Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. All Items Purchased From Forum Ancient Coins Are Guaranteed Authentic For Eternity!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Internet challenged? We Are Happy To Take Your Order Over The Phone 252-646-1958 Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins


FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Numismatic and History Discussions  |  Greek Coins (Moderators: Dino, Meepzorp)  |  Topic: The Coinage In The Name of Alexander The Great and Philip Arrhidaeus 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: The Coinage In The Name of Alexander The Great and Philip Arrhidaeus  (Read 3664 times)
n.igma
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 848


Life is bigger than a Tweet.


« on: February 18, 2015, 08:41:42 pm »

In a somewhat related thread https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=100468.0;topicseen Arados suggested :


…..  It could be appropriate at this time to start a new thread if one doesn’t already exist, titled perhaps “ Coinage In The name Of Alexander & Phillip”. A gathering point for this fascinating series of coins and where the symbols and monograms can be discussed more thoroughly.

I think this has merit and I have taken it upon myself to start the thread which is to be built around consideration of the following work:.

Price, Martin J. 1991. The Coinage In The Name of Alexander The Great and Philip Arrhidaeus.  The Swiss Numismatic Society in Association with British Museum Press.  Zurich / London.

Price’s magnum opus is now twenty four year old. Since its publication much new research has been undertaken on Alexander’s coinage and many new varieties have been unearthed leading to revised attributions, re-attributions and many updates and revisions to Price’s catalogue, that have not been documented in any coherent manner.  

Therefore, I suggest that the purpose of this thread is to collate and discuss and address queries arising from:
•   Research since the publication of Price’s work.
•   Re-attributions arising from more recent work.
•   Additions to Price’s catalogue.
•   New types unrecorded by Price.
•   Problems arising from Price’s attributions that warrant further research.

This is not a thread on which to post general requests for coin ID of Alexander types – the Identification Help discussion board is clearly the most appropriate place for that purpose, so please don’t clutter and confuse this thread with the routine ID requests.
Logged

All historical inquiry is contingent and provisional, and our own prejudices will in due course come under scrutiny by our successors.
n.igma
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 848


Life is bigger than a Tweet.


« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2015, 09:00:11 pm »

To get the discussion ball rolling I will pick up on a few points from the precursor thread as raised by Arados:
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=100468.0;topicseen


The Hersh paper is to be found in Studies in Greek Numismatics in Memory of Martin Jessop Price. R Ashton and S Hurter eds. Spink, London 1998 - pages 135-144.

The paper makes no reference to this coin type or the date.  The only additions for Arados noted by Hersh are a 1/2 drachm and an obol completely unrelated to your coin and dating to the late fourth century ... in fact now re-attributed to Babylon II as are all the coins Price previously attributed to Arados in the series Price P138-P156 and Price 3336-3364.  The Arados mint was closed from 320-245 BC.  Your coin dates to the autonomous series after the mint re-opened in ca 245 BC, a fouree of one in a series produced from 245-167 BC and as noted by Pekka dated to year 75=185/4 BC.



Thanks N.igma for clearing up the attributions for Price P138-P156 & Price 3336-3364. I do not own a copy of Hersh´s papers yet and these coins have been puzzling me for a very long time. I could not fully understand why they were deemed to be from Arados in the first place, the monograms and symbols convinced me almost immediately that they belonged elsewhere.

Additionally there are many more coins in Price 1 & 2 that appear curiously out of place, but as these do not belong to my collecting area i will remain sceptic for the time being.

It´s always a pleasure reading your posts.

P.S Check Price 3344* (Müller 1507) i think Gabala ?

 

A point of clarification: Hersh’s paper is not the reference for the re-attribution of the noted Arados Alexanders of Price to Babylon II.

The re-attribution has a long history and occurred in three stages, essentially the work of Arthur Houghton:

1) Houghton, Arthur. 1991. Some Alexander Coinages of Seleucus I with Anchors.  Mediterranean Archaeology Volume 4, p. 99-117.    

This work saw the consideration of the parallels in the development of the Alexanders with anchors that Price had attributed (based on Newell’s studies) in two discrete series to Marathus and Arados with the suggestion that the latter were most likely struck further east, possibly in Mesopotamia, Babylonia or even Susiana.


 2) Houghton, Arthur. 1998. Aradus, not Marathus. Studies in Greek Numismatics in memory of Martin Jessop Price by R. Ashton and S. Hurter (eds.) Spink, London, p.145-146.  This work saw the Marathus coinage die linked to Arados (Price 3332 Arados to Price P165 Marathos) and with this the proposal that the Marathus series consisting of Price P159-P167 (Philip III) and Price 3434- 3451 and dated to 323-300 belonged more correctly to Arados while the equivalent coinage attributed by Price to the Arados  (Price P138-P156 and Price 3336-3364) should be re-attributed to Babylonia or Mesopotamia.
 
Duyrat in her study ignored this die linkage and the associated implications and conclusions of Houghton  Duyrat, Frédérique. 2005. Arados hellénistiqué étude historique et monétaire. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique – T. 173. Institut Français du Proche-Orient. Beirut.


3) Houghton A. and C. Lorber. 2002. Seleucid Coins A Comprehensive Catalogue Part I Seleucus I through Antiochus III Volumes I & II. The American Numismatic Society, New York in association with Classical Numismatic Group Inc. Lancaster/London.

This was the definitive work that saw the Posthumous Alexander series in the period 323-300 including Duyrat’s Groups V (Philip III) and VI (Anchor Alexanders) moved to Babylon II.  This work also saw the Marathus series previously moved to Arados by Houghton (point 2 above) moved to Seleukos’ Uncertain Mint 6A in Babylonia.  

The evidence in support of this attribution by Houghton and Lorber is extensive and unequivocal.  It is too much for me to summarize here but is encapsulated in Seleucid Coins summaries of the following series:
•   Babylon II (Arados of Price and Newell, Duryat Group V) SC Ad43 (including Price P138-P156), SC 92-98 (including Price 3336-3364.)

•   Uncertain Mint 6A in Babylonia (Marathus of Price and Newell, Duryat Group VI) SC Ad 39-40 (including Price P159-P167) and SC 66 – SC 71 (including Price 3434- 3451).

I leave you with images of the BM specimens of the linking coins which started it all (attached images).  

To come another post:  Arados not Byblos?


* Aradus Hersh BM Price 3332 AN00646371_001_l.jpg (68.97 KB, 750x374 - viewed 7 times.)

* Hersh BM P165 die linked to Price 3332 AN00646406_001_l .jpg (72.15 KB, 750x377 - viewed 6 times.)
Logged

All historical inquiry is contingent and provisional, and our own prejudices will in due course come under scrutiny by our successors.
n.igma
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 848


Life is bigger than a Tweet.


« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2015, 09:12:32 pm »

P.S Check Price 3344* (Müller 1507) i think Gabala ?

I should have noted that in his introduction to the series, Price expressed serious and very well founded reservations with the attribution of the coins in discussion (Price P138-P156 & Price 3336-3364) to Arados.

As for Price 3344 like the other "anchor" Alexanders in the Arados series of Price (and Newell) it is now attributed by Houghton and Lorber (Seleucid Coins ) to Babylon II.  

Babylon II is inferred to have been the satrapal workshop of the Imperial Mint (Babylon i) at Babylon.

Babylon II was initiated By Seleukos during his first satrapy, essentially to serve local monetary requirements.

Price 3344 = SC 94.2(a)

As a consequence of these re-attributions neither Arados, nor Marathus produced coinage in the period ca. 319-240 BC.

Why did mintage of imperial (as opposed to the much later autonomous series) Alexander's cease at Arados after 320 BC?

I think I have the answer to that question, but I'll leave that open for discussion for a bit to read what others think.




* Price 3344 = SC 94.2a.jpg (89.72 KB, 904x430 - viewed 5 times.)
Logged

All historical inquiry is contingent and provisional, and our own prejudices will in due course come under scrutiny by our successors.
Arados
Comitia Curiata
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1514



« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2015, 05:35:56 am »


A point of clarification: Hersh’s paper is not the reference for the re-attribution of the noted Arados Alexanders of Price to Babylon II.

The re-attribution has a long history and occurred in three stages, essentially the work of Arthur Houghton:

1) Houghton, Arthur. 1991. Some Alexander Coinages of Seleucus I with Anchors.  Mediterranean Archaeology Volume 4, p. 99-117.    

This work saw the consideration of the parallels in the development of the Alexanders with anchors that Price had attributed (based on Newell’s studies) in two discrete series to Marathus and Arados with the suggestion that the latter were most likely struck further east, possibly in Mesopotamia, Babylonia or even Susiana.


 2) Houghton, Arthur. 1998. Aradus, not Marathus. Studies in Greek Numismatics in memory of Martin Jessop Price by R. Ashton and S. Hurter (eds.) Spink, London, p.145-146.  This work saw the Marathus coinage die linked to Arados (Price 3332 Arados to Price P165 Marathos) and with this the proposal that the Marathus series consisting of Price P159-P167 (Philip III) and Price 3434- 3451 and dated to 323-300 belonged more correctly to Arados while the equivalent coinage attributed by Price to the Arados  (Price P138-P156 and Price 3336-3364) should be re-attributed to Babylonia or Mesopotamia.
 
Duyrat in her study ignored this die linkage and the associated implications and conclusions of Houghton  Duyrat, Frédérique. 2005. Arados hellénistiqué étude historique et monétaire. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique – T. 173. Institut Français du Proche-Orient. Beirut.


3) Houghton A. and C. Lorber. 2002. Seleucid Coins A Comprehensive Catalogue Part I Seleucus I through Antiochus III Volumes I & II. The American Numismatic Society, New York in association with Classical Numismatic Group Inc. Lancaster/London.



This was the definitive work that saw the Posthumous Alexander series in the period 323-300 including Duyrat’s Groups V (Philip III) and VI (Anchor Alexanders) moved to Babylon II.  This work also saw the Marathus series previously moved to Arados by Houghton (point 2 above) moved to Seleukos’ Uncertain Mint 6A in Babylonia.  

The evidence in support of this attribution by Houghton and Lorber is extensive and unequivocal.  It is too much for me to summarize here but is encapsulated in Seleucid Coins summaries of the following series:
•   Babylon II (Arados of Price and Newell, Duryat Group V) SC Ad43 (including Price P138-P156), SC 92-98 (including Price 3336-3364.)

•   Uncertain Mint 6A in Babylonia (Marathus of Price and Newell, Duryat Group VI) SC Ad 39-40 (including Price P159-P167) and SC 66 – SC 71 (including Price 3434- 3451).

I leave you with images of the BM specimens of the linking coins which started it all (attached images).  

To come another post:  Arados not Byblos?



In summarizing;

1) So in Houghton´s 1991 studies he firmly believed that the Alexanders depicting anchors and belonging to Aradus/Marathus were now almost certainly minted further east.

2) In Houghton´s later publication of Aradus, not Marathus he then links Price 3332 to Price P165 due to the unarguable obverse die similarities (see image 1). Additionally he then goes on to propose a re-attribution of Price P159-P167 and Price 3434-3451 to Aradus, this he does not realizing that the Aradian mint was in fact shut and not producing coins between the years 320-245 B.C (Aradus gained autonomy in 259 B.C which prompted the start of the Aradian era, i.e 259/258 B.C = Aradian year 1). Houghton also believed that Price P138-P156 and Price 3336-3364 should be re-attributed to Babylonia or Mesopotamia (P138-P156 and Price 3336-3364 were minted between 323-316 B.C according to Price).

3)  Houghton and Lober´s publication in 2002 puts all the previous points into perspective and they re-attribute Price P138-P156 and Price 3336-3364 to Babylon II and likewise re-attribute Price P159-P167 including Price 3434-3451 as uncertain mints of Babylonia.

The BM specimens N.igma is referring too are images of Price 3332 and Price P165.


Conclusion;

Price 3332 was originally dated between 328-320 B.C and P165 was date 323-300 B.C, we now know that the images you have provided of both obverse dies place the coins within a narrow margin of production. However there are other obverse dies of this type that do not explain the chronological classification of Price 3332 and P165 (see image 1 & 2 for comparison).


Price P138-P156 and Price 3336-3364 were depicted with an anchor, this suggests a more appropriate connection to Alexanders former general and later satrap of Babylon, Seleucus. If this attribution is correct then these coins would have been minted during his reign of Babylonia and the east between 306-281 B.C.

We also know of Aradian bronzes with anchors dating between 306-261 B.C, Duyrat 2005 Série 1 (for more info follow the attached link and go to page 3).

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=93142.0


Price P159-P167 and Price 3434-3451 have a definate air of uncertainty about them, with numerous symbols and monograms i feel that they require further study before anyone confirms they belong to Babylonia.




* Aradus Hersh BM Price 3332 & Price 165 Marathos.jpg (231.69 KB, 759x374 - viewed 7 times.)

* Price_P165.jpg (43.35 KB, 500x259 - viewed 409 times.)
Logged

Arados
Comitia Curiata
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1514



« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2015, 06:46:49 am »


As for Price 3344 like the other "anchor" Alexanders in the Arados series of Price (and Newell) it is now attributed by Houghton and Lorber (Seleucid Coins ) to Babylon II.  


Your quite right, this does on further refection also belong to Babylon II.



As a consequence of these re-attributions neither Arados, nor Marathus produced coinage in the period ca. 319-240 BC.


Your not far of the mark, denomination C coins with turreted head of Tyche on the obverse and prow of galley with Athena on the reverse were minted and do have the Aradian era date of 18 or 242/241 B.C on them. Also there are earlier coins of this series without era date that closely resemble the bronze coins of Herakles, prow and anchor that i mentioned in my previous post. This would suggest that the Aradian mint had started production a couple of years prior to the dated coins, more likely 246/245 B.C. There could have been a transitional period seeing both of these series coexisting simultaneously (please follow the link i provided in my previous post).


Edit:


Why did mintage of imperial (as opposed to the much later autonomous series) Alexander's cease at Arados after 320 BC?

I think I have the answer to that question, but I'll leave that open for discussion for a bit to read what others think.


Intriguing, i wonder if the Diadochic period or Antigonid phase have any baring on your findings.
Logged

Arados
Comitia Curiata
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1514



« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2015, 02:21:34 pm »

I thought this a relevant enough topic to discuss here, hope you don’t mind.


n.igma wrote.

Price 3332 and Price 3424 (Byblos) on the wall?

I take it you subscribe to the re-attribution of Byblos to Arados?  Do you know the academic work/reference for this re-attribution? I've been searching unsuccessfully for for the identity of scholarly work at the basis of the re-attribution. The ligate AP makes sense as Arados, but then again the same control is to be found at a number of other Alexander mints.
Logged

Arados
Comitia Curiata
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1514



« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2015, 02:22:12 pm »


n.igma wrote.

Price 3332 and Price 3424 (Byblos) on the wall?

I take it you subscribe to the re-attribution of Byblos to Arados?  Do you know the academic work/reference for this re-attribution? I've been searching unsuccessfully for for the identity of scholarly work at the basis of the re-attribution. The ligate AP makes sense as Arados, but then again the same control is to be found at a number of other Alexander mints.


Could it be that the possible existence of a scholarly work explaining the Byblos, Arados re-attribution is just a myth and that the majority of auction houses have opted for Arados purely on the basis of similarity.

I confess that my personal believes would also be based on these undeniable similarities. There´s no denying that the AP mint mark on early Aradian bronzes and the lifetime issues of Alexander from both cities are remarkably alike.

Additionally i am a little perplexed to why some scholars of the Byblos theory believe that the AP mint mark represents the initials of King Adramelek. Wouldn’t his initials be written in Phoenician ?

You referred to further coins with AP mint marks, there are two coins that spring to mind. Price 752 & 782 (uncertain mints - Peloponnese). What are your thoughts regarding these particular coins ?
Logged

n.igma
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 848


Life is bigger than a Tweet.


« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2015, 10:30:28 pm »

Well hasn’t this proved to be a lonely thread, with it seems only two people of the current 13,161 Forum members with anything to say on Alexander’s coinage!


n.igma wrote.

Price 3332 and Price 3424 (Byblos) on the wall?

I take it you subscribe to the re-attribution of Byblos to Arados?  Do you know the academic work/reference for this re-attribution? I've been searching unsuccessfully for for the identity of scholarly work at the basis of the re-attribution. The ligate AP makes sense as Arados, but then again the same control is to be found at a number of other Alexander mints.


Could it be that the possible existence of a scholarly work explaining the Byblos, Arados re-attribution is just a myth and that the majority of auction houses have opted for Arados purely on the basis of similarity.

I confess that my personal believes would also be based on these undeniable similarities. There´s no denying that the AP mint mark on early Aradian bronzes and the lifetime issues of Alexander from both cities are remarkably alike.

Additionally i am a little perplexed to why some scholars of the Byblos theory believe that the AP mint mark represents the initials of King Adramelek. Wouldn’t his initials be written in Phoenician ?

You referred to further coins with AP mint marks, there are two coins that spring to mind. Price 752 & 782 (uncertain mints - Peloponnese). What are your thoughts regarding these particular coins ?

Thanks for the confirmation of that which I suspected; the re-attribution to Arados from Byblos apparently has no basis in rigorous, peer reviewed and documented study, but rather appears to be an ill-informed assertion of a group of coin dealers, with as far as can be established no evidence in support of the re-attribution.  Neither the first time, nor I suspect the last that this has occurred.

Dealing to the flaws in this re-attribution for which I provide an example (image attached) from the recent Triton XVIII auction:

PTOLEMAIC KINGS of EGYPT. Ptolemy I Soter. As satrap, 323-305 BC. AR Tetradrachm
(27.5mm, 17.18 g, 1h). In the name and types of Alexander III of Macedon. Arados mint. Struck circa 320/19-315 BC. Head of Herakles right, wearing lion skin / AΛEΞANΔPOY, Zeus Aëtophoros seated left, legs crossed; AP monogram in left field. Price 3426; SNG Saroglos 592 (both attributed to Byblos mint). Near EF, wonderful old dark iridescent tone.


Note the first problems with this re-attribution: the proposed date of issue and issuer.  

Newell and subsequently Price attributed the entire Byblos series to the period c. 330-320 BC and with very good reason apparently ignored by the proponents of re-attribution to Arados.  Price 3426, as was the entire Byblos series, was represented in the great Demanhur Hoard (IGCH 1664) that is the foundation stone of Alexandrine numismatics. Demanhur closed in 318 BC attested to by the dated coinage of Sidon and Tyre (formerly Ake of Price) contained therein.

This led Newell paraphrased by Price to firmly state that “The coinage at this mint had certainly ended by 320 BC, but attribution of 3422- 8 (Price’s typo corrected here) to Byblos is doubtful. The rare issues of this mint [Byblos] parallel in date those of her neighbour Aradus”.

As for the issuer it clearly wasn’t Ptolemy as Aradus was not to fall under his influence for another decade after this time.

So what evidence is there for the re-attribution to Arados?

The AP monogram although similar to that utilized a century latter in the dated Aradian issues. However, it is the antithesis of that used in the Aradian series of Alexanders down to Price 3332, the last of the Aradian Alexanders before the mint closed in 320 BC and not co-incidentally the last of the Arados coinage represented in the Demanhur Hoard. These early issues of the first phase of the Arados mint’s operation (330-320 BC) are with the exception of the first two issues carry a ligate AaboveP monogram (Price 3304-3332). The first two issues bear either the letter A or mem-aleph that characterises all the preceding Persian issues of Arados. The latter is the link to which all the succeeding AaboveP monogram issues can be confidently attributed to Arados.

Newell in publishing the Demanhur Hoard noted that the first of the Byblos issues (Price 3421) is inscribed with Phoenecian ayin-yod possibly associated with the regal issues of Ainel who with his fleet joined Alexander in besieging Tyre. This is followed by a further two tetradrachm issues  (Price 3424 & 3426) plus associated staters and bronzes, bearing the ligate AP monogram which Newell associated with the name of King Adramelek.

That this abbreviation should occur in Greek rather than Phoenician is no surprise as there are a number of examples of satraps of Persian origin retained by Alexander and his successors whose name appear in Greek letter abbreviations of even in full.  Perhaps the most significant being that of Aspeisas who was appointed satrap of Susiana by Antignos Monopthalmos in 316, only to produce an Alexander tetradrachm (Price 3852 – image below) bearing his name is full Greek script, shortly thereafter to undoubtedly have his knuckles wrapped before reverting to normal Alexandrine practice!

So the ligate AP may well be associated with Adramelek as Newell postulates.  There are precedents elsewhere for the retained Persian satraps identifying themselves on the earliest Alexanders where for example at Tyre (Ake of Price) Azemilkos marked some of the earliest issues with the Phoenician abbreviation of his name ayin-kaph (see Le Rider’s discussion in his Alexander the Great, Coinage, Finances and Policy, p. 130-134).  Before Alexander, Persian satraps issued coinage bearing their names as a matter of course and this practice was permitted for a period under Alexander before being quashed completely.  

Newell was a giant in Alexandrine numismatics and I’ve seen nothing convincing by way of evidence or argument to counter his view of the significance of the AP monogram on the very small series of issues that he attributed to Byblos. In fact the re-attributions like that quoted above are demonstrably chronologically flawed as evidenced by hoard data.

Further evidence that the ligate AP monogram cannot be exclusively attributed as an ethnic of Arados is to be found in the large variety of coins bearing this monogram (refer attached list from Price).  The coins of the Peloponnesos to which you refer are but a few of the other mints to bear this monogram, albeit posthumously to Alexander.

In short, I can find absolutely no evidence to support the re-attribution by some notable coin dealers (who I suggest should know better) of the Byblos series to Arados.  Unless there is some firm data  (e.g. die study defined links etc.) accompanied by scholarly peer reviewed support for such a re-attribution it remains yet another example of speculative conjecture at best, or misleading sales spiel at worst, in my opinion.

Previously you raised a number of other issues regarding the re-attribution of the Philip III and “anchor” Alexander issues of Arados and Marathus to mints in Babylonia.  An associate has addressed these in a major die study that subject to a peer review currently underway will be published later this year confirmig the re-attribution and revealing new insights into Babylonian monetary issuance in the period 320-301 BC.

Although they are clearly not Alexandrine in character, I’ll revert with another post on the bronze Nike on prow and anchor bronze issues of Arados when I have a bit of time. Suffice to say I think they are misunderstood and chronologically misplaced in the Arados series by Duyrat and others.


* Byblos described as Arados _ Price 3426 - CNG98000776.jpg (92.85 KB, 800x373 - viewed 5 times.)

* Ligate AP monogram Alexander issues .jpg (141.24 KB, 1013x330 - viewed 2 times.)

* Aspeisas - Susa.jpg (75.34 KB, 700x456 - viewed 6 times.)
Logged

All historical inquiry is contingent and provisional, and our own prejudices will in due course come under scrutiny by our successors.
John Anthony
Consul
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 304


« Reply #8 on: March 23, 2015, 11:34:17 pm »

I've been following this discussion with great interest. Please continue.  Thumbs Up
Logged
n.igma
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 848


Life is bigger than a Tweet.


« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2015, 12:42:22 am »

I've been following this discussion with great interest. Please continue.  Thumbs Up

Thanks... I was beginning to think its like the the sound of one hand clapping! 



The AP monogram although similar to that utilized a century latter in the dated Aradian issues. However, it is the antithesis of that used in the Aradian series of Alexanders down to Price 3332, the last of the Aradian Alexanders before the mint closed in 320 BC and not co-incidentally the last of the Arados coinage represented in the Demanhur Hoard. These early issues of the first phase of the Arados mint’s operation (330-320 BC) are with the exception of the first two issues carry a ligate AaboveP monogram (Price 3304-3332). The first two issues bear either the letter A or mem-aleph that characterises all the preceding Persian issues of Arados. The latter is the link to which all the succeeding AaboveP monogram issues can be confidently attributed to Arados.


For those unfamiliar with the AaboveP monogram I attach (below) an extract from Price... this control is absolutely unique to Arados and is a clear and unequivocal ethnic of the city down to at least 320 BC.  The contrast with the more general ligate AP of Byblos and numerous other mints that applied it couldn't be more stark. The ligate AP monogram was most definitely not the ethnic of Arados during Alexander's lifetime or in the immediate decade thereafter. It only came to apply as such almost century later, long after the striking of the Byblos coinage, which as noted in the earlier post pre-dates the closure of the Demanhur Hoard.


* Aradus control versus Byblos control.jpg (212.36 KB, 1022x529 - viewed 5 times.)
Logged

All historical inquiry is contingent and provisional, and our own prejudices will in due course come under scrutiny by our successors.
n.igma
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 848


Life is bigger than a Tweet.


« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2015, 03:36:24 pm »

Where are the proponents of the re-attribution of the Byblos "Alexanders" to Arados with their counter evidence/argument?  

Forvm maintains the Byblos attribution of Newell and Price, so I'd expect no counter argument to be presented from that quarter, but what of others?

Or is it that most simply ignore the re-attribution peddled by some in the coin trade?
Logged

All historical inquiry is contingent and provisional, and our own prejudices will in due course come under scrutiny by our successors.
n.igma
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 848


Life is bigger than a Tweet.


« Reply #11 on: March 27, 2015, 11:51:53 pm »

.....   We also know of Aradian bronzes with anchors dating between 306-261 B.C, Duyrat 2005 Série 1 (for more info follow the attached link and go to page 3).

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=93142.0

......
   Although they are clearly not Alexandrine in character, I’ll revert with another post on the bronze Nike on prow and anchor bronze issues of Arados when I have a bit of time. Suffice to say I think they are misunderstood and chronologically misplaced in the Arados series by Duyrat and others.


Although I have posted the following on the Arados thread (https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=93142.msg623704;topicseen#msg623704 ), which addresses these non-Alexandrine bronzes, I repeat it here for completeness and to substantiate the fact that the Arados mint closed for the better part of seventy years after 320 BC....

Struck during the reigns of Selukos I Niktor 306-281 B.C or Antiochus I Sotor 281-261 B.C ?


“Arados increased her autonomy in 259 B.C while the Seleucid Empire retained overlordship”


Coins of Arados depicting Tyche/Prow (Série 1, Duyrat 2005) and the type we know has Herakles/Prow struck under Seleucid rule share many remarkable similaraties, for example both reverses have near identical prows with traditional Phoenician eye on the bow, both have Athena Promachos fighting left in identical positions and both coins are undated. Another point worth mentioning is that there has been relatively few Herakles coins found to date, this could suggest that the Seleucids influence over the Aradians was diminishing, resulting in very low production of coinage. It is also plausible that there could have been a overlapping of both coins during the early years of self-governance. In summarising i would say weight, size and overall general appearance suggests in my opinion a production date closer to 261 B.C.

For informational purposes it needs to be stipulated that Arados did in fact add dates to Série 1 from year 18 or 242/1 B.C.


The image top shows both reverses, starting left with Herakles/Prow and on the right Tyche/Prow.

The image below is my own coin that kickstarted this post.  Wink


Phoenicia, Arados 306-261 B.C

AE 14.77mm (Thickness 1.99mm), weight 2.91g, die axis = 7h (210 degrees), Tetrobol.

Obverse: Head of Herakles wearing lion skin right.

Reverse: Prow of galley left with (Ἀθηνᾶ Πρόμαχος) Athena figurehead fighting left with shield and spear, anchor above. Seleukid era date 7-51.


My thanks to BNF & ACSEARCH for supplying the reverse images.

You can amend this chronology (and coin description ... Athena is actually a ship's figurehead consistent with Phoenician practice of the time) in light of Hoover's review of this coinage and corrections to the errors in the entries for SC 72 & SC 73.... refer extract below.

A full copy of the paper and plates can be download here AJN 18 (2006) .....

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015066113336;view=1up;seq=52



* Aradian Bronze _ chronology of earliest AE.jpg (250.89 KB, 637x727 - viewed 7 times.)
Logged

All historical inquiry is contingent and provisional, and our own prejudices will in due course come under scrutiny by our successors.
n.igma
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 848


Life is bigger than a Tweet.


« Reply #12 on: April 03, 2015, 04:43:06 pm »

On an early Egyptian Alexander (Price 3971) in my gallery cicerokid posted a comment/question to which I had not given  much previous thought ..... Why the Rose symbol for Memphis, Egypt?

A quick refernece to Price provided the answer to the question... The rose is one of a number of symbols including Khnum (ram head with Isis crown), corn ear, pegasus and fulmen (thunderbolt) that appear on the coinage of Memphis at this time. As such it is not representative of the city or a symbolic ethnic, but rather a mint control of uncertain significance (as are most mint controls on the early Alexanders). However, the rose and fulmen are amongst the most common of these symbols appearing on both silver and gold issues accompanied by a succession of alphabetic mint controls. In the sequence of symbols the corn earn, then pegasus, then fulmen succeed the rose. Die links confirm the sequence which indicates that no symbolic ethnic or city association can be attached to the symbols. However it was the presence of the Khnum symbol, early in the sequence, with its unique Egyptian association, plus the evidence from Demanhur and other hoards of the time including excavation evidence from Memphis, that led Price to the attribution of  Egypt, Memphis  for the series. This amounted to a re-attribution from the Alexandria of Newell.


* Egypt, Mamphis Mint, Alexander tetradrachm.jpg (248.35 KB, 750x375 - viewed 4 times.)
Logged

All historical inquiry is contingent and provisional, and our own prejudices will in due course come under scrutiny by our successors.
cicerokid
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 943


« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2015, 03:09:02 am »

Thanks, my fellow Hellenophile,

One must be careful not to read too, (or anything other than control marks), much in symbols...see deCallatay, Francoise "Control marks on Hellenistic royal coinages: use, and evolution towards simplification?, Revue belge de Numismatique, 158, 2012, p. 39-62".  On his academia.edu page.

However in the Athenian New Style there is evidence that the symbol, when present, is the choice of the first magistrate and thus is directly linked, that link might be as "though looking through a glass darkly".


Have you read this PhD thesis from 2000 which mainly tackles the Pan-heads etc, but comments on the wrong attribution of the Alexanders in the popular works by Mathisen "Anigonas Gonatas and the silver coinages of Macedonia c 280-270 BC" ANSMN 26 1981 which is still often quoted but badly wrong. I have it on a  very large file if interested.

ANTIGONOS GONATAS:
COINAGE,
MONEY AND THE ECONOMY

Panagopoulou Ekaterini


Maybe a simple disquisition on the reasons, start and spread of the Alexanders is needed. Then the Lysimachi etc

Any volunteers?
Logged

Timeo Danaos afferentem coronas
Arados
Comitia Curiata
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1514



« Reply #14 on: February 08, 2017, 08:34:58 am »

I have merged the discussion below with an earlier debate on the same subject, so as not to read the following posts out of context please click on the provided link.

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=110078.msg671822#msg671822


I agree with Walter, its not a coin of Arados. Pekka would have been correct in saying Byblos if the monogram had been AP (Ref: Price Pg.431, No.3428).

Martin
Logged

OldMoney
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1252

My Site! www.oldmoney.com.au


WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2017, 05:25:46 pm »

Quote from: Martin Rowe on February 08, 2017, 08:34:58 am
I agree with Walter, its not a coin of Arados. Pekka would have been correct in saying Byblos if the monogram had been AP (Ref: Price Pg.431, No.3428).

Martin

Thanks Martin.

Just a quick update; the AP monogram has more recently been
reattributed to Arados, and so the old Price references are out
of date. AP for Arados does seem more intuitive anyway, and I
understand that recent evidence has supported that hypothesis
(although I cannot immediately recall where it was published;
Essays Hersh? Essays Price?).

Walter
Logged

Coins of Ephesus
https://groups.yahoo.com/group/ephesuscoins
Walter Holt's Old Money - Ancient Coins
https://www.oldmoney.com.au
Sydney, Australia
Arados
Comitia Curiata
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1514



« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2017, 06:11:52 am »

Hi Walter,

The recent evidence you mentioned in your previous post was not in the essays of Price or Hersh, but i did find the following text in Le Rider; "Another attribution by Newell made to Byblos is debatable: a group of Alexander staters and tetradrachms shows a monogram, in which Newell discerned the name of King Adramelek, Enylos´s successor. Price stressed the tenuousness of this clarification. Not only is the deciphering of the monogram rash, but the presence of a King Adramelek in Byblos after Enylos remains highly conjectural".  

If this new essay is correct then it would mean that the city of Byblos was not granted permission to strike Alexander III coins, i find this theory strange and highly unlikely. The following list of Phoenician cities, Sidon, Tyre, Arados, Marathos, Gabala, Balaneia, Berytos, Ake & Karne all minted coins in the name of Alexander, whereas Tripoli, Dora and now possibly Byblos were overlooked ??

We know that the Aradians were prolific die makers and produced many types of coins, indeed the obverse dies do seem to have crossed over between Arados & Byblos and this would suggest a sharing of dies. Both the Arados and Byblos monograms are very similar but derive from different eras.

I do feel that the irregularity of the lettering on coins of Byblos should be discussed more thoroughly but for the meantime i will remain sceptical.

https://phoeniciancoins.wordpress.com/2015/10/10/by-no-ahlsz-330-3204dr-12-ls/


P.S  Walter, Please let me know if you find the essays your were referring to.

P.P.S  n.igma wrote a very convincing argument to why these coins should remain attributed to Byblos, please read earlier posts in this thread.
Logged

n.igma
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 848


Life is bigger than a Tweet.


« Reply #17 on: February 11, 2017, 12:20:33 am »

Martin,

I've backed away from my earlier expressed views having undertaken a preliminary die study of the tetradrachms attributed to Byblos by Price in his sequence 3421-3426. This was done as an adjunct to two other eastern mint die studies I hope to see published shortly. I have sent you a more detailed PM on the matter but for the purposes of this thread I attach an extract from one of the soon to be published papers referencing the matter.....  In an adjunct to this study the examples of Price 3424 in PELLA and in recent commerce were sequenced to identify 20 obverse and 52 reverse dies in a catalogue of 78 coins. Die analysis indicates that the previous association of Price 3421, attributed as a regnal issue of the king of Byblos, Ainel, (Enylos in Greek), to be the start of the sequence including Price 3422-3428 is demonstrably incorrect, to the extent that the Byblos attribution of Price 3424-3248 is also incorrect. Broader considerations place Price 3422-3428 as the output of a second workshop of Arados, if not a separate mint at Arados. Price 3421 remains the sole issue possibly attributed to Byblos.

I intend to complete the Arados not Byblos die study and analysis in coming months for publication.

Best,
N.
Logged

All historical inquiry is contingent and provisional, and our own prejudices will in due course come under scrutiny by our successors.
Arados
Comitia Curiata
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1514



« Reply #18 on: February 11, 2017, 06:33:03 am »

Thanks for sharing your work in progress, i look forward to reading your papers in the not too distant future.

Could i please ask you to look closely at the monograms of Price 3424a & 3424b and bare in mind the substantial differences between the standard AP and the aforementioned price numbers. If one looks closely at the monograms of 3424a & 3424b, then one can clearly see discrepancies that could confuse and lead to misinterpretation of the coins intended city. Note that the letter P(?) is located further down the right hand-side of the letter A and not directly joined to the tip of the letter as it is on many other coins of Arados. In most cases this letter seems to have been deliberately joined to the centre line of letter A. As i mentioned in my previous post, i feel that the irregularity of the lettering on these coins should be discussed more thoroughly.

As you pointed out these coins could be the work of a second Aradian workshop, this would in part explain why discrepancies occurred. However the engravers interpretation of the AP monogram leaves much to be desired and understandably still creates an air of confusion as to which city these coins were intended for. I wait with bated breath to read your iconographic developments for this particular type.

Martin


* AP ?.jpg (15.54 KB, 157x51 - viewed 114 times.)
Logged

n.igma
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 848


Life is bigger than a Tweet.


« Reply #19 on: February 11, 2017, 01:24:24 pm »

Quote from: Martin Rowe on February 11, 2017, 06:33:03 am
Could i please ask you to look closely at the monograms of Price 3424a & 3424b and bare in mind the substantial differences between the standard AP and the aforementioned price numbers. If one looks closely at the monograms of 3424a & 3424b, then one can clearly see discrepancies that could confuse and lead to misinterpretation of the coins intended city. Note that the letter P(?) is located further down the right hand-side of the letter A and not directly joined to the tip of the letter as it is on many other coins of Arados. In most cases this letter seems to have been deliberately joined to the centre line of letter A. As i mentioned in my previous post, i feel that the irregularity of the lettering on these coins should be discussed more thoroughly.

This is a characteristic of about 75% of the examples of Price 3424 with the balance showing the loop of the P placed on the upper part the of the right leg of the A linked to the apex of the A (e.g. http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.35008   http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.34996) or a position between the two extremes (http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.84669).  The high placement of the loop of the P became the norm on Price 3426.

We see the same phenomenon on the gold staters Price 3423 (e.g. http://numismatics.org/collection/1965.77.86) showing the loop of the P lower on the right leg of the A linked to the cross bar while Price 3422 (e.g. http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.34977) shows the high placement of the P.

The two forms are of relative chronological significance and place the stater issue of Price 3423 before that of of Price 3422 (the opposite of Price's sequence).  Still work in progress but the stater issue of Price 3423 is contemporary with tetradrdachm issue Price 3424.  Stater issue Price 3422 is a contemporary of the later tetradrachm issues Price 3426.

I interpret the low placement of the P in the monogram as an early style, very much a matter of die engraver discretion that evolved  into the high placement form that became standardized and officially sanctioned as the ethnic of the city with Price 3426. In the early days of the mint the quality controls appear to have been variable if not poor to the extent that even see an example of a reverse completely lacking the ethnic (ANS 1944.100.35001 http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.35001) apparently from an incompletely engraved reverse die. On other examples the loop of the P is not even apparent reducing the monogram to an A (e.g. http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.34984) yet we know these are of the same sequence through the obverse die links.

My take away from the die study is that the earliest issues Price 3424 lacked the degree of standardization of iconography and epigraphy that is apparent in the succeeding issue of Price 3426. There is probably a 2-3 year break between the issues of Price 3424 and 3426 (but I stress this is still work in progress).
Logged

All historical inquiry is contingent and provisional, and our own prejudices will in due course come under scrutiny by our successors.
n.igma
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 848


Life is bigger than a Tweet.


« Reply #20 on: February 15, 2017, 12:41:17 am »

...

We see the same phenomenon on the gold staters Price 3423 (e.g. http://numismatics.org/collection/1965.77.86) showing the loop of the P lower on the right leg of the A linked to the cross bar while Price 3422 (e.g. http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.34977) shows the high placement of the P.

The two forms are of relative chronological significance and place the stater issue of Price 3423 before that of of Price 3422 (the opposite of Price's sequence).  Still work in progress but the stater issue of Price 3423 is contemporary with tetradrdachm issue Price 3424.  Stater issue Price 3422 is a contemporary of the later tetradrachm issues Price 3426.


The problem of discussing work in progress ...... It turns out this statement is incorrect.

I have just uncovered an obverse die link between Price 3422 and Price 3423 (images below) a chronological peg which shows that the two issues are contemporaries of each other, probably struck in an interwoven manner. The implication is that the placement of the ligate AP either outside the wing of Nike in the left field, or beneath the wing, is a matter of die engraver discretion. The detailed form of the ligate AP appears to be similarly discretionary on this earliest coinage from Arados II.


* Price 3422.jpg (84.91 KB, 325x164 - viewed 86 times.)

* Price 3423 .jpg (101.19 KB, 800x384 - viewed 1 times.)
Logged

All historical inquiry is contingent and provisional, and our own prejudices will in due course come under scrutiny by our successors.
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Numismatic and History Discussions  |  Greek Coins (Moderators: Dino, Meepzorp)  |  Topic: The Coinage In The Name of Alexander The Great and Philip Arrhidaeus « previous next »
Jump to:  

Recent Price Reductions in Forum's Shop


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 3.847 seconds with 64 queries.
All coins are guaranteed for eternity
zoom.asp