THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ACHAEMENID RULE IN EGYPT

by

Henry Preater Colburn

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
(Classical Art and Archaeology)
in the University of Michigan
2014

Doctoral Committee:

Professor Margaret C. Root, Chair

Associate Professor Elspeth R. M. Dusinberre, University of Colorado
Professor Sharon C. Herbert
Associate Professor Ian S. Moyer
Professor Janet E. Richards
Professor Terry G. Wilfong
 The association of Aryandic silver with the grade of about 95% fineness is

supported by the importation of Greek coins to Egypt. Analyses of a selection of coins

from the Asyut Hoard (IGCH 1644) show a range of 99.6% to 95.2% fineness. 61 That

these coins were not melted and recast may well be because they were identified as being

of good fineness already, though test cuts indicate the sort of scrutiny to which they were

subjected. Indeed, the high silver content of many of the Greek coins of the Archaic and

Classical periods would have made them quite desirable as imports in Achaemenid

Egypt.

If, as argued here, Greek coins met the standard for Aryandic silver, it is possible

to understand Herodotus’ presentation of this incident in a new light. The coins of

Aryandes were not coins that the satrap himself had issued, but rather foreign coins

imported to Egypt. Their association with the satrap’s name may result from an Egyptian

perspective on coinage in the early years of Achaemenid rule, a view that lumped all

Greek coins together as a single category of object equally capable of meeting the

requirements of Aryandes’ edict. This conclusion does not necessarily alter Kurke’s

reading of this episode, as this represents an attempt on the part of Herodotus to analyze a

historical event known to him through Egyptian cultural knowledge. But it does point to

how the Egyptians may have thought about the Greek coins that came flowing into their

country as a consequence of Achaemenid rule.

The Athenian Tetradrachm in Egypt

61
Gale et al. 1980, 14-20.

371
Buttrey identified three different styles in the hoard, all with profile eyes, which he

arbitrarily labeled as Types X, B and M (Fig. 6.1). Based on numerous die links in Types

X and B, their unusual stylistic features, and the hoard’s Egyptian origin he argued that

these three styles were part of a larger coinage of imitation Athenian tetradrachms minted

in Egypt in the fourth century rather than in Athens. Further support for their Egyptian

origin comes from a ‘cube die’ used to strike such coins. The bronze cube has three

obverse dies engraved on it, all with the Athena type of the Athenian tetradrachm; two of

these dies seem to be related to Buttrey’s Type M, and the third to Type B. The die is

now known only from an electrotype of it in the British Museum, but the original came

from Egypt. 72 Moreover, three reverse dies are also known from Egypt, one from

Athribis and two from Sais. These dies indicate the minting of imitation Athenian

tetradrachms in Lower Egypt, and without a die study to suggest otherwise they provide

sufficient confirmation of Buttrey’s attribution, as least for Types B and M.

The identification of these coins as Egyptian imitations has not been universally

accepted. A reexamination of the Fayum Hoard has found fewer die links than Buttrey

had originally identified. 73 In general a high number of die links in a single hoard usual

indicates that the hoard was deposited not far from its mint of origin, and the high

occurrence of die link was one of the grounds on which Buttrey originally suggested

these coins were Egyptian imitations. These new findings undermine Buttrey’s

proposition somewhat, but they do not prove the coins were struck in Athens instead of

Egypt. The most strenuous objections have been made by Christophe Flament, who

argues for an Athenian origin for all of Buttrey’s styles. His argument is complex and

72
Meadows 2011.
73
Arnold-Biucchi 2006-7, 91. She is currently preparing a full publication of this hoard.

375
Figure 6.1. AR tetradrachms from the Fayum hoard (CH 10.442) illustrating Buttrey’s types X (KM
1984.01.0330), B (KM 1984.01.0042) and M (KM 1984.01.0041). Ann Arbor, Kelsey Museum of
Archaeology.

multifaceted, and at times ingenious, but here it is possible only to address its most

salient aspects.

First, Flament points to CH 5.15, a hoard from the Piraeus containing both

tetradrachms of styles B and M, and also drachms of similar styles. 74 Since fractional

issues do not travel as far from their mints as staters do, he argues these coins must have

been produced at Athens. Working against this thesis, however, CH 10.439 (the hoard of

imitation Athenian tetradrachms excavated from the House of Apis in Memphis) also

included drachms. So by this same logic these coins would have to have been struck

nearby (i.e., in Egypt).

74
Flament 2005.

376
 Tetradrachms in the Second Persian Period

The prevalence of the Athenian tetradrachm in Egypt continued to grow

throughout the period of native rule that interrupted Achaemenid control in the first half

of the fourth century. 82 Although Egypt was liberated, if only temporarily, from the

requirement to make tribute payments, the pattern of exchanging grain for silver

continued, no doubt fueled by the military and construction ambitions of the native

pharaohs Nectanebo I, Tachos, and Nectanebo II. When the Persians regained control of

Egypt in 343 BCE, the tetradrachm was the commonest coin in Egypt, and the only one

the Egyptians were not inclined to treat solely as bullion, but rather to use according to its

face value. The Achaemenid Empire retained control of Egypt from c. 343 until the

arrival of Alexander in 332. During this short period three series of imitation

tetradrachms were minted there bearing the names of Artaxerxes and the satraps Sabaces

and Mazaces in place of the usual ethnic ΑΘΕ (for ‘Athens’) on the reverse. 83 All of

these coins share the same type as the Athenian tetradrachm, and they also all seem to be

minted on the Attic weight standard, though some individual examples fall short of this.

The coins in the name of Artaxerxes are clearly attributable to Artaxerxes III

because they occur in the 1989 Syria hoard (CH 8.158), which dates to the 330s, and the

examples of them in that hoard exhibit very little wear (Fig. 6.2). 84 Peter van Alfen has

distinguished four different variations of this coin among the twenty-three known

82
Colburn, forthcoming a.
83
For much of what follows see van Alfen 2002, 24-32 and Colburn, forthcoming a; see also Anderson and
van Alfen 2008, 163-4; van Alfen 2011, 71-3.
84
Van Alfen 2002, 14; Mørkholm 1974.

380
examples of it. Three of these (van Alfen’s Types I-III) bear inscriptions that clearly read

‘Artaxerxes pharaoh’ in demotic. Coins of the fourth variation (Type IV) have multiple

unintelligible inscriptions, some of which seem to consist of Aramaic letters. These coins

have close stylistic affinities to those of Type III, which is the reason for their attribution

to Artaxerxes. A few examples also include the words ankh, wedj, seneb, again in

demotic, a pious Egyptian wish that follows the pharaoh’s name and means ‘life,

prosperity, health.’ 85 Coins of Type I are also distinguished from the other three

variations by their resemblance to the Buttrey styles. Types II-IV bear a strong

resemblance to the pi-style tetradrachms minted at Athens starting in 353, this provides

further confirmation of their attribution to Artaxerxes III.

Figure 6.2. AR tetradrachm of Artaxerxes III, c. 343-338 BCE. New York, American Numismatic Society
2008.15.39.

Figure 6.3. AR tetradrachm of Sabaces, c. 338-333 BCE. New York, American Numismatic Society
1944.100.75462.

85
Vleeming 2001, 1-4.

381