunderbolt: <Rf> bucranium PLATECXLm No. Weight Axis ProveD8Dce Other refereDCft Notes
--- ~-
89a 17.13 II' Robinson (1936) rev, Aramaic graffito:
..... .,.. ?fcit
bO 17.15 » Curt (1847)
eO 17.20 f not recorded
dO 17.12 /' Rollin (1911)
e 16.61 )" Rollin (1911)
CO 17.14 ~ Gulbenkian (1929) Demaabur
91. 3.08 t Subhi (1878) rev, <inner I. > crescent
b 4.35 Knight (1824) Knight, 7S.(B) 1 rev, <outer l. > crescent
CO 3.82 If' Lincoln (1911)
dO 3.86 f Spink (1914)
93. 17.15 " Whittall (1858) Head, Coins oj 'ht
Ancients, pI. xxx.S
bO 17.13 It'" Curt (1847)
c 16.97 » Chester (1880) Kaft ob". countermark: Iyre/
relf. graffito: f
dO 17.13 '\ Louisides (1907)
e 16.09 " Spink (1968) Larissa (1968) 2 ob". countermark: prow
r.; <above> flY;
<below> r'1
9S 4.13 Mavrogordato (1949) No. Den. Title Variety Milller Other references
96* dr obv. Herakles/ eagle r., head ANS; PLATECXLDI
reverted, on thunderbolt:
<Rf> bucranium ~
lhdr obv. Herakles/ eagle r. on Hague; Hersh
thunderbolt: <RF> bucranium
98* 20b obv. Herakles/2 eagles on PLATECXLm
thunderbolt: <RF> bucranium
99* 4dr <LP) caduceus 207 Demanhur 614-55; Hersh;
Prokesch-Osten (1) 67; Newell,
'Reattribution' 32
100 dr <LF) caduceus ANS
101 dr obv. Herakles/eagle r., head Hess/Leu (12 Apr 1962) 186
reverted, on thunderbolt:
<RF) caduceus ~
102* 4dr <LF> scallop-shell 385 Munich; Newell. 'Reattribution'
103* 4dr <LF> star in circle 153 Demanhur 895-908; Hersh;
Newell, 'Reattribution' 36
c. 323-c. 320 Be
104* 4dr <LF> cornucopia 368 Demanhur 909-66; SNG Cop
678; Newell. 'Reattribution' 37 No. Weight Axis Proveaanc:e Other refereac:es Notes
96 4.14 » Ritsos (1913)
98 1.34 » Bank of England Newell.
(1865) 'Reattribueion', p. 14
99 17.10 '\ Rollin (1911)
102 17.14 ,/ Curt (1847) Muller 385
lOla 17.21 t Gulbenkian (1929) Demaahar
bO 17.07 t Davidson (1881) Kurt rev, punchmark: cross
CO 17.03 » Newell (1912) Demaahar
UNa 16.98 ~ Chester (1880) Kaft Dbv. punchmark: circltl
rev, countermark: star.
punch mark: aesan:
bO 17.14 -+ Newell (1913) Demaahur
CO 17.17 '\ Curt (1847)
dO 17.15 '\ Newell (1913) Demaahar
eO 17.19 , Rollin (1911)
f 17.17 ,/ Gulbenkian (1929) DemaDhur No. Den. Title Variety Mullel' Other refel'ences
t05* 4dr <u> Athena Promachos r. 649 Demanhur 967-1013; Hersh;
SNG C"p 679-80; Newell,
'Reattribution' 38
106* 4dr <LF> bow + quiver 591 Demanhur 1014-42; Hersh:
Newell, 'Reattribution' 39
t07 2dr <LF) bow + quiver 593 Newell, 'Rearrribueion', pl. xv.l
108* 4dr (B) <Lf> cornucopia 369 Demanhur 1043-99; Hersh;
SNG Cop 681; Newell,
'Reatrribution' 37a
109* 4dr (B) <Lf> Athena Prornachos r. 650 Demanhur 1100-67; Hersh;
Newell, 'Reattribution' 38a No. Weight Axis Proveaance Other references Notes
-- ~--
lOS. 17.17 l Curt (1847) rev, graffito: X
bD 17.14 "- Sotheby (31 Jan 1853)
CO 17.07 tI' Newell (1912) Demaahur
dD 17.14 '\ Newell (1913) Demanhur rtV. graffito: X
e 16.78 l Odling (t 907) ob". countermark:
CO 17.05 ...... Knight (1824) Knight, 78.(E) 11
106a 16.91 '\a Knight (1824) Knight, 8O.(E) 72;
Muller 591
bD 17.12 .... Newell (1913) Demanhur
CO 17.10 t Newell (1912) Demanhur
d 17.16 It' Newell (1913) Demaahur
eO 16.73 It' Newell (1913) Demanhur
loa. 17.10 » Montagu (1897) 128
bD 16.95 ~ Knight (1824) Knight, 81.(E) 102
e 17.13 f Curt (1857)
1098 17.17 ! Oman (1947)
bD 16.92 "- Woodhouse (1866)
e 17.13 t Gulbenkian (1929) DemaDhur
dD 17.16 '\ Mavrogordato (1949)
e 16.99 It' Chester (1880) Kart obv. countermark: eagle
1.; <above> 1'i1;
punchmark: cross/rev.
graffito: X
CO 17.00H t George III (1825)
.0 16.92 t Ready (1910) BUHbury (1896) 761
lao 17.20 It' Spink (1913) No. Den. Title Variety Muller Other references
ItO* 4dr (B) <LP> bow + quiver 592 Demanhur tt68-1209; Newell,
'Reattribution' 39a
ItOA 4dr (B) <LF> dolphin I. -. Newell, 'Reattribution' 40
111* 4dr (B) <LF> antler Demanhur 1210-50; Hersh;
Newell. 'Reattribution' 41
112* 4dr (B) <LF> Phrygian helmet r. 854 Demanhur 1344-1455; Hersh;
SNG Cop 683-4; Newell,
'Reattribution' 43
113* 4dr (B) <LF> Macedonian helmet 224 Demanhur 1251-1343; Hersh;
SNG Cop 682; Newell,
'Reattribution' 42 No. Weight Axil Provenaaee Othel' refel'eaces Notes
110. 17.13 f Montag" (1897) 132
bO 17.21 II' Lincoln (1911)
c 16.93 ~ N~well (1913) Demaahur rev. BAl:IAQI (sic)
111. 17.19 ~ Lambros (1893)
b 17.08 '). Davidson (1881) Kaft obv. countermark: frog/
rev. punchmark:
CO 17.16 ,. Cust (before 1825)
dO 17.09 '\ Chester (1879) Kurt obv. countermark:
otnoch~ 6
punch marks: cross/rev.
2 punchmarks: cross
eO 17.05 II' Reynolds (1912)
[ tt~ 17.18 » Spink (1921)
17.19 '\ Reynolds (1912) obv. countermark: bet
bO 17.19 +- Clark (1964)
CO 17.09 ! Montag" (1897) 1.30
dO 16.96 » Feuardent (1874)
eO 17.26 -+ Newell (1913) DemaDbur
CO 17.13 ...... Newell (1913) Demaabur
gO 17.22 ,. Gulbenkian (1929) Demaabur
[ 113.0 15.43 \, Clark (1964)
bO 17.22 \, NA-CF (1987); ex
CO 17.20 ! Newell (1912) Demaahur
dO 17.28 ! Newell (1913) DemaDhur
eO 16.97 '\ not recorded
CO 17.19 t Gulbcnkian (1929) Demaahur
gO 17.18 II' Newell (1913) Demanhur
hO 17.22 ! Clark (1964)
. 17.20 II' Reynolds (1912)
1 No. Den. Title Variety MiiUer Other refereaces
11 .. • 4dr (B) <Lf> trident-head l Demanhar 1456-7; Hersh;
Newell, 'Reattribution' 44
115* 4dr (B) <LF> tripod 146 Demaahar 1458-70; Hersh;
Newell. 'Reattribution' 45
116* 4dr (B) <Lf> corn-ear 567 Demauhur 1538-40
117 4dr (B) <Lf> laurel-branch 559 Demaahur 1563; Newell,
'Reattribution' 49
tt7A 4dr (B) <LF> crescent Meydaaakkale 90 [ob .... = 124]
118* 4dr (B) <LF> PI1 862 Demauhur 1471-87; SNG Cop
685; Newell, 'Reattribution' 46
119· 4dr (B) <LF> M [1684] Demaahur (1471]
120* 4dr (B) <LF> L.JJ 863 Demaahur 1488-1511; Hersh;
Newell. 'Reattribution' 47
121* 4dr (B) <LF> I 860 Demaahur 1512-37; Hersh;
SNG Cop 686; Newell.
'Reattribution' 48
c. 320-c. 317 Be
122* 4dr (B) <LF> corn-ear; <TH> n 570 Demaahur 1541-50;
Vrastama; Hersh; Newell.
'Reattribution' SOa
t No. Weicht Axil ProveDaDce Other references Notes
11_ 17.11 \, Bourgc:y (1911)
bO 17.18 ! Gulbenkian (1929) DemaDbar
uSa 16.92 ,/ Mostras (1852)
bO 17.07 ~ Lincoln (1907)
CO 17.06 -I Reynolds (1912)
116 17.17 \, not recorded (before Muller 567
118 17.03 -+ Borrell (1832)
119 17.19 ~ Louisides (1909)
tZOa° 16.43 , Reynolds (1912)
bO 16.81 » Chester (1876) Kurt obll. countermark: beel
rev. graffito: X
CO 16.50 -+ Chester (1883)
.r 17.17 t Borrell (1832)
[ Uta
17.07 » Subhi (1878)
bO 17.17 , Oman (1947)
CO 17.21 ,/ Spink (1913)
.r 16.88 ,/ not recorded
eO 17.18 ..... Gulbenkian (1929) Demanbur
122a 17.07 , Chester (1876) Kurt ob". countermark:
amphora; punchmark:
crescent. graffito: XIX
bO 17.18 Knight (1824) Knight. 81.(E) 105;
Muller 572 No. DeD. Title Variety Muller Other refereDces
123* 4dr (B) <LF> crescent; <TH> n 261 Demaohur 1551-62; Ak~kale
25; Newell, 'Reateribution' 51a
124* 4dr (8) <Lf> laurel-branch; <TH> n 560 Demanbur 1564-81; Ak9lkale
26; MeydaDakkale 93-5;
Hersh; Newell, 'Reattribution'
49a [obv. = 117A]
125 4dr <LF> wreath; <TH> n [549] Newell, 'Reattribution', p. 20.
126* 4dr <Lf> oak(?)-branch; <TH> n
127* 4dr <LF> club with fillets; <TH> n
128 4dr <Lf> club with fillets; <TH> 101 142 ANS; Erhardt, 'Amphipolis' 8;
129* 4dr <LF> aplustre r.; <TH> (Ol 280 Hersh; SNG Cop 689; Ehrhardt,
'Amphipolis' 13; Newell,
'Reattribution', pI. xiii. 11
130* 4dr <LF> corn-ear; <TH> (Ol 571 Hersh; Ehrhardt, 'Amphipolis'
14; Newell. 'Reattriburion',
pl. xiii.S
131* 4dr <Lf> crescent ....-; <TH> fOl 260 Vrastama; Ehrhardt,
'Amphipolis' 7; Newell,
'Reattribution', pI. xiii. 6
132* 4dr <IF> wreath; <TH> fOl 549 Hersh; Ehrhardt, 'Amphipolis'
12; Newell. 'Reareribution',
pl. xiii.7 No. Weight Axis PrOVeDaace Other refereaces Notes
123& 16.80 '\ Dodd (1910)
bO 17.17 \& Montag" (1897) 128
[ 1248 16.98 -+ Burgon (1841)
bO 15.56C ! NA-CF (1987);
ex Lewis
CO 17.15 '\ Rollin (1911)
126 17.15 ..... Rollin (1911)
127 17. J4 » Rollin & Feuardent
129a 17.11 i Knight (1824) Knight. 80. (E) 74
bO 16.95 » Lincoln (1911)
CO 16.80 » Lincoln (1911)
130 17.18 '\ Bunhury (1896) 760
131a 17.11 '\ not recorded (before No. Den. Title Variety Muller Other references
133* 4dr <Lf> dolphin r. -.; <TH> JOl 542 Hersh; SNG Cop 688; Ehrhardt,
'Amphipolis' 15; Newell.
'Reattribunon', pI. xiii.8
134 4dr <is> dolphin r. (539) Ehrhardt. 'Amphipolis' 16
135 4dr <LF> wing; <TH> fOl 757 Hersh
136* 4dr <Lf> shield (side view); <TH> 101 558 Vrastama; Hersh; Ehrhardt,
'Amphipolis' 9; Newell.
'Reattribution', pl. xiii.1t
137 4dr <LF> cowrie-shell t; <TH> ro1 Cancio; Num eire Apr 1990.
138 4dr <Lf> thunderbolt; <TH> rol Ehrhardt. • Amphipolis' 10
139 4dr <LF> axe r.; <TH> 101 575 Hersh; Ehrhardt, 'Amphipolis'
11; Newell. 'Reattribution',
pl. xiii.9
140 4dr <LF> laurel-branch; <TH> 101 561 Aleppo (1893); Ehrhardt,
'Amphipolis' 6
141 dr <LF> fOl Sinan Pascha 3; Hersh t No. Weight Axis ProvenaDce Other references Notes
133 16.72 It" not recorded
1368 17.13 '"'- Davidson (1881) KuCt rev. eountermark:
amphora; graffito: X
bO 17.06 .I' Ro1lin (1911) 'Amphipolis'

Tbe 'agle'

The group of issues 142-62 does not fit into the sequence of the main Macedonian mint where other eagle fractions have been placed. and the varieties are gathered here for convenience. It is not known whether all belong to the same mint. Varieties 1"2-3 were believed by Pegan! to be an early issue by Alexander before the reform of the coinage using the local weight standards ofPhilip II. For reasons outlined above (p. 27-8), it is not possible to fit them between the end of the coinage of Philip and the beginning of Alexanders at the main Macedonian mint, so that 142-3 may confidently be placed at a separate mint. One possibility is that they belong to Aegeae. where the eagle with head turned back is found on the earlier coinage of Amyntas ((( and Perdiccas 111.2 Another possibility is that they form a group preceding the 'Pella' group 201-265. In favour of this is the similarity of the monograms of 153 and 210.

The obverse style. and possibly even a die, of 153, as well as the same monogram, are to be found at Miletus c. 325 BC.3 The obvious deduction that 153 might in fact be an issue of Miletus must be viewed in

1. E. M. Pegan, 'Die friihsten Tetradrachmen Alexanders des Gr08en mit dem Adler. ihre Herkunft und Entstehungszeit',JNG 18 (1968).99-111. pI. x-xii; cf. Le Rider, Philippe 1/,393-4.

2. Gaebler, pI. xxx.1 & 17.

3. Thompson, Drdchm Mi",s 1, 50. H. A. Troxell is preparing a study of the small denominations from the main Macedonian mint. I am most grateful to her for sharing with me her preliminary conclusions. which will require some alteration of the sequence of Newell followed here.

the context of the whole of the coinage. Drachmae of Alexander's imperial types were being minted at Sardes, Lampsacus, and Abydus well before the issues at Miletus, and it is difficult to believe that an issue of''eagle' drachmae was briefly made there. It seems much more probable that skilled mint personnel were moved from Macedonia to Miletus at a time when an exceptionally large coinage was required in a city which did not previously contain an Alexander mint.

The issues of drachmae of imperial types in Macedonia itself are rare (50, 81,100,141), and all postdate the introduction of imperial drachmae at Sardes, Lampsacus, and Abydus. There was clearly a conscious policy to use the local eagle types for the denominations smaller than the didrachm, in order to provide a purely local coinage. The 'eagle' type has no place at Miletus.

The chronology of these issues is uncertain, but a:s at the main Macedonian mint there is no reason to suppose [hat they continued after Alexander's death. Indeed, they may have ceased a little earlier.

-.~- --
No. Den. Title Variety Muller Other references
- ------- - .------- -.----- - - -_._--- --_. ---
142* st obv. Zeus! eagle r., head PLATECXLm
reverted. on thunderbolt: <u»
olive-sprig; <RF> sarrapal cap -t>
143 st obv. Zeus/eagle r., head Paris
reverted, on thunderbolt: <LF>
club: <RF> satrapal cap -t>
144 dr "bv_ Heraklcs/cagle r .• head Glendining (20 Nov 1975) 879
reverted, on caduceus -t>: no
145* dr obv_ Herakles/eagle r., head SNG Cop 693; PLATE CXLm
reverted. on club <E-: no symbol
146 Ihdr obv. Herakles/eaglc r. on club: Hague; Newell, 'Reattribution',
no symbol p. 13.[1- VII
147 20b obi'. Herakles/2 eagles 011 club PrOWf 749
-: no symbol
148 dr obv. Herakles/eagle r., head Weber 2084; Gaebler, pl. xxxi. 19
reverted, on rhyrsus -t>: no
149 'hdr obi}. Herakles/eagle r. on Gaebler, pI. xxxi.20
thyrsus(?): no symbol
150 V2dr obv_ Herakles/cagle r. on Hersh; Paris
thunderbolt: no symbol
151 dr obv. Herakles/eagle r .• head Pozzi 1718
reverted, on torch ---+-: no symbol ---- ------------------------

- - ---- --------





Other references


- --._------------------------------



Montag" (1897) 120

Babelon, Traitf 2,

pI. cccxi. 18: Gacblcr, pI. xxxi, IS: Head, Principal coim2 IV. B.3; Pegan, pl. x.2

Wroth. 'Greek coins 1890', 6.8; Head, 'Graeco-Bactrian

. • I? P coms, z; egan,

pl. x.3

Wroth. 'Greek coins 1900', 5.5, pl. xiii.S

From the Punjab




Mall (1890)



Lambros (1900)