One for the books - a unique numismatic occurrence.

[n.igma]

Just added to my gallery is this most historic coin ..... https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-135112

A very late posthumous issue (303-302 BC) in the name of Philip III it is a unique numismatic circumstance. It was struck from a Philip III lifetime reverse die used about twelve years previously, paired to an obverse die that was also used to strike coins in the name of Alexander and Seleukos.

This was not a matter of happenstance, but rather a deliberate pairing of dies that symbolically linked the name of Seleukos to the preceding Argead kings in a ritual numismatic statement of legitimacy. This occurred in Uncertain Mint 6A, which by this time was a mobile military mint, attached to the army of Seleukos on the campaign to Ipsos. This ritual symbolic numismatic acclamation of kingship paralleled the acclamation of Seleukos as king by the assembled army in a long-standing Macedonian tradition.

[Molinari]

Really interesting coin.  You're very lucky to own it!

[bpmurphy]

I haven't read the AJN article yet, but the story sounds a bit fanciful. How exactly could the pairing of a reverse die in the name of Philip with an autonomous obverse die be used as any attempt to show legitimacy? Who in ancient time would have recognized this pairing? Why couldn't this also be a lifetime issue of Philip whose obverse die survived to be used by Seleukos?

Barry Murphy

[Altamura]

... the story sounds a bit fanciful. How exactly could the pairing of a reverse die in the name of Philip with an autonomous obverse die be used as any attempt to show legitimacy? Who in ancient time would have recognized this pairing? ...

I would follow this. Too complicated to be plausible .

Regards

Altamura

[Molinari]

Presumably, it is a unique occurrence for Hellenistic Coinage, no? 

[Altamura]

Presumably, it is a unique occurrence for Hellenistic Coinage, no? 

Yes, it is a numismatic speciality. But I dont't believe that the choice and combination of these dies has been made deliberately to transport a certain message.

Regards

Altamura

[Molinari]

 I haven't personally read the article but Im interested to see the evidence.

[n.igma]

Best for doubters to read the 56 page peer reviewed article in AJN 27 before jumping to the conclusion that its too fanciful or complicated, rather than me try to paraphrase the reasoning and evidence here.

One caution: seeking to impose modern logic, views and reasoning onto the interpretation and assessment of actions and events that occurred in an ancient, polytheistic, deeply superstitious society is fraught with problems. They can only be accurately assessed and interpreted within the framework of the belief system underpinning the practices of the society and time under consideration.

[Altamura]

... Best for doubters to read the 56 page peer reviewed article in AJN 27 before jumping to the conclusion that its too fanciful or complicated, ...

Meanwhile I have read this article  .

It is a very sound study and detailed overview about the numismatic development of the mints in and around Babylon during the evolution of Seleukos from satrap to king.
The paper discusses many aspects of this coinage as there are iconography, metrology, die linkage, historical background and some more.
 
But I still don't believe that the usage of an obverse die from an Alexander series and a reworked reverse die from a Philip III series has been a deliberate action to transport some message .

• - Who of the contemporaries should understand this? For the usual "coin consumer" it would have been not possible to recognize the reuse of these dies. So it could be at most some sort of "insider message", but not more.
• - If this message has been so important, why was it coded only on such a small emission?
• - If I understood it right, we don't have extant specimens of the same Philip III die which has been reworked for the series IV, only specimens where a different die of the same emission has been used (with some differences to the series IV coins). So the argument is a bit indirect, it relies on something we don't have physically.

For me it is much more plausible to believe that they used as dies what they had (how it was done by the transfer of the first dies of the series I from Arados), this is the fastest way to be able to begin when a decision for coinage has been taken.

So this "ritual character to the reuse" for me is a slightly romantic idea which is not completely impossible, but which is in my eyes lacking strong evidence.

... seeking to impose modern logic, views and reasoning onto the interpretation and assessment of actions and events that occurred in an ancient, polytheistic, deeply superstitious society is fraught with problems. ...

This is certainly correct, but cannot be used alone as evidence for theories which are looking a bit strange or weak from today's point of view. It has to be shown that people in former times really have thought the way the theory implies.


Regards

Altamura

[Molinari]

Interesting, because I thought it made perfect sense and seemed fairly intuitive, actually. To the senior soldiers who had been part of the core force the whole time (they probably carried  the dies!) it was practical to keep the old dies around but also always had a symbolic association and legitimizing force. It need not be articulated in some sort of mythos or ritual act among the soldiers, but these groups were largely made up of mercenaries so the guy paying the bill was legitimized through the dies. Of course, things like this are always conjecture and aren't proven or disproven.  But like I said, I thought it made perfect sense.

[Altamura]

... Interesting, because I thought it made perfect sense and seemed fairly intuitive, actually. To the senior soldiers who had been part of the core force the whole time (they probably carried  the dies!) ...

Even if so, from the thousands of soldiers involved in this army only some handful would have been aware of these dies or even have seen them.

... it was practical to keep the old dies around but also always had a symbolic association and legitimizing force. ...

Do you really think that dies have served as a legitimizing force? In my eyes legitimation comes from descent, success, a strong vision or something like that, but not from a tool for minting coins. We have nearly no contemporary descriptions of the coin making processes in these times. The most probable explanation for that is that it was considered a mere handcraft (I hope this is the right word for what I want to say) and not worth being described in detail. If dies had some sort of symbolic meaning it would be very unprobable that there are no descriptions of that.

... but these groups were largely made up of mercenaries so the guy paying the bill was legitimized through the dies. ...

I would say he was much more legitimized by the coins produced with these dies and not by the dies themselves .

... Of course, things like this are always conjecture and aren't proven or disproven.  But like I said, I thought it made perfect sense. ...

So we have different opinions on that (and I am only talking about the thing with the series IV die, the rest of this article is very good!) and can look forward to some more views on this issue .

Regards

Altamura

[Molinari]

Yes, the coins are certainly legitimizing.  I guess I see the dies (and devices on them) as part of the whole enterprise, if you will.. 

[n.igma]

But I still don't believe that the usage of an obverse die from an Alexander series and a reworked reverse die from a Philip III series has been a deliberate action to transport some message .

• - Who of the contemporaries should understand this? For the usual "coin consumer" it would have been not possible to recognize the reuse of these dies. So it could be at most some sort of "insider message", but not more.
• - If this message has been so important, why was it coded only on such a small emission?
• - If I understood it right, we don't have extant specimens of the same Philip III die which has been reworked for the series IV, only specimens where a different die of the same emission has been used (with some differences to the series IV coins). So the argument is a bit indirect, it relies on something we don't have physically.

For me it is much more plausible to believe that they used as dies what they had (how it was done by the transfer of the first dies of the series I from Arados), this is the fastest way to be able to begin when a decision for coinage has been taken.

So this "ritual character to the reuse" for me is a slightly romantic idea which is not completely impossible, but which is in my eyes lacking strong evidence.

The message was not a message to be read at large and understood from circulating coinage, but a ritual akin to reading the omens before battle.

This ritual associated and linked the new regal incumbent with predecessors in a symbolically material way via the reuse of dies to issues a small volume ritual and symbolic token coinage that materially linked the successor to his predecessor within the framework of a larger ritual, that of the acclamation of the king in accord with Macedonian tradition by the assembled army.

The pattern of die re-use (variously obverse and reverse dies are involved) is repeated throughout the other Babylonian mints of Seleukos contemporary with the issue of the first coinage in the new king's name. The ritual nature explains the negligible volumes of such coinage. Were it not for the other examples we could excuse it as happenstance reuse of an old die. But the timing in the sequence of dies and association with other contemporary issuance from the other Babylonian mints at the time of Seleukos name appearing on coinage indicates otherwise - deliberate intent.

The recipients of such ritual symbolic token issues were probably the king himself and the elite of the officer class. In this case the distribution of the ritual token coinage may have occurred concurrently with the acclamation of kingship by the assembled army, in front of the army - admittedly all conjecture in so far as this ritual token coinage is concerned, but remember that the acclamation in Macedonian tradition was accompanied by a transfer of material symbols of power and legitimacy including the royal diadem, gilded laurel wreath etc. The ritual coinage is but a constituent of the larger symbolic ritual that of the acclamation of the king by the assembled army (after all it was a done deed).

Ritual practice like this is really no different in form and substance to the superstitious rituals followed by some celebrity sportsmen before and often after a big game or match. Completely illogical to the purely rational person (if such exists) but redolent with 'good fortune'  and appeasing of fate for the practitioner. I wonder how many Forum members rub or even kiss their lucky penny (or similar) before a big event? How many carry a pocket coin ?

As for another example of coinage in such ritual symbolic practice look no further than the modern day practice of the issuance of Maundy Money by the Queen of England and the United Kingdom - The Royal Maundy is an ancient ceremony which has its origin in the commandment Christ gave after washing the feet of his disciples on the day before Good Friday. Logical and rational? No. Of wide issuance and circulation? No. Ritually symbolic and understood within this context (and here we talk of the ritual process as much as the Maundy coinage itself, which is simply part of the larger ritual )? Yes.

[n.igma]

.... For me it is much more plausible to believe that they used as dies what they had (how it was done by the transfer of the first dies of the series I from Arados), this is the fastest way to be able to begin when a decision for coinage has been taken.

So this "ritual character to the reuse" for me is a slightly romantic idea which is not completely impossible, but which is in my eyes lacking strong evidence.

I forgot to address this point in the preceding post: "For me it is much more plausible to believe that they used as dies what they had (how it was done by the transfer of the first dies of the series I from Arados), this is the fastest way to be able to begin when a decision for coinage has been taken. " This in fact points to the ritual nature in so far as a decision was taken to issue coinage from a single die set in the name of Philip III, by then 14 years dead, in conjunction with the first striking of the first coinage in the name of Seleukos. Now why would that be done if not ritually symbolic?  The fact that they used a lifetime Philip III reverse die increases the potency of the ritual symbolism.  The fact that it carried the Macedonian sunburst or star as a mint control which is then carried onto the first issue in the name of Seleukos increases the ritual potency. It anoints in symbolic imagery Seleukos as the legitimate Macedonian successor to the last of the Macedonian Argead kings and is in fact the sole occurrence on the Alexandrine series in the name of Seleukos of the Macedonian Star beneath the throne of Zeus.  

All this is co-incidence? I think not.

While at it I might as well  put another old chestnut raised by another Forum member to rest ....

Why couldn't this also be a lifetime issue of Philip whose obverse die survived to be used by Seleukos?

The die study and in particular the developing die wear pattern on A50 conclusively put this hypothesis to rest. Die A50 was commissioned for the last of the "Anchor Alexander" series (as the die study proves conclusively issued late in Seleukos's second satrapy), then used to strike the Philip III issue (the coin heading the thread from the recycled lifetime Philip III reverse bearing the Macedonian Star) plus its contemporary the first issue bearing the name of Seleukos I Nikator carrying the Macedonian star (SC 69.3) - images below, thus giving rise to the unique numismatic occurrence of an obverse die linked issuance of three types in the successive names of Alexander III, Philip III and Seleukos I, the latter two also control linked by the Macedonian star, a symbol of the Argead royal house  evidenced by the content of the tombs at Vergina.

All of this and more is documented in the AJN 27 paper by Taylor. This discussion I think illustrates the problem with jumping to the conclusion that something is 'too fanciful or complicated' before reading and considering the written study that documents the comprehensive evidence that gives rise to that conclusion. It is easy to dismiss any argument in the absence of the facts and evidence; dismissal that is often based on pre-conceived or ill-conceived views, or even prejudices.

That said, this discussion has prompted me to consider the broader fact that all historical inquiry is contingent and provisional, and our own prejudices will in due course come under scrutiny by our successors. I have made that statement my new Forum profile signature, certain that in future generations new evidence will come to light that may refine, or even alter, the interpretation of the first coinage to be issued in the name of Seleukos I Nikator (as will happen in every other field of historical endeavour). For the present we can only formulate conclusions that are consistent with the known facts and observed evidence from almost two and one half millennia ago, challenging as these may be to our preconceived 21st century view of how things should have been done and how events should have unfolded.

[Altamura]

Thanks for your elaborate answer , but it still doesn't convince me .

... This ritual associated and linked the new regal incumbent with predecessors in a symbolically material way via the reuse of dies to issues a small volume ritual and symbolic token coinage that materially linked the successor to his predecessor within the framework of a larger ritual, that of the acclamation of the king in accord with Macedonian tradition by the assembled army. ...

That there has been such a ritual is in my eyes pure speculation. What we have today are these coins and some meager knowledge about the historical events and how people lived in these times. A story around that has not necessarily to be true only because it does not contradict the few known facts.

... admittedly all conjecture in so far as this ritual token coinage is concerned ...

That's the point.

... How many carry a pocket coin ? ...

I do not, I have to admit, but probably you guessed it .

... Now why would that be done if not ritually symbolic? ...

Perhaps simply because these dies have been there and could be used. This is a much simpler interpretation of the facts which does not contradict them neither.

... before reading and considering the written study that documents the comprehensive evidence that gives rise to that conclusion. ...

After reading I am still not convinced and cannot follow all these conclusions. That they do not contradict the facts is a necessity but not a sufficiency (to express it in terms of logic). For me there is not enough direct evidence (being more than possibilities) for this ritual character of the series IV coinage.

... all historical inquiry is contingent and provisional, and our own prejudices will in due course come under scrutiny by our successors. ...

How true   (but you could have given the source of this citation  ).

Regards

Altamura

[Molinari]

I suspect you wouldn't be persuaded unless there were definitive proof (or a case beyond reasonable doubt), and that's perfectly ok.

Personally, I see great value in interpreting facts and creating a reasonsble narrative.  Maybe it will shed light on some other phenomenon about mercenaries and military mints, or perhaps make sense of an awkward inscription somewhere.  Who knows? Science does this all the time, which is why we jump from paradigm to paradigm. Ultimately, I always prefer a plausible narrative with some significant rationale  other than the basic simple facts (they reused an old die, which might certainly be all there is to it), because humans are colorful by nature and if our theories are too black and white we end up missing a lot of the big picture. So I'm inclined to think the soldiers did attach some significance to the reuse of an old die.

[n.igma]

Well put Molinari.

All we can do is assemble all the facts and evidence, then interpret them utilizing the the principles of scientific method; systematic observation, measurement followed by formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

I'll leave the last word to Taylor: Based on the combined evidence from the die study, the hoard record, and the comparative analysis of contemporary mint operations in Babylonia, the history of operation of Uncertain Mint 6A can be reconstructed and its purpose inferred......

Until and unless someone comes up with an improved evidence based interpretation then I will go with the hypothesis/interpretation of those who have done the hard yards of data compilation and analysis, rather than dismiss the interpretation based on some preconceived subjective notion of how the ancient world should have worked.  

The world is full or armchair critics, thankfully ignored by those who work to advance our understanding.

[Frank M]

Totally fascinating. This parallels a lot of the ideas in Sitta von Reden's Money in Classical Antiquity (chapters 2,7). I mention it because it is an excellent read. The context in which coinage (as opposed to just money) develops along with it's ritual and sacrificial connotations rang true to what I know from my background in religious studies.

There is a lot of scholarship out there about classical economics, but much of it is highly specialized. This book is in-depth and academic but also a pleasure to read.

[Molinari]

Thanks for the suggestions, Frank, I'll try and get a copy.

The religious associations with coinage fascinate me, especially in regards to my own work on Acheloios.

I think it is important to re-examine Greek coins, and especially the different devices on them, within a historical context and ask what it might mean.    So Taylor's remarks about the Macedonian star were quite interesting.  How many other times do we see a device and simply write it off as a mere control mark when it might really be quite significant? (of course, many times it is just a control mark).  As an example, Dr. Sisci and I discovered that the "device"   very often appeared below or beside Acheloios (and never anywhere else).  Then we discovered a very important mythographic tradition in which  was paired with Acheloios in  different sources in antiquity and meant the sinews (or strength) of Acheloios.  A mere control mark, or a very clear message that the rivers of the world are sinews of Acheloios?  Seemed fairly obvious to us it was not a mere control mark. Thus, just like the individual cities of Campania are all part of the Campanian nation, it made perfect sense to adorn the different Campanian cities' coinage with this device (they are all parts of the greater whole).

Here attached is the reverse from Meepzorp's site, equipped with the .  I call these "Sinew" coins.

[Altamura]

... The world is full or armchair critics, thankfully ignored by those who work to advance our understanding. ...

Nice remark, I have another one :

The world is full of enthusiastic dreamers, thankfully ignored by those who work to keep both feet on the ground.


Regards

Altamura

[Molinari]

I think an interplay of both is the best approach   

[n.igma]

Totally fascinating. This parallels a lot of the ideas in Sitta von Reden's Money in Classical Antiquity (chapters 2,7). I mention it because it is an excellent read. The context in which coinage (as opposed to just money) develops along with it's ritual and sacrificial connotations rang true to what I know from my background in religious studies.

There is a lot of scholarship out there about classical economics, but much of it is highly specialized. This book is in-depth and academic but also a pleasure to read.

I've ordered a copy of Money in Classical Antiquity to learn more of this fascinating subject. Thanks for the recommendation.

Thanks for the suggestions, Frank, I'll try and get a copy.

The religious associations with coinage fascinate me, especially in regards to my own work on Acheloios.

I think it is important to re-examine Greek coins, and especially the different devices on them, within a historical context and ask what it might mean.    So Taylor's remarks about the Macedonian star were quite interesting.  How many other times do we see a device and simply write it off as a mere control mark when it might really be quite significant? (of course, many times it is just a control mark).  As an example, Dr. Sisci and I discovered that the "device"   very often appeared below or beside Acheloios (and never anywhere else).  Then we discovered a very important mythographic tradition in which  was paired with Acheloios in  different sources in antiquity and meant the sinews (or strength) of Acheloios.  A mere control mark, or a very clear message that the rivers of the world are sinews of Acheloios?  Seemed fairly obvious to us it was not a mere control mark. Thus, just like the individual cities of Campania are all part of the Campanian nation, it made perfect sense to adorn the different Campanian cities' coinage with this device (they are all parts of the greater whole).

Here attached is the reverse from Meepzorp's site, equipped with the .  I call these "Sinew" coins.

The association of religious significance with symbols or letters is not mutually exclusive to their use as used a mint control mark. Such circumstances may reflect a special occasion or issue. The old chestnut that Greek mint marks and symbols simply represent and identify 'magistrates' was long put to rest by Le Rider and Callatay.  Control marks can serve multiple purposes and certainly their role varies from mint to mint and within mints from one period to the next.

[Frank M]

I am excited to hear what you both think of the book.

Without getting too involved, a large component in the western tradition is the idea of a proxy sacrifice. The line is drawn from animal sacrifice substituted for human sacrifice (think, Abraham and Isaac) through other, more and more abstract proxies, like money denominated in obols (the root word for which is oblolos, meaning a spit for roasting meat), or strong smelling incense instead for burning animal sacrifice. Recitation of scripture, directed thoughts.

When I was in Lhasa, Potala Palace was then surrounded by vendors selling yak butter candles to use in religious observance. Of course, lard is a pretty good material for making candles if you have a lot of yaks around, but the relationship demonstrates the proximity a culture has to its core resources, etc.

Within that context, von Reden looks at several archeological/numismatic/textual case studies to tease out the details. Roman civic religion, all that jazz.

[n.igma]

.................... When I was in Lhasa, Potala Palace was then surrounded by vendors selling yak butter candles to use in religious observance. Of course, lard is a pretty good material for making candles if you have a lot of yaks around, but the relationship demonstrates the proximity a culture has to its core resources, etc.

That is an interesting observation. In Macedonian tradition the custodianship of the prior king's body conferred privilege and succession. Hence Ptolemy's seizure of the body of Alexander III the Great en route from Babylon to Macedonia. In the sense that Philip III, the last Argead king, was entombed at Vergina, well beyond the reach of Seleukos in Babylon, he had to make do with the next best thing in seeking to ritually legitimize his succession, utilizing the lifetime dies of the Philip in his Babylonian mints, one die in particular bearing the Macedonian star found on Philip III's larnax at Vergina, the dies being the most available material and tangible connection to Philip III in Babyloniia; all ritually done symbolically connecting the the successor to the predecessor using the available material in lieu of custodianship of the dead king's body.

I look forward to reading Sitta von Reden's thoughts on the development of the religious and ritual use of money, in a range of monetary contexts.  It is increasingly evident that money played different roles in different social and political circumstances and I anticipate that his analysis of this will turn up many surprises for the open minded reader. The study has received  good reviews ... Sitta von Reden offers an admirable introduction to some of the main themes in current debates on the use of money in the Classical world. As such, [this volume] will serve as an instructive and clearly presented book to be used in courses dealing with ancient economic matters. The book chimes well with the recent trend among ancient economic historians to seek inspiration from the so-called new institutional economics. Indeed, it seems a both careful and nuanced contribution to this body of scholarship.' Peter Fibiger Bang, The Journal of Roman Studies

Thanks again for the recommendation.

[n.igma]

Found this extract from Sitta von Reden's book which defines eloquently the mental block for most classical numismatists and coin collectors (my underline emphasis) .... In post-war scholarship money has been approached almost exclusively within a secular framework of understanding. Religious meanings of money have not received any serious attention, not least because Aristotle, the most influential ancient authority on monetary history and theory, does not proclaim a particularly close connection between money, cult and ritual (see above, introduction and chapter 2)................

Bernhard Laum at the beginning of the twentieth century argued that the most important aspect of money was its function as a substitute. The idea of substitution was typical of ancient cult. The sacrificial animal was a substitute for the sacrificer, and so the idea of money, understood as a general standard of value measuring the value of all other goods, was ultimately grounded in the sacrifice of cattle as the substitute for the sacrifice of human life..................


Scholarship on Greek coinage has tended to polarize into what we might call symbolist and materialist readings of the phenomenon [of coinage]. Thus the former category (mainly literary scholars and some historians) see coinage only as a symbolic token, while the latter group (mainly ancient historians and numismatists) focus on the matter of coinage, framed almost exclusively in a positivist, economistic account of cause and effect. It is my contention that we cannot properly understand Greek coinage until we see the two sides together, and the dialectic of symbol and matter that takes place between them..........

Wonderful insight.  I can't wait to get my hard copy!