Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 with funding from Getty Research Institute https://archive.org/details/tarsosunderalexaOOnewe TARSOS UNDER ALEXANDER BY EDWARD T. NEWELL PRICE, TWO AND A HALF HOLLARS THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY BROADWAY AT 156th STREET NEW YORK 1919 ONE HUNDRED AND TEN COPIES REPRINTED FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NUMISMATICS VOLUME LII THE J. PAUL GETTY MUSEUM LIBRARY TARSOS UNDER ALEXANDER By E. T. NEWELL In the early spring of 333 B. C. Alexander the Great and his Mace- donians looked down from the passes of the Taurus upon the broad and exceptionally fertile 1 plain of Cilicia. Tarsos the capital and principal city of the fourth Satrapy of the Persian Empire lay but a few days march away. As in a similar case, sixty-eight years before, when another Greek army, made ever famous by the stirring narrative of Xenophon, stood upon this spot the Persian ruler of Cilicia dared not oppose them. Again the exultant Greeks, now under their hero-king Alexander, marched down into the luxuriant plain and, encountering no opposition, entered the gates of Tarsos. In deference to this rich and populous province, its strategical situation between East and West, and the numerous Greek settlements that dotted the coast, Alexander spent several months within its borders. He used this opportunity to pacify some of the surrounding mountain tribes who were threatening the security of the district as well as the great land route which tra- versed it. This highway formed his principal line of communications with the west, for the Persian fleet had not yet been definitely over- come. Visiting the important seaport of Soloi he imposed a fine of two hundred talents upon the inhabitants, as lie had reason to suspect that they were more inclined to favor the Persian king than the new regime. He also placed a garrison in the citadel, but to win over the Greek pop- ulation to his side granted them a democratic constitution. Great games and races were next celebrated here. Thence Alexander marched back to Tarsos by way of Megarsos and Mallos, also Greek cities, where sac- rifices were offered to Athene and Amphilochos. Towards the end of the summer Alexander led his army eastward to meet the Persian king in person who was known to have been collecting an army in Syria. Along the highroad from Tarsos to Issos and thence through the famous Gates, which in ancient times marked the boundary between Cilicia and Syria, towards the busy port of Myriandros marched the Greek army. Meanwhile Darius had crossed the Amanus mountain and placed himself in the plain of Issos squarely in Alexander’s rear. 1 Xenophon, “ Anabasis,” I, ii, 22. o Tarsos Under Alexander Hastily the latter retraced liis steps, met the Persians in the plain of Issos, and routed them completely. Thus, at a single stroke, was set- tled the ownership of Cilicia, Syria and Phoenicia. From that day onward the tide of Macedonian victory rolled eastward and Cilicia, un- der its newly appointed governor, Balakros son of Nikanor, formed an important and integral part of the Macedonian Empire. So important indeed did the lirm consolidation of the province appear to Alexander that at first and contrary to his usual custom, he combined in the per- son of the one man — the aforementioned Balakros — the civil office of satrap and the military office of general commanding the provincial garrison . 2 That this strategic and vitally important province was well con- solidated and strongly garrisoned we may he certain. We know that in 328 B. C. Balakros himself perished during the course of a border war which he was carrying on against certain mountain tribes to the north and west who, from their fastnesses in the Taurus range, might prove a menace to the security of the province. Knowing from this that an active army was actually maintained in Cilicia we may securely conjecture that, as under previous Persian satraps who had used this district as a convenient base for their military operations, the mints here located continued to coin money under Alexander. This surmise is proved correct by the existence of a large number of this monarch’s coins whose style is identical to the satrapal and military coins previ- ously issued here by the Persians. Li. Muller in his “ Numismatique d’Alexandre le Grand,” page 277 ft. has already made this observation and correctly assigns a large number of Alexander’s coins to Cilicia. He made little headway, however, in dividing these issues among their respective mints, as the majority of his local attributions can be dis- proved. 11 In the fourth century B. C., under Persian domination, Tarsos be- came the leading mint for the money struck by satrapal or military author- - Arrian II. 12 says that Alexander appointed Balakros ‘ satrap.’ It was not until in 330 B.C. that a certain Menes was sent from Babylon to act as ‘ hyparch ’ or general of the troops stationed in Cilicia, Syria and Phoenicia. 3 His nos. 1287 and 1288 should he given to Salamis in Cyprus and nos. 1294 to 1297 inclu- sive to Kition in Cyprus, as shown by the present writer in Nuin. Chron., Vol. XV, 1915. It may he added that nos. 1304, 1305, 1317, 1318 should be assigned to Babylon (see Imhoof-Blumer in Num. Zeitsehr., 1895); 1306 to Miletus; 1312, 1319, 1320, 1321 to Sidon (see “The Dated Alex- ander Coinage of Sidon and Ake ” by the present writer). Furthermore nos. 1303, 1309-11, 1313- 15, 1322-29, 1330, 1330 by their style belong to mints outside ol' Cilicia. The remainder are really Cilician. Tarsos Under Alexander o ity. Because of this precedent, because of the fact that Tarsos- was the capital and the natural seat of the new authority, and, lastly, because of her central position and because she was conveniently situated near to the silver mines of the Taurus mountains, 4 we have every reason to suppose that under Alexander she continued to issue money, but hence- forth with the types of the new ruler. In a previous work the writer has already drawn attention to the fact that a great many of the mints which had coined under the last of the Persian kings continued to do so under Alexander. To mention but a few in this portion of his empire, there were Arados, Byblos, Sidon, Salamis and Kition. Tar- sos was certainly another. Before proceeding to the Alexandrine issues of Tarsos it would be well to take a hasty survey of the satrapal coinages which were their immediate predecessors. First Tiribazos between the years 38b and 381 B. C., and later Pharnabazos and Datames in 379-372 B. C. struck large quantities of coin, bearing their several names and types, to defray the expenses of the military operations they were engaged in. In 361 B. C. Mazaios was appointed governor for Cilicia. In 351 B. C. came the great revolt against the Persian king of certain of the princes of Cyprus and Phoenicia. Hidrieos, satrap of Caria, was charged with the reduction of the former, while Mazaios with Belesys, satrap of Syria, undertook the suppression of the Phoenician rebels. To meet the ex- penses of these operations Mazaios caused to be struck in his name at Tarsos large numbers of Persian silver staters having on the obverse the seated figure of Baal-Tars, and on the reverse a lion attacking a stag (Plate I, nos. 1, 2, 3). The next series is even more distinctive of Tarsos. While the obverse remains the same except that the head of Baal-Tars is facing, the reverse gives a spirited representation of a lion 4 That there were comparatively rich silver mines in the Taurus range we may infer from the heavy coinage in this metal issued by the satraps and autonomous cities, from the fact that the principal portion of Cilicia’s tribute to the king of Persia was annually live hundred talents of silver (Her. Ill, 90), and from the traces of ancient silver mines found there to-day. In speaking of Bulghar-Maden, situated just northwest of the Cilician Gates in the Taurus Mountains, Mr. Garstang says The silver mines to which the place owes its name and probably its being, seem to have been considerably worked in ancient times.” (Garstang, “ Land of the llittites,” page 43). W. B. Barker, in his “Lares and Penates, or Cilicia and its Governors,” page 125, says: “ Xear Kulak Bughaz (the Cilician passes) there are lead mines .... It has lately been discov- ered by an Italian mineralogist, M. Boriani, that together with this lead there is a good deal of silver .... Towards Sis (ancient Pendenissus) there are also mines of great value . . . .” To this the following note has been added by W. F. Ainsworth, F. 11. G. 8.. F. R. 8.: “At the time that the Euphrates Expedition was at Suwaidiyah, an Englishman arrived, who had been invited to the country by Ibrahim Tasha to work the mines of argentiferous galena, near Sis.” 4 Tarsos Under Alexander attacking a bull (Plate I, 4) — the characteristic emblem of the city of Tarsos and found on her coins as late as the reign of Gordian III. At some date after 351 B. C. Mazaios also became satrap of Syria, though still retaining his former dignity in Cilicia. Under these circumstances he caused to be struck at Tarsos the well known staters with the lion and bull emblem depicted over a double row of towered and battle- mented walls, and with the long and interesting inscription by u 'HTE ■pm snnjnay “ Mazaios who is over Abernahra and Cilicia” (Plate I, 5) . Abernahra is the Aramaic name for the trans-Euphratine district now known as northern Syria. Such are the satrapal issues of Cilicia from the Tarsiote mint which may be looked upon as the direct progenitors of the new coinages issued here, from the Summer of 333 B. C. on, in the name of Alexander the Great. SERIES I, 333 to circa 327 B. C. Silver issues with name : AAEIANAPOY. TETRADRACHM. Head of youthful Herakles to r., cov- ered with lion’s skin. Circle of dots. BRONZE. Similar to preceding. AAEIANAPOY on r. Zeus, naked to waist, legs parallel and feet resting on stool, seated to 1. He holds eagle in out- stretched r. and sceptre, adorned with lotos bud, in 1. Circle of dots. AAEIANAPOY between club and bow in quiver. Circle of dots. FIRST GROUP. “ Officina " A. \ (Muller no. 1293a) Beneath throne : Pellet. Obverse die. Reverse die. I . . . . / E. T. N.. Plate I, 6 and 7. II . . . . / “ (two specimens). n) “ Plate I, 8 and 9. Ill . . o “ Plate I, 10 and 1 . . If “ Rev. Plate I, 13. IV . . . . b “ ^Obv. Plate I, 12. V . . . . O “ Plate I, 14 and 1 “Officina” B. 2 ( ). No mint mark. I . . . . 6 E.T. N., Plate I, 16. Tarsos Under Alexander u V vr VII 7 E. T. N., (two specimens) Plate I, 17. iS “ (two specimens) Plate I, 18. 0 “ Rev. Plate I, 19; E. T. N. 5 9 Amer. Numis. Soc., Obv. Plate I, 19. 10 Amer. Numis. Soc. SECOND GROUP. “ Officina ” A. 3 (Muller no. 1291) III 6 . . . IV 8 VIII IX X Beneath throne 11 E. T. N 12 44 13 44 n 44 15 “ 16 44 17 44 18 44 18 u 10 “ 20 u 21 44 6)J) 23 9 44 20 u 23 9 44 24 Paris 25 E. T. N 26 “ >'9 44 28 44 20 44 3,0 44 31 44 3,0 “ 3,2 . > r / 44 A Plate I, 20. E. T. N.' Plate I, 21. (two specimens) Plate II, 1. (two specimens), (no. 984). Plate II, 2. (two specimens) Plate II, 3. The obverse die used for this coin is now in a very bad state, the reverse die is also dam aged as seen the following coin (VJf-9). 6 Die 1 1 1 henceforth shows evident traces of wear. 7 On this coin die III shows new break over eve. 3 Die IV henceforth shows traces of wear. 9 On these dies A is engraved over B. 6 Tarsos Under Alexander XI 34 E. T. N., Plate II, 4. 31 w 44 35 “ 30 44 37 “ another in commerce. 38 “ (two specimens). S3 10 44 39- “ Plate II, 5. 40 In the trade. “ Officina ” B. 4 (Mii Her no. 1289). Beneath throne : B VII" 4J E. T. N. 42 “ (overstruck) Plate II, 6. 44 44 44 IX 45 “ (overstruck). Plate II, 7. XII 45 Egger Sale, May, 1912, no. 667. 40 E. T. N. 47 “ (two specimens). 48 44 49 “ Plate II, 8. XIII 50 “ 51 “ Plate II, 9. 52 “ oo 44 54 44 XIV 49 t )t ) “ (two specimens). Plate II, 10. 56 “ (two specimens). XV 45 “ 47 “ 48 “ another in the trade. 49 44 51) 44 50 44 5 XX . . . . 6S L. V. Case. 73 E. T. X. . . . 74 Egger Sale, May, 1912, no. THIRD GROUP. “ Officina ” A. 5 (Num. Zeitschr., vol. I, 1869, p. 38, no. 78). Infield: Ornamented Trident. Beneath throne : A XI 14 . . . . 76 Berlin. .... 76 R. Storrs ; E. T. N. 77 London, Plate II, 17 : E. T. N. 6 (Muller, no. 1293). Beneath throne: A XXI .... 78 (Trident erased), E. T. X. (two specimens) Plate III, 1. .... 79 E. T. X. XXII . . . . 80 U 8 1 “ Plate III, 2 ; L. V. Case. . . . . 82 “ Oxford (Ashmolean). . . . . 83 U XXIII 83 “ Plate III, 3. XXIV .... 84 “ Plate III, 4. ( — )• Beneath throne : A Between throne and sceptre : Pellet. XXII . . . . 86 E. T. X., Plate III, 5. ia On this die B is engraved over A- 14 Die XI now shows evident signs of wear. Tarsos Unher Alexander 3 9 10 (Muller, no. 1292). Beneath throne XXIV . HO S7 E. T. N. (two specimens). U . ss Plate III, G. . 89 - XXV . 90 Plate III, 7. . 91 “ . 92 i 4 . 93 Amer. Num. Soc. ( )• Beneath throne A Pellet between throne and sceptre. XXVI . 94 E. T. N. . 93 U . 90 44 . 97 “ . 98 “ . 99 “ ( two specimens). . 100 “ (two specimens), Plate III, 8. . 101 “ Officina ” B. ( — )• Beneath throne : B XVI . 102 E. T. N., Plate III, 9 (two specimens) ; (Ashmolean ). XVIII . 103 44 . 10j 44 . 103 “ Plate III, 10. . 106 44 XIX . 106 Egger Sale, May, 1912, no. 667. . 107 E. T. N., Plate III, 11 : F. M. Endicott in the trade. . 108 44 . 109 “ XX . 108 Plate III, 12. . no 44 . in 4 i . 112 “ (two specimens). XXVII . 109 “ . 1 12 » . 113 “ . 114 “ Plate III, 13. . 113 44 Oxford another U ( )• BRONZE UNIT. E. T. N. Tarsos Under Alexander 9 DIAGRAM First Series. “ Officina ” A “Officina” B jv , (Beneath throne) two group. ' % g * 111 coni •B 8 (Beneath throne) ;;A No mint mark G 0 » o Second group. I s c A • one •5 M in com c O) o §8 die o mon £ D o 'S 8 Third group. gf = Trident, A A A. A A. four in com DO* The relations existing between obverse and reverse dies of this series have been minutely indicated in the preceding catalogue because only thus are we enabled to draw certain interesting and important con- clusions. In the first place, we are forced to the conclusion that the ten varieties of tetradrachms here treated are not consecutive issues. Rather must they be divided into two groups, which, for convenience sake and following a custom known to have existed in Roman times, may be designated as the issues of two officinae, A and B, of a single mint. These two groups are strictly contemporaries of each other as proved by the use in common of certain obverse dies, and by a generally similar progression of style and technique displayed by their respective obverses and reverses. With the exception of the first group of each officina, the coins of ‘ A 1 are all marked with an A, the coins of 1 B ' with a B .’ 5 In addition, pellets singly or in groups and placed in various positions on the reverse die, serve as minor marks of control. The preceding diagram will show more clearly the mutual correspond- ence of the several groups that go to make up the first issue of Alex- andrine tetradrachms from the royal mint at Tarsos. 15 The writer does not feel warranted in insisting that the mint was really divided into two distinct branches and that the one was designated ‘with an A. the other with a B, and that further- more their coin issues were so marked. Rather would I see in the letters A and B the initials of the chief magistrates, each of whom assumed the responsibility for one half of the output of coin. The two groups, the one with A, the other with B, are sufficiently distinct, however, to make it advisable, for purposes of study, to assume that the coins were issued by two more or less inde- pendent branches of the one mint. 10 Tarsos Under Alexander For the first group of officina A five obverse dies (I, II, 111, IV, V) were cut, but, so far, only five reverse dies are known to have been used with them. Similarly for the first group of officina B four obverse dies are known (I, V, VI, VII) of which the first and second were also used in officina A. This fact, together with the close similarity of style and technique displayed on the obverses and reverses of both groups, proves their contemporaneousness as well as their origin in a single mint. It is to be noticed that the Zeus figure on these coins has no locks of hair on the nape of his neck. The second group of officina A follows immediately upon the first, of which it continues to use two obverse dies (III and IV) now show- ing unmistakable evidences of wear (compare on Plate I, obverses nos. 10 and 12 with obverses of nos. 20 and 21 ) . In addition to obverse dies III and IV, four new ones (VIII to XI) are cut and put into use. Sim- ilarly for the second group of officina B we find one of the obverse dies (VII) of the first group still in use, but also showing signs of wear (compare Plate 1, no. 19 and Plate II, no. 6). Nine new obverse dies (Xll to XX) are cut and put into operation together with an obverse die (IX) of officina A. Thus variety 3 (of A) is contemporary with no. 4 (of B) as shown by the interchange of this die (IX), by the recutting of an A over the B on reverse dies 33 and 27, the corresponding recut- ting of a B over the A on die 6‘2, and by the close similarity in the style and appearance of the coins themselves. This can be seen by compar- ing the following two cuts. Variety 3 of oilicina A. Fig. 1 Variety 4 of officina B. Although it seems to have been necessary to cut more obverse dies for this B group than for the corresponding A group, the number of reverse dies used remains about the same. Because of this and because the artistic and stylistic progression of the obverse and reverse dies is identical we may infer that the second groups of A and B, appearing simultaneously, endured the same length of time and were about equal in the size of their respective coin issues. In both officinae the second group is followed by a third group of slightly later style but bound to the former by the continued use of Tarsus Under Alexander 11 certain obverse dies. In A one obverse die (XI) is carried over to the new group ; in B as many as four (XVI, XVIII, XIX and XX) obverse dies continue to be used. We have above recorded the fact that six more obverse dies had been cut for the second group of B than for the corres- ponding group of A. As the size and duration of time of the two issues seem to have remained the same, the natural result was that the wear and tear on the obverse dies of B would have been less in the aggregate, and more could have therefore been preserved for continued use in the third group than was the case for the third group of A. In fact the only die that survived (XI) for continued use in the third group of A plainly shows the effect (see Plate II, no. 17) of long and hard usage. Whereas the first two groups of A exactly parallel in style, size of out- put, and number of varieties, the first two groups of B, the present or third group diverges from that of B in every one one of these respects. Because, however, in both officinae certain obverse dies serve to defi- nitely bind the third and second groups and because certain reverse dies of the third A group are absolutely identical in style with reverse dies of the third B group (compare the accompanying cut) we possess the proof that we are still dealing with the issues of a single mint. As shown by their, for the Tarsiote mint, unusual style there appeared at this time in offieina A an extra issue of tetradrachms not duplicated in B. These coins are of an individual style resembling only in a gen- eral way that of the regular issues of A and B, the flans are usually somewhat smaller, the striking more careless, the work less good artist- ically. In fact, their style differs so much in details from the normal issues of officinae A and B that the writer was at first 10 under the im- pression that they must have been struck at some other mint. Further- more, die XXII bears such close resemblance to a certain die used at the Phoenician mint of Ake 17 that it is difficult to believe they were not both cut by the same hand. In spite of this it is no less than certain 10 American Journal of Numismatics, Vol. XL VI, 1912, p. 45. 17 E. T. Newell, “ The Dated Alexander Coinage of Sidon and Ake,” Elate V, 14. 1*2 Tarsos Lender Alexander that our varieties 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 belong to the same series and mint as varieties 1 and 3. In the first place no. 5 (with symbol Trident in field and A beneath throne) is definitely bound with no. 3 by the use in com- mon ot‘ an obverse die (XI) . The very first reverse die (78)' of variety 6 shows that the Trident symbol of no. 5 was once engraved in its field, but was later erased leaving, however, distinct traces (Plate III, 1). Thus, in addition to the A which appears on both, the traces of the char- acteristic Trident symbol proves that we can not separate no. 6 from no. 5. V arieties 7 and 8 are bound by the common use of dies XXII and XXIV to no. 6 and we therefore must admit that this entire group, composed of varieties nos. 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 form a single and indivisible unit and so must have been struck in one and the same mint. Variety 9 is but a slight variant of no. 8 and so certainly belongs with it, as the style shows. In carefully considering the above facts we are brought to the conclusion that, at some time not long after the mint at Tarsos had commenced to coin for Alexander, the old staff of die -cutters, as taken over from the Persian regime, was found to be inadequate to handle the great mass of coin which had now to be issued under the changed conditions obtaining in the province of Cilicia. Not only was the issue of the Alexander tetradrachms larger, as a whole, than any one of the preceding satrapal issues, but, as we shall soon see, other series’ of coins were now being struck as well, thus materially increasing the general output of coin from our mint. It is reasonable to suppose, then, that one or more new die cutters had to be secured to assist in the enlarged production. These new die cutters seem to have been assigned only to offieina A — the old ones continued to be employed in officina B. One of the new engravers (he who cut obverse die XXII and reverse dies 79 to 85) seems to have been imported from Ake in Phoenicia where he had been working for a couple of years after leaving Sidon. As brought out by the present writer in his monograph on “The Dated Alexander Coinage of Sidon and Ake,” p. 53, this die cutter had already been transferred, sometime in the year 332 B. C., from Sidon to Ake when a mint was opened in the latter city during Alexander’s operations against Tyre and later against Gaza. From this artist’s hands are obverse dies II, ill, IV, V, VI, of Ake as well as practically all the reverse dies of varieties 1, 2, 3 and 4 (compare loc. cit. Plate V, nos. 9 to 15) of that mint. Almost exactly similar in style and tech- nique (see the following cut) are obverse die XXII and reverse dies 79 to 85 of the Tarsos mint. Tarsos Under Alexander 13 dki r New artist at Tarsos. The same artist at Ake. Iii the above mentioned monograph the writer (on pages 53 and 54) indicated that the four Ake varieties which contain the dies cut by this particular workman cover only the years 332 to 330 B. C., after this date his work is no longer seen at Ake. Therefore it is to be in- ferred that lie left Ake sometime between 330 and 329 B. C. Now it is about this very time that his style suddenly appears in the Tarsos mint. For in officina A we possess nine (I-V, VIII-NI) obverse dies to cover the years 333 to 330/29 before his handiwork appears. Simi- larly, for Sidon we possess eleven obverse tetradrachm dies to cover the period from late in 333 to October 327 B. C ; for Ake we possess six obverse tetradrachm dies to cover the period 332 to 329 B. C., or, in each case, about two obverse dies per year. Basing our estimates on this evidence, die XI of officina A of Tarsos would bring us to 329-328 B. C., at the latest, for the first appearance in this mint of the new artist. In other words all internal evidence available would seem to tally with our supposition that a certain die cutter was transferred from the Ake mint to Tarsos to assist in an increased output of coin in that mint, and that this event occurred about the year 329 B. C. It would not perhaps be too far fetched to assume that this exceptional activity in the Tarsos mint was directly due to the preparations for the expedi- tion undertaken in 328 B. C. by Balakros, the satrap of Cilicia, against the warlike and formidable mountain tribes of the Isaurians. It was in this campaign that Balakros was defeated and lost his life. Briefly then, in following the issues of the two branches or, to use a Roman expression, officinae of our mint at Tarsos, we have noticed that they commenced operations respectively with three and two ob- verse dies each, and, in addition, two used in common. The style of the dies, both obverse and reverse, cut for the two officinae are identi- cal. A second group of coins now followed in each officina, hound to the previous ones and to each other by the use in common of certain obverse dies, but henceforth differentiated by the letters A and B placed on their respective reverses. The style has become slightly modified, 14 Tar, sos Under Alexander but only in such minor details as, for instance, the appearance of locks of hair falling down over the nape of Zeus 1 neck. The second group of A must be contemporaneous with the second group of B as two of its reverse dies show an A engraved over a B, while, reciprocally B uses an obverse die of A. In each officina the second group then merges into the third group and with the continued use of certain old obverse dies. Now, however, the new artists who have been introduced into officina A so influenced the style of its issues that in many details this style differs radically from that found on the contemporary issues of B. It is never -the -less certain that the third group of A ai\d the third group of B are more or less contemporaneous because these two groups, as we have already seen, must have both commenced about the same time; because a few of their dies closely resemble each other in style ; and be- cause an identical mark of control — a pellet — is found over the char- acteristic letter on all the reverse dies of B and many of those of A. In approaching the question of the percentage of obverse to reverse- dies as shown by the coins of Series I, it must be remembered that this study has had to be based almost entirely upon such coins as chanced to be in collections on this side of the Atlantic. If casts could have- been secured from the principal public and private collections of Europe many more reverse dies would assuredly have been found. As it is, Series I furnishes us with an average of over four reverse dies to every obverse one . 18 In individual cases, however, we have up to ten and twelve reverses for one obverse. For the present we have, in Series I of the Tarsiote mint: 2 instances of 12 reverse dies used with one obverse die. 1 instance of 11 “ “ “ “ “ “ “ 1 “ of 8 “ “ “ “ “ “ “ 4 instances of 7 “ “ “ “ “ “ “ 2 “ of 6 “ “ “ “ “ “ “ 6 “ of 5 “ “ “ “ “ “ “ 2 “ of 4 “ “ “ “ “ 2 “ of 3 “ “ “ “ “ “ “ 6 “ of 2 “ “ “ “ “ “ 1 instance of 1 “ ■ “ “ “ “ “ “ It would not be placing the figure too high to consider the original average proportion of reverse dies to obverse dies for tetradrachms to have been not less than eight to one, and probably more than ten to one. This is shown by statistics we have available in the contempo- rary mints of Sidon and Ake . 19 For Sidon we have one case where To be exact, we have 115 reverse dies used with 27 obverse dies. 10 See “ Dated Alexander Coinage of Sidon and Ake,” passim. Tarsos Under Alexander 15 seven reverse dies were used with one obverse. For Ake we have the following ] troportions : 1 instance of 13 reverse dies used with one obverse die. 1 “ of 12 1 “ of 1 1 2 instances of 10 2 “ of 0 3 “ of 8 3 “ of 7 and many in addition with anywhere from one to six to a single obverse. These last low proportions, as suggested in the above mentioned mono- graph, pages 67 and 68, are probably due more to the chances of time than to the small number of reverse dies actually cut in proportion to obverse dies. Throughout Series 1 the dies were not fixed. In this our Alexan- der tetradrachms but follow the preceding satrapal issues. It is inter- esting to note in how many instances 20 the customs and peculiarities of a local coinage will reappear on the succeeding issues of Alexander for the same district. This shows clearly how the personnel, appliances and traditions of a mint were all retained for the production of the new coin. The coinage of Tarsos is no exception to this rule and the issues bearing the name and types of Alexander the Great are seen to be the direct successors of the local coins of the Persian satraps. The accom- panying cut (fig. 4) places side by side a Mazaios stater and a tetra- drachm of Alexander’s first issue at Tarsos. We may now note the Mazaios Stater. Alexander Tetradrachm. Fig. 4 identical form of the throne, the sceptre, the foot-stool, and other de- tails on both. The drapery is rendered in a similar manner, the Ara- maic inscription of one and the Greek inscription of the other are similarly curved, following the dotted border of each. There can indeed be little doubt that the two series of coins were the common product of a single mint. 2 0 Among others, the Alexander issues of Salamis, and Kition in Cyprus, Jjyhlos, Sidon and Ake in Phoenicia. tt U 16 Tarsos Under Alexander ISSUE OF PERSIC STATERS, Circa 327 B. C. Immediately succeeding the series of Alexander tetradrachms which we have just been studying, there was issued a special series of Persic silver staters. These in many ways are remarkable and stand out in strong contrast to the Alexandrine issues. The latter, in character and circumstance, were really the direct descendants of the earlier issues of Tarsos which bear the names of Persian satraps, such as Tiribazos, Pharnabazos, Datames and Mazaios. For the Alexandrine issues were a military as well as an imperial undertaking. They were issued to pay the troops stationed in Cilicia for the protection of the province and the securing of the important and now vital highway which traversed it. They proclaimed the name of the new master and so brought be- fore the people the fact that Cilicia was now an integral portion of his empire. They were struck to conform the circulating medium of this province with the currency of the remainder of the empire and so to encourage and facilitate a more widely spread commerce and exchange. On the other hand, the new issue of Persic staters, while resembling the earlier satrapal issues in weight and, to a certain extent, in type, was a purely municipal and local undertaking. Unlike the contempo- rary Alexander tetradrachms or the earlier satrapal staters no name of overlord or of military authority appears upon them. Instead, the four letters T, M, I, which occur singly beneath the Baal throne, clearly indicate that it was the municipalities of Tarsos, Mallos, Soloi and Issos, the four largest and most important cities of Eastern Cilicia, that were alone responsible for this recoinage of the Persic stater. SERIES I. First group, nnSjn on 1. Baa, 1-Tars, himation over I. arm and legs, seated to 1. and rests r. arm on lotos-beaded sceptre. In field to 1., ear of wheat. Border of dots, a. Beneath throne, T. Paris (Babelon, Traite II 2 , no. 713 PI. 'irca 327 B. C. Fig. 6 Two lines of wall, one above the other. Above, lion to 1. attacking bull to r.; above, Club. Border of dots. cxiii, 10), fig. 5 ; Newell Coll. Tarsos Under Alexander 17 b. Beneath throne, M. London (B. M. Catalogue, no. 66 ). c. Beneath throne, I. London (B. M. Catalogue, no. 65, PI. xxxi, 7 ), fig. 6 . Second group (with B) (Enlarged) Fig. 7 d. Beneath throne, §. Above lion on reverse, B. Coll. Six (see Babelon, Traite II 2 , no. 716). e. Beneath throne (?), usually plain. Above lion on reverse, B. Paris (Babelon, Traite II 2 , no. 712, PI. exiii, 9); Benson Sale, Sotheby 1909, no. 746, fig. 7 ; Newell Coll. PERSIC OBOL. Head of Athene to r. in crested Attic Shield of so-called Boeotian shape. Cir- helinet. Circle of dots. cle of dots. f. To right of shield, B- Paris (Babelon, Traite II 3 , no. 374, PI. c.civ, 38). Unlike the previous staters struck in the name of Mazaios and the first series of tetradrachms issued by Alexander at Tarsos, the present staters do not show a foot -stool beneath the feet of Baal -Tars. In this peculiarity they are exactly paralleled by the first issues of the Alexan- der tetradrachms of Series II, as the accompanying cuts can best show. The absolute identity in style and workmanship between the Baal figure of these coins and the Zeus of the Alexander tetradrachms to be Reverse of Persic Stater. Alexander Tetradrachm (Enlarged) Fig. 8 Reverse of Alex an d e r T e tradrae h m Persic Stater. (Enlarged) Fig. 0 18 Tarsos Under Alexander described at the commencement of Series II (p. 97) proves both that the dies were probably cut by the same artists and that the coins were issued simultaneously from one and the same mint. On the tetra- drachms the attitude of Zeus corresponds to the type as already intro- duced on Alexander’s coinage shortly after his accession to the Mace- donian throne. Here the outstretched right hand holds the eagle, the left rests upon the lotos -tipped sceptre. On the Persic staters the figure of Baal-Tars, as far as clothing, position of body and legs, and details of hair and wreath are concerned, is identical to the tetra- drachms, the extended right hand, however, grasps the sceptre while the left rests upon his hip. The structural details of the throne on both categories of coin are also absolutely identical. As stated above, the four letters T, M, § and l found on the obverse of these staters can only mean that the coins were issued under the auspices and at the joint expense of the four cities of Tarsos, Mallos, Soloi and Issos. The actual striking, however, took place in the imperial mint at Tarsos. This is shown not only by the style and technique of the coins them- selves, but also by the club of Tarsiote Herakles on the reverse, and by the letter B which is so characteristic of the Alexander issues of both Series I and II. Thus we see that not only were these staters struck at Tarsos after the conquest of Cilicia by Alexander but that it was the B ” official of that mint who supervised their manufacture for the four municipalities of Tarsos, Mallos, Soloi and Issos. This would also dispose of the various attempts to see in the B the initial letter of Baa-t\e'&)o?. 23 Furthermore, now that we possess valid reasons for assigning this series of Persic staters to a period subsequent to Alexander’s arrival in Cilicia, we are in a position to answer a ques- tion raised by Six (Num. Chron., 3rd Series, vol. IV, 1384, page 138), who calls attention to the fact that on these pieces- the marks of con- trol are in Greek, whereas on the earlier coins (which bear the name of Mazaios) they are in Aramaic. When the old mint at Tarsos became a royal mint of Alexander’s empire the responsible officials, whose duty it was to sign the coinage, were now either Greeks themselves or were henceforth required to employ Greek letters in their signatures. For this was now a central mint of the empire and its coinage of Alexan- drine types was expected to circulate throughout the Greek world. 21 Babelon, Traite II, p. 404 . 22 Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the B. M. Lycaonia, Isauria, Cilicia, 1900, introd. lxxxiv. note 1. 23 Babelon, Les Perses Achemenides, etc. Paris, 1893, p. xlvi. Tarsos Under Alexander 19 Emphasis has here been purposely laid on the character of the mint at Tarsos in order to bring out the difference that existed between it and the mints of such city-states as Arados, Byblos, Sidon and Ake. In these the coinage, though conforming in weight, types, and denomina- tions with the remainder of the empire, still was allowed to retain something of its local character. Thus the mint marks on their " Alex - exanders ” are often in native characters. On the first issues of Arados and Byblos we find X2 and T respectively ; on those of Sidon a with X or 2 and later also T, n, *2, and ' ; on those of Ake the name of the city and dates are in Phoenician letters. It is also to be observed that at Ake, during the period of the sieges of Tyre and Gaza when the city served as a base for the Greek army, the tetradrachms bore Greek sym- bols and letters, 24 but so soon as Alexander departed for the East and the mint was presumably turned over to the local authorities, Phoeni- cian letters appear. Similarly, the first issue of gold staters at Sidon was probably associated with the use of that city as an important mili- tary base. 2 ’ These staters at first all bear various symbols as mint marks, 26 but later their place is taken by Phoenician alphabetical dates when the city, as such, acquired the right to coin gold as well as silver. Thus, by comparing them with the earliest Alexander issues of the Phoenician city-states, we can see that the Tarsiote issues are entirely imperial in character. With the exception of style, they bear no dis- tinctively local marks. In strong contrast to this are the Persic staters described above. These, although evidently struck in the same mint, at the same time, and guaranteed by the same high official (B) as the Alexander tetradrachms, never-the-less reveal their local character by their types, by the absence of the name of any satrap or king, by the presence of the club of Herakles of Tarsos, and, finally, by the four initial letters T, M, § and I. After having pointed out the true date and character of these Persic staters, it will be necessary to consider the reasons for the reap- pearance of a coin which one might have supposed would have been definitely done away with on the collapse of Persian dominion west, of the Euphrates, and the consequent establishment of a new order of 24 “ Dated Alexander Coinage of Sidon and Ake,” varieties 1-4 of Ake. 25 Idem., pp. 22, 23 and 26. 26 Idem., Varieties 1-7 of Sidon. Between these and the staters with the alphabetical dates come several staters with the symbols Filleted Laurel Branch or Galley. These symbols are of purely local significance and, because of the accompanying §|, prove the coins were issued under local authority. 20 Tarsos Under Alexander things. Tn the first place it must be remembered that customs and prejudices are not thus lightly changed in the East. That this truism was recognized and respected by Alexander himself history clearly shows. The same spirit is shown in his coinage. In many of his eastern mints due consideration of local conditions seems to have been taken. In other words his types and the Attic standard, while forming the bulk of the coinage and the official medium of exchange, were not absolutely and drastically enforced to the exclusion of all else. Thus for Cyprus, while large quantities of Alexander staters, tetradrachms, drachms, and bronze pieces were coined in all the island mints, still, at the same time, small denominations of Rhodian weight and bearing local types were allowed to he issued.' 27 In Arados and Byblos small denominations with local types were struck along with the regular Alexander issues. 28 At Hierapolis in Syria were coined didrachms of Attic weight and in the name of Alexander or of the High Priest Abd- Hadad, but all bearing local types.'"' Throughout the last quarter of the Fourth Century B. C. double darics with the old Persian types were also issued at Babylon, along with the gold staters and silver tetradrachms of the regular Alexander type. These and many other instances of the same sort give us sufficient reason not to be surprised to find that after the conquest of Cilicia by Alexander he should still countenance the coining of Persic staters in his mint at Tarsos. In Cilicia the Attic standard was well known and accepted. All the coins struck here, however, and the bulk of the circulating medium before the arrival of Alexander was composed of Persic staters and sigloi. Not only was it the Persian standard that had for centuries been employed by the Cili- cian cities of Kelenderis, Holmi, Nagidos, Soloi, Mallos, Tarsos, Issos and by the satraps Tiribazos, Pharnabazos, Datames and Mazaios, but the principal cities and districts with whom the Cilicians traded had been accustomed to employ the same standard for their issues. Among these were the important commercial cities of Selge, Aspendos, Side, and Arados, as well as the Island of Cyprus. The merchants and traders of Cilicia had also important commercial connections with the interior of Asia Minor. This is shown by the use of the Persic stand- ard for the. issues of Ariarathes 1 king of Cappadocia, and by the great find, made near Caesarea in Cappadocia in 1850, which was entirely 37 Nuin. Chron., 4th Series, vol. XV, 1915, “Some Cypriote Alexanders,” passim. 38 Jour. Inter, de Num. et d’Areh., Vol. Ill, 1900, p. 150, and Vol. IV, 1901, pp. 41, 42 ; Cat. of Greek Coins in the B. M., “ Phoenicia.” 39 Num. Chron., New Series, vol. XVIII, pp. 103-131. Tarsos Under Alexander *21 composed of Cilician and Aspendian staters. While it was undoubtedly to the imperial interest for Alexander to have had coined only his own type of money at Tarsos, in order to conform the circulating medium of the province with that of the remainder of his empire, still this could only he done gradually and in the meanwhile he could not absolutely overlook local interests. It seems evident, therefore, that permission was at this time granted to certain commercial centres of importance to have coined, at their own expense and in the central mint in Tarsos, a series of coins conforming to the old standard and type by which so much of their trade in the past had been carried on. It was the last issue in Cilicia of the satrap Mazaios which evi- dently served as the model for the new coins (compare Plate 1, 5). Perhaps these types were chosen, in addition to the obvious commer- cial reasons, because of their peculiar appropriateness to the issuing mint. On the obverse is enthroned the chief divinity of Tarsos — Baal- Tars as the Aramaic legend definitely states. On the reverse the emblem of the city itself — the lion attacking a hull — is depicted over the city walls. The presence of the club but confirms what the types suggest. The joint action of the four municipalities of Tarsos, Mallos, Soloi and Issos in causing to lie struck a quasi -autonomous issue raises an interesting point. In studying the fourth century coinages of eastern Cilicia it would seem as if towards the middle of that century, or even a little earlier, the Persians suppressed all autonomous coinages of three of these cities in favor of the satrapal issues. At least, the style of such pieces as have survived would seem to suggest that only Soloi was permitted to issue autonomous coins down to the arrival of Alex- ander. It will also be remembered that of all the Cilician cities it was only Soloi that seems to have shown any marked hostility towards Alexander and for this reason was fined two hundred talents and had a Macedonian garrison placed within its walls. 3 " Was it that the Solians, having been specially favored by the Persians under their usual custom of “ divide et imperci ,” feared they were about to lose some of their special privileges under the new regime ! If so, they only succeeded in causing their fear to come true for they were reduced to equality with their sister cities of Mallos and Issos and, among other things were deprived of their right to issue true autonomous coins. They do hot seem even to have struck coins of the Alexander type, at least until 80 Arrian II 22 Tarsos Under Alexander after the death of the Macedonian. This is in strong contrast with the cities of Cyprus and Phoenicia. CfoLD Alexander Staters. SERIES I, circa 333-327 B. C. Head of Athene to r. in crested and ser- AAEIANAPOY in straight line on 1. pent adorned Corinthian helmet. She Winged Nike on basis, seen from the front, wears necklace of pearls and her hair, in turns head to 1., holds wreath in out- corkscrew curls, falls looselyabout, her head, stretched r. and stylis of peculiar form in 1. FIRST GROUP 12 (var. Muller, no. 193). In left field : kantharos. < diverse die. Reverse die. A . . . . a E. T. N., Plate III, 14. B . . . ■ P Petrograd (no. 198). 13 (var. Muller, no. 105). In left field : trident (downwards). C . . . • 7 E. T. N. ; Petrograd. SECOND GROUP. Simi lar head, but hail ■ now represented Winged Nike on basis as short curly locks tight to head. stylis of same form as precedi tion in more or less curved li 14 (var. Muller, no. 193). In left field : kantharos. I) . . . . 8 London, Plate III, 1G. E . . . e E. T. N., Plate III, 15. 15 (var. Muller, no. 105). In left field : trident (downwards). F . . . • F Paris, Plate III, 17. G . . . • ? Alexandria, Plate III, 18. THIRD GROUP. Similar, but bead larger, and hair a mass Similar, but Nike larger and the stylis of curly locks. adorned at apex with a Hying Nike. J6 ( ). Beneath right wing : amphora. 31 11 .... y Berlin ; E. T. N. Plate III, 19 ; Paris; another in the trade. 17 ( ). Beneath right wing: trident (to left). J . ... 0 Vienna (no. 10430) ; Berlin (two specimens), Plate III, no. 20 ; Petrograd ; another in the trade. During its first years as a member of Alexander’s empire the Tarsos mint did not confine its activities to striking silver tetradrachms for the 81 Perhaps really intended for a Kautharos. Tarsos Under Alexander 28 central government, and Persic . staters for the account of the four municipalities of Tarsos, Hallos, Soloi and Issos. Gold staters of Attic weight and bearing Alexander’s name and well known types were also necessary for the use of a province of such commercial and strate- gic importance as Cilicia at this time was. The first series of gold Alexander staters struck at Tarsos and cat- alogued above, can he divided into three groups, according to the mod- ifications which occur from time to time in their style. The entire issue seems to have been supervised by but two magistrates signing themselves Trident and Kantharos (the latter symbol in the third group is given more the form of an amphora with base) . Although these same two symbols were also being used on the staters struck at this time in Macedonia, the style of the two series is so radically different that their several issues can be distinguished with ease. It is only in the first group of the Tarsos staters, a group that approaches the most closely to the Macedonian prototype, that we would find any difficulty at all in making the distinction. Even here this difficulty vanishes at once so soon as a visual comparison can be made, as can be seen by the follow- ing cuts. A mere glance will suffice to show that the drawing and Macedonia Tarsos Macedonia composition on the Tarsos pieces is finer, the outlines more graceful, the details more delicately indicated, and the relief lower. On the Macedonian pieces the locks of Athene hang down in stiff and clumsy curls, the figure of Nike is of stockier build and stands less gracefully. The shapes of the trident symbol also vary; on the first and second groups of the Tarsos coins the prongs are always barbed and longer than on the Macedonian pieces where the prongs of the trident are always short and graduate to a sharp point. The crossbar of the stylis borne by Nike varies on the Tarsos staters from that found on the Mace- 24 Tarsos Under Alexander donian by having the projections at the tips face downwards instead of upwards. There is little need of pointing out the many and great di- vergencies in style and details of composition between the staters of the second and third groups of the Tarsos issues and those of Macedonia. The two series in these respects are utterly unlike. We have seen that the series of Alexander staters now under dis- cussion have nothing to do with the Macedonian issues, although the latter are marked with similar symbols Kantharos and Trident. It is a simple matter to prove that the two series have nothing in common and therefore were struck at different mints ; but what specific grounds have we for assigning varieties 12 to 17 to Tarsos'? In the first place our choice of possible mints is limited to the northeastern corner of the Mediterranean by the very style and details of composition which we have found so divergent from those on the staters of Macedonian ori- gin. The accompanying cut will serve to show the great similarity Tarsiote Stater Cypriote Stater between a stater of our first group and a contemporary stater which the writer has elsewhere 32 shown was struck at Salamis in Cyprus. In every essential detail the Cypriote piece is a copy. Note, for instance, the arrangement of Athene’s locks — in contrast to the Macedonian series ; note also the similarity in pose and details of the Nike figure. On both, the cross piece of the stylis has the turned down end projec- tions, a characteristic peculiarity only found on the staters of Cyprus and those now under discussion. Again compare the reverse of variety 16 with the following cut which is the reverse of a stater from Kition 32 u Some Cypriote 1 Alexanders’,” Num, Chron., 4th Series, vol. XV, 1915. Tarsos Under Alexander 25 in Cyprus. Aside from the general similarity in appearance, notice the same unusual position for the symbol or monogram, the same curious way Nike has her hair done high upon her head. Again, the style of the Athene head on nos. 16 and 17 is directly copied on a certain stater of this period which belongs to Arados (see cut no. 14). If the pecu- liarities of style place our staters in the northeastern corner of the Med- iterranean, the staters of Series 11 prove that it is the Tarsos mint which issued them. These will be treated under the next section; suf- fice it here therefore to call attention to the fact that the same die cutter produced their obverses, as will be seen by comparing Plate 111, nos. 19 and 20 with nos. 21 and 22 on the same Plate. In addition to technical reasons we also have the law of probabilities — because of the elimination of all other possible localities — to confirm our decision that it could only have been at Tarsos where our particular staters could have been struck. In the first place it must be remembered that Tar- sos was undoubtedly the most important city, from a governmental standpoint at least, between Sardis in the west and Babylon in the East. As under the Persian Empire, so now, Sardis remained the chief capi- tal of the Asiatic lands north and west of the Taurus mountains, Baby- lon of all lands from Syria to the eastern confines of Persia. Tarsos, as actual capital in Persian times of Cilicia and North Syria, remained under Alexander the most important metropolis and centre of gov- ernment of the entire Cilician, Syrian and Phoenician districts. As Antioch had not yet been founded, there could be no possible rival, for the flourishing city-states of Phoenicia and Cyprus were at this time more like semi -independent allies than like so many integral portions of the empire. The Alexandrine coinages of these cities bring out this point clearly. The issues of Arados, Byblos, Sidon, Ake, Damas- kos, and the Cypriote cities all bear mint marks of purely local signifi- cance, showing the almost autonomous character of their coinages. The only exceptions are the earliest gold staters of Sidon, and silver tetradrachms of Ake which, perhaps, were struck by royal authority during the sieges of Tyre and Gaza. They did not need local mint marks as, presumably, the coinage was only intended for the use of •26 Tarsos Under Alexander Alexander’s army and so was issued under the supervision, not of local magistrates, but of royal appointees. We thus see that all the large cities of Phoenicia and Cyprus are amply provided with a gold coinage struck in their local mints. There is no important city in or near the coasts of the northeastern corner of the Mediterranean which has not a gold coinage at this time, except the four large cities of eastern Cili- cia. But Mallos, Soloi and Issos now no longer possessed a mint of their own as we saw how they had to have their issues of Persic staters struck at Tarsos. Tarsos therefore remains as the only possible and logical location for our issue of Alexander staters. Particularly is this the case as, possessing only magistrate’s symbols, on the analogy of the two series of Sid on and Ake mentioned above, our staters would seem to have been purely royal issues. Tarsos, being the governmental cen- tre of all this district, would then be the natural place to which to assign them. The purpose of this issue of gold staters would be to sup- plant the darics of the preceding regime and to defray the expenses of the large military forces stationed in Cilicia for the protection both of the province itself and of the important highway which traversed it. On one issue of the contemporary tetradrachms (var. 5) a trident was also used as an additional symbol. Possibly we have to do with the same supervising magistrate. In this case, however, the form of the trident varies slightly, having some ornamental scrolls between the prongs and beneath the cross-bar. Perhaps on the gold pieces these scrolls were omitted because of the necessarily smaller scale of the symbol. Like the silver issues, — both Alexander tetradrachms and Persic staters, — these gold staters are also struck from loose dies, a character- istic of the Cilician mints under Alexander the Great, in contrast to the neighboring Cypriote and Phoenician mints. Gold Alexander Staters. SERIES II, circa 327-324 B. 0. Head of Athene to r. of exactly similar AAEIANAPOY on 1. Winged Nike style and type as on the third group of standing to 1. on basis, holding wreath in Series I, except that now a running griffin outstretched r. and stylis in 1. In front adorns the helmet. ot Nike a plow. J8 (Muller, no. 11a). Beneath right wing: Thunderbolt. K . . . . l London, Plate III, 21. 19 ( ), Beneath right wing : Rain’s head. lv . . . . k London, Plate HI, 22; Berlin (two specimens). Tarsos Under Alexander This new issue of Alexander staters followed immediately upon the third group of the preceding series, as can be seen by the style. Ex- cept that the serpent has been changed to a griffin on Athene’s helmet, obverse die K is so similar to die J that we have every reason to sup- pose it was cut by the same artist. This issue appears to be more local in character than the previous one — at least an additional symbol, the Plow, which may be supposed to have a direct reference to the surrounding district of Tarsos, is here placed on the reverse alongside the changing magistratal symbol. The plow has already appeared on certain issues struck at Tarsos (Brit. Mus. Cat., PI. xxxii, no. 7) where it forms part of the typie, an eagle with extended wings being perched upon it. Like the wheat stalk in the held of the Persic staters of Alexander (figs. 5 to 7) and Mazaios (Plate 1, no. 5), or held in the hand of Baal -Tars on other staters of this satrap (Plate I, nos. 1-4) and of Datames (Brit. Mus. Cat., PI. xxix, nos. 11-15) , 33 the plow too may typify the far famed fertility of the Tarsiote plain. 34 Of the two magistrate’s symbols enumerated above, one, the Barn’s head, has already appeared as a personal symbol beneath the throne of Baal -Tars on certain varieties of the Mazaios staters (see Brit. Mus. Cat., PI. xxx, no. 7 and Babelon, Traite II 2 , PI. cxi, nos. 19, 20, PI. cxii, no. 1). The time which elapsed between this appearance and the one on the Alexander staters now under discussion perhaps precludes the possibility of this symbol having belonged to one and the same person . Alexander Silver Issues. SERIES II, circa 327-324 B. C. Head of youthful Ilerakles to r. as on AAEIANAPOY on r. Zeus with eagle Series L Circle of dots. and sceptre as on Series I, except that now lie always has heavy locks of hair over the nape of his neck, and the foot- stool is sometimes missing. FIRST GROUP. 20 ( ). TETRADRACHM. r Beneath throne : B, Pellet beneath left arm. XXVIII . . . .110 Egger Sale, May, 1912, no. 003, Plate IV, 1. 33 The ear of wheat even forms the reverse type of an early stater of Tarsos (Brit. Mus. Cat., PI. xxviii, no. 12) and, in connection with the obverse type of the lion and bull, certainly lias direct reference to Tarsos and the fertility of its surrounding plain. 34 See, however, the discussions of this symbol on pp. 102 and 103. Tarsos Under Alexander •28 XXIX XXX . 117 E. T. N., Plate IV, 2. . 11 S Amer. Num. Soc. . 116 E. T. N. . 117 “ Cambridge (McClean Coll.), Plate IV, 3. 21 (Midler, no. 1283). TETRADRACHM. Beneath throne : Pellet beneath left arm. XXVIII ... 116 Amer. Num. Soc., Plate IV, 4. XXXI .... no E. T. N., Plate IV, 5. 22 ( )• DIDRACHM. Beneath throne : r, Pellet beneath left arm. London (ex Montagu Sale), Plate IV, G. 23 ( )• DRACHM. Beneath throne : T, Pellet beneath left arm. London, Plate IV, 7. 24 (- ). TRIOBCL. Beneath throne : T, Pellet beneath left arm. London, Plate IV, 8; E. 4'. N.; Dattari. 25 ( ). TETRADRACHM. Pellet beneath left arm. XXVIII . . . . 121 E. T. N., Plate IV, 9. . 122 “ Amer. Num. Soc. . 123 “ XXIX 35 . . . . 124 “ Plate IV, 10. . 127, “ . 136 “ ( Elder, no. 211 ). XXX . . . . 122 Egger Sale, May, 1912, no . 123 E. T. N. . 12 If “ . 127 “ . 12 S “ XXXII . . 121 In the trade. . 124 E. T. N. . 127 Elder, no. 188. . no London, Plate IV, 12: E. . 130 Elder, no. 18. 2b ( Muller, no Pellet 1282). beneath throne TETRADRACHM. XXXII .... 1.71 E. T. N., Plate IV, 13. 27 ( ). TETRADRACHM. Pellet beneath throne, another beneath left arm. XXVIII . . . . 1.33 Oxford (Ashmolean). 35 Break beneath chin appears. General appearance of die still sharp. Taksos Under Alexander 29 XXIX™ . . . . IXX E. T. N. . . 1 x 4 “ (Elder, no. 97 . . !')') Elder, no. 231. . / f it ) Elder, no. 118. . . 1X7 E. T. N. . . / 38 L. V. Case. . . 1 X 0 Toronto. . . no E. T. N. XXX . . . . no it . . 141 tt . . m “ Plate IV, 15. . . 14 s “ . . 1 U “ . . no . . no Elder, no. 227. . . 147 V. Hammer. XXXII . . . . 140 Amer. Num. Soc. . . no E. T. N., Plate IV, 16. . . Io0 tt . lol In the trade. . . 1X2 L. V. Case. 28 (Muller, no. 1281). TRIOBOL. London. 37 29 (Muller, no. 1284). TETRADRACHM. Beneath thrc me : ©, Pellet beneath left arm. XXVIII™ . . . . loo E. T. N. . . i.n “ . . loo In the trade. . . /of) E. T. N., Plate IV, 17. . . 1X7 “ . . 1XS “ XXIX . . . . 1X0 “ . . wo Elder, no. 163. XXX™ . . . . IXX V. Hammer, Plate IV, . . 1X0 Amer. Num. Soc. ; E. . . it; / E. T. N. More breaks appeal 162 on this die. 37 It is uncertain if this variety really exists. Muller claims it to be preserved in the British Museum. But the only specimen the writer is cognizant of is the one catalogued under var. 2.'!. 38 DieXXVJlI now showing effects of long use. Details becoming blurred and break ap- pears beneath nose. 3n Details becoming blurred. 30 Tarsos Under Alexander XXX . . . . 163 E. T. N. . . . io i. Oxford (Ashmolean); XXXII 40 . . . . 178 E. T. N., Plate V, 1. . . . 170 In the trade. . . . 100 E. T. N. . . . 167 « 30 ( ). TETRADRACHM. Beneath throne : 0 Pellet beneath left arm, another between sceptre and throne. XXIX . . . . 166 E. T. N., Plate V, 2. . . 167 In the trade. XXX 11 . . . . 168 Oxford (Ashmolean) ; E. T. N 31 (Nuin. Zeitschrift, vol. I, 1869, p. 55, no. 317). DRACHM. Beneath throne : © Berlin. SECOND OROUT. The general characteristics of this group are broader flans, the footstool alway present, and the inscription AAEIANAPOY always written in a straight line. 32 ( )• TETRADRACHM. Beneath throne : ivy leaf (pointing upwards). XXXIII .... 100 E. T. N., Plate V, 3. XXXIV .... 170 “ Plate V, 4. 33 ( ). TETRADRACHM. Beneath throne: ivy leaf ( pointing downwards). XXXV . ... 171 E. T. N., Plate V, 5. 34 (Num. Zeitschrift, vol. I, 1869, p. 38, no. 81). TETRADRACHM. Beneath throne : bunch of grapes. XXXVI . . . . 172 E. T. N. . 173 “ Plate V, 6. 35 ( ). TETRADRACHM. Beneath throne : Pellet over bunch of grapes. XXXIV .... 174 E. T. N., Plate V, 7. . 177 “ .... 170 XXXVII .... 170 “ Plate V, 8. 3b ( TETRADRACHM. Beneath throne : Two pellets over bunch of grapes. XXXIV .... 177 Oxford (Ashmolean), Plate V, 9. XXXVIII .... 178 E. T. N. (Elder, no. 186), Plate V, 10. .... 170 i0 New breaks appear and details growing blurred. Tarsos Under Alexander 31 37 ( -). TETRADRACHM. Pellet over left arm. XXXVIII . . . . ISO Oxford (Ashmolean); E. T. N. XXXIX . . . . 181 E. T. N., Plate V, 12. . . . 182 “ 38 ( )• TETRADRACHM. Beneath throne : © Pellet over left arm. XXXVIII 41 . . . . 188 E. T. N. . . . m “ Plate V. 13. XXXIX . . . . 185 “ . . . 186 . . . 187 Oxford (Ashmolean). XL . . . . 188 E. T. N. (Elder, no. 104). . . . 189 Plate V, 14. . . . 190 Egger Sale, May, 1912, no. 004 XLI . . . . 191 E. T. N. . . . 198 . . . 198 F. M. Endicott, Plate V. 15. THIRD GROUP. Similar to preceding except that the title BA2IAEQ2 is n ANAPOY on the reverse. 39 ( Muller, no. 1280). TETI L\ DRACHM. XLI . . . . 19 If Toronto ; E. T. N., Plate VI, 1 . . . 195 E. T. N. . . . 196 U . . . 197 Cambridge (Leake Coll.). . . . 198 E. T. N. 40 ( Muller, no. 1285). TETRADRACHM. Beneath throne : © Pellet over left arm. XXXIX 42 . . . . 199 E. T. N., Plate VI, 2 ; another . . . 200 In the trade. XLI . . . . 201 E. T. N., Plate VI, 3. Accompanying the staters of Series II and following immediately upon the tetradrachms of Series 1 and the first issue of Persic silver staters comes a new issue of Alexander tetradrachms. These, like the gold, are all distinguished by the symbol plow accompanied by magis- trate letters, symbols, or pellets. It seems possible, as was suggested above, that we here have to do with a real mintmark, — that is, a sym- 41 Flaw on neck and jaw increasing, other signs of wear beginning to show. 42 Obverse die becoming very much worn. 32 Tarsos Under Alexander bol intended to definitely mark these particular coins as having been struck at Tarsos. On the other hand, the succeeding issues, as we will soon see, do not confirm this assumption and the plow may, after all, be only the personal symbol of the chief magistrate supervising the coinage. Limited as our present knowledge is of the coinages struck during the lifetime of Alexander the Great, it would never -the -less seem as if the four principal cities of Phoenicia (Arados, Byblos, Sidon, Ake) , Damaskos the metropolis of Coele -Syria, and the cities of Cyprus were the only mints allowed to place marks of definite local significance upon their Alexander issues. Now we know for a certainty that Cyprus was never subjugated by Alexander; its princes and cities, however, became his allies and were treated as such, retaining possession of their own fleets and armies as well as their immemorial right of coinage. 43 Under the Persian empire the Phoenician cities of Arados, Byblos, Sidon and Tyre were allies 44 — not subjects — of the Great King. As Alexander made it a practice in the eastern portion of his empire to take over, with as little change as possible, the customs and conditions of rule of the Persian regime it is, a priori, likely that Arados, Byblos and Sidon became his allies when they voluntarily deserted the Persian cause and placed their fleets and resources at his disposal. The fact that history distinctly mentions the Phoenician princes and the Phoe- nician fleets after this time, together with the local character of their Alexandrine issues, shows this surmise to be the correct one. Under the Persians Tyre was the fourth member of this group, but when in 333 B. C. she refused to receive Alexander within her walls and remained loyal to the Persian cause, she was besieged, taken, prac- tically destroyed, and her population sold into slavery. The consider- able city of Ake, a few miles to the south, seems then to have taken her place. At least we are led to this surmise by the absence of any Alexander coinage attributable to Tyre much before the end of the fourth century B. C., while Ake during this very period issued a pro- lific coinage marked by the dates of a local era and the city’s name in Phoenician characters. Of the position that Damascus enjoyed at this period we know little or nothing, but as she was a rich and powerful metropolis, and was allowed to place her initials and symbol (the ram) upon her Alexander coinage, perhaps she too, like her Phoenician neighbors, was an ally rather than a subject of the new order of things. 43 Num. Chron., toe. c it. 44 Herodotus, iii, 10; Hieronymus, “ Adv. Jovinian,” i, 45; “ Persarum foedus Aegyptii regis societate neglexerat” (Strato). Tarsos Under Alexander 33 Now the purpose of this digression has been to emphasize the point we have apparently gained, namely, that wherever it has been possible to establish the local significance of certain symbols •and letters appear- ing on coins struck in the East during Alexander’s lifetime, in every case such coins are attributable to some allied or semi -independent community. As the number of such cities as well as such specially marked coinages is practically limited to the ones just mentioned, it follows that the Alexandrine coinage of this period, struck in the cities subject to the central government, was not permitted to bear marks of true local significance. In other words the symbols and letters found on them are magistratal and not municipal. In turning to the remainder of Alexander’s eastern issues there is not a symbol or monogram, ex- cept those enumerated above, which can satisfactorily be proved to have belonged to a locality rather than to a magistrate. We therefore have no reason to expect a local symbol on the Alexandrine coinages at Tar- sos. As pointed out before, the only truly municipal coinage of Tarsos at this period were the Persic staters of local types. It is consequently not at all certain that the plow has any real local significance, but was probably the personal badge of the supervising magistrate. With the appearance of the present series, marked by the plow, a change seems to have taken place in the internal arrangements of our mint. No longer do the coins present any evidence that they were produced in two more or less independent branches, or “officinae,” of the imperial mint establishment. Within each of the three groups, into which it lias seemed advisable to divide the present series, obverse dies are used indiscriminately in conjunction with the many varieties ob- servable in reverse dies. These three groups are consecutive and not, perchance, contemporary as proved by progression of style and the constant reuse of worn reverse dies from a preceding group. Our series opens with the magistrate B, of Series I, still in office. He however does not long remain as lie places his initial only on the first few issues. That these are the first issues of the new series is definitely shown by the fact that the obverse dies NX VITT, XXIX and XXX do not here reveal the pronounced fractures and other signs of wear so evident on them not long afterward. The remainder of this series bears the signatures r, ©, ivy leaf and bunch of grapes, accom- panied by various arrangements of dots or pellets, the whole issue supervised by the magistrate whose symbol is the plow (if indeed the Plow is not a mintniark of Tarsos itself) , 84 Tarsos Under Alexander The entire sequential arrangement of Series II is here based on progressive signs of wear observable in the obverse dies used, guided by the obvious progression in style and technique displayed by the dies themselves. It is noticeable, as our series advances, that the flans tend to grow broader — and therefore thinner, — the relief lower, the design more spread, the artistic qualities more stereotyped but the actual exe- cution of details perhaps a little better. The length of time assigned to our series (circa 327-324 B. C.) is based on two observations. Series I, with its twenty-seven obverse dies and one hundred and fifteen reverse dies, we had reason to believe must have covered about six years. On the strength of this our present series with its fourteen obverse dies and eighty -five reverse dies ought to have covered at least three years. In following up this indication we then find that our third group of Series II, characterized by the presence for the first time of the title fiaaiXevs, would fall about 324 B. C. Now it has been the writer’s experience in studying the early Alexan- der coinages of Macedonia and Babylon that their first use of this title seems to have occurred about a year or so previous to the death of Alexander, or between 325 and 324 B. 0. A discussion of the reasons for this innovation at this particular time would probably only lead to indefinite results. In passing, the writer would therefore prefer to merely hazard the suggestion that the title was for the first time adopted on the royal coinage in this year in consequence of the glorious news that must then have reached the west from India. It was in 325 B. C. that Alexander had finally overcome all resistance in the last remain- ing province of the Persian Empire, and therefore that empire, in its fullest extent, now acknowledged him as its sovereign and overlord in place of the Persian king. Alexander was by right of birth /3aai\evs of Macedonia and Thrace, and now, by right of conquest, he takes the place of the Persian f3a12 “ 212, L. V. Case. • 2H L. V. Case. XLV 215 Boston, Plate VI. 8, 110 In the trade. XLVI >12, L. V. Case. 36 Tarsos Under Alexander XLVI . . . 217 E. T. N., Plate VI, 9. . . 218 Oxford (Ashmolean). . . 210 E. T. N. XL VII . . . 210 “ Plate VI, 10. . . 220 . . 221 Cambridge ( Fitzwilliam). 222 Egger Sale, 1912, no. 697 . . 223 E. T. N. 44 (Muller, no. 215a). BRONZE. Types similar to no. II. Obverse, caduceus in front of face. Reverse, caduceus above club. Berlin ; Copenhagen. 45 ( ). BRONZE. Similar. Obverse, caduceus in front of face. Reverse, caduceus above club, I below bow. E. T. N. (countermarked, Triskelis), Plate VI, 11. 4b ( ). BRONZE. Similar. Obverse, CADUCEUS in front of face. Reverse, caduceus above club, star beneath quiver. E. T. N. (two specimens). Yale Univ. Coll. (Star takes form of Aramaic N). ■SECOND GROUT. Types. STATER. Head of Athene to r. in crested Corin- thian helmet adorned with serpent, hair in formal curls. TETR A DRACHM. Head of young Herakles of advanced style to r. Circle of dots. 47 (M idler, no. 198). TETRAD RAC In held, wreath-bearing nike to XLVIII . . . .224 E. T. N. XL IX . . . . 225 .... 226 AAEZANAPOY (on r.), BASIAEQ5 (on 1.). Nike advancing to 1. holds wreath in outstretched r. and victory-adorned sty lis in l. BA5IAEQS (above), AAEEANAPOY (on r.). Zeus of advanced style seated to 1., legs parallel and feet resting on footstool, holds eagle in outstretched r. and sceptre in 1. HM. r. Beneath throne, /f\j j ©. Plate VI, 12. Tarsos Under Alexander XLIX .... 227 E. T. N. ; Egger Sale, 1912, no. 697. .... 228 Oxford (Ashmolean). L .... 227 E. T. N. 221) “ Plate VI, 13. . . . . 230 Toronto. LI .... 231 E. T. N., Plate VI, 14. .... 23,2 “ ; another in the trade. LIII .... 232 V. Hammer, Plate VII, 1. LIV .... 233 F. M. Endicott, Plate VII, 2. .... m Oxford (Ashmolean). .... 235 In the trade. LV .... 236 .... 237 I 11 the trade, Plate VII, 3. Cambridge (Leake Coll.). .... 238 Egger Sale, 1912, no. 604. LVI .... 239 F. M. Endicott, Plate VII, 4. .... 240 Toronto. . ... 241 E. T. N. 48 (Nuin. Zeitschr , vol. I, 1869, p. 34, no. 30). STATER. In front of Nike, § L . ... A Berlin ; London, Plate VII, 5 ; Petrograd ; Yakoun- tchikoff ; Egger Sale, 1912, no. 378. 49 (Num. Zeitschr., vol. I, 1869, p. 38, no. 91). TETRADRACHM. In field, wreath-bear ing niice to r. Beneath throne, Al | §. L a /a . « • * r-Jyil- /V In the trade. LI I .... E. T. N., Plate VII, 6. . ... 244 U LVI I ^ F. M. Endicott, Plate VII, 7. LVI 1 1 .... F. M. Endicott, Plate VII, 8 ; in the trade. . . . . 24/ 6) / V E. T. N. ; London. LIX . .... Oxford (Ashmolean). AW E. T. N., Plate VII, 9. THIRD GROUP. STATER. Types. Head of Athene to r., as before. Formal Inscription and types same as on pre- curls on dies j, M, < ), P, flowing locks on ceding stater, no. 48- dies N and Q TETRADRACHM. Head of young Herakles as before. On Inscription and types as on preceding earliest dies a circle of dots, later dies tetrad rach ms. The Zeus throne hence- plain. forth has legs of special type. The entire reverse design is surrounded by plain circle. 38 Tarsos Under Alexander BRONZE. Head of young Herakles. AAEzANAPOY between club and bow in quiver. 50 (Muller, no. 213). STATER. On extreme left, caduceus. In front of Nike, 57 | 5- L . . . . Paris, Plate VII, 10. M . . . V Berlin, Plate VII, 11 (obv.) ; Petrograd, Plate VII, 1 2 (rev.). * * f Hague, Plate VII, 13. N . . . 0 London, Plate VII, 14 ; Petrograd. 51 52 53 54 (Muller, no. 204). TETRADRACHM. In field, wreath-hearing nike and caduceus. Beneath throne, 57- I' 1 exergue, §. LX .... 25 / Paris, Plate VII, 15 ; another in the trade. .' . . 252 In the trade. (Muller, no. 214). STATER. On obverse, © . On reverse, on extreme left, caduceus. In front of Nike, E7 | © . 0 . . . . 7 r 45 London, Plate VII, 16 • p Paris ; Petrograd. . . . a Petrograd. P . . a E. T. N, Plate VII, IT Q • . T London, Plate VII, 18 ( Miiller, no. zoi). TETRADRACHM. In field, WREATH-HEARING NIKE to r., CADUCEUS. Beneath throne, 57 . In exergue, ©. Till . . . . 253 Oxford (Ashmolean). . . . 254 E. T. N. . . . 255 vs “ Plate VIII, 1. LIV . . . . 255 “ Plate VIII, 2. LVI . . . . 255 “ Plate VIII, 3. ( )• TETRADRACHM. In field, WREATH-BEARING NIKE to l - ., CADUCEUS. Beneath throne E7 1 0 . LXI . . 25)", E. T. N. . . . 258 “ Plate VIII, 4. . . . 25!> U LXII . . . . 25! > U . . . 250 Toronto. . . . 251 E. T. N. 45 On tliis reverse die the © lias been re-engraved over the §. 46 On reverse die 255 the © is placed above the exergual line and alongside of the monogram. Tarsos Under Alexander 39 55 LX 1 1 ( )• . 262 E. T. N. . 263 In the trade. . 26 If Egger Sale XL, 1912, no. 098, Plate VIII, . 265 Cambridge (Leake Coll.). . . . 266 E. T. N. TETRADRACHM. Obverse die has B beneath neck. Reverse same as above. LX 1 1 1 .... 267 Oxford (Ashmolean) Plate VIII, 6. 5 . FOURTH GROUP. 56 (Muller, no. 203). TETRADRACHM. In field, WREATH-BEARING NIKE to r., CADUCEUS, and B. Beneath throne, © LIII . . . .268 London, Plate VIII, 7. LXI V . . . .269 E. T. N., Plate VIII, 8. 57 ( ). TETRADRACHM. < diverse die has B beneath neck. Reverse same as no. 56- .XIII . . . . 270 F. M. Endicott, Plate VIII, 9. .... 277 E. T. N. 272 R. Storrs ; E. T. N. .... 273 E. T. N. ■ . . . 27 Jf Cambridge (Fitz william) ; E. ( ). TETRADRACHM. In field, WREATH-BEARING NIKE to 1'., CADUOEUS, and © Beneath throne, ©. LIII . . . . 275 L. V. Case, Plate VIII, 10. LXV . . . . 276 E. T. N., Plate VIII, 1 1. LX VI .... 277 Hirscli Sale XVI, 1906, no. 379 (PI. xii). 5^ ( ). TETRADRACHM. In field, WREATH-BEARING NIKE to 1\, CADUOEUS, and §. Beneath throne, ©• LXVI . . . . 278 E. T. N. ; Oxford (Ashmolean), Plate VIII, 12. . . 279 . “ ; Egger Sale XL, 1912, no. 097. LXVII . . . . 279 U . . 280 “ Plate VIII, 13. (XVI I A 47 . . . . 281 “ (ex Oertel Sale, 1913, no. 100), Plate VIII, 14. . . 282 it. 47 This dip is the preceding die (I, XVII) re-engraved. 40 Tarsos Under Alexander 60 (Miiller, no. 212). BRONZE. Obverse, caduceus in front of face. Reverse, caduceus above, p below. 61 (Muller, no. 215). BRONZE. Obverse, caduceus in front of face. Reverse, caduceus and 0 above, 0 below. Vienna, Plate VII, 19 ; E. T. N. The first group of the present series is closely bound by style, in- scription, and the magistrate © with the fourth and last group of the preceding series, as the reader can determine for himself by comparing nos. 1 to 10 inclusive on Plate VI. That the present series of coins must belong to the same mint as Series I and II is therefore certain. At- lirst the magistrate lAP replaces the plow of the previous series, hut is himself soon superseded by a magistrate whose symbol was a wreath - bearing nike. The subordinate officials for the first group of Series III are ©, T\, and -41 which soon assumes the form M. The accompany- ing bronze coins (nos. 44 and 45) bear none of these symbols or mono- grams but are provided on both obverse and reverse with the caduceus symbol. This same symbol occurs on all the gold, silver, and bronze coins of the succeeding third and fourth groups, but the more charac- teristically Cilician style of nos. 44 and 45 place them in the first group, as can be seen by the illustration of one specimen on Plate VI. The second group of the present series is distinguished by the fact that henceforth the purely Cilician character of the art employed gives way to an art more consistent with the canons of pure Greek style. Some of the dies are very fine productions and well worthy of the best- traditions of Greek art. I would call particular attention to Plate VII, nos. 3, 4 and 8, Plate VIII, nos. 1 and 3. With this group the coinage in gold recommences. Instead of being issued, as heretofore, under the supervision of special magistrates whose symbols do not occur on the accompanying silver coins, henceforth it is evident that the same magistrates were now employed to supervise the coinage of all three metals. For the third and fourth groups the system of control has become somewhat more complicated. Each tetradrachm is signed by three constant magistrates, nike, caduceus and E7 . In addition three sub- ordinates B, O, and § alternate on the dies. Besides this, 0 signs himself on an obverse die of the gold coinage, B on an obverse die Tarsos Under Alexander 41 (LXIII) of the tetradrachms. These two magistrates are very prob- ably the same we have met with before in previous series. Under the heading Series III the material at present available for study is less than for Series I and II. The result is that to the twenty - seven known obverse dies we have at present but eighty -one reverse dies — or exactly the ratio 1 :3. Experience has shown that this ratio is probably far too small with regards to the original number of reverse dies cut. Future finds and the unstudied public and private collections of Europe will undoubtedly more than double their number. To Series I with its twenty -seven obverse dies we have assigned a period of six years 333-327 B. C., to Series II with its fourteen obverse dies we sug- gested a period of three years or 327-324, therefore, to Series 111 with its twenty-seven dies (really only twenty-six for one die was recut and used again) we may well assign the period 324-319 B. C. The adop- tion of the year 319 B. C., as the final year in which the coins of Series III could have been issued, is corroborated by the great hoard of Alex- ander tetradrachms found at Demanhur, Egypt. This hoard con- tained specimens of all the tetradrachms we have incorporated in the present study, but not a single one of the later Tarsiote issues. All the specimens of Series III from this find were in extremely fine or brilliant condition showing that they must have been struck but a short time previous to the hoard’s burial. As shown in my work on the Alexander coinages of Sidon and Ake the hoard in question could not have been buried previous to the year 319/318 B. C., while internal evidence would seem to show that it was actually interred about 318/ 317 B. C. Thus it is most likely that the five years immediately pre- ceding the burial saw the issuing of our tetradrachms of Series III. It would thus seem evident that the coins of Series III extended down to at least about 320/319 B. C. By incorporating them we have passed by some four years the limits set for the present study. The coins of Series HI, however, as a whole are so closely bound together by style and magistrates, forming a single issue of several years’ duration, that it would have been inadvisable to separate them. It is probable that the “ First Group ” appeared while Alexander was still alive, the remain- ing three groups during the troubled times that followed his death. 42 Tar, sos Under Alexander Issue of Persic Staters. SERIES II. Fig. 15 Baal-Tars, hiination over 1. arm and crossed legs, seated to 1. He rests r. arm on sceptre. In field before him, ear of wheat and hunch of grapes. Beneath throne varying mintmarks. Circle of dots. Bust of Athene in triple-crested Attic helmet, nearly facing, inclined to 1 ., wears ear-rings and necklace. In field some- times letters and symbols. Border of dots. Fig. 17 Fig. 18 first GROUP (B on right of Baal-Tars). g. Beneath throne, M. Plain. To light of Baal-Tars, B. London, no. 69 (PI. xxxi, 10); Paris, no. 249. h. Beneath throne, I. Plain. To right of Baal-Tars, B. London, no. 67 (PL xxxi, 8 ) fig. 15 ; Hague ; Berlin ; Ratto, Sale of 1912, no. 1063 (formerly O’Hagan Coll., Sotheby, 1908, no. 628). i. Beneath throne, §. Plain. To right of Baal-Tars, B. London, no. 71 (PI xxxi, 12); Ratto, Sale of 1912, no. 1064 (formerly Hirsch Sale XXV, 1909, no. 2771). second group (Plain obverse). j. Beneath throne, M. Plain. E. T. N. ; Paris ; Berlin. k. Beneath throne, M. Bunch of grapes and T. Paris, nos. 247 ( PI. vi, 2) and 248. l. Beneath throne, §. Plain. London, no. 70 (PI. xxxi, 11); Paris, no. 250 : Sotheby, Cumberland-Clark Sale, 1914, no. 252 (formerly Merzbacher, Nov., 1909, no. 3159). Tars os Under Alexander 43 id. Beneath throne, Corinthian helmet on left. Paris, no. 251 (PI. vi, 3), fig. 16 . n. Beneath throne, I. I — <■. Paris, no. 246. o. Beneath throne, |. Corinthian helmet, hunch of grapes and T- London, no. 68 (PI. xxxi, 9). third group (B and Helmet on obverse). p. Beneath throne, §. I §. To right of Baal-Tars, B and Corinthian helmet. London, no. 72 (PI. xxxi, 13) fig. 17 ; Carfrae Sale, PI. x, no. 1 . q. Beneath throne, T- Plain. To right of Baal-Tars, B and Corinthian helmet. London, no. 75. fourth group (B and Ivy Leaf). r. Beneath throne, T. Plain. To right of Baal-Tars, B and Ivy Leaf. London, no. 77 (PI. xxxii, 3); Paris, nos. 253, 254 (PI. vi, 4) and 255; Berlin : Vienna. s. Beneath throne, T- Ivy Leaf. To right of Baal-Tars, B and Ivy Leaf. London, no. 73 (PI. xxxi, 14), fig. 18 . t. Beneath throne, T- Corinthian Helmet. To right of Baal-Tars, B and Ivy Leaf London, no. 78 ; Berlin. fifth group (Ivy Leaf on Obverse). u. Beneath throne, T. Plain. To right of Baal-Tars, Ivy Leaf. E. T. N. ; London, no. 74 (PI. xxxii, 1 ) ; Munich. v. Beneath throne, T- Bunch of Grapes, T. To right of Baal-Tars, Ivy Leaf. London, no. 76 (PI. xxxii, 2); Naples. w. Beneath throne, T- Ivy Leaf. To right of Baal-Tars. Ivy Leaf. Vienna. PERSIC OBOE. Head of Athene facing as on preceding Shield of so-called Boeotian shape; on staters. it, thunderbolt. In Held, star. x. London, no. 79 (PI. xxxii, 4). 44 Tarsos Under Alexander Tli is large and somewhat complicated series of Persic staters has long 48 been recognized as having been struck subsequently to the incor- poration of Cilicia into Alexander’s empire. Like the previous series described above on page 84 this too was evidently a municipal issue struck in the central mint at Tarsos for the four cities of Issos, Mallos, Soloi and Tarsos. The initial letters of these cities appear singly on the obverses beneath the throne of Baal, while, at times, the additional mint marks T and i§ occur on the reverses. The entire series has so often been discussed at length by such competent scholars as M. Six, Mr. G. F. Hill , and M. Babelon, that it is quite unnecessary to treat of it again in detail except in so far as new light may have been thrown upon it by our study of the contemporaneous issues of Alexander at Tarsos. It is to be observed that, according to the letters they bear, the First and Second Groups of these staters were struck exclusively for the three municipalities of Mallos, Soloi and Issos. The striking itself, however, took place at Tarsos. The identity in style and technique between these two groups and the Fourth and Fifth Groups is very evident. But the latter can only have been struck in Tarsos as their coins are marked exclusively with T. Furthermore, staters k and o have reverses struck from dies intended for the Fifth Group which bear the letter T. That the dies were all really cut in one mint would seem to be further proved by the fact that the obverses of the two coins illus- trated as nos. 9 and 11 on Plate xxxi of the British Museum Catalogue appear to be identical. In this case I, the initial letter of Issos, has been re-engraved over a preceding §, the initial of Soloi, but traces of the erased sigma are still plainly visible. It also appears likely that in the case of no. 8 of Plate xxxi of the same catalogue and no. 1, Plate vi of the Paris catalogue the obverse dies have likewise been altered. Here the letter I has been re -engraved over a preceding T, traces of the cross bar of the tan being still visible. The Fourth and Fifth Groups, were, as stated above, struck exclu- sively for Tarsos, as their coins in no instance bear any other letter than T. Furthermore, these are the only varieties which bear the ivy leaf symbol, and the ivy appears to have been held in peculiar veneration at Tarsos. 411 As a symbol the bunch of grapes seems also to be closely 48 First suggested by M. Babelon, “ Les Perses achdmGndes,” Paris, 1893, p. xlvi. 49 As recently pointed out to me by Prof. Frothingham, whose work on this subject is ex- pected to appear shortly. The entire subject was discussed by him at the meeting of the Arch- aeological Institute of America held Dec. 27-29, 1917. Tarsos Under Alexander 45 associated with our mint and occurs on these Persic staters always ac- companied by the letter T. In passing it should he noted that these same two symbols appear on the Alexander tetradrachms nos. 32 to 30 of Series II. Another interesting point brought out by these staters is the ap- parent fact that their issue was supervised by our old friend B who has been found so active, not only on the first re-issue of the Persic stater but also on many of the Alexander issues we have here brought together and assigned to Tarsos. The most important thing for us to determine at present is the exact date at which this second re-issue of the Persic stater took place. Here unfortunately we find the opinions of students of the subject consider- ably at variance. The Due de Luynes in his great work on the coinage of the Persian satraps (JEssai sur la Numismatique ties Satrapies et de la Phenicie sous les Rois aehaemenides ) would date these handsome coins with the Athene bust anterieur a la conquete d’ Alexandre 11 (p. (14) ; J. P. Six (Num. Chron., 3rd Series, vol. IV, page 127) places them be- tween 373 and 351 B. C. ; M. Babelon (Les Perses aehemenides , nos. 245-255) gives them to Mazaios who ruled in Cilicia from 361 to 333 B. C., but also suggests (toe. cit ., page xlvi) that they may have been issued by Balakros, Satrap of Cilicia under Alexander ; more recently M. Babelon (Traite II 2 , page 461 ft) definitely assigns them to the period after the conquest of Cilicia by Alexander ; while, finally, Mr. Hill in the British Museum Catalogue of the coins of Cilicia reverts to the ear- lier opinion and assigns them to the 1 Period of Mazaios.’ In view of what we have learned by our study of the first re-issue of the Persic stater and of the accompanying Alexander tetradrachms, I think we have every reason to agree with M. Babelon’s final opinion as expressed in the second volume of his Traite, namely that these Athene staters must have been struck subsequently to the coming of the Greeks and the incorporation of Cilicia into Alexander’s empire. Every criterion of style and technique would also point to their having been issued later than the staters a to e (pages 84 and 85) , a fact recog- nized by both Mr. Hill and M. Babelon. Therefore we arrive at the definite conclusion that they could not have been struck earlier than 328 or 327 B. C., which period we have every reason to believe saw the appearance of the first re-issue of the Persic stater. But when we would determine the exact year in which the second re-issue appeared we immediately find ourselves in difficulties. Whereas the style of 46 Tarsos Under Alexander nos. a to e definitely and clearly associate their appearance with certain contemporary Alexander tetradrachms (the last coins of our Series I and the first coins of our Series II), in other words in and around the years 828 and 327 B. C., we are not so aided by the style of nos. g to w now under discussion. The presence on the latter of the symbols bunch of grapes and ivy leaf would seem indeed to associate these pieces very closely with the Alexander tetradrachms nos. 32-36. On the other hand, the details of the Baal figure — criteria so useful to us in determining the approximate date of the first re-issue — in the pres- ent case do not at all correspond with those of the Zeus figure on the tetradrachms (nos. 32-36) just mentioned. Our Baal figure now has loose, flowing locks instead of stiff ringlets, his feet are crossed instead of being placed parallel to each other and they do not rest upon a foot- stool, while the details of the throne are entirely different. In fact, almost the only point of resemblance is to be found in the drapery whose folds are similarly represented by a succession of double lines. The die cutter of the Alexander coins 32-36 could not possibly have been the die cutter of the Athene staters, the latter being infinitely the better artist of the two. Never-the-less the letters M, I, T, and the magistrate’s initial B, would indeed seem to associate these staters with the first re-issue, and, until new evidence to the contrary appears, the writer would consider them as having followed immediately upon the first re-issue. Now we have seen that the first re-issue occurred at the time when Series I of the Alexander tetradrachms gave way to Series II. We have also noticed that the important magistrate B signed only a very few coins of this Series II and then disappears entirely from the Alexander coinage until we come to Series III, Group IV, when his familiar initial appears once more on both the gold and silver coins. The suggestion certainly lies to hand that during this interval he was actually supervising the second re-issue of the Persic staters where his initial frequently occurs. The appearance of the two symbols bunch of grapes and ivy leaf on both the Persic staters and on certain of the Alexander tetradrachms (nos. 32-36) would favor this supposition. The difference in style between these two categories of coin must then be accounted for by assuming that their dies were produced by differ- ent artists, a far from difficult assumption. Certainly more than one artist must have been working in the Tarsos mint at this time. At a very slightly later period, for instance, it is impossible to suppose that one and the same artist could have produced the absolutely contempo- Tarsos U^der Alexander 47 raneous reverse dies of nos. 2 and 3, Plate VII, or the similarly con- temporaneous obverse and reverse dies of nos. b and 7 on the same plate. If this suggestion be found unsuitable, the only other possible so- lution of the difficulty would be to suppose that the second re-issue of the Persic stater took place either contemporaneously with the appear- ance of the Fourth Group of Series III or immediately following. Indeed throughout that Series a steady improvement of style in the Alexander series is very noticeable until towards the end, it much more nearly approaches that found on our staters. Especially in the struc- tural details of their legs the Baal throne and the Zeus throne are now no longer so dissimilar. Furthermore, the B no longer would appear on the Persic staters alone but is once more in evidence on the Alex- ander tetradrachms . The difficulties of finally determining the exact date of the second re-issue are apparent and the writer reluctantly leaves the inquiry in this somewhat unsatisfactory state until further material becomes avail- able. This much, however, has been gained, namely that we are certain that the second re-issue must have taken place not earlier than 328-327 B. C., or much later than 320-319 B. C., and that it was neither a satrapal nor an autonomous issue, but, like the first re-issue, a muni- cipal undertaking issued at the Tarsos mint for the four principal cities of eastern Cilicia. With these coins our studies of the varied and interesting curren- cies put forth by the evidently very important mint existing at Tarsos in the lifetime of Alexander the Great, come to an end. Although after his death further series of his coins continued to appear — one or two of which we have indeed incorporated in this article — the writer has not deemed it advisable to carry on the study beyond this point. A hat was intended for only a short paper has already grown to un- expected length while insufficient material is as yet available to him for the careful study of the later issues. With the end of the Great War at hand it may soon become possible to remedy this lack, and until then it would certainly be unwise to attempt to base definite conclu- sions on a study of inadequate material. Note. By an inadvertance the two coins illustrated in fig. 3, page HI, have become interchanged. The one on the left should have been assigned to Ake, the one on the right to Tarsos. Plate I Amer. Jour. Numismatics, Vol. LII 18 , First Group, “ Officina ” A First Group, “ Officiua” B Second Group, “ PERSIAN SATRAPAL ISSUES nos. 1-5; ALEXANDER ISSUES, SERIES I, nos. 6-21. Plate II Second Group, “ Officina ” A o Second Group, “ Officina ” B ' ' i t Third ( Officina SERIES I (continued). Plate III Third Group, “Officina” A (continued). Third Group, “ Officina ” 13 SERIES I Plate IV ■V* .*>'■ SERIES II, First Group Plate V First Group (continued). SERIES II (continued) Plate VI SERIES II, Third Group, nos. 1-3: SERIES III, First Group, nos. 4-11 ; SERIES III, Second Group, nos. 12-14 Plate VII SERIES III, Second Group (continued) 1-9; Third Group, 10-18; Fourth Group, 19. Plate VIII SERIES III, Fourth Group. THE ALEXANDRINE COINAGE OF SINOPE BY EDWARD T. NEWELL PRICE, TWO DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY BROADWAY AT 156th STREET NEW YORK 191!) I ONE HUNDRED AND TEN COPIES REPRINTED FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NUMISMATICS VOLUME LII THE ALEXANDRINE COINAGE OF SINOPE By EDWARD T. NEWELL Iii the third century B. C. one of the districts most actively engaged in coining money of the Alexander type comprised the western and southern shores of the Black Sea. Busy commercial centres such as Istrus, Callatis, Odessus, Messembria, Heraclea Pontica, and others of lesser importance, issued large quantities of that evidently popular type of coin. It should not be very surprising, therefore, to learn that Sin- ope, the wealthiest and most important of all the seaports on the south - ern shore of the Euxine, also struck a prolific series of these coins in both gold and silver. It is unnecessary here to dilate upon the great commercial impor- tance of Sinope during the fourth and third centuries B. C. That has been brought out with sufficient clearness by Mr. David M. Robinson in his interesting and valuable work “Ancient Sinope,” to which I would refer the reader for specific details. Sinope, with her splendid double harbor, the finest in all this region, the terminus of transcontinen- tal caravan routes from Persia and Mesopotamia, and with her fortunate situation at the narrowest portion of the Black Sea (an important con- sideration to ancient navigators) naturally enjoyed the closest commer- cial relations not only with all the aforementioned cities of the Euxine but also with Byzantium, Chalcedon, Rhodes, Delos, Athens, and southwards to Egypt. Now all Black Sea cities, together with Byzan- tium and Chalcedon, were at this time coining heavily, — principally gold staters and silver tetradrachms either with the well known types of Alexander the Great or with the later but little less popular types of Lysimachus. It is therefore strange to observe that numismatists have been quite content to believe that Sinope, one of the wealthiest and most powerful of them all, struck only some very rare tetradrachms and didrachms of purely local types. These have been assigned (Hist. Num. 2 p. 508, and Rec. Gen. pp. 192-3) to the end of the third century, that is, after 220 B. C. Likewise these same authorities have assigned the earlier local issues of the Persian drachm, half and quarter drachms to the end of the fourth century (circa 322-306 B. C.) , and the succeed- ing issue of two small denominations to 306-290 B. C. Thus there is left in the Sinopean coinage a gap of some fifty years, either entirely The Alexandrine Coinage oe Sinope unfilled or only very inadequately provided tor if we should assume that the dates given by such experienced numismatists as Head and M. Babelon are incorrect and that these autonomous coinages were really of longer duration. We may not take such liberties, however, because their assignments are based on the incontrovertible evidences of style against which mere assumptions are worthless. In other words, after the first decade of the third century B. C. down until towards the last quarter of that century Sinope does not seem to have struck any coins of local types. As Sinope would have found it very difficult and also unprofitable at this time to have been without any coinage of her own, we may feel sure that she followed the lead of the cities with whom she was then trading and coined extensively on the Alexander type. In corroboration of this suggestion we find at our disposal a large series of staters, tetradrachms and drachms bearing the name and ty])es of the long dead Alexander, and having also special symbols and letters which can only be interpreted as belonging to the Sinopean mint. Had it not been for the unfortunate fact that L. Muller, in his monumental work on the coinages of Alexander the Great, 1 has assigned these particular varieties on insufficient and even impossible grounds to Sidon, the per- fectly evident fact that they must, instead, belong to Sinope would long ago have been apparent. Before discussing and explaining the reasons why Muller’s attri- bution, in the present case, must be discarded in favor of a Sinopean origin for the coins, a catalogue of the known varieties, as complete as present circumstances will allow, is necessary. The references and numbers are to Mr. G. P. Hill’s article in Nomisma , IV, 1909, “Notes on the Alexandrine Coinage of Phoenicia.” FIRST SERIES 1 STATER. Head of Athene to r. with necklace and AAEZANAPOY on r. Winged Nike triple crested, snake adorned, Corinthian standing to 1., holds wreath in outstretch- helmet. ’ ed r. and stylis in 1. In 1. field, aplustre. Beneath, H- Petrograd, two specimens from same obverse die but different reverse dies. Plate I. 2 STATER. Similar head. Similar type and inscription. In 1. held, A p lustre. Beneath, §1 and §A. Petrograd, three specimens, two of which are from identical obverse and reverse dies. Plate I. 1 L. Muller, “ Numismatique d’ Alexandre le grand,” Copenhagen, 1855. The Alexandrine Coinage of Sinope 3 3 DRACHM. Youthful head of Heracles to r. in lion’s BASIAEQS on 1. AAEZANAPOY on r. skin. Zeus enthroned to 1., holds eagle in out- stretched r. and sceptre in 1. Beneath throne, §|. In exergue, §A. Newell Coll., Plate I. SECOND SERIES Gko 4 STATER. Helmeted head of Athene to r. as on no. 1. Yakountchikoff Coll., Plate I. 5 STATER. Similar. Dresden, Plate I. 6 STATER. Similar. Petrograd (three specimens struck fn Plate 1 , 6a and 6b. e A AAEEANAPOY on r. Winged Nike as on no. 1. In 1. field, [Aj [ STAR | | §|. Behind Nike, |^f. Similar. In 1. field, star | [2J | §|. Behind Nike, ZtY Similar. In 1. field, star J §|. Be- hind Nike, (J). i one obverse die and two reverse dies), Group B 7 STATER (Hill no. 38). Similar, but of later style. Similar. Stylis, which Nike holds, hence- forth has form 53. Beneath r. hand, star. In front, rfr | §1- B ehind, | E- Turin, Plate I . 8 STATER (Hill no. 39). Similar. Similar. In front, rfc | §1- Behind, N I E. London (from same obverse die as preceding), Plate I. 9 STATER (Hill no. 40). Similar. Similar. In front, eft | §1. Behind, Ki I £■ London (from same obverse die as nos. 7 and 8), Plate I. 10 STATER (Hill no. 42). Similar. Similar. In front, | §|. Behind, VH I £• London (from same obverse die as nos. 7, 8, and 9), Plate I. 4 The Alexandrine Coinage of Sinope • 11 STATER (Hill no. 41). Similar. Similar. In front, gsj | §|. Behind, §TE. London, Plate I. 12 TETRADRACHM. Head of youthful Herakles to r. in lion’s BASIAEQS on r. AAEEANAPOY on 1. skin. Zeus enthroned to 1. holds eagle in out- stretched r. and sceptre in 1. Above r. arm, aplustre. Beneath r. arm, §|. Beneath throne, gd | 5TE. Newell Coll, (formerly Egger Sale, May, 1912, no. G94), Plate I. 13 STATER (Hill no. 37). Similar to no. 11. Similar to no. 11. In front, U I §1. Behind, w- London (from same obverse die, now very much rusted and cracked, as no. 11), Plate I. 14 STATER (Hill no. 52). Similar. Similar. In front, W 3 | |-P | §|. Be- hind, y. Berlin ; London, Plate I. (These two coins were struck from different obverse but identical reverse dies.) 15 STATER (Hill no. 51). Similar. Similar. In front, § I | Behind, y. Berlin, Plate I. (From same obverse die as the preceding London specimen.) 16 TETRADRACHM (Hill no. 61). Similar to no. 12. Similar to no. 12. Above r. arm, aplus- tre. Beneath r. arm, §|. Beneath throne, IE I % Berlin, Plate I. (This coin was published by Prokesch-Osten, Num. Zeitschr. vol. I, p. 44, no. 165, but monograms were badly drawn.) 17 STATER. Similar to no. 15. Similar to no. 15. In front, §1 | AA | y. Behind, f£]. Hague, Plate II. (From same obverse die as nos. 14 [London specimen] and 15). 18 STATER (Hill no. 47). Similar. Similar. In front, A A | §|. Behind, 41. Copenhagen, Plate II. 19 STATER (Hill no. 48). Similar. Similar. In front, | §1. Behind, 41. Petrograd ; Berlin, Plate II. (Both from the same reverse die, and both from the same obverse die as no. 18). The Alexandrine Coinage of Sinope 20 STATER (Hill no. 50 and perhaps no. 49). Similar. Similar. In front, K (recut over another monogram) | §|. Behind,^. Berlin, Plate II. (From the same obverse die as nos. 18 and 19). 21 STATER (Hill no. 46). Similar. Similar. In front, | §|. Behind, 41. London, Plate II. (From same obverse die as nos. 18, 19, and 20); Newell Coll, (formerly Sir II. Weber Coll.). 22 STATER (Hill no. 45). Similar. Similar. In front, §1 | Al. Behind, 41. London, Plate II. 23 STATER. Similar. Similar. In front, Al | §|. Behind, 41. London, Plate II. (From same obverse die as preceding). 24 STATER (Hill no. 44). Similar. Similar. In front, A I | §|. Behind, London, Plate II. (From same obverse die as nos. 22 and 28). 25 TETRADRACLIM (Hill no. 62). Similar to no. 16. Similar to no. 1 6. Above r. arm, aplus- tre. Beneath r. arm, §|. Beneath throne, AN | IE- Munich, Plate II. 26 STATER (Hill no. 43). Similar to no. 24. Similar to no. 24. In front, A A | §1. Behind, 3E- London ; Berlin, Plate II. ( From same obverse and reverse dies. The obverse die is also the same as used for nos. 22, 23, and 24). 27 STATER (Hill no. 54). Similar. Similar. In front, Cy | §1. Behind, M-J. London, Plate II. 23 STATER (Hill no. 53). Similar. Similar. In front, §1 | £. Behind, m or Ml. London, Plate II ; Petrograd. (Struck from same obverse and reverse dies. The obverse die is also the same as used for no. 27). 29 TETRADRACHM (Hill no. 59). Similar to no. 25. Similar to no. 25. Above r. arm, aplus- tre. Beneath r. arm, §1. Beneath throne, M- London. The Alexandrine Coinage of Sinope 6 30 TETRADRACHM (Hill no. 58). Similar. Similar. Above r. arm, apltjstre. Be- neath r. arm, §|. Beneath throne, E. London. 31 TETRADRACHM (Hill no. 60). Similar. Similar. Above r. arm, apltjstre. Be- neath r. arm, §|. Beneath throne, I MH- London. (From the same obverse die as preceding.) 32 TETRADRACHM. Similar. Similar. Above r. arm, aplustre. Be- neath r. arm, A | §1. Beneath throne, r* I MH- Hague ( no. 369). 33 TETRADRACHM. Similar. Similar. Above r. arm, aplustre. Be- neath r. arm, A | §1. Beneath throne, I CE. Berlin, Plate II. (Same obverse die as preceding.) 34 TETRADRACHM (Hill no. 64). Similar. Similar. Above r. arm, aplustre. Be- neath r. arm, A | §1. Beneath throne, | C=J. Hague. (Same obverse die as used for nos. 32 and 33.) 35 TETRADRACHM (Hill no. 63). Similar. Similar. Above r. arm, aplustre. Be- neath r. arm, /V) | A | §1. Beneath throne, [SI- Munich. Of the first series only a few specimens have come down to ns. The staters seem to have been marked with a simple Aplustre, or with that symbol and the determining letters SI. The silver bear only the let- ters si. The second series is fairly well represented in our museums to-day, particularly the gold staters. These are now all provided with the let- ters SI and a Star instead of the Aplustre. The silver tetradrachms have also the letters si, but, instead of the Star, they display the Aplus- tre. That the silver and gold of the second series are really the issues of one mint is satisfactorily proved by the stater no. 11 and the accom- panying tetradrachm no. 12. While the one has a Star for a mint mark and the other an Aplustre, they both have the mint letters SI, and the magistrate’s signatures and ste. The remaining tetradrachms also display several letters and monograms found on the staters. As Muller has already seen, there can be no doubt but that these coins are all the issues of one and the same mint. According to Muller the attribution of these pieces to Si don rests upon the presence of the letters together with the symbols Aplustre and Star. There can be no question but that ^ I represent the initial letters of the mint name, for with the exception of no. 1, they occur on every coin throughout the entire series. But the evidence presented by these letters is as yet inconclusive as they might with equal proba- bility represent the initial letters of the name Sinope. The Aplustre is in very much the same case. It appears with great frequency on the royal Seleucid issues of Sidon from the reign of Alexander Balas down, and must certainly be considered a symbol of that mint. But it only occurs on Sidonian issues after the year 150 B. C. (tetradrachm dated BEP = 151-150 B. C., Rouvier, no. 1227) and therefore it would be almost impossible to force the conclusion that this symbol must necessarily prove the Sidonian orgin of the coins we are at present concerned with. Every consideration of style and fabric show our coins to be at least a hundred years earlier than the Sidonian issues of Balas. On the other hand the Aplustre forms a most conspicuous object on Sinopean auton- omous issues (see figs. 1 and 2) as far back as the last half of the fourth century B. C. It is a most obvious symbol for any wealthy sea port whose prosperity rested principally upon its water borne commerce. Strabo even states (xii, 545) that Sinope’s fleet dominated the Pontus. There remains the Star symbol. Fortunately this throws an en- tirely different light upon the question. So far as the writer is aware the Star symbol never occurs until long after our era, on any coin de- monstrably attributable to Sidon.' 2 On the other hand the Star does - In the writer’s “ The Dated Alexander Coinage of Sidon and Ake ” the Sidonian Alexan- der stater no. 1. b bears a star on the obverse within the coils of the snake ornament adorning Athene’s helmet. It cannot, therefore, be taken as in any way connected with the mint at Sidon but, because of its position, must be considered simply as an emblem of eternity. In the first century A. D. the star at times appears on the bronze coinages of Sidon, but usually accompanied by a crescent. See the British Museum Catalogue, Phoenicia, nos. 178-188 dated 77 to 88 A. D.; nos. 197-203 dated 116 to 118 A. D.; and no. 212 dated 55 A. D. These coins are of evidently too late a date to have any bearing upon the subject. Fig. 1 Fig. 2 8 The Alexandrine Coinage oe Sinope occur, and prominently, on the third century autonomous issues of Sinope. All specimens of the type illustrated by fig. 2 bear a Star of similar shape and character to the one found on our Alexander staters. Sinope was, in fact, famous in antiquity for its many cults of sidereal divinities. Cults of Helios, Selene, Hydrochoos, and Sirius are well attested to by coins or inscriptions, showing how prominent at Sinope was the wors hip of the heavenly bodies. A star would therefore be a most appropriate symbol for Sinopean coin issues. In this connection we should also remember that Sinope was strengthened in the eighth century B. C. by colonists from Miletus, and a star is one of the most conspicuous coin types of the mother city. Therefore, if we once admit that the Star symbol is far more appropriate to a Sinopean than to a Sidonian origin for our Alexander coins, then the Aplustre and the letters ll associated with it fall naturally into their rightful place as accompanying emblems of Sinope. We have already called attention to the fact that we have every reason to expect a large coinage of the Alexander type at Sinope in the course of the third century B. C. By contrast it is not only most im- probable, but actually impossible, that there should have been such a coinage at Sidon for the same period. A few years ago the writer dis- cussed in detail the entire Alexander coinage attributable to Sidon. 3 It was there shown that this had come definitely to an end by the year 306/305 B. C., its place being taken by an Alexander coinage at Tyre. Later, about 286 B. C., that city went over from Demetrius to Ptolemy I of Egypt 4 and its coinage of Alexander staters and tetradrachms came to a sudden end. For Ptolemy had already, as early as 305 B. C., in- troduced into his kingdom an entirely new coinage of Phoenician weight and bearing his personal types. Naturally, therefore, he conformed the coinage of his new possessions in Phoenicia with the monetary system now in vogue in Egypt. He retained Tyre as his principal mint in Phoenicia and it was not until during the reign of his son Ptolemy II Philadelphus, that the Sidonian mint was once more reopened after having been shut down ever since 305 B. C. Only coins of Phoe- nician weight and Ptolemaic types were now struck at this mint (Svoronos, nos. 712-721) . These continued to appear yearly (Svoronos, nos. 722-756) until the sixth year of Ptolemy III Euergetes (Svoronos, nos. 1024-1033), and after that time intermittantly until the final cap- ture of the country by the Seleucid king Antiochus III the Great in 8 E. T. Newell, “ The Dated Alexander Coinage of Sidon and Ake,” New Haven, 1916. 4 W. W. Tarn, “ Antigonus Gonatas,” p. 105. The Alexandrine Coinage of Sinope 9 198 B. C. Thus it is evident that throughout the course of the third century B. C. there is no reason whatsoever to expect to find at Sidon an Alexander coinage with its types and weights so entirely foreign to the monetary system obtaining under the Egyptian domination. In fact ever since the standard of the Egyptian coinage had been reduced by Ptolemy Soter from the Attic to a pseudo -Rhodian (circa 312 B. C.) , and then definitely changed to the Phoenician (after 305 B. C.), no coins of Attic weight were ever again struck within the boundaries of the Egyptian possessions. We have no grounds to suppose, then, that Sidon should have formed an exception to this rule. When Antiochus III secured Phoenicia he again suppressed all the mints in this district except Tyre, which alone was allowed to continue striking silver money. The coins were once more of Attic weight but of purely Seleucid type so as to completely conform with the remainder of that kingdom’s coinage. Under Antiochus IV Sidon, as a special privilege, was allowed to strike copper coins but with the portrait of the reigning king. The same is true under the succeeding rulers until we come to Alexander Balas who raised both Sidon and Berytus to the privileges enjoyed by Tyre and allowed the three cities to strike silver money. Sidon henceforth was an active mint of the Seleucid kings coining tetradrachms principally of Phoenician weight, but also at times of Attic weight. It is, however, a purely Seleucid coinage and always displays the portrait of the ruling king. Now the Alexander coins we are at present discussing can hardly be dated as late as the second century B. C. but if we should be bold enough to set aside all criteria of style it evidently would still be impossible to suppose that Sidon would have been in a position to issue such a series at this time. Throughout she was a royal mint and only issued royal Seleucid money bearing purely Seleucid or local types. The only district along the entire Syro- Phoenician coast that was in a position to strike posthumous Alexander coins after this region had been divided between the Seleucid and the Egyptian kingdoms in the first decade of the third century B. C. was Aradus and her dependent cities Carne and Marathus. But this w T as by reason of their being free autonomous cities not directly subject to either Syrian or Egyptian dom- ination. Such a status none of the remaining Phoenician towns, Sidon included, at this time enjoyed and so were not in a position to issue coins of the Alexander type. The fact that Aradus actually did issue Alexandrine tetradrachms during the third century B. C. is for us a 10 The Alexandrine Coinage of Sinope most fortunate occurrence. We are thus enabled to determine at a glance that both the Aradian coins and the supposedly Sidonian Alex- ander coins have absolutely nothing in common in either style or fabric (compare our silver tetradrachms with a typical Alexander tetradrachm of Aradus on Plate II, B) . Neither do our coins at all resemble in these particulars any of the third and second century Alexander issues of other Mediterranean cities from Aradus and Aspendus in the south, along the Ionian coast, and so north to the Propontis. The moment, however, that we reach the Euxine and compare our pieces (both gold and sil- ver) with similar coins of the Alexandrine type known to have been struck by various cities in those regions, the close similarity in both style and fabric is at once apparent. Compare our tetradrachms on Plate II with C on that plate which is a tetradrachm of Odessus, or our staters on Plate I with A on the same plate which is a stater of Istrus. The striking similarity points to the fact that our coins are of northern rather than of Phoenician origin. There are in addition two other important points in which our coins resemble the Alexandrine issues of the Euxine districts. The points comprise the unusually heavy issue of gold and the constant presence of the Bav nroXe/Mu'wi', Nos. 626 ff. Tyrus Rediviva 3 SERIES I, circa 306-301 B. C. \ STATER (Muller No. 1588). Head of Athene to r. in crested Corin- AAEEANAPOY on r. Winged Nike thian helmet adorned with a double-coiled standing and holding wreath in outstretch- serpent. ed r., stylis in 1. In field to 1., (g) ; in field to r., @). A — a London f (Lang) gr. 8.61, Plate I, 1 ; Berlin j gr. 8.04 ; H. A. Greene f ; Paris (No. 427) i . A — (3 Berlin ] . f 2 TETRADRACHM (Muller No. 1589). Head of young Herakles to r. in lion’s AAEEANAPOY on r. Zeus, himation skin. Circle of dots. over lower limbs, seated on high-backed throne to 1. He holds an eagle in his out- stretched r. and rests 1. on sceptre. In field, (g) ; beneath throne, (J). I — 1 Newell J, gr. 17.12, Plate I, 2 ; Berlin f gr. 17.00 ; Petrograd ; Athens. 2 Newell f gr. 17.14. 3 Newell f gr. 17.18 ; Newell j gr. 17.07 ; Athens. 1 If Berlin f gr. 17.13. 5 R. Storrs | . 3 STATER (Muller No. 1593). The same die as No. 1. This die is Similar to No. 1, but (vjj) in 1. field, and commencing to show signs of wear. ♦ behind the Nike figure. A — 7 London j (Lang), Plate I, 3 ; Newell j gr. 8.60 ; Paris — ♦ ; Berlin | (Gen. Fox from Lang); Sir H. Weber <— gr. 8.62 ; Cambridge (McClean) gr. 8.58 ; H. A. Greene ; P. Saroglos. 4 TETRADRACHM (Muller No. 1592). All but one specimen from the same die Similar to No. 2 but with @ in field, as No. 2. This die now shows signs of and (^) beneath the throne, wear and a crack extending from bridge of the nose to the dotted circle. I — 6 Berlin 7 Plate I, 4. 7 R. Storrs ; P. Saroglos. 8 Athens. II — - <8 The Hague. 1 The Athens and the first Newell specimen show a bad break commencing in the lower por- tion of the reverse die (No. 3). On the second Newell specimen this break has been mended, but in so doing the monogram beneath the throne has become almost entirely obliterated. 4 5 DRACHM. Similar to the preceding. Tyrus Rkdi viva Similar to the preceding, and with the same monograms. Naples (St. Angelo) Plate 1,5; Constantinople (from the same obverse and reverse dies as the Naples specimen). 6 STATER. From the same die as Nos. 1 and 3. Die Similar to Nos. 1 and 3. In front of shows increasing signs of wear. Nike, (g) and (g). A — 8 London j (Lang) gr. 8.60, Plate I, 6 ; Berlin j . 7 STATER (Muller No. 1594). A new die, with smaller head but details Similar to the preceding with @ and (g) similar to the preceding. in front of Nike and A behind Nike. B — e Berlin f Plate I, 7 ; P. Saroglos. 8 STATER. Similar to No. 6. Similar to the preceding. In 1. field, (g), in field behind Nike, C — p Petrograd, Plate I, 8. 9 TETRADRACHM (Muller No. 1597). Similar to No. 4. Similar to No. 4. In field, (g), beneath throne, (g). II — 0 Cambridge (Fitzwilliam) gr. 16.94, Plate I, 9; Berlin j gr. 16.72. 10 TETRADRACHM (Muller Nos. 1595 and 1596). Similar to the preceding. Die II shows Similar to the preceding. In field, signs of wear. beneath throne, @ or (g). II — 10 Newell J, gr. 17.05, Plate I, 10. 11 Vienna. III — 10 London J, . 12 Munich T , Plate 1,-11. 11 TETRADRACHM. Similar to the preceding. Similar to the preceding. In field, beneath the throne, (|a) or (^). Ill — 13 Newell j gr. 16.90, Plate I, 12; London \ (recent acquisition) gr. 16.94. l!f Petrograd j , Plate I, 13. 12 TETRADRACHM. From the same obverse die as the pre- Similar to the preceding. In field, club ceding. Large cracks are now visible. IN circle. Beneath throne, Ill — 15 Newell j gr. 17.18, Plate I, 14; Newell | gr. 17.17 ; Amer. Numisma- tic Society \gr. 17.13. 10 Berlin f gr. 16.90. Tybus Rediviva 5 13 TETRADRACHM. Similar to the preceding. Similar to the preceding. In held, @ (?). Beneath the throne, tgv. IV — 17 Petrograd, Plate I, 15. SERIES II, circa 301-290 B. C. 14 TETRADRACHM (Muller No. 1591, probably also No. 1590). Head of young Herakles to r. in lion’s AAEIANAPOY on r., BA5IAEQS in ex- skin. Circle of dots. ergue. Zeus seated on high-backed throne to 1. He holds an eagle in outstretched r. and rests 1. on sceptre. In held, (§), be- neath throne, (g). V — 18 London f , Plate II, 1. 15 STATER. Head of Athene to r. in crested Corin- AAEIANAPOY on r. Winged Nike thian helmet adorned with a single-coil standing and holding wreath in out- serpent. stretched r. and stylis in 1. In front, @, behind, (g). D — £ Newell J gr. 8.59, Plate II, 2 ; Berlin J. gr. 8.58 ; Commerce. r\ Municipal Museum, Lyon. gr. 8.54. 16 TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 14. AAEIANAPOY on r., BA5IAEQS in ex- ergue. Similar in style and details to No. 14. In held, @, beneath throne, (s) or 0. VI — 19 Newell \ gr. 17.00, Plate II, 3. 20 London \ gr. 16.71; Berlin ) . 17 STATER (Muller No. 1601). Same die as No. 15. Similar to No. 15. In front of Nike, ©, behind Nike, (j§) or D — 8 London, three specimens : f gr. 8.60, J, gr. 8.57, (Lang) f gr. 8.62, Plate II, 4 ; Paris f; Berlin j, gr. 8.58. t Berlin | . k Paris. 1 18 TETRADRACHM (Muller No. 1600). Similar to No. 16. Die VI is now show- AAEIANAPOY on r., BASIAEQS in ex- ing signs of wear. ergue. Similar to No. 16. In held, @), beneath throne, VI — 21 Munich } . VII — 22 Berlin, Plate II, 5. 1 This specimen, as well as that enumerated under 0, proves that Muller is mistaken (No. 1601) in placing the second monogram in front of, instead of behind, the iigure of Nike. 11 is description is based on this Paris specimen. 6 Tyrus Rediviva 19 STATER (Muller No. 1585). Same as No. 17, die showing signs of Similar to No. 17. In front of Nike, <@, wear. behind Nike, @. D — \ Paris 1 f , Plate II, 6 ; Berlin J, gr. 8.60. 20 TETRADRACHM (var. Muller No. 1584). Same as No. 18, but both dies now show- Similar to No. 18. In field, @, beneath ing signs of wear. throne, (§). VI — 28 Berlin f, Plate II, 7. 24 London f ; Newell \ gr. 16.98. VII — 24 Berlin f , Plate II, 8. 25 Newell J gr. 17.04. 21 TETRADRACHM. Similar to the preceding. Similar to No. 20, but henceforth with- out the BASIAEftS. In field, beneath throne, (g. VIII — 26 Yakountchikof, gr. 16.53, Plate II, 9. 22 STATER (Muller No. 1586). Same as No. 19. Similar to No. 19. In front of Nike, (§) , behind Nike, g). On die ^ this mono- gram has more the form, @). D — /ji Newell f gr. 8.59, Plate II, 10 ; Newell f gr. 8.33 (edge has been filed); Berlin J gr. 8.55; London | (Lang) gr. 8.64; London J gr. 8.58. Two specimens, both j , in commerce. v 2 Berlin j gr. 8.61 ; Petrograd f ; C. S. Bement, Plate II, 11 ; Commerce. 23 TETRADR ACHM (Muller No. 143) Head of young Herakles to r. as on the preceding. IX — 27 Munich [ , Plate II, 12. 24 STATER. Head of Athene to r. in crested Corin thian helmet. E — £ Petrograd, Plate II, 13. 1 Here again Muller (his No. 1585) is mistaken in placing the second monogram in front of, instead of behind, the Nike figure. His description is based on this Paris specimen. 2 Die r is the same die as X, but with the monogram in field re-engraved. Similar to No. 22. In front, club in circle, behind Nike, . Similar to the preceding. In fie'ld, club in CIRCLE, beneath throne, . Tyrus Rediviya 7 25 TETRADRACHM. Same as No. 23. Similar to No. 23. In field, club in circle, beneath throne, @i. On dies 32 and 33 the club is to r. IX — 28 London j , Plate II, 14 ; Berlin f ; Athens / gr. 16.85. 29 Alexandria J, . 30 Newell ],gr. 17.11, Plate II, 15. 31 Vienna. 32 Milan t . 33 Berlin j gr. 17.05. X — 32 Newell j gr. 15.90 (cleaned and filed), Plate II, 16. 26 TETRADRACHM. Same as the preceding. The crack on Similar to the preceding. In field, club the obverse is now larger. in circle, beneath throne, IX — 34 Hartford | , Plate II, 17. 27 TETRADRACHM. Similar to the preceding. Similar to the preceding. In field, club in circle and dolphin. XI — 35 Boston. 36 Vienna, Plate II, 18. SERIES III, circa 290-287 B. C. 28 TETRADRACHM. From the same die as the preceding. AAEZANAPOY on r. Zeus enthroned as on the preceding. In field, club and e. XI — 37a Newell j, gr. 16.95, Plate III, 1. 29 TETRADRACHM. From the same die, which, now shows AHMHTPIOY (on die 37b this name is increasing signs of wear. re-engraved over the preceding AAEZAN- APOY). Same as the preceding. Infield, club and e. XI — 37b Paris j gr. 16.85, Plate III, 2. 38 London f , Plate III, 3. 30 TETRADRACHM. From the same die, which is now in a AHMHTPIOY on r. Similar to the pre- very worn state. ceding. In field, @ over club to 1. XI — 39 Berlin, Plate III, 4. Tyrus Rediviva 31 TETRADRACHM. Similar. AHMHTPIOY on i\, BA5IAEQ5 in ex- ergue. In field, club in circle, beneath throne, @. XI — Jj.0 Kaftanzoglou Coll., Plate III, 5. XII — Ifl Berlin, Plate III, 6. 32 TETRADRACHM. Erom the same die as the preceding. Similar to the preceding. In field, club in circle, beneath throne, XII — Iffy Newell f gr. 1686, Plate III, 7. 33 TETRADRACHM. From the same die as the preceding. Similar to the preceding. In field, dol- phin in circle, beneath throne, A. XII — Jj.3 Newell J gr. 16.70, Plate III, 8. FIRST ISSUES UNDER PTOLEMAIC RULE After cii'ca 286 B. C. 34 PHOENICIAN TETRADRACHM (not in Svoronos). Diademed head of Ptolemy Soter to r. BA5IAEQS on r., TTTOAEMAIOY on 1. Circle of dots. Eagle standing to 1. on thunderbolt. In field, dolphin to 1. Newell \ gr. 14.17, Plate III, 9. 35 PHOENICIAN TETRADRACHM (Svoronos No. 626). Similar to the preceding. Similar to the preceding. In field, club. Newell I gr. 14.16, Plate III, 10. For other specimens see Svoronos, vol. II, p. 94, No. 626. SERIES r. The first series consists of five varieties of the Alexander stater and seven accompanying varieties of the tetradrachm, and one drachm. Three obverse dies (A, B, C) and six reverse dies (a-p ) were used in the production of the staters, while six obverse (I-VI) and seventeen reverse (1-17) dies were necessary for the production of the tetradrachms. The drachm appears to be very rare (it is known in two specimens only) and was pro- duced from a single pair of dies. It is obvious that the coins here described were struck in Tyre. Both style and fabric — as well as the usual provenance of single specimens - Tyrus Rediviva 9 point to Syria or Phoenicia as their original home. The specimens earliest in date have the closest stylistic affinity to the last Alexandrine issues of Sidon. The only symbols which we find used are the club (Nos. 12, 23 to 32 inclusive) and dolphin (Nos. 27, 33), both so intimately associated with Tyre. As that city had by this time once more grown to be the foremost on the Phoenician coast, it is difficult to believe that it would long remain without a mint. Especially is this the case when we remember that the mints of Sidon and Ake ceased to function just about this time, thus, apparently, leaving only Tyre to issue money in all this district. How important this point is will be grasped when we stop to consider that under Ptolemy Soter and the first few years of Pliiladelphus’ rule it was only Tyre, of all their Phoenician possessions, which was allowed to strike coins. Furthermore, we will find this corroborated by the interesting and important fact that the first coins struck here by Ptolemy are identical with the last ones struck by Demetrius in style, in fabric, and in the symbols (dolphin or club) which they bear. Finally, before we close this study, we shall also have occasion to notice the very close connection between our Alexandrine issues and the series of dated Attic didrachms which, because they bear that city’s long-recognized local types, were certainly struck at Tyre. The re-opening of the mint of Tyre may be set at about the year 307 306 B. C., as shown by the following considerations. The style of the obverse and reverse dies of these Tyrian tetradrachms is obviously influenced by the Sidonian issues appearing throughout the final six or seven years of that, mint’s activities. 1 Our reverses are in style, appearance, and details almost identical with those of Sidon. Were it not for the monograms and the back to the throne on the Tyrian issues, the two series would be almost indis- tinguishable. In fact, one is tempted to recognize the handiwork of the same engravers on the two issues. The obverse die A of the Tyrian gold staters, Nos. 1, 3, and 6, is modeled on that of the Sidonian issues of the year 2 (Oct. 316-Oct. 315 B. C.). Even the unusual detail of the double coil to the serpent ornament on Athene’s helmet is reproduced. 2 On the other hand, Nike has the straight left leg of the same figure on the Sidonian gold coinage for the year xp (Oct. 311-Oct. 310 B. C.) s . It is, however, very difficult to believe that the Tyrian issues actually commenced as early as this parallelism would seem to indicate. In the first place, none of the earlier Alexander hoards (Kyparissia, Demanhur, Saida, all in the ground by 318 B. C. at the latest) contained any of the specimens which we are now 1 Compare the coins on Plate I with the Sidonian tetradrachms on Plates IV and V of the author’s “ The Dated Alexander Coinage of Sidon and Ake.” 2 Compare the staters, Plate I, Nos. 2, 4, 6 with Newell, loc. cit., Plate IV, 3. 3 Compare the reverses of Plate I, Nos. 2, 4, 6 with Newell, loc. cit ., Plate IV, 17. 10 Tyrus Rediviva studying. There were also none in a recent Egyptian find 1 whose latest known dated coin was a tetradrachm of Ake, in mint condition, bearing the date 36 — or Oct. 311-Oct. 310 B. C. Similarly, there were none in the Kuft hoard (belonging to the late Dr. S. Davidson, and now in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford) which contained Sidonian issues down to, and including, the year X (Oct. 312-Oct. 311 B. C.) and Ake issues down to, and including, the year 37 (Oct. 311-Oct. 310 B. C.). Finally, there were also none in the great Aleppo hoard. The Aleppo hoard chances to be preserved to us in two portions, the one in Vienna 1 ® containing about 270 specimens (all varieties), and the other, numbering some 800 coins, which now reposes in the Imperial Ottoman Museum at Constantinople. 2 This great hoard contained all varieties of the Ake tetradrachm up to, and including, the year 10 (Oct. 307-Oct. 306 B. C.) and most of the Sidonian tetradrachms up to and in- cluding the year M B (Oct. 308-Oct. 307 B. C.). Since the hoard gives us no coins bearing the name of Seleucus, 3 it must have been buried not long after the last date borne by these Ake tetradrachms. As the hoard was a large one, with a considerable proportion of Syrian and Phoenician issues, and was buried in Syria, it is doubly significant that it should have con- tained not a single representative of the earliest Alexandrine issues of Tyre. Our mint could not have been in operation, therefore, much before 307-306 B. C., if as early as that. On the other hand, we possess a hoard of a slightly later date (Lang’s Larnaca Find), in which the earlier gold staters of our mint were strongly represented — all in brilliant state of preservation. Data on this important hoard is furnished us by the few varieties Lang himself published, 4 by the many specimens which entered the trays of the British Museum from Lang’s collection, by numerous specimens in the Fox Cabinet (now in the Berlin collection and ticketed by their former owner as having come from Lang’s 1870 Find), and, finally, by a lot of nineteen Alexander staters sold at Sotheby’s, June 17, 1913, which in the catalogue are stated to have been “Found at Nikosia, Cyprus, 1870.” In the last instance, as both the date and the varieties enumerated tally exactly with what we know of Lang’s 1 Recently ascertained to have come from Mansoura. 1,1 Mentioned by the writer, loc. cit., p. 58. 2 These coins were catalogued and arranged in the summer of 1918 by Dr. Kurt Regling, and named by him “Fund aus Antiochien.” The contents of the two hoards are identical, and from in- dications furnished the writer by Halil Bey, Director of the Museum, it is practically certain that the Vienna and the Constantinople lots come from one and the same hoard unearthed about 1892. Whether it was actually found at Aleppo or at Antioch, or in the neighborhood of one or the other of these two cities, is hardly vital, and is furthermore practically impossible to determine at this late date. 3 Seleucus probably first commenced to issue coins of the old Alexandrine types but bearing his own name, in the year 306-305 B.C. 4 Num. Chron., N. S. XI, 1871, pp. 229-234. Tyrus Rediviva 11 hoard, it is probable that one and the same find is meant. In this Sotheby lot, of the nineteen Alexanders described, no less than eleven are of our Tyrian varieties. The contents of Lang’s hoard, taken as a whole, indicate clearly that it must have been buried at a somewhat later date than the Aleppo hoard. On the other hand, like the Aleppo hoard, it, too, contained no coins struck in the names of Seleucus, Lysimachus, or Demetrius. Therefore, we cannot place it too late. A date lying somewhere between the years 300 and 295 B. C. 1 would seem to be justified. For although Lysimachus 2 and Seleucus commenced coining staters bearing their own names somewhat before this time, Antigonus and his son Demetrius were at war with both of these sovereigns, and the island of Cyprus was far removed from their mints. In all probability, considering the conditions prevalent at this period, it would have required some time for specimens of their issues to find their way to Cyprus. Of Demetrius’ Alexandrine coinages bearing his name, only two or three varieties were issued previous to 295 B. C., as the writer is showing in a monograph on Demetrius about to be published. These few varieties are excessively rare and therefore they might well have missed being gathered in by the ancient owner of Lang’s hoard. The Epidaurus Hoard, 3 buried at some time between the years 287 and 281 B. C., contained two specimens of No. 2 and one specimen of No. 25. Again, two varieties of our silver tetradrachms (Nos. 9 and 20) were con- tained in a hoard said to have been unearthed near Salonica in Macedonia. 4 The hoard must have been buried between 287 and 280 B. C., as it contained the latest issues of Demetrius Poliorcetes and Lysimachus in very fine con- dition. The Kililer (Thessaly) Hoard, also buried about 280 B.C. and now in the Athens collection, contained a specimen of No. 10 in poor condition. Furthermore, specimens of Nos. 2 and 16 turned up in good condition in a hoard said to have been found near Angora. As this hoard contained many varieties of the earlier issues of Seleucus but none of his later ones, and apparently none of the coinages of Demetrius Poliorcetes, it was probably buried not long after 300 B. C. Thus, from the weighty evidence of finds, 'Possibly the hoard was actually buried- during the troublous year 296/5 B. C. when Ptolemy seized the island. 2 Certain hints furnished by his coins suggest that Lysimachus did not actually place his name upon his coins until about the time of the battle of Ipsus, 301 B. C. 3 Nowin the Athens National Collection. Published by Keramopoulos in the ’ ApxaioAoyiKrj, 1903, pp. 98-116. 4 According to a statement made to the writer by Dr. Walla of Vienna, this hoard came to him from Salonica. It is listed in “ Preis-Liste . . . anti Ice griechische, romisehe and byzantinische Miinzen etc. 1897-8, Heft VI under Nos. 55 to 74, Nos. 78 to 162, Nos. 166, 168—180, Nos. 183-189, Nos. 239-268. 12 Tyrus Rediviva supported by indications of style, we may conclude that the Tyrian Alex- ander series cannot well have appeared before 307 B. C., but that it must have commenced shortly after this date, and that during the following decade its production was in full swing. SERIES II. The terminal date of the first series has been somewhat arbitrarily placed at about 301 B. C. The choice of this date is based on two considera- tions. In the first place, it is difficult to suppose that the small number of dies employed in its production could have lasted over a longer stretch than some six or seven years. In our study of the dated coinages of Sidon and Ake, it may be observed that the average life of an obverse die (both in the gold and in the silver issues) was about two years. In only exceptional cases did an obverse die last into the third year or longer. Again, our second series is distinguished by the appearance of the /3ao-iXeu 43) is also exceedingly poor, showing to what depths the art of the Tyrian die engravers had now fallen. The symbol in the field is once more a club in circle, except on No. 33 where the Tyrian dolphin takes its place. At this point, the Alexandrine issues of Tyre abruptly cease. Philokles, King of Sidon and admiral of Demetrius’ naval forces in the Phoenician Tyrus Rediviva 15 waters, finally recognized the writing on the wall. With his entire fleet he went over to Ptolemy, 1 and the Phoenician province, apparently without a struggle, fell like a ripe apple into the waiting hands of the astute old Lagid. Ptolemy, naturally, at once suppressed the Attic weight-system and Alexandrine types of his rival, substituting therefor his own types and the so-called Phoenician weight-system which he had finally adopted for the Egyptian coinage. The two earliest specimens of this issue at Tyre are here described (Nos. 34, 35) and reproduced on Plate III, 9 and 10. The first of these is unknown to Svoronos and, in imitation of Demetrius’ last issue (No. 33), a dolphin has been placed in the field as symbol. The follow- ing series again adopts the club of heracles as the symbol of the Tyrian mint, and this remains henceforth as such throughout the Ptolemaic and Seleucid issues of the next two centuries. The two Ptolemaic coins repro- duced on Plate III are particularly interesting because they show that the poor style of the latest Alexandrine issues of Demetrius is directly carried over onto the succeeding coinage of Ptolemy. Evidently, the old die-en- gravers, after the defection of their city to Egypt, for a time continued to work for their new masters. Their issues thus fill an otherwise obvious gap between the poor work of Demetrius’ last issues and the fine style of the coins issued soon after under the Ptolemies (see Svoronos, Plate XIX, No. 2 and ff.) LOCAL ISSUES. A study of the mint of Tyre at the end of the fourth and the beginning of the third century B. C. would not be complete without also taking into consideration the much-discussed Tyrian didrachms of Attic weight bearing purely local types. 2 These particular coins have formed the subject of numerous studies. 8 While all are in complete accord, insofar as they would assign these coins to a period subsequent to the arrival of Alexander the Great in Phoenicia, they nevertheless differ widely as to the exact date at which these coins probably appeared. Although the coins themselves bear dates expressed in Phoenician numerals, unfortunately, far from clarifying the situation, these have but added a worse confusion, for they can be made to fit almost any one of the many eras known to have been in use at the period during which the coins were being struck. 1 Tarn, p. 104 ff. and notes. 2 Rouvier, Nos. 1799 1818; B. M. C., Phoenicia, Nos. 25-42 ; Babelon, Traitt II, 2, Nos. 1009- 1016. Here, Plate III, Nos. 11 -15, all in the writer’s collection. 3 Of which the more recent are: Six, Num. Chron., 1877, p. 191; J. Rouvier, Rev. des Etudes Grecques, 1899, pp. 362 ff. ; and Rev. Num., 1909, p. 330; R. Dussaud, Rev. Nu.m., 1908, pp. 445 ff. ; Babelon, Traite II, 2, pp. 622-8; Hill, Brit. Cat. Mus. Phoenicia, Introd., pp. cxxix-cxxxi; Svoronos, loc. cit., Vol. I, pp. pire' ff. 16 Tyrus Rediviva Before hailing any one of the theories thus far advanced as the correct one, or before discarding them all and offering a new suggestion, let us look at the coins themselves and become acquainted with the actual material. These coins have so often been studied and discussed that it will not be necessary for us to draw up, once more, a catalogue of the known varieties. Such a catalogue will be found given in both Rouvier’s and Babelon’s works, as well as in the catalogue of Phoenician coins in the British Museum. These studies contain all the material at present available, and, so thoroughly has the ground been worked over, it is probable the future can offer but few varieties as yet unknown to us. As stated above, the coins are Attic didrachms and bear the old Tyrian types. On the obverse is Melkarth riding to r. upon a winged sea horse, depicted as swimming over the waves, below which may be seen a dolphin. On the reverse is the owl bearing the crook and flail — Egyptian symbols of royalty. In the field of the reverse are to be seen various Phoenician letters (X 2 or 2 ) and the numerals ( j = 1, n = 10, 0 = 20) which have caused so much conjecture and discussion among students. The coins fall into three main groups. The earliest in style (A), Plate III, 11, is characterized by the letter 2 (probably standing for the mint name “112) accompanied by the three dates l|, |||, or HI). 1 This is succeeded by a second group (B), Plate III, 12, of which the first issue bears the letter 2 (in the place of 2 ), and the letter 2 (probably for the usual formula n3IT2) in front of the date | . The remaining issues of this group (B), Plate III, 13, omit the 2 and place the 2 in front of the dates |, ||, and |||. The final group (C), Plate III, 14-16, obviously later in style than A and B, bears only dates running from 23 to 37. The first two groups may, for the present, be dismissed by accepting the suggestion frequently put forward 2 that the dates they bear merely represent the regnal years of local dynasts. The crux of the whole matter lies in the question, To what era should we refer the dates 23-37 found on group C? No less than four different eras have been suggested in recent years. The failure of so many competent scholars to arrive at an agree- ment after so many thorough and able discussions, is probably entirely due to the fact that they were forced to discuss these Tyrian didrachms solely on their own merits. This inevitably led to widely diverse conclusions, almost any one of which could lay claim to a large amount of plausibility. Fortunately, our possession of a continuous series of coins of Alexandrine 1 There is a specimen, No. 33, in the British Museum, with and the higher date 1110 (= 23). This particular specimen, however, is fouree. In other words, it is an ancient forgery and so need not be taken into account. 2 Among others, Rouvier, Rev. Num., 1909, p. 330. Tvnus I J i:m viva 17 types, which must be assigned to the mint of Tyre towards the end of the Fourth Century B. C., throws an entirely new light upon the matter. With their assistance we can subject the various eras proposed to the test and perhaps arrive at some really definite conclusion. For these Tyrian didrachms, Dr. Rouvier 1 follows Six 2 in adopting the era of Alexander the Great in Phoenicia, which took its inception with the battle of Issus in 333 B. C. Mr. Hill has already drawn attention 3 to cer- tain minor defects of this era as applied to the Tyrian didrachms. A really serious difficulty in the way of accepting Rouvier’s dating is now raised by the series of Tyrian Alexanders. We have seen how the contents of the Saida, Demanhur, Kuft, Mansoura and Aleppo hoards agree in prov- ing none of our Alexander coins could have been struck at Tyre before 307-306 B. C. at the earliest. The Angora and Larnaca hoards, on the other hand, show that their issue was in full swing by 300 295 B. C. If now we apply group C to the era of Alexander in Phoenicia, we find that the didrachm dated 23 must have appeared in 310-309 B. C., and the last date known, 37, in 296-5 B. C. This means that not only was this particu- lar series commenced at least two to three years previous to the establish- ment at Tyre of a mint coining Alexander staters and tetradrachms, but it does not take into account groups A and B, which by their style must have preceded group C. On the face of it, then, it does not seem to the writer in the least reasonable to suppose that silver coins of local types were being minted, of all places, at Tyre for some ten years previous to the issue of the then “coin of the realm,” namely, coins of Alexandrine types. Throughout this period in the Eastern Mediterranean, at Tarsus, Salamis, Sidon, Ake (to name but a few of the principal mints), Alexandrine coins were being- issued in great quantities. From time to time small denominations in silver and bronze with local types had also appeared, but always subordinate to the regular Alexandrine issues. Therefore it seems hardly likely to suppose that Tyre, the strongest fortress of the entire Phoenician coast and com- mercially rapidly coming into its own again, would have been allowed by Antigonus to strike only coins bearing the old local, Tyrian, types. If there was a mint at all, operating at Tyre before 307 B. C., it must also have been coining the orthodox staters and tetradrachms bearing Alexander’s name and types. Finally, the adoption of Dr. Rouvier’s theory would bring the close of the didrachm series, for no apparent reason, in the year 296-295 B. C. Now it has been shown that Alexandrine coins continued to appear until about the time of Demetrius’ final fall in 286-285 B. C. and 1 Rouvier, Rev. des fitudes Gr., 1899, pp. 362 ff. and Rev. Num., 1909. 2 Six, loc. cit., p. 192. 3 Loc. cit., Introd. cxxx-cxxxi. 18 Tyrus Rkdiviva the acquisition of Tyre by Ptolemy. Of course, to Dr. Rouvier the date 296-5 B. C. seemed significant as he had adopted Droysen’s theory (followed by Niese II, 125) that Seleucus I actually acquired Tyre in 295 B. C. But the recent writers, Theodore Reinach 1 and Tarn, 2 have shown this theory to be ill-founded and have proved that Demetrius held both Sidon and Tyre until his final fall. Hence the date of 296-5 for the cessation of the Tyrian didrachms means little. It is not necessary, however, to press this point as a definite reason for rejecting Rouvier ’s dating. A coinage of local types might well cease at any time without affecting the continued is- sue of pieces belonging to the “coinage of the realm.” But the objection which cannot be emphasized too strongly against Rouvier’s theory is the fact that, by adopting it, we must admit a coinage of local types some eight years preceding the appearance of an Alexandrine coinage — and this admission seems fatal. According to M. Babelon’s theory, 3 the dates on our Tyrian didrachms should be referred to the Seleucid era taking its inception in 312 B. C. By this the first year (23) would fall in 289-8 B. C., and the last (37) in 275-4 B. C. The objections to M. Babelon’s theory are both numerous and vital, although Mr. Hill in his introduction to the British Museum Catalogue, pp. cxxx-cxxxi, seems inclined to accept it. In the first place it is exceed- ingly doubtful, and certainly it has not been proved, that the Seleucid era was ever used in Southern Phoenicia before the final conquest by Antiochus III in 200 B. C. Had this been done, it could only have been introduced by Seleucus I, and it is very doubtful if Seleucus ever held any portion of this district. It is absurd to believe that this era could ever have been intro- duced by either Demetrius or Ptolemy. In his Perses A chemenides, Introd. p. cxci, M. Babelon makes the entirely unsupported statement that Seleucus secured Tyre in 287 B. C., while later in his Trciite, p. 627, he says that Tyre fell to Seleucus en 294 (, u plus tot — this, probably to support his new theory as to the introduction of the series of dated Tyrian didrachms. Niese bases his assumption of Seleucus’ presence in Phoenicia solely upon the attri- bution of certain coins to Accho, 4 Ascalon, 5 and Sidon, 6 all of which attribu- tions are demonstrably erroneous. 7 1 Theodore Reinach, Necrop. roy. a Sidon, p. 383. 2 Tarn, Antigomis Gonatas, p. 105; see also n. 33. 3 Les Perses Achemenides, Introd., p. cxci and Traite II, 2, p. 627-8. 4 Babelon, Rois de Syrie, xxxv ff. 5 Muller, Numism. d’ Alexandre le Gr., p. 309. r 6 Niese II, p. 125, note 8, refers to Babelon, loc. cit., xxxvii, who there assigns a coin to Sidon on strength of a certain monogram in a wreath. This coin is certainly of Babylon ; the monogram is identical with certain ones on coins which Imhoof-Blumer has long ago shown must be assigned to that city. 7 With regard to the Accho coins of Seleucus, Hill, Brit. Mus. Cat. Palestine, Introd. p. lxxviii, n. 3, has already expressed his doubts. Muller’s attribution of other coins of Seleucus to Ascalon are Tyrus Rediviva 19 Now assuming for the sake of argument that Seleucus at some period between 300 and 280 B. C. might have held Phoenicia, and that therefore the reckoning of years by the Seleucid era might conceivably have been introduced at this early date in Tyre, where would this assumption lead us? Directly onto the horns of a still more serious dilemma. For then we must suppose not only that Seleucus did not strike any of his own coins in Tyre, 1 but that the earliest of the Tyrian didrachms are then the only representa- tives of any coinage of his in this great emporium ! Worse than this is the fact that a large portion of them would then have been struck under the succeeding Ptolemaic suzerainty (the last year 37 = 275-4 B. C., a date long after the final Lagid acquisition of the city). This hypothesis is utterly untenable. The Ptolemies, after the adoption by Soter in the year 305 B. C. of the so-called Phoenician weight-system and the eagle types, made it their constant policy to introduce this coinage wherever and when- ever they chanced to secure a new province. Throughout their existence, they were forever combating the widely spread Attic weight-system, and endeavoring to substitute their own for it in their various conquests on the coasts of Thrace, Asia Minor, Cyprus, and Phoenicia. In all these districts they tolerated no other coinage system than their own. For the mint of Tyre, there have come down to us a prolific series of coins of the accepted Lagid type and weight (Svoronos, Nos. 626-704). Dr. Rouvier has clearly seen 2 that this great number of specimens and varieties must fill the entire extent of Soter’s and Philadelphus’ reign in that city. It is unthinkable, and would be a unique instance in the entire Ptolemaic numismatic history 8 if they had, even for an instant, tolerated a local issue of Tyre (the capital and commercial center of their Phoenician dominions) based on the Attic weight-system and running alongside of their own royal issues which were based on the Phoenician weight-system. It is inevitable that the mere introduction of a coinage based on the Egypto-Phoenician weight system would automatically bring about an immediate cessation of coins struck on the Attic weight-system. As a final objection to the Seleucid era, it should be pointed out that equally unfounded, being based upon his mistaken conception that the magistrate’s letters in the field represent the initials of the city’s name. Droysen, p. 258, while stating his belief that Seleucus secured Phoenicia, frankly admits (p. 258, note 2) that Plutarch does not say this, and that Pausanias I. 6-8, flatly contradicts it. He merely infers it, citing support for his contention only as far as Coele- Syria (including Judaea) is concerned — but this does not presuppose, by any means, that Phoenicia was included. 1 At least, none have come down to us. 2 Rev. Num., 1909, pp. 340 ff. 3 The Alexandrine tetradrachms, supposed by Svoronos to have been issued during Ptolemaic rule in that city, have been shown by the writer to have been far earlier. The same is true of the Sidonian Alexanders which Rouvier (Rev. Num., 1909, p. 341) has proved to be much earlier also. 20 Tytcus Rediviva its adoption for the dates 23-37 on our didrachms would cause a serious discrepancy in styles and fabric. Whereas, with but one or two exceptions (here Plate III, Nos. 9, 10), the coins which Ptolemy II struck at Tyre are of hue style and neat manufacture, our Tyrian didrachms are quite the oppo- site. To suppose that their dies could have been cut by the same workmen, or the coins themselves struck in the same mint and at the same time as the coins illustrated by Svoronos, Plate XIX, Nos. 1-28, is manifestly absurd. There is absolutely nothing in common between the two series, a fact that would long ago have been recognized by the competent numismatists dealing with this subject, were it not that they were apparently blinded by their own preconceived theories. Svoronos’ theory 1 of the use of the so-called era of Ptolemy I, 311-310 B. C., for the dating of the Tyrian didrachms possesses the same serious objections as the Seleucid era, without presupposing a conquest of Southern Phoenicia by Seleucus I and the improbable introduction at this early date of his era. According to Svoronos’ dating the year 23 would fall in 288-7 B. C., the year 37 in 275-4 B. C., thus bringing about the same insurmountable difficulty of a parallel issue under Ptolemy II of Attic didrachms and Phoenician tetradrachms, as well as an impossible mixture of styles and fabric. In fact, a manifest absurdity is here presupposed, namely, that it was under Ptolemy himself that an issue of Attic weight was commenced in the royal mint of Tyre ! Still more impossible is R. Dussaud’s theory, 2 which has already been rejected by both Dr. Rouvier and Mr. Hill. 3 This theory would bring our didrachms down to the period 251-0 to 237 6 B. C. — a conclusion that is sufficiently refuted by the far earlier style of the coins themselves. Thus we must face the fact that every one of the four eras definitely proposed and accepted by various students has one or more serious objec- tions. There is another solution possible, and one which has the great advantage of avoiding all of the apparently fatal difficulties urged against the adoption of any one of the four eras discussed above. For we have at, our disposal yet a fifth era, whose use is vouched for by abundant literary evidence. 4 It was actually proposed, only to be rejected, by Dr. Rouvier himself, who is 5 seemingly obsessed by his discovery of the use of the Alexander era at Sidon. The era by which our Tyrian didrachms must be dated is that of the death of Alexander the Great. This particular era is 1 Loc. cit., vol. iv, pp. 113 ff. 2 Rev. Num., 1908, p. 453. 3 Brit. Mus. Cat., Introd., p. cxxx ; Rev. Num., 1909. 4 Censorinus, De die Natali, cxxi, 9, Ptolemy, Almagest, passim. 6 Rev. des Etudes Gr., 1899. Tyrus Rediviva *21 also known as that of Philip Arrhidseus. Its point of departure was gen- erally considered to have been the 12th of Nov., 324 B. C. In support of our proposal to adopt this era, let us look carefully at the facts available. In the first place, considerations of style and fabric would seem to show that groups A, B, and C form a continuous series of coins with- out the gap admitted by Rouvier, 1 who assigns A and B to 332-325 B. C., but C to 311-0 to 296-5 B. C. Now the entire series could not well have commenced before there actually existed a mint at Tyre. This we know was not until after 321-320 B. C. (see above, p. 1), possibly even later, for by their style the undated bronze coins struck at Ake for Tyre would seem to . have come after the one bearing the date 26 (321-320 B. C.). Further, from the significant evidence of finds, we now know that the Tyrian Alexan- drine coins could not have been struck much, if any, earlier than about 307-306 B. C. (see above, p. 11). If then — as on the very face of it seems exceedingly plausible — we should conclude that the series of Tyrian didrachms of Attic weight had not made its appearance until the actual commencement of the Alexandrine issues at Tyre, in and around the year 307 B. C., we might draw up the following scheme of their issue : In the year 307 B. C. appeared ||2 “ “ “ 306 B. C. “ “ “ 305 B. C. “ “ “ 304 B. C. “ “ “ 303 B. C. “ “ “ 302 B. C. “ “ “ 301 B. C. and so forth, to Year 287 B. C. 2 The striking fact of this scheme is at once apparent. The Tyrian didrachms exactly cover what we have seen could only have been the period during which staters and tetradrachms bearing Alexander’s types ap- peared at Tyre. In other words, the didrachms of Attic weight commence and also end with the only issue of staters and tetradrachms of Attic weight which are attributable to our mint at this time. The adoption of the era for the dating of group C of these didrachms takes place in 301 B. C. — the date of Antigonus’ death and the accession of Demetrius. It was also at about this very time that there occurs a change in the inscription of the tetradrachms, most plausibly associated with the accession of Demetrius 1 He, himself, says that this gap is impossible to. explain. 2 As the era here proposed commenced in November, each year ran from November to November. Hence, in our reckoning that year only which contained the greater number of the months is given. |||2 m 1 2ft and ||ft |||ft no ft nO T vrus Rediviva 22 (see above, p. 11). Historians have surmised 1 from their decrees and actions that Antigonus and his son Demetrius reckoned themselves as the direct successors to Alexander himself. The final adoption on Tyrian coins of an era dating from Alexander’s death (that is, the commencement of the Antig- onid dynasty) is therefore easily explainable. This era, together with the Attic weight-system of the coins themselves, comes to an end when De- metrius’ Phoenician admiral, goes over with his fleets to Ptolemy. The acquisition of Sidon and Tyre by the latter is, of course, the immediate con- sequence of this defection. The date for this event has already been con- jectured by Tarn 2 to have been 287 or 286 B. C. This date is largely con- firmed by our latest didrachm which is dated 37, or between Nov. 288 and Nov. 287. In this year, or the following, Ptolemy secured Tyre, and commenced the issue (Plate III, 9, 10) of his tetradrachms of Egypt o- Phoenician weights. One of the outstanding features of the new arrange- ment is that by it we no longer have an anomalous mixture of styles and fabric. In this regard our didrachms are the exact counterpart of the Tyrian Alexanders. We find the same increasingly poor workmanship, the same faulty striking and frequent cracking of the dies, the same hard, dry technique of the cutting. We also have for the two series the same interchange of die positions, now f, now |, 3 with once in a while eccentric positions. On the other hand, the die positions of the succeeding Ptolemaic issues is invariably t 4 . As a result of the foregoing study, does it not now seem fairly certain that the Tyrian mint was not in active operation between the years 332 and 307 B. C. ? By this time, however, the city itself had greatly recovered from the terrible blow dealt, it by Alexander. Its fortifications had been re- peatedly strengthened by both Ptolemy and Antigonus, so that Tyre had now become the strongest place on the entire Phoenician coast. It was but natural that Antigonus should have come to recognize in it a most valuable bulwark against Lagid aggression, as well as a most convenient base for his own contemplated operations against the kingdom on the Nile. For it is interesting to observe that both the evidence of finds and the dates borne by some of the coins themselves would seem to point to the year 307-306 B. C. as the date at which the Tyrian mint was re-opened. This fact may indeed be significant. For was it not in 307 B. C. that Antig- onus commenced his plans for the attack upon Egypt? Towards the end 1 Among others, Haussoulier, Etudes sur Vhistoire de Milet et du Didymeion, p. 18. 2 Loc. cit., p. 104 ff. and notes. 3 This position for the Tyrian didrachms, see B. M. C. Phoenicia, no. 42. 4 At least is this true of the numerous specimens in American collections which have been inspected by the writer. Tyrus Rediviva 23 of that year orders had been sent to Demetrius in Greece to join his father in Syria. In the early spring of 306 he arrived with his fleet, defeated Ptolemy in the great sea fight off Salamis, and secured Cyprus as the first step in the plan. The remainder of summer was taken up in completing preparations, and with the autumn the advance against Egypt by sea and land was begun. Whatever may have been the ultimate outcome of the expedition, the fact remains that, the great fortress of Tyre was the most obvious base for any contemplated operations against Ptolemy, as it was the most logical center of defense in case of disaster. In Tyre, then, Antigonus probably concentrated all necessary supplies. As a strategic and commercial center of such vast importance, small wonder that he should also have re-established here an active mint to meet the pressing needs of both war and trade. The neighboring mints of Sidon and Ake were either actually abolished or merely quickly eclipsed. Apparently, to bind still further the new Tyre to his interests, Antigonus also granted the city the coveted privilege of striking a series of smaller denominations bearing purely local types, reminiscent of the city’s former greatness and symbolic of her present revival. Both series were continued without in- terruption until the city finally fell to Ptolemy about 286-285 B. C. The latter, naturally, immediately abolished all issues based on the Attic weight system and substituted a coinage conforming in both types and weight with that of the remainder of his Empire. Tyrus Rediviva Plate I SERIES I Tyrus Rediviva Plate II SERIES II Tyrus Rediviva Plate 11! SERIES III. 1—7 //< / GETTY CENTER LIBRARY MAIN CJ 599 T19 N97 1919 BKS c - 1 Newell, Edward Theod TNe Alexandrine coinage of Sinope / 3 3125 00251 4574