Some thoughts on the New Styles chronology and the Pontic - Rome times

[cicerokid]

99/8   Gorgon Head   ++   NIKETES - DIONYSUS         
98/7   Pegasos  ++   ARISTION - PHILON             
97/6   Caps of Dioscouri  ++   DEMETRIOS - AGATHIPPOS       N *         
96/5   Winged Agon ***   AROPOS - MNASAGO            
95/4   Coiled Snake  ***   XENOCLES - HARMOXENOS ( 1) 2 Magistrates            
94/3   Hermes / No sign  ***   NIKOGENES - KALLIMACHOS  2 & 3 Magistrates            
93/2   Headress of Isis ***   DEMEAS - HERMOKLES 3 Magistrates       N         
92/1   Dolphin & Trident  ***   XENOCLES- HARMOXENOS ( 11)  2 Magistrates             
91/0   Kerchnos***   note 1   MNASEAS - NESTOR      2 Magistrates          
90/9   Roma ***   XENOCLES - HARMOXENOS ( 111) 2 Magistrates            
89/8   Roma & Nike ***   KOINTOS - KLEAS  3 Magistrates            
88/7   Griffin ***   APELLIKON - GORGIAS 3 Magistrates            
87/6   Star between Crescents ***          note 4   KING MITHRADATES - ARISTION   2 Magistrates always from now                        
86/5   2 Ears of corn ***   KOINTOS - CHARMOST * Imitation Restored*              
85/4   Beatyl with Fillets ***   KLEOPHANES - EPITHETES      N     No Z                       
84/3   Harmodios&Aristogeiton ***   MENTOR - MOSCHION            

Here we have 16 consecutive years of New styles placed in this order and amended from Thompson's original chronology and order by Morkholm in 1984 and echoed in Habicht 1991 and then modified by Mattingly in 1997. That is the last changes I am aware of for any New Style chronology.

This era has been picked by me because the coinage spans the time of the growth of power and ambition of the king of Pontus, Mithradates V1 Eupator

It is with Gorgon Head of 99/8 BC that Thompson identifies the first badge on the New Style with the up-coming partisan battles between the supporters of Mithradates and the Roman Republic.
I cannot find the connection though which she claims to be Mithradatic.

But with the next coin that is also obverse die linked by Thompson to the Gorgan Head type above, Pegasos. there is doubly no doubt.

Number one is the badge which fully should be called " Drinking Pegassos".

Many scholars now state that this is a symbol only to be associated with Mithradates V1 Eupator and much too late to be of relavence, with his son, Pharnaces.
According to Jenkins the drinking pegassos only appears as a symbol on Pontic coinage  from 96 BC: review of "The New Style silver coinage of Athens" Jenkins G K

Number two; the first magistrate is known. Aristion is known from written sources to be a major Mithraditic supporter and later is finally joined with King Mithradates on the last issue of New Style coinage  before Sulla's attack on Athens.

There are no more apparent evidence of political tensions on the coinage that we know about for quite a while, but they could be too subtle for us but maybe not?.

The issue Hermes / no symbol of 94/3 BC is interesting and intriguing in that 2 magistrates start the run with the Hermes symbol then an highly abbreviated 3rd magistrate is added. Then a 3rd magistrate gets expanded and the the symbol was possibly erased from the die that was used on a later reverse of that issue. The issue is quite large, 10 months are known and 17 obverse dies but only four 3rd magistrates, but the specimens are generally poorly struck with many month date over-cuts but of quite respectable weights.

Probably there was a meaning behind the symbol and the magistrates though described by Habicht as to their families seems not to mention any possible political ties. The start of the type though with only 2 magistrates and that only eventually four 3rd magistrates serve speaks in silencio.

However there are echoes. The next obviously political badge is Roma.

Of the identity of the symbol there appears no doubt in scholars' mind. This is the most obvious badge and direct antithesis since " Drinking Pagassos". The two magistrates, Xenocles and Harmoxenos, though are not described by Habicht but they must have been mighty influential since they are the the sole magistrates on 3 types; "Coiled Serpent" , " Dolphin & Trident" and "Roma".
The last undoubtedly nails their colours to the mast and since the " Coiled Serpent" issue precedes " Hermes/No Symbol" in Mattingly's ordering then it is surely hard not to treasonably see dangerous politics behind that issue as well.
Whether "Coiled Serpent" and "Dolphin & Trident" are political badges are lost to us, but nobody served with them as 3 rd magistrates They were both quite large issue both having the full 12 month dates of issue.
So between " Gorgon Head" and" Roma" can be seen to be symbols of apparent no pilitical connection.  The un-obverse die linked" Caps of Dioscuri" after "Pegassos", which is followed by " Winged Agon" but that is obverse die- linked to " Coiled Serpent" " Hermes/No Symbol" comes next not die linked to any coin. Next is the large " Headress of Isis" issue with eight 3rd magistrates and 11 month dates recorded including an intercalary year which is die-linked to the 2nd issue of Xenocles & Harmenoxos " Dolphin & Trident" type.

Next comes a mystery to me.

With no die links the 2 magistrate " Kernos" type is placed here with a question mark by Morkholm and echoed by Habicht and Mattingly without question marks. Margaret Thompson originally had this type following the last 3 magistrate type " Griffin".( If you, like her, ignored the " Star between Crescents" 2 magistrate  type as a special issue).

Why it is here I do not know. The symbol is nicely apparently a-political being Eleusian. Habicht seems not to mention the magistrates but the  magistrates Mnester &  Nestor appear together on the post Sullan " Stag" issue together but swapped position in an issue dated 79/8 BC.

It seems to me that this appears to be a " hole filler" for 91/0 BC. It is a very small issue of 10 obverse dies and 17 reverses and over 7 months. It seems to be required back to where it belongs to me.

What will fill the gap...ah there's the rub! At sometime or other there was a vaguely proposed gap-year that was all on account of a slave revolt that affected the Laurion silver mines variously dated around 100 BC and that the comparatively" overly" large issue of "Caps of the Dioscuri"  ( a whacking 47 obverse dies) was minted to overcome the short fall.  Well the " Dolphin & Trident" issue had 42 known obverses*. So there just might be a relation between "stress" and obverse dies needed for massive minting. In this case the stress might be the ensuing political situation.

Still the gap is not filled, there would have been silver for a modest issue I'm sure no matter that the slaves were revolting. What to fill the gap remains!

OK I'm no scholar but why is the King Mithradates/Arsition "Star & Crescents" fixed at 87/6? Could it be preferably a year later: 86/5 BC? How accurate really are our dates to a year, or even six months? ( I still don't think there could there be 2 issues in a year. )

The King Mithradates issue is known for only 3 obverse dies for months A, B & Z, some drachm issues and a small but numismatically significant gold issue from 1 obverse die only.

So I'm shakily proposing remove " kernos"totally and slightly shift ( or adjust, if you prefer), " Star & Crescents" and add the die linked "Harmodios & Aristogeiton" and "Isis" to the gap(s).

Certainly the "Harmodios & Aristogeiton" ( two tyrant slayers) 2 magistrate issue is a strong pro-Roman symbol and " Isis" is a common symbol with no discernable to us political meaning but the " Headress of Isis" was die linked to the second Xenocles & Harmexenos issue.

So I'm proposing move out the "kernos" issue and move Star & Crescents" to 86/5 BC replace with "Harmodios & Aristogeiton" and " Isis" at the " Kernos point and then follow on the Mattingly order to "Star & Crescents".

There are probably scholastic reasons for the exact dating of the fall of Athens, but it doesn't neccessarily tell us when the king Mithradates coins were minted.

It is interesting that the  obviously pro-Roman"Roma" and" Roma & Nike" are tetradrachm die linked, but the die link from "Roma & Nike" to "Griffin" is a drachm link only.

(It is possible all obverses went into a die box and possible that one got forgot about until re-discovered and used on a much later reverse type and then on the beginning  month to make a mockery on our die links...but how can one proceed on that outside, but possible chance? It seems to have happened to a drachm link much earlier in the catalogue, but to mitigate that point somewhat, drachms were always , (with one exception), small issues.)

The 1st magistrate of the "Griffin" issue is Apellikon. He is a known person who sailed a fleet to take Delos for Mithradates, failed and came home. So we have another political turn around. After apparently lots of pro-Rome we get an obvious pro- Pontic issue, but not the badge which is the symbol of Teos .

So I reckon the " Isis" badge in it's forms are possibly Pontiic, after all something needs to balence out the predomanantly pro- Roman issues. If the city of Athens appeared to be that pro-Roman they surely would have held out against the Mithradates supporters and armies and waited for Rome. Not suddenly and disasterously turned finally Mithradatic.

Well that's it. It might not be scholarly, it might be fantasy but it is all mine!

*In the Hierpytena Hoard another obverse of the " Dolphin & Trident" type was noted, thus now 43 obverse dies.

[djmacdo]

The link between the Gorgon type and Mithradates VI is his fictional descent from Perseus, who slew the Gorgon and took her head, which he used in his subsequent adventures.  Because of the resemblance between the name Persian and Perseus, Perseus was held to be the ancestor of the Persians or at least the royal house of the Achaemenids.  Mithradates traced his ancestory back to Darius I and from there back to Perseus.  The Gorgon head on the Aegis appears on a common bronze of Mithradates.

I think your conclusions about these issues are quite reasonable.  It is the detailed search for die links, if anything, that will support existing theories or force their modification or replacement with better theories.  Please keep up the good work!

Mac

[cicerokid]

Thank you for the Gorgonion information, Mac.

The die link between "Harmodios" and "Isis" is not of the best kind. That is a shared obverse die of the later or preferably the latest month date of one issue reverse coupled with, preferably, the first of another. They are not though: the die being used is the last months of both issues . As Thompson said, month dates are useless as a guide to sequence, but a progrssive die break and a re-cutting points the way.

Sadly it also points out the possibility of a die box error and a forgotten die, discovered  and brought out later. The sequence, thus, might not be that direct. So maybe I need only to sneak in "Harmodios" in the gap I would like vacated by "kernos".  "Star & Crescents" now can be back to 87/6 BC and thus, voila! Sulla can reduce Athens again in 86/5 BC!

Harmodios and Aristogeiton were tyrant slayers, ancient Athenians who killed a Peristratid tyrant and were a pre-eminant symbol of democracy. But which one : Rome or Pontus, is the putative tyrant?
In the positioning favoured by Morkholm, Habicht and Mattingly the issue is post- Sullan and thus is assumed to be safely pro- Roman. BUT is this true? Could this be wrong? Is Rome the the hand that dominates and guides the politics of Athens and Mithradates the liberator of the Greeks? Well that is the reading from eg " The poison king" that I get. It seems he wanted to be seen as a liberator of the Greeks from Roman tyranny.

Who were the magistrates on this issue? Mentor and Moschion. For certain they do not appear on any issues before or near that one.  A "Mentor" is the 2nd magistrate on the last New style type ever discovered from the Hierpyrtyna hoard in 1973. It is a single example and is an overstrike on a posthumous ATG tet. This coin is placed in the post-Sullan series and thus tends to show him in Rome's favour. Is it the same Mentor?

Oh what a tangled web! Muddies the waters somewhat.

Conclusion: Is the Harmodios and Aristigeiton issue pro Mithradates? And as such confirms that the current positioning is wrong.

Sadly I am no scholar, but it does seem a possibility.

A few more thoughts from a guy who knew nothing of ancient Greece a couple of years ago and now is blindly challenging scholars conclusions on pure speculation. The cheek!

Merry Xmas

Cic

[djmacdo]

I would not call it cheek--but rather a fresh perspective.  Was Mithradates considered a liberator against the tyranny of Rome?  Surely, by some, but there were anti-Mithradates Athenians too, who considered him an eastern tyrant with blood on his hands and self-proclaimed descendant from the traditional enemies of Athens in its greatest era, the Persians!  It seems to me the Tyrant Slayer type could be interpreted either way, perhaps more naturally as a pro-Roman type.  Mithradates, afterall, was a tyrant, Rome a republic--though too often a tyrannous  republic, and I am sure Sulla could have been called a tyrant in devastated Athens.

All of this points out a weakness of iconographic interpretations!  Like reading monograms, it can often be done in several ways, and it can be very difficult to shift perspectives once an idea is formed.  So, please, never hesitate to suggest a new interpretation--it may be just what is needed to break a crippling mind-lock on one interpretation.

Mac

[Lloyd Taylor]

Great write up and interesting to see the reflection of the political divisions (democratic versus oligarchic preferences which manifest themselves in anti- and pro-Roman inclinations) in Athens in the opening years of the 1st century BC manifest in the symbols on the coinage.

The coinage is not one that I am familiar with in detail, so I cannot comment on the specifics of the proposed re-sequencing.  However, on one point I think you may need to consider and further integrate the well established historical record and archaeological evidence with the proposed re-dating and re-sequencing.

 

What will fill the gap...ah there's the rub! At sometime or other there was a vaguely proposed gap-year that was all on account of a slave revolt that affected the Laurion silver mines variously dated around 100 BC and that the comparatively" overly" large issue of "Caps of the Dioscuri"  ( a whacking 47 obverse dies) was minted to overcome the short fall.  Well the " Dolphin & Trident" issue had 42 known obverses. So there just might be a relation between "stress" and obverse dies needed for massive minting. In this case the stress might be the ensuing political situation.

Still the gap is not filled, there would have been silver for a modest issue I'm sure no matter that the slaves were revolting. What to fill the gap remains!

OK I'm no scholar but why is the King Mithradates/Arsition "Star & Crescents" fixed at 87/6? Could it be preferably a year later: 86/5 BC? How accurate really are our dates to a year, or even six months? ( I still don't think there could there be 2 issues in a year. )

The King Mithradates issue is known for only 3 obverse dies for months A, B & Z, some drachm issues and a small but numismatically significant gold issue from 1 obverse die only.

So I'm shakily proposing remove " kernos" slightly shift ( or adjust, if you prefer), " Star & Crescents" and add the die linked "Harmodios & Aristogeiton" and "Isis" to the gap(s).

Certainly the "Harmodios & Aristogeiton" ( two tyrant slayers) 2 magistrate issue is a strong pro-Roman symbol and " Isis" is a common symbol with no discernable to us political meaning but the " Headress of Isis" was die linked to the second Xenocles & Harmexenos issue.

So I'm proposing move out the "kernos" issue and move Star & Crescents" to 86/5 BC replace with "Harmodios & Aristogeiton" and " Isis" at the " Kernos point and then follow on the Mattingly order to "Star & Crescents".

There are probably scholastic reasons for the exact dating of the fall of Athens, but it doesn't neccessarily tell us when the king Mithradates coins were minted.

The 87/6 date for the Pontic star and crescent emission is absolutely congruent with the documented historical record and the archeological evidence for the sack of Athens by Sulla in the spring of 86 BC (no flexibility exists on this date). The latter event is a firm chronological marker that precludes down dating of the Pontic star and crescent emissions which are particularly well attest in the associated leaded bronze Athena/Fulminating Zeus AE's and comprehensively documented including all the archeological and hoard evidence for the 87/6 date by Kroll in The Athenian Agora Volume XXVI The Greek Coins. A few notes and extracts from this excellent work follow.

In summarizing the extensive hoard evidence that supports the relative and absolute chronology of the bronzes bearing Pontic/Mithradatic symbols many of which can be directly tied to contemporaneous silver emissions Kroll notes that...

Two of the later AE2 issues are absolutely datable: the Fulminating Zeus emission with the symbol of the two Pilei of the Dioskuri must be contemporaneous with the two pilei stenaphoric silver issue of 99/8 BC, while the concluding fulminating Zeus issue with the symbol of the Pontic star between crescents belongs with the New Style star between crescents silver and gold to 87/6. In that fateful year, Athens irrevocably committed to Mithradates cause, was besieged and taken by Sulla.
.... [ then follows an extensive summary of relevant hoard data/dating culminating in ] ...4. The final three hoards, all concluding with the Mithradatic star between crescents Fulminating Zeus issue, belong to the Sullan sack in the Spring of 86. Two of these were found in the Pireaus, which Sulla captured and put to the torch after the fall of Athens in early March. Possible indications of burning on the coins of the third hoard suggest that it to is from the Pireaus than from Athens, which was spared the fire.... He then goes on to elaborate upon the archeological context and dates leaving no doubt that the 87/6 BC date is literally cast in the stone of archeological excavation as well as the written historical record.

Kroll also deals to the associated issues arising from the revolt of the Laurion slaves and the minting consequences that arose and are reflected in the metallurgical composition of the silvers.

The examination of the stenaphoric tetradrachms can only take the absolute dating so far, but integration with the parallel AE emissions plus the historical record and archaeological record is required to completely detail the picture. In my opinion, Kroll's work on the coins in the Agora excavations is a best place to start on this task. Additionally, the Mithradatic historical context is best accessed through a great and entertaining read The Poison King The Life and Legend of Mithradtes Rome's Deadliest Enemy by Adrienne Mayor. The book contains several vignettes of the goings on in Athens (amongst other places) during the period in question and is fully referenced to more scholarly papers on the subject if required.

Hope this helps and I'd encourage you to take the investigation of the dating and sequencing of the series to the next stage as I am sure that there is more detail to be resolved than currently documented.

[cicerokid]

Thank you Lloyd T for your endeavors on my behalf.

Since the Athenian New years starts in our July, then the  dated "Star & Crescents" ends in the 6th month early in the next year. 87/6 it is

Sulla's forces beseiged Athens in March 86 BC


Cic.

[cicerokid]

Somebody or two has been reading my mind!

Reading through the articles by Andrew Meadows on Academia.edu I found a review of papers from a conference.

Treasure Islands. review of P. Tselekas (ed.). Coins in the Aegean Islands. Proceedings of the Fifth Scientific Meeting, Mytilene, 16-19 September 2006. Ὀβολός 9. Athens: The Friends of the Numismatic Museum, 2010.

On the section on hoards was this section on the Pontic-Rome New Styles series reproduced below.


Three long-known hoards of Athenian New Style coins from Delos (IGCH 292, 293, and 295), now in the Numismatic Museum, are fully published by E. Apostolou (I. 379-411). Interestingly, they close in the years 93/2, 90/89 and 92/1 bc respectively on the low chronology and, as the author suggests, may well be connected to the campaigns of Mithridates VI. However, in common with some other hoards of this period, they exhibit some oddities. Absent from all three hoards, as it is from the contemporary Carystus 1957, Delos 1908, Piraeus 1937 and Carystus 1883 (IGCH 291, 335, 337, and 344) hoards is the fairly substantial issue of ΝΙΚΟΓΕΝΗΣ ΚΑΛΛΙΜΑΧΟΣ, usually attributed to 94/3 bc. Also absent from IGCH 293, 291, 337, and 344, all of which might have been expected to include it (since they include the subsequent issue of ΞΕΝΟΚΛΗΣ ΑΡΜΟΞΕΝΟΣ + Roma) is the issue of ΜΝΑΣΕΑΣ ΝΕΣΤΩΡ, usually attributed to 91/0. It is beginning to look as if the order and dates of the beginning of Thompson’s late period may need to be re-examined. Such is the value of detailed publication of hoard material.


OK,well, the Nikogenas Kallimaxos issue is the above "Hermes/No Symbol" type which is very hard to interpret. There are currently 2 coins of this type for sale. One has Hermes , 2 magistrates only and month letter A. The other shows that Hermes has been removed from the die and the top of the gap a very abbreviated A Pi of the 3rd magistrate added leaving mainly a space and the 2 magistrates only on the left hand side, the month letter is unreadable.

Both coins and particularly the 2nd are really ugly looking like rush jobs!


I was spot on in thinking that the Mnaseas Nestor " Kernos" type was suspicious..a "hole filler".

I wonder if anybody has done any work on this since and come up with some ideas besides me?


This is the problem with finding references. I have been actively searching for references to the Pontic-Rome times, and others, from footnotes in Morkholm. Mattingly etc, but nobody has them and the library don't even know what journals some of the abbreviations are referring to!.

Even worse 2 of them are in German, might as well be in middle Zapotec!

Here they are.... any takers?

                        
        E Badian   " Rome, Athens and Mithradates"   pp 105-128
        The American Journal of Ancient history 1  1976

        An un-published Athenian New Style tetradrachm"  Arch An Ath  7  1974  pp 395-396  
        M Caramessini - Oeconomides


     The next 2, I would need English translations of,


        C. Habicht    "Zur Geschichte Athens in der Zeit Mithradates V1"  
        Chiron  1976  pp 137-138

        C Boehringer  " Zur chronologie mittelhellinisticher Munzserien  220-160v chr."  AMuGS V    
        (Berlin 1972 )  pp 22-31  & 200-204  

 I have asked the University of Warwick library to ask a specialist to help, but not being a student I would guess I'm low priority for such trouble.

Also I guess I now need to read about IGCH ( Index of Greek Coin Hoards) and find out the exact composition of these hoards and the write-up on them.  Which book would they be in ? Where would I get it from?

Collecting coins is easy...modern acessable references not.

So it's looking like research year for me.

Cic

[cicerokid]

"The next obviously political badge is Roma.

Of the identity of the symbol there appears no doubt in scholars' mind."


Quote from the original article above.

Not true!

 In "A review in the Am J Arch 67 1 1963 of Thompson's "The New Style silver coinage of Athens" by R Ross Holloway" he says that the suggestion that the representation on the ( New Chronology), symbol of 90/89 BC is wrong. Where Thompson suggests Dea Roma ( = Roma), that the representation is foreign to representations of Dea Roma in late Republican coinage. Specifically the sword or scabbard held on the lap of the Athenian symbol.

Holloway suggests a Greek personification such as the seated Aitolia might be a closer type.

If this is true and not successfully rebutted in subsequent articles that I do not have, then this could be a fatal flaw in interpreting the political stance of the moneyers at this vital time.
The next, a drachm die linked coin, the symbol is said to be " Roma & Nike". Holloway does not say but if "Roma" falls then so does this.

What I need is the reviews of the reviews.

I guess I need Margaret Thompson's initial rebuttals of the reviews and hopefully she addresses the symbol controversy, which is the only time I have seen anyone question it.
Luckily for me I did identify the importance of the symbol in my original article to the arguments and now all is up in the air.

Have a look for yourselves Roma or Aitolia?

Cic

[cicerokid]

More thoughts.

In "The league of the Aitolians" by John D Grainger 1999. The Celts were invading Greece proper around  the 230's BC and the Aitolian league stopped them. A statue of the personification of Aitolia as a woman, armed and seated on a pile of Celtic shields was made in the temple at Delphi as an offering.

If "Roma" is actually "Aitolia", there is no pile of shields evident on the symbol on the coinage but the symbolism might be there?

Could the enemy be  Pontus...not seen as Greeks( cf Macedon), but tarred with the Celtic brush as barbarians. Thus the next coin in the sequence could be Aitolia and , if the next figure is correct as Nike, then it might symbolise a victory over Pontus such as the failure of Appelikon to take Delos.

Soon Appelikon arrives back in Athens with troops supplied by Mithradates and takes over. The next coin has his "Griffin" symbol and his name on as 1st magistrate.
These thoughts do not alter the sequence nor change the allegience of the magistrates and symbols in the New Style chronology.


There is a scarce troubling coin with the   ethnic but with no controls nor magistrates names but the expression " O  DEMOS" and a figure wielding a sword in one hand and holding a scabbard in the other.

It has been called an imitative, but other imitatives, other than direct copies, do not have the ethnic on them, eg Cretan copies and the Sullan types.

" O DEMOS" means " the people". Who are the people ?  Does it fit in as an official coin or is it a coin minted by refugees from the tyranny of Mithradates?  Minted where?

The symbol is believed to be one of the tyrant slayers Harmodius based on a famous bronze statue.

I need to find a clear photograph of the examples. 3 came from the Carystos hoard, 1 possibly from Laurion and I saw one last year for sale on Sixbid last year but I cannot find the details anywhere.

Anybody help?

Needs more work and thought.

Cic

[curtislclay]

Thompson pl. 151, 1365a-c, illustrates three of them, the attribution being discussed on pp. 444-9.

[cicerokid]

Thanks Curtis, in my extracts of Thompson the discussion and plates of the imitatives are missing.

Also thanks for the correction to "O Demos" which I shall amend in the above article.

Cic

[cicerokid]

Reading " Athens again" ( NC 1962), Margaret Thompsons reply to mainly the criticism in the reviews of her magnus opus she does say that the symbol might be Roma BUT the political aspect of the symbol could be an over statement and might just mean an Athenian festival called Romalia.

Probably abit like the Ptolemaia festival but Roman based not Egyptian.

Never heard of it. BUT, the next coin which is drachm linked to " Roma" she does not say but I assume she still calls it "Roma & Nike", comments that the 1st magistrate is Kointos which is the Greek form for the Roman name Quintus. So that's OK then! No comments whether it is Nike or not and what victory it could be refering to!

Uhm!

The problem is that everything apparently gets solved by C Boeringer and then  Habicht and Miss Thompson accepted the primacy of the low chronology of Lewis ( also NC 1962).
 
I can get the references but does anybody want to translate them into English for me? ( and ,of course, the millions waiting for my wisdom distilled from them).


Cic

[cicerokid]

The Mnaseas/Nestor " Kernos" type does not belong where it is placed. It is quite clearly a post-Sullan type by the dint of it being a purely 2 magistrate type and the style is clearly so.

What to fill the gap : There are 3 possibilities,

1) Promote another post-Sullan coin. I have proposed the current post-Sullan " Harmodius & Aristegeiton" type of Mentor/Moschion. No I don't think so now. It is again a purely 2 magistrate type. It is  die-linked, although not of the first water, to another purely 2 magistrate type. Both stylistically look post Sullan. If the symbol is correct as the 2 tyrant slayers then it can only refer to Mithradates as the tyrant.

2) Do not fill the gap. Propose that there should be a missing year, maybe due to a slave revolt that stopped the Laurion silver mines from producing. This was popular at one time but Boeringer ssems to have discounted it.  Surely  there must have been some silver for an issue in the mint, no matter how small and disjointed. Maybe the Hermes/No Symbol type with 2 & 3 magistrates could be it. It is though quite a large issue. The " Caps of Dioscuri" type is the largest number of obverses known, ( followed by "Dolphin & Trident" interestingly). It had been stated that this large emission was to make up for the " missing" year due to the slave revolt.

3)Why not just lower the starting year to 163/2 BC? We do not have absolute evidence for yearly issues for many of the early issues. If there was no month letter indicator than there is always doubt.
Indeed the " 2 Palms" type has an issue with 2 completely ( ? ,see my "Analysis of a unique "2 palms" type recently sold at auction" ) different magistrates symbols. Maybe a special issue, maybe issues spread over 2 years ( or more)? Who knows.
The counter argument is that Athens was a rich state that could easily afford to mint yearly.

Uhmm!

Cic