Paphos versus Alexandria

[glebe]

OK, let's start again (if anyone is interested).
It is said that standard Ptolemaic tetradrachms with ΠA to the right of the eagle come in two different styles.
One style, it is assumed by all, was minted in Paphos, but the other, it is alleged by some, was minted in Alexandria.
But just what evidence supports this two mint theory? Is one style found preferentially in finds in Egypt, and the other in finds in Cyprus? If so, can anyone give me some references to these finds? (Maybe somebody already did, but if so I missed them).

Ross G.

[PtolemAE]

... can anyone give me some references ...
Ross G.

Here you go:

Ptolemaic Coins and Chronology:
The Dated Silver Coinage of Alexandria
ANS Museum Notes 20 1975 p. 7 - 24
Otto Morkholm

is festooned with many footnotes to other references on this topic.



PtolemAE

[glebe]

Ah yes, that's the one.

Ross G.

[Matt Kreuzer]

Paphos I does have very useful plates.  It separates a large hoard of tetradrachms from Cyprus into four mints, and die links them.  The four mints are Salamis, Kition, Paphos and (according to the reference) Alexandria.  The last mint uses the same mintmark as Paphos.  However, it used different dies and a different style.  The book does not give much of the logic for the decades of ongoing use of the ∏A mintmark in this mint.  Why use it?

To me, it was a second mint in the same city, not Alexandria.  What is the argument for Alexandria, rather than a second Paphos mint? 

[PtolemAE]

Paphos I does have very useful plates.  It separates a large hoard of tetradrachms from Cyprus into four mints, and die links them.  The four mints are Salamis, Kition, Paphos and (according to the reference) Alexandria.  The last mint uses the same mintmark as Paphos.  However, it used different dies and a different style.  The book does not give much of the logic for the decades of ongoing use of the ∏A mintmark in this mint.  Why use it?
...

Does that same letter-pair occur on other types of coins (e.g. bronze or gold - something other than these tetradrachms) that are from the same mints as the tetradrachms? 

IOW - If a particular letter-pair occurs only on some tetradrachms (from multiple mints) might we be mistaken to interpret it as a mintmark in the first place?

An example of this kind of thing occurs with some later bronze coins with THETA EPSILON on them but, afaik, we don't assume those must be from THEBES just because THEBES starts with 'THETA EPSILON'.

Should we re-think the Pi-A letter-pair's meaning on these tetradrachms?

PtolemAE

[Matt Kreuzer]

Well, there are a few gold issues from the same era.
The coins are gold octadrachms with the usual veiled image of Arsinoe II.
Some have the ∏A symbol.

There are some rare didrachms and drachms with ∏A too.  These are made of silver.

But I sense that PtolemAE is interested in a comparison to a bronze issue?

Matt

[PtolemAE]

Well, there are a few gold issues from the same era.
The coins are gold octadrachms with the usual veiled image of Arsinoe II.
Some have the ∏A symbol.

There are some rare didrachms and drachms with ∏A too.  These are made of silver.
...

Matt

Interesting... Arsinoe II portrait coins produced when Cleopatra II was actually the queen ?

Are these didrachm, drachm, and gold octadrachm PI-A coins all from Paphos?  One Paphos mint or two Paphos mints?

PtolemAE

[Matt Kreuzer]

The gold?  I assume ∏A means Paphos.  The dated issues were struck in a series with KI and ∑A mintmark octadrachms.  They are all rare.  There does not seem to be a division in the ∏A mint into two sets of styles.  Perhaps more will be found?

For tetradrachms in the time of Ptolemy VI, the ∏A mintmark was used by two mints.  The tetradrachms of the two mints are divided into two groups in Paphos I.  The groups do not share dies, while each group has many die links.  Similarly, KI does not share dies.  Nor does ∑A.  [one exception is a die which seems to have travelled from Salamis to Kition].  Four mints, each producing dies and essentially not sharing them.

Silver didrachms were not found in this hoard.  However, the Ptolemy VIII portrait didrachm of Year 33 seem to be part of the smaller mint, as it shares the scepter symbol with tetradrachms.  However, the Ptolemy IX didrachms and drachms seem to be the product of the larger mint which also used the mint symbol ∏A.  The Ptolemy IX didrachm and drachm portrait style is like the tetradrachms of this larger mint.

So the tetradrachms show four mints, using three mintmarks: KI, ∑A and two using ∏A.

[PtolemAE]

The gold?  I assume ∏A means Paphos.  The dated issues were struck in a series with KI and ∑A mintmark octadrachms.  They are all rare.  There does not seem to be a division in the ∏A mint into two sets of styles.  Perhaps more will be found?

For tetradrachms in the time of Ptolemy VI, the ∏A mintmark was used by two mints.  The tetradrachms of the two mints are divided into two groups in Paphos I.  The groups do not share dies, while each group has many die links.  Similarly, KI does not share dies.  Nor does ∑A.  [one exception is a die which seems to have travelled from Salamis to Kition].  Four mints, each producing dies and essentially not sharing them.

Silver didrachms were not found in this hoard.  However, the Ptolemy VIII portrait didrachm of Year 33 seem to be part of the smaller mint, as it shares the scepter symbol with tetradrachms.  However, the Ptolemy IX didrachms and drachms seem to be the product of the larger mint which also used the mint symbol ∏A.  The Ptolemy IX didrachm and drachm portrait style is like the tetradrachms of this larger mint.

So the tetradrachms show four mints, using three mintmarks: KI, ∑A and two using ∏A.

How come the gold coins of Cleopatra II have Arsinoe II on them?

Which Ptolemaic bronze coins made at Paphos have the PI-ALPHA two-letter-sequence mintmark? 

PtolemAE

[Matt Kreuzer]

How come the gold coins of Cleopatra II have Arsinoe II on them?

Which Ptolemaic bronze coins made at Paphos have the PI-ALPHA two-letter-sequence mintmark?

PtolemAE



This was a very traditional period in Ptolemaic coinage.  The gold and silver coins do not name Queen Cleopatra II.  She was less important than King Ptolemy VI.  The gold coins have the date of Ptolemy VI on them, while the silver has his name and date.  In this period, all the gold coins have the veiled image of the much venerated goddess Arsinoe II and her double cornucopia symbol on the reverse.  In this period, all the silver coins have the image of the venerated King Ptolemy I Soter on the front, with an eagle on the reverse next to his reginal date and mintmark.

"Which Ptolemaic bronze coins made at Paphos have the PI-ALPHA two-letter-sequence mintmark?"  I think of this as a mintmark used primarily on tetradrachms.  Are there any I am missing?

Matt 

[PtolemAE]

How come the gold coins of Cleopatra II have Arsinoe II on them?

Which Ptolemaic bronze coins made at Paphos have the PI-ALPHA two-letter-sequence mintmark?

PtolemAE



This was a very traditional period in Ptolemaic coinage.  The gold and silver coins do not name Queen Cleopatra II.  She was less important than King Ptolemy VI.  The gold coins have the date of Ptolemy VI on them, while the silver has his name and date.  In this period, all the gold coins have the veiled image of the much venerated goddess Arsinoe II and her double cornucopia symbol on the reverse.  In this period, all the silver coins have the image of the venerated King Ptolemy I Soter on the front, with an eagle on the reverse next to his reginal date and mintmark.

"Which Ptolemaic bronze coins made at Paphos have the PI-ALPHA two-letter-sequence mintmark?"  I think of this as a mintmark used primarily on tetradrachms.  Are there any I am missing?

Matt 

Those gold coins seem to have the wrong ruler.  Why would they lie?  Is it really actually a portrait of Cleopatra II?

Why didn't Paphos mint(s) put the(ir) PI-ALPHA mintmark on bronze coins? 

PtolemAE

[Matt Kreuzer]

"Those gold coins seem to have the wrong ruler.  Why would they lie?  Is it really actually a portrait of Cleopatra II?

Why didn't Paphos mint(s) put the(ir) PI-ALPHA mintmark on bronze coins?  

PtolemAE"


1) Rephrasing, "why are the image, types and legend immobilized, but not the mintmark?"

There was a Hellenistic tradition of placing the past ruler and/or name on coinage.  In the Ptolemaic Kingdom, revered rulers such as Ptolemy I, Ptolemy II, and Arsinoe II were part of ongoing cults.  These rulers were worshipped as Gods, with worship led by an order of priests.  Placing a past ruler and current God on a coin was part of this way of thinking.  The person who made the decision to place the image of the old King or Queen on the coinage was not making a tough choice.  He was making the expected choice.  Remember the glory days?  Similar conservative values affected the precious metal coinage of Pergamon and Syria.  This was a gold coin of the Ptolemaic Kingdom, of which Cleopatra II just happened to be the current Queen.  In this period, many other areas issued coins naming Alexander the Great.

That said, Svoronos thought that he saw the images of Cleopatra I, II, and III on some of these gold coins, and a conflation of past and present images may be possible.  There is just one gold coin known with the image of Cleopatra I.  We don't know much about what Cleopatra II and III looked like.  

With mintmarks, rather than rulers, the logic is different.  Unlike revered rulers who were worshipped as deities, mints were apparently not worshipped.  The mintmark was a local signature about where the coin was made.  If a coin was marked with the symbol of Salamis, the expectation of the banker receiving the coinage was that the coin was made in that city.  In numismatics, there are fewer examples of false mintmarks than honored past rulers.  However, a forgery is one case of a false mintmark.  However, there are no other examples of a false mintmark used over a long period of time.  The use of a false mintmark may be a creation of modern numismatists.  In calling the second larger mint with ∏A mintmark, "the immobilized mintmark of Paphos used at Alexandria" numismatists may be creating complexity.  It seems more simple to believe that when the coin is marked with the Paphos mintmark, it meant Paphos.  A more simple story is that there were two Paphos mints operating at the same time striking coins marked ∏A. 

Why two mints in Paphos?  The two tetradrachm mints diverged from a common set of practices.  Initially they were probably one mint in Paphos using the ∏A mintmark.  At some point the mint was divided, perhaps initially into two officinas.  Soon employees and dies were not shared.  Perhaps one mint represented the interest of the governor of Cyprus, while the other (larger one) coined tetradrachms for the Ptolemaic King.  The governor of Cyprus was called King and was the brother of the Ptolemaic King during the reigns of Ptolemy IX, X and XII.  Both Kings coined money.  Initially, both used the dating of the Ptolemaic King, but during the struggles between Ptolemy IX and Ptolemy X, the dating became that of the King of Cyprus. 

2) Why didn't Paphos mint put ∏A on bronze coins?  

The lotus symbol appears on many Paphos bronzes, in the spot where Tyre placed the club mintmark.  A lotus was the mintmark for many Paphos bronzes.  See Catharine Lorber, "The Lotus of Aphrodite on Ptolemaic Bronzes."

Matt

[PtolemAE]

"Those gold coins seem to have the wrong ruler.  Why would they lie?  Is it really actually a portrait of Cleopatra II?

Why didn't Paphos mint(s) put the(ir) PI-ALPHA mintmark on bronze coins?  

PtolemAE"


1) Rephrasing, "why are the image, types and legend immobilized, but not the mintmark?"

There was a Hellenistic tradition of placing the past ruler and/or name on coinage.  In the Ptolemaic Kingdom, revered rulers such as Ptolemy I, Ptolemy II, and Arsinoe II were part of ongoing cults.  These rulers were worshipped as Gods, with worship led by an order of priests.  Placing a past ruler and current God on a coin was part of this way of thinking.  The person who made the decision to place the image of the old King or Queen on the coinage was not making a tough choice.  He was making the expected choice.  Remember the glory days?  Similar conservative values affected the precious metal coinage of Pergamon and Syria.  This was a gold coin of the Ptolemaic Kingdom, of which Cleopatra II just happened to be the current Queen.  In this period, many other areas issued coins naming Alexander the Great.

That said, Svoronos thought that he saw the images of Cleopatra I, II, and III on some of these gold coins, and a conflation of past and present images may be possible.  There is just one gold coin known with the image of Cleopatra I.  We don't know much about what Cleopatra II and III looked like.  

With mintmarks, rather than rulers, the logic is different.  Unlike revered rulers who were worshipped as deities, mints were apparently not worshipped.  The mintmark was a local signature about where the coin was made.  If a coin was marked with the symbol of Salamis, the expectation of the banker receiving the coinage was that the coin was made in that city.  In numismatics, there are fewer examples of false mintmarks than honored past rulers.  However, a forgery is one case of a false mintmark.  However, there are no other examples of a false mintmark used over a long period of time.  The use of a false mintmark may be a creation of modern numismatists.  In calling the second larger mint with ∏A mintmark, "the immobilized mintmark of Paphos used at Alexandria" numismatists may be creating complexity.  It seems more simple to believe that when the coin is marked with the Paphos mintmark, it meant Paphos.  A more simple story is that there were two Paphos mints operating at the same time striking coins marked ∏A. 

Why two mints in Paphos?  The two tetradrachm mints diverged from a common set of practices.  Initially they were probably one mint in Paphos using the ∏A mintmark.  At some point the mint was divided, perhaps initially into two officinas.  Soon employees and dies were not shared.  Perhaps one mint represented the interest of the governor of Cyprus, while the other (larger one) coined tetradrachms for the Ptolemaic King.  The governor of Cyprus was called King and was the brother of the Ptolemaic King during the reigns of Ptolemy IX, X and XII.  Both Kings coined money.  Initially, both used the dating of the Ptolemaic King, but during the struggles between Ptolemy IX and Ptolemy X, the dating became that of the King of Cyprus. 

2) Why didn't Paphos mint put ∏A on bronze coins?  

The lotus symbol appears on many Paphos bronzes, in the spot where Tyre placed the club mintmark.  A lotus was the mintmark for many Paphos bronzes.  See Catharine Lorber, "The Lotus of Aphrodite on Ptolemaic Bronzes."

Matt

Can we un-twist these pretzel-logical contortions with the simpler explanation would be that the PI-A letter sequence wasn't a mintmark?

After the short time of the dated lotus-blossom bronzes many bronzes (ca. Ptolemy VIII - XI) *don't* have the lotus.  Instead they have a wide variety of other symbols and letters:  caduceus, star, thunderbolt, DELTA, TAU, petasos, cornucopia(e), corinthian helmet, etc. ... but *not* the Pi-Alpha letter pair.  Are those symbols all mintmarks, too?

PtolemAE

[Matt Kreuzer]

"Can we un-twist these pretzel-logical contortions with the simpler explanation would be that the PI-A letter sequence wasn't a mintmark?"


Hmmmm.  Every tetradrachms found at Paphos had a Year and one of three mintmarks:  KI, ∑A, or ∏A.  In every case, the mintmark is in the same position.  The Paphos I mintmarks seem to make four die linked groups.  One group has KI.  One group has ∑A.  And two groups have ∏A.
The Cypriot mints used by Alexander the Great for his tetradrachm coinage include Kition, Salamis and Paphos.  These were the three largest cities on Cyprus.

Most numismatists call these tetradrachm symbols mintmarks.  But tell us more.  If these aren't mintmarks, what are they?  KI, ∑A, and ∏A.  If not mintmarks, what are they?

[glebe]

Why didn't Paphos mint(s) put the(ir) PI-ALPHA mintmark on bronze coins?  

PtolemAE

I'm not sure just what "bronze coins of Paphos" we are talking about here, but perhaps the reason for the lack of the ΠA mintmark on the bronze coins was because on the silver and gold coins this mark was meant to guarantee the value of these types as issues of the Paphos mint(s).
This mintmark was unnecessary on the bronze coins as the latter were mere fiduciaries, so other symbols could be used, perhaps indicating the mint, or perhaps something else.

Ross G.

[Matt Kreuzer]

"After the short time of the dated lotus-blossom bronzes many bronzes (ca. Ptolemy VIII - XI) *don't* have the lotus.  Instead they have a wide variety of other symbols and letters:  caduceus, star, thunderbolt, DELTA, TAU, petasos, cornucopia(e), corinthian helmet, etc. ... but *not* the Pi-Alpha letter pair.  Are those symbols all mintmarks, too?"

Symbols did replace the Lotus mintmark on the bronze in the time after the 116 BC death of Ptolemy VIII.  There was a very long period, where the lotus seems to have been in the same position as a mintmark for the bronze.  This apparently extended to the end of the reign of Ptolemy VIII.  This was NOT a short period.  Some big bronzes that share the symbol used by Ptolemy IV have the lotus symbol in the same place (at left of the eagle) as contemporary issues have a club or a cornucopia.  The club is for Tyre.  The lotus has been put forward as Paphos.   The lotus continued in the same on issues which name the eunuch Eulaios with the symbol EYL.   These are coins of Ptolemy VI from circa 169 BC.  Lotus and scepter coins follow with the on and off series concluding with the dated bronzes.  So the Lotus was used like a mintmark for a long time from Ptolemy IV to Ptolemy VIII, not a short time.  There were some bronze coins made in Cyprus which did not use this symbol.   

By the time the period of bronze "after the dated lotus-blossom bronzes" the tetradrachm mints were very well established.  Most years, Kition would issue KI tetradrachm.  Nearly each year Salamis would issue ∑A tetradrachms.  Nearly each year, the first ∏A would issue tetradrachms.  And eventually, the largest contribution came from a second ∏A mint, which did not share dies with the first.  The two ∏A mints seem to have diverged from a common set of practices and employees.  This division was visible (to the Paphos I writers) by 155 BC.  Initial production was modest (as measured by coins in the Paphos I hoard).  In Year 49 of Ptolemy VIII production went up a great deal with the mint surpassing the total production of the three older mints.

The "The Lotus of Aphrodite on Ptolemaic Bronzes," is interesting because it seems to have still been used often when the second ∏A mint was created.  I agree with glebe that the lack of a ∏A mintmark on the bronze may have little connection to its ongoing use on silver.  The weight and quality of the silver were important issues at the mint.  By the time the lotus ceased as a mintmark on the bronze, the second ∏A tetradrachms mint was in use.

So the die links of Paphos I tetradrachms show four essentially unconnected mints.  One used KI mintmark.  One used ∑A mintmark.  And two mints (diverging from a common set of practices) used the ∏A mintmark.  Lotus or no lotus on the contemporary bronzes does not relate much.

Matt

[PtolemAE]

Why didn't Paphos mint(s) put the(ir) PI-ALPHA mintmark on bronze coins?  

PtolemAE

I'm not sure just what "bronze coins of Paphos" we are talking about here, but perhaps the reason for the lack of the ΠA mintmark on the bronze coins was because on the silver and gold coins this mark was meant to guarantee the value of these types as issues of the Paphos mint(s).
This mintmark was unnecessary on the bronze coins as the latter were mere fiduciaries, so other symbols could be used, perhaps indicating the mint, or perhaps something else.

Ross G.

The bronze coins were described above and they have lots of marks, but none used (on silver) by the mints elaborated by Mr. Kreuzer above.   As Mr. Kreuzer pointed out, the (Paphos?) the lotus mintmark was used on bronze coins extensively up to and even during part of the time period of the tetradrachms that have the Pi-A letter-pair.  But that lotus mintmark vanished - perhaps at the same time that the Pi-A letter-pair (on silver) lost its meaning as a mintmark?

If there are data and reference material supporting the claim that these later multi-symbol bronze coins were 'mere fiduciaries' it would be interesting to see them. 

PtolemAE

[PtolemAE]

"After the short time of the dated lotus-blossom bronzes many bronzes (ca. Ptolemy VIII - XI) *don't* have the lotus.  Instead they have a wide variety of other symbols and letters:  caduceus, star, thunderbolt, DELTA, TAU, petasos, cornucopia(e), corinthian helmet, etc. ... but *not* the Pi-Alpha letter pair.  Are those symbols all mintmarks, too?"
...
Matt

Repeating question in hopes of an answer:

Are all those symbols mintmarks?

A simple 'Yes' or 'No' will suffice.

PtolemAE

[Matt Kreuzer]

I don't know if those later non-lotus symbols on the bronze are mintmarks.

[PtolemAE]

I don't know if those later non-lotus symbols on the bronze are mintmarks.

If some symbols that look like mintmarks might not be mintmarks, could that apply to the Pi-Alpha, too?

PtolemAE

[Matt Kreuzer]

Each of the four mints in the Paphos I hoard is heavily die linked.  This is shown in Paphos I.

1) KI
2) ∑A
3) ∏A
4) ∏A

The mintmarks all appear in the exact same location on each tetradrachm in the hoard. 
On each tetradrachm in the group, the mintmark is to the right of the eagle.

Yes, these are mintmarks.  If these were just random marks, there would not be die links among them. 

Matt

[PtolemAE]

Each of the four mints in the Paphos I hoard is heavily die linked.  This is shown in Paphos I.

1) KI
2) ∑A
3) ∏A
4) ∏A

The mintmarks all appear in the exact same location on each tetradrachm in the hoard. 
On each tetradrachm in the group, the mintmark is to the right of the eagle.

Yes, these are mintmarks.  If these were just random marks, there would not be die links among them. 

Matt

Why not?

PtolemAE

[curtislclay]

Come on, PtolemAE!  When the hoard comes from Paphos, and the three attested letter combinations are all the first two letters of prominent Cyprian cities?

Though I agree with your objection that the groups could be internally die linked even if the letters meant something else.

[PtolemAE]

Come on, PtolemAE!  When the hoard comes from Paphos, and the three attested letter combinations are all the first two letters of prominent Cyprian cities?

Though I agree with your objection that the groups could be internally die linked even if the letters meant something else.

Hello Curtis

Something peculiar happened during the long production period of PI-A tetradrachms - the topic of this thread.  Mr. Kreuzer has stated his belief that two different mints in the same city (Paphos) made similar coins for decades without sharing even a single die.  Morkholm, on the other hand (based on intriguing 'coincidence' gaps in date sequences as well as the agreed notable segregation of styles), put some of the PI-A tetradrachm production at Alexandria, raising a question about a uniform/consistent meaning of PI-A on those coins.

Also during this time period (ca 120BC?) bronze coins that had previously (and long) had a lotus mark (Mr. Kreuzer associates it with Paphos) abandoned it for a variety of symbols that may not be mintmarks.  It's also odd that what seem to be 'obvious' city-name mintmarks on ca. 100 years of tetradrachms (e.g. PI-A, SA, KI) are not seen on bronze coins at all.

The meaning of the PI-A letter-pair on some of the tetradrachms (with their segregated style and dies) is the question.  Uncovering a clear answer to it could resolve some of the mysteries about later period Ptolemaic coinage.  As Mr. Kreuzer pointed out, Morkholm's Alexandria solution leaves questions unanswered.  Mr. Kreuzer's two-Paphos-mints solution also raises difficult questions.  That a third possibility seems to defy (to us) the obvious should not deter us from looking at it more closely.  Odd associations of symbols, portraits, ruler names, even cross-empire imitations, etc. have come to light in recent years that should inspire us to widen the range of possibilities when solutions at hand lead to seeming contradictions.  We can infer from remarks in other threads that Mr. Kreuzer would likely agree that a letter-pair with seemingly 'obvious' alphabetic relation to a city name is not alway a city-name mintmark.  The possibility that such might be the case with some PI-A symbols is precisely the point.      

Die linkage among Ptolemaic coins with other (non-mintmark) symbols is well-established so Mr. Kreuzer's assertion to the contrary came as a surprise.  The recent 'Sicily' study illustrated die sharing among some bronze varieties with the Galatian shield symbol that is found on many Ptolemaic bronze, gold, and silver coins.

PtolemAE

[glebe]

Why didn't Paphos mint(s) put the(ir) PI-ALPHA mintmark on bronze coins?  

PtolemAE

I'm not sure just what "bronze coins of Paphos" we are talking about here, but perhaps the reason for the lack of the ΠA mintmark on the bronze coins was because on the silver and gold coins this mark was meant to guarantee the value of these types as issues of the Paphos mint(s).
This mintmark was unnecessary on the bronze coins as the latter were mere fiduciaries, so other symbols could be used, perhaps indicating the mint, or perhaps something else.

Ross G.

Or, of course, the bronzes aren't actually issues of Cyprus.

Ross G.