Pee AN DER PMO IN LS II DEMANHUR, 1905 Py, EDWARD T. NEWELL THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY BROADWAY AT 156tH STREET NEW YORK 1923 COPYRIGHT 1923 BY THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY Press oF T. R. Marvin & Son, Boston THE J. PAUL GETTY MUSEUM LIBRARY THE DEMANHUR HOARD By Epwarp T. NEWELL Although this famous hoard of Alexan- der tetradrachms has already been partially studied and described by the present writer in the American Journal of Numismatics for 1911 and 1912,' there are nevertheless serious reasons for occupying ourselves, once more, with this extraordinary find. In the first place, the hoard at that time was only treated incidentally in explaining some observations made by the author as to the use of dies and the signatures of magistrates at certain of Alexander’s mints. The hoard is well worthy of more detailed attention than this. Also several thousand more coins from the find have since been seen and studied by the writer, and these contain about fifty important varieties not listed in the previous article. Finally, it PevtaboM ATIC. NOTES ALE XA N D EGR (eesti is highly desirable that several erroneous statements, deductions, and attributions there made be now corrected in the light of a wider experience with the intricacies of the Alexander question. In those days the writer was but commencing his studies and was, naturally, only too ready to fol- low the lead of earlier writers, many of whose attributions have since proved fan- ciful. The material forming the basis of this study is composed of the following lots: I Such coins in the writer’s own collec- tion as came to him direct from the De- manhur deposit, mostly purchased in Egypt shortly after the hoard’s discov- ery. Some of the duplicates in this lot have since been ceded by the writer to the British Museum, to the collection of the United States Mint in Philadelphia (since removed to the National Muse- um, Washington), and to certain pri- vate collectors. II The collection of Gén. Ronald Storrs, and Mr. F. Munroe Endicott. These two NUMISMA TPG DEMANHUR enthusiastic collectors of the Alexander coinage were fortunate to have been in Egypt, in the diplomatic service of their respective countries, in the days of the hoard’s discovery. They early system- atised their efforts and together were able to obtain specimens of practically every variety once contained in the find. Their collections were formed from the first pick of perhaps about four-fifths of the entire hoard. III A lot of over a thousand specimens secured by M. Etienne Bourgey of Paris. This was probably the only portion of the find which had not previously been culled by Gen. Storrs or Mr. Endicott, and so contained a few rare varieties not represented in their collections. The greater portion of this lot was later pur- chased by the present writer, though only after numerous specimens had been sold by M. Bourgey to various collec- tors. Among these were Dr. Pozzi of Paris, M. Pierre Saroglos of Athens, the British Museum, and others. Poe ON O.GR A PHS ALEXANDER HOM IV A lot of over a thousand specimens which were brought back from Egypt by Mr. Azeez Khayat of this city. All of these coins, according to their gen- eral appearance and Mr. Khayat’s ex- press statement, once belonged to the Demanhur find. It was Mr. Khayat who first brought the hoard to the writ- er’s attention. V_ Seventy tetradrachms in the Toronto Archaeological Museum which had been purchased by the Curator, Mr. C. T. Curelly, in Egypt at the time of the hoard’s discovery. VI Several small lots in the stocks of various dealers abroad, such as J. Schul- man of Amsterdam, Messrs. Spink & Son of London, Dr. Jacob Hirsch of Munich, and others. Of all these coins the writer either secured the actual specimens or casts. Many of the Alexander tetradrachms in the Th. Prowe Sale, Briider Egger, Vienna, May, 1912, came originally from this hoard. NUMISMATIC® ON OPES Dive aoNeH UR VII A small group of tetradrachms in the Hermitage collection whose Demanhur provenance was kindly brought to my attention by the former curator, M. Alexis von Markoff. VIII Certain small lots actually owned or kindly brought to my attention by Prof. Milne, Mr. E. J. Seltman, Mr. Endi- cott, Rev. Jeremiah Zimmerman, and others. Lot III is now entirely dispersed, with the exception of about a dozen specimens in very fine condition. Lot IV also no longer exists as an entity. Those pieces which had been secured from it by Mrs. Draper, Mr. Thomas B. F. Curtis, as well as many purchased by Mr. T. L. Elder of this city, have since passed into the pos- session of the author. The remainder of Mr. Khayat’s lot is now divided between the American Numismatic Society, Mrs. Agnes Baldwin Brett, Messrs. L. V. Case, V. Hammer, and the writer. Before dis- posing of his portion of Mr. Khayat’s lot, Mr. Elder published a series of six plates yee ON OGRAPHS ALEXANDER VHOR Ra: in half tone showing the obverses and re- verses of about 300 tetradrachms. It should be noted, however, that no. 98 on Plates I and II was not from the find at Demanhur. It is a tetradrachm of Ptol- emy I (type of Svoronos no. 265) from a hoard of these coins found also in Egypt but at a slightly later date than the De- manhur hoard of Alexanders. This material, amounting in all to 4826 specimens, constitutes what now remains to us of the great Demanhur hoard. That this, however, is not the entire find is cer- tain. Nevertheless, in the writer’s opinion, the material actually before us apparently comprises a very considerable portion of the original deposit. It is but natural that in the early days of the hoard’s discovery extravagant ru- mors concerning its size should have been current in Egypt, and generally believed in. The somewhat unusual occurrence of many thousand Alexander tetradrachms suddenly appearing upon the market not unnaturally gave the impression of a very much greater number having been found. NUMISMATYWh DEMANHUR From impression to assertion is no very great step— and a good story seldom loses in the telling. Besides, the greater the find the more thrilling is the tale of treasure- trove. Above all, in Egypt one has grown accustomed by actual experience to the unearthing of extraordinarily large hoards of ancient coin. It is evidently thus that the statement (given credit to everywhere in Egypt) that the Demanhur find con- tained perhaps about fifteen thousand coins, and even twenty thousand or more, first gained currency. The writer’s per- sonal experience, based on two trips to Egypt and many years’ acquaintance with collectors and dealers the world over, has made him somewhat skeptical of these large figures. In spite of a most diligent search, now continued over the space of more than fourteen years, no more than the above-mentioned 4826 specimens, which can be definitely traced to Deman- -\hur, have been brought to light. In addi- tion, he has seen perhaps some two or three -|hundred pieces (dispersed among the trays of various dealers and collectors) whose AND MONOGRAPHS 8 ALEXANDER Si G@eue a. appearance and previous history might suggest an assignment to our hoard. But because of the uncertainty they have not been included in our study. Doubtless many of the Demanhur coins were bought up by tourists in Egypt dur- ing the days when the coins were on the market—and such are probably defi- nitely lost to us now. It is possible that others were exported to Syria to supply a demand there, and the writer has indeed heard several statements to this effect. It is also quite probable that many of the poorer specimens were even melted down for their bullion value. To the writer’s own knowledge this actually did happen to a considerable portion of a large hoard of Athenian tetradrachms when their num- bers and the comparatively restricted de- mand threatened a glut on the market. That this fate overtook any very large number of the Demanhur Alexanders can- not be proved, nor has the writer heard of| - any statement to that effect. The hoard apparently contained very few pieces dis- figured by the punchmarks and counter- NUMISMATTCANO Ties DEMANHUR stamps so often occurring on Greek coins found in Egypt. To suppose that all such coins had been picked out and melted down before the remainder was placed on the market is hardly reasonable. There is always a certain demand for coins of Alex- ander the Great, not only by collectors but also by noncollectors and tourists to whom the name of Alexander ever makes a strong appeal. The writer would not therefore place at any very high figure the number of Demanhur coins melted for their bullion, though he does not thereby mean to deny that this might not have happened to some. The most conservative estimates secured - |by the writer have always averaged around the figure ten thousand for the total num- ber of coins once contained in the hoard. Unfortunately the original finders have never been discovered and it is they alone who would be in any position to know the real number of the coins found. The hoard in its entirety apparently never passed through the hands of any one person, with the result that we shall probably never Peete M OINOoG RA PHS 10 ALEXANDER) HeGithai. know the exact number of pieces it once contained. If, however, to the definite number of 4826 which we now possess we should add the very generous allowance of 2500, or even 3000, to cover such pieces as have disappeared in the trade or been melted down, it seems to the writer that we would have a figure tolerably close to the original number. Concerning the actual find-spot of the hoard nothing new has been ascertained since the previous article. Sig. Dattari’s account, kindly supplied to the writer in 1911, still holds good— though it might be well to modify somewhat, as we have seen, the probable number of coins found. In his letter Sig. Dattari stated that the find was made by natives, that its true prove- nance was impossible to determine, that it eventually fell into the hands of several merchants residing in Demanhur, and that it took its name from this latter fact. He further stated that the deposit, containing anywhere from ten to twenty thousand tetradrachms, had been divided into five parts ‘“‘of several thousand coins each” ; NUMISMA DI CSN Oris DEMANHUR and that of these, one part had been sent to Alexandria, the others to Cairo for dis- posal. Perhaps two of the groups (III and IV) described above represent two of these original divisions. If so, we then possess a slight corroboration of our sug- gestion that the hoard originally contained not more than some seven or eight thou- sand at the outside, as both M. Bourgey’s and Mr. Khayat’s lots numbered only a little over a thousand coins each. From: a conversation on this subject re- cently held with M. Seymour de Ricci, who chanced to have been in Egypt engaged in . |his archaeological work at the time of the hoard’s discovery, it seems probable, in his opinion, that the hoard was really found somewhere in the vicinity of Demanhur and that this occurred sometime towards the end of 1905. M. de Ricci is also under the impression that the hoard contained over ten thousand coins, but states that he possesses no definite information upon |which to base an opinion, other than hear- say and the statements current in Egypt at the time. mew Dev ON OGRAPHS ALEXANDER’! HOARD. Although an unkind fate has willed it that the great Demanhur hoard should have been broken up and largely scattered before it became accessible for study, our loss has been partially made good by the fact that, in all. probability, we now know every variety it once contained. This good fortune is almost entirely due to the circumstance that Mr. Endicott and Gen. Storrs had been actively collecting in Egypt not very long after the great find was made. They displayed such an inde- fatigable enthusiasm and persistency in acquiring all varieties possible for their collections that few indeed can have es- caped them. The present study would have been all but impossible, certainly it would have lost much of its scientific value, | had it not been for the kind assistance and the access to their collections so readily granted by these gentlemen. Their col- lections, when combined, furnished practi- cally all the varieties listed in the follow- ing pages. The remainder occurred either in that portion of III which M. Bourgey sold to the writer, or among the specimens NUMISMATIC NOTES DEMANHUR which Dr. Pozzi, M. Saroglos, and the Brit- ish Museum had previously selected from the same source. The material at our disposal has here been divided among the nine large geo- graphical divisions in which there were ac- tive mints during the reigns of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus. These are: Macedonia, the Peloponnese, the Pro- pontis, South-western Asia Minor, Cilicia, Cyprus, Syria including Phoenicia, Baby- lonia, and Egypt. Under these headings the coins have been again subdivided into .|series, each series attributable to one mint. This division of the material before us has been governed by a close study of the style, fabric, and appearance of the coins them- selves. The mass of material placed at our disposal by such a find as that of Deman- hur makes it comparatively simple to sort the coins into greater or lesser groups ‘which are easily distinguishable, the one from the other, by marked differences in style and fabric. It is obvious that with- in the boundaries of each larger district of PND MONOGRAPHS ALEXANDER HOR the ancient world there had flourished, for many years, local schools of art exer- cising undoubted influence upon the die- cutters of that particular region. By the time of Alexander’s arrival the technique and style peculiar to the local mint estab- lishments had become crystallized into a more or less hard and fast tradition. As Alexander in each case apparently em- ployed the local die cutters and mint ap- pliances for the issue of his own coin, we are thereby greatly assisted in sorting and attributing, with a fair amount of accuracy and probability, the greater portion of his coins— although they all bear uniform types whether struck in Macedonia or dis- tant Babylon. For Macedonia, then, we find a strong, vigorous, but heavy (one might say almost turgid) style. Though there is an unmistakeable similarity through- out the entire product of the Macedonian mints, it soon becomes evident that die cutters of very diverse ability were work- ing at one and the same time under the in- fluence of a local style and tradition. The Peloponnesian issues show a higher NUMISMATIC NOTES -DEMANHUR degree of art and a finer workmanship, but it seems evident that the die-cutters were accustomed to work on a smaller scale than that of the Attictetradrachm. It is a fact that the contemporary gold staters and di- staters of Alexander from this mint are much more pleasing and successful as works of art than the larger tetradrachms. The issues of the Hellespontine region are reminiscent of the preceding autono- mous coinages of this district; while the issues for Caria and Lydia show to a strik- ing degree the delicate and graceful influ- ence of Ionian artists. The Heracles head of the obverse has the soft contours and delicate modelling of that school, hardly suitable for the brawny hero of mythology. The Zeus figure on the reverse is a dainty specimen of gem engraving. On the whole, while these coins show a perfection of abil- ity and technique that is very attractive, they lack the vigor of the ruder Macedo- nian products. The Cilician and North Syrian issues are, at first, merely copies of the immedi- ately preceding satrapal coins struck here eee ON OG RA PHS ALEXANDER HOARDS by Mazaeus and other Persian governors.3 There can be no doubt but that the same die-cutters continued to work for Alexan- der after his conquest of these districts. On the Island of Cyprus—as is only natural in view of its geographical position and commercial relations— we find a curi- ous blending of the Greek art of Asia Minor, the eastern art of Cilicia, and the technical appliances and customs (fixed dies, etc.) of Phoenicia. The typically oriental style of the earlier Phoenician coinages was carried over onto the succeeding Alexandrine issues. Com- bined with this style there were also con- tinued in use the local customs of each mint. Thus, unlike the other Phoenician mints, the Aradian issues were struck from loose dies as had always been the practice here; the coins of Byblus bear the abbre- viated name of the local king; while the Sidonian issues are struck from fixed or adjusted dies and bear the regnal years of the reigning prince. At all of these mints we find the local style continuing to develop independently, up toacertain point. Later NUMISMATIC VN GE Do MeAIN WT UR it became influenced by the beautiful style of the coins emanating from the mint at Egyptian Alexandria. The Alexander issues of Babylon are conspicuous for a style and character all their own, and destined to exercise a great and far spreading influence on the later coinages of Persia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and even portions of Asia Minor. For the newly opened mint at Alexandria in Egypt its great founder seems to have secured Greek artists of first rate ability. Their productions are well worthy the fu- ture fame of what was destined to become one of the greatest art centres of the an- cient world. The dies that were here pro- duced are exceedingly handsome, perhaps the finest to be found in the entire Alexan- der series. These beautiful coins found in- stant approval at the many coining centres of the eastern Mediterranean and were soon being used as models in Byblus, Bery- tus Sidon, Ake, Citium, Amathus, and at several other as yet unidentified mints of the neighboring districts. Thus we are enabled to distinguish by aie ONOGRAPHS ALEXAN DE Re Gas means of certain well defined lines of di- vergence, various groups in the general mass of the Alexander coinage. It is fur- ther quite possible, by paying strict atten- tion to minor details of style and technique, and above all to the sequence of dies and their use in consecutive issues, to subdivide these larger groups into their component series —each series the issue of a single mint. Unfortunately it often proves to be a much more delicate matter to suggest the name of the mint itself. Under Alex- ander and his immediate successors there are only isolated cases where special mon- ograms or symbols are used to designate the mint of a certain issue. It is distinctly noticeable that only the semi-autonomous city-states of Phoenicia and Cyprus were allowed thus to sign their respective coin-issues of the Alexander type. We are therefore led to suppose that the use of special marks of origin show these coinages to be a municipal rather than an imperial undertaking. The re- maining Alexander coinages of this time were evidently struck under the jurisdic- NUMISMA TIGANt, DEMANHUR tion of imperially appointed officers in such provincial mints as were at the command of the central government (either of that particular province or satrapy, or of the empire as a whole). Therefore only the monograms and symbols of the responsible mint officials appear upon the coins. As stated above, by means of style we are indeed able to distinguish the issues of the larger geographical units. Where only one mint was in operation in a single prov- ince the name of this mint can then be de- termined with comparative ease, but where there were evidently two or more mints in operation at the same time, the problem immediately becomes more complicated and difficult of solution. Now the super- intendents of a particular coinage, as we have seen, guaranteed their issues by plac- ing the monogram of their name, or some personal symbol, in the field of the coin issued by them. Alexander’s empire, by its very nature, was such a cosmopolitan institution that little can therefore be gained by paying attention to the seeming local significance of any one of these sym- BN DeMONOGRAPHS 20 ALEXAN DERG. bols. A Greek magistrate in some eastern mint might conceivably choose as his pri- vate mark the symbol of his native town —pbut this evidently furnishes us no clue whatsoever to the actual city in which his coin was really struck. Again, the sym- bols chosen are, as a rule, quite banal, such as thunderbolt, caduceus, amphora, club, etc., etc. These might have been used anywhere in the ancient world. In certain instances something may be gained by an intensive study of a whole series of such magistrates’ symbols appearing on coins which, by their style, must have come from one mint —but this is an uncertain clue to follow and usually leads to ambiguous re- sults. In view of these difficulties and the true scope of the present articles on Alexander hoards,4 we can only outline the reasons for assigning the various series to certain mints, or, failing this, to show briefly why no mint name can as yet be suggested. In other words, the discussion of attribu- tions here must be looked upon as merely something in the nature of notes. The NUMISMATICAN@G DE MAIN H UR present series of articles is primarily in- tended, as stated in the introduction, to place on record unpublished or otherwise important finds of Alexander coins, rather than to be a final treatment of the whole subject. These articles, in fact, are but the basis for such a treatment. . In arranging the following list of the De- manhur coins the first column will be found to contain the serial numbers of the coins, while the second column gives us the num- |ber of specimens found of each particular variety. The third column is devoted to the symbol or monogram which distin- guishes each variety, and the fourth col- umn gives the reference to Miiller’s Les Monnaies d’ Alexandre le Grand, Copenha- gen, 1855. In this column a dash indicates the absence of that particular variety in Miiller’s work, though the coin may have since been published by one of the many students in our field. In the cases of Tar- sus, Myriandrus, Sidon, and Ake the writ- jer’s own numbers have been substituted in the place of Miiller’s, as for these mints the latter’s list has proved to be very in- AND MONOGRAPHS 21 oe ALEXANDER HOA DS adequate. In the fifth column are found. references to the plates. In the case of the present publication the plate numbers are in Roman capitals as I, II, etc., while the plate numbers in Arabic numerals refer to the writer’s previous study of the De- manhur hoard. The sixth and last column contains the indications of the general con- dition of the coins of each variety as found in our hoard. For this purpose the follow- ing abbreviations have been adopted: W (worn) to denote coins that have seen a greater amount of circulation, though it must be remembered that none of the coins in the find were worn really smooth; VG (very good) to designate coins that are well preserved though they may have been in circulation for some time; F (fine) and VF (very fine) to denote coins that are practi- cally uncirculated; B (brilliant) to desig- nate coins apparently fresh from the mint with their surfaces still sharp and brilliant. On the whole the condition of the coins in the Demanhur deposit averages very high indeed. Not only had the majority of the coins seen comparatively little cir- NUMISMATICY™NOES | DEMANHUR 23 culation when their former owner consigned them to the earth, but since then the dele- terious action of time and the salts in the ground have affected but few. There are indeed certain specimens from the find which are covered with a heavy agglomer- ation of thick purple oxide, as shown on Plate I, nos. 1-3. Many of these also had fragments of terra cotta embedded in the oxide. But the majority of the Demanhur coins had only a very thin coating of oxide, and that usually merely in spots, while the remainder still present their original ap- pearance at the time they were buried nearly twenty-two and a half centuries ago. From the foregoing considerations it seems likely that the Demanhur coins were once contained in several terra cotta jars. One of these had evidently, in the course of centuries, become very badly broken, thus allowing water and the various chem- icals in the earth to attack its contents. | Those coins which lay nearest the sides of |the jar gradually became heavily coated with oxide, in one or two cases — as noted Dao MONOGRAPHS 24 ALEXANDER TOA by the writer — several coins coalescing into one conglomerate mass. ‘To some of these, furthermore, fragments of the broken jar still continue to adhere. The coins which lay in the centre of the jar’s contents were apparently but slightly attacked. On the other hand, one or more of the companion jars must have remained absolutely intact throughout the centuries, in order to ac- _|count for the exceptionally splendid con- dition in which such a large proportion of the coins still are to this day. Returning to our lists, it has already been stated that the entire material pre- sented by the hoard is divided according to the provinces of Alexander’s empire. The issues of each mint have again been divided into groups and series, approximate dates being assigned to them wherever pos- sible. As we are limiting ourselves, in the following pages, strictly to the coins actu- ally contained in the find it will not always be possible to discuss the dates in detail — that will have to be deferred until a larger number of the Alexander hoards will have been published and so made available to all. NUMISMATIC NV DEMANHUR As the types of the Alexander tetra- drachms remain constant throughout, it will not be necessary to describe each coin. In general, then, we find a young head of Heracles on the obverse turned to the right. In the rare cases where the head faces to the left special mention will be made of that fact. On the reverse the seated Zeus invariably faces to the left. As a general rule Miuller’s observations still holds good, namely, that on the earlier issues the legs of Zeus are placed parallel to each other, on the later the right foot is drawn back and is to be seen behind the left. But this diversity of position had not ceased by the time of Alexander’s death, and the older type is often found continuing in certain mints until well into the third cen- tury B.C. The kingly title appears on a great many of the Demanhur coins and its presence is always specially noted in the catalogue. AND MONOGRAPHS op) A a4 < © a0) a aa ja Zi < >< Gal 4 < I ‘TI (spremuMmop) ataany (9) I (qysiudn) waaany (S ‘Z) 1 NaW1NA (o*h)r5 eas avaH aTanod (Let BSe NuaLs (f)t- 50S (‘, 07) Moud 407M (I}t "a= (‘I 01) MOUd "2 ‘a VLE 03 OLE vIu09 ‘YW dnoIn et pte rae codecs Teeowe Te “STIOdIHANYV : JUTT ‘VINOGAOV IN ‘CdavOH UNHNVNAC AHL NI SHYLLHTAVA HHL dO aNDOIVLVO NUMISMATIC NOTES 27 DEMANHUR 9 101M (g) € aes (I) ¢ (¢) (9) © (z) € (9) < Citar (O1) z (v) z é ‘TI Cale (6'L) (o1 ‘6) I —— (urejd) Moa ZOQ SASVDUd AO LUVdaNOd — SnmoONaGVO daLaTIIA LOIS ae INAGIML — , AUTAVA JO UVA 16 *1eA YAAINO ‘2 ‘a ICE 9419 ‘9 dnoiry vrz _ AVAT AAI P61 _. SQUVHLNVO Loz _ snmaonavo 161 LAWIAH OILLV — mas SITALS ets HLVAUM go SddVu9 AO HONNA Lz VuOHdNV ‘2a z€€ pue CEE vIW09 ‘g dnorn cl AND MONOGRAPHS 28 ALE X AN DER Oia se 9 401 9A "UOTIpUdD) (9) & (S$) ¢ (O01) v (¢) S (g) > (v) v (z) v (¢) v ¢ “II (4) ¥ (9) ¥ (o1) ¢ ‘aed 1gz AULSATdV 6¢¢$ -IeA NIHd 10d — avis Qzs dVaH S,aSuOH ae (Y) snaonavo — (S) snaonavo stl (“%) pue an = (S) pue ant — sagaonavd pue W CLI ICA ano Ute a TaIHS — daVaH S.A TOVa “2912 PIPy UI ‘OD ‘ad 6zf pue Off vI419 ‘q dnoin -b1S -60¢ -10$ -o6+ -19V -7lV -CCY -Lev gcr -77V -C6¢ -€LE on NUMISMATIC NOTES DEMANHUR UAAINO GNV MOd SOHOVNOUd SVTITVd gol HVIAOONNAOD CCI ATOaID NI UVIS ‘Da Qce vI419 ‘F dnoin z~Oe 3909 99t WuaH L6 WAINVaONG 100 SICA sngaondvo Soe) LNaOSauD Igl 4. = 3° gle VHd IV LNAd gII ’ qSOu ‘a ‘a Let pue gz vo419 ‘ry dnoiy LV gs tI Col gl 09 cv cc CV if 8 I -196 -606 -f6g -c6L -9gil -9$9 -V19 -OLS -9fS -6zS -1zS ozS -VIOI Ape NONO.GRAP HS ALEXANDER HOD] Cs Re Sa Oda (v) 11 INACINL (OI ‘9) OI dV) NVIDAUHd (g ‘S) o1 LOWIGH NVINOGHOVIN g 074A (6 ‘% ‘¥) OI YATINV "AOdVNV=AVV SUAVISVE” : poquosuy ‘Oa Cze pue Hz v9419 ‘Fy dnoiyn 4 (Or 2'6)-61 26% UAAINO GNV MOG Zh -ggII e (ZIP G. - OSG SOHOVWOUd SVTIVd 99 -OOII 4A 03.4 (11 ‘69 ‘S).6 69¢ AvVIdOoNNUOD LO -CPoOI “MOLIpUoD Id JTW PIPY UT ‘adg = ‘ON "AOd VNV=AVV SUSAVISVE J0 SUAVISVE AOdVNV=AVYV : poquiosuy ‘2 ‘a Sze p9419 ‘cy dno1y 31 DEMANHUR “SpIVMUMOP IO ‘YYBII 04 ‘}JO] OF OPIS BABOUOD S}I YIM poyUssoidal st JUBDSEIO OY, x CIT ZE 005 A (1) £1 6$¢ (Ve 10% JJ TAUMAVI AO DIAdS TAUMNAVI AO DIAdS « LNAOSHUO (z1) zi zZS‘olS J} 40‘, ‘,| AMTAVA AO UVa Rel ie2ee AHTAVA HO AVA ‘2UO1Y} Y} RIN g *pjey ut poquiss ‘H dnoiryn se peqtisosuy ‘2 ‘ad GIF pue Oz! pI419 ‘f dnoir (oI ‘g) ZI 098 (G5) Sho Oe Gat ee coe "H dnory se poeqriiosuy ‘Od Ize pue zze vI419 ‘J dnoin EE of fol QI I ZI Ol 5 9z tz i -Vo9S 1 CoCI -1SCT -1VS1 -QeCI -Z1SI -Sgvl -1ZV1 AND MONOGRAPHS ALEXANDER HOARD d “uoryIpuod — 3) — LoS aad 7 ‘gq dnoin | (S$) 91 zl KA (F) 91 988 aSOU GNV aga (€) 91 9€8 LJ ¢ ‘y dnoin ‘Ioye] IO °D “a OZE 04 QE D949 ‘VITAd : JULY "VINOGAOV IN, QI 68g V wd I aed “19 [NIA ‘auoi1y) Yeausg ‘play uy ‘vad "H dnory se poqriosuy ‘Da git vos19 Sy dnoiy -LOS1 -COSI -16S1 -9gSI -£QSI zQSI We NUMISMATIC NOTES 33 DEMANHUR BUI}IGIUXS PUB SUL] Jopeoiq SuiAey ul g6SI—L6SI a — a aye A —— A —— I ¢ ‘III A — A —aa 4 0} DA (9) 91 A : é ‘TIT A Teed ‘q dnoin — V 86 WOINVYONA ‘o[AJS POOURAPB dIOW AT}YSIYs ‘SOU WOOL] SloyjIp AJOIVA STUT, y “VY *vdavolo “qd ‘INaaIaL aad INAGIUL (‘] 07 8uléy) aaa — ‘IOAOOSPEYM YICW JUTUL ON LOI PAC) ‘cy dnoin oe ) Had - Cc c € Z ‘JJO] OY} 0} SOV] SOPOVIOPF{ JO PVOY OY} SOIJOLIVA OMY SUTMOTI[OJ 94} UO -ClOI -[fgI oral ItgI -QzQI ~bzg1 CzgI -VogI -1091 -66S1 Pelee ONO G.R:A PHS 34 ALEXANDER VOM DA I ‘SAT ‘(2 ‘1) 91 ~LEQ SWAV GHHOLAULSLINO HLIM HLAOA ‘NOAOIS : 4UITA "SASHNNOAOTE G HA 03 4 CLV OLS eles SV {UIT UTeyJ00U- LHWNTAH SILLY “AIVSSHHT YO VINOGHOV]/ a sats BS leak LIOGUAGNAHL *q dnorn a —- — ‘V ‘vdavolo “UOT}IPUoD Iq “ATW "auosy} YLoUEg "PPy uy AOLLLULIVI : poqruosuy ‘gq dno eps Ol 1 ‘gadg -6791 -6f91 gtol Lgl Le NUMISMATIC NOTES 35 DEMANHUR we DA (bv) 41 — WY samondvo (11) 41 — bd AaXaL Wivd — — HH SHNWaaH (c1) 41 — +: SaWNuaH “SJUTP SHOLIE A ‘SILNOdOUd AHL AO NOIOAYY Set ore aTHIHS NVINOGHOVN ‘AjUO AOdVNV=AVYV : pequosuy (ol) 91 — ATHIHS NVINOGHOVIN “AOd VNV=AVV SUSVISVE : poquosuy (g) 91 — AATAVA AO AVA e (6) 91 — daVadH S,LvO9 IY He eS oe Ceol PggI gol -9lgI -CL9I1 zLgl -o/gI1 -L991 eto MONO GR A PHS ALEXAN DERV@HOGH o> fe qd 01a "UOHTPUoD (wij Or: ot # 6 ae DECI SITAOSIUL dadVaH VAHLIN (1) Zt . 26 “rea WOINVUONA ‘Da zt 03 CCE vI109 ‘SHGUVS : UIT 'VIGA’T (or 6) ZI 262 o SINALUV ‘a[A4s I07e] JO ynq surpsoaid oy 04 JeTTUIIS (Sent Loe S SINALUV Cy See SINGLUV ~‘AI — sangaonadvo ‘Iq = “ABT[NIN ‘QUOIY] YJeauEg ‘play uy QV CI Z i} ‘sadsg oSZI Ori QvLi -zoLI -6891 -Lgg1 989I Be op) a oH s Z oO — ee < a op = ae Z 36 es 4A 01 DA (v) o€ ofS IV HLVaUM "AOdVNV=SVV SUAVISVG” : poquosul ‘AGIS UO SITASVHd : UTI ie ‘VIIAHANVd YO VIOAT P la PENG Bes A os d (01) g1 6681 @® (3) oo tae (cx) gt — KI Ss ” (11) gi an ic z d 0} HA (6) gl — AATAVA AO AVA A a (or) 6z O1 ko NAWTOA a PN NaWTOA a ‘Joyey Jo ‘oz’ 07 OLE 9419s” ‘SOLATIN : JUTT ‘VIUVO gol -6191 -CIQI -g6L1 -b6L1 CLL -CCLI -CCLI -1CLI AND MONOGRAPHS ALEXANDERVHOSAiaE 38 d) 4A 01 J “worIpuoD rae “AOULIVIO SOAVISVE : Abe I a (g) 08 (Z) of (9) of (S) of ‘aie d CCl gLVI cQvl CQvl Liz QIz “42112 IN (3) V =V AV 9) 9 2g rd IV ‘2U01Y) YJ eaUAg pequosuy Pray au z Zz 3 VI z 9 CI a ‘oadsg €L61 -1Z61 -6961 -9961 -cC61 -oS61 -vr61 -6z61 -Cz6I ve NUMISMATIC ONG DEMANHUR 4d 0} M (Si Olwe (qoTJad JO 19949] OU) 9 « FT BULNYO », x CRO oA . V LI . es ee O1 55 — L ° i I CLL) paaeG % ha ¥ — ¢ re INAGIUL ¢ ” (z) 61 © Vv z9 107 M (1) 61-1 : 9 “UOI}IPUuODd ‘O12 q ‘“]JEMAON ‘“sneZ pulysq ‘auoiy} y}esueg ‘play uy ‘sads bai Vs UP EO) 93 "2 "A Bzl 0} CLE vo119 ‘soles ISIN. "“SASUVL : QUIT Pvioci) -0602 -[Loz -£907 ZQOT -CVoz -cvoz - -Og61 -bL61 fond eee MONOGRAPHS ALE XAN D E RVR RD 9 407 M "WOrIPUoD (g) 02 (£) oz (1) 02 (Z) O€ (V) 0z (S$) oz (S) 61 (-) 61 gf cc ve cc ze of 6z Le Qc Cz Iz Oz 8 ” SHdVuo JO HONNE # (spremuMop) (qystidn) ava AAI H 9) ” ) 9 (O) %) 4 9) g ‘J MO'ld ‘a DzL 03 Lee v9419 ‘satIag puodEs OI a g dq O1e[q “[[PMON ‘snez7 purysagq ‘suo yJLeusg ‘pray ut Cz 99 ‘vadg -77LT -C1fz -C1CZ rat he 2 -OICZ 60¢z -CQzz -7£7Z -Q7CS -961z -L61Z -LQ1z -ZQIZ -960z on NUMISMATICON Gi 41 DEMANHUR 9 dq Ola ) 4A 01 a “uollIpuod (PPC, =e (Oy 1c cs — 1 — 6 Grete 57 (2). Teele COj=teacy (SIs LEO? sky (O01) of ov (O),0040:. "AIL “TPMeN (‘Ago uo d) ) J Sh ”) ) i) My Hao Germ 2d s ee ep ke Sees nay Se af 0 ‘NW M4 t 9) 0 “2UOIY} YI LOUD g ” MOTd Bd eas A) “AOdVNV=AVV SUAVISVE” : poqrosuy "D "a GIF 03 EZE 9419 ‘satIEg pry, : APD MONOGRAPHS ALEXAN DE RBE UA 42 a : — 0g agqanu 1 brsz “AOLLLUIVId SOAVISVE : poquosuy ‘J ‘a OZE 19419 JOYTe ‘TT Setsag 402 DA (cI) 12 — (osre] pue oyisodutoo) ,, $f -6gbz 6 (41) az “Zect ig Let? PE Veer’ DA 0} M (O1) IZ ggzi g (epsoduios) Mod 6 -9t bz “19T1N "2 "a OZ 0} OLE 09419 “T Satta ‘SINVIVS : JUIT "SAUdAD be | (S$) 1c 6¢ 9) 9 9) = ; 9) 8 -3zv~ dq 01 4 — gf J snaondvo 8 ‘EQ ‘AMIN €¢ -Czvz *uOI}IPUOD "Ie “[]PMON *3U01Y} Y}eouag "play. uy ‘oadS ‘ON NUMIUSMATWICG Nats aa = a Zz < = — A ‘ens1exe 8} UI sivodde 191}¥e] 94} pue posodsuev1y ae ZUAVIZVA YY} PuUe LOUVNVEAVV 4} oMsst sty} jo asoj[d oy} SpIeMOT, x DA VA ERI aAoa I L992 "2 ‘ad Sze 03 OLE 9419 ‘T sorties ‘SOHdVd : JUTT (6) 1% v6zI 1 gt » SUOAVISVE AOdVNV=SVV : pequosuy (q (g) 12 v6z1 Tbe ge Be eee Ses a “SUAVISVE (795) Od VNVEAVV : poquosuy (fe "2 "ad OZE 0} ZEE 99419 ‘WAILIO : JUIT me OPM ONOGRAPHS ALEXAN DE Ritii@yae aga ad 07 HA A A a “UOTIpuoD 44 I‘TA — 4 Ue «CNY «~pue AAOd ONIATA “AOU VNV=AVV SUAVISVE : poquosuy ‘Jaqyey] JO “D "a Bze 09419 “JT Sattas ‘SAHLVNV : JUTT/[ (Vel ATTAVA AO UVa a — zo OludS TAUNVI Mw “SUAVISVE AOdVNVEAVYV : poquosuy ‘Ioye] pue O7¢ 09419 “TIT soses (2RD ers aad 4 (¢) gi — asou = (1) gle wy ‘a1e[q “ANN ‘QUOIY} Y}eouNg ‘prey uy ‘2 ‘a OZE 04 SZ M9419 ‘TT Serta Ll op) ca Ss O Zz O S < a op) a =) Za 45 De HeM AGN: H UR OVI sagonavo € -9giIlz (2) IIOS : 4UIT!Y (S) g1 — NAWINA I Side ‘SO4AVISVE AOdVNV=AVYV : poqiosuy ‘WOTYVIN : JUTSA (21) 08° = (a]A}s 10}e]) ,, v “112% Rigs ° I o1dz ard gas Fas ° ” c -goLz (11) 0¢ — | ap ae -Colz oe ae , MOUYd OI -bggz ‘AjU0 AOdVNV=AVY : poqtosuy ~*~ ¢ ‘Oa See M9419 Io4ye ‘TT SOLIesS AND MONOGRAPHS ALEX AN DER Gea hei 46 4101 9A 402 DA Nee “uorTpUuoD (2):OR are WV Dp "“AOdVNV=AVV SUAVISVE” : poqrosuy ‘Dd QZL 04 QzE 09419 “TIT SaLIES BGs ‘W ” (9) 61 61 IN Dp (7918) OA VNV=EAVYV SUAVISVE” : poquosuy] "2 "a OZE 09419 ‘TT SeLIES - (LJ) ho = Si W ” "+A = NOIdaOOS 1E[q “[]aMIN *2U01Y} Y}eIUE play uy "D ‘ad OLE 03 CLE 09429 ‘T Sales ‘SQUCGNVIVAN : YUTTY ‘VIUAS NYHHLYON v 1d c ‘oads -99Lz -bblz -cblz -17lz -61Lz ie NUMISMAT1C NOTE 47 DEMANHUR dq 01 a 4 07 DA ON, (Olj Olas. WW Na "“AOdVNV=4AVV SUAVISVE” : poqitosuy "2 ‘d@ OZ 04 CZE M9419 “A SATIBS (6) Oles6z ie WE pue Dp a Qe i pue Ce — \W I~ pue Pp "Da CZ 01 QZl 09429 ‘AT SELIG {TP),0% 00 \W WA ‘Ajuo AOdVNV=AVV : poqiosuy] aoe W MM ‘MOdVNV=AVV SUAVISVE : pogtosuy (g) 61 zz VV ‘AtuO AOdVNV=4VV : poqiosuy] bp OI bz Qc -¢19z -698z -V98z -CEQ7 -OZ8Z -96Lz -oLlz fea weev Oo NOG RAP HS ALEXAN DE RWG. DA DA bP) JA "WOTIPUoD — SPlI VV “TN "2 "a OFF 04 ZC vI419 ‘T sottlag Cth oe “SNOSVNVA = JUTTAL “VINYAS—A THO?) A X ¥ ‘(¢) AOAANVA-SITOdVUGIH : YUTTAL — &¢ W ‘V7 am: W SUAVISVE AOLLLUIVI® : poquosuy "D ‘a OIE 04 OZE 09419 ‘TA SaTIASG A pots — ef "aIV[q [PMN os W ‘IUOIY} Y}eIUs Drea y 48 W Md = = c c ‘oads -2687 L682 9g6gz C6gz -£6gz -16gz fais NUMISMATICGCON Ta. 49 DEMANHUR eB & & DA 0} M IVCI VY ZVCI YY = WV oe WN _ WV = VV ovcl yey 6LCI VeV Qtcl VV joqurAs ON bP WVa — S19}}9] JO joquiAs ON ‘2 ‘a OIL 09419 04 ‘TT SOLIOS QVel VV —— VV eed VV ny = -oSce -LVZE gbze -vrze -IQI¢ -CLI¢ -1S0¢ -9l6z -616z -L16z -O16z 60672 -(06z AND MONOGRAPHS ALEXANDER HOARDS 40} M HA bh} @ 0} JA "WoLIpuo| 50 iy egos V cael Pia Lae “2 "ad OFL 9429 04 ‘T Satta “SNAVUAV : 4UIY C1) ee yes ggzr “SUSAVISVE AOdVNVE=SVY : poqiosuy (2) Gis = > ae Loze ‘ANUVO : JUIJ ‘LSVOD NVIOINSOHG AH], (9) Sz eI OY * LY Ooze (vy) Sz — VV WVa Zz -Sze ‘aIe[q “JINN ‘gUuO1Y} YOUNG ‘play uy ‘oads ‘ON NUMISMATIC WOE a Sl DEMANHUR 4 04 DA Fore, (Z1) 2 CLIsce (Tee (01 6) ee (g ‘L) zz (9) zz BOtI Coll ZOCI potl OOtI a d Wee (G :oSsIoAqo uO) I ‘BUAVISVE AOdVNVEAVY : poquosuy (S) zz (Vv) zz ‘Qa GIL 09419 0} ‘TI] SOLES c IN %3 II (vy :aszaaqo uo) © ‘2 'd Qzl DIAII 04 “TT SOTIOS -CCVe -O£ PE -Leve -Cot¢? -OSe’ -PEC’ -Cole COC. _-00¢¢ -69z¢ -QRee AND MONOGRAPHS wn A faa < © a faa al a Za = rm Ga 4 < d 0} 4 (Vireo eS Let (oJ43s JozeT) ,, 62 ‘202 DA V ‘TA (Z) zz = SLEI vy ‘yopoureIpy jo oureu oy} Ur ‘JJ sores wl hae ef ‘snjAuq jo oureu oy} ur “T sorted “SOTAAD : QUIT (vy) €z oL€1 samondavd 611 AHA 03 A (CECA IOUL a Oe “UOI}Ipuodd *a1e[q “IIT [NIN ‘gu01Y] YJVIUNg ‘pley uy ‘vadg NUMISMATIC NOTE. i i DEMANHUR 9) 9A OF M ) DA 01 M (g) €z 91 Is (oa Se SS = Dic Ofer “{Iesopios ORs cA Te c (Z) VZ g x “TT2 429 N ‘Da 1€€ pue zee ‘7 sores ‘NOGIS : JUIJ (01) of — o ‘NIVIMAONN : UIT ITA Qlel Sek IV ‘Dd OZL 09419 "SOLANA : QUIT ” AHdOUL 9g ‘O CI II -Gzle -ZQ9L -L99¢ -9SQt -bSgr CCot we eMONOGRAPHS ip) ~% x ‘S) on aa aa aa Zz = x ea H+ x d 0} JA (Ta ce (O1) ¢z (6) °z ¥ (Lyte J 0} 9A (9) tz 1b |= "AOLLLUIVIG : poqriosuy "D “d It 04 OZ ‘A Saag 6¢ “ ve |= "‘) “A OZ 04 CZE “AT Sottes ras Qz Vz Fate |= “+ ‘a. coe 07 LOS “TT sehes Oz |= AATIVD QI = AVAT AAI “uoljIpuosd 212d “[]2MON ‘2u01Y} YJeaueg *pley uy NUMISMATICUNO TE. DEMANHUR DA DA OF M d 0} JA (Z)Ves OF aL 62 “Da LZt 09119 “TTT Sota (9) bz 9 a ‘) "a Gel 0} OZE 09419 ‘TT SOTIES (vy) bz + Uz (So) Poo’ W a : W CC) vouet LIOGUAGNOHL ‘D ‘a OLE 0} ZEE 9419 ‘JT SATIS ‘AMV > QUIS em Gest 4 a — ty j= Wt O -Logte -Cog’ -g6L¢ -[QLE -LLLE -69L¢ gglt -99L¢ Ao ONOGRAPHS ALEX AN D ER eA 56 9) 407 DA “uorupuod ‘TIA 1% — I1¢ a — 62 re cera 3 N — vz . ITT 11 11 gees TLTe at ICA TY 5» =i Wi ss ais aie ALS rin ] I ‘D "ad BIL 0} OZ poqep ‘A SdaLIaS (Ol) ve 7z — oz (GQ) Woos ot — TI CR aaa "21R[q “[]2MIN ‘QUOIY] YeIUIG » =U I » =Till 9 = III 9 = II . = aL = “ete aT ‘ ‘da 1Z€ 03 9zL poyep SAT Sette N = CO mm SES -¢L6¢ ZL6e -b96¢ CQb6e -196¢ -bS6¢ -Cp6e -£COC -916¢ -606£ -96g¢ NUMISMATICONG TEs af DEMANHUR 107 M DA 01 M DA (g) pi feline ee ” d Ma ae W “2971 "2 ‘a 62 03 ILC vI429 ‘T SoltES ‘NOTAGVA : JUT ‘VINOTAEVG (6) of E ‘HLVAUM ‘Atuo AOdVNV=AVV : poquosuy — (9) ZI TIMGNAL HLIM SHdVaD AO HONNA ‘SO4AVISVE AOdVNV=AVYV : poqiosuy (S) ZI TIMGNAL HLIM SHdvVaD AO HONNE ‘ISV] AZHL NI SINIJ NIVLYAONQ bb A: -£Q6C -Og6¢ 6L6¢ gZ6t -9l6¢ AND MONOGRAPHS ALEXAN DER HOR is DA 0} A "UOLIIpUod (9) 92 (O1) 92 (V) 92 (S) 9z (2) 92 (z1) Sz (11) $z (6) Sz (O1) $z ‘a1e[d Vg9 s AVIS gI 669 xe NIHd1oad 6 —- Re (‘[ Jo 104) aula ZI — 4 HLVauM O61 L69 W ‘«h4 AGA gz ‘2 "a Qzt 0} 6zE 9419 “TT satreg Cog W ‘o oI — W (sored of[Ays) ,, 2 — O\ladS IHUNVI ,, 5, Pa — INS OI p ee clare Sue — NiHd'IOd - =), 2 5, sass | — NVIAS “Ge oe, ea — Sddvao JO HONDA JOAO J > S$ ‘ITN "2U0LY} YJVIUag ‘play uy ‘sads *PpOJIOAUL SI SOU} JV WeIZOUOU SIU y -9zIV -LIIV -CoIv -9g0V -gCop -gbor -1v0v -glov -blor Cor zlor -Lzov On NUMISMATIC NOTES 59 DMA NH UR HA 07 DA AUTAVd AO UVa LTOPddaNoAnL LNad ads INHOIaL SNHONAVO ° W Wy WK XNIHdS (¢) ava NVWOH AVAT KAI Sadvao - ATAOIS asou XITAM HOUOL ep a8) Ay < m4 oO O vA O a a) Zz < ALEXAN DE RVUs 60 BASOVIA “uonTpuod) (€) 92 (I) 92 (Z) 92 (Z) ge (Ly-be (9) Lz (Z1) 92 Cee WA ge CIjawe aed 102 £89 EASIUE SIAN PA W 2 (joqurAs ow) ao NAIA 5, 3» SOROOdVO.-;, », aNd (endsoxe uy) ss NOIT FF WOAINVYONd ‘ij HOUOL ONIOVA e AUYLSATdAV 2 WAITOLSOXDV # dTVOS S,NOIT 3 HOH & SINALUV W ‘A AMIN ‘QUOIY} YBAUIg “pley uy I OO = = se ee HOO DO A —_ — II ‘2adg -1fCV -Cccey -QI¢tV -OO¢L -b6zv Cozv zOcv 16cP o6zP 6gzV -197V -glzv -vLzv -[gzv oN NUMISMATIC NOTES DEMANHUR ” (Z) gz Lod a , “snatia “Li “-Szbp 9 (11) gz ogg » JINAGINL -1zbV 53 — 969 he * qqq I1 -oiby n (Z1) gz 969 i » NIHaIoad Zz -90bb 3 (Ol) cae * 5, samonava 9 ~ -zobP r {1} 6Z, = 3 i; XITAM II -16¢P 39 (0) San ° - AvIs € -ggey ” <= es fe - HOUOL Zz -9gtV » — 269 a » Saavio PI -2ZLer ” —) s£0L v SO Lae TE ISae lis eater (O)Gc econ “ 5 td AVE. 8 -CSoP (S) gz zg9 .9 $12 MIO OR carer (z) 6% ‘egol es Wpue aoH z_ -€ber ‘2 ‘ad PZ 0} Qzt V9419 ‘TTT SolIES meee MONOGRAPHS n a faa “a O ic ad ca a) Z < ae = 4 < ”? d 01 4 “UONIPUoD INACIIL samonavo XVIAN VIS HOUOL = SHdVUD — ATNOIS (£) 62 — » (2) ava (PV) 02) == W pue sat ‘SOAVISVE AOdVNV=AVV : poquosuy "2 ‘a €zE 04 VZE 09419 “AT Soltesg — — - NAWTAA (8) 8% 989 A W AMIN ‘aq “AI [NIN ‘QUOIY} YLIUag “play uy + OI ‘gadg -cvvV -Z7¢VV cone NUMISMATIC NO PES 63 PMA N HUR 9) d 0} HA ad 07 HA dita Ma kL ‘SUAVISVE AOLLLLIVIG : poquosuy ‘2 ‘ad GIL 07 OZE 09119 “TA SETIIS N pue 1daHM (S) 6z or J > (9) 6% Vol ry i "SOSVISVA AOLLLIVID : poquosuy (G%o)- Ge. Chet AV W ‘SUOSAVISVE AOdVNV=AVY : poqriosuy "2H OZ 0} CZ 0I4I9 “A SOTIIS Es zl9 ” ” 2 a ee ” ” NAHWTOA — PS W pue aXIN 57 LY cl -ZOOV 1091 -COcy -9cSV -OLV0 -LovV 99bV Covr Pees OONOGRAPHS ALEXANDER iO yi 64 dt TILA Oh) OG RIO9 Ne sasvoud a CTIA — |\V AWTAVA AO AVA + (14): 6a 42 IV LIOGUaAGNAHL ” (ct)-Oe. 21st Vv WONH™M ” (¢) o£ zI o1V aASOW d 0} JA (z) oe — JoV asou ‘VIMGNVXATV : JUITT ‘LdADY a — 62 lA LJ pue TaaHM a — vz Nea TARHM *UOljIpUuos 33eR[g “1I[NI QUOI} Yeaued "prey uy C gz-ezgt Zz 6¢ ce DCI Y I ¢ ‘oadg -OZ8P -1QLP -gbLvV -VI9v -O19v 6091 -909V oe NUMISMA TIC ON Ga DEMANHUR 65 MACEDONIA. Mint: AMPHIPOLIS. Groups A to K, Nos. 1 to 1582 inclusive. That the coins forming the above eleven groups belong together, and represent the issues of a single mint, has been demon- strated in the present writer’s “‘ Reattri- bution of Certain Tetradrachms of Alex- ander the Great”’.° As there pointed out, these coins all show one tradition of art and manufacture, and reveal a steady pro- gression (one can hardly call it progress) in style. The individual members of each group are closely bound together, inter se, by the frequent use of a common obverse die; the larger groups, in their turn, are also linked together in the same manner. In other words, group ‘A’ will possess cer- tain dies that were used in its production and then were continued in use, in a slightly more worn condition, for group‘ B’. Group ‘B’,in turn, will be found to possess cer- Peete aN OG RA PHS 66 ALEX AN DERYE OAR: tain obverse dies that had already been used for ‘A’, and others that were later used for ‘C’, and so forth. Since the pub- lication of that study, a great many addi- tional cases of such use in common of ob- verse dies between the component members of a single group, as well as between group and group, have turned up. These facts, taken together, prove beyond a doubt that these coins are all the issues of a single mint. Little change has been made in the ac- tual grouping of the varieties and their sequence. This can be more or less accu- tately determined by noticing the inter- change of dies, the development of style and technique, and the average amount of circulation exhibited by the various groups contained in such a hoard as that of De- manhur. Reasons of style, the find spots of cor- responding subsidiary denominations, the close connection with and continuation of the monetary issues of the previous reign, and the re-issue of posthumous silver with types of Philip II, all prove that the mint NUMISMATIC NOGO@ZES . EL ee DEMANHUR 67 which struck coins Nos. I to 1582 was sit- uated within the boundaries of Macedonia. At the time the monograph above men- tioned was written, the choice lay between Pella the capital and Amphipolis the larg- est port and the centre of the silver mining industries. The writer inclined towards Pella as the probable mint, but expressed |the conviction that Amphipolis7 could pre- sent as good a claim. However, a contin- ued and detailed study of the numerous later coinages of the same mint appear to prove conclusively that it was located in Amphipolis and not in Pella. At present it is not advisable to enter upon a neces- sarily lengthy discussion of the pros and cons, since this would demand the study of hundreds of coins not in the Demanhur hoard and thus take us outside the limits originally set for this article. The dates previously proposed for these Macedonian issues by the writer, in his “Reattribution of Certain Tetradrachms of Alexander the Great,’ must now be dis- regarded. At that time he followed the accepted authorities’ in the interpretation ANDY MONOGRAPHS 68 ALEXAN DERG OGM RAs of the dates found on the Ake issues. Fur- ther studies,? however, revealed the indis- putable fact that these dates are in error by some fourteen years, and this discovery throws out all previous calculations con- cerning the dates of the contemporaneous Macedonian issues. The dates here assigned the various groups of the Amphipolis coinage are, per- haps, to a certain extent approximate. But even so, they cannot be in error by much more than a year either way. The com- mencement of the coinage is determined by the accession of Alexander, its termination —so far as our hoard is concerned —by the latest date'® found on the accompany- ing issues of Sidon and Ake. Between these limits the material has been divided in such a way that, up to the two or three years immediately preceding the actual burial, the average annual production, in both quantity of coins and number of dies, is reasonably distributed. Naturally some years would witness a greater production than others, and full account has been taken of this possibility. The two final NUMISMATIC NOTES DEMANHUR groups were left out of consideration be- cause of the apparently general law ob- servable in coin hoards that, for perfectly natural reasons, the issues contemporary with the burial are usually comparatively scantily represented. That the working of this law should be noticeable in the present case is all the more likely, as our mint was |situated in Macedonia and the hoard was buried in Egypt. Also, certain material at the writer’s disposal would tend to show that groups J and K, and probably also I, were originally much larger than our find would seem to indicate. That the dates here assigned to groups A, B, C, and D are approximately correct is confirmed by the Kyparissia hoard recently published." In looking over the issues of the Am- phipolis mint, as presented to us by the Demanhur hoard, we are naturally im- pressed by their quantity, continuity and evident importance as compared with the coinages of the remaining mints. In fact, they form at least one third of the entire hoard and outnumber the representatives of any other one mint. This is especially PeneleeviaOen OC) GiRsA PHS 70 ALEXAN DE REE Oka to be noticed as the accumulation was no doubt largely made in Egypt where it was eventually buried. The number of dies used at Amphipolis also surpasses that found for any other place at this period. It will be recognized, therefore, that Am- phipolis must have been the most impor- tant mint of the entire empire, not only during Alexander’s lifetime, but also throughout the greater portion of his suc- cessor’s reign. Before closing our notes on the Amphi- polis coinage, as represented in the Deman- hur hoard, it is necessary to correct an error which crept into the writer’s previous list of the varieties coming to him from that find. The tetradrachm illustrated on Plate 17, No. 3, is now known never to have been in the find. By mistake it had found its way into the lot purchased from M. Bourgey by the writer and so was included by him in his catalogue. It was not until too late that his suspicions, aroused by the divergent appearance of the piece and its anomalous presence in such an early hoard, were confirmed by M. Bourgey. The coin NUMISMATIC NOTES DEMANHUR had come to him at about the same time as the Demanhur pieces, but from another source. MACEDONIA. Mint: PELLA. Groups A to F, Nos. 1583 to 1638 inclusive. These coins must also constitute the issues of a single mint, as many of their types are connected by identical obverse dies. We find several instances where an earlier reverse die has had its symbol or monogram partially erased (leaving suffi- cient traces, however, to enable us to determine the variety) and a later one sub- stituted. There is, in addition, an unmis- takeable continuity of style throughout the series. The mint itself must have been situated in Macedonia. Not only do the coins themselves show many affinities in style with the Amphipolis issues, but the ac- companying subsidiary bronze coins are almost exclusively found in Macedonia or Thessaly. Certain posthumous staters, AND MONOGRAPHS Ta ALEXANDER HOARDS tetradrachms and smaller denominations of the Philip II type are known which bear the same monograms or symbols as our tetradrachms and show the same stylistic peculiarities.'2 It is obvious that the post- humous silver issues of the Philip type could only have been issued in Macedonia and, possibly, Thessaly. The demand for this type of coin was apparently confined to Macedonia, Greece, and the northern barbarians. The last named seem to have especially favored this type of coin and it was no doubt largely for their special ben- efit that these posthumous issues were made. There must also have been a cer- tain continued demand for them in Hellas itself, for the posthumous types are well represented in the Lamia hoard (preserved in the Athens collection) and in two small hoards from Central Greece now in the writer’s possession. Others were contained in the Andritsaena (Peloponnesus) hoard,"3 the second Megara hoard,'4 and the Killer hoard.'s If then we are forced to assign Nos. 1583 to 1638 to some mint in Mace- donia, only Pella can come into considera- NUMIS MATT CHND Tee DEMANHUR tion, for Amphipolis has already been pre- iempted by Nos. 1 to 1582. In comparing the issues of Amphipolis and Pella we see that the latter mint has by this time become of distinctly lesser importance than the former — which had not been the case under Philip II. At Pella under Alexander the issues them- selves, the dies cut, and the actual coins struck, are comparatively few. This is also reflected in the fact that at Pella only one annual magistrate, as a rule, supervises| the coinage. At Amphipolis it is evident that many magistrates must have func- tioned at one and the same time. Proba- bly because of the contrast in their respec- tive situations the Pella mint now came to be used more for supplying local demands, the Amphipolis mint for foreign commerce. It is a fact that while the writer has rec- ords of the latter’s issues being strongly represented in hoards from European Greece, Asia Minor, Egypt, Syria, Baby- lonia, and Persia, the Pella coins seldom turn up in finds made outside of Europe, and then only in small numbers. Inthe AND MONOGRAPHS 74 ALEXAN DE RVE OA Ra European hoards, however, they are not uncommon. It is furthermore to be noted that such specimens of the Pella mint as did occur at Demanhur are all beautifully preserved, the majority hardly circulated at all. It is evident that they had not travelled much from hand to hand after leaving their dies. In contrast to this, considerable numbers of the Amphipolis pieces, particularly of the earlier issues, must by their appearance have circulated a good deal before they were finally con- signed to the ground. MACEDONIA OR THESSALY. Mint : UNCERTAIN. Nos. 1639 to 1648 inclusive. If the coins of this type were not actually struck at Pella, they were at least copied from certain issues of that mint. To be particularly noted is the peculiar form taken by the back of the throne, a type that is found in use on the Pella coinage only. If, onthe one hand, these particular tetradrachms, because of certain other NUMISMATICONG Ts DEMANHUR peculiarities, will not fit easily into the Pella series as we know it, on the other hand they could not have been struck far away. ‘Their late style, as well as the fact that all the known specimens from the De- manhur hoard were in fine condition makes it probable that they were issued about the time of Alexander’s death, or slightly later. It is quite possible that they were coined by Antipater, when in 322 B.C. he was shut up with his army in Lamia. The ‘|probable date of their appearance, their comparative crudeness of style and execu- tion, and the fact that they imitated the Pella issues, makes this suggestion at least worthy of consideration. PELOPONNESUS. Mint: SICYON. Nos. 1649 to 1675 inclusive. In the Revue Numismatique for 1904, pp. 117-133, M. Babelon proposed the at- tribution of the first of the above types to Sicyon, because of the rapprochement he there makes between the youthful figure Mm NeOy MONOGRAPHS 75 ALEXANDER VEO with outstretched arms and the later, and better known, representation’ of the youth holding a long fillet in his upraised hands. This figure M. Babelon calls ‘‘ Le devin de Sicyone”’. At the time of his previous article on the Demanhur hoard, the writer was unaware of M. Babelon’s attribution of these par- ticular coins to Sicyon, and saw in them only the issues of some uncertain mint in Macedonia or Thrace. Since then many new and unpublished types not in our hoard have come to light. They form a numismatic bridge between the earlier pieces with the “ Sicyonian divinity ” sym- bol and the later coins (Miller, Nos. 864- 893) undoubtedly struck at Sicyon. As it is here permissible to deal only with such varieties as actually occurred in the De- manhur deposit, a study of the extremely interesting Alexander issues of Sicyon as a whole will have to be deferred to some future time. Among the most important and inter- esting of the coins that prove the correct- ness of M. Babelon’s attribution is No. 3: NUMISMA T UGGN Get DEMANHUR Plate II. A close inspection will reveal that what at first seems only a flaw in the reverse die, immediately beneath the out- stretched arms of the little figure in the field, is in reality a flying dove somewhat minutely engraved. This definitely forms the link, hitherto missing, between the ear- liest and the later representations of the ‘“Sicyonian divinity’”’, on the Alexander coinages. Thus we see the young god standing, with arms outstretched, both with and without the dove (Nos. I and 2, Plate 16), just as on the later Alexander issues of Sicyon he is standing holding a long fillet with his upraised hands. Here, too, the dove is sometimes present and sometimes absent. Certain autonomous bronze coins show him as on our coins of the Demanhur find, his arms stretched out in front of him as if to seize the bird, which, however, in this case too, is not always re- presented (see Babelon, /. c., p. 123, Nos. 11 and 12). Although not aware of the existence of a specimen like our No. 1649, M. Babelon yet describes the little figure on this type as in the act of stretching out PN PeMONOGRAPHS ss? 78 ALEXANDER Of $s his arms “‘inspiré”’ as he says, “‘ par le dé- sire de satstr la colombe, bien que l’oiseau ne soit pas figuré. Il fait le geste de vouloir atteindre l’otseau qui lui échappe et prend son vol.’ (l. ¢., p. 124.) "Now "amenec= men of this very type has come to light which actually depicts the escaping dove, and so proves M. Babelon quite right in his interesting surmise. The somewhat surprising position of this dove — beneath instead of above the god’s arms where one might naturally expect to find the bird after which he is grasping — can perhaps best be explained as an artis- tic convention. Either the field of the coin was felt to be too limited to place the dove in front of the hands (the more nat- ural position) or we have here to do with a direct copy of some well known statue embodying these peculiarities. In a statue, particularly one of marble, it would indeed be somewhat difficult to represent a bird flying unsupported in front of the outstretched hands of the god. It might, however, be represented as escaping from between the arms, in which case these could NUMISMATICAND TE oa EE ee a DEMANHUR be made to support the flying bird. The coin engraver, seriously handicapped by the limited space at his command and the insuperable difficulties of a very small bas- relief, would be forced to give us a repre- sentation of the statue as we see it on our coin. The result was evidently felt not to be a success and the dove appears on one die only. The remaining types here assigned to Sicyon were very poorly represented in the Demanhur hoard and so, perhaps, do not clearly reveal their connection with the later coins correctly given to Sicyon by Miller. In fact, there are too many gaps here to make a lengthy discussion practi- cal or even advisable on this occasion. If the contents of the Demanhur hoard thus give us a rather sketchy view of the sequence of the earlier Alexander issues of Sicyon, at least enough is available to prove that the Sicyonian mint must have enjoyed a certain amount of importance under Alexander and his successor Philip III. During the campaigns in Asia the Peloponnesus formed an important and AND MONOGRAPHS 80 ALEXAN DERE Oe prolific recruiting ground for the armies. Many mercenaries were recruited from among the mountaineers of this rugged peninsula, no doubt lured into the service by the dazzling prospects held out to them of the fabulous riches of the East so easily falling into the hands of Alexander’s armies. The famous recruiting ground of Taena- rum was, in fact, situated not so far away. An active mint, more conveniently located than those in distant Macedonia, was cer- tainly needed to supply the new recruits with the first installments of their pay and also to start them on their long voyage eastwards. lt must furthermore be re- membered that strong Macedonian forces were kept in the Peloponnesus during the war with the Spartan king Agis, and after- wards also, to discourage similar attempts at raising the standard of revolt in Alex- ander’s rear among the ever rebellious Greeks. This consideration amply ac- counts for an active mint at Sicyon. NUMISMAP1 CaN Geer: De hiAIN(H OLR REGION OF THE PROPONTIS. Various mints. Nos. 1676 to 1747 inclusive. The mints at which these coins were struck were probably no less than three in number. As shown by the great stylistic similarity of their issues, these particular mints must have been situated close to each other or were, at least, intimately bound together by ties of commerce. It is not the writer’s intention to dis- cuss their coinages here. The tetra- drachms before us fail to give any ade- quate idea of the large series of coins issued by them. These series are almost entirely composed of Alexander and posthumous Philip II staters, accompanied by unusu- ally extensive issues of drachms bearing the names and types of Alexander ITI and Philip III. The coinage of tetradrachms was both scanty and intermittent. We would therefore be forced to transgress the bounds set for this article if we were to discuss the issues of these mints in an at all adequate manner. Se vO NORA PHS 8] ALEXAN DE RSIEO Arr es Because of their style, the symbols em- ployed, and the find-spots of single speci- mens of the accompanying drachms, Nos. 1676-1747 may in general be assigned to the regions bordering the Propontis. This embraces both the European and Asiatic shores. Nos. 1687-1747 Miller has already given to Perinthus in Thrace. Possibly he is correct in such an attribution, though the present writer would most certainly prefer to assign this large issue to the city of Lampsacus on the opposite shore. Now there is no question but that to Alexander the province of Hellespontine Phrygia constituted a vitally important portion of his empire, as through it ran the highway connecting him with his home base in Macedonia. It must therefore have been very strongly garrisoned. En- tirely aside from its strategic importance to the fast growing Macedonian Empire it was, and always had been, commercially most important and, therefore, very wealthy. Together with the Thracian Chersonese it commanded the famous wa- terway between the Aegean and the Black NUMISMATIC NOTES DEMANHUR sea. The lands around the latter were, and had long been, the granary of Greece, and so through the Hellespont ran the life lines of Hellas. This portion of Asia Minor had for centuries possessed mints noted for their large and continuous coinage. Under Alexander the cities that still were allowed to retain their full autonomy continued to coin extensively, using their accustomed types. Among these were Cyzicus, Hera- clea, Chalcedon, Cius, Pergamum, and many others. The seat of the Persian government in these regions had been Dascylium, but we know of no Persian coinage having been struck there. Instead, the Persian satraps seem to have employed the convenient and already existing mints of Cyzicus and Lampsacus whenever they had occasion to issue money of their own. It is to this fact that we owe not only the many Per- sian types found on the electrum staters of Cyzicus and the gold staters of Lamp- sacus, but also the definitely and purely Persian coins evidently issued from time to time by these mints for satrapal pur- my OyMONOGRAPHS ALEXANDERVHOARDS poses.'7 There can be no question but that Cyzicus and Lampsacus were the most important coining centres in all this territory. Cyzicus, however, continued to issue money in her own name and with her own types for some considerable time after the actual arrival of Alexander the Great.'® We have therefore no reason to expect or to look for an Alexander coinage in that city— particularly as Cyzicus very jealously guarded her cherished autonomy throughout these stirring times. Lampsacus seems to have fared differ- ently. A study of her autonomous coin- age reveals a great stylistic gap which cannot have commenced long after 335 B. C. and apparently extends to about 200 B.C. It is known that Lampsacus remained an important commercial centre throughout this period, and the apparent absence of any coinage is therefore highly significant. She had previously struck coins for Persian satraps, even going so far as to place some of their names (those of Orontes and Spithridates'9) upon them. There is every reason to believe, NUMISMADICAND 2: DEMANHUR therefore, that here would be located one of Alexander’s important mints. This fol- lows not only from the fact of the city’s strategic and commercially important sit- uation, but also from the fact that she had recently possessed a large and active mint and had actually coined for Persian satraps. In proceeding with our study of Alexander’s other eastern coinages we shall soon come to see how significant these par- ticular points really are. It will be possi- ble to show, again and again, that certain central mints especially active just pre- vious to Alexander’s arrival were nearly always continued —for economy’s sake and because that very activity presup- poses some definite commercial, political, or strategic importance —under the new régime. In other words, Alexander prac- tically took over bodily the practices as well as the government and the provinces of the Persian Empire. The series at present being discussed has therefore been assigned to Lampsacus on purely external grounds. Internal evi- ‘dences are not strongly conclusive, but, Mowe MONOGRAPHS ALEXANDER HOARDS such as they are, would seem to corrobo- rate the attribution. The series, with its unusually extensive accompaniment of staters (Alexander and posthumous Philip types) and Alexander and Philip III drachms, is by far the largest and most important in all north-western Asia Minor. These gold issues are unusually prolific, as is only to be expected from a city which had been coining gold staters of her own in such abundance for so many years. One of the most frequently recurring symbols on the staters and drachms is the forepart of a winged horse, the peculiar emblem of Lampsacus. Second only to this in fre- quency of occurrence is a figure of Artemis, one of the principal and most popular di- vinities of the city. As stated above, Nos. 1687-1747 had previously been assigned by Miller to Perinthus because of the curious double-horse symbol which occurs on the accompanying staters and is also found used as a type on the autonomous issues of that city. But these are evidently only magistrates’ symbols, and only one of them has any peculiar connection with Perin- NUMISMATIC NOTES (OE WMieAON H UR thus. We have to be on our guard against basing an attribution on the strength of a single magistrate’s symbol. Furthermore, the symbol of the joined foreparts of a horse is not exclusively Perinthian. The Alexander tetradrachms described by Miil- ler under his No. 393 were, by their style, certainly struck beyond the Taurus. Be- sides, Perinthus at this time was semi-au- tonomous and we have no reason to look for an Alexander coinage here at such an early period. LYDIA. Mint: SARDIS. Circa 333-324 B. C., Nos. 1748-1750. Here, too, we can gain no really adequate idea of the importance of this series to which the above three scarce types belong. Although scores of varieties of the drachm and the gold stater go to make up this series, the tetradrachm was seldom struck at first and then only in comparatively small numbers. Among the gold staters accompanying this group there is but one which bears the name and types of Philip Pee ae VL OONO.GR A PHS 87 ALEXAN DE-ReOA Rs II. This shows clearly that the present mint must have been somewhat removed from the wide-spread influence of those famous coins. Only sporadic instances?° occur of these posthumous issues of Philip II having been coined outside of Macedo- nia, Thrace, and the lands bordering the Hellespont. The few specimens that have come down to us of the three types described above, apparently show that these coins were struck from adjusted dies. This point, too — the very first instance of this prac- tice we have so far encountered — shows that we are moving away from the purely Greek issues of Hellas, Macedonia, and north-western Asia Minor. We are ap- proaching the domains of the Persian Daric and Siglus. The use of fixed, or at least adjusted, dies had early become cus- tomary in the Orient. We may first no- tice the beginnings of the practice among some of the early electrum coins of Lydia and Ionia. The gold and silver issues of Croesus show an unmistakeable adoption of the adjusted die— that is to say, pre- NUMISMAT CSN DEMANHUR 89 vious to striking, the obverse die and the reverse punch were carefully adjusted, if not permanently fixed, along a common axis. The real reason is not far to seek. The obverse design as adopted by Crcesus consists of the foreparts of a lion and a bull placed vis-a-vis. This forms a com- position whose general scheme is roughly CO. Likewise the two reverse punch marks form a similarly oblong design. As the coin blanks used at this time were invari- ably oval in shape, it was consequently absolutely necessary —if all the design were to appear upon the coin —for the two dies to be placed in a similar position, Fig. I their longest axes to correspond with the longest axis of the coin blank. For this reason we will always find the dies of the Croesic staters and sigli adjusted { — or f — as in Fig. 1. AND MONOGRAPHS 90 ALEXANDERVHOARDS After the fall of the Lydian Empire the Persian kings substituted their darics and sigli for the Lydian coins, and the royal archer of Persia replaces the Lydian lion and bull. But now that the composition of the new type is roughly (J, the reverse punch, being oblong in shape, must take an upright position because the oval coin blanks are still retained. Again the two dies necessarily assume positions to cor- respond with each other and the longer axis of the blank, as in Fig. 2. So long as Fig. 2 the Persian Empire lasted, the obverse die and the reverse punch mark on the royal coinage held the constant relation ff, forc- ed into this rigid position by the peculiar form of the blank. It is most probable, therefore, that in imitation of the royal issues the practice of adjusting dies, par- ticularly in the most usual position f fT, NUMISMAT1 Ch a DEMANHUR became so prevalent in the East at a com- paratively early period —long before the mints of the Greek world adopted it. As the coins described under Nos. 1748- 1750 are so adjusted, it is reasonable to suppose that they originated in a mint under Persian influence. Their style, how- ever, and that of the accompanying staters and drachms proves that they must have been struck in Asia Minor, that is, north and west of the Taurus range. There is only one mint in this region that entirely conforms with the requirements demanded, and that one is Sardis. In the first place, there had for centuries been situated at Sardis a royal mint, first under the Lydian monarchs until the death of Croesus, then under the Achzmenid?! sovereigns. Un- der the latter, Sardis constituted the seat of government for the very important First Satrapy while its governor was prac- tically viceroy for the entire western por- tion of the Empire. It is highly probable that the darics and sigli coined here lasted until the coming of Alexander. The latter, on his arrival, took over the city and, fol- Swe e MONOGRAPHS ALEXAN DE RO hale lowing the Persian precedent according to his almost invariable custom, retained Sar- dis as the capital of the Lydian Satrapy. Now in all this satrapy only Sardis is at all likely to have coined under Alexander. It was the only large and important city of this district that did not possess complete autonomy. It had been a royal mint for centuries and had coined actively under the preceding régime. The remaining large commercial centres of the region, such as Ephesus, Clazomenz, Erythre, etc., were autonomous Greek cities and enjoyed and jealously guarded the coveted privilege of striking autonomous coins. Alexander looked upon these Hellenic centres of trade and commerce as allies, and, like the Per- sian kings before him, refrained from in- fringing upon their rights of local coinage. Sardis, however, was in a different cate- gory because as a city it had never en- joyed the rights of autonomous coinage, being the seat and royal capital of the satrapal government. Here Alexander un- doubtedly found an active mint of long standing, and furnished with all necessary NUMISMATIC UNG. DEMANHUR 93 appliances and workmen. In Sardis we, for the first time, touch upon an outpost of oriental civilization and apparently find immediate evidence of thisin the adjust- ment of coin dies. As the coinages of Lampsacus and adja- cent mints were intended to supply the needs of Hellespontine Phrygia and of the garrisons which were stationed there, so the coinage of Sardis was to supply the royal needs in the important satrapy of Lydia, and especially to provide the pay of the troops stationed here to protect the famous ‘‘ Royal Road ” which ran via Sar- dis to the East. CARIA. Mint: MILETUS. Circa 330-318 B. C., Nos. 1751-1818. This group, if we are to judge by style alone, is certainly to be placed somewhere in Asia Minor north and west of the Tau- rus mountains. Our tetradrachms repre- sent only the commencement of a long series of issues. That they belong to- meee vON OGRA PHS 94 ALEXANDER a gether can best be appreciated by study- ing the large number of gold staters that accompany them. Confining ourselves, however, to the tetradrachms we not only find a general similarity of style and tech- nique between the various members of the group, but also several instances of a com- munity of obverse dies. As the final issues (not represented in the Demanhur find) in both gold and silver of this large series] . are bound by style or by obverse dies to Miller’s Nos. 1033, 1054, 1055, etc., the at- tribution of the entire group to Miletus seems assured. Furthermore, the almost constant symbol appearing on the staters Muller, Nos. 583, 584, 1131, 1134, 1135, 1137) and many of the later silver issues (Midler, Nos. 1133, 1136, 1138-1140) is the double ax, a symbol closely associated with Caria. Although Miletus is generally \looked upon as a city of Ionia, both Ho- mer?? and Herodotus?3 agree that it origi- nally was inhabited by Carians. Certainly at a later date it formed part of the do- mains of the Carian Dynasts, and under Alexander continued to be reckoned as in NUMISMATIC NOTES DEMANHUR oD the satrapy of Caria.4 At the time of Alexander’s invasion there was residing at the castle of Alinda, Ada the sister and wife of Idrieus the former satrap. She had been deposed by Pixo- darus when the latter had seized the power on the death of Idrieus. Ada at once opened negotiations with Alexander, even going so far as to adopt him formally as her son. She also offered to assist him in every way to secure the province of Caria, asserting that many of the nobles, as well as the Greek cities, would declare for him. Little wonder then that, after the capture and destruction of Halicarnassus, Alexan- der should have entrusted the satrapy to Ada. Its revenues were also assigned to her, and a force of 3,000 infantry and 200 cavalry under a certain Ptolemaeus was left to protect the land. This important and wealthy district, as under the Persians, was allowed to coin money —but hence- forth only with Alexandrine types. As the capital, Halicarnassus, had been com- pletely razed*5. the mint was naturally transferred to the nearby city of Miletus, PDN ON OGRAPHS 96 ALEXAN DE RWHO i the largest, and commercially the most important, place in all the region. LYCIA OR PAMPHYLIA. Mint: PHASELIS or SIDE. Nos.. 1819-1973. These coins are members of one group and therefore the issues of one mint, as is definitely shown by the fact that all the varieties here given are bound together by the use of certain identical obverse dies. It is somewhat difficult, however, to as- sign the group to any one mint or even province. The style as exhibited, partic- ularly by Nos. 1819 to 1943, is clearly that] of Greek artists in Asia Minor. The re-| verses of Nos. 1944 to 1972 are evidently somewhat influenced by the contemporary issues of Tarsus (Nos. 2327-2369). But this does not mean necessarily that their mint must be looked for in Cilicia. Alex- ander’s issues in Tarsus were discussed by the writer in a recent number of the A mer- ican Journal of Numismatics.2® There it was shown that because Soli, Mallus, and NUMISMATIC ON DEMANHUR Issus had to have their municipal coins struck for them in the central mint of Tarsus, it was not at all likely that they possessed mints of their own during the lifetime of Alexander, or even immediately after. The only other cities in Cilicia that had coined extensively in Persian times were Celenderis and Nagidus. If they coined under Alexander, their issues could scarcely have been of such importance as those represented by Nos. 1819 to 1973 man- ifestly are. Furthermore, their issues, like those of Cyprus or Phoenicia, would have been of a somewhat local character and so would have borne mintmarks of greater local significance.?7. Neither Celenderis or Nagidus can be looked upon as possible imperial mints. Nor was there any need in Cilicia for further issues of this charac- ter, as it is evident that Tarsus acted as the central mint for the entire province and as such issued imperial money in all necessary quantities. Nos. 1819-1973 are clearly royal issues as they bear no mintmarks of local signifi- cance, merely the private signatures of AND MONOGRAPHS 97 ALEXANDER HOARDS magistrates in charge of the coinage. It is probable that their mint was located in some seaport or important commercial centre. This follows from the fact that specimens of these varieties are present in nearly every recorded Alexander hoard buried previous to 300 B.C. They have occurred in at least six Egyptian hoards (including the present one), one Babylo- nian, one Syrian, one from Central Asia Minor, four Greek, and one Macedonian. Single specimens have reached the writer at various times from nearly every quarter of the Near East, from Athens, Constanti- nople, Smyrna, Syria, and Egypt. Coins of this type were apparently very widely scattered in ancient times. This would lead one to suppose that they had origi- nated in some active centre of commerce and trade, preferably a seaport. This is indeed negative reasoning and so is only of real value as a corroborative piece of evidence. On the whole, then, it might be said that the evidence points to some mint where “royal”, as in distinction to ‘““municipal”’, Alexander coins would be NUMISMATICVNG ee 7 DEMANHUR struck, and this at some important seaport in Asia Minor, not too far distant from Tarsus. Approaching the problem from another angle, we have already noticed that the great Asiatic provinces of Hellespontine Phrygia, Lydia, and Caria, were severally supplied by an adequate coinage of the new types from their central mints. Cilicia, too, was amply provided for, as the writer has tried to bring out in his recent mono- graph on the subject. In this portion of the world there remain only the three great provinces of Greater Phrygia (as- signed to Antigonus), Lycia and Pisidia (together with Pamphylia constituted as one province and assigned to Nearchus), and finally Cappadocia (assigned to Sabac- tes as satrap). Cappadocia is at once ruled out as it was somewhat out of the direct line of trade, was not as important a portion of the empire as the other prov- inces, and did not become a particularly active coining centre until much later times. Celaenae, as the garrison centre of AND MONOGRAPHS ee) “ 100 ALEXANDER HOARD. Greater Phrygia and situated on the main road from Cilicia and the East to Sardis and the West, might well lay a considera- ble claim to the possession of an important mint. By means of the commerce which undoubtedly flowed along this route, the die cutters of Celaenae would very likely be well acquainted with the coin issues of Tarsus and might soon be led to borrow certain details from them. However, Celaenae, so far as we know, never pos- sessed a mint in Persian times. Alexander found it more expedient to issue his new coinage from old and well constituted mints, to which apparent rule there are only two exceptions, both of obvious ex- planation. The one is Ake, which was opened to take the place of Tyre de- stroyed; the other was the mint in his new foundation of Alexandria, a city he planned as a great capital and so, obvi- ously, in need of a suitable mint. There only remains the important prov- ince formed from the united districts of Lycia, Pamphylia, and Pisidia. Along the coast of this province were located the NUMISMATIC NOTES DEMANHUR busy seaports of Phaselis and Side, while further inland lay the powerful cities of Aspendus and Selge. All of these towns had struck coins in greater or lesser quan- tities before the coming of Alexander’s army. However, neither Selge nor Aspen- dus need be taken into consideration when searching for the possible mint of our tet- radrachms. Selge was not of sufficient importance at this time, while Aspendus was attacked, severely punished, and sup- pressed?® for its hostility to Alexander. Only Phaselis and Side therefore remain. Both these cities were very closely bound by coasting trade with Cilicia. They were active, wealthy, and well populated at the time of which we are speaking. The moun- tains behind them possessed rich silver mines, and Side’s mint, in particular, had long made full use of them. Nearchus ap- parently chose Phaselis as his seat of gov- ernment,?? and on this score that place could lay claim to an issue of coins such as ours. Side, on the other hand, was perhaps a more active centre of trade and commerce, and her issues of autono- ANDY MONOGRAPHS 101 ALEXANDERVAHOCAR TS mous coins had been the more continuous throughout Persian times and down until the coming of the Greeks. There is no doubt but that her business ties with Cil1- cia were strong, her coins had followed the same weight standard and were in appear- ance very similar to those of Cilicia. What is more, several were actually present in the Cilician find described by the writer a few years ago.3° Furthermore, her ties with Egypt must have been close as her coins are often found there.3t This would account for the surprising frequency with which coins of the type of Nos. 1819-1973 occur in Egyptian finds. The style of our pieces and the presence of the title point to a period after about 326 B. C. for their striking. This being the case, the tetradrachm in the Hunter- ian Collection at Glasgow, first published by Dr. Macdonald and illustrated on Plate XXII, No. 3 of his catalogue, was probably the earliest issue of the Alexander type at Side. So far as the writer is aware, this piece is still unique and was not repre- sented in the Demanhur deposit. NUMISMA TIC) > DEMANHUR CILICIA. Mint: TARSUS. 333 to circa 320 B. C., Nos. 1974-2435. Tarsus, the capital and metropolis of Cilicia, had from very early times been the most prolific mint of this great province, so rich in natural resources and strategic- ally so important to the empire of which it formed a part. The Persian forces sta- tioned here had retreated before Alexan- der’s victorious advance and the city fell without a blow. The new ruler followed the obvious and most expedient course by imitating the Persians in making Tarsus his principal mint for this district. He employed the same workmen, and issued a large3? series of coins comprising gold stat- ers, silver tetradrachms, numerous subdi- visions in silver and copper, and, last but not least, two re-issues of the old Persian staters. It is, however, only the tetradrachms that interest us here as they alone occur- red in the Demanhur deposit. The first issue is made up of two separate but con- ANDY MONOGRAPHS 103 104 ALEX ANDERE GOyAthe temporaneous groups of coins, the one dis- tinguished by an ‘A’ beneath the throne, the other by a‘B’. Special control marks are supplied by pellets, singly or in groups, placed beneath the throne or in the field behind the Zeus figure. A few of the ob- verse dies were used indiscriminately for both groups. There are also several in- stances where a reverse die of either series has been employed for the other, after the old letter had been erased and a new one substituted. The second series is more uniform, and is distinguished throughout by a PLow, perhaps symbolical of the far-famed fer- tility of the Tarsian plain. As special marks of control we find the pellets of the previous issue again used, and, in addition the letters, B, [, ©, and the symbols Ivy LEAF and BUNCH OF GRAPES. The distinguishing mark of the third issue is a wreath-bearing NIKE. She is ac- companied by varying letters and mono- grams, and, towards the end, by a CADU- cEus. In the course of this series the old ‘“‘Cilician”’ style, made so familiar to us NUMISMATIC UNG 2 Es DEMANHUR by the large issues of Persic staters bear- ing the names of Pharnabazus, Datames, and Mazaeus, is definitely abandoned, and a new style, purely Greek in character, is introduced. CYPRUS. Mint: SALAMIS. Circa 332 to 320 B.C. Nos. 2436-2544. The reasons for assigning these particu- lar coins to Salamis in Cyprus have already been discussed in ‘“Some Cypriote Alex- anders”? Num. Chron., 4th Ser., vol. XV, 1915. The Salaminian tetradrachm issues contained in our hoard comprise both types of Series I, but only the first type of Series II as there described. In discussing these coins on that occasion, the writer hesitated to see in the BOW a city mint mark, such as the other cities of Cyprus were using at this period. On reviewing this subject the possible suggestion has occurred to him that perhaps the Bow might rather be the personal symbol of Nicocreon, king of Sal- amis from 331-310 B.C. It is to be noted that Nicocreon was the first to introduce AND MONOGRAPHS 105 106 ALEXANDERVROAR DS the type of Apollo on the Salaminian coin- age of local types and Rhodian weights.33 These coins were issued more or less si- multaneously with those bearing the Alex- ander type. The fact of the introduction of an Apollo type by this king would lead to the supposition that Apollo probably represented his patron god. The use of the king’s personal symbol on an Alexan- der issue, rather than a monogram or sym- bol designating the city itself, is paralleled on the Alexander issues of Byblus in Phoe- nicia. This city, which by the way was situated on the mainland opposite Salamis and was bound to it by ties of commerce, marked its earliest Alexander issues with the initial letters of its ruler’s name. Our Salaminian coins are struck from dies adjusted [. Mint: CITIUM. Circa 332-320 B.C. Nos. 2545-2666. This series, too, was discussed by the writer in the above mentioned article in the Numismatic Chronicle for 1915. NUMISMATIC®ON@ 22 DEMANHUR The comparatively large number of this particular group of Cypriote Alexanders in the Demanhur find, points not only to the large size of the issue itself, but also to the probability of close commercial relations existing at that time between Cyprus and Egypt. In fact, specimens from the Cyp- riote mints have occurred in every hoard known to the writer as having been found in Egypt. Mint: PAPHOS. Circa 330 to 320 B. Cc. Nos. 2667-2682. No. 2667 (Plate V, 4) has been assigned to Paphos because of the symbol which appears to be intended to represent a dove rather than an eagle, as Miller believes. The style of the coin itself is distinctly ‘“‘ eastern ”’, its peculiarities, however, make its attribution to Cyprus more plausible than to any city in Cilicia, Syria, or Phoe- nicia. Two interesting discoveries have recent- ly34 occurred to prove definitely the cor- rectness of our assignment of Nos. 2668- 2682 to Paphos. In the first place, bronze aoe NOGRA PHS 107 108 ALEXAN DERVH G2 ky Alexander coins with the monogram # (= NM AOI, as shown by the writer in “‘ Some Cypriote Alexanders ’”’) have actually been found on the island of Cyprus. Secondly, the name of the famous king of Paphos, Nicocles, has been discovered by Mr. F. M. Endicott engraved in minute letters on the obverses of Nos. 2675, 2676. It is an interesting commentary on the ambitious character of this Cypriote king that he should have dared to inscribe, in however minute letters, his own name upon the coinage struck with Alexander’s types. It was not until after 305 B. C., that such powerful kings as Lysimachus, Demetrius, or Seleucus followed in his footsteps and placed their several names upon the Alex- ander coinage.35 Mint: AMATHUS. Circa 328 or later. Nos. 2683-2714. The tetradrachm No. 2683 (Plate VI, 1) has been transferred from Paphos (where Mr. Hill assigned it in the British Museum Catalogue of the coins of Cyprus) and given, instead, to Amathus. In the first NUMISMATIC NO@ES a | 7 DEMANHUR | place, the flying eagle (not dove), exactly las we see it on this coin, constantly ap- pears on the autonomous coins of Amathus. On autonomous Paphian issues the dove is never depicted in the attitude of flight. In the second place, this coin is quite un- like the remaining Alexander issues of Paphos, while its reverse has many points in common with Nos. 2684-2714. This similarity is to be seen particularly in the details of the Zeus figure. Nos. 2684-2714, distinguished by the symbol prow, are typically eastern in style. The details of this style, however, point to Cyprus as the home of the mint which struck the coins. They will not satisfac- torily fit in with the issues of Cilicia, Syria, Phoenicia, or Egypt— but partake of a lit- tle of the style of each. Furthermore, we have at our disposal no seaport town in any of these particular provinces which is either without a coinage already assigned to it, or which could have struck so large a series as the present issue apparently is. The fact that specimens occur in at least three out of the six hoards found in Egypt, | AND MONOGRAPHS ALEXA NDE RBIROe hee of which we have records, speaks well for a Cypriote origin. For between that is- land and Egypt the ties of commerce and trade were closely knit. Particularly would this be the case with the two har- bors on the southern coast of Cyprus— Curium and Amathus—to which no Alex- ander coinage has as yet been assigned. We know also that during the Persian period the mint at Amathus was very active and struck a large series of silver coins.3° It is most reasonable to sup- pose therefore, that like its sister cities of Cyprus, Amathus should have continued to strike money under Alexander. There is no series of Alexander tetradrachms at our disposal whose origin is more likely to have been at Amathus than the group dis- tinguished by the PRow symbol. We have also a tetradrachm (No. 2683) which bears the flying eagle peculiar to these autono- mous issues of Amathus, and is therefore most likely to have been struck in that city. This piece forms the connecting link be- tween the autonomous coinage and Nos. 2684-2714 with the PROW symbol. NUMISMA TiG#\ >. | DEMANHUR Mint : MARIUM. No: 2715. The reasons for attributing this variety to Marium in Cyprus have been discussed in the writer’s ‘‘Some Cypriote Alexan- ders”? in the Num. Chron., 4th Series, vol. Vy ft 320, 321. Mint: SOLt. Nos. 2716-2718. These three tetradrachms are here only tentatively assigned to Cyprus. The style, which appears to be copied from some of the Egyptian issues, is not impossible for Cyprus. The symbol CADUCEUs is perhaps not unconnected with the little Cypriote bronze coin, of late style and bearing on its reverse a caduceus flanked by the Cyp- riote signs for Ba—E. The unique speci- men of this piece was first published by the writer in the Amer. Jour. of Num., vol. XLVIII, p. 69, No. 31. There the sugges- tion was made that this coin should be attributed to Eunostus, king of Soli, who reigned from 330 to 310 B.C. It is not Pee ONIO.G RA PHS ALEXANDER@HOAR unlikely that our Alexander tetradrachms were also struck by that king and signed with his symbol, the Caduceus. This would be paralleled by the use of the Bow on the Salaminian Alexanders of Nicocreon. NORTHERN SYRIA. Mint: MYRIANDRUS. Circa 333 to 319 B.C. Nos. 2719-2896. This series, by its style, is more or less closely associated with the Cilician group (mint: Tarsus) described above. That it could not possibly have been struck by some city in Cilicia but must instead be assigned to Myriandrus (later Alexandria ad Issum) has recently been shown by the writer in Amer. Jour. of Num., vol. LIII, Part II, pp. 1-42. The reasons for this attribution are there given in detail. The various series into which the Alexander issues of Myriandrus fall, and the dates to be assigned to them, are likewise there described. Myriandrus, by reason of its command- ing situation, had grown to be commercially NUMISMATIC NOTES DEMANHUR |the most important city in all northern Syria. Possessed of a splendid harbor, the roomiest and best protected on the coast, the city became the terminus of the great trade route, via the Beilan Pass, into the plains of inner Syria. She completely dominated the shortest and most practical road linking the Mediterranean with Syria, Mesopotamia, Babylonia and the East. In fact, before Antioch and Seleucia on the Orontes had come to supercede her as the main outlet for the overland trade from Babylon and India, Myriandrus enjoyed an importance relatively far greater than Alexandretta, her representative in the Middle Ages and down to the opening of the Suez Canal. We may thus appreciate this north Syrian seaport at its true worth as the western terminus of the most fre- quented trade-route and military highway from Babyloniato the Mediterranean. Alex- ander’s farsighted statesmanship immedi- ately recognized the vital importance of the spot. This fact is indicated in no un- certain way by the foundation here of a city named after him, Alexandria kat’Isson Poe N OGRA PHS: ie 114 ALEXAN DERE OM. —one of the very first of the many strate- gic or commercial centres established by him, and also one of the two which today preserve his illustrious name intact. It is not surprising to find that the pre- ceding Persian mint located in this impor- tant city continued its activity under Alexander and issued a very large series of his coins. These are well represented in the Demanhur hoard. .. Mint : HIERAPOLIS-BAMBYCE (?). No. 2897. The proposed assignment of this coin (Plate VI, 2) is still open to doubt. Its style closely resembles that found on the issues of Tarsus, Myriandrus, and some of the Phoenician cities, yet is still too indi- vidual to allow its insertion among the coinages of any of these mints. The actual cutting of the dies is also somewhat cruder. Now we know37 that a considerable issue of Persic silver staters took place in the very important religious and commercial centre of Bambyce in the period that im- NUMISMATIC NOTES DEMANHUR mediately preceded and immediately suc- ceeded the arrival of Alexander the Great. These issues, too, are in imitation of the contemporaneous coinages of both Tarsus and Myriandrus, and their execution is crude to the same degree as that of our tetradrachm, No. 2897. Furthermore, on the last issue of these local staters, on a coin3’ actually bearing the name of Alex- ander in Aramaic characters, appears as magistrate’s sign the Greek letter M. This coin is perhaps the transitional piece between the local coinages of Persic silver staters and the introduction of the Alexander tetradrachm. At any rate, there is no other locality in all the eastern district to which this lone tetradrachm fits so well as to Hierapolis-Bambyce. Its possible attribution to that important city is therefore suggested here. COELE-SYRIA. Mint : DAMASCUS. Nos. 2898-3266. The abundant Alexander coinage of this famous Syrian metropolis is naturally well Peon ONOGRAPHS HIS ALEXANDER HOARD represented in the Demanhur hoard. Mis- tress of the great inner highway running north and south, inland emporium for the surrounding lands and the neighboring desert tribes, commercial intermediary be- tween these tribes and the trading centres of the Phoenician litoral, the coinage of Damascus was, in the very nature of things, one of the most important in these regions. At the time our hoard was buried the decay, which later set in with the founding and rapid growth of Alexandria in Egypt, had not yet made itself perceptibly felt. The commerce enjoyed by Damascus was evi- dently active and in consequence her coin- age was large. A detailed study of the issues represented by Nos. 2898 to 3266 show that these really fall into several consecutive series. The present hardly furnishes a suitable oppor- tunity for such a study, and therefore the separate issues have here been united un- der one large series covering about twelve years of time. The dies for this large coin- age were invariably adjusted f 7. NUMISMATIC NOTES £ ~~ ee DEMANHUR THE PHOENICIAN COAST. Mint: CARNE. Nos. 3267 and 3268. At the time of Alexander’s invasion of Phoenicia, the considerable seaport of Carne does not seem to have been a direct subject of the neighboring Aradus. At least we infer this from the fact that Arrian39 does not expressly name this city among the towns (Marathus, Sigon, Mari- amne) of the rpécoxo. of Aradus. This is strange as it was at least as important as Sigon and Mariamne, and we might well have expected Arrian therefore to have mentioned its surrender by the king’s son, Straton, to Alexander, along with the other cities of his realm. Also, we know Carne enjoyed a certain amount of freedom from Aradian supremacy at a later date. For like Marathus she issued a considerable series of coins in both silver and bronze. (Brit. Mus Cat., Phoenicia, xxxviii.) If then the ancient city of Carne claimed independence when Alexander arrived in Phoenicia, it is likely that she imitated her Pete evn On R) A PHS ALEXANDER HOARDS larger neighbor and struck coins of the Alexander type. Because of her lesser im- portance the series is probably small. The group of tetradrachms represented by Nos. 3267 and 3268 would admirably suit a mint at Carne. The obverse of the first coin represents many stylistic affini- ties with Nos. 3269-3285, the first Alex- andrine issue at Aradus. Details of the reverse, however, such as the position of Zeus’ feet, coupled with the total absence of any footstool, resemble the issues of Salamis in Cyprus. Now the important seaport of Salamis lay directly opposite to Carne and was no doubt connected with it by ties of commerce. The next issue, No. 3268, is an almost exact copy of the con- temporaneous coinage at Aradus (Nos. 3334-3466) in the details of both obverse and reverse. These coins must surely have been struck at a town not far from Aradus, or at least directly under the influence of its coinage. Finally, the monogram with which our coins are provided most easily resolves itself into KAP. It is to be noted that | NUMISMATIC 2. DEMANHUR 119 the alpha of the monogram does not pos- sess the straight bar necessary for this letter at so early a date. The cross-bar is distinctly curved, which would thus almost certainly presuppose the presence of the letter rho in the monogram. Like the other cities of Phoenicia and Cy- prus at this time, then, it seems probable that Carne commenced an issue of Alex- ander tetradrachms. Like them it was also allowed to mark its issues with a monogram of local significance. Mint: ARADUS. Nos. 3269-3585. Among the earliest Alexander issues of Aradus must be placed a very rare coin, published#e by M. Babelon, which appar- ently was not present in the Demanhur find. This is a tetradrachm bearing in the field of the reverse the Phoenician letters xp. This same inscription occurs on all the fourth century autonomous issues of Aradus. Similar to this tetradrachm in style are our Nos. 3269-3285, but on these the Phoenician letters of the mint’s name AND MONOGRAPHS | | ALEXANDER Ogre are replaced by the Greek letter ‘A’ be- neath the throne. TheT in the field is a magistrate’s letter. On the succeeding issues we find the magistrates signing their initials on the obverse (just behind the neck of the Heracles head), while the ‘ A’ has been elaborated into the monogram 3, more distinctive of the Aradian mint. In passing, attention should be called to an interesting gold stater, first published by Geseniust! and later by Wiczay4? and Sestini,43 examples of which are to be seen in the Paris, London, and Berlin collec- tions. This stater embodies the peculiari- ties of two of the above tetradrachm issues. Behind the head of Athene we find the letter ‘A’ as on Nos. 3286-3288. On the reverse we not only find the mon- ogram A of those tetradrachms, but also the accustomed legend xp of the Aradian autonomous issues. Would that their mints had been so clearly indicated on all of Alexander’s coinages ! With No. 3302 the style of the Aradian issues changes perceptibly, the title BAS|- AEQs is added, but the mint mark 4 NUMISMATIC NOTES DEMANHUR ZI remains. The sequence of these particular issues was discussed more or less minutely in the Amer. Jour. of Num., vol. XLVI, 1912, pp. 42-44. We will therefore re- frain from again going over the ground, and need only pause to reiterate, more strongly than ever, that the letters A, A, |, L, A, and = found singly in the reverse fields, should not be considered as alpha- betical dates.44 They are probably initials used by the various magistrates. The magistrate using the symbol CADUCEUS was the latest of the group, being in office just before the name of Philip III was substituted for that of Alexander on the Aradian coinage. Apparently no speci- mens of these later issues, struck in the name of Philip, were present in the De- manhur hoard. None of the Aradian coins we have here described seem to have been struck from fixed or adjusted dies, a process so freely used at this time in the other Phoenician mints. foe ON O.GR APHS 122 ALEXANDER HOARDS Mint: BYBLUS. Nos. 3586-3652. Alexander issues corresponding to Nos. 3586-3652 have always, until now, been assigned to Aradus. In his previous arti- cle on the Demanhur hoard, the writer fol- lowed his predecessors, but stated45 that it was difficult to reconcile the style and appearance of these pieces with the issues (Nos. 3286-3585) which certainly belonged to Aradus. It was therefore necessary to make the very improbable suggestion that these two series might both have been struck in Aradus, but that perhaps the one was a local city issue, the other a mil- itary or regal issue. Very fortunately the Demanhur hoard is now known to have contained a tetradrachm, hitherto unpub- lished, which presents a solution to the problem. This is the remarkable piece, No. 3586, pictured on Plate VI, 3. The coin is of early date, and of Phoenician ori- gin as shown by the two Phoenician) characters °"? beneath the throne. Its style and fabric is so close to the earliest NUMISMATIC NOG@EsS DEMANHUR issues of Nos. 3587-3623 that it must be considered as the immediate precursor of |those pieces and struck in the same mint. This means, however, that the entire group could not possibly have been struck in Aradus. This conclusion is further substantiated by the fact that our coins are invariably struck from adjusted dies, and we have already seen that this is not the case with the issues certainly emanat- ing from the mint of Aradus. Nos. 3587-3623 are of modified ‘Cili- cian’ style, very similar, as a compari- son will quickly show, to the earliest issues of Sidon and Ake. Now there is only one remaining mint in all this district which could possibly have struck such an important series as the one represented by Nos. 3586-3652. This is the ancient and flourishing city of Byblus. It would have been surprising indeed if this city had not struck money in Alexander’s name. History teaches us that Alexander |made it his constant policy in the East to confirm in their rule such local princes as submitted to him without a struggle. Also AN DeyMONOGRAPHS 123 ALEXANDER HOA KR Pee a study of his coins presents us with the undeniable. fact that wherever such local dynasts had, under Persian rule, enjoyed the rights of coinage, these were reaffirmed to them by their new over-lord. Thus we possess Alexander issues of Tarsus, Aradus, Sidon, Salamis, Citium, Paphos, Marium, and Amathus. Tyre and Gaza form illuminating exceptions. Although they had enjoyed the rights of coinage under the Persians, they were deprived of this coveted privilege by Alexander because they had refused him submission. If by a process of elimination we see that only Byblus could have issued Nos. 3586-3652, we find a striking confirmation of this attribution in the presence on these coins of *y and A. The king ruling in Byblus at the time of Alexander’s invasion of Phoenicia bore the name of Ainel, or, in Greek, Enylos as given by Arrian.* Of this ruler we possess tetrobols bearing local types. The weights of some of these pieces belong to the Attic system. As this is the very first occurrence of that system in the Byblite coinage, it is proba- NUMISMATIC NOTES 4 7 : : 4 DEMANHUR ble that these particular coins were struck after the submission of the city to Alex- ander. The name of the king on these coins reads 5xyy (Ainel). Now the first two letters of this inscription are exactly the two that appear beneath the throne on No. 3586 (Plate VI, 3). In other words, they prove that this tetra- drachm was struck by Enylos. Again, following the local issues of Enylos, there exists “ another group of small denomina- tions of local types and Attic weight bear- ing the name of the next ruler S DARTS or Adramelek. Is it not at once apparent that, , the monogram on the subsequent tetradrachms (Nos. 3587-3652, Plate VI, 4) is but the ligature of the letters AAPA, the first portion of Adramelek’s name in Greek? The Alexander issues now Bene to Byblus are all struck from adjusted dies. In this they but follow the process used for the previous autonomous coinage of this city. AND MONOGRAPHS 126 ALEXANDER HOARDS THE PHOENICIAN COAST. Mint: BERYTUS. No. 3653. The assignment to Berytus of No. 3653 is fairly certain. The six known varieties of this group all bear the letter B in the field and are closely allied by style with the coinages of both Byblus and Sidon. In fact, the indications as furnished by style are so strong, that hardly any other attribution is possible. As there are no really early issues known, it appears probable that a mint was not opened at Berytus until after the death of Alexander. At this time the cha- otic conditions prevalent almost every- where in the Empire favored the assump- tion by various cities of the right to strike money. ‘That Berytus had not yet grown equal in importance to her rivals on the north and south may be surmised from the comparative scarcity of her coinage. NUMISMADLC NiGaiees DEMANHUR . 127 THE PHOENICIAN COAST(?). Mint: UNCERTAIN. Nos. 3654, 3655. A plausible attribution of these coins is still impossible, though the style and details of both obverse and reverse dies show certain affinities with the issues of Sidon. | THE PHOENICIAN COAST. Mint: SIDON. Nos. 3656-3768. As the Alexander coinage of this mint has been studied in a special monograph, * references to that work have been given rather than to Miller who was aware of but a portion of the known varieties. It will prove unnecessary to go into details here, as these the reader may find des- cribed and discussed in the above-men- tioned work. The Sidonian Alexander coinage was inaugurated almost immediately upon Me eM ONOGRAP.AS ae 128 ALEXANDER HOARDS Alexander’s arrival in that city. During the following two years the Phoenician letter ¥, the initial of the city’s name W¥, is found in the field of the tetradrachms, while beneath the throne are the alpha- betical dates 8 or 1. The series that fol- lows omits dates entirely, substitutes the Greek letters = or S| of the city’s name, and on two varieties places a symbol in | the field. In 327 B.C. the custom of dat- ing the issues is re-introduced and the Phoenician date letters 1, M, 0, ’ appear in the field. In the course of the year 323 B. C. Greek alphabetical dates are substi- tuted for the Phoenician. In 320 B.C. the name of Philip replaces that of Alexander. The last date known to have occurred in the Demanhur hoard is 0, which corre- sponds to the year falling between the first of October 319 B.C. and the thirtieth of September 318 B.C. It is interesting and important to note that every known variety of the Sidonian Alexander tet- radrachm, from the first opening of the mint down to the year O (319-318 B. C.) is represented in our hoard. NUMISMATIC NOTES DEMANHUR This would seem to be an opportune time to suggest a possible explanation for the curious absence of any apparent coin- age during the year A (323-322 B. C.). Our lack of coins, either in gold or silver, for this year can hardly be due to chance. It would be strange indeed if the Deman- hur hoard, so well provided with all the remaining Sidonian issues, should lack any examples of this particular date. The same is true of other large Alexander hoards known to the writer who, further- more, for the last fifteen years has carried on an active search for the missing date — but without success. As long ago as 1909 Mr. Hill drew atten- tion ® to the absence of any coins dated A and suggested that Miller (or rather Mionnet, his source) might have misread A as A on his coin No. 1420. The coin has unfortunately since disappeared and we have no means of checking the read- ing. The coin, however, was placed by Miller among those of later style, Nos. 1415 to 1422, and these the present writer has elsewhere ® shown must cer- AND MONOGRAPHS ALEXANDER HOARDS tainly be attributed to Sinope. Either, then, we must suppose no coins whatever to have been struck in this year * or we must look for some other plausible explanation of the lacuna. Now there apparently lurks a clue in the fol- lowing interesting observation. Taking the dated gold coinage of Sidon and not- ing the dies actually fused for each year, we get the following table: Year Obverse dies Reverse dies QO, Rives Ua w, X Y, Z, AA, BB BB, CC co COOCRE ’ im} a) K M N TT 2 ~ ® uf A NUMISMATIC NOTES DEMANHUR It will at once be seen that year Io (° and K)5? is conspicuous for possessing more obverse and reverse dies than any other one year. With its six obverses and six reverses it is far above the average of some two or three dies (obverse or reverse) engraved and used yearly. The case of the silver issues for the tenth year is not quite so marked as that of the gold. For while, even here, we find that the ° and kK issues have two obverse dies and five reverse dies, this is a high but not an ex- ceptional figure for the Sidonian coinage. The case of the gold, however, remains very striking. Now the only alternative to the some- what unlikely supposition that there really was no coinage in the year A is to suppose that ’ and K actually represent different years. But it is certain that ° is ten. Then K must be the following year— and at once a simple explanation arises to the mind to account for the seem- ing anomaly. It must be remembered that the die engravers at Sidon were as- suredly not Greeks but native Phoenicians. AND MONOGRAPHS Foz ALEXANDER HOARD: They had used the Phoenician alphabet to designate the dates 1(&), 2(3), 7(t), 8(M), 9(0), ro(’). The next date would have been represented in their alphabet by 3, the eleventh letter. But if now, at the commencement of the new year, the order came in to replace the Phoenician alphabetical dates with Greek letters, what would have been the most natural thing for a Phoenician die cutter, thinking of the Greek alphabet in terms of his own, to have done? Obviously, instead of engraving the next succeeding or eleventh Phoenician letter, namely, 3 Kaph, it is very likely that unthinkingly he might have used tts acti.a! Greek equivalent, namely K. Now K is the eleventh letter in the Greek numerical (decadic) system, though here it stands for 20. In the alphabetical sys- tem, however, it is only ten, as digamma was omitted. Thus there were two stumbling blocks for the unwary Phoeni- cian to trip over in making a hasty shift from his own alphabetical dates to the Greek. Probably it was brought to the attention of the local authorities even- NUMISMATIC NOTES DEMANHUR ‘tually that K did not represent eleven in the Greek alphabetical numeration, as its equivalent Kaph does in the Phoeni- cian. Perhaps, however, the mistake was not noticed until many coins bearing the offending K had already been issued, and so it was not deemed advisable, because of the resultant confusion, to strike new coins that year bearing the more correct A. So K was allowed to continue doing duty for A. But at the commencement of the new year, the twelfth after the com- ing of Alexander to Phoenicia, the correct alphabetical designation of this year, namely M, was placed upon the coinage. This would seem to offer a simple as well as a plausible explanation for the otherwise surprising fact of the apparent lack of any coinage in the year A. By assigning the K coins to the eleventh in- stead of to the tenth year, we also do away with the surprisingly large number of dies which we otherwise would have to give to the latter year. ANDY MONOGRAPHS bo3 134 ALEXANDER HOARDS THE PHOENICIAN COAST. Mint: AKE. Nos. 3769-3975. ° For the references given in the cata- logue and for a detailed study of the coins themselves the reader is again referred to the writer’s previous mono- graph on the subject.® As far as is now known there was no autonomous mint in operation at Ake under the Persians. When Alexander first established a mint here, to take the place of the one in the destroyed city of Tyre, he found no ready-made means to this end at his disposal. Therefore, there was transferred from Sidon to Ake a die cutter, as well as an actual obverse die which had already seen service in the former mint.* The first few issues at Ake bear only magistrate symbols or letters. Then there was adopted the initial letter » of the city’s name 139; to be followed not long afterwards by the more complete form 4). Sometime in the year corresponding to)’ NUMISMATIC NOTES DEMANHUR 327-326 B. C., a system of dating accord- ing to the regnal years of the local dynast was introduced. This occurred in the twentieth year of that ruler. The latest date included in the Demanhur hoard is his 29th year, corresponding to 319-318 B. C. (Plate VII, 2). Being dated, the two coinages of Sidon and Ake furnish us with the surest criterion for determining the true date at which our hoard was buried. Unfortunately, when first treat- ing of the find,® the material at the writer’s disposal was insufficient to appreciate these Ake dates in their true significance. Instead, the most reasonable one of the many views held by previous writers on the subject was adopted. The Ake dates were referred to the era of Alexander the Great in Phoenicia, which took its incep- tion with the Autumn of 333 B.C. This, however, caused the last Ake date, known to have occurred in the find, to be very much at variance with the evidence offered by the Sidonian dates from the same source. The facile explanation of this disturbing discrepancy lay in the fact that AND MONOGRAPHS 136 ALEXAN DE REDO her the writer was well aware that at that time he had seen but a portion of the original hoard, and therefore many im- portant varieties might have escaped him. The question was most interesting and important, and so special endeavors were made to secure all available material for the study of the dated issues of both Sidon and Ake. This resulted in the eventual publication by the Yale Press of a monograph entirely devoted to this one subject. Here it was possible to prove that the dates used on the Ake Alexanders cannot refer to any era of Alexander the Great, Seleucus I, or such other eras as had been suggested by previous students. The dates can only refer to the regnal years of some local dynast. ‘They were first used in the twentieth year of his reign, which cor- responds with 327-326 B.C. This changes the aspect of things entirely, brings the Ake dates into complete concordance with those of Sidon in the Demanhur hoard, and considerably alters the date previously suggested for the burial of that hoard. NUMISMATIC NOTES DEMANHUR In his review * of the author’s work on Ake, Mr. Hill makes the suggestion that the dates found on the Alexandrine coinage of that city may be based on an era inaugurated at the end of the great Phoenician rebellion of 348 B. C. In other words, he hesitates to accept our dates as representing the regnal years of a local potentate. Mr. Hill’s suggestion is indeed plausible, and it is only after mature consideration that the writer still adheres to his former supposition. For between the end of the rebellion, with its supposititious granting of greater freedom to Ake, and the arrival of Alex- ander, some fifteen or sixteen years had elapsed. No coinage, autonomous or otherwise, had in the meanwhile appeared in Ake to establish the custom of dating by that era. The importance of this era to Ake must have been completely over- shadowed in 333 B.C. by the cataclysmic arrival of the Greeks and the fundamental changes brought about by that event in all Phoenicia. To the authorities in Ake, in the year 327 B. C., the compara- PLD MONOGRAPHS 137 ALEXANDER VROAR TS tively recent events of 333 B. C. must have appeared of far more importance and sig- nificance — at least so it seems reasonable to assume — than those of 348 B.C. We know things were vastly altered in 333- 332 B.C., but we have absolutely no his- torical records to show that, as far as Ake was concerned, there had been the granting of any special privilege of such importance that a new era should there- fore be inaugurated. It seems much more probable to suppose merely that a new king had secured the power, or that a more loyal subject had been appointed by the Persian king as dynast in Ake. Now there would be nothing so very extraordinary in a local ruler in 327- 326 B. C. adopting his regnal years as a means to date a purely local coinage of the Alexandrine type. At this very time a king of Byblus places his mono- gram on his coinage, a little later Pumia- thon of Citium places his name, regnal dates, and types upon his gold coinage, while Nicocles of Paphos engraves his name in full upon his Alexanders. For NUMISMATIC: NOTES DEMANHUR these reasons the writer feels justified in retaining his theory of regnal years to explain the dates found on the Alexander issues of Ake. UNCERTAIN MINTS IN THE EAST. Nos. 3976-3979 The mints which once issued the above pieces may have lain, to judge by the style of the coins themselves, in Cilicia, Cyprus, Syria, or even Phoenicia. The symbol found on Nos. 3976-8 is very similar to the reverse type of the autonomous issues of Soli in Cilicia. On the other hand the Persic staters issued under Alexander from the central mint of Tarsus bear the initials =, M, |, T (= Soli, Mallus, Issus, Tarsus). This would seem to prove that Soli, as well as Mallus and Issus, possessed no separate mints of their own at this time. We should note, however, that the bunch of grapes with tendril and leaf as held in the hand of Dionysus is a conspicuous feature on the latest autonomous staters of Nagidus. As we know of no other Alexander coinage for the important dis- AND MONOGRAPHS bS¢ 140 ALEXANDER HOARDS trict of western Cilicia, and as the style of our coins would easily admit of such an attribution, it is quite probable that they were struck in Nagidus. Concerning No. 3979 nothing definite can be said until future finds come to our aid with new specimens or varieties. This piece does not appear to fit in with any of the issues of such mints as we have al- ready studied. Its style, however, is not unlike some of the later issues of Cyprus. BABYLONIA. Mint: BABYLON. Nos. 3980-4609. Babylon— the greatest city of Asia and the capital of empires from the days of Hammurabi, the law giver — had probably possessed a mint under the Per-} sian kings. Continued by Alexander it became, next to the Macedonian mint of Amphipolis, the most important in all his Empire. Here, until the removal of the mint to Seleucia on the Tigris, were struck an extraordinary quantity of coins. Our ancient authorities make the NUMISMATIC NOTES DEMANHUR assertion that Alexander intended to con- |tinue this great metropolis as the capital and centre of his own empire, and it is reasonable to suppose therefore that a mint commensurate with this importance would soon be established here. * Babylon at this time was the central |mart of the East. Hither ran the great overland trade route from India and Bactria via Ecbatana. Here were also the wharfs for the ships which in their holds carried the goods of farthest Asia via \the Coromandel Coast, through the Persian Gulf and so up to Babil or Bab-ilt, meaning “the Gate of the Gods,” in fact the “Sublime Porte” of the ancients. Hence the imported goods, as also those for which Babylon itself was famous, such as embroideries, rugs, and fabrics of various kinds, were taken up the Tigris or Euphrates and thence to shores of the Mediterranean or into Asia Minor. When the armies of Alexander and the genius of their commander had made one empire from the Adriatic to the Indus, the impor- tance of Babylon, temporarily, increased PN NOINO GRAPHS 141 >) SO 142 ALEXANDER HOARDS many fold. For now the markets of the West were thrown wide open, the free- dom and safety of the trade routes by land and sea assured, the demand for eastern luxuries fostered and made possi- ble of acquirement among the Greeks by the sudden influx of immense quanti- ties of booty and treasure from the con- quered cities of Asia. For all this traffic Babylon remained the focus of the land and sea routes until about 300 B.C. By that time Alexandria in Egypt had grown into an important city, and, because of the skilful policy of Ptolemy and the con- stant internecine wars of the Diadochi, which made land travel especially unsafe and intermittent, had deflected a large part of this traffic by way of the Red| Sea to herself. But throughout the last quarter of the fourth century B. C., Baby- lon flourished exceedingly. During this time quantities of coin were apparently issued by her very active mint. The Demanhur hoard contained a large and representative series of the Babylo- nian tetradrachm issues covering the first NUMISMATIC NOTES a DEMANHUR twelve years of their production. Only a tabulated list of the varieties known to have been in the find is here given. The minute discussion of these varieties, their true sequence, their dates, together with the many other points of historic, numis- matic, and archaeological interest they present, must be left to a more propitious moment when it will be possible to pub- lish a monograph devoted to this coinage as a whole. Only in this way will it be possible to do justice to one of the great- est and most interesting series of all the Alexander coinage. The late M. Imhoof-Blumer was the first to recognize the true origin of this series and to attribute it to Babylon.s7 But even he hardly appreciated the magni- tude and importance of the coinage. The dies for the coins of Series I (Nos. 3980 to 4057) were adjusted 44, in accord- ance with the system employed under {Persian rule for the darics and sigli. With the employment of new die cutters, commencing with No. 4058, the dies are no longer adjusted. AND MONOGRAPHS 143 ALEXANDER HOARDS EGYPT. Mint: ALEXANDRIA. Nos. 4610-4826. Svoronos has assigned ®® four early types of the Alexander tetradrachm to Alexandria in Egypt, and they were all represented in the Demanhur Find. One of these varieties, however, has had to be assigned by the present writer to Asia Minor (here Nos. 1751-1754) because of its style and other close affinities with the issues of that district. The remain- ing varieties were certainly struck in Egypt. To them must be added the types here enumerated under Nos. 4610-4747 and 4820-4821, for these coins are identi- cal in style and fabric with the pieces correctly given to Alexandria by Svoronos. Furthermore, specimens have occurred in six other Egyptian hoards known to the writer,” while they are seldom met with outside of Egypt. The large number and extraordinary preservation of the speci- mens from Demanhur would seem finally to confirm their supposed Egyptian ori- NUMISMA TICINO TES DEMANHUR gin. It is interesting to note that the type with the rose as symbol possessed more specimens in the Demanhur find than any other one type (all together 134 pieces, or 138 if we add the slight variant Nos. 4610-4614). Originally there may have been many more than this number, as was the case with another of the Egyptian types. In his letter M. Dattari stated to the writer that there were over a hundred specimens in the find of the ‘Khnum’ (Nos. 4748-4780) type, although the writer actually saw only 33 specimens of this beautiful coin. An interesting point brought out by a study of the Demanhur hoard is the fact that no mint was apparently opened by Alexander in Egypt until at a compara- tively late date. This was suggested by M. Svoronos in his work on the Ptolemaic |coinage, but is now definitely confirmed by our hoard. From the evidence of the dated coins of Sidon and Ake, the hoard cannot have been buried before 318 B. C. Now there are only five distinct varieties of the tetradrachm in our hoard AN DEMONOGRAPHS ALEXANDER HOARDS that can be assigned to Alexandria; and of these, two— those with the Ear of Barley (VII, 3) and the Pegasus symbols (VIII, 1) —represent very small issues. The style exhibited by these coins is so similar throughout that their issue could not have covered a very long period of time. If we assign the opening of the Alexandria mint, then, to in and around the year 326-325 B.C., we shall prob- ably not befar wrong. These Alexandrian issues were first used as a model for the Sidonian coinage in the year which ran from October 1, 325, to September 30, S24°hac. It is still somewhat uncertain whether our hoard contained any specimens of the next series of Egyptian Alexander tetradrachms, those, namely, with the portrait of Alexander himself, clothed in the elephant’s skin head-dress, on the obverse (Svoronos, Nos. 18-24, 93). These must have followed closely upon the series described above, as the Zeus figure of the reverse is identical in style and details with that found on our coins. One NUMISMATIC NOTES DEMANHUR variety, moreover (Svoronos, No. 93), has the same symbol and monogram as our Nos. 4822-4826. M. Dattari was of the opinion that the Demanhur Hoard con- tained ten of these pieces. Although M. Dattari is in all probability absolutely right, they have not been included in our study, as the writer has throughout been careful to limit himself only to the pieces he has actually seen and handled. PUNCHMARKS Little further can be added to the notes on punchmarks and ‘“‘graffiti,’ as dis- cussed by the writer in his previous study of the Demanhur hoard. Only four varieties of punchmarks have been. noted on coins from this hoard. The first con- sists of a pellet in the centre of a sunken circle, with six rays running out from the pellet to the circle’s edge, the whole re- sembling a wheel. This punchmark was found on only one coin in the hoard, Plate VIII, No. 2. The second type occurs somewhat more frequently. Usually in- distinct and poorly struck up, it seems AND MONOGRAPHS 147 ALEXAN DER Oe to represent a human eye. Three speci- mens (coins of Amphipolis, Salamis, and Byblus) are given on Plate VIII, 3-5. The third punchmark appears just once, on acoin of Tarsus, here Plate VIII, No. 6. It consists apparently of the three Phoe- nician letters, }, in an oblong depression. The fourth punchmark consists of a small circle containing a raised pellet. The pel- let is joined to the circle at top and bottom by narrow necks or bands. This type of punchmark occurred twice in our hoard, once on a coin of type 2334-2338 and once on a coin of type 3300-3301. GRAFFITI “Graffiti,” or letters scratched on the surface (usually on the reverse), are of very frequent occurrence on coins from the Demanhur find. The letters may be Greek or Phoenician, and, as a rule, come singly or in pairs. In some cases we seem to have Phoenician words of three or more letters. These are probably names. They furnish enough material for a special monograph on the subject. As such a NUMISMATIC NOTES DEMANHUR monograph has been promised by Prof. C. C. Torrey of Yale, the present writer, who makes no pretences to Semitic scholar- ship, will be forgiven if he leaves this in- teresting subject to a more able pen. SCIENTIFIC VALUE From more than one point of view the Demanhur hoard is of peculiar value and interest to us. By mere size alone it is most impressive. In point of fact it is the largest hoard of Alexander tetra- drachms ever known to have been found. It is also the second earliest hoard of this denomination, the earliest being the Kyparissia Find recently described.“ Of surpassing value to us, however, is the fact that because of its size and scope it contained practically every variety of the Alexander tetradrachm coined previous to 320 B.C. The issues of the succeeding two or three years are well, though not completely, represented. It thus furnishes us with a remarkable sur- vey of the coinage of this particular de- nomination as issued by Alexander the PND MONOGRAP HS 149 ALEXANDER HOARDS Great, and enables us to establish, once for all, what types were or were not struck during his lifetime. The distortion of view, which might be expected to have been shown by a hoard of widely struck coins buried in a province lying as much to one side as is the case with Egypt, is hardly noticeable. The issues of only one or two mints have suffered, the remainder are repre- sented in direct proportion to the size and importance of their tetradrachm issues. The two largest of Alexander’s mints, Amphipolis and Babylon, furnish us with 1582 and 630 coins respectively, or to- gether nearly one half of the entire hoard as it has come down to us. The only dis- tortions noticeable are indeed slight. One or two varieties of the Pella mint seem to be missing, while the early tetra- drachms of northern and western Asia Minor are not very strongly represented. Judgments as to the true size of the various mintages are based by the writer on his carefully kept records of the number of obverse and reverse dies known for the NUMISMATIC NOTES DEMANHUR various mints. To illustrate, a brief table is here appended showing the num- ber of dies used at some of the most im- portant mints for the period covered by the Demanhur hoard. These totals have been secured from a study of the thousands of Alexander tetradrachms preserved in the various public and private collec- tions of Europe and America. PERIOD 336-318 ac. Num ber of Obverse dies Reverse dies coins in known. known. Demanhur Hoard. Amphipolis 705 1281 1582 Babylon 498 630 Tarsus 306 © 462 Myriandrus a2 178 Sidon 60 © 113 Ake ae 207 Alexandria 150 217 Mint. Apparently, then, our hoard is able to furnish us with easily accessible and fairly accurate criteria for gauging the com- parative sizes of the various issues of the tetradrachm under Alexander the Great. AND MONOGRAPHS 151 152 ALEXANDER HOARDS DATE OF BURIAL. To determine the approximate burial date of the Demanhur Hoard is not diffi- cult— now that the dated coinages of Sidon and Ake are better understood. Of these Sidonian issues every year is represented from & through ', and the succeeding Greek dates from K to Q in- clusive. The tetradrachm bearing the last-named date must have been coined between October 1st of 319 and September 30 of 318 B.C. Similarly, every Ake date is represented from the first use of dates on its coins in the 20th year of the local dynast’s reign down to and including his 29th year. The writer has elsewhere ® shown that these dates are to be reckoned from the year 348-347 B. C., which brings the year 29 to 319-318 B.C. Thus both series exactly agree in placing the probable burial of the Demanhur Hoard at a date not earlier than the commencement of 318 B.C. On the other hand, the hoard could not have been buried much after the commencement of 317 at the latest. The dated coin series of both Sidon and NUMISMATIC NOTES DEMANHUR 155 Ake were continued uninterruptedly for i|many years after this date. The fact that their issues are frequently met with \in Egyptian finds speaks volumes for a constant and close commercial relation- iship between Egypt and Phoenicia at this very time. Therefore the sudden stoppage in the Demanhur Hoard of the 'Sidonian coinage at the year O, and of the | Ake coinage at the corresponding year 29 '— while the preceding coinages without a single exception are well represented in the find — is highly significant. That the burial of our hoard took place in 318 B. C., or at most soon after the commencement of 317 B. C.,1is fully cor- roborated by other though somewhat less definite clues which the contents of our hoard offers. For instance, the coins issued in the name of Philip Arrhidaeus (323-317 B. C.) are well though not com- pletely represented. To be noted is the fact that it is always the latest of his issues, or his coinages in distant mints, that invariably are missing. Thus for Sidon we lack any specimens dated TT Mowe MON O'G-R-A PHS ALEXANDER HOARDS (Oct. 1, 318-Sept 30, 317, B/C)” We also miss the common varieties listed by Muller under Nos. 1, 20, 54-56, 84-85, 92, 100, 108, III, 113-115, 117, 120, 125, 129, etc. Clear-cut cases are those of the Persian mint (Ecbatana?) and Babylon. The former first commenced to coin towards the end of the reign of Philip Arrhidaeus, but none of its very common issues are to be found in the Demanhur find. The Philip issues of the Babylon mint, in the order of their appearance, are represented by Miuller’s Nos. 99, 104, 103, 24, 26,29, and 117. Of these the first five are well represented in our hoard, though in ever diminishing numbers. No. 29 is represented by but one specimen in mint state, while the exceedingly com- mon variety No. I17 is conspicuous by its complete absence. The final Philip issues of other near-by mints, such as Aradus and Salamis, are also noticeably absent. Thus it can be seen that we would not be far wrong in adopting the year 318 B. C. as the probable burial date of the Demanhur Hoard. NUMISMATIC NOTES DEMANHUR 155 REASONS FOR THE BURIAL. The entire lack of any reliable informa- tion concerning the find spot of our hoard, or its mode of burial, leaves the field wide open for numberless conjectures respect- ing its former owner and his immediate reasons for burying so great a treasure. To allow our fancy to stray among so many fascinating possibilities would serve no useful end. Arguments could be ad- duced with equal plausibility to prove our hoard a government treasure, a mili- tary war chest, the accumulation of a wealthy merchant, or even robbers’ loot hidden away in a moment of danger. The facts are that the hoard was in- terred just at the moment when the land of Egypt, so far as we know, was enjoying profound peace. The great convention of the Satraps at Triparadeisus in 321 B. C. had confirmed Ptolemy in his posses- sion of Egypt. The following year he had, in a somewhat high-handed fashion, seized upon Cyprus and Phoenicia. The other Satraps were at that time far too absorbed in their own troubles to do more AND MONOGRAPHS 156 ALEXANDER HOARDS than protest. The ensuing years were spent by Ptolemy in quietly organizing his kingdom and strengthening his power for the conflict he knew lay ahead. To be sure, in the year 318 B. C. — that is, the very year which apparently witnessed the interment of our hoard — a consider- able flurry was occasioned in the eastern Mediterranean by the sudden descent of Eumenes upon Phoenicia. Here he seized certain large maritime cities, and upon their docks and wharves commenced to construct a fleet with the intention of securing command of the sea. Although Ptolemy was thus temporarily forced out of Phoenicia, we have no reason to sup- pose that his possession of Palestine was]. threatened or that Eumenes contem- plated any immediate descent upon Egypt. Certain it is that Eumenes’ power in Phoenicia collapsed as quickly as it had arisen and that before the summer’s end he had retreated eastwards into Persia. | We may be hardly justified, therefore, in associating the Demanhur burial with NUMISMA2 1 CoN a DEMANHUR so distant and ephemeral a danger. The times, however, were obviously uncertain and dark clouds loomed on the political horizon. The original possessor of our hoard may have decided against taking any chance with so large a treasure, and hence proceeded to bury it before it might be too late. On the other hand, we have absolutely no historical or ar- chaeological data to suggest any local dis- turbance occurring at this time. The fact remains that the great Hoard of De- manhur still guards its secret as abso- lutely as did its ancient owner after he consigned his treasure to the ground two thousand two hundred and forty years ago. AND MONOGRAPHS ALEXANDER HOARDS NOTES 1 Reattribution of Certain Tetradrachms of Alexander the Great. ' 2 Within the last three years M. Dattari has informed me of a find of 3000 Alexander tetra- drachms, and not long afterwards of a hoard of 46,000 Roman coins. These seem to be but aver- age occurrences. 3 Tarsos under Alexander, Amer. Jour. Num., vol. LII, and Myriandros—Alexandria kat’Isson, in vol. LIII of that publication. 4 Numismatic Notes and Monographs, No. 3, The Kyparissia Hoard. 5 Numismatique d’ Alexandre le Grand, p. 5, ff. 61.c. Note 1. Clo GeDD. 24-272 8 Ludwig Miiller, Numismatique d’ Alexandre le Grand, pp. 304 ff.; Dr. Jules Rouvier in the Revue Numismatique, 1909, pp. 321 ff.; G. F. Hill, Notes on the Alexandrine Coinage of Phoe- nicia, in Nomisma, IV, 1909, p. 12. 9 The Dated Alexander Coinage of Sidon and Ake, pp. 55 to 59. 10 The correct interpretation of these dates is absolutely verified by three finds at our disposal. l.c., pp. 57 and 58. 1l],¢, Note 4. 12 Amongst others, Miiller Nos. 68, 69, 70, 115, 116, I9I, 192, 193. Note also that we possess two tetradrachms of Philip II having the pecu- liarity of the Zeus head facing to the left. In NUMISMATIC NOTES DEMANHUR style they are identical with our tetradrachms Nos. 1599 to 1603, and bear the same symbols: BEE or 98. Compare Plate II, 1 and 2 with Imhoof-Blumer Monnaies Grecques, p. 117, No. 17 and Catalogue of the Th. Thomas Sale, No. 1017. 18 and 4 Now in the writer’s coll. 15 Now in the Athens coll. 16 Miiller, Nos. 866-874. 17 Babelon, Traité II2, Pl. CLXXVIII, also probably Pl. CLXXII, 7. 18 Von Fritze in Nomisma, IX, pp. 49 ff. 19 Babelon, Traité II?, pp. 56-60, 69-73. 20 Miiller, Pl. XXVI, No. 308, and British Museum Cat., Caria, Introd., p. cviil. 21 Brit. Mus. Cat., Arabia, etc., Introd., p. cxxxv, and Mr. Milne in Num. Chron., 1916, pp. neit. 227, 146. 23 TI, ii, 867. 24 Hausoullier, Etudes sur l'Histoire de Milet et du Didymeion, p. 8. 25 Arrian, I, 23, 6. 26 Tarsos under Alexander, Amer. Jour. Num., vol. LII. 27 For a possible Alexander coinage at Nagi- dus, see the discussion of Nos. 3976-8. 28 Arrian, I, 27, 3-4. 29 Droysen, Geschichte des Hellenismus, II, 1, p.20: 30 «« A Cilician Find,’’ Num. Chron., 1914. 81 For instance, a hoard of the later tetra- Pea ev ON GRA PHS P59 ALEXANDER HOU Or drachms was unearthed in Egypt in 1896 and has been described by Dutilh, in the Journal internationale d’archéologie et numismatique, I, 1898, pp. 148-156. Single specimens have also reached the writer from Egypt. 32 See ‘‘ Tarsos under Alexander,”’ l. c., passim. 33 See Brit. Mus. Cat., Cyprus, No. 85, Pl. XII, 19. 34 See Num. Chron., 4th Ser., vol. XIX, pp. 64, 65. 35 But see E.S. G. Robinson’s ‘‘ Aspeisas, Sa- trap of Susiana’”’ in Num. Chron., 5th Ser., vol. I, pp. 37, 38. 36 Brit. Mus. Cat., Cyprus, Nos. I-23. 37 J. P. Six in Num. Chron. N.S., Vol. xviii, pp. 103-131. 38 Brit. Mus. Cat., Galatia, Cappadocia, and Syria, Plate XVII, No. 7. 39 Arrian, Anab. ii, 13, 7ff. 40 Rev. Num., 3d Ser., vol. IX, 1891, Pl. XII, 2. 41 Script. linguaeque phoen. monum., p. 270, tab. xxxv,.1. 42 Musei Hedervarii numos antiquos graecos et latinos descripsit. Vienna, 1814. 43 Sestini, Descrizione d’alcune medaglie Greche del Museo Hedervariano. Florence, 1822-1829. 44 As has been claimed by M. J. N. Svoronos, Ta Noulopara rot Kpdrovs r&v Irodeuatwv, and followed by Mr. Hill in his ‘‘ Notes on the Alex- andrine Coinage of Phoenicia,’’ Nomisma, IV, 1909. NUMISMA TI CaN Ce DEMANHUR 45 Reattribution of Certain Tetradrachms of Alexander the Great, Amer. Jour. of Num., vol. XLVI, 1912, pp. 42-44. 46 Arrian, II, 20. i. 47 Brit. Mus. Cat. Phoenicia, No. 10, Plate A113. 48 EK. T. Newell, The Dated Alexander Coinage of Sidon and Ake. New Haven, The Yale Press, 1916. 49 Notes on the Alexandrine Coinage of Phoe- nicia, Nomisma, IV, 1909, p. 9, note I. 50 The Alexander Issues of Sinope, Amer. Jour. of Num., vol. LII. 51 As the writer himself believed, p. 32. The Dated Alexander Coinage of Sidon and Ake. 52 As both the Phoenician § and the Greek K, when used for alphabetical numerals, represent 10, all the issues bearing these dates have been assigned to the single year from October 1, 324 to September 30, 323 B. C. 58 The Dated Alexander Coinage of Sidon and Ake. New Haven, Yale Press, 1916. a Bin OPaL- te 55 Amer. Jour. of Num., Vols. XLV, XLVI, IQII-12, passim. 56 Num. Chron., 4th Ser., Vol. XVI, 1916, pp. 407-9. 57 Die Miinzstatte Babylon, Num. Zeitschr, vol. XXVII, 1895. He later successfully defended this assignment against Sir Henry Howarth’s rather old-fashioned objections (Num. Chron., Pe eMONOGRAPHS 161 ALEXANDER HOARDS 4th Ser., vol. IV, with Imhoof-Blumer’s rejoin- der in vol. VI). 58 Ta Noulouara rod Kpdrous rév Irodenalwv. Nos. 3, 6, 12,94. Inreality No. 94 he assigned to Corinth under Ptolemaic suzerainty and this coin will have to be returned to Egypt, as Corinth was not held by the Egyptians until long after the burial of the Demanhur hoard. 59 Two hoards described by Dutilh, Annuaire de Numismatique, 1895, vol. XVII; the find made near Kuft (largely represented in the col- lection of the late Dr. Strachan Davidson and now preserved in the Ashmolean Museum, Ox- ford) ; and three smaller hoards from Egypt now in the writer’s possession. 60 Aside from the comparatively small number of extant specimens only a few dies were appar- ently used in their production. The issues can- not, therefore, have been large. 61 Numismatic Notes and Monographs, No. 3. 62 In the cases of Tarsus, Myriandrus, Sidon, and Ake there are included in these totals such obverse and reverse dies as have been brought to the writer’s attention since the pub- lication of his various monographs on these par- ticular mints. 68 The Dated Alexander Coinage of Sidon and Ake. NUMISMATIC NOTES PLATE I DEMANHUR MaLtkTiG PLATE IT DEMANHUR ea a ee Ce. fe ene PLATE III DEMANHUR PLate IV DEMANHUR Ah, 2: shite ce tide hia S DEMANHUR PLATE V PLATE VI DEMANHUR Bled ate DEMANHUR + P4 a» i. i 2 Zi a e PLATE VII PLATE VIII DEMANHUR peeevelos MATIC NOTES AND MONOGRAPHS r—~ | 73 lee | 1 iry US Go eer ee —— Numismatic Notes AND MoNoGRAPHS is devoted to essays and treatises on sub- jects relating to coins, paper money, medals and decorations, and is uniform with Hispanic Notes and Monographs published by The Hispanic Society of America, and with Indian Notes and Monographs issued by the Museum of the American Indian—Heye Foundation. PUBLICATION COMMITTEE AGNES BALDWIN Brett, Chairman Henry RuSSELL DROWNE Joun ReEILty, Jr. EDITORIAL STAFF SypNnEY Puitie Noe, Editor HowLanp Woop, Associate Editor V. E. Earwe, Assistant Pee OA N DER Beak L) > Wie NORIPSARNA BY EDWARD T. NEWELL THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY BROADWAY AT I560TH STREET NEW YORK 1923 COPYRIGHT, I ae NN DER HOARDS THE ANDRITSAENA HOARD | By Epwarp T. NEWELL This small but interesting hoard is stated to have been found near Andrit- saena in the Peloponnesus and was of-| fered for sale by an Athenian antiquity dealer early in March of 1923. How long before this it had been found, we do not know. It was entirely due to the in- terest and active intervention of Mr, Sydney P. Noe, who chanced to be in| Athens at the time, that the Philip and| Alexander portion of the find was se-| cured intact, as well as casts of many of the remaining Bceeotian, A°ginetan, Sicy-| onian, and Olympian staters. No further particulars concerning the} hoard, or the circumstances surrounding its discovery, are at present available. As it had passed through at least two hands before reaching the Athenian dealer, it was found impossible to secure Poe MATIC NOTES iz ALEXANDER SOS any further information. All we can definitely state is that it was certainly found in the Peloponnesus and that all the specimens offered to and secured by the dealer have been seen. Whether the find was originally larger is not definitely known, but the person from whom the dealer acquired his portion is said to have made the vague statement that he believed there were a few more pieces. None, however, were seen in Athens be- fore the end of May, 1923. As the con- tents of the hoard make a well rounded out whole, it is quite possible that we possess it in its entirety. At any rate, it is well worth publishing. As a whole, the coins in this hoard are exceedingly well preserved. Not only was their original owner apparently very particular with regard to the condition of the pieces which he added to his sav- ings, but time also has dealt kindly with the little treasure entrusted to its not always tender care. When found, the majority of our coins were but slightly oxidized, some not at all. This oxidiza- NUM1S Mex ta Coe MeN DR eT SAE N A tion has proved easily removable, as has also the fawn-colored earth or clay which originally encrusted all of the coins. With three exceptions, reserved for pos- sible future reference, all of the Philips and Alexanders have now been cleaned. The weights of the Beotian, A ginetan, | Sicyonian, and Olympian staters were not ascertained, but those of the remain- der are given below. Peis 1) OF MACEDON, 350-336 B.c. Mint oF AMPHIPOLIS. I TETRADRACHM. Obv. Laureate head of Zeus to r. Rev. ®IAINMMOY. Youthful rider | wearing fillet and holding palm branch, on horseback to r. Beneath foreleg, ROSE. Miller, No. 75. VG. gr. 14.47. 2 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. Beneath horse, BEE and STERN. MiulereNo., 107,..F. gr. 14.32. 3 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Peso OYUN OGRA PHS ALEXANDER) HOA Rev. Similar. Beneath horse, BEE and DOUBLE HEAD. Miiller, No. 2701. F. gr. 14.435. Plate I. 4 TETRADRACHM. Similar to the preceding. F. gr. 14.38. 5 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. Beneath horse, DouBLE HEAD. Miller, No. 269. VF. gr. 14.535. 6 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. Beneath foreleg, pou- BLE HEAD. Miller, No. 269. VG. gr. 14.375. 7 ‘TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. Beneath foreleg, sTERN. Miller, No. 210. VG. gr. 14.22. MINT OF PELLA. 8 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. ®IAIIMIOY. The king in kausia and mantle, right hand raised, advanc- ing to 1. on horseback. Beneath horse, HM. Miller, No. 297. G. gr. 14.26. Plate I. NUMLS MATT Ge NeOe ees Pew DiRT Ts A.E’N.A g TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Youthful horseman to r. as on No. 1. Beneath horse, THUNDERBOLT. In exergue, N. Miller, No. 11. VG. gr. 14.33. Plate I. Posthumous issue of circa 325 B.C. 10 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar, but of later style. Rev. Similar, but of later style. Be- neath horse, FLYING BEE. Variety of Miller, No. 191. VF. gr. 14.31. Plate I. ALEXANDER III OF MACEDON, 336-323 B.C. Mint or AMPHIPOLIS. Group A, circa 336-334 B.C. 11-12 TETRADRACHMS. Obv. Head of young Heracles to r. Rev. AAEZANAPOY. Zeus ztophor seated to 1. on throne. In front, PRow. Maller, No. 503: G. gr. 17.07. F. 17.09. Group B, circa 333 and 332 B.c. 13 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. In field, BUNCH OF GRAPES. Miller, No. 306. F. gr. 17.15. Seer ONO GRA PHS ALEXANDER HOW Group D, circa 330 and 329 B.C. 14 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. In field, cLus and (5) Variety of Miller, No. 138. F. gr. 17.095. 15 LTETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. In field, HORSE’S HEAD. Miller, No. 528. VF. gr. 17.145. 16 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. In field, DOLPHIN. Miller, No. 5390. G. gr. 27.20. Group E, circa 328 and 327 B.C. 17 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. In field, HERM. Muller, No. 366. VE> er. race: 18 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. In field, cock. Muller, No. 392. VF. 16.945. Group F, circa 326 B.c. 19 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. In field, Bow and QUIVER. Miller, No. 591. VF. gr. 17.15. Group G, circa 325 B.C. 20 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. NUM 1S MAQIsiG ele en Don TS ATE N A Rev. Similar, but inscription: AAEE- ANA—P—OYBASIAEQOS. In field, CORNUCOPIA. Miller, No. 368. VF. gr. 17.22. Group H, circa 324 and 323 B.c. 21-22 TETRADRACHMS. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar, but inscription: BAXI- AEQS AAEZANAPOY. In field, PHRYG- IAN CAP. Mautler, No. 854. VE. gr. 17.21, 17-16. 23 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. In field, TRIPOD. Muller, No. 146. VF. gr. 17.20. Group l- circa 322 and 321 PB.c. 24 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. In field, Miller, No. 860. VF. gr. 17.125. Plate II. 25-28 TETRADRACHMS. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. In field, |2 Bigtler = No. S63. F. D.C. gr. 17.18, 17.20, ee 17.27. Group J, circa 320 and 319 B.C. 29 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. In field, EAR OF BARLEY. were ONOGRAPHS ALEXAN DEIR 3H OA Beneath throne, II. Miller, No. 570; Fi DeCigproigas, 30 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. In field, LAUREL SPRIG. Beneath throne, IT. Miller, No. 560. F. D.-C. gr. a7.10: 31 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. In field, cRESCENT (up- right). Beneath throne, II. Miller, No. 262, °F.) Dy ior eemee 32 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. In field, CRESCENT (in- verted). Beneath throne, II. Variety of Miller, No. 261. F. D. C. gr. 17.32. Plate II. MInT oF PELLA. Circa 336-320 B.C. 33-35 TETRADRACHMS. Obv. Similar, but of different style. Rev. Similar, but of different style. Beneath throne, 0. Miller, No. 197. VG. to F. gr. 17.12, 17.8o, E756. 36 ‘TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. NUMISMATIC NO Pere R Lies AE NA Rev. Similar. In field, AY Moalier, No. 762. F. D. C. gr. 17.32. Plate IT. 37 LETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. No symbol. Variety not in Miller. VF. gr. 17.195. 38 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. Beneath throne, BU- CRANIUM. Muller, No. 98. VF. gr. 17.17. UNCERTAIN MINT IN MACEDONIA or THESSALY. 39-40 TETRADRACHMS. Obv. Similar to the preceding. Rev. Similar. In field, HELMET. Be- neath throne, AS. WMatler, No. 1472. F. D.C. gr. 17.14, 17.195. MINT OF PHASELIS OR SIDE. 41-53 TETRADRACHMS. Obv. Head of fine style to r. Rev. AAFZANAPOY onr., BASIAEQOS in exergue. Zeus on high-back throne to 1. In field, wreatH. Beneath throne, AT. Mailer, No, 550. F. to F: D. C. gr. 17.00; HO vemel Os sak 7 VOT. Et se 17. E25 17.04 5 Peewee Ss. 7 .LO., £7.50; 17.22; 17.25. Plate II. eve wt ON OGR APH S IO A LEX A.N-D ERS SE Geass 54 [TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. Beneath throne, AT. Muller, No. 216. VES grai7 ese 55 LETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar, but with BASIAEQOS above. In field, AI. Beneath throne, | Bea Muller, No. 1483, “F. DoGP grep zaos MINT OF TARSUS. Series 1, circa 333-327 2.¢ 56 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Head of young Heracles of east- ern style. Rev. Zeus, of eastern style, od enthroned to 1. Below throne, A. Newell, Tarsos under Alexander, No. 6. VG, gr. 17.14: 57 LETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. Beneath throne, B. Newell, J. c:’ No, to.2 see MINT OF SALAMIS. Series I, 332-320 B.C. 58 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. In field, Bow. NUMIS MAQt1 CN Oia Peo kK ia SAE N A II Miller, No. 1287. (See also, Newell, Some Cypriote Alexanders, Num. Chron., 1915, Doge) ) VG. ef.-17.12. Plate III. MINT oF CITIUM. series I, 332-320 B.c. 59 LETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. In field, k Miller, No. 1294. (See also, Newell, /. c. Moma. 9b.) gr. 171045. Plate III. MinT oF MyRIANDRUS. Benes .i1, 217ca 320 B.C. 60 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. BASTARQ> on r., AAEZANAPO in exergue. In field, 1 Beneath throne, Newell, Myriandros—Alexandria kat’ Isson, Wo.zo. -F. gr, 16.08. Series III, circa 328-326 B.c. 61 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar, but without the title, and with AAEFZANAPOY on r. Same monograms. Newell, /. c. No. 22. F. gr. 17.035. Series IV, circa 326-323 B.C. 62 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Peeriow ns OuN O GRA PH S 12 ALEXANDER Ge Rev. Similar. In field, q over FO: Beneath throne, m Newell, J. c. No. 28. VG. (not cleaned), gr. 17.24. MINT oF ARADUS. 63 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. In exergue, BASIAEQOS, onr., AAEZANAPOY. Beneath throne, A P Miller, No. 1360. VF. gr. 17.07. 64-66 TETRADRACHMS. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. In field, &. Beneath throne, 4 Miller, No. 1364. F. and VF. gr. 17.03; 17,1053 17.roRs Plate ITI. 67 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. In field, $0. Beneath throne, @& Miller, No. 1363. F. gr. 17.23. MINT or BYBLUS. Monogram of King Adramelek. 68 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar, style early. In field, AQ Miller, No. 1375. G. gr. 17.015. NUM IS MAT Cea Pen tS AE NA 69-71 TETRADRACHMS. Obv. Similar, but of later style. Rev. Similar, but of Muller’s style IV. In field, A Roller. -No. 1375._F to F. D. C. gr. 17.095; T7205 17.10. Plate ITI. MINT or AKE. Series I, circa 332-328 B.c. 72 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. Beneath throne, M. Newell, The Dated Alexander Coinage of Simon and Ake, No. 2. VG. gr. 17.14. Series III, circa 326-320 B.c. 73 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. mew soimilar,- In field, 2 (year Pi=-cired 323 B.C.). Newell, 1. c. No. 18. VF. gr. 17.07. Plate IV. Mint oF BABYLON. Series I], circa 329-326 B.c. 74 [TETRADRACHM. Obv. Head of Heracles to r., of “Babylonian style.” Rev. Zeus enthroned to 1. Beneath throne, (Y¥ and M. (Symbol origi- nally in the exergue is “off flan.” ) Maier -NoO..670: UH. gr: 17.20. Poe ert NO GRA PHS ig | ALEX AN DiEReerT On ena 75 TETRADRACHM. Obv. From same obverse die. Rev. Similar, but with back to throne. In field, THUNDERBOLT. Beneath throne, Ky and M. Muller, No. 670, (VG. Gf. at 741 176 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. In field, wREATH. Same monogram and M beneath throne. Variety not in Miller. VF. gr. 17.09. 77 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. In field, cANTHARUS. Same monogram and M beneath throne. Variety not in Miller. F. D. C. gr. 17.18. 78 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. In field, rose. Same monogram and M beneath throne. Variety. not in Miller. VF. gr. 17.225. Series III, circa 326-324 B.c. 79 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. In field, BUNCH oF GRAPES and M. Same monogram be- neath throne. Muller, No. 692. VF. gr. 17.155. N-U M:1’S MeAST YT Geer Peo > AE N-A Series IV, circa 323-320 B.C. 80 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar, but of more advanced style (Miuller’s style IV). In field, M. Beneath throne, AY. Maller, No. 1272. VE... gr: 17.115. 81-82 TETRADRACHMS. In name of Philip Arrhidzeus (after 323 B.c.). Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar, but inscribed, BASIAEQS ®IAIMMOY. In field, M. Beneath throne, AY. Miller, No. 99. VF. gr. 17.09; 17.115. After 317 B.c. 83 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Heracles’ head of fine style to r. Rev. Zeus enthroned tol. In exergue, BASIAEQOS; on r., AAEFZANAPOY. In field, BAP in wreatH. Beneath throne, MI. Peieee None 7 34. Us D.C. gr. 07.115. Plate IV. ANCIENT IMITATION OF THE ALEXANDER COINAGE. 84 TETRADRACHM. Obv. Head imitated from Babylonian issues. Pee NOON O GRAPHS 15 ALEX A N Di Oe Rev. Seated Zeus imitated from Cyp- riote or Phcenician issues. On r., AAEBANA. On 1, ASBAVVAY Not cleaned. VG. gr. 16.52. Plate IV. BQOLOTIA. Period 379-338 B.c. 85 STATER. Obv. Beeotian shield. Rev. Amphora between AI—Q. Brit. Mus. Cat. p. 82. No. 134. Somewhat worn. (86 STATER. Obv. Beeotian shield. Rev. Amphora between KA—BI. Brit. Mus. Cat. p. 83. No. 150. Somewhat worn. Plate V. Period 338-335 or later. 87 STATER. | Obv. Beeotian shield. Rev. Amphora between BO—IQ. BUNCH OF GRAPES above. Brit. Mus. Cat. p. 36. No. 42. Somewhat | worn. Plate V. JEGINA. Period 550-456 B.C. 88-977 STATERS. Obv. Sea-turtle. Rev. Incuse square divided by bands NUMIS Dal eye Sek SAE NA into a conventional pattern of five compartments. Prievowrs Cat, Pi. sxxiv, Nos. 1, 2. All very much worn. Period 404-350 B.c., or later. 98-105 STATERS. Obv. Land-tortoise (testudo gr@ca). Rev. Incuse square divided by bands into a conventional pattern of five compartments. brit. Mus. Cat. Pi. xxiv, Nos. 10-12. F.-VF. Plate V. At least three and probably more of these eight staters, all in the finest con- dition, were of the later type with nar-| row bands, spread fabric, and tortoise Or later style. SICYON. Period 400-300 B.C. 106 STATER. Obv. Chimera to 1. Beneath, SE. Rev. Dove-flying to 1. in wreath. ett Mus. Cat. Pl. vii. No. 17. Somewhat worn. 107 STATER. Opn. Chimera to r. Beneath, SI. Rev. Dove flying to r. in wreath. Somewhat worn. Plate V. Peri M ON,O GR-A PHS 1S ALEX AN DE Re St Oe ELIS (OLYMPIA). Period 421-365 B.c. 108 STATER. Obv. On boss of a round shield, eagle to 1. devouring serpent. Rev. Thunderbolt between F—A. Seltman, Nos. 162-6 (die BV). Much worn and covered with punchmarks. Period 343-323 B.C. 10g STATER. Obv. Laureate head of Zeus to r. Rev. Eagle standing to r. on Ionic capital. In field, THUNDERBOLT and SERPENT. Seltman, Nos. 207-12 (die CT). Somewhat worn. Period 363-323 B.c., or later. IIo STATER. Obv. Head of Hera to r. wearing stephanos inscribed FAAEION. In field; F {ae Rev. Eagle standing to 1., head to r. and wings spread. The whole in olive wreath. Seltman, No. 344 (dies FG-w). VF. Plate V. One of the principal reasons impelling the writer to publish this little find (be- N: U MP 1S MeAV Te Cw Oe Pe haloes Ar NVA fore other more important ones) is that, small though it is, it furnishes a very typical specimen of the kind of hoards| buried in Hellas during the last quarter| of the fourth century B.c. The usual] contents of such deposits may be sum-| marized briefly as follows: a large pro-| portion of Alexander’s tetradrachms in| which Macedonian issues predominate ;} a smaller but not at all negligible num-| ber of the issues (both contemporaneous| and posthumous) of Philip II; and,| finally, a scattering number of such local! and autonomous issues as were still being} struck in the larger cities or were still} generally current—though their original| mints had been closed. Furthermore, | from the standpoint of the Alexander} series, the Andritsaena hoard is interest-| ing as representing the Greek counter-| part, in everything but size, of the great} Egyptian find of Demanhur. With one important exception all of its varieties are to be found in the Demanhur deposit. And this one exception, No. 83, enables us to place the probable burial date of Pee O NO GRAPHS 20 ALEXANDER Sh Gy the Andritsaena hoard within rather narrow limits. It is to be noticed that not one of our Alexander coins was struck after the death of Philip Arrhidzeus, excepting only No. 83. Now this piece represents the first issue immediately following the series current in Babylon at the time of his death.? With them this coin is closely bound by great similarity of detail, style, and fabric. As these very soon change, it must have been struck early in the course of the new issue. It cannot therefore have appeared much after the commencement of 316 B.c., for Philip was assassinated early in November of 317 B.c.4 This hoard cannot, then, have been buried earlier than the year 316. As this particular Babylonian coin is in such perfect condition it could have seen but little, if any, circulation. In our cal- culations, however, we must allow a cer- tain time for its long journey from the plains of Babylonia to the mountains of the western Peloponnesus. This will of necessity bring us to the end of 316, or NUM I SSM AGT GN. Pen RTT SAENA even well into the year 315 B.c. as the only possible date at which the Andrit- saena hoard could have been buried. The total absence of so many very common coins struck in the last years of Philip Arrhidzus or in the first years of Alex- ander IV forbids setting the burial at a later date. This is further corrobo- rated by the uniformly brilliant condi- tion exhibited by all the coins in the hoard which date after about 320 B.c. Thus, on the sole evidence of the coins in this find, we seem amply justified in fixing on the year 315 B.c. as the prob- able time at which they were buried. And this date would seem to fit in remarkably well with certain polit- ical events which took place in the Peloponnesus at this time, and which might have induced the former owner of our hoard to consign it to Mother Earth. We know that after the success- ful conclusion of Antigonus’ campaigns against Eumenes in the east, he moved his army from Babylon to Cilicia, where he went into winter quarters. This was Payee VoONO GRAPHS ALEXANDER SHO in the late autumn of 216 B.C) Ate time he found himself threatened by a powerful coalition of the remaining sa- traps, Cassander of Macedon, Lysi- machus of Thrace, Assander of Caria, and Ptolemy of Egypt. To hold Cas- sander in check while he settled with the remainder, Antigonus now sent his trusted friend, Aristodemus of Miletus, with one thousand talents to the Pelo- ponnesus with instructions to raise an army of mercenaries and, especially, to win Polysperchon for his cause. The latter had, since 318 B.c., been waging desperate warfare against Cassander, and now found himself in the possession of a large portion of the Peloponnesus. By the beginning of 315 B.c., Aristode- mus had accomplished all his objects and, together with Polysperchon, was at the head of a considerable army. In the meanwhile Apollonides, Cas- sander’s general stationed in Argos, had been able to hold his own until his mas- ter’s arrival, and even to seize the town of Stymphalus. Having recruited a NUM 1S MAsT i Cee. ee. PNEDRITSAENA fresh army in Macedonia, Cassander, in the spring of 315 B.c., marched south through Thessaly and Bceeotia, secured Corinth’s harbor Kenchree,® and pushed Ome cinto- Arcadia. He seized Orcho- menus and staged an ambitious raid over into Messenia. As, however, he found the city of Messene too strongly held by Polysperchon to warrant an attempt at assault, he returned to Arcadia. Leav- ing Damis as military commander of the district, Cassander went to Argos and celebrated here the Nemean Games. These are reckoned by Droysen® to have been held in the first year of the 116th Olympiad, or August of 315 B.c. Soon after he returned with his army to Mace- donia, Cassander’s opponents, immedi- ately improving upon this opportunity, again overran all the Peloponnesus, chased the garrisons from town after town, and soon were in undisturbed pos- session of practically all of the peninsula. Thus ended the campaign of 315 B.c. Although the fighting was resumed with the spring of 314, it was principally con- Poe MM OTN -O G R*A PH S ALEXANDER 3H Op fined to northwestern Elis (about Kyl- lene) and to the province of Achaia, leaving the district about modern An- dritsaena quite untouched. This state of affairs, so far as we can gather from our ancient sources, also held true for the ensuing years. In other words, it would appear that only in 315 B.c. was the country, within a radius of twenty miles of Andritsaena, disturbed by actually contending armies so that life and prop- erty would not be safe.7 At that time the hills about Andritsaena lay but a little to one side of Cassander’s direct route from Orchomenus to Messene. He would probably at least have sent raid- ing parties into the hills during his ad- vance southwards, if only to protect his flank, as well as his line of supplies and retreat, against any sudden attack. Cas- sander’s campaign appears to have been merely a tour de force, in the course of which he held only the places actually occupied by his soldiers. All the re- maining portions of the Peloponnesus and all but a few of the large cities (such NUMISMA eG ee Pee RL SA ENA as Argos, Stymphalus, Orchomenus, and possibly Epidaurus) were in the hands of Polysperchon, his son, Alexander, Aristodemus, and their allies. The latter, however, did not once dare to meet Cas- sander’s veteran forces in open battle, but contented themselves with holding the walled cities, and undoubtedly the mountains to either side of his advancing forces. Guerilla warfare was apparently the order of the day. No wonder then that in such troublous | times, and well within the zone of active operations, the former owner of our hoard decided to place his savings in as safe a place as possible. Why he was never able to remove them later is, of course, open to many conjectures. To attempt a solution would be futile. With the sole exception of No. 83, the Philip and Alexander coins in the An- dritsaena hoard call for but little com- ment. The issues of Amphipolis, the largest of all the Alexander mints, out- number those of any other one mint, as is only natural for a hoard found in a Pete OO NO GRAPHS Sal 26 ALEXANDER 2H Osea. country enjoying close and _ constant communications with Macedonia. This was even the case with such a distant hoard as that of Demanhur (q. v.). On the other hand it is interesting to ob- serve that, if taken together, the Asiatic Alexander issues by far outnumber (43 as against 30) the European ones. This is not usually the case with hoards found in Europe and dating from the last quar- ter of the fourth century B.c.2 In this case, however, there may be an easy solution. It will be remembered that in 316 B.C., or just the year before the prob- able burial date of our hoard, Aristo- demus was sent by Antigonus to the Peloponnesus with a thousand talents with which to raise troops.® Again, early in 315 B.c., Diodorus states!9 that Polysperchon’s son, Alexander, returned from a short visit to Antigonus in Cilicia with a further sum of five hundred tal- ents. These huge sums were undoubtedly in the form of coined money. There were no facilities in the southern Pelo- ponnesus to convert so much bullion into NUM 1 SMA Pe eee pene en lS AE NA ready money, and the all-important time was lacking. It would obviously have been far more expedient for Antigonus merely to turn over already coined money furnished him by the many active mints at his command in the east. Further- more, we may gather from Diodorus! that his recent successful campaigns in the east had been most lucrative. Antigonus at this time was assembling a great army in Cilicia for the coming expedition against Syria and Egypt. For this purpose he had probably seen to it that the satrapal coffers should be well filled with the “sinews of war” in an immediately available form. Any coins Aristodemus, and later, Alexander, had brought with them from Asia would soon be certain to find their way through- out the length and breadth of the south- ern Peloponnesus. The newly hired soldiers would be only too ready to spend the first instalments of their pay. Their commanders, because of political condi- tions, had only the immediately surround- ing countryside from which to draw their Pore MOON O GRAPHS 28 ALEX ANDE KE Oy supplies. These would probably not be all commandeered. In a poor country like this, Polysperchon and his allies had to depend too much upon the good-will of the inhabitants—ever ready to welcome a change—to risk not paying for at least some of the supplies requisitioned for the support of their armies. Thus, very soon, probably a considerable number of Alexander coins from eastern mints was in circulation among the people of Messenia, Laconia, southern Elis, and southern Arcadia. It is possible, also, that many of the earlier eastern issues had already found their way to the Pelo- ponnesus (as to the rest of Hellas) in the hands of returning veterans from Alexander’s armies. Provided that we really have the en- tire find before us, it is curious, to say the least, to note the entire absence of any of those Alexandrine issues which were first assigned to a mint at Sicyon by M. Babelon.t? The very same phe- nomenon is also observable in the Kypa- rissia hoard.t2 Of course, in such small NUM 1S MAT) CeO Panella AE NA hoards chance must needs play a very large part and too much stress must not be laid upon the absence of any one variety, particularly if it be at all scarce. To the best of the writer’s knowledge the Andritsaena hoard, in point of date, is the earliest (of which we have record) in which posthumous issues of Philip II (No. 10, Plate I) make an appearance. Later these coins become quite common, Pid ines Megara, iLamia, and other Grecian hoards which it is hoped will be published eventually. ~ As shown above by the catalogue, in- cluded in this find was also an ancient forgery of the Alexander tetradrachm (No. 84, Plate IV). The nature of the coin is indicated by its blundered legends, the dryness of the style, and the fact that its obverse is imitated from genu- ine Babylonian issues, while its reverse copies certain early Phcenician or Cyp- riote Alexanders. Furthermore, it is the only coin in the hoard which, in addition to the purple oxide and yellow- ish dirt which it bears in common with Peewee ON O GRAPHS 30 ALEXAN DERG Ope the remaining coins of the find, is also encrusted with thick patches of verdigris. This is a phenomenon frequently ob- served by the writer in certain hoards which have contained both ancient for- geries and genuine issues. Almost invari- ably these imitations of the period will be encrusted with spots of verdigris not shown by any of the genuine pieces. This is undoubtedly due to the poorer quality of the silver of which the for- geries are made, the larger amount of copper in their alloy brought to the sur- face by decomposition, and other chem- ical changes which have taken place during the long period in which they have lain buried underground. The accompanying genuine coins, having but little, if any, copper in the composition of their metal, will only show the usual forms of decomposition customary for pure silver. In view of the Peloponnesian origin of our find, it is but natural that coins of A‘gina, Sicyon, and Elis should have formed the greater portion of the auton- N UM 1S Mes Ge ee Peer elis AE N A omous coinages which it contained. It is noticeable, as was also the case with the Kyparissia hoard, that Athenian tetradrachms and Corinthian staters are both absent. The Bceotian, Sicyonian, and Olympian issues call for no special remarks. They are precisely what one would have expected to occur in a hoard of this date and place. The Atginetan staters, Nos. 98-105, on the other hand, would seem to raise a question of dating. It will be noticed that they are of the Testudo Greca (land-tortoise) type and belong to the anepigraphic series, now assigned by scholars to the years immediately follow- ing the A°ginetan restoration of 404 B.c.14 At least three in our find are of the late, spread-fabric type with thin (instead of thick) bands dividing the incuse of their reverses. All the specimens are in fine condition and could have seen but little circulation. On the other hand, not one of the inscribed varieties, bearing A, AT, aii or SALPIT, turned up. These are supposed to have been struck during the Peewee OeN OrG RAPH S 32 ALEXANDER IO ae years immediately preceding 348 B.c. It is curious that these should be missing when the supposedly much earlier series was present not only in goodly numbers but also in such fine condition. It would seem as if the latter (the uninscribed, thin-banded, and spread-fabric type) had been struck but recently, and not at the very commencement of the century. The writer might not have paid any particular attention to this curious anom- aly—in hoards so much is due to mere chance—had it not been for the consid- eration that another little hoard (or portion of a hoard), brought to his at- tention in 1921, presented the very same feature. That lot consisted of six Philip II tetradrachms (Muller, Nos. 158, 252, 263, two specimens of 269, 270); four- teen Alexander tetradrachms (Muller, Nos. 3, 216, 392, two specimens of 550, var. of 567, 684, 697, var. 704, 853, 860, var. 1302, var. 1342; 1473) 3 andetitee /7Eginetan staters in fine condition and all of the 404-350 B.c. type occurring in the Andritsaena find. Here, too, in- NUMIS MAW Gy es Pee eb foo EAN A scribed A*ginetan staters are noticeable by their absence. The reader will forgive a slight di- gression to allow the discussion of this second “find.” A selection of four typ- ical specimens is given on Plate VI. The coins themselves were shown to the writer in November, 1921, by Mr. A. H. Baldwin of London. According to the latter’s statement, there could be no ques- tion but that these twenty-three coins had really been found together. When first offered for sale they had all been covered with an identical type of patina which, as was also the case with the Andritsaena coins, proved easily remov- able, so that the coins to-day have almost the appearance of having been freshly minted. Mr. Baldwin further stated that the lot had been brought in to him but a short time before by a Greek, a native of the little Peloponnesian city of “Tai- poli” (undoubtedly Tripolis, also known as Tripolitsa), who informed him that the coins had only recently been found “in that neighborhood.” Peewee ON O.G RAPHS 33 34 ALEX AND EReeH Ores The astonishing similarity in content of this “Tripolitsa” find with what has come to us of the Andritsaena hoard is at once manifest and at least suggests the possibility of a common origin. The Alexander issues in both cover exactly the same general period and show the same proportion of European to Asiatic issues. As against the 30 European and 43 Asiatic Alexanders of the Andrit- saena lot, compare the 5 European and 7 Asiatic in the “Tripolitsa”—the pro- portion is practically identical. Both hoards contained, in addition, a propor- tionate number of Philip’s coins and AEginetan staters. The average condi- tion of wear exhibited by the coins in the two lots is also absolutely identical. Furthermore, Tripolitsa, one of the larg- est towns in the Peloponnesus and the chef teu of Arcadia, is more or less di- rectly connected with Andritsaena by carriage road via Megalopolis and Kary- taena, so that it would not be so very surprising for coins found in the neigh- borhood of Andritsaena to turn up in NUM IS MAST Tiere PeNWeO RIP SAENA Tripolitsa. It is curious, of course, but not entirely without precedent, that so long a time should have elapsed between the appearance on the market of the two lots. In February of 1922, the writer visited Athens and made many inquiries concerning a possible hoard of Alexan- der’s coins supposedly recently found in the Peloponnesus. On the last day of his stay in Athens a certain dealer! came to him stating that he had just received word concerning a lot of about a hundred Alexanders from a recent find—but the writer could not ascertain where the find had been made, nor could he delay his departure for the somewhat remote possibility of eventually being able to secure the “find.” Whether this lot had anything to do with the Andritsaena pieces which arrived in Athens a year later, is certainly not at present suscep- tible of proof. So much for the “Tripo- litsa” find. For the time-being nothing more definite can be said concerning its origin, but in studying the Andritsaena hoard we must not lose sight of the cir- fee ON OG RK A PHS 36 ALEXANDER JO] cumstance that the “Tripolitsa” lot may also originally have belonged to it. The apparent absence of any inscribed fEginetan staters in the two lots de- scribed above is brought into yet stronger relief by a large hoard of an entirely different character. The writer refers to the great hoard of 1596 Bceo- tian, Sicyonian, and A*ginetan coins found in 1914 1n Thessaly and now in the Athens National Collection.1®° This remarkable find contained 1078 Bceotian staters from the earliest periods right down to, and including, coins of the period 338-315 B.c. Because of the compara- tively large number of this latter class contained in the find, it must have been buried well after the year 333 B.c. Ge the accompanying 325 A‘ginetan staters, 234 bore the sea-turtle as type, and so belong to the sixth and fifth centuries B.c. The remaining 90 specimens have the land-tortoise (testudo greca) and belong to the fourth century. Again it is to be noted that they include not a single specimen of the type bearing the inscrip- NUM 1S MAT Ghee. Pen Dekel A EN A tions A, AI, AIT, or AITI. This fact is all the more noteworthy as the find was a large one, and thus the element of chance is almost entirely eliminated. Can it be that the minting of silver sta- ters at A“gina did not really come to an end with the year 348 B.c.,17 but was again undertaken at a slightly later date and under the zgis of Macedon? Any detailed discussion, or any ten- tative rearrangement of the A*ginetan series, would be out of place here. That must be left for others to accomplish. Leaving aside the moot question of the real date of the inscribed A‘ginetan staters, the little Andritsaena hoard has at least sustained the assignment by Fox of the land-tortoise type to the fourth century. Peer we NO) GR A P-H-S 38 ALEXAN DER VHOg ae NOLES Muller, in describing this coin which is in the Paris collection, has mistaken the BEE symbol for a “‘lambda.”’ ? None of these ten coins were actually seen by Mr. Noe, and they have been included only on the strength of a statement made by one of the Athenian coin dealers who saw the hoard before its dispersal. There is no adequate reason why they might not have been contained in the hoard. 3 At the time the news of Philip’s death was re- ceived in Babylon, the coins represented by Miiller’s numbers 116, 117 (in name of Philip III) and 1542, 1543 (in name of Alexander IV) were being struck. This conclusion has been reached by the writer in a study of the mint at Babylon which he hopes soon to publish. Unfortunately, we here cannot go into this matter in greater detail. * Droysen, Geschichte des Hellenismus, II, 1, p. ZA), Ore en. 5 At this time held by Polysperchon’s son, Alex- ander. ®° Droysen; Lvemlll 2 pays 7It must be remembered that, because of the character of its contents, the hoard could not possibly have been buried previous to the com- mencement of 316 B.c. Therefore Polysperchon’s campaign against Megalopolis in 318 s.c. and Cassander’s attacks on Tegea in 317 B.c. need not be taken into account. In 316 B.c. Cassander did indeed invade the Peloponnesus and seize Argos. Messene and other cities of the peninsula were “freed,’? or voluntarily sided with him. So far as NUM LS MeA ICS Neo aie pene SAE NA our sources would seem to show, however, the forces never came to any actual fighting, for the power of Polysperchon in the Peloponnesus at this time was comparatively weak. 8 For instance, in the Kyparissia hoard (q. v.) there were 15 European Alexanders, as against only 5 Asiatic. Also in the Lamia hoard (in the Athens National Collection) we have 18 European to 11 Asiatic Alexanders. The Messene hoard, which the writer hopes soon to publish, represents a special and very interesting case. Here, namely, there turned up 30 Asiatic and only one European Alexander! Spiedorus, XIX, 57, 5. BOENGIEXS) OTs 5s 1 XIX, 56, 2 and 5; XIX, 57, 1, where we also learn that the other satraps were only too anxious to divide the spoils. 12 Revue Numismatique, 1904, pp. 117-133. 13Qne, however, occurred in the Epidaurus hoard, Ephemeris, 1903, pp. 98-116. 14 Karle Fox in Corolla Numismatica, pp. 34-46. Head, Historia Numorum, 2nd Ed., p. 397. Head, in the first edition of the Historia and in the Brit. Mus. Cat. Attica, etc., had previously as- signed these coins to the impossible date 480-456 B.c. Curiously enough, Babelon has_ recently followed him in this (Traité, II°, pp. 155-158). 15 Not the same dealer from whom the Andrit- saena pieces were eventually acquired. 16 Published by J. N. Svoronos, in Arch, Deltion, Mol il, pp. 273-335: 17 As both Head and Babelon believe. Peo eMO N7O GRAPHS PLATE I | ANDRITSAENA < ZA aa << Vv) ES aa QA vA < Se ell ee ee, Prate III PLATELLV ANDRITSAENA J re Sy ne fe TEP ve A ' Re Seen Oe ee ee ANDRITSAENA ; PLate V ya a Se a Poe PLATE VI ANDRITSAENA