A Revised Chronology for the

Coinage of Ptolemy I
1
CATHARINE C. LORBER
PTOLEMY, son of Lagus, employed a variety of coin types and several different
weight standards over the course of his long career as satrap and then as king.
The first great student of his coinage, J.N. Svoronos, believed that the Attic
standard remained in use until 305 BC, when the weights of both gold staters
and silver tetradrachms were reduced to provide a new coinage for Ptolemys
reign as king. Between 1960 and 1980 scholars examined the precious metal
coinage of Ptolemys satrapy and early kingship, and reached a consensus that
rejected Svoronos view. The main outlines of this consensus have scarcely been
questioned in the last quarter century. But when the present author attempted to
situate Ptolemys early bronze coinage within the existing chronological
framework, she encountered a contradiction that could be resolved only by
lowering the accepted date for Ptolemys first reduction of his weight standard.
That discovery triggered a review of the entire consensus chronology.
I. THE CONSENSUS CHRONOLOGY
In a study published in 1967, O.H. Zervos arranged Ptolemys early, Attic-
weight tetradrachms into annual issues dated from c.326 to c.310 BC.
2
Zervos
concluded that from Issue V through Issue XI, tetradrachms with standard
Alexander types were accompanied by a second series of tetradrachms featuring
a new obverse type, the head of the deified Alexander in an elephant headdress.
Issue XII (c.315) was transitional, retaining the Zeus reverse of the earlier
coinage, but introducing a redesigned Alexander head with a scaly aegis. In
addition, Ptolemys personal emblem, an eagle perched on a thunderbolt,
appeared as an adjunct symbol on the reverse. (Both of these would remain
regular features of the tetradrachm until the Alexander head was replaced by
Ptolemys portrait on his final royal currency.) Issues XIIIXVII bear a new
reverse type, a figure of Athena Alkidemos advancing right. Zervos ending date
of c.310 coincided with the date previously proposed for Ptolemys first
reduction of his weight standard.
1
The author is grateful to Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert for reading and commenting on an earlier
version of the manuscript. The conclusions offered here (and any errors) are her own.
2
O.H. Zervos, The early tetradrachms of Ptolemy I, ANSMN 13 (1967), pp. 116.
CATHARINE C. LORBER 46
Ptolemys second coinage of Alexander/Athena tetradrachms was struck at a
weight of about 15.70 g. In 1954 B. Emmons demonstrated that this weight
reduction was effected by trimming about 1.5 g of silver from tetradrachms of
Attic weight and then overstriking them, a process that allowed the Crown to
mint nine tetradrachms from the silver formerly required for eight.
3
Emmons
followed Svoronos in dating this reform c.305, but other scholars, notably A.B.
Brett and G.K. Jenkins, advocated a date of c.312 or 310.
4
Jenkins analysis was
especially influential. He divided the reduced-weight tetradrachms into seven
groups, groups af without corresponding gold and group g with control-linked
gold staters of the Ptolemy/elephant quadriga type. Jenkins pointed out the
chronological significance of the Chiliomodi hoard (IGCH 85), which contained
21 examples of groups ad.
5
This hoard was deposited at the end of the
Ptolemaic occupation of Corinth, in 306 according to O.E. Ravel (followed by
Jenkins and the editors of IGCH).
6
Jenkins thus reasoned that groups ad must
have been produced before 306, excluding Svoronos date of c.305 for the
reduction of the weight standard. The reintroduction of gold coinage provided
another chronological fixed point. Jenkins regarded 305 as the only possible
starting date for the staters issued in the name of King Ptolemy and bearing his
diademed portrait on the obverse.
7
Jenkins allowed half a decade (c.310305)
for production of the reduced-weight tetradrachms without corresponding gold,
while demurring that they may have begun as early as 312, and another half
decade (c.305300) for the gold staters and their accompanying tetradrachms.
8
O. Mrkholm later challenged the date of the Chiliomodi hoard, pointing out
that the ancient authors do not describe the end of the Ptolemaic occupation of
Corinth.
9
The Ptolemaic garrison at Sicyon surrendered to Demetrius
Poliorcetes in 303, after which Demetrius proceeded to Corinth, which was held
at the time by Prepelaus, a general of Cassander.
10
Mrkholm suggested that the
Ptolemaic occupation of Corinth could have lasted until 305 or even 304 and
3
B. Emmons, Overstruck coinage of Ptolemy I, ANSMN 6 (1954), pp. 6984.
4
Emmons, Overstruck coinage, pp. 6970; A.B. Brett, The aphlaston, symbol of naval victory
or supremacy on Greek and Roman coins, Transactions of the International Numismatic Congress,
London, 1936 (London, 1938), pp. 2332, especially p. 26; G.K. Jenkins, An early Ptolemaic hoard
from Phacous, ANSMN 9 (1960), pp. 1737, see especially pp. 325.
5
Jenkins, Phacous, pp. 323.
6
O.E. Ravel, Corinthian hoard from Chiliomodi, Transactions of the International Numismatic
Congress. London, 1936 (London, 1938), pp. 98108; Jenkins, Phacous, pp. 323. Zervos, The
Delta hoard of Ptolemaic Alexanders, 1986, ANSMN 21 (1976), p. 58, proposed a different
interpretation of the Chiliomodi hoard, namely that it was formed after a ban on Attic-weight silver
promulgated in Egypt in 305. It is unclear why a Ptolemaic policy designed to create a closed
currency market in Egypt should have affected hoard formation in the Peloponnesus. Jenkins view
of the hoard is the more persuasive.
7
Jenkins, Phacous, p. 33.
8
Jenkins, Phacous, pp. 345.
9
O. Mrkholm, Cyrene and Ptolemy I: Some numismatic comments, Chiron 10 (1980), p. 156.
10
Diod. 20.102.13, 20.103.1.
A REVISED CHRONOLOGY OF THE COINS OF PTOLEMY I 47
proposed redating the Chiliomodi hoard to c.304.
11
He submitted that Jenkins
groups e and f (reduced-weight tetradrachms without corresponding gold, not
represented in Chiliomodi) might be dated c.305303, while the tetradrachms
with corresponding gold (group g) should be dated c.303298/7.
12
His new
terminal date for group g was based on the production of a few
Ptolemy/elephant quadriga gold staters at Cyrene, which was in revolt against
Ptolemy c.305c.300.
13
When it comes to the introduction of Ptolemys standardized royal coinage,
the consensus breaks down. Jenkins assumed that his group g was immediately
followed (c.300) by a major overhaul of the currency, which introduced royal
portrait/eagle types for both gold and silver, reduced the weight of the
tetradrachm to c.14.2 g, and replaced the gold stater with a heavier
denomination, the trichryson or triple stater.
14
Adhering to the theory of E.S.G.
Robinson that the process of weight reduction occurred in a series of successive
small steps, Mrkholm proposed an intervening period (c.298295/0) when
only Ptolemy/eagle tetradrachms of c.14.9 g were minted; after this phase the
weight of the tetradrachm was finally reduced to c.14.2 g and new
denominations were introduced in gold, silver, and bronze.
15
A. Davesne cited
control links between the tetradrachms of c.14.9 and c.14.2 g and argued that
they were too numerous and systematic to recur in succeeding periods, so that
tetradrachms on these two different weight standards must have been
contemporary.
16
Based on a theory of annual emissions exhibiting regular
weight loss through circulation, he arrived at a date of c.295/4 for the beginning
of the reformed coinage with Ptolemy/eagle types.
17
II. REVISED CHRONOLOGY OF THE ATTIC-WEIGHT COINAGE
There are several reasons to suspect that the consensus chronology for
Ptolemys Attic-weight tetradrachms may be too high.
11
Mrkholm, Cyrene and Ptolemy I, p. 156; id., Early Hellenistic Coinage from the Accession of
Alexander to the Peace of Apamea (336188 B.C.) (Cambridge, 1991), p. 65.
12
Mrkholm, Cyrene and Ptolemy I, p. 156.
13
Mrkholm, Cyrene and Ptolemy I, pp. 154 and 155f.
14
G.K. Jenkins, The monetary systems in the early Hellenistic time with special regard to the
economic policy of the Ptolemaic kings, in A. Kindler (ed.), The Patterns of Monetary Development
in Phoenicia and Palestine in Antiquity, Proceedings, International Numismatic convention,
Jerusalem, 2731 December 1963 (Tel Aviv/Jerusalem, 1967), p. 62. The term trichryson is attested
by P. Zen. Cair. 59022, ll. 1617.
15
E.S.G. Robinson, The coin standards of Ptolemy I, in M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and
Economic History of the Hellenistic World (Oxford, 1941), vol. 3, pp. 16359; Mrkholm, Cyrene
and Ptolemy I, p. 158 (where the dates are c.298290); id., Early Hellenistic Coinage, p. 66 (where
the dates c.298295 are implied).
16
A. Davesne and G. Le Rider, Le Trsor de Meydancikkale (Cilicie Trache, 1980), Glnar II
(Paris, 1989), pp. 2712.
17
Davesne, Meydancikkale, pp. 2734.
CATHARINE C. LORBER 48
First, Zervos followed E.T. Newell in dating the earliest Alexander-type
coinage of Egypt c.326.
18
Newell suggested this date because he believed that
the depiction of Zeus with his legs crossed was an innovation of Alexandria,
promptly imitated at Sidon where the new type first appeared on tetradrachms
dated 325/4. But G. Le Rider recently argued that the influence was more likely
to have flowed in the opposite direction, because tetradrachms from Phoenicia,
and especially from Sidon, entered Egypt in large numbers, whereas relatively
few Egyptian tetradrachms appear to have circulated outside the country. If
Sidonian tetradrachms were the prototypes, the first Egyptian Alexanders were
struck no earlier than 325/4.
19
Second, the Demanhur hoard (IGCH 1664) contained examples of Zervos
Issues II through VI, but no later issues. It is clear that Zervos Issue VI must
have been placed in circulation very shortly before the hoards closure. Yet
Zervos dated his Issue VI to 321, though Newell estimated the closure of
Demanhur at 318 or 317 on the very sound basis that the latest dated coins of
Sidon and Ake were of 319/18 and 318/17 respectively.
20
If we accept Zervos
hypothesis of annual emissions in Egypt, the evidence of the Demanhur hoard
suggests that all of his dates should be lowered by three or four years. (The
Appendix, examining the consequences for specific Ptolemaic issues, shows
that the correct figure is three years.) This downdating extends the assumed
annual issues of Attic-weight Palladion tetradrachms to c.307.
21
Finally, Zervos omitted two issues of Attic-weight Palladion tetradrachms,
Svoronos 39 and 40. Based on the number of surviving examples, these appear
to have been small and insignificant emissions.
22
But the same is true of Zervos
two final issues, Issues XVI and XVII.
23
The apparently small size of all four
emissions probably reflects a low survival rate, due to the fact that these
emissions were disproportionately affected by the recoining effort described by
Emmons. If Svoronos 39 and 40 are assumed to be annual issues, the Attic
standard could have remained in use as late as c.305, just as proposed by
Svoronos and Emmons. Of course, the hypothesis of annual emissions, though
plausible, still remains an unproved supposition, but we shall see below that
there is independent evidence supporting a date around 305 for the introduction
of the reduced weight standard.
18
E.T. Newell, Alexander Hoards II: Demanhur, 1905 (New York, 1923), p. 64.
19
G. Le Rider, Clomne de Naucratis, BCH 121 (1997), pp. 878.
20
Newell, Demanhur, 3768 and 39725.
21
The term Palladion tetradrachms was employed by Zervos in Delta hoard, pp. 40 and passim.
It is gratefully adopted here to avoid the more specific but unwieldy terms Attic-weight
Alexander/Athena tetradrachms and reduced-weight Alexander/Athena tetradrachms.
22
Svoronos 39 lists 2 specimens, to which can be added Leu 22, 89 May 1979, lot 173; Svoronos
40 lists 1 specimen.
23
Zervos cited 3 specimens of his Issue XVI; Zervos Issue XVII is Svoronos 37, where 3
specimens are listed.
A REVISED CHRONOLOGY OF THE COINS OF PTOLEMY I 49
III. EARLY BRONZE COINAGE IN THE NAME OF PTOLEMY
None of the modern scholarship treating the chronology of Ptolemys precious
metal coinage took note of his early bronze issues. As a result we have
overlooked connections, already published by Svoronos, that provide critical
evidence for dating the reduced-weight Palladion tetradrachms.
The earliest bronze coins to bear Ptolemys name are about 15 mm in
diameter, with the obverse type horned head of Alexander with long hair,
wearing a mitre, and the reverse type eagle with spread wings standing left on
thunderbolt. These coins were issued in three series, two of which bear military
symbols as series markers. The Helmet Series features a Corinthian helmet
symbol in left field with a second control above, and a legend naming King
Ptolemy.
24
The beginning of the Helmet Series bronzes can thus be dated with
certainty after Ptolemys assumption of the diadem in late 305 or early 304.
25
The Aphlaston Series is marked by an aphlaston symbol, sometimes with a
second symbol or control letters below. The Plain Series has no identifying
symbol but bears letter or monogram controls that link it convincingly to the
Ptolemy/elephant quadriga gold staters, issued in the name of King Ptolemy,
and/or to their associated Palladion tetradrachms, still issued in the name of
Alexander (see Table 1). Both the Aphlaston Series and the Plain Series bronzes
bear legends naming Ptolemy, but without his royal title.
TABLE 1.
Bronze coinage after 305/4, with control links
Helmet Series
tetradrachms
Helmet Series Aphlaston Series

Plain Series Gold staters

AAEEANAPOY HTOAEMAIOY
BAZIAEOZ
HTOAEMAIOY HTOAEMAIOY HTOAEMAIOY
BAZIAEOZ
k//Helmet Aphlaston/Helmet
Helmet/t t/Helmet
Aphlaston
Helmet// //Helmet
Aphlaston/z z
Helmet/! !/Helmet / /

|/Helmet
./
Grapes/Helmet
J/
24
Svoronos 163, 167, 170A, 171, and 173.
25
The ancient historiographers place Ptolemys elevation in the aftermath of the battle of Salamis,
thus in 306: see App. Syr. 54, Diod. 20.53.3, and Plut. Demetr. 18.2. But the date 305/4 is attested by
the Marmor Parium (FGrHist 239 F B 23), and various Egyptian documents place the beginning of
Ptolemys reign in late 305 or early 304, e.g., P. dem. Louvre 2427, 2440 (6 January 304); Canon.
Ptol. at Ptolemaou Lgou (7 November 3056 November 304). A.E. Samuel, Ptolemaic
Chronology (Munich, 1965) pp. 411, narrowed the range to 7 November 3051 February 304 but
argued that the actual date was 7 November 305, equivalent to 1 Thoth, New Years Day of the
Egyptian calendar. For an updated list of references treating the evidence for the date when Ptolemy
assumed the royal title, see W. Hu, gypten in hellenistischer Zeit 33230 v.Chr. (Munich, 2001), p.
191 n. 747.
CATHARINE C. LORBER 50
Helmet Series
tetradrachms
Helmet Series Aphlaston Series

Plain Series Gold staters

/


7


!/


/


(tetradrachm)


/

! !P


!


/
Aphlaston/
!


+ 7

*

*
Occurs both without royal title (Svoronos 136) and with it (Malter II, 2324
February 1978, lot 5; ANS 1944.100.75794)
The three bronze series were not strictly contemporary. While the Plain Series
bronzes are control linked to the Ptolemy/elephant quadriga gold staters and
thus to Jenkins group g, three of six known varieties of Helmet Series bronzes
share their controls with reduced-weight Palladion tetradrachms without
corresponding gold.
Tetradrachms Jenkins group Bronzes
Helmet above t (Sv. 170)
Group d
t above helmet (Sv. 170A)
Helmet above / (Sv. 162)
Group e
/ above helmet (Sv. 163)
Helmet above !
Group e
! above helmet (Sv. 167)
The last of these silver issues is not well attested. Jenkins listed it among the
varieties of his group e, but he cited Svoronos 167, the corresponding bronze.
26
Nevertheless, the other two links establish an absolute date after Ptolemys
assumption of the kingship (late 305/early 304) for the tetradrachms involved
and, by extension, for other tetradrachms of Jenkins groups d and e. These links
confirm the low chronology proposed by Mrkholm for groups e and f.
Arguably, they also exert downward pressure on groups ad.
26
Jenkins, Phacous, p. 34.
A REVISED CHRONOLOGY OF THE COINS OF PTOLEMY I 51
IV. REDUCED-WEIGHT PALLADION TETRADRACHMS WITHOUT
CORRESPONDING GOLD: THE PLAIN AND HELMET SERIES
The Delta hoard of 1896 (IGCH 1671) consisted exclusively of reduced-
weight Palladion tetradrachms without corresponding gold (Jenkins groups af).
In his reconstruction and penetrating study of the Delta hoard, Zervos divided
these tetradrachms into five series, identified the hands of three artists (A, B,
and C), and further identified three styles for each artist (1, 2, and 3).
27
He
concluded that the five series were minted concurrently rather than sequentially,
an important finding that collapses the time frame necessary for production of
Jenkins groups af. Zervos wrote that the correlation of the five series cannot
be known very precisely.
28
Despite his warning we shall try to develop a more
nuanced picture of this coinage, drawing in part on varieties that were not
represented in Zervos material.
Table 2 lists the known emissions of reduced-weight Palladion tetradrachms
without corresponding gold. The relative size of the various emissions is
approximately indicated by figures in brackets, the first giving the number of
specimens listed by Svoronos and the second the number in Zervos Delta hoard
reconstruction. To the extent possible, Jenkins group is cited, followed by
Zervos artist and style designations. Artists and/or styles not assigned by
Zervos, but evidenced by specimens published elsewhere, are noted
parenthetically. The sequence of issues within each series reflects the successive
styles of Zervos three artists, with one exception, explained below. The table is
transected by a bar representing the closure of the Chiliomodi hoard. The
distribution of issues above and below this bar is to some slight degree
conjectural. It depends on the assumption that issues of moderate size, with a
dozen or more examples recorded by Svoronos, should have been represented in
Chiliomodi if struck before its closure. Smaller issues have been placed
according to control linkage and/or artist and style.
27
Zervos, Delta hoard, pp. 467.
28
Zervos, Delta hoard, p. 47.
CATHARINE C. LORBER 52
TABLE 2.
Alexander/Athena tetradrachms of reduced weight
Plain series Helmet series
( +
?
Svor. 110 [18]
Delta hoard [3
*
]
Jenkins: a
Zervos: A1, A2
*
in Chiliomodi


+
Svor. 109 [1]

Jenkins: b
? Aphlaston
Svor. 154 [8]
Delta hoard [1
*
]
Jenkins: a
Zervos A1
*
+/Bee
Svor. 153 [14]

Delta hoard [2]

Jenkins: b
Zervos: C1
in Chiliomodi
7?
Svor.
Kuft hoard, Nash, NC
1974, p. 25 [1]
(?z
Svor. 145 [9]
Delta hoad [3
*
]
Jenkins: a
Zervos: B1
(also Artist/style B2)
in Chiliomodi
+/Helmet<
Svor. 161 [4]

Delta hoard [1]

Jenkins: b
Zervos: C1
7 / ?
Svor. 146 [41]
Delta hoard [12]
Jenkins: a
Zervos: A1
in Chiliomodi
Helmet?
Svor. 168 [57]
Delta hoard [15
*
]
Jenkins: a
Zervos: A2
(second artist
**
)
in Chiliomodi
overstruck
(/2
Svor. 140 [1]
Jenkins: a
+/Cornucopia<
Svor. 159 [2]
Delta hoard [1]
Jenkins: b
Zervos: C1
*Helmet/?
Svor. 175 [1]

Commerce

Jenkins: e?
(Artist/style B2)
(!
Svor. 144 [1]
+/Bee<
Svor. 158 [2]
(Artist/style C1)
Helmet/t
Svor. 170 [41]
Delta hoard [10]
Jenkins: d
Zervos: A2
in Chiliomodi
overstruck

Svor. 107 [26]

Delta hoard [9
*
]
Jenkins: c
Zervos: A2/B, B2,
B3
in Chiliomodi
z(
Svor. 143 [7]
Delta hoard [2]
Jenkins: a
Zervos: B3
+/Dolphin<
Svor.
Delta hoard [1]
Jenkins: b
*Helmet/t
Svor. 174 [17]
Delta hoard [4]
Jenkins: d
Zervos: A2
overstruck
Helmet/
Svor. 166 [7]
Delta hoard [2]
Jenkins: c
Zervos: A2/A,
B2/A
(z
Svor. 141 [3]
Delta hoard [8]
(Artist/style B2,
with z
***
)
Svor. 142 [24]
Delta hoard [9
*
]
Jenkins: a
Zervos: B2, B3
in Chiliomodi
+<
Svor. 139 [64]
Delta hoard [13]
Jenkins: b
Zervos: C1, C2, C3
(also Artist/style B2)
in Chiliomodi
Chiliomodi hoard closes 304 or early 303 B.C.





A REVISED CHRONOLOGY OF THE COINS OF PTOLEMY I 53
Plain series Helmet series
( +
Helmet/!
Svor. 165 [12]
Delta hoard [4]
Jenkins: e
Zervos: A2
overstruck

Helmet/!
Svor.
Jenkins: e

!
Svor. 108 [14]
Delta hoard [8
*
]
Jenkins: e
Zervos: A2
overstruck
Helmet//
Svor. 162 [62]
Delta hoard [27]
Jenkins: e
Zervos: A2, A3
overstruck

z!
Svor. 137 [3]
Delta hoard [1]
Jenkins: e
Zervos: A3
Helmet/t
Svor. 164 [37]
Delta hoard [13]
Jenkins: e
Zervos: A2, A3
overstruck

zHelmet
Svor. 180 [1]
(Artist/style A3)

zHelmet/
Svor. 179 [6]
Delta hoard [1]
Jenkins: f
Zervos: A3

Helmet/z
Svor. 169 [26]
Delta hoard [11]
Jenkins: f
Zervos: A3
overstruck

UHelmet/z
Svor. 177 [10]
Delta hoad [3
*
]
Jenkins: f
Zervos: A3
overstruck

Pellet
Helmet/z
Svor. 176 [5]
(Artist/style A3)

<Helmet/z
Svor. 178 [1]
Delta hoard [1
*
]
Zervos A3
*

Obverse dies link.

*
Includes specimens cited by Zervos, ANSMN 23, p. 50 note a.
**
See Svoronos pl. vi, 7.

Obverse die link.

***
See Svoronos pl. A,21.
CATHARINE C. LORBER 54
Zervos considered the Plain Series and the Helmet Series to comprise the
large regular issue of Alexandria.
29
He attributed all of their dies to the
mints principal engraver, A, on the assumption that the tiny z concealed among
the scales of the aegis was his signature. An artist attribution made solely on the
basis of this signature should be treated with scepticism. The reverse dies of A
show great consistency throughout both the Plain Series and the Helmet Series,
but there is a sharp contrast between obverse dies of style 1 and style 2. Zervos
reported both styles in the Plain Series issue bearing the monogram ?.
30
This
monogram was identified by Brett as the point of transition from the Attic to the
reduced standard; Jenkins concurred, noting the stylistic similarity between
Attic- and reduced-weight tetradrachms marked with ? (Svoronos 37 and
110); and Zervos associated both in his annual Issue XVII.
31
But the notion of
artistic evolution within a single year is scarcely tenable.
32
The obverse dies
designated A1 and A2 must instead represent the work of two different
engravers.
The Helmet Series also begins with issues bearing the monogram ?. The
control link to the early issues of the Plain Series suggests that the two series
commenced around the same time. A nearly simultaneous inauguration of both
series is supported by the fact that artist A2, after cutting dies for the first issue
of the Plain Series, became the principal obverse die engraver of the Helmet
Series, while A1 cut the obverse dies for the other early issues of the Plain
Series.
33
The Plain Series shrinks in importance next to the Helmet Series, which
comprised many more emissions, a number of them quite large. Yet only two
issues of the Helmet Series were represented in the Chiliomodi hoard. The
second of these (Svoronos 170) bears the controls helmet and t which, as we
have seen, also appear together on Helmet Series bronzes with a legend naming
Ptolemy as king (Svoronos 170A). This control link dates the helmet /t
tetradrachms after Ptolemys coronation in late 305/early 304. This in turn fixes
the deposit of Chiliomodi in 304 (or perhaps even early 303, to allow time for
the coins to travel to Greece). Some very large issues of the Helmet Series
(Svoronos 162 and 164) were not represented in the Chiliomodi hoard, making
it a virtual certainty that they were minted after its closure. Both Jenkins and
Zervos stylistic classifications place many emissions after Svoronos 162 and
29
Zervos, Delta hoard, p. 46.
30
O.H. Zervos, A Ptolemaic hoard of Athena tetradrachms at ANS, ANSMN 23 (1978), p. 50
note a.
31
Brett, Aphlaston, TINC, p. 26; Jenkins, Phacous, p. 33; Zervos, Early tetradrachms of
Ptolemy I, pp. 7 and 15; id., Delta hoard, p. 48.
32
I owe this observation to Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert.
33
A third artist appears to have cut at least one obverse die for the first issue of the Helmet Series,
see Svoronos, pl. vi, 7.
A REVISED CHRONOLOGY OF THE COINS OF PTOLEMY I 55
164, meaning that the greater portion of the Helmet Series was struck after
c.304.
The late date for the helmet/t tetradrachms also exerts downward pressure
on the only large issue that preceded it, marked helmet/? (Svoronos 168). It is
hard to see how this emission could be dated earlier than 305. If, as seems
likely, the Plain Series commenced simultaneously, the four early issues bearing
the monogram ? must also be dated c.305.
V. REDUCED-WEIGHT PALLADION TETRADRACHMS WITHOUT
CORRESPONDING GOLD: THE (, , AND + SERIES
Zervos characterized the ( Series as part of a smaller special issue of
Alexandria, because all of the examples in the Delta hoard were the work of a
new engraver, B. The hallmarks of his obverse style are a peculiar arching fold
in the elephant headdress, in a position occupied by the lions ear on coins of
Alexander type; a scalloped arc outlining the ear of the deified Alexander, a
form that represents the lions lip on coins of Alexander type; and two snakes
rising prominently from the aegis, approximating the outline of a lyre, as on the
early type of Alexander head employed with the Zeus reverse in Zervos Issues
VXI; in addition, the outline of the aegis is often dotted. The first two of these
distinctive details derive from silver coinage of Alexander type, from which we
can deduce that artist B was unacquainted with the current iconography of
Ptolemaic coins. Probably he had been cutting dies for Alexander-type
tetradrachms somewhere outside Egypt before being recruited for the (
Series.
The control ? links the first issue of the ( Series with early issues of the
Plain and Helmet Series, presumably indicating that the ( Series began around
the same time. Svoronos 142, with dies by artist B in his latest style, was
represented in the Chiliomodi hoard. Evidently the ( Series terminated shortly
before the Ptolemaic evacuation of Corinth (or shortly after, if Svoronos 143
was post-Chiliomodi).
Zervos characterized the very brief Series (Jenkins group c) as another
part of Alexandrias special issue because it combines the hands of two artists,
the main engraver of the reduced-weight coinage, A, and the engraver of the (
Series, B. The collaborative character of the Series is further underlined by
the appearance of the helmet symbol on one of its issues (Svoronos 166). The
styles of artist B represented in the Series suggest it was roughly
contemporary with the end of the ( Series; it is even possible that the
Series was a continuation of the ( Series, though its separate control seems to
suggest otherwise.
Zervos regarded the + Series (Jenkins group b) as the third part of
Alexandrias special issue. He attributed all of its dies to yet another engraver,
C. The + Series is further distinguished from other series of reduced-weight
CATHARINE C. LORBER 56
Palladion tetradrachms by the use of variable symbols as secondary controls.
34
Zervos sequence of styles establishes that the + Series was complete, or
essentially so, by the deposit of the Chiliomodi hoard. The present author
disagrees, however, with Zervos attribution of the entire + Series to artist C.
The obverse die illustrated in ANSMN 21, pl. viii, 6 appears to be the work of
artist B. It displays three of his hallmarks, the faux ear, the lions lip
transplanted to the elephants mouth, and the dotted edge of the aegis. Many
other published examples of this largest emission of the + Series (Svoronos
139) were struck from obverse dies of artist B.
35
In fact, it appears that the
majority of the obverse dies for this emission were cut by artist B, with artist C
contributing only a minority. Yet more remarkable, two dies of artist B show a
tiny z concealed in the scales of the aegis.
36
This letter has been supposed to be
an artists signature, but its presence on dies of artist B refutes that belief and
indicates that the letter must have had a control function of some sort.
37
Our
analysis of Zervos special issues yields a group of striking coincidences. Each
of the three series came to an end around the time Ptolemy was forced to
surrender Corinth, in 304 or early 303. Each either concluded with an
exceptionally large issue, or involved an exceptionally large issue near its end;
and two of the three required the services of a second die engraver for their final
issues.
VI. CHRONOLOGY AND PROCESS OF PTOLEMYS
FIRST METROLOGICAL REFORM
Our review of the chronology of Ptolemys Attic-weight coinage found that it
probably ended c.305. Control links between early reduced-weight Palladion
tetradrachms and bronzes issued in the name of King Ptolemy imply a date
c.305 for introduction of the reduced weight standard. Almost certainly, then,
the reduction of the standard occurred c.305. The many issues of Helmet Series
tetradrachms produced after the closure of the Chiliomodi hoard imply that the
34
It is true that several symbolsaphlaston, helmet, and starappear on certain issues of other
series, but their function is not clear. The first two may be military symbols rather than controls.
35
Mrkholm, Early Hellenistic Coinage, pl. iv, 93; H.-C. Noeske, Die Mnzen der Ptolemer:
Historisches Museum Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurt, 2000), no. 3 (with z); Naville 1 (1921, Pozzi),
3188-90 (last with z); SNG Manchester 1410. The authors photo file yielded three additional
obverse dies of artist B.
36
Svoronos 141, an issue of the ( Series, is described as having z on the aegis. The illustrated
example, Svoronos pl. A, 21, features an obverse die by artist B but the z is not clearly visible.
Svoronos description is now vindicated by these other dies of artist B with z on the aegis.
37
See also R.H.J. Ashton, Classical Review 47 (1997), p. 226 (review of Blanche Brown, Royal
Portraits): On pp. 28-9 B. follows current orthodoxy in regarding the tiny letter delta found on
some early obverse dies of Ptolemy I as the signature of an engraver of rare versatility. However, in
the latest arrangement of the coinages of Ptolemy I and II (A. Davesne/G. Le Rider, Le trsor de
Meydancikkale, Paris 1989, esp. p. 178) the letter also appears on dies used in the 250s; the spread
of 60 or so years which this entails seems too long for the professional life of a single artist.
A REVISED CHRONOLOGY OF THE COINS OF PTOLEMY I 57
reintroduction of gold coinage was delayed until some time after 303. The
consensus chronology estimated a period of five to seven years for the
production of reduced-weight tetradrachms without corresponding gold.
38
It
may now be possible to establish the terminal date of this phase with more
precision.
The metrological reform was accompanied by administrative changes that
tend to obscure the chronology. The old pattern, in which most coins bore only
one monogrammatic or letter control, fit neatly with Zervos hypothesis of
annual magistracies for the Attic-weight coinage. The reduced-weight
tetradrachms, in contrast, often bear two or even three such controls.
Nevertheless, the Helmet Series, the main series of the Alexandria mint, seems
to retain the old pattern of a single signature on its early issues. On the
assumption of continuing annual magistracies at Alexandria, the issues can be
dated as follows:
? c.305 (Macedonian year 306/5)
t c.304 (Macedonian year 305/4)
! c.303 (Macedonian year 304/3)
/ c.302 or 301 (Macedonian year 303/2 or 302/1)
t c.302 or 301 (Macedonian year 303/2 or 302/1)
z c.300 (Macedonian year 301/300)
z c.299 (Macedonian year 300/299)
The control ! is omitted here because the issue is highly doubtful. The two
late issues of the Plain Series (Svoronos 108 and 137), marked with the control
!, may also represent an annual emission. Zervos stylistic designations
suggest that they were contemporary with middle issues of the Helmet Series;
possibly they were produced concurrently c.302 or 301, but if they interrupted
the Helmet Series (or even followed it?), they could extend this phase of mint
activity to c.298. The additional signatures associated with the letters z
anticipate the control system of the next phase of the coinage, comprising gold
staters and control-linked Palladion tetradrachms, which normally bear two or
three monograms and do not seem remotely amenable to an arrangement into
annual emissions.
A date around 305 for the introduction of the reduced weight standard accords
with the long-discarded chronology of Svoronos and Emmons. Emmons drew
attention to the near-destruction of the Ptolemaic fleet in the battle of Salamis in
306, to Ptolemys loss of his overseas revenues, to his offer of handsome bribes
to soldiers willing to defect from Antigonus in the winter of 306/5 (a talent for
38
Jenkins, Phacous, p. 35 (310305 or 312305); Zervos, Early tetradrachms of Ptolemy I, p. 7
(310305); id., Delta hoard, pp. 537 (312/10305/4); Mrkholm, Cyrene and Ptolemy I, pp.
1568 (310303).
CATHARINE C. LORBER 58
officers, two minae for common soldiers
39
), and to his aid to Rhodes during
Demetrius thirteen-month siege (305/4).
40
She concluded that the conjunction
of high expenses and low revenues caused a financial strain, indeed an
emergency, to which Ptolemy responded by reducing the weight of his
tetradrachms.
41
In the consensus chronology, the weight reduction was viewed as a first step
in creating Egypts famed closed economy. Other steps included a later ban on
the entry of foreign silver coinage and perhaps an official ban on the use of
Ptolemys old Attic-weight silver within Egypt. Jenkins pointed out that
Egyptian hoards contain no Attic-weight silver datable later than 305, but
subsequently suggested that the influx of foreign coin stopped c.300.
42
Given
that Ptolemys first weight reduction involved the recoining of Attic-weight
tetradrachms, and given that it was apparently motivated by a fiscal crisis, it
makes sense that he would have acted earlier rather than later to establish
mechanisms at the ports of entry to enforce the exchange of Attic-weight
tetradrachms for his new reduced-weight tetradrachms so as to capture the
former for recoining. It thus seems quite likely that import controls were
implemented c.305, just as the hoards imply, and that the weight reduction and
the ban on importing foreign currently were conceived together as parts of a
single policy.
43
Emmons believed that the reform of c.305 involved the recall of
all Attic-weight tetradrachms and their immediate reduction, restriking, and
reissue.
44
The evidence developed here, however, indicates that the recoining
process required several years to complete, suggesting that the Attic-weight
coinage may have been withdrawn gradually by bankers and money changers,
avoiding the trauma of a sudden recall. Jenkins and Zervos, though wrong on
the chronology, were probably right to suggest that Attic- and reduced-weight
tetradrachms circulated side-by-side for half a decade before the heavier
coinage was banned entirely.
45
It seems logical that the proliferation of series of reduced-weight tetradrachms
should reflect intense mint activity arising from the practical needs of currency
reform. Indeed, Zervos documented a surge in the output of tetradrachms and
cited the hiring of two extra die engravers as evidence of the work overload
during this period, though he attributed the heightened mint activity to a need
39
Diod. 20.75.1.
40
Emmons, Overstruck coinage, p. 80.
41
Emmons, Overstruck coinage, pp. 81, 83.
42
Jenkins, Phacous, pp. 312; id., Monetary systems, p. 59.
43
Simultaneous introduction of both measures risked creating an imbalance between the supply of
reduced-weight tetradrachms and the demand for the new currency by foreign merchants, but, as is
indicated by P. Cairo Zen. 59021, such problems of currency reform had still not been ironed out by
the twenty-eighth regnal year of Ptolemy II.
44
Emmons, Overstruck coinage, pp. 71, 778, 81, 83.
45
Jenkins, Phacous, pp. 367; Zervos, Delta hoard, pp. 525.
A REVISED CHRONOLOGY OF THE COINS OF PTOLEMY I 59
to compensate for the gold staters that were no longer being minted.
46
Close
examination of the five series of reduced-weight tetradrachms reveals surprising
nuances.
The relation of the Plain Series and the Helmet Series, both signed by the
magistrate ? in the first year of the reform, is unclear. Possibly the Helmet
Series succeeded the four early issues of the Plain Series in the course of that
year, in which case the helmet symbol may have been added simply to
distinguish the reduced-weight tetradrachms from the visually similar
tetradrachms of Attic weight. But none of the special series carries any such
obvious marker. Thus it may be that the Helmet Series commenced at the very
outset of the reform and was issued alongside the Plain Series, its helmet
symbol perhaps designating it as a specifically military coinage.
47
If this was the
case, the suspension of the Plain Series means that the Alexandria mint actually
reduced its output in 304, by eliminating one series from production.
In the first year of the reform the official ? also supervised the inception of a
third series of reduced-weight tetradrachms, the ( Series. Table 2 shows that
the ( Series and the + Series, each associated with one of the extra die
engravers, initially produced issues ranging in size from modest to exiguous.
Their meagre output is inconsistent with the supposition that extra anvils were
added at the Alexandria mint to process a high volume of coinage. Instead, the
three special series must represent the output of workshops operating apart
from the central mint, yet under its close supervision, and in reasonable
propinquity to one another. The supervision of the Alexandria mint is revealed
by the signatures of Alexandrian officials on coins of the minor workshops:
had already signed Attic-weight tetradrachms (Svonoros 40); z, whose
signature appears on many issues of the ( Series, was arguably the same
individual who signed Zervos Issues II, VI, XIII, and perhaps also Issue XII;
and + had supervised Zervos Issue IX before being given authority over the +
Series of reduced-weight tetradrachms. The propinquity of the minor workshops
to Alexandria and to one another is proved by the collaboration of artists from
different workshops when the activity of the minor workshops peaked.
The minor workshops were probably located outside Alexandria so as to
capture more efficiently the Attic-weight coinage dispersed throughout Egypt.
An obvious site for such a workshop would be the old Greek emporium of
46
Zervos, Delta hoard, pp. 567, with n. 33.
47
Emmons, Overstruck coinage, p. 71 n. 4 reported that visible overstrikes were concentrated in
the Helmet Series; indeed, her list of examples came almost exclusively from the Helmet Series, with
one from the Plain Series, and included almost every issue of the Helmet Series except the very
smallest, as is apparent in Table 2. This evidence of especially careless manufacture initially
suggested the idea of a mobile military mint, but the hypothesis hardly seems tenable in light of the
distribution of Helmet Series tetradrachms, which like other reduced-weight tetradrachms are found
almost exclusively in Egypt. The absence of reported overstrikes in the three minor series may
indicate that their workshops operated under less pressure and had the luxury of preparing their flans
more carefully.
CATHARINE C. LORBER 60
Naucratis. Other candidates include Memphis, Pelusium, or perhaps the Fayum;
but Upper Egypt is excluded by the fact that tetradrachms from all the minor
workshops found their way to Corinth within a very short time of their minting.
The activity of these workshops climaxed in 304, perhaps in connection with
Ptolemys extraordinary measures in support of Rhodes. All the minor
workshops closed very shortly thereafter, perhaps when Demetrius lifted his
siege of Rhodes.
The chronology proposed above for the Helmet Series implies that the revival
of gold coinage should be dated c.298, or perhaps even c.297. So late a date
undercuts the longstanding assumption that Ptolemy introduced his elephant
quadriga gold staters shortly after assuming the diadem, and it would seem to
deny a specific celebratory significance to the coinage itself or to its evocative
types. The inauguration of Ptolemys portrait tetradrachms probably cannot be
dated much later than 294, because Tyre produced a unique tetradrachm of this
type, control linked to the preceding coinage of Demetrius.
48
Newell proposed a
date of 287 for Tyres surrender to Ptolemy and for this tetradrachm issue, but
historians now generally accept that the surrender of Tyre followed Ptolemys
seizure of Cyprus in 295/4.
49
Between the termini 298/7 and 295/4, all Attic-
weight gold staters within Egypt must have been converted into Ptolemaic
elephant quadriga staters. The introduction of an entirely new currency system
c.294 meant that all coinage in silver and gold had to be recoined yet again. By
this time the process was well practiced: F. de Callata has recorded multiple
die links among the first ten emissions of the eagle tetradrachms and estimates
that their production may have required as little as two years.
50
48
E.T. Newell, Tyrus Rediviva (New York, 1923), pl. iii, 9.
49
Newells date was retained in the most recent study of the Tyrian coinage of this period, a
posthumous article by C.A. Hersh, Tyrus Rediviva reconsidered, AJN 10 (1998), pp. 4159. The
chronology seems to be supported by a hoard published in a companion article, C.A. Hersh, The
Phoenicia 1997 hoard of Alexander-type tetradrachms, AJN 10 (1998), pp. 3740. The hoard
contains a long run of Tyrian tetradrachms through the last issue in the name of Alexander and
includes the penultimate die of the series. But the Seleucid issues that close the hoard, which
reportedly showed little or no wear, were SC 42.4, of Carrhae, a mint whose chronology is quite
uncertain; SC 117.1c and 117.1d of Seleucia on the Tigris, now dated c.300; and SC 202.3, 202.5d,
202.8, and 204.1 of Ecbatana, the latest dated c.295. These coins do not justify Hershs burial date of
285280 and seem instead to place the hoards closure c.295, which would be consistent with a date
of 294 for the surrender of Tyre.
50
F. de Callata, Instauration par Ptolme Ster dune conomie montaire ferme, in O. Picard
and J.-Y. Empereur (eds), Lexception gyptienne: production et changes montaires en gypte
hellnistique et romaine, Colloque dAlexandrie, 1315 avril 2002. tudes Alexandrines
(Alexandria, forthcoming).
A REVISED CHRONOLOGY OF THE COINS OF PTOLEMY I 61
APPENDIX
Implications of the New Chronology for Selected Attic-Weight Emissions
If we accept Zervos hypothesis of annual issues, the chronological adjustment
implied by the Demanhur hoard yields new dates for the important milestones
of the Attic-weight coinage. The significance of these milestones may be altered
by their lower dates, but the historical context, regrettably, is not always clear.
The basic chronological framework of the Diadochic period is a matter of
scholarly dispute, owing to the imprecision of Diodorus dating system.
51
Zervos Issue I. The production of precious metal coinage in Egypt apparently
began c.323 rather than c.326. It is tempting to credit the initiative to Ptolemy,
who took up his satrapy in the latter half of 323. The small output recorded by
Zervos (seven tetradrachms from one obverse die)
52
may be consistent with
production commencing near the end of the Macedonian year. In any case, little
or no precious metal coinage can be attributed to Cleomenes of Naucratis, the
acting governor (or perhaps satrap) of Egypt under Alexander.
53
The date at which the Egyptian mint opened is relevant to the question of its
site. M.J. Price submitted that it was originally located at Memphis, which had
earlier served as the mint of Egypts imitative owls, and that minting
operations were later moved to Alexandria.
54
Le Rider defended the traditional
attibution to Alexandria, arguing that construction of the city was essentially
completed during the tenure of Cleomenes, that he probably had more to do in
Alexandria than in Memphis, and that it would have been unnecessary and
inconvenient to locate the mint away from Alexandria.
55
But if the coinage was
inaugurated by Ptolemy, his initial residence in Memphis would make it highly
likely that the mint was located there as well. According to the Satrap Stele, a
hieroglyphic monument dated 311, Ptolemy transferred the seat of his
government from Memphis to Alexandria before the Syrian campaign.
56
This
information is unfortunately ambiguous. Ptolemy annexed the Syro-Phoenician
province for the first time after the conference at Triparadeisus (dated 321 on
51
The traditional high chronology is still advocated, most notably, by A.B. Bosworth, Philip III
Arrhidaeus and the chronology of the Successors, Chiron 22 (1992), pp. 5581; and id., The Legacy
of Alexander (Oxford, 2002). Perhaps the most influential advocate of a lower chronology has been
R.M. Errington, From Babylon to Triparadeisos, JHS 90 (1970), pp. 4977, and Diodorus Siculus
and the chronology of the early Diadochi, 320311 B.C., Hermes 105 (1977), pp. 478504.
52
Zervos, Early tetradrachms of Ptolemy I, p. 11.
53
Arr. 3.5.4; Just. 13.4.11; Arist. Econ. 2.33a; Paus. 1.6.3; Dexippos FGrHist 100 F 8 2. Le Rider,
Clomne, pp. 725, discussed the contradictory evidence of the ancient sources and concluded
that Cleomenes, though the most powerful figure in Egypt from 331 to 323, was probably not
officially its satrap.
54
Price, Alexander, p. 496.
55
Le Rider, Clomne, pp. 889.
56
Satrap Stele l. 4 (K. Sethe, Hieroglyphische Urkunden der griechisch-rmischen Zeit (Leipzig,
19041916), 14, 1216).
CATHARINE C. LORBER 62
the so-called high chronology and to 320 on the low); the invasion itself is dated
either to 320 (mid-summer to the end of September) or to 319.
57
Ptolemy lost
the province to Antigonus in 315 and reoccupied it in 312/11.
58
Accordingly,
there are two possible occasions for the transfer of the capital from Memphis to
Alexandria, preceding either the first or the second Syrian campaign.
59
Zervos Issue V saw the introduction of a series of tetradrachms with a new
obverse type, the head of the deified Alexander in an elephant headdress. These
tetradrachms shared the Zeus reverse of the regular Alexandrine tetradrachms,
were initially issued alongside them, and probably ultimately replaced them. It
is tempting to connect the new iconography with Ptolemys coup in taking
possession of Alexanders remains.
60
Zervos date of issue (322) was perhaps
barely consistent with this interpretation, but only on the high chronology for
the Diadochic period. A reduction in the date of Issue V from 322 to c.319
(Macedonian year 320/19) is implied by the Demanhur hoard, even if Zervos
issues were not actually annual. This makes the introduction of the new coin
type clearly later than Ptolemys diversion of Alexanders funeral cortge, even
on the low chronology, which dates the pious kidnapping to summer or autumn
of 321.
61
The revised date for Issue V also allows other possible interpretations,
though they are not particularly persuasive or satisfying. Emmons advanced the
idea that the portrait of the deified Alexander might be associated with
Ptolemys first annexation of Syria and Phoenicia.
62
The new iconography
might also commemorate the transfer of the capital from Memphis to
Alexandria, assuming it had occurred before the first Syrian campaign.
Zervos Issue XIII introduced the Athena Alkidemos reverse type for
tetradrachms. These tetradrachms were accompanied by drachms and by other
silver fractions never previously struck by Ptolemy, specifically hemidrachms
and diobols, all with the Athena Alkidemos reverse type.
63
If Zervos issues
were truly annual, the new chronology would reduce the date of Issue XIII from
57
Diod. 18.43; App. Syr. 52; Marmor Parium FGrHist 239 B 12. On the Julian date, see P.V.
Wheatley, Ptolemy Soters annexation of Syria, 320 B.C., CQ 45 (1995), pp. 43340.
58
Conquest by Antigonus: Diod. 19.58. Second occupation: Diod. 19.8085. Ptolemys loss of the
province now appears to be securely dated to 315 by Aramaic ostraka: see P.V. Wheatley, The year
22 tetradrachms of Sidon and the date of the battle of Gaza, ZPE 144 (2003), p. 274 with n. 29.
59
Before the first Syrian campaign (320/19): P.M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, 1972),
vol. 1, p. 7, vol. 2, p. 12 n.28; W. Swinnen, Sur la politique religieuse de Ptolme Ier, in Les
syncrtismes dans les religions grecque et romaine (Paris, 1973), p. 116 n. 2 and p. 120. Before the
second Syrian campaign (313): CAH, vol. 7, part 1, p. 127 [Turner].
60
Among those suggesting a connection: Mrkholm, Early Hellenistic Coinage, p. 63; R.A.
Hazzard, Ptolemaic Coins: An Introduction for Collectors (Toronto, 1995), p. 72.
61
Errington, From Babylon to Triparadeisos, pp. 6465 (321); P. Green, Alexander to Actium:
the Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age (Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1993), p. 13 (late summer
321); G. Hlbl, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, English trans. by T. Saavedra (London/New
York, 2001), p. 15; Hu, gypten in hellenistischer Zeit, p. 109 (summer or autumn 321).
62
Emmons, Overstruck coinage of Ptolemy I, pp. 734.
63
Hemidrachm: Svoronos 35, pl. ii, 15. Diobol: H. Gitler and C. Lorber, Small silver coins of
Ptolemy I, Studies in Memory of Leo Mildenberg, INJ 14 (200002), no. 1, pl. 6.
A REVISED CHRONOLOGY OF THE COINS OF PTOLEMY I 63
314 to c.311 (Macedonian year 312/11), making this the first emission that
could be attributed to Alexandria with complete confidence. The previous years
coinage had also seen changes, including the redesign of Alexanders head and,
probably, the introduction of the first Alexander/eagle bronzes.
64
A thorough
overhaul of the coinage over the two years 313/12 and 312/11 may have been
undertaken in connection with the relocation of the capital and the mint; the
result, in any case, was a new national coinage that paid explicit tribute to
Alexander and to the Macedonian origin of Ptolemy and many of his Friends
(courtiers) and troops.
Zervos Issue XIII is also noteworthy for the exceptional coin legend
AAEEANAPEION HTOAEMAIOY which appears on some of its
tetradrachms.
65
Mrkholm argued that the word AAEEANAPEION probably
designated the mint city, and Price concurred, reasoning that the legend might
mark the opening of a mint at Alexandria.
66
This reading of the coin legend has
been rejected by many scholars.
67
The nearly parallel formulation
KYPANION HTOAEMAIO (Cyrenian coin of Ptolemy), which appears
on gold staters and hemistaters of Cyrene, suggests that
AAEEANAPEION HTOAEMAIOY should be translated as Ptolemys
Alexander-coin, with the adjective perhaps referring to the image of Alexander
on the obverse.
The appearance of Ptolemys name on coins struck during his satrapy is
consistent with the practice of Persian satraps, including some who served
under Alexander. However it is a form of self-promotion not attempted by the
other Successors. Ptolemy may (or may not) have been signaling aspirations to
kingship, but the swift disappearance of such legends suggests they were
perceived by their intended audience as unacceptably ambitious. In either case
this sort of propaganda would have been strangely maladroit in 314, after
Antigonus had deprived Ptolemy of his Syro-Phoenician province and meddled
in Ptolemaic Cyprus. The proposed new date of 312/11 puts the exploratory
coin legend in a more plausible historical context, following a string of recent
achievements in the field of foreign policy: the suppression of the Cyrenian
revolt,
68
the annexation of Cyprus,
69
and the victory at Gaza in autumn 312,
64
Svoronos 30A, Svoronos 31, and SNG Copenhagen 32.
65
Svoronos 32.
66
Mrkholm, Cyrene and Ptolemy I, p. 149; Price, Alexander, p. 496.
67
D. Knoepfler, Ttradrachmes attiques et argent alexandrin chez Diogne Laerce, Mus.
Helveticum 46 (1989), pp. 20510; O. Masson, RN 1991, pp. 6971; G. Le Rider, review of Price,
Alexander in SNR 71 (1992), p. 225; Hazzard, Ptolemaic Coins, pp. 723; Le Rider, Clomne, p.
88.
68
Diod. 19.79.1. Ptolemys suppression of the Cyrenean revolt was dated to summer 313 by P.V.
Wheatley, The chronology of the Third Diadoch War, 315311 B.C., Phoenix 52 (1998), pp. 2678
with n. 58, and to summer 312 by Errington, Diodorus Siculus and the chronology of the early
Diadochoi, p. 499.
CATHARINE C. LORBER 64
which permitted Ptolemy to reoccupy Coele Syria and Phoenicia.
70
In this
context, the legend not only labelled the redesigned coinage as Ptolemys own
but set up the Athena Alkidemos reverse type as a symbol for his martial spirit
and his success at arms.
A lower date for the Alexandrian issue has implications for the numismatic
chronology of Cyrene. Basing himself on parallels with Ptolemys Egyptian
coinage, Mrkholm proposed a date of c.315 for an unusual Cyrenian silver
didrachm with the Athena Alkidemos reverse, and a date of c.314 for the series
of gold staters and hemistaters with the legend KYPANION HTOAEMAIO.
71
Mrkholm could offer no explanation for Ptolemys symbolic intrusions on the
coinage of Cyrene at this period, but his numismatic chronology led G. Hlbl to
deduce that an assertion of political supremacy by Ptolemy may have instigated
the Cyrenian revolt in 313.
72
With the Athena Alkidemos reverse type and the
legend AAEEANAPEION HTOAEMAIOY both downdated to c.311, the
Cyrenian coins naming Ptolemy or employing his new reverse type can now be
placed after the suppression of the revolt, in which context they make sense.
The new Alexandrian coin types of c.311 were also promptly employed on a
celebrated emission of tetradrachms minted at Sidon in 312/11 and dated
according to the local era, and on an emission of obols from an uncertain mint
in Palestine, which must belong to the same year.
73
The Sidonian tetradrachms
in fact serve as a check on our revised chronology for Ptolemys Egyptian
coinage. They show that Issue XIII cannot be dated later than 312/11, so the
reduction of Zervos dates implied by the Demanhur hoard must therefore be by
three years, not four.
69
Diod. 19.79.46. The annexation of Cyprus was dated to 313 or 312 by Wheatley, Chronology
of the Third Diadoch War, pp. 2678 with n.58, and to 312 by Errington, Diodorus Siculus and the
chronology of the early Diadochoi, p. 499.
70
The date of the battle seems firmly fixed by the numismatic evidence: see Wheatley, The year
22 tetradrachms of Sidon, pp. 2725.
71
Mrkholm, Cyrene and Ptolemy I, pp. 1489.
72
Hlbl, History of the Ptolemaic Empire, p. 18. A date of 313 for the Cyrenean revolt is also
accepted by an advocate of the high chronology: see Wheatley, Chronology of the Third Diadoch
War, pp. 2678 (with n.58) and 279.
73
The first such tetradrachm was published by Brett, Aphlaston, TINC, p. 23; for an illustration,
see Mrkholm, Early Hellenistic Coinage, pl. vi, 94; for corpus and die information, see Wheatley,
The year 22 tetradrachms of Sidon, pp. 26872. Obols: Gitler and Lorber, Small silver coins of
Ptolemy I, no. 3.