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.