We know a little
bit about what the ancient thought their coins meant, but we don't know very well. We especially see this in how the early
electrum is labeled by how it is a division of the
stater (semi-stater, trite, heat, etc.) and how bronze coinage is often labeled by its
diameter (
AE14). But, I think that all other things being equal, a merchant would prefer a heavier
weight coin to a lighter
weight coin. Please understand that when I say a Sybarite
obol weights (about) .44 g, and then I say that a Sybarite coin of .22 would be (about) a
hemiobol, I am not saying that the .22 g coin would be considered a
hemiobol in
antiquity, I am merely saying that if the progress of tridrachm to
drachm, to
obol continued in that fashion, then the next number is
hemiobol, by
weight, not by
type which at this early period was not that
good of an indicator.
I do not know what the dots mean, but I do not consider them decoration. They definitely mean something, and they may mean something regarding the
denomination, but they are extremely early, not just for the region but for the entire Greek world. I may be overlooking something, but I cannot think of dots used earlier on ancient
Greek coins. So just because dots are used for
denomination elsewhere, later, I am not sure that means that was their purpose here. Four dots is a weird increment for the
denominations at the time in Southern
Italy. It is a fascinating puzzle and I don't know what it means. But, the Achaean (
incuse) coinage is my main focus in collecting, so I guarantee you that I am obsessive on figuring out this and related question. That does not mean, I am right, that just means I have though about it a lot. A lot of navel contemplation.
I think that in looking at Doug's coin, we are on the
border of the known world, which to me is an exciting place to be. Either doug's coin is an underweight
obol, but then there is the interesting question of what were the circumstances under which it would have been made underweight. It might be very illuminating for ancient politics and
history. Or, it is a previously unknown
denomination. Or, did
Kraay just know that some were light and not mention it. I find
Colin Kraay knowledgeable, insightful and edifying, so I am more inclined to think that he did not know about these lighter versions. Of course, while we collectors often prefer bigger coins to smaller one's it is often the smaller ones that are more
rare, last night went to a presentation on
Biblical coins, it is the half shekels of the
Jewish revolt that are more
rare and valuable than the shekels. But, whether it is an
obol or a
hemiobol, doug's coin is interesting (and nicer than mine).
This is speculation, but the reason why
Kroton destroyed Sybaris in 510 was that there was a democratic revolution in Sybaris and the instillation of a tyranny under Telys. Most accounts make it sound like Kroton's (and the Pythagoreans of
Kroton) reaction was immediately after the revolt, but from piecing together things from Herodotus, it was a few years before
Kroton actually attacked. I don't "know" this, but it seems to me that this coinage, which in general is cruder than what is before, and after, could have come from this window of time, right before the destruction, during the reign of Telys. Like I said, this is speculation, but it would explain why some issues are pretty crude
style, and why others are light
weight.
I liked Ross's (glebe) approach in trying to shed light on the matter. Always like to get more insight on these issues.
Kind Regards,
John
