Thanks for taking a look, PtolemAE.
The ambiguity of the monogram on my one had caught my notice too. I had erred towards the attribution given to it by prior owners and CNG for a couple of reasons, but appreciate the doubt. Many of the monograms seen on Ptolemy AEs do seem to appear in slightly garbled varieties, besides their clear renditions, but are still assumed to be of their type, so I wondered if what appears on my one here was no more than that. The retrograde Σ does seem to me to be very clear; what is definitely a little odd is the form of what I had assumed was intended to be the retrograde E next to it.
Would you mind if I asked a couple of other questions, PtolemAE, besides inviting your views on any of the above?
Firstly, am I correct in thinking that mints for AE and precious metal coinage, though separate entities, often operated alongside each other and so it might be assumed that they shared many traditions regarding their work, despite differences in the metals used? The use of monograms on the silver Ptolemaic coinage seem to show a keen use of sequences of types of monogram and symbol, with cumulative and intentional variation arising from position of elements, their arrangement and symmetry. My second question arises from this observation and your use of the word 'bungled' to describe these retrograde types. For all the time I've been aware of these types I had assumed the 'retrograde ness' had been entirely intentional. For this reason it hadn't surprised me to see that one from another die existed. Is it common wisdom that they were actually bungled versions of the 'normal' ΣΕ monograms?
Kind regards,
Derek.
Yes, indeed the DELTA IOTA and LAMDA IOTA
monograms are often so close as to be indistinguishable and sometimes one is referred to as a 'bungled' version of the other. They are quite clearly distinct however on certain examples, enough so to be pretty certain they are not just mixed up versions of the same thing. The plain 'SIGMA' control on some Sv 992 and 993 are also seen in a variety of forms, from very clear and distinct to almost hard to tell at all. What we SELDOM see, however is a truly confident example of a retrograde control of any kind. These SIGMA EPSILON ones are not the only ones known but they may be the only
type illustrated in a proper reference book (
Weiser, Koln).
Yes, it is the 'E' on the example illustrated at the start of this may be confused enough to raise questions though the SIGMA might be retrograde next to it or it might be just poorly executed. This particular example could be a 'real' retrograde specimen, or it might not.
It's hard to say much that's convincing about why the SE is seen retrograde on a few dies. The issue was *huge*.
As far as the other questions, perhaps better addressed to folks more knowledgable about
Ptolemaic silver. That said, there are many silver and bronze coin
types with closely related (sometimes identical) control
symbols and
monograms and one might easily conclude they are
contemporary or related (from the same workshops or issuing magistrate, etc.). At some point in the 3rd C. BC, however, there is
very good evidence that silver stopped playing a major monetary role inside
Egypt itself and bronze did most of the
work of being 'everyday money'. The same does not appear to be true of
contemporary coinage areas like Phoenician territories - in some of those areas it seems little bronze was issued as today some of those bronzes are very
rare while Alexandrian ones are extremely common. The astonishingly massive issue of Series 4 bronzes at
Alexandria appears to have no
contemporary parallel in Phoenician mints at all, while bronzes of Series 3 and 5 likely were apparently made quite (of almost identical designs and to identical
weight standards) at
Alexandria,
Sidon, Ake, and Tyre.
PtolemAE
