Studies in The Macedonian Coinage of Alexander The Great / Hyla A. Troxell

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 18:50 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.
39015041531644
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike / http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#cc-by-nc-sa-4.0
STUDIES IN THE MACEDONIAN
COINAGE OF
ALEXANDER THE GREAT
BY
HYLA A. TROXELL
NUMISMATIC STUDIES
No. 21
THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY
NEW YORK
1997
Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 18:50 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015041531644

NUMISMATIC STUDIES
No. 21

Obverse of a group F tetradrachm of no particular significance,
selected merely for the appealing depiction of the
dead lion's eyelashes (private collection).

Dedicated to the memory of
MARGARET THOMPSON,
with awe and affection
in equal measure
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface H
Abbreviations 13
1. Publications 13
2. Sale Catalogues 14
3. Collections 15
Introduction 17
Part I
Amphipolis Silver of Alexander III and Philip II, ca. 332 - ca. 310 B.C.
1: Alexander Tetradrachms 20
Issues and Groups 20
The Size of the Groups 25
Concordance to and Commentary on Alexander Issues 26
2: Alexander Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm 30
Discussion 35
Concordance to and Commentary on Alexander Issues 37
3: Alexander Groups: Relative Chronology 41
Obverse Links 41
Other Evidence 47
Discussion 48
4: Post-323 Philip II Tetradrachm Reissues 51
The Size of the Groups 54
Commentary on Philippe Issues 55
5: Post-323 Philip II Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm 56
Fifths 56

Tenths 61
Attic-Weight Drachms 62
Commentary on Philippe Issues 63
6: Philip II Groups: Relative Chronology 65
Obverse Links 65
Discussion 69
7: Alexander and Philip Groups: Summary and Relative Chronology 71
8: The Silver Hoards 73
Alphabetical Index 73
Individual Hoards 73
8 Table of Contents
Hoard Summary 83
Discussion 84
9: Alexanders and Philips: Absolute Chronology 86
Groups A-D and the Start of the Coinage 86
Groups E-F 90
Group G and the Introduction of the Title 92
Groups H-I 93
Groups K-J 93
Group L and the Dropping of the Title 94
Philip II Reissues 95
Summary 95
Part II
Alexander's Lifetime Gold
10: The Lifetime Staters 100
Catalogue 101
The Coins and Their Attribution 107
Commentary on Alexander Issues 110
11: Three Groups of Distaters 112
12: The Gold Hoards 115
Alphabetical Index 115
Individual Hoards 115
13: Gold Discussion and Chronology 122
The Lifetime Staters 122
Other Cantharus, Trident, and Fulmen Staters 127
Distaters 128
Summary 128

Tables
1. Alexander Tetradrachm Groups and Issues 21
2. Alexander Tetradrachm Group Sizes 26
3. Alexander Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm: Groups and Issues 30
4. Alexander Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm: Examples Located 33
5. Alexander Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm: Obverse Dies Located 34
6. Alexander Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm: Reverse Types 34
7. Post-323 Philip II Tetradrachm Groups and Issues 52
8. Post-323 Philip II Tetradrachm Group Sizes 54
9. Philip II Fifths: Groups and Issues 57
10. Philip II Tetradrachms and Fifths: Examples Located 59
11. Occurrence of Symbols on Philip II Fifths and on Tetradrachms of Groups 8 and 9 59
12. Philip II Tetradrachms and Fifths: Examples Located 60
13. Certain Philip II Tetradrachms and Fifths: Examples Located 61
14. Philip II Tenths 62
15. Philip II Attic-Weight Drachms 62
16. Summary of Relative Chronology of Alexander and Philip II Tetradrachms and of
Accompanying Smaller Coins 71
17. Relative Amounts of Silver Struck as Measured by Estimated Dies 72
Table of Contents 9
18. Percentages of I and K/J in Groups A through K/J in Hoards Containing 10 or More
Macedonian Coins of Groups A through K/J 94
19. Gold Coins and Obverse Dies Located 100
20. Concordance of Newell's Tarsos Dies and Troxell Dies 108
21. Comparison of Series 1 and 2 with Philippe Pella Groups 110
22. Comparison of Sicyon 1-5, 6-8, and 9-16 112
23. Gold Hoards Buried by ca. 315 B.C 121
24. Philippe Group II Gold Coins in Selected Hoards 124
Figures
1-3. Alexander Tetradrachms: Die Links within Group H 24-25
4. Die Links between Alexander Groups 47
5. Die Links between Philip II Groups 69
6. Comparison of Newell and Troxell Dating 96
7. Die Linkage in Series 1 and Series 2 106
8. Die Linkage among Group C Distaters 114
Appendices
1. Commerce 1993 Hoard, Tetradrachms 129
2. Mende 1983 Hoard, Gold 134
3. Commerce 1993 Hoard, Gold 137
4. Commerce 1994 Hoard, Gold 141
Key to Plates 145
Indices
1. Alexander's Amphipolis Silver Markings 153
2. Philip IPs Post-323 Amphipolis Silver Markings 157

3. General 161
PREFACE
Not the least of the attractions of numismatics is the kindness and helpfulness of numismatists
themselves. For information and help of all sorts with this study I thank Maria Akamati, Michel
Amandry, Carmen Arnold-Biucchi, Harlan S. Berk, Mark Blackburn, Theodore V. Buttrey, A. S. De
Shazo, Kamen Dimitrov, U. L. Diucov, Peter R. Franke, Stephen C. Glover, Silvia M. Hurter, Jonathan
K. Kern, Frank Kovacs, Anne Kromann, Peter L. Lampinen, Katerini Liampi, Joseph P. Linzalone,
Valerii P. Nikonorov, Mando Oeconomides, Constantin Preda, Katerina Romiopoulou, Hans-Dietrich
Schultz, Iannis Touratsoglou, J. P. A. Van der Vijn, Hans Vogtli, Kerry K. Wetterstrom, and Orestes
Zervos.
Wayne Moore produced most of the photos of the ANS's gold and many of its small silver pieces;
Michael Di Biase, most of Plates 18 and 19; and the ANS's Frank Deak, the bulk of the remaining
illustrations on Plates 1-25. Photos of the hoard coins on Plates 26-31 were supplied by various friends
who are noted elsewhere. Marie H. Martin has done her usual magnificent job as editor, and I thank her
too most heartily.
Charles A. Hersh has made available his remarkable collection of small-denomination Alexanders,
many purchased in recent years in deliberate aid of this study and has made valuable comments on the
manuscript. Sarah E. Cox, by her cheerful and patient checking of references in the text, has eliminated
a host of errors. Georges Le Rider and the late Martin Price have helped throughout with information
offered willingly, indeed enthusiastically, and with their sage comments. That Dr. Price in particular
did not agree with all my conclusions did not lessen his continued kind help. I am especially grateful to
each of these three friends.

11
ABBREVIATIONS
1. Publications
AMNG
Andritsaena
ANSMN
ANSNNM
ANSNS
"Babylon Mint'
"Babylon"
Abydus Abydus die numbers in Lampsacus and Abydus
ACNAC Ancient Coins in North American Collections (American Numismatic Society, New York)
AJA American Journal of Archaeology
AJN American Journal of Numismatics
Ake Ake issue numbers in Sidon and Ake
Alexander M. J. Price, The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus (Zurich
and London, 1991)
Die antiken Munzen Nord-Griechenlands, 3 vols., ed. F. Imhoof-Blumer and T. Wiegand
(Berlin, 1898-1935)
E. T. Newell, Alexander Hoards 3. Andritsaena, ANSNNM 21 (New York, 1923)
American Numismatic Society Museum Notes
American Numismatic Society Numismatic Notes and Monographs
American Numismatic Society Numismatic Studies
N. M. Waggoner, "The Alexander Mint at Babylon," Ph. D. diss. (Columbia University,
1968)
N. M. Waggoner, "Tetradrachms from Babylon," in Greek Numismatics and Archaeology.
Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson, ed. 0. Merkholm and N. M. Waggoner (Wetteren,
1979), pp. 269-80

"Balkan Peninsula" K. Dimitrov, "Observations on Several Hoards of Gold Hellenistic Coins from the
Balkan Peninsula," Etudes Balkaniques 3 (1987), pp. 103-16
BCH Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique
BMC B. V. Head, A Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Macedonia, etc. (London, 1879)
"Cavalla" M. Thompson, "The Cavalla Hoard (IGCH 150)," ANSMN 26 (1981), pp. 33-49
CH Royal Numismatic Society, Coin Hoards 1 and 2 (London, 1975 and 1976)
"Cypriote Alexanders" E. T. Newell, "Some Cypriote 'Alexanders'," NC 1915, pp. 294-322
de Hirsch P. Naster, La Collection Lucien de Hirsch: Catalogue des monnaies grecques (Brussels, 1959)
Demanhur E. T. Newell, Alexander Hoards 2. Demanhur 1905, ANSNNM 19 (New York, 1923)
Deuiing The Arthur S. Dewing Collection of Greek Coins, ACNAC 6, ed. L. Mildenberg and S. Hurter
(New York, 1985)
O. Zervos, "The Earliest Coins of Alexander the Great 1. Notes on a Book by Gerhard
Kleiner," NC 1982, pp. 166-79
H. A. Troxell, "Alexander's Earliest Macedonian Silver," in Mnemata: Papers in Memory
of Nancy M. Waggoner, ed. W. E. Metcalf (New York, 1991), pp. 49-61
E. T. Newell, The Coinage of the Eastern Seleucid Mints from Seleucus I to Antiochus III,
ANSNS 1 (New York, 1938)
B. V. Head, Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek Numismatics, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1911)
G. Macdonald, Catalogue of Greek Coins in the Hunterian Collection, University of Glasgow,
voi. I (Glasgow, 1899)
An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards, ed. M. Thompson, O. Morkholm, and C. M. Kraay
(New York, 1973)
Journal of Numismatic Fine Arts
Jahrbuch fur Numismatik und Geldgeschichle
Lampsacus die numbers in Lampsacus and Abydus
Lampsacus and Abydus M. Thompson, Alexander's Drachm Mints 2. Lampsacus and Abydus, ANSNS 19 (New
York, 1991)
S. W. Grose, Catalogue of the McClean Collection of Greek Coins, 2 (Cambridge, 1926)
A. B. Brett, Catalogue of Greek Coins [Museum of Fine Arts] (Boston, 1955)
Miletus die numbers in Sardes and Miletus
F. Imhoof-Blumer, Monnaies grecques (Amsterdam, 1883)
L. Miiller, Numismatique d'Alexandre le Grand, suivie d'un appendice contenant les monnaies
de Philippe II el III (Copenhagen, 1855)
"Earliest Coins"
"Earliest Silver"
ESM
HN
Hunter
IGCH
JNFA
JNG
Lampsacus
McClean
14
Abbreviations
Myriandros E. T. Newell, Myriandros-Alexandria Kat'isson, AJN 53, 2 (1919), rpt. New York (1920)
NC Numismatic Chronicle
"Near East" C. A. Hersh and H. A. Troxell, "A 1993 Hoard of Alexander Drachms from the Near
East," AJN 5-6 (1993-94), pp. 13-42
"Nicopolis" K. Dimitrov, "Tresor monetaire hellenistique de Nicopolis ad Nestum (IGCH 829),"
Archaeologia (Sofia) 29 (1988), pp. 44-56 (in Bulgarian, French summary)
"Peloponnesian Alexanders" H. A. Troxell, "The Peloponnesian Alexanders," ANSMN 17 (1971), pp. 41-94
Philippe G. Le Rider, Le monnayage d'argent et d'or de Philippe II frappe en Macedoine de 359 d 294
(Paris, 1977)
"Ptolemy" 0. Zervos, "Early Tetradrachms of Ptolemy I," ANSMN 13 (1967), pp. 1-16
RBN Revue Betge de Numismatique
Reattrib. E. T. Newell, Reattribution of Certain Tetradrachms of Alexander the Great, AJN 45 (1911)
and 46 (1912), rpt. New York (1912)
"Reform" M. J. Price, "The Earliest Coins of Alexander the Great 2. Alexander's Reform of the
Macedonian Coinage," NC 1982, pp. 180-90
RN Reuue Numismatique
Salamis Salamis issues in "Cypriote Alexanders"
Sardes Sardes die numbers in Sardes and Miletus
Sardes and Miletus M. Thompson, Alexander's Drachm Mints 1. Sardes and Miletus, ANSNS 16 (New York,
1983)
Sicyon S. P. Noe, The Alexander Coinage of Sicyon, ANSNS 6 (New York, 1950)
Sidon Sidon issue numbers in Sidon and Ake
Sidon and Ake E. T. Newell, The Dated Alexander Coinage of Sidon and Ake, Yale Oriental Series,
Researches 2 (New Haven and London, 1916)
SNGANS Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum The American Numismatic Society, p. 8, Macedonia 2: Alex-

ander I - Philip II (New York, 1994)
SNGAshm Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum [Great Britain], voi. 5, pt. 2, Ashmolean Museum Oxford
(London, 1969)
SNGBerry Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum The Burton Y. Berry Collection (New York, 1961-62)
SNGCop Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish National
Museum (Copenhagen, 1955)
SNGDavis Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum [Great Britain], voi. 1, pt. 2, The Newnham Davis Coins in
the Wilson Collection of Classical and Eastern Antiquities, Marischal College, Aberdeen (Lon-
don, 1936)
SNGFitz Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum [Great Britain], voi. 4, Filzwilliam Museum: Leake and
General Collections (London, 1967)
SNGLewis Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum [Great Britain], voi. 6, The Lewis Collection in Corpus
Christi College, Cambridge (London, 1972)
Tarsos E. T. Newell, Tarsos under Alexander (New York, 1919)
"Tetradrachms Amphipolis" C. Ehrhardt, "A Catalogue of Issues of Tetradrachms from Amphipolis, 318-294
B.C.," JNFA 4 (March 1976), pp. 85-89
Traite E. Babelon, Traite des monnaies grecques et romaines, pt. 2, voi. 4, (Paris, 1932)
Walcher de Molthein L. Walcher de Molthein, Catalogue de la collection des medailles grecques de.. . Leopold
Watcher de Molthein (Paris and Vienna, 1895)
Weber L. Forrer, Descriptive Catalogue of the Collection of Greek Coins Formed by Sir Hermann
Weber, 4 vols. (London, 1922-29)
WSM E. T. Newell, The Coinage of the Western Seleucid Mints from Seleucus I to Antiochus III,
ANSNS 4 (New York, 1941)
2. Sale Catalogues
Artemis
Auctiones
Ball
Bank Leu
Berk
Artemis Antiquities, St. Petersburg, Florida
Auctiones A. G., Basel
Robert Ball Nachf., Berlin
Bank Leu A.G., Zurich
Harlan J. Berk, Chicago, Illinois
Birkler & Waddell Birkler & Waddell, Washington, D.C.
Blaser-Frey Helga P. R. Blaser-Frey, Freiburg im Breisgau
Cahn Adolf E. Cahn, Frankfurt am Main
Canessa C. & E. Canessa, Naples
CNG Classical Numismatic Group, Lancaster, Pennsylvania
Coin Galleries Coin Galleries, New York, New York
Abbreviations
15
Egger Bruder Egger, Vienna
Frankfurter Frankfurter Miinzhandlung, Frankfurt am Main
Giessener Giessener Miinzhandlung, Munich
Glendining Glendining and Co., London
Grabow Ludwig Grabow, Berlin
Hess Adolf Hess Nachf., Lucerne
Hirsch, G. Gerhard Hirsch, Munich
Hirsch, J. Jacob Hirsch, Munich
Knobloch Frederick S. Knobloch, Bronx, New York
Kovacs Frank Kovacs, San Mateo, California
Kricheldorf H. H. Kricheldorf, Stuttgart
Kunst u. Miinzen Kunst und Miinzen, Lugano
Numismatic Lanz, Munich
See Bank Leu
Alex G. Malloy, Inc., South Salem, New York
Mid-American Rare Coin Auctions, Inc., Lexington, Kentucky
J. C. Morgenthau and Co., New York, New York.
Miinzen und Medaillen A.G., Basel
Robert J. Myers, New York, New York
Naville et Cie., Geneva
New Netherlands New Netherlands Coin Co., New York, New York
NFA Numismatic Fine Arts, Los Angeles, California
Numismatica Ars Classica Numismatica Ars Classica, Zurich
Parke-Bernet Parke-Bernet Galleries Inc., New York, New York
Busso Peus, Frankfurt am Main

Clement Platt, Paris
Mario Ratto, Milan
Rodolfo Ratto, Milan
Hans Dieter Rauch, Vienna
Rollin & Feuardent Rollin & Feuardent, Paris
Santamaria P. & P. Santamaria, Rome
Schulman Jacques Schulman, Amsterdam
Schweizerische Kreditanstalt Schweizerische Kreditanstalt, Bern
Shore Fred B. Shore (The Parthian), Fort Washington, Pennsylvania
Sotheby Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge (1924) or Sotheby & Co. (1969), London
Stack's Stack's, New York, New York
Sternberg Frank Sternberg, Zurich
Tradart Tradart, Geneva
Lanz
Leu
Malloy
Mid-American
Morgenthau
Miinz. u. Med.
Myers
Naville
Peus
Platt
Ratto, M.
Ratto, R.
Rauch
3. Collections
Unlike most studies, the present one has been based not on material gathered by the author, but almost
entirely on the rich lode at the American Numismatic Society. Its Alexander collection, the world's best, has
been augmented by its library, its photograph file, and most significantly by its large and important cast
collection, assembled chiefly by the discerning Edward T. Neweli. To these have been added the stater
photographs gathered by Georges Le Rider, the important small denomination Alexander coins in the collec-
tion of Charles A. Hersh, and a mere handful of other examples.
Although all the material on which the study is based is at the ANS in the form of coins, casts, or
photographs, the present location of many of the coins themselves is not known. Many collectors of decades
ago cannot be identified, and many once known older collections are now no doubt dispersed. In a few cases
the particular institution in a stated city is not known. Such information as is on Newell's cast cards or in his
records is given, but where there is no clear indication of the specific institution holding a coin (e.g., on casts
marked simply "Berlin" or "Istanbul") no expansion of the citation in the text is given below. Most readers
will be as well able as the author to assume which institution holds (or held) a coin.
It has not seemed necessary to trouble a great many curators with inquiries about whether or not they still
possess particular coins. Doubtless there will be criticism of this decision, but all the evidence is, after all, at
the American Numismatic Society and available there.
Hi
Abbreviations
Beirut American University
Berlin Staatliche Museen, Miinzkabinett
Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria Historical Museum
Brett Agnes Baldwin Brett
Cambridge, England See the individual publications cited
Cambridge, Massachusetts Harvard University, Fogg Art Museum
Copenhagen Nationalmuseet, Royal Collection of Coins and Medals
Dattari Private collector, Cairo
Empedocles Private collector, Athens. Many Empedocles coins are in the National Archaeological
Museum, but those here cited simply as "Empedocles" are not there
Florence Museo Archeologico
Gillette George A. Gillette, Rochester, New York
Glasgow Hunterian Museum
Hamburg Museum fur Kunst und Gewerbe
Hersh Charles A. Hersh, Mineola, New York
Hollschek Karl Hollschek
Leiden Koninklijk Penningkabinet, Rijksmuseum (collection formerly in The Hague)
London British Museum
Milan Museo Archeologico
Naples Museo Archeologico Nazionale
Oman Professor Sir Charles Oman
Oxford Ashmolean Museum
Paris Bibliotheque Nationale
Petsalis Private collector, Athens
Ruse, Bulgaria Regional Museum of History

St. Petersburg State Hermitage Museum
Thessaloniki Archaeological Museum
Toronto Royal Ontario Museum
Turin Museo Civico di Torino
Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria Regional Museum of History
Verroia, Greece Archaeological Museum
Vienna Kunsthistorisches Museum
Wertheim Julius Wertheim, Berlin
Zygman Mr. E. Zygman
INTRODUCTION
The rather amorphous, non-specific nature of this book's title is unfortunately unavoidable.
The work deals with what are essentially five coinages, in two metals, struck over several
different periods of time and very possibly at two or more different mintswhose locations we
do not know.
The project started more than ten years ago, as I worked on preparing sylloge volumes of the
ANS's magnificent collections of Alexander's gold and of the silver coins from his major Macedo-
nian mint, usually assumed to be Amphipolis. Philip II's coinage had previously been cata-
logued, and the sylloge volume containing his coins, lifetime and posthumous, was published in
1994. SNGANS numbers for Philip's coins are therefore given in this work. The Alexander
volumes, however, remain in manuscript and publication dates are uncertain, so that no sylloge
numbers are given here for the coins in his name.
The ANS's gold from the two or more Macedonian gold mints has been subjected to a die
study together with examples from the Society's (largely E. T. Newell's) remarkable cast collec-
tion and its rich photo file and library. To these examples were added photographs of many
other gold coins, which Georges Le Rider kindly put at my disposai. The results of the die study
are briefly summarized here in chapter 10, which describes in detail only one sub-group which
can now be identified as the earliest lifetime staters.
The tetradrachms from the main silver mint, traditionally called Amphipolis, were also stud-
ied, through the issues which were found in the great Demanhur hoard of 1905, buried ca.
318 B.C., and through the next group of issues as well, those with the primary marking P which
were not present in Demanhur.1 No attempt was made to assemble a corpus, but the ANS's rich
coin and cast collections and other resources enabled some 2,949 examples to be studied. Approx-
imately 879 obverse dies were identified, for a quite respectable coin to obverse die ratio of 3.3
to 1.
Together with the Alexander tetradrachms were studied three related series of coins: first, the
small silver denominations of varying sizes and types which accompanied the tetradrachms;

second, the reissues of tetradrachms with Philip II's types, name, and weight made after Alex-
ander's death, through those whose markings repeat those of the Alexander tetradrachms with
P; and third, the small-denomination silver coins with Philip's types which accompanied these
tetradrachms.
Each of these three other silver series has helped to illuminate the main output of this chief
Macedonian mint, the enormous strikings of Alexander tetradrachms. Die links and icon-
ographical changes in these other series help in ordering and dating the Alexander tetradrachms
and in understanding the overall activity of the mint.
All these die studies were essentially completed some five years ago, with the one exception of
the small denominations with Alexander's types. Many of these quite rare little coins have
appeared in sale catalogues in recent years, and some of these new arrivals have produced new
connections between groups. They have been valuable late additions. No fewer than four
hoards of Alexander coins which surfaced in 1993 and 1994 also provided important information
and could not be omitted.2
All the series studied exhibit random die axis relationships. The Alexanders, silver and gold,
are on the Attic standard, with a tetradrachm of ca. 17.2 g; the Philip tetradrachms are on the
1 Demanhur. See Chapter 8, hoard 10, for additions to its Amphipolis component.
2 Chapter 8, hoards 4 and 7, and Chapter 12, hoards 7-8.
17
18
Introduction
local standard of ca. 14.4 g. In the interest of brevity, therefore, neither weights nor die axes are
given except in the case of the small Philip coins of chapter 5 whose denominations are either
uncertain or unusuai.
Deliberately left unread until the coins' study was complete is a manuscript left behind by
Edward T. Newell, which internal evidence seems to place between the publication of Reattribu-
tion in 1912 and that of Demanhur in 1923. It contains no discussion, only a very preliminary
and incomplete catalogue of the two tetradrachm series in the present study, and a listing of
many of their corresponding smaller coins. It does not include gold coins.
This manuscript has thus served as a valuable check on my findings, and it has been gratify-
ing to find that my conclusions were in the main the same as those of Newell. To mention a few
concerning the Alexander coins: groups F and G might well be considered a single group
Newell describes them as "group F, section 1" and "group F, section 2."3 He placed the
drachms with arrow symbol in group F's first sectioni.e., in Demanhur group F.4 All of the
P-aplustre coins were considered one issue, regardless of the shape or orientation of the symboi.5
No P-laurel branch issue was mentioned.6 And, for example, among the reissues of Philip IPs
types, he placed the small denominations with the straight laurel branch with the Alexander
tetradrachms with P and laurel branch.7 He also apparently did not question the authenticity of
the Philip Attic-weight drachm issue with crescent symbol (the only marking he knew here), but
listed it together with the P-crescent Alexanders of group J.8
Only twice did Newell's placement differ in any significant way from mine. He put the rare
Alexander drachms with P in group Fperhaps because there they would have directly followed
the only other known Alexander drachms of our mint. I had followed both Thompson and Price
in placing these P with the tetradrachms of group L, where the P is the primary marking.
I was wrong: one of the 1993 hoards just mentioned decisively proved them earlier, and my
original placement had to be changed.9 Finally, Newell placed the Philip fifths and tenths of the

tetradrachm with the Philip tetradrachms of both groups 8 and 9, whereas it is here argued that
they accompanied only group 8.10 This last then is the only place where I differ from that great
scholar.
In general, then, this study of the silver coinage does not differ greatly from Newell's think-
ing, but it provides a more complete description than has hitherto been available of the four
series of silver coins and of their interrelations and a slightly revised chronology. The study also
sheds some light on the rather maddeningly uniform Macedonian gold issues of Alexander, with
their repeated unvarying symbols. It does not, however, propose any answers toor indeed
make much effort to addresstwo basic and persistent questions: the coins' mint or mints, and
the reason for the reissue after Alexander's death of Philip IPs coins." I happily leave to others
the enjoyment of puzzling over these questions and wish all success to them.
3 See p. 22.
4 See p. 32.
5 See p. 23.
6 See p. 28, comments on Alexander issue 140.
7 See p. 23, J6, and pp. 58-59 and 62.
8 See p. 23, J5, and pp. 62-63.
9 See Chapter 8, hoard 7.
10 Sec pp. 58-62.
11 On this last question, see now G. Le Rider, "Les deux monnaies macedoniennes des annees
323-294/290," BCH 1993, pp. 491-500.
PART I
AMPHIPOLIS SILVER OF ALEXANDER III AND PHILIP II,
ca. 332 - ca. 310 B.C.
For Alexander's chief Macedonian silver mint I use here when necessary the traditional name
of Amphipolis. This name is used with great reluctance, for I have no confidence that this city,
rather than Pella or perhaps Aegae or Philippi, was the source of this enormous silver output.
With no specific evidence supporting the claim of any other city, however, it seems preferable at
least for the moment to retain the usual attribution to Amphipolisbut with no assurance that
the coinage was in truth struck there. A second Macedonian silver mint, usually referred to as
Pella, is treated here only rarely and peripherally. This study concerns itself only with the chief
mint.

19
1. ALEXANDER TETRADRACHMS
ISSUES AND GROUPS
The Alexander tetradrachms' pattern, established long ago by Edward T. Newell,1 is of a
number of successive groups, each of which includes from three to twelve different issues, i.e.,
coins with differing reverse markings. Within each group there is heavy obverse linkage among
issues. Not every die is known in multiple issues, but with almost no exceptions every issue is
obverse linked with at least one, and usually more than one, other issue in its group.2
Table 1 lists the groups and their constituent issues. Groups A through K are listed by
Newell's letters as he published them in the Demanhur hoard.3 The next group, not present in
that deposit, I have termed L. Groups after L are not included in this study.
The groups are listed in Newell's order, with the single exception that the minute group K is
placed before J. Justification for this minor shift, as well as for its continued attribution to our
mint, is given below.4 Within each group the issues are listed in the order given in Alexander,
Martin Price's recently published monumental compendium of Alexander issues,5 although
within each group any order is meaningless, as die linkage patterns show that the issues within
each group must all have been struck more or less simultaneously.
Table 1 is organized by inscriptions and groups with the number of coins studied given for
each group. The first column in the table gives Newell's group letters, joined by issue numbers
(repeating for each group) assigned by the present author. Hesitant as I have been to introduce
a new set of numbers into this subject, I have been convinced to do so by the unsatisfactory
choices available for describing these issues, which so often form major components of hoards
and provide the basis for dating those hoards. Miiller issue numbers are incomplete and their
order virtually meaningless. Alexander's issue numbers and Demanhur hoard coin numbers give
only a rough indication of where in this vast Macedonian coinage the individual issues fali. A
system which indicates the group (more important than the issue in any case) in addition to the
specific issue should be far more descriptive than one which identifies only the issue and does not
always accurately place that issue. Thus B8, E2, and G3, for example, provide more readily

useful information than Demanhur's 247, 716, and 1,168, or Alexander's 32, 78, and 110.
The table's second column describes each issue's marking or markings (the primary marking
preceding any secondary one, regardless of their positions on the coins). A bold P indicates that
issues of Philip IPs types are known with the same markings. These Philips are probably
posthumous in the case of those similar to the Alexanders of group A. Those parallel to the later
issues, from group I on, are decidedly so.6
The third column gives the plate numbers of examples of each issue. The fourth and fifth give
the issue numbers in Alexander7 and the initial Demanhur hoard coin numbers. Issues illus-
trated in Alexander are marked with an asterisk, and those with whose descriptions I differ are
placed where I believe they belong but in parentheses. Finally, as an indication of their relative
abundance or rarity, the numbers of examples studied from each issue are given. The numbers
of obverse dies located and the estimated totals used, better indications of the original size of the
groups, are given in Table 2.
1 Reattrib., pp. 5-23, and Demanhur, pp. 26-32, 65-66, finalizing the classification presented in Reattrib.
2 The exceptions are very small issues in groups K and L (K3, K5, K6, L2, L9), whose markings make their
group placements certain.
3 See above, n. 1.
* See pp. 49-50.
5 Alexander, pp. 89-103, with the addition of some issues from p. 132.
6 See Chapters 4-6 for these late posthumous Philip reissues.
7 Alexander, pp. 89-103 and 132.
1. Alexander Tetradrachms
21
The tetradrachms' types are
Obv.: Beardless head of Heracles r., wearing lion's skin headdress.
Rev.: AAEEANAPOY (or BAZIAEQZ AAEEANAPOY in groups G, H, I, K, and J). Zeus
seated i., holding scepter and eagle.
Table 1
Alexander Tetradrachm Groups and Issues
Issue Markings Plate Alexander Initial Examples
Issue Demanhur Found
Coin No.
AAEEANAPOY
Group A, 250 coins
A1 P Prow
1, 4*
82
A2 P Stern
5*
56
56
A3 P Double heads
6*
65

91
A4 Fulmen
8*. 9*
132
31
A5 P? Rudder
10*. 11*
151
16
Group B, 212 coins
B1
Cantharus
12*
254
20
B2
Amphora
10
13*
162
48
B3
Wreath
11
14*
229
16
B4
Stylis
12
20*
240
B5
Attic helmet
13
21*, 22*
22
I. Amphipolis Silver, ca. 332 - ca. 310
Issue
Markings
Plate
Alexander
Initial
Examples
Issue
Demanhur
Found
Coin No.
D11
Dolphin
38
73*
509
15
D12
Aplustre
39
75*
514
Group E, 605 coins
E1
Rose"
76*
520
E2

r 40
Herm
41
78*
716
124
E3
Cock
42
79*
792
174
E4
"E
43
83*
536
75
E5
L 44
84*
529
12
E6
Pentagram
45
87*
521
13
E7
Crescent
46
89*
579
54
E8
Bucranium
r47
Issue
Markings Plate
Alexander
Initial
Examples
Issue
Demanhur
Found
vn 1
66
Coin No.
I2
67
120*
1488
63
Afi
I3
L69
DO
121*
.1512
74
Group K,' 18 coins
K1
71-

70
K2 P
A, P (or P)
72
421*,
1582
10
'425, 426
73
74
75
K3 P
AT
76
422
K4
AT
77-
423
K5
AA
78
424
K6 P
79
424A
K7
80
24
Succeeding groups, all inscribed AAEnANAPOY and struck before ca. 295 B.C.,8 were not
subjected to a die study. They include:
P A or t over bucranium, and varying additional marking;
P t over race torch, and varying additional marking;
P A over race torch, and varying additional marking or markings;
P fulmen over I, and varying additional marking; and
star, obelisk, and X (varying positions), or star over obelisk, and varying additional
marking or markings.
As has been noted, within each group it is clear that all issues must have been struck more or
less simultaneously, and the die linkage is so complex that it is impossible to place the issues in
any linear chronological order. Three typical clusters of coins are diagrammed in Figures 1-3.
They come from group H, but similar clusters and die linkage are found in almost every group
(e.g., note in Table 1 the obverse die used for six issues in group D). The clusters presented
below are simplified. Another antler obverse, for instance, sharing a reverse die with the first
coin listed but not linked by its obverse to any other symbol, is omitted. Brackets to the left
and horizontal lines indicate obverse die identities, and brackets to the right, reverse die iden-
ties. All coins are illustrated on Plates 5-6.
Figures 1-3
Alexander Tetradrachms:
Obverse Die Links within Group H
HI H2 H3 ll4 H5
Phrygian Macedonian
Antler Cap Helmet Trident Tripod
Figure 1
104 105 106-1

107 108J
Figure 2
109 110
llln 112
113 114
115 J 116
r 117 ^
L 118-]
119 J 120 121
8 For these issues, see "Tetradrachms Amphipolis." Ehrhardl here also notes the posthumous Philip II
issues which were struck in parallel with the Alexanders through those with fulmen over I. These Philip
issues form Amphipolis group IV in Philippe. The final group, with star, obelisk, and X, may not belong to
our mint. Price in Alexander (pp. 139-40) tentatively prefers an older attribution to Uranopolis, but an
Amphipolis origin is most recently strongly defended by Thompson in "Cavalla," pp. 40-44.
25
Figure 3
122
124
126 J
123
125
127
130
128
129
A further confirmation of the contemporaneity of issues within groups is provided by the
obverse links between groups described in Chapter 3. Issues struck in linear sequence would
tend to have one issue in a given group linked to one issue in another. Instead, especially among
groups after A and B, the obverse dies forming links between groups were often employed for a
great number of issues.
Newell's coin numbers, as they are found on the ANS's coin boxes, cast cards, and photo file
cards, are provisional working numbers only, and they encompass many numbers for which
there seem to be no examples. When I finally consulted Newell's notebook (described in the
introduction), no examples for the missing numbers appeared there either. Clearly he sometimes
left runs of numbers unused available to be assigned to subsequently acquired specimens, and
consequently his die numbers cannot be taken as cumulative and do not show the total numbers
of obverse dies in the various groups. For example, in group I, his die numbers run from 660
through 723, for a total of 64 numbers. Three pairs of those numbers, however, were given to
identical dies, for a loss of 3. Similarly, there are 13 numbers with no examples known (not in

the trays and not mentioned in his notebooks), and I have found 8 additional dies. Instead of
Newell's apparent total of 64 dies for group I, there seem to be only 56. Similar situations
obtain in each group.
Table 2 shows the numbers of coins studied in the various groups and the numbers of obverse
dies identified in each group. "Coins" include ANS coins (approximately half of all located),
casts, illustrations in the ANS's photo file, or examples pictured in readily available publica-
tions. The number of obverse dies given for each group is reduced by 0.5 for each die shared
with another group. The final column, the number of estimated dies, is the number arrived at
by the useful equations published by G. F. Carter.9
Group E (605 coins, 193 dies known and 241 estimated) is clearly the largest group, but, if as
seems probable, F and G should be combined into one group, then that resulting group would be
a close rival (511 coins, 162.5 dies known and 203 estimated). Group L was also very large.
9 "A Simplified Method for Calculating the Original Number of Dies from Die Link Statistics,'' ANSMN
28 (1983), pp. 195-206, at p. 202. The total estimated dies are calculated from the total numbers of coins and
dies, not by the addition of the estimated dies in the various groups.
THE SIZE OF THE GROUPS
26
Table 2
Alexander Tetradrachm Group Sizes
Obverse
Coin / Die
Estimated
Group
Coins
Dies
Ratios
Obv. Dies
250
72.5
3.45
88
212
43.5
4.64
49
87
16
5.50
18
216
62.5
3.46
76
605
193
3.13
241
224
71
3.15
89
287
91.5
3.14
114
455
97
4.69
109
177
56
3.14
70
18
2.57
10
147
30
4.90
33

I)
Totals A-K/J
2,678
740
27
65 D6
66 D7
67 D8
70 D9
71 D10
73 D11
75 D12
76 E1
78 E2
79 E3
83 E4
84 E5
87 E6
89 E7
93 E8
99 E9
102 F1
103 F2
104 F3
105 F4
106 F5
108 G1
109 G2
110 G3
110A

111 HI
112 H2
113 H3
114 H4
115 H5
116 J1
117 J3
117A J2
118, 119 II
120 12
121 13
122 J4
123 J5
124 J6
125
The issue is described with AAEEANAPOY BAZIAEQZ, and with dolphin i. in i.
field; the reference is to Reattrib., issue 40 (pl. 9, 8). The symbol however seems
to be merely a degenerated cornucopia of group G (as indeed Newell suggested,
p. 33, n. 39), cut over the Athena Promachus of that group. Issue 110A is a
phantom.
Issues 116-17A are wrongly placed here, between groups H and I. They are
merely part of group J. Alexander even, exceptionally (p. 86), notes obverse
links between 117A (J2) and 124 (J6), and between 117 (J3) and 124.
Alexander lists and illustrates two variations, M and M (actually M, as is clear
from a cast at the ANS), of the usual monograms. See 65-66.
The issue is described with AAEEANAPOY, and with wreath in i. field and P
below throne. The reference is to Reattrib.'s issue LH-a, which there (p. 16)
cites only Miiller 548. Miiller 548, however, has only the wreath, no P, and issue
125 is apparently a phantom.
28
126 The coin is described as with P and "oak(?)-branch," but a dot is visible on the
illustrated example, joined to the bottom of the right vertical stroke of the P.
The illustrated example of 126 seems but one of many poorly executed
examples of group L, and belongs instead in issue 140, below. Issue 126 is a
phantom.
127 The coin is described with P and filleted club, but a dot is clearly visible just to
the left of and below the right vertical stroke of the P. The coin belongs in issue
128, so issue 127 is a phantom.
128 L2
129 L3
130 L4
131 L5
132 L6
133 L7
134 The issue is described with AAEEANAPOY, and with dolphin r. in i. field, and it
is placed with the issues of group L (with P). The reference is to "Tetradrachms
Amphipolis," issue 16, which cites as a parallel a Philip II issue (Miiller 211),
which might seem to suggest that the Alexander issue does belong at
Amphipolis. The Philip issue is, however, decades earlier. See Philippe, Pella
II.B, 410 ff. The present author strongly doubts that Alexander 134 was struck
at Amphipolis.
135 [L3] The wing described on the sole coin cited (here 93) would seem simply to be an
aplustre, a symbol whose shape varies considerably. See 92-94.
136 L8
137 [L8J The cowrie shell described on 137 is almost certainly merely a degenerated

profile shield as on 136.
138 L9
139 L10
140 LI The issue, described with laurel branch and P, cites Miiller 561, whose symbol is
pictured like the single straight upright laurel branch of issues J3 and J6.
Two references are cited, the Aleppo 1893 hoard (IGCH 1516), and "Tetra-
drachms Amphipolis." Newell's transcript of the Aleppo hoard coins, however,
shows a forked branch as on issue LI. Citations in "Tetradrachms Amphipolis"
reveal only coins as .16 (Demanhur 1564 and Newell's list of the Kuft hoard) and
LI (Aleppo 1893 hoard, and Walcher de Molthein 1061). As no coins with P and
straight laurel branch can be located, then, one can probably safely discount
Midler's description and consider that Alexander issue 140 is equivalent to LI.
Issue 126, described as with "oak(?)-branch" (perhaps a better description than
"forked branch") also belongs in issue 140.
421, K2 The three issues seem but three variations in the secondary marking. Alexander
425, 426 has separated 421 27 (Demanhur group K) from groups A-J and L and placed
them at a different mint as the direct predecessors of the groups with A or t and
bucranium or torch, etc. See Alexander, pp. 86-87. This separation seems
incorrect in the light of the four die links now known between posthumous
Philip II issues as group J and others as group K. See below. Chapter 6, links
14-17. Further, at least one obverse die link is known between group L and the
A-bucranium Alexanders. See Chapter 3, link 22.
422 K3
423 K4
424 K5
424A K6
2!)
The issue is described with AAEEANAPOY, and with A below the throne as the
only marking. The reference given is "Tetradrachms Amphipolis," issue 5,
which no doubt is derived in turn from a coin of this description at the ANS
which was placed in its trays together with group K coins. Neither the coin's
sole marking nor its style suggests any association with group K. I strongly

doubt that the issue belongs at our mint.
2. ALEXANDER COINS SMALLER THAN THE TETRADRACHM
ISSUES AND GROUPS
These smaller coins have received but one very brief study, by Newell in 1912.1 Table 3
presents the Alexander silver issues smaller than the tetradrachm: didrachms, drachms, triobols,
diobols, and obols. All denominations have the obverse type of the tetradrachms, a beardless
head of Heracles r., wearing lion's skin headdress. The various reverse types are noted after
each denomination's heading in the table, and shown again in schematic form in Table 6,
pp. 34-35. All coins are inscribed simply AAEEANAPOY.
The first column in Table 3 gives the Newell tetradrachm group to which each issue belongs,
and the specific tetradrachm issue number assigned in Chapter 1, if there is an exact correspon-
dence. Some small coins' markings do not parallel any on the tetradrachms, but obverse links
among the small coins securely place most of these non-parallel issues in group E, and the rest
can be assigned with near certainty on other grounds.
The second column gives the coins' markings, and the third the plate reference for representa-
tive coins of the different issues. Virtually all known obverse dies are illustrated, the exceptions
being the late issues with P or arrow markings. Issue numbers in Alexander form the fourth
column, and asterisks indicate the issues illustrated there. Where I differ on the reading of
markings, the Alexander issue number is placed where I believe it belongs, but in parentheses.
The fifth column gives the number of examples found in each issue. Brackets to left and right of
the plate references indicate, as usual, obverse and reverse die links. All known die links between
issues are shown. Issues of which I have seen no examples are shown in brackets, and are not
counted among the examples located. The drachms, the commonest denomination, are divided
between standing eagle reverse and seated Zeus reverse.
Table 4 summarizes the numbers of examples found of each denomination in each group.
Table 5 shows the number of obverse dies located (shared dies reduce the number by 0.5), again
for each denomination in each group. It is remarkable how close to 2:1 the coin to die ratio is for
each denomination and for each group except group A.

Table 3
Alexander Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm:
Groups and Issues
Corresponding
Tetradrachm Alexander Examples
Issue Markings
Plate
Issue
Found
Didrachms
Rev.: Zeus seated l.
Group B, 1 coin
B6 Ivy leaf
131
24*
Group C, 14 coins
CI Filleted caduceus
132
133
134
37
(107)
40
C2 Quiver r
C3 Grain ear
1 Reattrib., pp. 12-14 and 23.
2. Smaller Alexander Coins
Corresponding
Tetradrachm
Issue Markings
C5 Pegasus forepart
C6 Bow
Group D, 8 coins
D4 Horse head
D5 Star
D7/8 Caduceus iOl
D9 Club il
Group E, 8 coins
E2 Herm
E3 Cock
E8 Bucranium
E9 Caduceus
Plate
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
146
147

145
Alexander Examples
Issue
45*
49
62
68
72
Found
78A
80
94
Drachms
A. Rev.: Eagle, head sometimes reverted, standing l. or r. on fulmen
Group A, 5 coins
A1 Prow
A3 Double heads
148
149
Group B, 1 coin
B6 Ivy leaf
C3
Group C, 1 coin
Grain ear
Group D, 9 coins
D1 Eagle head
D4 Horse head
D- Filleted caduceus
D11 Dolphin
150
151
L 152
32
Corresponding
Tetradrachm
Issue Markings
E8 Bucranium
E9 Caduceus
Group E or F, 13 coins
E?F? P
E?F? Laurel branch
F-
Group F, 18 coins
Arrow
Plate
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
Alexander Examples
Issue Found
94A
100
50*
10
18

111
Triobols
Rev.: Eagle standing l. or r. on fulmen
Group B, 2 coins
B3 Wreath
B6 Ivy leaf
Group C, 2 coins
C3 Grain ear
Group D, 1 coin
D5 Star
Group E, 24 coins
180
181
182
183
15*
41*
63
E2
Herm
184
E3
Cock head
- 185-1
186 J
82
E4
"E
- 187
86
[E6]
Pentagram"
88
33
Corresponding
Tetradrachm
Issue Markings
Group C, 2 coins"
C3 Grain ear
C5 Pegasus forepart
Group D, 7 coins
D1 Eagle head
D4 Horse head
D5 Star
Alexander Examples
Plate Issue Found
200
201
202
203
204
42
46
54*
64
Group E, 13 coins
E8 Bucranium
E- No marking: eagles on club;
E- eagles on torch
205
206
207
208
98*
147
152

E- No marking
155*
Obols
Rev.: Fulmen
Group A, 1 coin
[A1] Prow*
3A
[1]
B3
B6
C5
l)1
Group B, 4 coins
Wreath
Ivy leaf
Group C, 1 coin
Pegasus forepart
Group D, 3 coins
Eagle head
Group E, 9 coins
No marking
210
211
212
213
214
17
26*
47
55
157*
b While this study was in page proof, Charles Hersh acquired a diobol with bow symbol corresponding to
34
Table 5
Alexander Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm:
Obverse Dies Located*
Group
E or F
Total
Didrachms
14
Drachms, eagle
9.5
21.5
14

Triobols
Diobols
0.5
2.5
13
Obols
2.5
0.5
13
Drachms, Zeus
2.5
16.5
Totals
11
15
11
92
Table 6 summarizes the issues known of the small coins. The obverse type of all denomina-
tions is the same as the tetradrachms'. The reverse types are indicated in the table by the
following abbreviations:
Z = Zeus seated, as on the tetradrachms
ER = Eagle standing r., usually on fulmen
ERH = Eagle standing r., head reverted, usually on fulmen
EL = Eagle standing i., usually on fulmen
2E = Two eagles standing facing, on fulmen or exergue line
F = Fulmen
Issues in Alexander of which no specimens have been seen by me are shown in brackets.
35
Issue
E1
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
E7
E8
E8
E9
E-
E-
E-
E-
E-
E-
E3
E7
E8
E9
E?F?
E?F?
Marking Didr.
Rose

Herm r Z
Cock or cock head I Z
"E
J eagle on club
Pentagram
Crescent
Bucranium: L Z
eagle on thyrsus? or torch?
Caduceus Z
No marking: eagle on caduceus;
eagle[s] on club;
eagle on thyrsus;
eagle[s] on torch
No marking
No marking
Cock V Z
Crescent - Z
Bucranium - Z
Caduceus L z
Laurel branch
Drachms
ER
ERH
ERH
ER, ERH|
ERH
ER, ERH|
ERH
ERH
ERH
Triob. Diob.
ER
-ER
EL
Obols
[ER]
ER
ER
ERH
ER
ER
EL
36
D (the filleted caduceus occurs in both C and D, but only in D are monograms found). The
drachms of groups A through D all have the standing eagle reverse type.
As just noted, the numerous obverse links within group E, diagrammed in both Table 3 and
Table 6, allow the firm placement within that group of a number of anomalous issues of
drachms, triobols, and diobols whose attribution has heretofore been uncertain. These coins
have no regular issue markings and often show the eagle standing not on the standard fulmen,
but on caduceus, club, thyrsus, or torch.
By any standardnumber of issues, number of examples located, or number of obverse dies
foundgroup E had the largest output of small coins. This is not surprising, as E was also the
largest group of tetradrachms. In this group, too, the drachms with the usual imperial Alex-
ander drachm reverse of seated Zeus first appear, with issue markings identical to those of some
eagle-reverse coins in the group, and actually obverse linked to one other eagle-reverse issue.
A drachm issue with the simple marking P has heretofore usually, and understandably, been
associated with the Alexander tetradrachms of group L, which bear the same primary marking.*1
The presence now of several examples of the issue in the Near East 1993 hoard,7 however, buried
perhaps ca. 322 (several years earlier than the great Demanhur hoard interred before the strik-
ing of the P tetradrachms of group L), shows that these drachms must be considerably earlier
than tetradrachm group L, and the absence of the title requires a group prior to groups G-K/J.
Also in the Near East 1993 hoard were two drachms with laurel branch symbol, an issue
previously unknown save for one example published in 1988 by Kamen Dimitrov. This was one
of three Alexander drachms forming a small hoard discovered in 1976 at Calim, in Bulgaria.*
Dr. Dimitrov has kindly sent me not only a direct photo of a cast of the coin (175), but also a
translation of his relevant Bulgarian text:
. . . Calim, ca. 35 km. W. from Nicopolis ad Nestum. Three Alexander drachms are kept
in the Historical Museum of Blagoevgrad. . . . According to the control marking . . .

[the coin in question] corresponds to the issue of Demanhur 1563, [J1, with laurel
branch but with the P omitted], Amphipolis 320-319. At the same time the coin is
struck from the same obverse die used for a specimen of an issue not represented in the
Demanhur hoard. . . . [Sardes and Miletus, p. 87, 3 = 174].
The Sardes and Miletus issue cited, die linked with the Calim laurel branch coin, is the P issue.
The laurel branch issue's presence in the Near East 1993 hoard now shows that it too antedates
322/1 at the latest, and the absence of the title again indicates a group prior to groups G-K/J.
No exact correspondences with any tetradrachms' markings exist for these two interesting
issues, but the reverse variation and experimentation introduced in group E may in part explain
their lack of correspondence. The obverses of these P and laurel branch drachms are extremely
similar to many tetradrachms of groups E and F (e.g., 40-56). Their reverse exergue lines, too,
with one dotted exception, are formed by a simple line, an innovation which is known rarely
among the group E tetradrachms, but which is common among those of group F." One of these
groups then must be that to which these P and laurel branch issues belong.
Another Zeus-reverse drachm issue with arrow symbol has long been known. The arrow,
which again does not occur on the tetradrachms, could be considered as associated with group
C's bow or with F's bow and quiver.10 But, as other Zeus-reverse drachms first appear in group
E, these arrow-symbol drachms cannot be so early as group C. Again, the lack of the title rules
out groups G-K/J. The obverse style of many arrow drachms, like that of the P and laurel
R Sardes and Miletus, p. 88; Alexander 141.
7 Chapter 8, hoard 7.
9 See pp. 91-92, and 53.
10 Alexander 50 (placed after coins of group C), hut see Sardes and Miletus, p. 88, where the placement is
with group F.
37
branch drachms just discussed, is very similar to tetradrachms of both groups E and Fbut in
the case of these arrow drachms, one iconographical detail allows a firm placement in group F.
Just as on the group F tetradrachms, their exergue lines, instead of the normal dotted ones, are
sometimes found as simple straight lines (177) or omitted altogether (179). And on at least one
arrow drachm (178) the footstool is indicated by the slanting "short straight line (not to be
confounded with an exergual line)" which is found only on the tetradrachms of group F." The
arrow drachms can only belong to group F.
No small Alexander coins are known after group F. As will be seen below in Chapter 4, the
revived tetradrachms of Philip II, many of whose markings parallel those of Alexander tetra-
drachms, start possibly as early as group I, and certainly by groups K and J, continuing through
L and several subsequent groups. Philip II fractions accompany these Philip tetradrachms
through those parallel with Alexander groups K and Jand then, as I shall argue in Chapter 5,
probably are discontinued before the Philip group parallel to Alexander's group L.
Finally, following group L and the tetradrachms with bucranium and A, Thompson has
deduced from the existence of a plated ancient Alexander imitation drachm with A and torch
that there may have been genuine Alexander drachms with those markings also.12 If so, how-
ever, none have yet been discovered.
Thus the small coins were as follows.
Groups A-D: Alexanders, several denominations, drachms with eagle reverse
Group E: Alexanders, several denominations, drachms with both eagle and Zeus reverses
Group F: Alexanders, drachms, Zeus reverse
Groups G-H:
Groups K-J and perhaps I: Philips. See Chapter 5.
CONCORDANCE TO AND COMMENTARY ON ALEXANDER
ISSUES

Alexander
Issue Denom
3A
15
16
17
24
dr.
2- ob.
ob.
dr.
3- ob.
2-ob.
ob.
2 dr.
25, 25A2-ob.
Corresponding
Tetradrachm
Issue
A1
A1
[A1]
A3
B3
(B6)
B3
B6
B6
This is the coin seen by Price in a private collection.
Described as with wreath between two eagles on reverse, the only coin
cited actually has an ivy leaf (it is a die duplicate of several other
specimens so marked, and the leaf is clear on Alexander's illustration of
16). The coin belongs to group B's issue 25. No diobols with wreath are
known to me.
The one coin known to me of issue 25A (199, with ivy leaf to right) is
from the obverse of all five known examples of issue 25, with ivy leaf
between two eagles (e.g., 198). Coin 199 is from the same die pair as
Alexander's illustrated example of issue 54 and McClean 3509 (the sym-
11 Realtrib., p. 17. See p. 92.
12 "Cavalla," p. 40 (discussion of hoard coin 17).
38
26
ob.
B6
30
ob.
[B7]
33
dr.
E9
34
3-ob.
E9
37
2-dr.
CI
40
2-dr.
C3
40A
dr.
C3
41
3-ob.
C3
42
C3
45
2-dr.
C5
46
2-ob.
C5
47
ob.
C5
49
2-dr.
C6
50
dr.
F-
52
dr.
D1
53
3-ob.

2-ob.
(E7)
54
2-ob.
D1
55
ob.
D1
60
2-dr.
D4
62
2-dr.
D5
63
3-ob.
D5
64
2-ob.
D5
68
2-dr.
39
72
2-dr.
D9
74
dr.
D11
77
dr.
E1
78A
2-dr.
E2
80
2-dr.
E3
81
dr.
E3
82
3-ob.
E3
85
dr.
E5
86
E4
87A
dr.
E6
88
3-ob.

3-ob.
[E6]
90
3-ob.
E7
94
2-dr.
E8
94A
dr.
E8
95, 96
dr.
E8
97
3-ob.
98
2-ob.
E8
100
dr.
E9
101
dr.
E9
107
2-dr.
C2
141
dr.
E?F?
144
dr.
E-
145
dr.
E-
Whether one accepts Thompson's attribution of this issue with PI to
Miletus (Miletus 28-31), or Price's to "Macedonia ('Amphipolis')" it
does not belong at our mint.
See comment at 150.
See comment at 150.
The reverse type of the sole coin cited is an eagle standing left, head
reverted, on an uncertain object. Dr. Price kindly confirmed that the
coin's poor condition made recognition of a symbol, if any; or reading of
any inscription impossible. All other known obols in this Macedonian
coinage have a fulmen as reverse type, and nowhere here in any denom-
ination is there known an eagle with reverted head standing left. Small
coins of Amyntas III, however, bear precisely the types of issues 156,
similarly oriented (e.g., SNGANS 94-96), and thus the coin cited as the
only example of issue 156 is probably of that earlier king.

See comment at 150.
3. ALEXANDER GROUPS: RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
Obverse links provide by far the most important evidence for the order of the Alexander
groups. These links, together with group A's use of symbols found in Philip II's coinage (imme-
diately prior or perhaps for a time contemporary), the presence of the title BAZIAEQI on five of
the groups, and certain repetitions of reverse markings put all the groups into a firm order, with
the one exception of the minute group K (whose placement will be discussed below). Some small
confirmation of this order is provided by other types of evidencehoards, stylistic considera-
tions, and the small denominations of Chapter 2.
OBVERSE LINKS
The 22 die links which have been discovered between the various Alexander groups are
detailed on the following pages and summarized in Figure 4. Tetradrachms provide all but five:
links 6 (drachms), 7 (diobols), 8 (obols), and 15-16 (didrachms). All coins known from these
obverse dies shared by more than one group are described as a possible aid to future researchers.
For the same reason, Newell's provisional tetradrachm obverse die numbers are also given, as
the ANS's casts and photo file cards are marked with these numbers.
Further intra-group connections of the tetradrachms listed via reverse links are mentioned in
the discussion following each die link in order to demonstrate further the complexity of the die
linkage between issues within the groups and to show that the issues directly involved in the
links between groups are often clearly contemporary with other issues in their groups. The
reverses of the coins listed are described by Newell group letter, my issue number, and symbol,
e.g., "A2, stern," while "same die" indicates that the reverse die is that of the immediately
preceding coin.
The evidence is extremely incomplete or there would doubtless be more instances of links such
as link 3, where a die was used for group B, then for A, and then for B again.
Group A with Group B
Link 1, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 25
Stage 1

A A2, stern (215) ANS; ANS
L B Stage 2
B7, grapes (216) Toronto
Stage 3
B7, grapes (217) cast marked "Demanhur"; Naville 6, 28 Jan. 1924, 721,
same die
Stage 4
B7, grapes (218) Ball 6, 9 Feb. 1932, 167, same die
Breaks in the lion's mane commence on the two coins in stage 1, and become ever larger in
succeeding stages.
Stage 1
rA-
B7, grapes (219) formerly ANS = Reattrib., pl. 7, 12; ANS, same die;
Oxford = SNGAshm 2538; Morgenthau 342, 26 Nov. 1934, 189, same die
A2, stern (220) ANS, stern cut over 219's grapes; ANS = Reattrib., pl. 7,
11, same recut die; Saroglos
12
Stage 2
A2, stern (221) ANS
The reverse die of 219 and 220 is the same but, when used for 220, group A's stern symbol
had been cut over B's grapes. As noted above, Newell illustrated coins with stern and grapes in
Reattrib. to show their obverse identity, but did not recognize the reverse identity and recutting
at the time (his evidently subsequent ticket in an ANS coin's box, however, does describe the
recutting).
In stage 2 slight deterioration has appeared around Heracles' mouth.
Stage 1
-] A B2, amphora (222) ANS
/vN/ Stage 2
B A3, double heads (223) ANS; Beirut, same die; ANS cast from Tripolitsa
1921 Hoard, IGCH 84, same die
B2, amphora (224) Berlin, die of 222
Stage 3
A3, double heads (225) ANS; ANS
B2, amphora (226) ANS
In stage 1 there are no breaks in the dotted border at the top of the die, no break between
Heracles' brow and the border, and no break in the field at the top of his nose. In stage 2 slight
breaks have appeared in all three areas. In stage 3 the breaks in the border and at the brow are
more pronounced, and the field behind the lion's mane is starting to deteriorate. Clearly at least
some of A's double-head coins and B's amphora coins were struck simultaneously. The last coin
listed, with amphora, is linked by a net of reverse and obverse dies to all seven of the other
symbols of group B. All but one of these die links are found among coins in the ANS collection.

Stage 1
- A A3, double heads (227) ANS = Reattrib., pl. 1, 8; cast marked "in trade, Cairo,"
s' same die; ANS; Knobloch FPL 33, Apr. 1968, 530, same die
LB
Stage 2
B2, amphora (228) London = Alexander 13a; ANS, same die; ANS = Reattrib.,
pl. 1, 9; ANS
Only in stage 2 are there die breaks at the corner of Heracles' mouth and on his neck below
the lion's jaw. The first ANS coin in stage 2 is linked by its reverse die to another in the ANS
collection, which is from the obverse die of a third there, from the B6 ivy leaf issue.
Stage 1
A B1, cantharus (229) ANS
Stage 2
L B A4, fulmen (230) ANS; Egger 40, 2 May 1912, 592. same die, not illustrated but a
cast is at the ANS
B1, cantharus (231) Saroglos, die of 229; Coin Galleries FPL 5.3 (1964), C49 =
Coin Galleries, FPL 4.3 (1963), C18, same die
In stage 2 only, breaks have occurred at the corner of Heracles' mouth, and in the lion's ear.
The cantharus coins are linked by a net of reverse and obverse dies to five of the seven remaining
symbols of group B (all but B7, grapes, and Bl, stylis).
3. Relative Chronology: Alexanders
13
Group B with Group D
Link 6, drachms
-B B6, ivy leaf (232) Hersh = Giessener 58, 9 Apr. 1992, 234
D1, eagle head (233) Hersh; London = Alexander 52 = Weber 2083
LD
See also links 7 and 8.
Link 7, diobols
Stage 1
Bi B6, ivy leaf in center (234) Paris = Traite IV, 2, 900, pl. 311, 7 = Reattrib., pl. 7,
8; London = Alexander 16, same die; Athens, same die; Aberdeen = SNGDavis
D 141, same die; Hersh, same die
B6, ivy leaf to right (235) St. Petersburg
Stage 2
D1, eagle head (236) Hersh, cut over 235 s ivy leaf; London = Alexander 54,
same recut die; Cambridge, Eng. = McClean 3509, same recut die, symbol
called bucranium
The reverse die of the coins of group D is that of the St. Petersburg example of group B, but
with the ivy leaf recut to eagle head. See also links 6 and 8.
Link 8, obols
Stage 1
B-| B6, ivy leaf (237) London = Alexander 26
D-1 Stage 2
D1, eagle head (238) Hersh, cut over 237's ivy leaf; Hersh, same recut die
The reverse die of all coins is the same, the ivy leaf having been recut to eagle head on the
coins in group D. See also links 6 and 7. Also from this reverse die, in its first stage with ivy

leaf, but from a different obverse die, are another ANS coin and a third coin in the Hersh
collection (210).
Group C with Group D
C2, quiver (239) ANS = Reattrib., pl. 3, 9; H. Schulman, 7 July 1970, 213, same
C die; ANS; Egger 40, 2 May 1912, 632, same die, not illustrated, but a cast is at
the ANS
D D1, eagle head (240) ANS; Weber 2082, same die; Reattrib., pl. 3, 10
A cast at the ANS (from link 10's obverse 117 and 240's reverse) associates obverses 110 and
117.
C C2, quiver (241) ANS
D1, eagle head (242) ANS; Thomas L. Elder, Remarkable Collection of Greek Tetra-
D drachms. . . (New York, n.d.), 71, same die; ANS; ANS; Malloy, 28 Feb. 1972,
322, same die; Berlin
The die is associated with that of link 9.
II
Link 11, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 116 = 121
Stage 1
- C C2, quiver (243) Athens
Stage 2
L D C6, bow (244) Egger 40, 2 May 1912, part of non-illustrated lot 631, but a cast is
at the ANS; ANS, same die; Gillette, same die
D1, eagle head (245) ANS
In stage 2, a die break appears in the central row of the lion's locks, and the field just below
the locks is breaking down. Newell obverses 116 = 121 and 105 (link 12) are both found in a
group C cluster of ANS coins linked by a network of obverse and reverse identities. The cluster
includes all the remaining three symbols of group C.
Stage 1
- C C3, grain ear (246) ANS
Stage 2
L D C2, quiver (247) ANS; Berlin
C3, grain ear (248) ANS
C4, trident head (249) ANS
D5, star (250) Cambridge, Mass. = Dewing 1122
In stage 1, there is a small die break just to the left of and below Heracles' ear. In stage 2 this
break has enlarged, and new breaks have appeared at Heracles' nose and at the angle of his chin
and neck (this last break has been cut away on 249). The die is associated with that of link 11.
Stage 1
C CI, filleted caduceus (251) ANS; cast marked "Pozzi," same die

D D1, eagle head (252) Cambridge, Mass. = Dewing 1117; ANS; cast marked "Mrs.
Brett," same die
Stage 2
D1, eagle head (253) ANS, die of 252; Saroglos, same die; ANS
In stage 2, a die break beginning in the field at Heracles' brow has greatly enlarged. The first
ANS coin (251) shares a reverse die with another ANS coin whose obverse was used also for
coins of C4 (trident head) and C6 (bow).
Stage 1
- C C5, Pegasus forepart (254) ANS
Stage 2
L D D2, Macedonian shield (255) ANS
Die breaks are present at Heracles' nose in both stages of the die, but only in stage 2 is there
also a break in the hair at his brow and deterioration in the upper left field.
The reverse die of 255 is shared with another ANS coin whose obverse was used for five other
issues of group D, namely, D1 (eagle head), D3 (club), D6 (filleted caduceus M), D8 (caduceus
i!JL), and D10 (club id) (see 26-27. 29, 32, 34 and 37) and with a third ANS coin whose obverse
was used also for D4 (horse head).
45
Link 15, didrachms
Stage 1
- C CI, filleted caduceus (256) Hersh = Glendining, 7 Mar. 1957, 21; Lanz 48, 22 May
N' 1989, 193, same die, but the symbol called bee on rose and the coin an
D unpublished didrachm of Pella
Stage 2
D5, star (257) ANS
D7, caduceus il (258) ANS; St. Petersburg, same die
Below the lower left lock of the lion's hair a small break appears only on the coins of group D.
Link 16, didrachms
- C C5, Pegasus forepart (259) Hersh = Giessener 58, 9 Apr. 1992, 229; London =
Alexander 45 = Reattrib., pl. 7, 1, same die
LD C6, bow (260) ANS = Reattrib., pl. 15, 2
D4, horse head (261) Hersh = Giessener 60, 5 Oct. 1992, 114
D7, caduceus Ji, or possibly D8, caduceus i!JL, or caduceus J"\ (262) Berlin
The last coin, 262, is extremely worn, but the obverse does seem to be that of the other coins.
Group D with Group E
"D D5, star (263) cast marked "Case"; ANS; ANS, same die
D11, dolphin (264) ANS
LE E1, rose (265) Copenhagen = SNGCop 672
Either the die or the flan was defective when 265 was struck, as the type is missing in a large
arc around the upper edge of the coin's obverse. The small E1, with rose, is known from but
three coins and two obverse dies. One die, here, is shared with group D coins; the other, with
another issue of group E (40, 44). The rose issue could thus belong with either group D or group

E, but is here left where Newell placed it.1 In either case, an obverse link between D and E
results.
Group E with Group F
Stage 1
-E E3, cock (266) ANS; Parke-Bernet, 16 Oct. 1968, 23, same die; Grabow 14,
27 July 1939, 244, same die; ANS
LF
Stage 2
E3, cock (267) ANS; Miinz. u. Med. FPL 333, Apr. 1972, 11
F3, cornucopia (268) ANS
In stage 2, a dot just to the left of and below the lion's ear has enlarged, and another break has
appeared to the left of and below the first one, between the second and third locks from the top
in the outer row of the lion's mane. The reverse die of 268 is shared with another ANS coin
whose obverse was used also for a coin of F5 (bow and quiver).
1 See p. 22, note b.
16
Group F with Group G
- F F4, Athena Promachus (269) ANS = Reattrib., pl. 9, 3
G2, Athena Promachus (270) ANS = Reattrib., pl. 9, 4; Petsalis, same die
LG
Group I with Group J
Stage 1
- I II, M (271) ANS
12, * (272) ANS
L J Stage 2
J5, P crescent (273) ANS
In stage 2, the obverse has suffered general deterioration, and looks "softer," with breaks at
Heracles' nose and to the right of his ear, and in the lion's locks.
"I 13, (274) Stockholm; Berlin, same die
J1, grain ear (275) ANS
LJ
The last coin, 275, is in extremely poor condition, but its reverse seems to be as described,
without the P.
Group L with A-Bucranium Group
L7, F dolphin (276) Athens from Lamia 1901-2 hoard (IGCH 93)
A-Bucr. A over bucranium in left field, E under throne (277) Saroglos; unidentified photo

(278), same die
Although groups after L have not been examined in detail for this study, link 22 has come to
my attention. Mando Oeconomides has verified that the Lamia hoard obverse and reverse casts
are indeed of a single coin.
In Figure 4, solid brackets show tetradrachm links, and dashed brackets show links between
smaller denominations. Brackets to the left indicate the 22 obverse links found between the
Alexander groups, and those to the right show reverse links resulting from recutting of the
reverse dies. Tetradrachms furnish 17 of the links and the remaining five are found among
smaller denominations (which exist only in groups A through F). Arrows on the brackets show
the order, when ascertainable, in which the dies were used. Numbers on the brackets are those
of the links already described. Dotted brackets to the right indicate multiple identical reverse
markings (groups F and G, J and L). As shown, groups G through K/J include the title
BAZIAEQZ in their inscriptions.
17
Figure 4
Die Links between Alexander Groups
21A2
11
i in q II
1' r c vv
II
18L E
1!)L F
-GJ
543
r r ii
876{J{\
14 13 12 1
rr
16 15 1 1 1 14 13 12 1
iV111
II
BAZIAEQZ
21 20 i
VK
J_
fLJ
- A-Bucranium
Links 1-5, 9-14, 17-22: tetradrachms

Link 6: drachms
Link 7: diobo1s
Link 8: obols
Links 15-16: didrachms
OTHER EVIDENCE
Given the framework of obverse die links just detailed, other evidence does little more than
confirm the order they provide. Still other observations are all perfectly consistent with the
order in Figure 4 and will be discussed below in Chapter 9, in connection with the mint's
absolute chronology.
Hoards
As Newell long ago wrote, the Kyparissia 1892/93 hoard, with its coins of groups A through D
only, showed these four groups to be the earliest struck. Karditsa 1925 included coins of C
through I, seven contiguous groups. Five hoards ending with group J are known. Of these,
Akcakale 1958 contained every group except A and the small K, and Demanhur 1905 and
Andritsaena ca. 1923 included every group, even K.2
Style
Newell dealt with details of style and iconography, and the progression from group to group,
at some length in Reattrib. His analyses cannot be improved by the present author, but such
2 See Chapters 8 and 9 for fuller discussion of these hoards.
48
aspects as are relevant to absolute chronology, whether or not treated by him, will be discussed
below in Chapter 9.
Small Denominations
Not surprisingly, the present study of the small Alexander denominations only corroborates
the group order already established, although it does provide the only actual die links known
between groups A and B and the rest of the coinage. The eagle-reverse coins of various denomi-
nations are found only in A through E, and only in E do the Zeus-reverse drachms come in,
which then are the only small coin struck in the following group F. No small coins of Alex-
ander's types are known after group F.
DISCUSSION
Newell stated in Demanhur, without giving specific examples or illustrations beyond those few
presented in Reattribution, that the tetradrachm groups were all bound in sequence by a series of
obverse dies linking one group to the next: ". . . group 'A' will possess certain dies that were used
in its production and then were continued in use, in a slightly more worn condition, for group
'B.' Group 'B,' in turn, will be found to possess certain obverse dies that had already been used
for 'A,' and others that were later used for 'C,' and so forth."3 This account of the groups'
linkage is somewhat of a simplification. Newell knew most of the links presented above. He
apparently did not know the B-D or D-E links, and he evidently did not realize until after
Reattribution's publication that at least some of group B was contemporary with group A.4
Further, no B C links such as he suggests have been located.
At least since the publication of Reattribution, group A has been recognized as the first,
because three of its symbols (prow, stern, and double heads) are the same as those found at the
end of the lifetime or early posthumous coinage of Alexander's father, Philip II.5 And, although
its shape is different in the two coinages, Le Rider has suggested that the rudder, which occurs
rarely in Philip's issues, is a possible fourth symbol relating group A to Philip's coinage.6

Group B, repeatedly linked to A, should be next. But the first modification of Newell's order
is that here some overlap between groups must be accepted, because of the links where an
obverse die was used first for a coin or coins of group B before being used for group A (links 2, 3,
and 5 above), and because of the unique recutting of a symbol of group B to one of group A (see
link 2).
Groups C and D, linked by no fewer than eight obverse dies, are clearly contiguous. Group D
would at first seem to have followed C, because, of the five shared obverse dies whose priority of
use can be determined, all five were first used for group C. A complication is, however, intro-
duced by links 6-8, where drachm, diobol, and obol obverses were used both for B and for D, the
two smaller denominations having had their reverse symbols recut from one of group B to one of
group D.
Because of the large number of obverse links between A and B and between C and D (a
pattern which does not recur), and because of the newly recognized B and D links, it now seems
probable that A and B were struck concurrently at two adjoining locations, followed by C and D
at the same two respective locations (workshops? adjoining rooms? adjacent anvils?). If group
C had chronologically separated B and D, all three groups emanating from the same workshop,
it is hard to see why new dies should have been cut for C, while B's dies were preserved unused
until returned to service, recut where necessary, for coins of group D. But certainty is not to be
had, and no great violence can be done by leaving Groups A through D in their traditional order.
:! Demanhur, pp. 65-66.
* See discussion following, and comments on link 2, above.
5 Reattrib., p. 21; Philippe, Amphipolis group IIB.
6 Philippe, pp. 389-90.
19
Following group D, successive obverse links, the introduction and abandonment of the title
BAZIAEQZ, and similarities in reverse markings make the groups' order inescapable except for
the position of the minute group K.
I have placed K in the tables before J, although a strict linear order is probably misleading.
More interesting than the placement of K, however, is the question of its very attribution to our
mint. Newell in Reattribulion published only one issue of the group (K3, its largest) and assigned
it to an uncertain mint of Macedonia, Thrace, or Asia Minor. By the time of Demanhur's
publication, however, he had placed it, although without comment, at Amphipolis.7
Price has now argued against this attribution, considering group K (the A group) as the
immediate predecessor of the A- or r-bucranium and A- or v-torch serieswhich he considered
struck at Amphipolis. He posited that groups A-I, J, and L belong together, but without
successors, at another mint, presumably Pella.8 I would not necessarily disagree with his sugges-
tion that the mint for the huge output of groups A through L and their successors may have
changed at some point. His suggestion of an introduction at Pella with a subsequent move to
Amphipolis could possibly be true. But this study attemps to deal with numismatic evidence
only, and that evidence seems at the very least to contradict the division at the particular point
that Price suggests. Precisely because his monumental work will inevitably and deservedly
become the standard reference for Alexander's coinage, I should like to respond here in some
detail to Price's arguments.
First, he assumes that the title of BAZIAEQZ, once dropped (as it was in group L) would stay
dropped, that there would be no brief recurrence. This is surely correct.
Second, he states that group J (the P-group) follows directly on the symbol-only issues of
groups A-I. This also seems correct, although not for the reasons he gives.9
Third, he says that group L (the P-group) should follow directly on J for two reasons. One is
that P is an elaboration of P: this is of course quite possible but not necessarily so. The second

reason is the shared symbols between J and L, which is quite convincing.1"
And, as group L first drops the title BAZIAEQZ," Price concludes that there would appear to
be no room in the sequence for group K (the A-group), which bears the title. It then, he says,
will have been the direct predecessor, but at another mint, of the A-bucranium and A-torch
groups. His reasoning is tight and would be persuasive, but the separation of group K from our
mint seems almost certainly impossible in the light of the four die links now known between the
posthumous Philips analogous to group K and those analogous to group J. Moreover, any
suggestion that dies might have been transferred from J at our mint to K as the initial group at
7 Reattrib., p. 40, issue 62; Demanhur 1582.
8 Alexander, pp. 86-87, expanding on arguments previously given in his "On Attributing Alexanders
Some Cautionary Tales," in Greek Numismatics and Archaeology. Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson, ed.
O. Morkholm and N. M. Waggoner (Wetteren, 1979), pp. 2-11-50, at 247-49.
9 He adduces obverse links between a coin with P and laurel branch, and coins with crescent alone and with
laurel branch alone. These latter two, however, are merely examples of a few rare, perhaps early or perhaps
only poorly executed coins of group J. They are not part of a group of their own, nor are they connected to
any earlier issues. See Chapter 1, issues J1 (grain ear alone, 3 coins and 2 reverses known), J2 (crescent alone,
3 coins and 2 reverses known), and .J3 (laurel branch alone, 2 coins and 1 reverse known). Nevertheless, a firm
tie between group J and earlier groups is provided by the two obverse dies now known to be shared by I and
J. See links 20 and 21 above.
10 price adduces four shared symbols: filleted caduceus, grain (or corn) ear, crescent, and laurel branch. Of
these, only two (grain ear and crescent) seem to be shared. See the commentary at the end of Chapter 1 on
Price's issues 127 ("P and filleted caduceus" and 110 ("P and laurel branch"). Nevertheless, among the Philip
issues analogous to groups J and L there are four or possibly five common symbols. See p. 53, Table 7, groups
8 and 9. Therefore, again, group J does seem closely connected to L.
II Citing his issues 126 and 127, Price states that a few coins of group J also drop the title. The examples
given seem, however, merely bungled examples of group L, with P. See the commentary on 126 and 127 at
the end of Chapter 1.
50
another mint is ruled out by the observation that in the Philip link where priority of use can be
determined, the die was used for coins of group K before being employed for coins of group J.12
Yet it remains quite true, as Price has pointed out, that K does not logically fit in the
sequence either before or after J. The resolution is again provided by the study of the contem-
porary Philip groups, some analogous to J and K, some not, but all so tightly and intricately
obverse linked that the only explanation seems to be that all were more or less contemporary.13
The tiny Alexander group K, if also struck concurrently with J, which would seem likely, then
presents no problem. Price's sequence A through I to J to L is preserved, yet K being contem-
porary with J means that our mint need not be divided into two, at least at the spot Price
proposes.
And finally, link 22 above, between group L (with P) and the A-bucranium group, seems to
rule out Price's sequence at his proposed second mint of group K (with A), A-bucranium,
A-torch.
Newell in Demanhur placed group K after J, presumably because of the single die link which
his tickets show that he knew between I and J. More recently, both Le Rider and Thompson
have preferred to place K before J,14 but the disagreement is meaningless if K was contemporary
with J. But because some order is inevitable in a serial listing, I have opted, despite the two I-J
links, for K before J because of the more numerous shared dies among the analogous Philip II
reissues. Another consideration is that after group I two markings rather than one identify the
various issues and a primary marking for each group is accompanied by a varying secondary
marking. Only in K is there inconsistency in the placement of the two markings, with the
primary one either in the left field or below the throne and the secondary one in the other spot.15
In J and L, however, the placement is unvarying. Unfortunately then, the unavoidable strict
linear order presented in the tables does not, in the case of group K, accurately represent reality.
The last group in this study, L, despite its superficial similarity to group J (P instead of P, and

the two groups' shared secondary markings), is a totally different outpouring from group J. No
obverse links connect the two groups, and only one possible but quite doubtful link joins the
analogous Philip groups 8 and 9.16 Several hoards contain coins of all or most groups down to
and including J, but not L. Group L drops the title BAZIAEQZ present on the five preceding
groups. And, while abundant small-denomination coins (of Philip's types) accompany groups K
and J, none are known that are analogous to group L.17 P may resemble P indeed may well be
an elaboration of Pbut the two groups of coins are completely different.
12 See Chapter 6, links 14-17 especially 14 and 17. Further, contrary to Price's assertion, Newell's trays,
provisional die numbers, and notebook for both the Alexander and Philip series make it clear that his order
was group J, K, L, A or ^-bucranium, v-torch, A-torch. The use of the letter A is not limited in any case to
group K and the A-bucranium and A-torch groups: it is found in Philip groups 5 and 6, contemporary with 8
(with P), and also in Philip group 9 (with P).
13 See Chapter 6.
14 Philippe, p. 397, n. 5; Sardes and Miletus, p. 88, n. 90.
15 Cf. 72-75.
16 See Chapter 6, link 18.
17 See Chapter 5.
4. POST-323 PHILIP II TETRADRAGHM REISSUES
No even reasonably satisfactory study of the Alexander coinage of Amphipolis can omit a
study also of the late reissues of Philip II tetradrachms and smaller coins which parallel many of
the posthumous Alexander issues. These tetradrachms' obverses depict a handsome head of
Zeus, and their reverses bear the simple legend OlAinnOY and a nude mounted horseman. A
summary of the Philip tetradrachms whose markings correspond to those of the Alexanders of
groups K, J, and L, and perhaps I, follows. These late Philip II reissues continue beyond those
shown here, which end with those contemporary with Alexander group L.1
ISSUES AND GROUPS
Table 7 summarizes the post-323 Philip issues through those analogous to Alexander group
L. These late issues form Le Rider's Philippe Amphipolis silver group III.2 Le Rider gives only
a brief overview of this group, not the thorough die study accorded Philip's earlier Amphipolis
silver. Essentially he presents a list of issues to which a few corrections now seem justified.
These are given at the end of this chapter.
The numbers assigned the Philip tetradrachm groups here are not Le Rider's (who gives
none), but the present author's. Numbers were chosen rather than letters in order to differenti-
ate the Philip groups from the Alexander groups. The order of the Philip groups here is for the
most part that adopted by Le Rider, who remarks that his order is in many cases arbitrary.3
The only changes made here are that group 7, listed as two separate contiguous sections in
Philippe, is presented as a single group and placed after rather than before group 6 because 5
and 6's secondary markings are largely identicai. Also, the fractions of groups 2 through 6
(group 1 has none) normally bear both issue markings of their analogous tetradrachms, while 7's
fractions, like those of group 8, bear only the secondary issue markings.4
The conclusion reached below in Chapter 6 will be that most if not all of these Philip groups
were issued more or less simultaneously. The numbering of the groups has been adopted for
convenience of reference, as we do not seem to be dealing here with a linear sequence of groups
(see Figure 5 for the complicated die linkage among groups 2-8).5

Unlike the Alexander groups', the Philip groups' issue markings clearly show the internal
coherence of each group. Many internal die links are known, some published in the summary in
Philippe, and more in SNGANS. At least one example of each tetradrachm issue is illustrated
here, on Plates 12-14, and a few internal die links are also shown which do not appear elsewhere.
Table 7 gives the issue markings found in each group, the plate locations of representative
examples, Philippe plate references, initial SNGANS numbers, and the number of examples
located for each issue. Regardless of their positions on the coins, the primary marking is given
first, followed by the secondary one. When an issue has the same marking or markings as an
Alexander issue, the Alexander issue's group letter and issue number are given in bold type,
before the Philip issue's markings: e.g., K2 before the first issue in group 7 indicates that this
Philip issue has precisely the markings of Alexander group K, issue 3. Markings given in paren-
theses are known only in the Philip fractions and are included merely to fill out the issue list, as
examples of such tetradrachms may well surface some day.
1 See "Tetradrachms Amphipolis" for a summary of later Alexander and Philip issues.
2 Philippe, p. 120-24.
3 Philippe, p. 120.
4 See Chapter 5.
5 See p. 69.
52
Table 7
Post-323 Philip II Tetradrachm Groups and Issues
Markings
Group 1, 1 coin
II? M
Group 2, 9 coins
HI bee
HI amphora
SI or ffl, ivy leaf
HI globule
(IH or ffl, star)
Group 3, 16 coins
M amphora (club?)
Al ivy leaf
^1 globule
M star
M grapes
(fl club)
Group 4, 7 coins
N star
grapes
N re [sic]
/Y club
Group 5, 13 coins
(Causia A)

Causia E
Causia A"
Causia M
Causia T
Causia, globule, A
Causia, globule, E
(Causia, globule, M)
Causia, globule, T
Group 6, 45 coins
Plate
Initial
Philippe SNGANS
Plate Number
279
43, 1
280
43, 9
571
281
44, 1
282
43, 10
572
283
284
44, 2
285
576
286
44, 11
577
287
44, 9
288
44, 5, 6
579
289
44, 8
580
290
4. Philip II Tetradrachms
53
Initial
Philippe SNGANS Examples
Markings Plate Plate Number Found
Group 7, 72 coins
K2
A P or P
308
45, 5, 6
630
25
r 309
K3
AT r
310
45, 15, 16
643
16
K6
L 311
45, 11-13
638
24
312
313

A ^1
45, 14
636
Group 8, 93 coins
J4
r grain ear
314
46, 3
667
27
J5
P crescent
"315
46, 4
674
25
P forked branch
316
46, 5
683
20
P aplustre
317
46, 8
P profile shield
318
46, 6
688
Trident head
L 319
46, 1
691
P trident head
320
46, 2
51
in that group. Group 1's monogram M also is identical to one variant in Alexander issue II, and,
as other Philip reissues repeat some markings of Alexander groups K, J, and L, it remains
possible that the Philips commenced as early as Alexander group I.7
The composition of groups 2 through 7 is self-evident and the primary markings clearly show
which coins and issues belong in each group. Groups 8 and 9, however, present problems. These
are the coins with the primary marking P or P. The groups with these markings, both Philips
and Alexanders, were for the most part poorly and often carelessly made, apparently in some
haste. The two series in each king's strikings used many of the same secondary symbols, but are
subject to being confused because of the similarity of the primary markings P and P, which
differ only by a single dot. The correct attribution of an Alexander, even with a poorly or
imperfectly executed letter or monogram, is simple because group J, with P, included the title
BAZIAEQZ in the inscription, while group L, with P, did not. Among the Philip coins, however,
the attribution depends solely upon whether the marking is P or P and, given the often poor
workmanship involved, it can be virtually impossible to decide whether the presence or absence
of the critical dot is intentional or accidentai. Further, there exist numbers of barbaric imita-
tions of the Philips, especially in these problematic groups 8 and 9 and in following groups also.
Obvious imitations have been excluded from this study, but some may well not have been
recognized. Some group 8 and 9 coins are possibly wrongly attributed in Table 7, but the overall
picture should be approximately correct.
More important is the possible, but highly uncertain, die link between Philip groups 8 and 9
which results from taking a few coins at face value, that is, trusting that their markings are
intentional and not the result of carelessness or accident. For discussion of the coins involved in
these links, see Chapter 6, link 18, and p. 53, note b.
THE SIZE OF THE GROUPS
The size of each group, as judged from the estimated number of obverse dies employed, seems

to bear little relation to the number of issues in the group. Contrary to what one might at first
assume from Philippe's treatment of these strikings, essentially a listing of issues, the sizes of the
groups varied widely, from 3 to 56 estimated dies used for a given group. Table 8 shows the
numbers of coins and of obverse dies located, the coin to die ratios, and, as in the similar table of
Alexander tetradrachms above, Table 2,8 the estimated number of obverse dies employed for
each group. All conventions are those of Table 2.
Table 8
Post-323 Philip Tetradrachm Group Sizes
Obverse
Coin
Estimated
Group
Coins
Dies
Die Ratios
Obv. Dies
10
2.5
4.00
16
7.3
2.19
11
2.5
2.80
13
2.5
5.20
15
15.5
2.90
20
4. Philip II Tetradrachms
55
COMMENTARY ON PHILIPPE ISSUES
These comments concern three tetradrachms listed in Philippe, p. 124, and illustrated there
on pl. 46. They are coins of groups 8 and 9, with the primary markings P or P.
Plate 46, 8, "aplustre and P." The issue may exist, but this particular coin does have a faint
dot within the P, and belongs to group 9's very large P-aplustre issue. I am most grateful to
Martin Price for a direct photograph of the coin (324) and an enlargement of the reverse. It is
from the dies of Munz. u. Med. 13, 17 June 1954, 1096, and from the reverse of 325, both of
which clearly show the P. The obverse of 324 is not known elsewhere and 325 s is known only in
group 9: Myers, 11 May 1972, 18, P aplustre; 329, P wreath; and a cast at the ANS, P dolphin.
Plate 46, 9, "dolphin and P." The ANS has a cast of this coin, which does seem to have a dot
present, joined to the inner edge of the right perpendicular element of the P. As the coin in
question would be the only known example of the supposed P-dolphin issue, it almost certainly
is merely a poorly executed specimen of the extremely large P-dolphin issue of group 9, where its
poor, flat relief would be typicai.
Plate 46, 12, "laurel branch and P." The coin would be the only known example of this
supposed issue (note, however, the fractions with a horizontal, quite different branch).9 It seems
more likely that the symbol of pl. 46, 12, is a poorly engraved grain ear, an issue not listed in
Philippe, but of which several examples are known, e.g. 326. Ineptly engraved grain ears are
common also on Alexanders with P, e.g. 95-97.

9 See pp. 58 and 62.
5. POST-323 PHILIP II COINS SMALLER THAN THE TETRADRAGHM
FIFTHS
By far the chief subdivision of the post-323 Philip reissues is a small coin with the head of
Apollo wearing taenia on obverse1 and OIAITTTFOY with a nude horseman on reverse. The denom-
ination of these little pieces is unclear. As Le Rider points out, they are certainly too heavy to
be considered tetrobols on the standard of the tetradrachm of the period (ca. 14.29-14.39 g),
which would require a coin of, at most, 2.38-2.40 g. Nor are they heavy enough to be truly fifths
of a tetradrachm (ca. 2.86-2.88), such as the fifths with the same types were in the lifetime
coinage of Philip. Le Rider suggests that these fractions could pass at their period as tetrobols
on the Attic standard, but on the whole prefers to regard them as fifths of the tetradrachm.2
Their correct denomination, however, being unclear, and Le Rider's persuasive "fifths of the
tetradrachm" rather unwieldy, these coins will simply be called "fifths."
There are known also a few extremely rare "tenths" and several examples of what must be
drachms on the Attic weight standard which belong with these abundant post-323 Philip fifths.
These other denominations will be discussed briefly later in this chapter.3 A few corrections to
Le Rider's small-coin listings are also given at the end of the chapter.
Table 9 presents the issues found of the fifths. The first column gives the issue's markings
(primary marking before the secondary one, regardless of their position on the coins) and the
second the plate location of a representative example or examples. Plate numbers in Philippe
form the third column, and the fourth gives the issues' initial coin numbers in SNGANS. The
last column gives the number of examples found of each issue. Brackets to the left of the plate
references indicate obverse die links, those to the right, reverse links.
Some small issues cannot be definitely assigned to a particular group, namely those with the
single markings of globule or amphora (group 2 or 3), and star (group 2, 3, or 4). The last issue
listed, with simple straight laurel branch, can only probably be placed in group 8.4
1 I follow Ulla Westermark in considering the obverse head to be Apollo. See her "Remarks on the Regal
Macedonian Coinage ca. 413-359 B.C.," in Kraay-Morkholm Essays. Numismatic Studies in Memory of C. M.

Kraay and 0. Merkholm, ed. G. Le Rider, G. K. Jenkins, N. Waggoner, and U. Westermark (Louvain-
la-Neuve, 1989), pp. 301-15. See p. 303 for the argument for Apollo, based in part on the occasional presence
of a laurel wreath instead of the taenia (ef. 339).
2 Philippe, pp. 359-62. On p. 359 Le Rider suggests that the earlier Philip fractions with the same types as
these were instituted in order to facilitate the exchange of Philip tetradrachms with Attic weight gold staters.
How much more necessary would some aid to exchange have been at this later period, when Attic-weight
tetradrachms of Alexander were being issued simultaneously with Philip tetradrachms. One Philip tetra-
drachm and one so-called fifth of a tetradrachm do not weigh quite as much as an Attic tetradrachm, but one
must take into account the usual tendency for small coins to weigh less than their theoretical weight and the
fact that such exchanges would be for the most part locai. Price came to this same conclusion in Alexander,
p. 38. In favor of such a function for the small coins is the observation later in this chapter that the fifths
were issued in roughly proportional numbers (if one can judge by surviving coins) with their corresponding
tetradrachms.
Price has also convincingly shown that the small coins, fifths of the Philip tetradrachms, were in reality
drachms, and the traditional Macedonian large coins, more properly termed staters than tetradrachms, were
traditionally divided into five, not four parts, i.e., drachms (Alexander, pp. 38-39). But the term fifths will be
used in this text to avoid confusion with Alexander's Attic-weight drachms.
3 See pp. 61-63.
* See p. 58.
5. Smaller Philip II Coins
57
Table 9
Philip II Fifths: Groups and Issues
Plate
Philippe
SNGANS Examples
Markings
Plate
Number
Found
Group 2, 9 coins
in
336
44, 4
W bee
337
44, 3
W globule
338
339
574

III or Ifl, star
Group 3, 22 coins
^1 ivy leaf
r 340
341
44, 14
581
M globule
L 343
342
44, 17
Star
44, 28
A star
344
44, 13
583
Grapes
r 345
44, 18
^1 grapes
L 346
44, 15
M club
347
44, 16
584
^1 uncertain marking
58
Plate Philippe SNGANS Examples
Markings Plate Number Found
369
45, 21
663
10
370
45, 17-18
661
13
371
45, 20
658
.")
372
15, 19
660
Group 8, 115 coins
Grain ear
373"
43, 2;
696

29
45, 10;
374"
46, 22-23
375
376
377
Crescent
378
46, 24-25
706
17
Forked branch
379
46, 26-27
711
29
380
Aplustre
381
46, 31
721
Profile shield
382
46, 29, 32
731
'.I
Trident head
383
46, 20-21
723
13c
Macedonian shield
384
46, 30
726
11
Group 8 ?, 9 coins
Laurel branch
385
46, 28
59
Table 10
Philip II Tetradrachms and Fifths: Examples Located
Group
Tetradrachms
Fifths
16
22
2 or 3
2, 3, or 4
13
13
45
72
50
93
115
235

43
Table 11
Occurrence of Symbols on Philip II Fifths
and on Tetradrachms of Groups 8 and 9
Group 8, r
Tetradrachms
Grain ear
Crescent
Forked branch
Aplustre
Profile shield
Trident head
Macedonian shield
Fifths
Grain ear
Crescent
Forked branch
Aplustre
Profile shield
Trident head
Macedonian shield
Laurel branch
Group 9, P
Tetradrachms
Grain ear
Crescent
Forked branch
Aplustre
?Profile shield
Wreath
Dolphin
Axe
* See p. 64, commentary on Philippe, pl. 46, 32.
til)
I. Ampuipolis Silver, ca. 332 - ca. 310
Table 12
Philip II Tetradrachms and Fifths:
Examples Located
Group
Marking
Tetradrachms
Fil
Ffl bee
ffl amphora
ffl globule
Bl ivy leaf
H star

fii amphora'? club?
fii ivy leaf
fii globule
fii star
fii grapes
fii *
fii club
__
.,i
fii uncertain marking
fit *
fit star
fit grapes
fit club
Causia A
lil
Table 13
Certain Philip II Tetradrachms and Fifths:
Examples Located
Group #
Tetradrachms
Fifths
29
17
29
<)
Group 9
Tetradrachms
Forked branch
Aplustre
Profile shield
Grain ear
Crescent
27
2f>
20
ti
15
86
?4

The number of crescent fifths, 17, is compatible with either group 8's 25 or group 9's 15
tetradrachms, and the 9 profile shield fifths might also belong to either group (if indeed group
9's profile shield issue even exists),8 but the number of fractions with the other three symbols is
far out of line with the numbers of tetradrachms known in group 9, while according well with
those of group 8. By itself this analysis of the sizes of the issues is far from definitive, but may
help to strengthen the other evidence suggesting that these problematic fractional reissues of
Philip II belong to group 8.
Finally there are the obverse links detailed in the following chapter. Nine links between
groups are known among the fifths. Five of these (links 2, 4, 6, 7, and 10) do not involve groups
8 or 9, but all parallel obverse links found among the tetradrachms. A sixth link among the
small coins (link 15) involves a coin with trident head symbolwhich must be of group 8, not 9,
as the trident head does not occur in group 9. This link too parallels an obverse link among the
tetradrachms. The remaining three obverse links among the fifths (links 9, 16, and 17) involve
small coins with symbols common to both group 8 and group 9forked branch, grain ear, and
crescent. Because all the six other known links among the fifths parallel known tetradrachm
links, it seems only reasonable to assume that these three links do also, and thus at a minimum
that the specific coins in question here and very likely their whole issues as wellbelong not to
group 9 but to group 8.
The Philip tetradrachms of group 9 are succeeded by other Philip issues whose markings
repeat those of many Alexanders subsequent to group L, but no Philip fractions of any size are
known with these later emissions. The small denominations with Philip's types would seem to
have ceased with those of group 8.
These few small coins have weights between 1.23 and 1.30g, roughly half the weight of the
fifths. Their obverses are as those of the fifths, and their reverses bear the forepart of a horse to
right. They are known in two issues only, with grain ear and straight laurel branch, as on the
fractions of group 8 described above.
x See note 7, above.
TENTHS
62
Table 14
Philip II Tenths
Philippe SNGANS
Markings Plate Plate Number Examples
Grain ear 386 46, 33, 34 735A 5
Laurel branch 387 46, 35, 36 3
ATTIC-WEIGHT DRACHMS
Six such coins are known to me, from four obverse and three reverse dies. Their obverses
show a head of Heracles as on the standard Alexander coins, and their reverses depict a nude
rider holding palm branch, his horse walking right with one foreleg raised as on Philip's contem-
porary tetradrachms. The combination of types should not be throught of as a hybrid, however,
for Philip's lifetime didrachms and drachms coupled just such a Heracles head with slightly
different horseman reverses identical to tetradrachms of their time.9 These Attic-weight
drachms do not appear in Philippe or SNGANS.
Table 15
Philip II Attic-Weight Drachms
Markings Plate Examples
P grain ear 388 1
Grain ear 389 2
Crescent (horns
down: ) r 390 i 3
L 391 ]
392 J
The P on the first coin, known since 1891 although first published in 1973, places that issue in
group 8, together with the die linked simple grain ear issue.10 Neither the grain ear alone nor the

crescent alone is known on any Philip tetradrachms of either group 8 or group 9, but both are
known on the Alexander tetradrachms of group J, analogous to Philip group 8."
The crescent issue is Miiller's 273 "tetrobol" (equivalent to octobol in present-day terminol-
ogy), published in 1855.12 The first crescent coin illustrated here (390), acquired in 1841 by the
British Museum, presumably also gave rise to Historia Numorum's citation of such an issue on
the Attic standard.13
9 E.g., Philippe, Amphipolis 109-10, 142-44, 174-76. These coins showed the mounted king on reverse.
They were lighter than the drachms under discussion, being one-quarter of the weight of the tetradrachms of
Philip which were lighter than the Attic tetradrachm.
10 The first coin is in Cambridge, SNGLewis 500. Its obverse also was used for a coin with grain ear symbol
alone (not illustrated).
11 See p. 23, J1 and J2 (81 and 82).
12 Miiller, p. 337, 10, and table 26 (Philip II), 273. I thank Martin Price for pointing out this citation. I
thank also Dr. H.-D. Schultz for the coin's weight of 4.06 (Miiller gives 4.07), and for the information that it
was "erworben 1852 vom Consul Spiegelthal in Smyrna." It is not clear whether the coin was purchased
"from Consul Spiegelthal, [who was consul] in Smyrna" or whether it was purchased "by Consul Spiegelthal in
Smyrna." If the latter, however, this may be an extremely rare instance of a silver coin of Philip II circulat-
ing in Asia Minorperhaps because of its Attic weight.
13 HN, p. 223. The denomination is again called an octobol, but the 66 grain theoretical weight given
equates to 4.28, the weight of the Attic drachm.
63
The unusual orientation of the crescent, with horns down, also points to a placement in group
8. Such an orientation is unreported on any Philip tetradrachms in either group 8 or group 9, or
on the Alexanders of group L, contemporary with Philip group 9. This orientation is, however,
found on a number of the Alexander tetradrachms in group J, contemporary with Philip group
8."
The weights and axes of the six known specimens are 4.03 <-, P grain ear; 4.11 f and 4.18 f,
grain ear; and 4.07 [, 4.06 j, (holed), and 4.13 [, crescent. Clearly drachms on the Attic stan-
dard, they are a considerable anomaly, the only silver with Philip's type struck to this standard
at any time.15
Private communications have revealed considerable doubt as to the coins' genuineness. First
and most important, of course, is their weight, but the treatment of Heracles' hair at the brow,
the dotted circle on the reverse of the grain ear coins with the dots placed over a faint linear
circle, and the incuse aspect and small size of that reverse die have all raised suspicions. None of
these latter objections seem valid, however, as Heracles' hair is similar to that on many Alex-
ander tetradrachms of group J,1B the dots cut over a circular guideline are common at this
time,17 the incuse effect is seen on both Philip tetradrachms and fifths,18 and the small size of the
die may simply reflect the small size of the common fifths.
The present authorrather brashly, for she has not seen any of these drachmsis therefore
inclined to accept them as genuine.19 Most telling are the markings of the simple grain ear and
the simple crescent with its horns pointing downward. A modern forger would presumably have
modeled such coins on Philip's tetradrachms, but these markings do not occur alone on those
tetradrachms. It seems most improbable that any forger would realize, first, that both of these
markings were found alone only on a very few rare Alexander tetradrachms, and, second, that
those Alexander tetradrachms were contemporary with the Philips with the marking P (where
the P-grain ear issue obviously belongs), and thus that the simple grain ear and crescent with

horns pointing down would be reasonable markings for his little creations.
Far more likely is the assumption that during the striking of Philip group 8 and the contem-
porary Alexander group J Amphipolis was called upon to produce a few Attic drachms and, as
all other small denominations at the time bore Philip's types, appropriate Philip types were used
for these drachms also.
COMMENTARY ON PHILIPPE ISSUES
Plate 43, 2-8. Le Rider has placed these fifths of fine style, with grain ear, amphora, star, and
globule symbols, after his lone tetradrachm of group 1 with the single marking M. He likens the
small coins' obverses to those of certain, most probably roughly contemporary, gold staters of
Amphipolis,20 which seems persuasive but which does not necessarily suggest an association with
any particular tetradrachm group.
M E.g., 87.
15 I agree with Price that a single known Philip tetradrachm of 16.72 g with a poor and most peculiar
obverse style must be an ancient imitation (Alexander, p. 29, n. 1, and K. Dimitrov and V. Penchev, Seutho-
polis 2: The Ancient and Medieval Coins [Sofia, 1984], p. 52, 6, and pl. 1, 5). It is true that the coin has as
symbol a crescent (horns right), but the coin's style seems simply impossible for a genuine issue.
16 E.g., 84, 86, and 88.
17 E.g., 87, 88, and 378.
18 E.g., 368, 371, 380, and 383.
19 Price also apparently accepted them as genuine, although considering them octobols on the local stand-
ard. See Alexander, p. 24, n. 2.
20 Philippe, p. 120, n. 1.
As already discussed, group 1 may well be a phantom. In any case, none of the four symbols
on the fractions in question occur on this tetradrachm, but all occur in other tetradrachm
groups. One fifth with star is die linked into group 3 (343 and 340), and the coin seems merely
to lack group 3's primary marking of M. Other coins with star, amphora, and globule probably
also simply lack their primary markings.
The grain ear is a heavily used symbol in group 8, and there seems little reason to separate out
the few coins with the finest obverses. Philippe's pl. 43, 2 (373), is in fact reverse linked to a
coin with a quite unexceptional obverse (374). Placement on stylistic grounds is at best weak
placement, and it seems preferable to place the particular coins illustrated on Philippe's pl. 43,
2-8, together with others bearing the same markings.
Plate 44, 12. The coin, SNGANS 587, with only A visible, may well have a symbol off flan.
Plate 44, 27-28. These coins, with star only, are in Philippe placed with group 4. Here 28
(343) has been moved to group 3, as it shares an obverse with another group 3 coin (340). Other
star-only coins, including 27, may belong to any of groups 2, 3, or 4.
Plate 46, 32. The "dolphin" symbol on the coin, SNGANS 735, is shown by a comparison
with the better preserved SNGANS 734 (382), from the same dies, to be not a dolphin but a

profile shield. No small coins with dolphin symbol are known.
6. PHILIP II GROUPS: RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
The 17 (or possibly 18) obverse links which have been found between the various post-323
Philip groups are detailed below, followed by a summary in Figure 5 and then by discussion.
Tetradrachms provide eight, or possibly nine, of the links (links 1, 3, 5, 8, 11-14, and also 18 if
this last is a valid link), and the fifths the remaining nine (links 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 15-17).
As in Chapter 3, all coins known from the obverse dies involved are catalogued. Newell's
provisional tetradrachm obverse die numbers are also given as a possible help to future
researchers, because the ANS's coin tickets, casts, and photo file cards bear these numbers.
OBVERSE LINKS
Group 2 with Group 3
Stage 1
2 2, ffl globule (393) Munich; Oxford = SNGAshm 2482 = Philippe, pl. 44, 2,
same die
Stage 2
2, ffl ivy leaf (394) SNGANS 573
3, A star (395) Naples = Philippe, pl. 44, 5
In stage 2 there are small retouchings, most obviously in the hair below the wreath, e.g., an
added line above the tip of the lock farthest to the left.
Link 2, fifths
2, TO globule (396) Turin
- 2 3, /*J globule (397) Cambridge, Eng. = McClean 3359
^3
The form of the group 2 monogram is odd, yet the coin must be of this group.
Link 3, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 56C

3, M grapes (398) Peus 279, 14 Mar. 1972, 16 = Frankfurter 116, 27 Jan.
3 1969, 417 = Philippe, pl. 44, 8
5, causia M (399) London; Copenhagen = SNGCop 557 = Philippe, pl. 44,
5 30
Link 4, fifths
3, M ivy leaf (400) Berlin = Philippe, pl. 44, 14
5, causia A (401) Athens = Philippe, pl. 45, 1
66
Group 3 with Group 5 and Group 6
Stage 1
- 3 3, /N star (402) SNGANS 579; Athens = Philippe pl. 44, 9
5, causia, globule, T (403) cast marked "Volo"
- 5 6, wreath T (404) SNGANS 613
Stage 2
6 5, causia E (405) Auctiones 5, 2 Dec. 1975, 65
Stage 3
5, causia E (406) SNGANS 592 = Naville 12, 18 Oct. 1926, 1150
5, causia T (407) SNGANS 593; Glasgow = Hunter p. 291, 60 = Philippe,
pl. 44, 31
As Le Rider notes, retouching of stage 1 is evident in stage 3, with extra lines added at the
back of the crown and below the beard. Coin 405 seems to show an intermediate stage, with a
die break in the field behind the crown which may have occasioned the retouching in stage 3.
Link 6, fifths
3, M club (408) Wertheim
- 3 6, wreath M (409) SNGANS 625; (410) SNGANS 626 = SNGBerry 125
L6
Link 7, fifths
Stage 1
- 3 3, M star (411) SNGANS 583 = Philippe, pl. 52, 5; Paris = Philippe,
w pl. 44, 13; private coli.
L 6 Stage 2

6, wreath M (412) SNGANS 627 = Philippe, pl. 52, 12
Retouching is evident on the obverse of 412, probably occasioned by a rusted die. The effect
of the rusting can be seen in the lower portions of the relief.
Link, 8, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 100
Stage 1
"4 8, r crescent (413) SNGANS 682; St. Petersburg, same die; Dresden; cast
marked "Commerce 1929," same die
L 8 Stage 2
8, r Macedonian shield (414) SNGANS 692
Stage 3
4, At star (415) St. Petersburg
8, r grain ear (416) J. Hirsch 33, 17 Nov. 1913, 643, not illustrated but a
cast is at the ANS; Hollschek
In stage 2, a minute die break has appeared in the center of the locks below the wreath. In
stage 3, other small die breaks have formed directly below Zeus's earlobe, and in his hair above
the wreath.
6. Relative Chronology: Philip II
67
Link 9, fifths
I 4, At * (417) Paris = Philippe, pl. 44, 24
8, forked branch (418) London = Philippe, pl. 46, 27
L8
The link is not noted by Le Rider.
Link 10, fifths
Stage 1
5 5, causia A (419) SNGANS 596 = Philippe, pl. 44, 34
5, causia E (420) London = Weber 2061 = Philippe, pl. 44, 35
6 Stage 2
6, wreath A (421) Budapest, Delhaes = Philippe, pl. 45, 29
As Le Rider notes, the die identity is not absolutely certain. If the same obverse was used
here for both groups (which seems likely to the present author), it was recut rather heavily after
its use in group 5.
Group 5 with Group 6 and Group 8
5, causia E (422) Philippe, pl. 44, 29 (in commerce)
5, causia ?A (423) Leiden
r 5 6, wreath A (424) SNGANS 600; London
8, r grain ear (425) SNGANS 667 = SNGBerry 119
6 8, P forked branch (426) SNGANS 683; Cambridge, Mass. = Dewing 1113, same
die; Athens, same die
L 8 8, P profile shield (427) SNGANS 688; Munz. u. Med. FPL 320, Feb. 1971, 8,
same die; Platt, 27 Mar. 1922, 339

Stage 1
5 5, causia, globule, A (428) SNGANS 595
6, wreath A (429) Berlin
- 6 Stage 2
6, wreath A (430) Frankfurter 123, 8 Mar. 1976, 67, same die
1 8 8, P grain ear (431) Yakountchikoff; Naville 1, 4 Apr. 1921, 854, same die
8, P aplustre (432) Florence
Stage 3
6, wreath "E (433) London = Philippe, pl. 45, 23; SNGANS 615, same die;
Gotha, same die
Stage 4
6, wreath M (434) SNGANS 608
6, wreath T (435) St. Petersburg
In stage 2 there is some recutting of the hair at the crown, in stage 3 a small die break has
developed directly in front of the eye, and in stage 4 there is a new die break in the hair just
above the ear.
68
6, wreath A (436) Paris; M. Ratto, 16 May 1935, 217, same die
- 6 8, r grain ear (437) SNGANS 668
8, r forked branch (438) SNGANS 684; Oman, same die; Coin Galleries, 19
L 8 Nov. 1973, 180, same die
Stage 1
- 7 7, A 1 (439) Zygman
Stage 2
8 8, P grain ear (440) London; Paris = Philippe, pl. 46, 3, same die; Coin
Galleries, 20 Nov. 1975, 2028, same die
In stage 2 a clear die break has formed in the hair just above the lowest pair of leaves.
Coin 439 is the only Philip II tetradrachm cast from the Zygman collection at the ANS, so the
cast pair must certainly be a true one.
Link 15 (fifths)
7, ^1 (441) SNGANS 658; London = Philippe, pl. 45, 20, same die
r 7 8, trident head (442) Berlin = Philippe, pl. 46, 21
L8
Link 16, fifths
7, P (443) Vienna = Philippe, pl. 45, 8
r 7 8, grain ear (444) Hersh = Philippe, pl. 45, 10
L8
Le Rider catalogues 444 not with other similarly marked examples (pl. 43, 2, and pl. 46,

22-23) but because of the obverse link together with this gfbup 7 coin.
Link 17, fifths
7, "E (445) Berlin = Philippe, pl. 45, 21
7l
8, crescent (446) Turin, the crescent cut over 445's "E; (447) Wertheim
Coins 445 and 446 are from the same die pair, but on 446 the crescent has been cut over the
monogram of 445.
?Group 8 with Group 9?
The following link is highly questionable because of the similarity of the P and P markings
and the careless execution of many coins in these groups. Further, the very existence of the
P-profile shield issue is doubtful, and thus the validity of the link is doubly uncertain.1
1 See p. 53, Table 7, note b.
6. Relative Chronology: Philip II
69
?Link 18, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 121
8, P crescent (448) SNGANS 677; London
-8
? 9, P profile shield (449) Paris; Glasgow = Hunter, p. 291, 61 = Philippe,
9 pl. 46, 13, same die
In Figure 5, solid brackets indicate die links between tetradrachms in different groups and
dashed brackets show die links between fifths. The brackets to the left show obverse links
(1-18), and the dashed bracket to the right shows reverse link 17 including recutting between
fifths in groups 7 and 8. The dotted brackets to the right show not die links, but multiple
similarities in the secondary reverse markings of the groups.
Figure 5
Die Links between Philip II Groups
98
13
?18
17 16 15 14
rrrr
18 1 1 1 N/
rLLLL
12 11 10
rrr
YN
6543
Group
21
r"
2_

/N L L
3=;
4J
5-
6J
Markings
W etc.
M etc.
fit etc.
Causia etc.
Wreath etc.
7 .. 17 A etc.
8d
9J
r etc.
P etc.
Tetradrachms: links 1, 3, 5, 8, 11-14, 18?
Fifths: links 2, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 15-17
DISCUSSION
Hoards provide minimal help in proposing a relative order for the Philip groups here. Several
Alexander hoards' contents end with Alexanders parallel to groups 7 and 8.2 These will be
discussed in Chapters 8 and 9. Two hoards of Philips include coins of all or most groups through
group 9.3 None help with any arrangement of groups 1-6, nor with their relationship to groups 7
and 8. Here we are totally dependent on the evidence of the coins, and this is not clear.
The Philip groups 1-8 are presented here in a linear order, because on a two-dimensional sheet
of paper there is no alternative. The evidence strongly suggests, however, that many if not all of
2 See Chapter 8, hoards 10, 13-14, 18, 20, and 28.
3 See Chapter 8, hoards 34-35.
70
these groups were struck more or less simultaneouslyor at least that groups 1 (or 2) through 7
were struck concurrently with group 8.
Groups 4, 5, 6, and 7 all share obverse dies with group 8. Groups 2 and 3, 3 and 4, and 5 and 6
form pairs of groups closely connected by shared secondary markings. Links 5 and 10 show that
groups 5 and 6 must have overlapped at least to some extent, and link 12 shows that 5 and 6
must also have overlapped group 8. Link 8 shows that group 8 must have at least in part
preceded group 4, and yet 4 is closely bound to 2 and 3and it does not seem reasonable to
place the small groups 1-3 after 6. And then there is group 7, tied by no fewer than four die
links to group 8. And, if the monograms M, Ffl, and SB of groups 1 and 2 are variations of
Alexander group I's M or Ffl, then group 7's monogram P seems even more probably a variation of
Alexander group I's unusual monogram % suggesting that group 7 came rather early in the
series. It does not seem possible, then, to place groups 1-8 in any sort of linear order and the
relatively small groups 1-7 must have been struck more or less at the same time as the larger
group 8.
Le Rider stated that his order for these groups in Philippe was somewhat arbitrary. The order
here, largely his, is not intended to be understood as a strict chronological sequence, but merely
as a convenient way of presenting the contemporary groups 1 through 8. Given the unexpec-
tedly small size of some of the groups, as measured by the obverse dies employed,4 this is not
surprising.
Group 9, however, is different. Aside from the highly questionable link 18 with group 8, it
shares no dies with any other group. Further, hoard evidence and other observations on the
analogous Alexander groups show that, despite its superficial reverse resemblance to group 8, it
must be considered a completely separate emission.5
4 See p. 54, Table 8.

5 See p. 50.
7. ALEXANDER AND PHILIP GROUPS: SUMMARY AND RELATIVE
CHRONOLOGY
Table 16 summarizes and correlates the chronology of the silver coinage of Amphipolisboth
Alexander's and Philip II's types, and all denominations. The table is based solely upon internal
evidence, that of the coins themselves. Its two chief subdivisions, Attic weight and Macedonian
weight, parallel the coins' types with but one exception, the rare Attic-weight drachms corres-
ponding to Alexander group J. These anomalous Attic-weight drachms bear Philip's reverse
type and name.
The incidence of the various small denominations with their reverse types is indicated in
Table 16 by the following abbreviations:
Z = Zeus seated, as on the tetradrachms
E = eagle standing i. or r., head sometimes reverted
2E = two eagles facing each other
F = fulmen
P = Philip's type of mounted horseman (or horse forepart on tenths)
Alexander tetradrachm groups G, H, I, K, and J include the title BAZIAEQZ in their inscrip-
tions. This study ends with Alexander group L and the contemporary Philip group 9, but the
arrows at the bottom of the table indicate that Alexander and Philip tetradrachms continued to
be struck at Amphipolis.
Table 16
Summary of Relative Chronology of
Alexander and Philip II Tetradrachms and of Accompanying Smaller Coins
Attic Weight Macedonian Weight
Obv. Heracles head Obv. Zeus head (tetradrachms) or
Apollo head (smaller
denominations)
Alexander Philip

Tetradr. Tetradr.
Group 2-dr. 1-dr. 3-ob. 2-ob. obols Group Fifths Tenths
A E 2E F?"
I)
K/J P 1-8"
L9
11
2-dr.
1-dr.
3-ob.
2-ob.
obols
2E
]-:
2E
l-:
2E
l-:
2E
E,Z
2E
F?
72
those Alexander groups. Group A's total may be higher, as it is unclear whether Philip's coins
with the same markings were issued before or together with group A's Alexanders. Further,
groups A and B must have overlapped at least in part, and C and D may well have also.
The Attic-weight fractions of all denominations, being so few, have not been taken into
account. But the Philip fifths corresponding to Philip groups 2-8 were, so far as is shown by
surviving specimens, at least approximately equal in number to their corresponding tetra-
drachms, and the small coins' weights were nearly equal to the difference between the weights of
the two kings' tetradrachms. Therefore, a simple addition of the estimated dies used for Alex-
ander groups K and J and Philip groups 1-8 seems the most reasonable number to use in the
final column.
In Philip group 9, however, there appear to have been no small coins struck. Therefore a
conversion factor has been applied to the number of Philip dies estimated here: 14.40/17.20, the
approximate theoretical weights of the Macedonian and Attic tetradrachms. The resulting
number 47 (56 Philip dies x 14.40/17.20) was then added to the 232 Attic tetradrachm dies to
give the final column's 279.
The numbers in the final column, then, the results of several approximations, are the best
estimates the present author can make of the relative numbers of dies used, and thus the amount
of silver produced, at Amphipolis during the period under study.
Table 17
Relative Amounts of Silver Struck as Measured by Estimated Dies,
Attic Weight or Equivalent
A lexander
Philip
Total
Group
Group
Dies
Dies
88
88 +
49
49
18
18
76
76
241
241
89
89
114
114
II
109
109
70
70

Dies
K/J
43
1-8
110
153
Totals A-K/J, 1-8
885
110
995
232
8. THE SILVER HOARDS
Listed in this chapter, following an alphabetical index, are the 46 hoards containing
Amphipolis Alexanders (or their analogous post-323 Philip II reissues, or both) which were
buried by ca. 300 B.C. and whose detailed contents are available to me. Noted are the total
numbers of coins of Alexander and Philip III, the numbers of Amphipolis coins, and the latest
Amphipolis group present. The Alexanders are tetradrachms unless described otherwise.
The hoards are presented in approximate chronological order, in many cases based on their
Amphipolis contents. Where this is not the case, the latest reasonably datable coins are identi-
fied. It is of course impossible to date each hoard accurately to a given year, and the order is not
to be taken too seriously as hoards several numbers apart may be contemporary, or hoards may
well be listed after others whose burials they actually preceded. A hoard summary appears on
p. 83.
ALPHABETICAL INDEX
Hoard
Number
Hoard Number
Abu Hommos 1919
24
Karditsa 1925
15
Agios Ioannis 1949
37
Katd Paphos 1965
38
Akcakale 1958
18
Khirbet-el-Kerak 1936

14
Aksaray 1968
41
Kuft 1874-75
26
Aleppo 1893
40
Kyparissia 1892 93
Andritsaena 1923
20
Lamia (Hagioi Theodoroi) 1901-2
45
Asia Minor, S. 1960
42
Lebanon 1985
Asia Minor 1964
Mageira 1950
Asia Minor 1964
See 22
Mavriki 1962
44
Asia Minor 1965
23
Megara 1917
36
Asia Minor 1966
32
Messene 1922
29
Asia Minor 1968
22
Near East 1993
Asia Minor 1968
See 22
Nemea 1938
Babylon 1973
71
2. Mageira, Elis, 1950 (IGCH 74),2 48 coins, 1 Alexander.
None from Amphipolis. The hoard contained mostly civic issues, but also 4 coins of Philip II.
The hoard's only Alexander was from Tarsus (Tarsos, series I, 333-328 B.C.). All authorities
date the hoard to ca. 330-325, and Le Rider in Philippe notes that 325 is more likely, as the
Tarsus coin is quite worn.
3. Nemea, Argolis, 1938 (IGCH 79),3 3 coins, 1 Alexander.
1 Amphipolis: D. This little hoard (one lifetime Philip II, one Boeotian stater, and one group
D tetradrachm) is dated to ca. 330-325 in Alexander, but by Thompson to ca. 325-320 in IGCH.
Le Rider notes in Philippe that the Amphipolis tetradrachm is heavily worn so the later range
seems more likely. In any case, the group D coin dates the hoard, which is of no chronological
value.
4. Commerce 1993, 72 Alexanders.
25 Amphipolis: 3 A, 2 B, 3 C, 2 D, 15 E. See Appendix 1 for a complete listing and discussion.
5. Babylon 1973,4 a large hoard including "many" Alexanders.
12 Amphipolis: A, B, 4 D, 5 E, G. This fascinating hoard contained not only Alexanders
(chiefly of Babylon, with Aradus providing the second most important component), but also
numerous Athenian tetradrachms and imitations, lion staters, and Porus decadrachms and other
issues with elephant types, at least one of which was new.
The specific Amphipolis information given here derives from the casts and photos which
Nancy Waggoner assembled at the ANS. Most of the coins were Babylonian Alexanders, of
which approximately half bear the title BAZIAEQZ. Waggoner's material does not include the
latest Babylonian issue in the hoard, but Martin Price believed that she had information stating
that this issue was present, and he included it in his description of the hoard in Alexander. The
issue in question is of tetradrachms as Alexander 3692, with M and AY and BAZIAEQZ AAEE-
ANAPOY, which Waggoner considered Babylon's first posthumous issue, ca. 323-322 B.C.5 The

hoard material at the ANS does include, however, a record of a contemporary lion stater with M
and AY.
Also among Waggoner's material are two Tarsus coins with Nike and two monograms (Alex-
ander 3039), Tarsos issue 47, placed by Newell in the second of four groups in his series III, a
series which he dated to ca. 324-319.
At least 39 Aradus coins with caduceus (Alexander 3332) were also present. This was the last
Aradus issue in Demanhur, and it is the last tetradrachm issue listed by Price in Alexander 's
ca. 328-ca. 320 Aradus section. Some of these Aradus coins may well be later than 322, but their
dates are not firmly enough established to justify dating the Babylon hoard's burial after 322 or
perhaps 321.6
6. Lebanon ca. 1985, 26 Alexanders.
5 Amphipolis: A, C, 2 E, G. Martin Price provided the details of this hoard, which also
contained Alexanders of Lampsacus, Side, Amathus, Salamis, Tarsus, Aradus, Myriandrus, and
Babylon. Most are probably from the years just before 323. The latest coins are one of Babylon
with the title BAZIAEQZ (Alexander 3684), which Waggoner dated to ca. 324/3-323/2,7 and three
of Aradus from the large issue with caduceus (Alexander 3332), which may possibly be a bit
later. See comments on this issue in hoard 5, above.
2 Philippe, p. 296, 9; Alexander, p. 51.
5 Philippe, p. 297, 11; Alexander, p. 51.
4 Alexander, pp.51, 451.
5 "Babylon Mint," pp. 134-35 and 148. Whether or not this issue and the similarly marked one in Philip
III's name (Alexander P181) were struck at Babylon (see p. 85 below), Waggoner believed that the die linkage
pattern suggests that the Alexander coins preceded rather than paralleled those with Philip's name.
6 See p. 85.
'"Babylon," pp. 273 and 276.
8. Silver Hoards
75
7. Near East 1993," 1,412 Alexander drachms.
17 Amphipolis: 3 E, 8 E or F (6 P, 2 laurel branch), 6 F (arrow). The hoard's composition is
extremely similar to Asia Minor 1964. Its Asia Minor components ended where those of Asia
Minor 1964 did, except that the latest series of Lampsacus and Abydus present there were
lacking here, as was any Colophon materiai. The present hoard contained also a drachm of
Aradus with caduceus (Alexander 3333). Its burial thus seems to antedate that of Asia Minor
1964 by a very short time, perhaps less than one year.
The hoard is of no value to the absolute chronology of the Amphipolis groups, but its burial
date of ca. 322 rather surprisingly shows that the P drachms, contrary to all previous assump-
tion, cannot be associated with the post-318 tetradrachms of group L with that monogram as
primary marking.
8. Asia Minor 1964 (IGCH 1437),9 88 Alexander drachms.
1 Amphipolis: F (arrow). Price notes that although the hoard contained no Philip III coins,
one Alexander drachm from Magnesia was from an issue also struck in Philip III's name.
Thompson dated the hoard's burial to ca. 321/320. The burial date is thus too late to be of
chronological value.
9. Phoenicia 1968 (IGCH 1513),1 9 Alexanders and 6 Philip III.
4 Amphipolis: 2 G, H, I. The hoard's 8 Babylonian coins include 5 of the Philip III issue with
M and AY (Alexander P181), which Waggoner considered Babylon's second posthumous issue,
ca.322-321 B.C."
10. Demanhur, Egypt, 1905 (IGCH 1664),12 8,000+ Alexander and Philip III.
2,005 Amphipolis. To the 1,582 Amphipolis coins listed in Demanhur can be added 423 speci-
mens which Newell recorded after that hoard publication, giving a total of 2,005.
Group
l)

]:
1l
Total
Demanhur
161
140
71
147
375
148
167
261
67
44
1,582
Newell's Notes
52
41
32
46
81
42
54
56
11
423
Total
213
181
103
193
456
76
12. Cilicia 1964 (IGCH 1421),16 22 coins, 4 Alexanders.
2 Amphipolis: D, F. The bulk of the hoard was Athenian tetradrachms and imitations. The
two non-Macedonian Alexanders were Damascus probably as Alexander 3211, whose date is not
precisely known, and Tarsus as Alexander 3053, the last Tarsus issue catalogued in Demanhur.
The hoard thus is not helpful for chronology.
13. Central Greece 1911 (IGCH 81),17 37 +coins, 28 Alexanders.
15 Amphipolis: A, 2 D, 2 E, 4 H, 3 I, 3 J. The latest non-Macedonian coins, both noted in the
list at the ANS as worn, were Citium with BAZIAEQZ and "R (exact issue not ascertainable), dated
to ca. 325-320, and the Aradus caduceus issue of perhaps 322-319 (see comments on this issue in
hoard 5, above).
Although Thompson in IGCH and Le Rider in Philippe date the hoard's burial to ca. 315,
Price in Alexander places it in his group of hoards buried ca. 323 320: "The Macedonian issues in
Central Greece go down to the P group [group J] of c. 323 BC..., emphasizing that its deposit
cannot have been long before that of the Demanhur hoard." Perhaps Price was influenced by
the absence of group K, considered in Demanhur as the latest Amphipolis group. But as K now
seems quite contemporary with J, Central Greece's Amphipolis issues go down as far as
Demanhur's, and its burial was probably at least as late as that great deposit's, i.e., ca. 318 or
317. In any case, the hoard does not date our group J; it is dated by it. Note that the hoard
contained 3 coins of group J, not 1 as reported in Philippe.
14. Khirbet-el-Kerak, Galilee, 1936 (IGCH 1510),18 118 +coins, 40 Alexanders and 13 Philip
III.
7 Amphipolis: B, 2 G, 2 H, I, J. The latest datable coin is a Sidonian tetradrachm of year 13
(321/20 B.C.), but the coin of group J dates the hoard which is thus of no chronological help. A
"considerable number" of coins were said, however, to have been dispersed before the remaining
118 were studied.

15. Karditsa, Thessaly, 1925 (IGCH 82),in 37 +coins, 30 Alexanders.
15 Amphipolis: C, D, 3 E, F, 3 G, 5 H, I. The latest coins are Tarsus as Alexander 3039
(Torsos 47), dated to ca. 323-317 in Alexander, and 3 Pella of ca. 325-315 (Alexander 214, 218,
220). The hoard is not useful for our chronology.
16. Egypt 1893 (IGCH 1665), 44 Alexanders.
18 Amphipolis: 3 A, 2 D, 7 E, 4 F, G, H (the count differs slightly from that in IGCH). IGCH
notes (properly, as appears from the original account) "a single hoard?" With four exceptions
(intrusions?) the hoard contains only issues found in Demanhur, and is thus, even if a true
hoard, of no value chronologically.
17. Sfire, Cyrrhestica, 1932 (IGCH 1511), 84 Alexanders.
1 Amphipolis: E. The hoard contains many of its mints' latest Demanhur issues, and thus was
dated by Seyrig in IGCH to soon after 318. It is again of no chronological value.
18. Akcakale, Mesopotamia, 1958,20 163 Alexanders and 27 Philip III.
26 Amphipolis: B, C, D, 9 E, 2 F, 4 G, 4 H, 2 I, 2 J. The hoard contained 5 coins of Ake and
Sidon of 319/8 B.C., the last year present in Demanhur, but also one of Ake of year 30, or
318/7 B.C.a year later than Demanhur's latest coins. As Le Rider and Olcay remark, no other
16 List of coins at the ANS.
17 List of coins at the ANS; Philippe, p. 298, 13; Alexander, p. 51.
18 Alexander, p. 51.
19 List of coins at the ANS; Philippe, pp. 312-14, 18; Alexander, p. 51.
20 G. Le Rider and N. Olcay, "Un tresor de tetradrachmes d'Alcxandre trouve a Akcakale en 1958," RN
1988, pp. 42-54. The hoard is mentioned passim in Alexander, but only as a reference for certain issues; there
is no general discussion.
8. Silver Hoards
77
hoard coins can be dated later than Philip III's reign, so the hoard's burial can be taken as 317
or perhaps early in 316, a year later than Demanhur.
19. Sinan Pascha, near Afyon-Karahissar, Phrygia, 1919 (IGCH 1395),21 682+ drachms of
Alexander and Philip III, the great majority from Asia Minor mints.
3 Amphipolis: E or F (P), 2 F (arrow). Thompson in Sardes and Miletus dated the hoard's
burial to "about the time of the assassination of Philip III" (fall 317 B.C.) because the Sardes
material contained two series (one large, one small) not present in Demanhur. Additionally,
Sinan Pascha contained a P drachm, which she believed contemporary with the P tetradrachms
of group L, "the immediate successors of coins with P alone," which were not present in
Demanhur. As the P drachms were present in the Near East 1993 drachm hoard buried ca. 322,
they are now seen to antedate group L by some years, and are no longer a reason for Thompson's
burial date. Nevertheless, as Price notes, Sinan Pascha contained the full record of drachms
struck in the name of Philip III and its burial can hardly be earlier than the end of 317.
20. Andritsaena, Elis, 1923 (IGCH 83),22 145+ coins (lot A, 110; lot B, 35), 102 Alexanders and
Philip III (lot A, 74; lot B, 28).
33 Amphipolis:
Group
i-:
Total

Lot A
22
Lot B
11
Total
li
.,i
33
There are two components of the hoard. Lot A is the 110 coins in Newell's original publica-
tion (Andritsaena), which included 73 Alexanders of which 22 were from Amphipolis. Newell
78
to the notebook. They included four coins of Philip II: two of Philippe's Pella group II, one of
Amphipolis group II ("Jannated [sic] Vase", i.e., double heads)24 and one of Amphipolis group
IV (that mentioned above, with A-bucranium); and two coins of Alexander III, one with AAE-
EANAPOY, A in left field and H" below the throne, and one with BAZIAEQZ AAEEANAPOY and a
star of seven rays below the throne.
The first of the two Alexanders must be the twelfth Amphipolis coin mentioned in IGCH, but
its identification is a problem. No issue is known with precisely these markings. Could a men-
tion of a bucranium or torch have been omitted from the original sketchy list?25 The second
Alexander, however, with the star's seven points carefully noted, can only be an uncertain
Peloponnesian issue of ca. 270-260 B.C.26
The two omitted Alexanders and the late Philip II possibly were not transferred to Newell's
notebook because he considered them intrusionsbut then why would he have omitted the
three unexceptional earlier Philips, completely similar to others recorded from both lots A and
B? I can only believe that the admirably precise and careful Newell did not put them in his
final record of the hoard because he had good reason. Perhaps he, or his colleague Sidney Noe
who frequently traveled to Greece, saw the coins and noted differences; or, perhaps more likely,
a subsequent communication, not preserved, was received from Empedocles. This writer con-
cludes that the latest coin in lots A and B of the Andritsaena Hoard was indeed lot A's Babylon
tetradrachm of ca. 316-315/4, and that Newell's original burial date of ca. 315 is probably
correct.
21. Tripolitsa, Arcadia, 1921 (IGCH 84),27 23 coins, 14 Alexanders.
4 Amphipolis: 2 A, E, I. Newell28 considered Tripolitsa probably part of the Andritsaena
Hoard, and he is tentatively followed in this by Le Rider and definitely by Price. Tripolitsa's
inclusion would make no difference, however, as its composition is very similar to Andritsaena's
and no coins are later than that hoard's.

22. Asia Minor 1968 (IGCH 1440),29 90+ Alexanders.
32 Amphipolis: 3 A, 2 B, 9 D, 12 E, 5 F, G. Martin Price again provided the details of this
hoard. I have been unable to discover the specific issues present in the Asia Minor 1964 (IGCH
1438) and Asia Minor 1968 (IGCH 1439) hoards. Note, however, that Price apparently considers
1439 and 1440 as one hoard.30
IGCH 1440 included a Babylon tetradrachm as Alexander 3692, with M and AY and AAEE-
ANAPOY BAZIAEQZ, dated by Waggoner to ca. 323 322 B.C.3' and 7 coins of the Aradus issue
with caduceus, which may even be a bit later.32 But the latest coin present was a Babylon coin
as Alexander 3704, which Waggoner dated to ca. 316-310.33 Even if this latest Babylon coin is
an intrusion, the hoard is of no value for chronology.
23. Asia Minor 1965 (IGCH 1443),34 29 Alexander and Philip III.
5 Amphipolis: D, 2 E, 2 L. The hoard's latest coins were Ake of year 33 (315/4) and two of
Sardes whose dates are disputed. The latter two are as Alexander 2645A = Sardes series XVI,
M Le Rider (Philippe, p. 310) describes this coin as with amphora, but the original wording surely indicates
the double heads. In either case, the coin is an unexceptional one of Philippe's Amphipolis group II.
25 E.g., Alexander 430, 445.
28 See Alexander 776 (not illus.) and "Peloponnesian Alexanders," p. 67, 7; p. 69, II.4; and p. 80.
27 Philippe, pp. 311-12, 17; Alexander, p. 55.
28 Andritsaena, pp. 32-36.
31 See hoard 5, above, and p. 85.
32 See p. 85.
33 "Babylon Mint," p. 149. Not having seen this coin, I cannot place it more precisely than to ca. 316-310.
34 List of coins at the ANS; Sardes and Miletus, p. 93.
8. Silver Hoards
79
363-67, and similar to Alexander 2671 ff. = Sardes series XX, 393. Thompson dates these two
coins to ca. 310-302, but Price prefers ca. 319-315.
24. Abu Hommos, Egypt, 1919 (IGCH 1667),35 1,000+ coins, 750 Alexander and Philip III.
61 + Amphipolis: 3 A, 3 B, C, D, 18 E, 2 F, 7 G, 11 H, 5 I, 6 J, 4 L. The IGCH notes only 30
ANS coins of Amphipolis. These (and the totals given there for coins of other mints) are coins
listed in Newell's hoard notebook as at Spink's in London in July 1922. They (at least the 30 of
Amphipolis) were purchased by Newell, but were only a portion of his acquisitions from the
hoard. The 61 coins listed above are all in the ANS trays and identified as from this hoard.
In the ANS's Abu Hommos hoard folder are notations of other hoard coins seen in Egypt.
Some of these are perhaps among other coins acquired by Newell, but none of Amphipolis are
later than those above. Abu Hommos's latest coins are 20 of Ake of year 36 (311/10 B.C.). The
hoard's burial can thus be fairly securely dated to ca. 310.
25. Egypt 1894 (IGCH 1669), 79+ coins, 65 Alexander and Philip III (but only 36 Alexanders
are decipherable).
11 Amphipolis: 2 B, F, 2 H, 3 I, 3 L. The latest coins are Attic-weight Alexander head/Athena
Promachus tetradrachms of Ptolemy I and a Babylon coin as Alexander 3764, dated by Wag-
goner to ca. 311/10 - 309/8.36
26. Kuft, Egypt, 1874-75 (IGCH 1670), 190+ Alexander and Philip III.
53 Amphipolis. Working from Newell's original meticulous notes on Kuft's contents, Orestes
Zervos has made significant corrections to Nash's 1974 list of the hoard coins.37 The two
accounts, broken down for Amphipolis into its constituent groups, are summarized below.
Group

I)
A-torch
Total
Nash
19
71
Zervos
10
li
Nash and Zervos dispute the contents of the hoard. Omitted from the Amphipolis coins above
are 2 group J coins (one of which may be group L) without provenance (or countermarks) as
noted by Nash,38 and added are the 7 coins given as additions to Newell's list by Zervos.39 IGCH
80
coin 457 in Alexanderbut it bears no punchmarks or countermarks. It therefore would seem
correct to consider it, along with the other non-mutilated coins listed by Nash, as not part of
Kuft.
As stated above, Alexander follows Nash in its assignation of the British Museum holdings to
the Kuft hoard.40 Among these British Museum "Kuft" coins, I count 48 identified as coming
from the Davidson 1881 donation. Ten of these, including the A-torch coin, bear no counter-
marks or punches, leaving 38. This is a fair approximation of the 35 "Davidson '81" coins listed
in Newell's manuscript as belonging to the British Museum.
The hoard's latest non-Egyptian coins are of Sidon, to 312/11, and Ake, to 311/10. The
Egyptian component seems a few years later, but for group L the date of 311/10 is the signifi-
cant one. Worth noting is Nash's redating of the hoard's discovery from IGCH's 1875-80 to "in
or just before 1875" (presumably from the British Museum coin 3036a, a Kuft coin donated in
1875). I follow her in dating the hoard to 1874-75.
27. Unknown provenance ca. 1990, 77 coins, 69 Alexanders.
28 Amphipolis: A, 2 B, 4 C, 3 D, 14 E, F, G, H, ?A-torch (with M and star). Martin Price has
sent a list of varieties and photos of 39 Alexanders (including those from Amphipolis). The
latest coins present seem to be Ecbatana as Alexander 3889 (ESM 434), ca. 310-308, and the
Amphipolis A-torch coin. Are they intrusions? Nothing else seems later than ca. 320-318, the
latest perhaps being Tarsus with Nike and monograms, cf. Alexander 3038-53. As no other
hoard evidence places the A-torch group before ca. 310, an interment ca. 310-308 seems
probable.
28. Drama?, Macedonia, 1935 (IGCH 414),41 20 coins (3 gold), 1 Philip II and 16 Alexanders (13
tetradrachms, 3 drachms).
11 Amphipolis: A (very worn), 8 I, J ("F.D.C."), and 1 Philip fifth of a tetradrachm with
crescent (Philip group 8, contemporary with Alexander group J). The latest silver present

included drachms of Sardes and Miletus of ca. 325-323, earlier than group J on either the Newell
or Troxell chronology. The latest coin of all, however, was an Alexander stater with no mark-
ings, for which the most likely attributions are western Asia Minor 323-280 B.C. (Alexander
2696), Salamis 323-315 (Alexander 3148), Memphis 332-323 (Alexander 3961), Cyrene 305^300
(Alexander 3983), and "East" 325-320 (Alexander 3991-91A). This stater was the basis for
Newell's IGCH burial date of 310-305.
29. Messene, Messenia, 1922 (IGCH 95),42 31 Alexander and Philip III.
1 Amphipolis: I. The latest coin present was Ake of 310/9 B.C.
30. Tel Tsippor, Judaea, 1960 (IGCH 1514),43 63 coins, 59 Alexander and Philip III.
6 Amphipolis: E, F, 2 H, 2 I. The hoard's latest coin is of Ecbatana as Alexander 3889 (ESM
434), struck ca. 310-308 B.C.
31. Byblus, Phoenicia, 1931 (IGCH 1515),44 141 coins, 137 Alexander and Philip III.
8 Amphipolis: A, 2 D, 2E, F, 2 L. The hoard contained coins of Ake and of Sidon to 310/309,
and of Ecbatana as Alexander 3889 (ESM 434), struck ca. 310-308.
32. Asia Minor 1966 (IGCH 1436),45 52 coins, 51 Alexanders.
8-9 Amphipolis: 1 or 2 B, 3 E, G, 2 H, L. Morkholm's burial date in IGCH is ca. 323, but he
seems not to have taken account of one coin listed with "Ahre( ?)" to left and P below the
40 Alexander lists Kuft coins on p. 56. To these add 103b (Amphipolis) and 3412 (Byblus), so identified only
in the catalogue.
42 List of coins and some casts at the ANS.
,:i Alexander, pp. 56, 490.
44 Alexander, pp. 56, 490.
8. Silver Hoards
81
throne, which can only be L4. This coin dates the hoard, which is therefore once again of no
chronological help.
My count of the Amphipolis coins differs slightly from IGCH's. Omitted are 3 coins described
with bucranium symbol, which need not necessarily be from this mint, but their inclusion or
omission is not significant.
33. Thessaly 1971 or 1972,46 90+ coins, 13 Philip II, 20 Alexander and Philip III.
7 Amphipolis: all L. Martin Price again kindly sent a list of the varieties in this hoard. All of
the Alexander issues not of Amphipolis and all those of Philip III were present in Demanhur.
The latest coins of Philip IPs types are contemporary with Alexander groups K, J, and L. These
Philips date the hoard, which is therefore of no chronological value.
The post-323 Philip lls present were: 1? group 3, 1 group 6, 3 group 7, 1 group 9, and 1 (2?) of
Philippe's contemporary Pella group III.
34. Paeonia 1968 (IGCH 410),47 ca. 2,000 coins, gold of Philip II, Alexander, and Philip III, 139
tetradrachms of Philip II.
93 Amphipolis: 19 Philippe groups I and II, 20 groups 2-8 (contemporary with Alexander
groups K and J), 54 group 9 (contemporary with Alexander group L). The bulk of this enormous
hoard of nearly 2,000 coins was silver of Patraos of Paeonia. It also contained gold of Philip II,
Alexander, and Philip III, but no silver of the latter two kings. The latest coins are the 54 group
9 Philips and one Alexander Babylon stater as Alexander 3750, dated by Waggoner to ca. 316/5.48
The hoard's burial date must be 315 or later and, as Le Rider notes, probably before 310 because
of the absence of coins of Patraos's successor Audoleon, who was on the throne by that date.
35. Razinci, Bulgaria, 1961 (IGCH 411),49 2,657+ coins, 1,446 Philip II tetradrachms.
996 Amphipolis: 40 Philippe groups I and II; 47 groups 2-8 (analogous to Alexander groups
K and J); 392 either group 8 or 9 (analogous to K and J or to L); 517 group 9 (analogous to
Alexander group L). The hoard can be dated only by the latest Philips, and is thus of no

chronological value.
36. Megara 1917 (IGCH 94),50 789+ coins, known are 208 Philip II, 174 Alexander.
65 Amphipolis: 64 Philip II, 1 Alexander: D. The 64 Amphipolis Philip II tetradrachms were:
15 early; 43 groups 2-8 (analogous to Alexander groups K and J); 2 group 9 (analogous to group
L); and 4 A-bucranium. The latest coins known are the A-bucranium Philips, which date the
hoard.
37. Aghios Ioannis, Cyprus, 1949 (IGCH 1470),51 58+ coins, 54 Alexanders, 4+ Philip III.
6 Amphipolis: C, D, F, G, J, L. The latest coins are Sidon of 307/6 B.C. and Carrhae as
Alexander 3818 (WSM 9), dated to ca. 310-302 in WSM, but to ca. 305-300 in Alexander. The
hoard must have been buried at least some years after the introduction of group L.
38. Kato Paphos, Cyprus, 1965 (IGCH 1471),52 13 coins, 7 Alexander and Philip III tetra-
drachms, 6 Alexander drachms.
46 CH 1, 40; Philippe, p. 318 (mention only, no details); Alexander, p. 52. In Alexander the hoard is
erroneously described as ending with the P issues of group J and considered a parallel to Demanhurthe issue
references given are, however, to the correct P issues.
47 Philippe, pp. 298-304, 14; Alexander, p. 50; Sardes and Miletus, pp. 73-74. See also Chapter 12, hoard
10, where the Alexander gold component is discussed.
48 Sotheby, 16 Apr. 1969, 274. The coin is from Waggoner's obverse 258, the first she lists in her issue VIII,
series 1, a series she dates ca. 316-315/4 B.C. ("Babylon Mint," p. 149). As her preceding issue VII is assigned
to ca. 317/6, her date for this stater should be ca. 316/5. Price assigns Alexander 3750 to his ca. 311-305
grouping, but his catalogue was completed before he had full access to Waggoner's work.
49 Philippe, pp. 304-9, 15.
50 List of 79 coins at the ANS. Philippe, pp. 314-16, 20; Alexander, p. 55.
51 List of coins at the ANS (79 known).
52 List of coins at the ANS; Sardes and Miletus, p. 95; Lampsacus and Abydus, p. 73.
82
1 Amphipolis: A. Thompson dates the latest Lampsacus drachm present to ca. 305/4, which
requires a slight lowering of the IGCH's burial date of ca. 305. In any case, burial was decades
after the striking of group A.
39. Phacous, Egypt, 1956 (IGCH 1678a),53 514 coins, 456 Alexander and Philip III.
69 Amphipolis: 4 A, 4 B, 9 D, 23E, 3 F, 5 G, 6 H, 2 I, 5 J, 6 L, 2 A-torch. The latest coins were
Sidon of 306/5 (which is the latest dated issue struck at Sidon) and Sardes of 305 or shortly after.
40. Aleppo, Cyrrhestica, 1893 (IGCH 1516),54 3,000+ coins, 949 Alexanders and Philip III.
156 Amphipolis: 10 A, 7 B, 3 C, 11 D, 34 E, 11 F, 7 G, 19 H, 8 I, 5 J, 33 L, 4 A-bucranium, 2
$-torch, 2 A-torch. The latest known coins are Sidon of 308/7, Ake of 306/5, and Sardes, Miletus,
and Lampsacus drachms of ca. 305-300.
41. Aksaray, Cappadocia, 1968 (IGCH 1400),55 19 coins, 18 Alexander and Philip III.
3 Amphipolis: H, I, A-torch. Thompson considered the one Seleucid coin in the hoard to be
intrusive, and suggested a burial date of ca. 300, earlier than the ca. 281 proposed in the original
publication.
42. Asia Minor, southern, ca. 1960 (IGCH 1422),56 ca. 160 coins, ca. 150 Alexanders and a "few"
Philip III, 9 known.
1 Amphipolis: H. The latest reasonably firmly dated coin is Abydus as Alexander 1549,
310/309 B.C., but also present was Aradus as Alexander 3349, there assigned to ca. 311-300.
IGCH's ca. 300 burial date may be a bit late, but the hoard is in any case far too late to help in
dating group H.
43. Karaman, Lycaonia, 1969 (IGCH 1398),57 49 Alexander and Philip III.
2 Amphipolis: D, I. IGCH notes a coin of Sicyon dated to ca. 303-301, but Thompson on the
basis of a Miletus coin would lower burial to ca. 295-290. In any case the hoard is too late to be
usefui.
44. Mavriki, Arcadia, ca. 1962 (IGCH 122), 30+ coins, 3 Alexanders.

1 Amphipolis: A-torch (in superb condition). The later of the other two Alexanders present is
one of Pella as Alexander 249 (Miiller 754) of perhaps 315-310 B.C. The present author accepts
Price's burial date in IGCH, ca. 300, but without knowing what else led to so late a date as 300.
45. Lamia District (Hagioi Theodoroi), Thessaly, 1901-2 (IGCH 93),5 112 coins, 32 Alexander
and Philip III tetradrachms, 3 Alexander drachms.
16 Amphipolis: D, E, H, I, 11 L, A-torch. The hoard contained an Ake coin of 312/11. Price
in IGCH dates the hoard's burial to ca. 310-300, and in Alexander to "c. 310 or a little later."
Le Rider in Philippe agrees with Price but notes that as the latest coin seemed to be the A-torch
tetradrachm the hoard was dated by that coin. Thompson, however, dated two Lampsacus
drachms to 301/300 or later, requiring a burial date of ca. 300.
46. Paphos District 1945 (IGCH 1469),59 39+ coins, 38 Alexander, 1 Philip III.
7 Amphipolis: D, 2 E, F, 3 L. The hoard is dated by Morkholm in IGCH to ca. 310, but
Thompson dates a Miletus tetradrachm in the hoard to ca. 300-294.
53 Alexander, p. 56; Sardes and Miletus, p. 91.
M List of 922 coins at the ANS; Alexander, p. 56; Sardes and Miletus, p. 92; Lampsacus and Abydus, p. 73.
55 Sardes and Miletus, p. 90.
56 List of the nine known coins at the ANS.
58 Philippe, pp. 316-17, 21; Alexander, p. 55; Lampsacus and Abydus, p. 74.
59 List of coins at the ANS; Sardes and Miletus, p. 94.
8. Silver Hoards
HOARD SUMMARY
No.
Hoard
IGCH
Alexander,
Latest
Number
Philip III*
Amphipolis
Group
Kyparissia 1892-93
76
20
15
Mageira 1950
74
Nemea 1938
79

Commerce 1993
73
25
Babylon 1973
"Many"
12
Lebanon 1985
26
Near East 1993: drs.
1412
17
Asia Minor 1964: drs.
1437
89
Phoenicia 1968
1513
15
10
Demanhur 1905
1664
5,951
2,005
84
DISCUSSION
In general, the chronological help given by the hoards is disappointing. Only the first two
hoards were clearly buried during Alexander's lifetime, and they are of limited value. The third
hoard may also have been interred before 323, but it again is of no help. Nevertheless, a few
hoards provide clues, if not totally satisfactory evidence, about the dates of the various coin
groups in the decade after Alexander's death. This evidence will be discussed in the following
chapter.
The burial dates of many of the hoards listed above depend on non-Macedonian issues whose
exact times of striking are not precisely known. Indeed, it is remarkable how very little firm
evidence there is for the dates of any of Alexander's lifetime and early posthumous silver. The
annual dates on Sidon's coins, together with the contents of the massive Demanhur Hoard, give
the one fixed point. Sidon's hoard coins of year 15, almost assuredly the Macedonian year of
October 319 to October 318 B.C., provide a secure point of reference for most of the Alexander
mints operating at that time.
Ake's coins, too, in Demanhur must have been struck in 319/8, but was this mint really Ake or
was it Tyre? As this mint's year 1 antedated the coming of Alexander by some 14 years, did its
year start in a different month than that of Sidonperhaps the Babylonian year commencing in
June? Price has made a convincing argument that historical considerations mean that year 1 at
Ake could not have been 347/6, as Newell believed, but rather 346/5. But it has also been
persuasively argued by Lemaire that the mint of these coins was not Ake but Tyre, in which case
there is no difficulty in accepting a start in 347/6.60 At either of these cities the year would
probably have started in June. Thus in the Demanhur hoard Sidon's latest coins (year 15)
would have ended in October 318. If the second mint was Ake, coins of year 29 would have
ended in June 317, eight months later. If the second mint was Tyre, coins of year 29 would have
ended in June 318, four months earlier than Sidon's. In neither case do their dates correspond

exactly to those of Sidon, but the difference is only a matter of months.
More serious is the dating of the important series ascribed to Babylon, which provides the
latest component in so many hoards. Waggoner's unpublished thesis closely follows Newell's
Babylon dating in Demanhur, and a published article by her treats in detail the large group of
issues which end with those with the first use of the title BAZIAEQZ.61 Here again her dating is
extremely close to Newell's, and she assigns these issues to six years, 329/8 to 323/2, with the
title introduced in 324/3-323/2. She has done a careful die study of an unusually large number
of coins, with the obverse dies used divisible by reverse linkage into six consecutive groups each
joined to the next by only a few common obverses. There is no doubt that her arrangement of
dies and their groups is correct, but the conclusion that six groups of dies are to be equated with
six calendar years is highly questionable. Obverse dies are retired when no longer usable. They
are not arbitrarily discarded just because a new calendar year starts.
A large number of symbols was used for this series, and they are used throughout, at first
without and then with the title, and all are closely obverse linked in each group. Price wrote
that the series "has every aspect of a large-scale production over a relatively short period of
time." Waggoner counted 77 obverse dies in the Babylon series for her hypothesis of six years of
striking. This is a respectable number of dies, and it approximates the average number in the
Amphipolis groups: 879 known dies 4- 12 groups = 73. Price, however, would date this entire
Babylon series to ca. 325-323 B.C.,62 when returning soldiers from the east received their pay. I
agree with Price's analysis.
60 A. Lemaire, "Le monnayage de Tyr et celui dit d'Akko dans la deuxieme moitie du ivc siecle av. J.-C,"
RN 1976, pp. 11-24; Alexander, pp. 405-7, with other bibliography. Georges Le Rider tells me that Lemaire
has further evidence supporting Tyre. One hopes to see this published soon.
61 Alexander 3594-3687; "Babylon Mint" and "Babylon."
62 Alexander, p. 454-57, dates at p. 457.
8. Silver Hoards
85
Price also suggests that the Babylon issues with M and AY bearing either Alexander's or Philip
III's name, which Newell and Waggoner both place after the Babylon series just described, may
not even belong to the same mint. There are no die links, and there are great dissimilarities of
style. Price's suggestions as to specific mints are intriguing but not especially relevant here.
The important thing is that separating these M-AY coins from the series in question could well
bring that series, culminating in coins with the title, down a year or two. Thus there remains
considerable uncertainty about the attribution and precise dating of the issues usually assigned
to Babylon, but at the moment there seems no alternative to following, with some caution,
Waggoner's attributions and dating as modified by Price.
Then there is the extremely large issue of Aradus with the city monogram A and caduceus
(Alexander 3332), the last Aradus issue in Demanhur, and the last in Price's series of issues
which he assigns to ca. 328-320 B.C. One should not argue from such small samples, but in the
absence of other indications it is at least interesting to note that no such coins were present in
the Commerce 1993 hoard, buried ca. 323, but that a drachm with these markings was included
in the ca. 322 Near East 1993 hoard. The huge issue, however, could well have continued for
several years after 323/322. Price also notes an obverse link with an issue in the name of Philip
III which is normally assigned to Marathus. Questions of attribution and more precise dating
thus arise, which one hopes some future thorough study of the Aradus mint will resolve. For
now, it is impossible to be confident of the dates of this issue, which again could be crucial in

estimating the burial date of several of the hoards.
9. ALEXANDERS AND PHILIPS: ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY
This chapter1 evaluates the evidence for the dating of groups A-D and the start of Alexander's
Macedonian silver coinage; the dating of groups E-F, G, H-I, K-J, and L; and the start of the
Philip II silver reissues. Hoards described in the preceding chapter that are useful chronologi-
cally are discussed below, together with the coins' own internal evidence.
The traditional chronology for Alexander groups A through K and J is that of the Demanhur
hoard publication, where E. T. Newell first identified and lettered the groups, assigning each to
either one or two years of production.2 Newell's dates range from the year of Alexander's
accession, 336 B.C., to 318 B.C., the date of the latest coins (of Sidon and Ake) present in the
Demanhur Hoard. In Demanhur, Newell wrote:
The dates here assigned the various groups of the Amphipolis coinage are, perhaps, to
a certain extent approximate. But even so, they cannot be in error by much more than
a year either way. The commencement of the coinage is determined by the accession of
Alexander, its terminationso far as our hoard is concernedby the latest date found
on the accompanying issues of Sidon and Ake. Between these limits the material has
been divided in such a way that, up to the two or three years immediately preceding the
actual burial, . . . the average annual production ... is reasonably distributed. Natu-
rally some years would witness a greater production than others, and full account has
been taken of this possibility. . . .3
Just what did Newell mean by "some years would witness a greater production than others, and
full account has been taken of this possibility"? One would give a good deal to know his
thinking here, but he has left no clue. In any case, the production was not at all evenly
distributed, either on Newell's dating or the slightly lower chronology proposed in this chapter.4
GROUPS A-D AND THE STABT OF THE COINAGE
In November 333 Alexander fought and won the second of the three decisive battles in his
conquest of the Persian Empire. At Issus in southern Cilicia he routed the Great King, captured
a major treasure, the king's war chest, and effectively took control of the Persian Empire.

Shortly before the battle, in the late fall of 333, he had acquired nearby Tarsus, a major
administrative center of the empire.
At Tarsus, before Alexander's arrival, Persian satraps had struck coinage in their names
depicting several variations of a seated figure of Baal or, specifically, the Baal of Tarsus,
Baaltars. The two commonest varieties are shown here on Plate 18, A-B. These have long been
recognized as the immediate predecessors of the seated Zeus shown on the earliest Alexanders
struck at Tarsus (Plate 18, C). The gods' postures are identical, stiff and archaizing, not the
normal classical style of the late fourth century. Their hair is rolled at the back (this can be seen
on Baal only on Plate 18, A, where his head is shown in profile). Their scepters are shown with
dotted shafts and with a floral ornament at the top, the "flowering scepter." A row of dots
immediately under the throne seat probably indicates some sort of decoration on the seat. The
lowest protuberances on the throne legs show the so-called "bell-covers," which seem to be circles
of parallel hanging leaves over these two lowest and largest bell-shaped protuberances. Finally,
both gods' feet rest on footstools, which are depicted in an identical rather sketchy fashion as a
1 A preliminary version of the chapter has appeared as "Earliest Silver."
2 Demanhur, pp. 26-32.
3 Demanhur, p. 68.
4 See p. 96, Figure 6.
9. Absolute Chronology
87
single slanting line supported only at the right by a support resembling an inverted horseshoe, or
the letter Q. That Alexander's Zeus at Tarsus derived from the Baal of Tarsus was recognized
by scholars before Newell and by Newell himself, and seems universally accepted today.5
The crucial question is whether the Macedonian Zeus derived in turn from the Tarsiote Zeus.
In the early groups at Amphipolis, the general aspect of Zeus with his stiff posture is close to
that of the Tarsiote deities, but on the typical coins of, e.g., Plate 1, from 2 onward, Zeus has
long, not rolled, hair; his scepter terminates in a ball, not a floral ornament; there are no dots
immediately below the throne seat; there are no bell-covers on the lower protuberances of the
throne legs; and there is a dotted exergue line, but no footstooi.
Orestes Zervos has, however, recently revived an old thesis that the Macedonian Zeus did
indeed derive from the Tarsiote Zeus. He has discussed a number of elements at Macedon which
he believes show the influence and hence the priority of the Tarsiote Alexanders. These are five:
the frontal extended hand of Zeus, his twisted torso, his stiffly parallel legs, the stylized row of
drapery at his waist, and the throne with its bell-covers. None of these, except the probable
presence of bell-covers on a few very early Macedonian coins, seem particularly convincing to
the present author, and none at all convinced Martin Price, that leading authority on the
Alexander coinage.6
But the Alexander collection at the American Numismatic Society, largely that of E. T.
Newell, is extraordinary. Here there are indeed a number of Tarsiote iconographical details
present on what seem to be among the very earliest coins struck at Amphipolis. These details
appear, although no more than one or two on a given die, on coins often struck at the same time
(i.e., from the same obverse die) and, after their first brief and often awkwardly executed
occurrences, they drop out, not to return until much later in the coinage.
Plate 18, D, is a silver stater of Perdiccas III, brother and predecessor of Philip II, and Plate
18, E, is a didrachm of Philip II. Note in particular the double row of locks at Heracles' brow,

so unlike the single row of thick, snail-like curls of virtually all early Alexanders from this mint.
Such a double row of locks is found on only three dies in this Alexander coinage, all in group A,
and one might well conclude that these Alexander dies were early ones. The two coins 450-51
are from one of these obverses. These two coins are also highly unusual in that their reverses are
two of only five known where the prow symbol faces right rather than left. On Philip's imme-
diately prior (or contemporary ?) coins the prow always faced right, the natural and graceful
orientation because the reverse type of the horse and rider faced right, e.g., Plate 18, F. On
Alexander's coins, however, the orientation is awkward, with the prow rather disconcertingly
about to sail right into Zeus. Again, one might well conclude that these reverses with prow right
were early ones. Thus, both obverse and reverse indications are that the two coins 450-51 were
indeed among the very first struck at Amphipolisand both reverses show Zeus holding a
flowering scepter. Further, the second coin appears to have bell-covers on the throne legs. The
coin is worn, so that the divisions between the hanging leaves are lost, but the scalloped lower
edges of the extra-large bottom protuberances do show an attempt at depicting bell-covers.
The remaining three reverses with the prow symbol facing right all occur with a second
obverse die (452-54). This obverse die again is one of those which have a double row of curls at
Heracles' brow. On 452-53 there appear to be bell-covers, and on 453 also a probable floral
ornament atop the scepter (largely off flan). On 454 there occurs another Tarsiote feature not
discussed by Zervos in his publication, but one which he suggested I look for, the row of dots
immediately below the throne seat. This is a detail which one must admit is not striking, but it
occurs on, at most, three or four dies, all in group A.
5 See, e.g., Myriandros, p. 15.
6 "Earliest Coins." Zervos has been supported by F. de Callatay in "La date des premiers tetradrachmes
de poids attique emis par Alexandre le Grand," RBN 1982, pp. 5-25. Price argued for retaining the tradition-
al starting date of 336 B.C. in "Reform" and in Alexander, pp. 27-30.
88
Also from the obverse die of 452-54 is a coin of another group A issue, A4, with fulmen (455).
Its reverse shows Zeus's feet resting on a clear footstool on the Tarsiote model, a slanting line
supported at one end only.
The four coins 456-59 have the prow symbol facing in its usual direction, left. Coins 456 and
457 are from different obverse dies, but from the same reverse with a footstool (clearer on 456
than 457). Three, 457-59, are from the same obverse die, and 458 has the row of dots imme-
diately under the throne seat, while 459 has a flowering scepter.
Four more coins, 460-63, have a similar prow symboi. The first two are from the same
reverse, with flowering scepter (clearer on 460 than 461), while 461-63 are from the same
obverse die. There is a footstool on 462, while 463 has bell-covers on the throne legs.
The double heads (A3), appear on 464, with flowering scepter, dots below the throne seat, and
a footstool which is awkwardly executed, being cut directly over the exergue line.
A further feature which suggests that these coins with eastern details are contemporary with
each other is the incidence in group A of the letter-form !E instead of H. Of the some 145-50
reverses known to me in A, only 11 have I. These are concentrated in the early reverses, five of
which are illustrated here (450, 451, 456, 459, and 465, the last also with flowering scepter).
Although the form !E is standard on the Tarsiote coinage, it cannot be claimed as a uniquely
eastern feature at Amphipolis, and is mentioned merely as one more bit of evidence that these
Amphipolis coins with eastern features were struck at the same time.
There are a few possible other examples of bell-covers in group A, and a handful of other
flowering scepters, many poorly executed as in the foregoing examples, but none of either in any
of groups B through E. Nor are dots under the throne seat or bell-covers found in these groups.
Two dies with footstools are known in group B, which as discussed earlier may have at least in
part overlapped group A. Perhaps significantly one of these occurs on a coin of B7 with grapes
(16), one of whose reverse dies was recut to become a reverse of group A.7 The other is on a coin

of B5, with Attic helmet.8 It is a fair assumption that these two reverse dies also were cut rather
early in the coinage.
In groups C and D there seem to be no instances whatever of any of the Tarsiote iconographi-
cal details just discussed. Newell did mention a footstool on a coin of C's Pegasus forepart issue
(C5), but a thorough search has not succeeded in locating such a coin.9 Nor do there seem to be
any Tarsiote details present in the huge group E, save for one die with footstool,10 and this is
easily understood as a precursor of the frequent Tarsiote or eastern details which reappear from
group F onward. A possible explanation for this later recurrence will be found below."
Thus the Tarsiote details occur early at Amphipolis. They appear, even if only one or two on a
given die, on coins struck at the same time because linked by common obverse dies. They are
often poorly executed, as if imperfectly understood. Finally, very shortly after their early
appearances they drop out. Even though many of theme.g., the flowering scepter and the
footstoolare well known to Greek art on the mainland before Alexander's time, the fact that
these early, concurrent, awkwardly executed, fleeting details are precisely those of the Tarsiote
7 See Chapter 3, link 2.
8 Cambridge = SNGFitz 2112. I thank T. V. Buttrey for verifying that the coin does indeed have a
footstooi.
9 Newell in Reattrib., p. 16, notes a footstool on type XV (C5), Pegasus forepart. I have not been able to
locate such an example among the ANS coins, Newell's casts, the ANS photofile, and published collections,
nor any mention of such a coin in Newell's notebooks on the Amphipolis mint or in his numerous hoard
records. Can it be that XV was an error for XI, the grapes issue of group B, where a Newell coin with
footstool is indeed known'?
10 E.g., Grabow 14, 27 July 1939, 220. The ANS has a coin from the same dies. The issue is R8, with
bucranium.
11 See p. 92.
89
coins can hardly be coincidence. There seems no possible way to explain these iconographic
details on these few early Amphipolis coins other than by their makers having already seen the
Tarsiote tetradrachms (or perhaps other eastern ones, for the contemporary or slightly later
coinages of many mints in the east strongly resembled the Tarsiote strikings). The conclusion
must be that the Amphipolis silver coinage was initiated only after that of Tarsus, and that
therefore Alexander's Macedonian coinage can have started at the earliest only extremely late in
333 B.C., or more probably in 332.
Such a starting date is in many ways more satisfactory from a historical point of view than is
336 B.C., immediately upon Alexander's accession. Regardless of what numismatists may think
today, one may question whether reform of the coinage really was one of the first things Alex-
ander thought to do when suddenly propelled to the throne. Rather, a coinage whose types
would be understandable throughout a newly secured empireand, perhaps more important,
whose standard would be universally acceptable therewould seem to have been needed only
after the decisive battle of Issus in November 333. Further, it was shortly after Issus that
Alexander issued his famous manifesto to Darius, who had written offering friendship and alli-
ance. Alexander replied that he had defeated in battle first the king's generals and now the
Great King himself, and that he was now by God's help master of Darius's country and of
everything Darius possessed: they were not equals and in future any communication from
Darius should be addressed to him as lord of all Asia.12 For those who try to understand
Alexander's coinage on the shaky and uncertain basis of "what Alexander would have done,"
here is an occasion which surely must be as psychologically satisfactory as his accession for the
introduction of the young king's own coinage.
But the usual question here, given this later starting date, is what Alexander did for money
from the time of his invasion of Asia in mid 334 and the initiation of his silver coinage ca. 332.
The continuance of his father's coinage in both gold and silver could well have been sufficient so

long as he was at home. But, although Philip's gold on the Attic standard was acceptable
everywhere, his silver on the parochial Macedonian standard was not and its almost total
absence from Asia Minor hoards is striking. One must assume that some combination of prepay-
ment to the troops before departure, promise of pay on return, Philip's gold taken along with the
invading army, and, of course, requisitioning and looting during the campaign sufficed until
Alexander's own silver coinage was instituted. That even before Issus Alexander was sending
cash to Macedonia rather than receiving it from home is shown by Curtius's statements that
Alexander sent money back to Antipater at least twice in early 333.13 It thus does not seem at
all clear that Alexander needed his own silver coinage before 332.
But if Macedonian Alexanders appeared only after Issus, is it necessary to conclude that they
did so promptly, perhaps early in 332? The first question is how long into his reign Alexander
continued striking his father's silver. Le Rider suggested bringing Philip's silver down to
ca. 328, by analogy with Philip's gold, to which he gave a terminus ante quem of ca. 329/8
because of the Corinth hoard, then believed buried ca. 328." But the hoard's burial date no
longer seems secure,15 and in any case each king's coinage in one precious metal bears little
obvious relation to his coinage in the other metai.
Second, we do not know the temporal relationship of the two kings' groups of strikings
employing the same markings of prow, stern, and double heads.16 The usual assumption is that
the Philips preceded the Alexanders, but there is no reason the two could not have been at least
12 Arr., Anab. 2.14; Curtius 4.1.7-14; Diod. 17.39.1-2.
13 Curtius 3.1.1, 3.1.20.
14 Philippe, pp. 390-91, 430-31.
15 See pp. 115-16 and 123-25.
16 Philip: Philippe, Amphipolis 263 427. Alexander: A1-A3. See pp. 21-48.
90
for a time struck in parallei. In particular, the Philips with the added symbol of the bee17 might
have come from a subsidiary workshop once the main workship using prow, stern, and double
heads had switched from Philips to Alexanders.
The hoard evidence is a bit contradictory and does not help date the start of the coinage.
There are but two useful lifetime hoards from the Greek mainland, Kyparissia and Mageira (the
little Nemea hoard is dated by its group D coin). Kyparissia, containing groups A through D,
was dated by Newell to ca. 327. Even if the hoard was buried promptly by 327, there is still
ample time before that date for four groups if the coinage started in 332, or even perhaps a bit
later, the more especially if, as now seems probable, groups A and B and perhaps also C and D
overlapped somewhat.18 Weak, because negative, evidence for a starting date somewhat later
than 332 is the Mageira hoard of ca. 325 which contained no Macedonian Alexanders at all, only
a single worn Alexander from Tarsus.
When would cash have been required in Macedonia and Greece? We know from the sources
that Alexander made numerous recruiting efforts on the mainland, starting even before 332.
The only known domestic occasion which would have required coin was Antipater's suppression
of the Spartan rebellion under Agis in 331. But the wide acceptability of Philip's money in
Greece and the north means that Alexander's own money was not necessarily required even
then. Nevertheless, late 333-332, when the coinage started in Asia, is perhaps as good a guess as
any for the introduction in Macedonia of Alexander's Attic tetradrachmsbut it is still only a
guess.
GROUPS E-F
Group E shares an obverse die with group D,19 but from E on the pattern of striking changes.
Groups A and B, and perhaps C and D also, seem to have been struck at least in part concur-
rently with many shared obverse dies between each pair. From E on (except for J and the very
small K) each group appears to have been the only one in production during its period of

striking.20 It could be that there was a hiatus between the striking of D and E, despite the
obverse die they share, but there is no firm evidence.
There is also no hoard evidence beyond the somewhat uncertain terminus post quem of the
Kyparissia Hoard's burial for the start of group E, or for the time occupied by its striking and
that of group F, but there are a number of clues supplied by the internal evidence of the coins
themselves. These are the sizes of the groups, the smaller denominations, and various icon-
ographic observations.
The Sizes of the Groups
Group E is the largest by far of any of the Alexander tetradrachm groups, employing some
241 estimated obverse dies.21 The considerably later group L, with 232, came close, but the next
largest of the lifetime and early posthumous groups, G, used 114. But if F and G (with essen-
tially the same markings) should be considered as a single group, then F/G, immediately after E,
would have employed a total of 203 obverses.22
Newell dated group E to ca. 328 and 327 B.C. Why should there have been such a tremendous
outpouring in those years, when apparently affairs in Macedonia and Greece were quiet, and
Alexander was as far from home as he would ever be? What need could there have been then?
17 Philippe, Amphipolis 430-494.
18 See p. 48.
19 Chapter 3, link 17.
20 See p. 47, Figure 4.
21 See p. 26, Table 2.
22 Indeed, in his Amphipolis notebook with the preliminary catalogue of coins known to him, Newell called
group F "group F, section 1," and group G "group F, section 2."
91
Positing a revised starting date for the coinage of 332 instead of mid-336, and spreading the
estimated dies out evenly (which is not in any case good practice), one arrives at a date for group
E from the end of 329 to the end of 325.23 This span of several years seems most unlikely, as E
stylistically is an extremely homogeneous group, with every indication of having been struck in
a concentrated manner over a fairly short period.
I would propose here a second major shift in Newell's chronology, assigning group E to
approximately the years 325 and 324. This is the period to which Margaret Thompson has dated
the opening of some of Alexander's Asiatic mints and the sudden large expansion of activity in
others. The reason for this heightened activity in Asia Minor was the need to pay discharged
troops, mercenaries, and others, who were sent home in large numbers starting in 325, and who
would have been fully paid only upon arrival at home.21 The same situation would have
obtained on the mainland, and the large group E is reasonably explained as struck in expecta-
tion of and during the return of the earliest troops. The relatively large succeeding groups F, G,
and H would then reflect the same continuing need.
The Small Denominations
From A through E, denominations smaller than the tetradrachm were struckdidrachms,
drachms, triobols, diobols, and obols.25 The drachms are of particular interest, as their initial
reverses with the old Macedonian type of standing eagle change during the coinage to the
standard reverse of seated Zeus as on the tetradrachms.
It is in group E that this change appears. Obverse linked to one of its eagle reverse drachm
issues are drachms with the imperial seated Zeus, the type used everywhere else in the empire.26
The largest and almost exclusive producers of drachms were the Asia Minor mints, whose vastly
enhanced production in 325-323, as Thompson demonstrated, went for the payment of troops
discharged then. A likely explanation for the new type's introduction in Macedonia would be
the carrying home of some of these Asiatic drachms by returning Macedonian veterans, and this

would have been more likely to occur from 325 on than in 328 or 327.
An influx of Asiatic drachms would also explain why, after a very few more drachms (all also
with Zeus reverses) were struck in group F, all production of small silver denominations ceased
for some years. No small coins at all are known in groups G, H, and I. Small coins with Philip
H's types were struck during K and J, probably for the special purpose of facilitating exchange
between Alexander tetradrachms and the newly reissued Philip tetradrachms on the old Ma-
cedonian standard. Following these small Philips, no small coins are known at Amphipolis.27
Iconography
Long ago, Newell noted two changes in the reverses of groups E and F, changes which he quite
rightly concluded served to connect these two groups, but to which he apparently attached no
other significance.28 First is the exergual line. In groups A through D, as he observed, the line
was almost invariably present and dotted (1-39). The same depiction continued in group E, but
with a few rare exceptions. On a handful of coins with bucranium and pentagram the exergue
was set off simply by a straight line (e.g., 4S).29 Further, the bucranium symbol is one of the
23 See p. 26, Table 2, and p. 96, Figure 6. The total time span, 332 through 318, is 15 years, and the dies per
year 59(885-M5). A/B would require 2.32 years, and C/D 1.58, for a total of 3.90 nearing the end of 329, and
E would require a further 4.08 years.
24 M. Thompson, "Paying the Mercenaries," in Festschrift fur / Studies in Honor of Leo Mildenberg, ed. A.
Houghton et ai. (Wetteren, 1984), pp. 241-47.
25 See Chapter 2.
26 See pp. 31-32, Table 3, drachms, and p. 35, Table 6.
27 For the small Philips, see Chapter 5; for possible drachms with A and torch, p. 37.
28 Reattrib., pp. 16-17.
29 Newell noted also that the scallop shell issue had a simple exergual line. At the time of Reattrib. he
considered this issue (one coin known at the time) as part of the earlier of the two groups. In the later
Demanhur he had included it in F, no doubt because of the obverse link to that group. See 50 and 55.
92
three found with the new Zeus-reverse drachms to which the pentagram issue is obverse linked.
These two issues thus apparently came at least in part rather late in group E. Then, in group F,
the exergue line is either dotted (52), or plain (53), or omitted altogether (e.g. 50, 55).
Second is the footstooi. As discussed earlier, on four reverses of group A and two of group B,
Zeus's feet rest on a footstool which is depicted exactly as on the initial Alexander strikings from
Tarsus. I have found no footstools at all in groups C or D,30 and only one in the large group E, in
the same seemingly rather late bucranium issue (48). But in group F footstools are common,
either on the Tarsiote model of groups A and B with a slanting line supported only at the right
by a sort of inverted horseshoe (54), or portrayed, as Newell again noted, by "a short straight
line (not to be confounded with an exergual line)" (51, 56).3'
And there are other occasional innovations in group F of which Newell undoubtedly was
aware but did not discuss because not relevant to the association of group F with group E.
These are bell-covers on the throne legs (51), the folds of Zeus's robe between his legs paired in
groups of two as on Tarsiote coins (55, cf. Plate 18, A-C), and even Zeus's hair sometimes shown
rolled at the back as on Tarsiote and many other eastern Alexanders (51, 55, cf. Plate 18, B-C).
The bell-covers are known earlier at this mint only in group A and the paired folds and rolled
hair have not previously occurred in any Amphipolis group. All the innovations discussed tend
to occur together, not all on any one die, but often two or three, or more, on a given die. Again,
may this be a result of another influx of eastern coins? Although recruiting of troops back in
Macedonia is known to have occurred often enough during Alexander's absence in the east, and
although Alexanders from the east struck from 332 to ca. 323 are found in Macedonia and
Greece proper, perhaps the most likely time for a major influx which would have affected the
iconography at the mint would be in the years following ca. 325, when so many soldiers returned
home. If this imported eastern money was responsible for the eastern details present on group
F, it is another argument for the dating of groups E and F to approximately 325-323 B.C.

Only after the above commentary on groups E-F was completed did the Commerce 1993
tetradrachm hoard appear (hoard 4 in the preceding chapter, full publication in Appendix 1
below). There seems no need to date this hoard later than ca. 323 or 322. On Newell's chronol-
ogy groups F and G and half of the large group H would all have been struck by 323 (and all of
H by 322). The hoard's latest Amphipolis coins, however, were of group E, many die linked.
Although we cannot be confident that we know the complete hoard, the absence of F, G, and H
in this deposit supports a lower chronology than Newell's.
GBOUP G AND THE INTRODUCTION OF THE TITLE
For the start of group G, which introduced the title BAZIAEQZ at Amphipolis, there is hoard
evidence. In three hoards (Babylon 1973, Lebanon 1985, and Asia Minor 1968)32 the Amphipolis
Alexanders end with group G, so their burial dates provide a terminus ante quem for G. The
latest coins in Babylon 1973 and Asia Minor 1968 (IGCH 1440), issues of the mint of Babylon,
were assigned by Waggoner to 322 B.C.. These two hoards, then, present no problem for dating
the beginning of group G to late 323 or even early 322.
Lebanon 1985, however, requires more examination. It, like Babylon 1973 and Asia Minor
1968, contained Aradus coins with caduceus which may well have been struck as late as or later
than 322, but this large issue has never been subjected to a thorough study. The hoard's latest
fairly firmly dated issue, one of Babylon, is the first of that mint to bear the title BAZIAEQZ just
as group G was the first at Amphipolis with the title. Newell's chronology for Amphipolis,
30 See p. 88.
31 Reattrib., p. 17.
32 Chapter 8, hoards 5, 6, and 22.
93
described earlier, put the introduction of the title there to the year 325. But he himself said that
his dates could be off by a year or two, and it seems that his attempt to assign the various
groups to particular years (and each to either precisely one or two years) was based on the
premise that the coinage was produced fairly evenly over the years. One must wonder if this
dating, with Newell's well-deserved prestige behind it, has not come to be the basis for our belief
in when the title was introduced at all, or at least many, mints.
Newell in Demanhur dated the introduction of the title at Babylon to 324-323.33 Unfor-
tunately we again have no insight into his thinking, but could it have been influenced by his
dating for Amphipolis? He dated the title's introduction at Tarsus partly on the basis of his
belief that it came in at Amphipolis and at Babylon "about a year or so previous to the death of
Alexander, or between 325 and 324 B.C."31 Waggoner has followed his Babylon dating
extremely closely, but dates these earliest coins with the title to 324/3-323/2,35 i.e., approx-
imately to 323. It requires no great adjustment to accept that AAEEANAPOY changed to
BAZIAEQZ AAEEANAPOY at Babylon and Tarsus no earlier than late 323, after Alexander's
death, and thus that group G also had a terminus post quem late in that year.
GBOUPS H-I
Groups H and I, as discussed in Chapter 3, fall between group G and groups K/J, and require
no special discussion.
GBOUPS K-J
Newell assigned group K to 318, placing it after group J, which he had assigned to the years
320 and 319. But I have attempted to show above that K and J were struck concurrently, and
in any case there would have seemed no need to devote a full year to the minute group K. J was
not a very large group either, although it must be remembered that large reissues of Philip IPs
types were contemporary with K/J.
There is reason to suspect that K/J started only very shortly before Demanhur's burial and

may even have continued for some time afterwards. There is a relative under-representation in
Demanhur of the last groups, the contemporary K and J, and of the immediately preceding
group I. Some 885 obverse dies are estimated to have been used in the production of groups A
through K/J. Groups K/J used an estimated 43 obverses, hence their estimated percentage of
total production to that point was 43-^-885, or 4.9%. The following table shows the hoards
which contained ten or more identifiable coins of groups A through K/J, and their percentages of
groups I and K/J.
The proportions of group I vary widely, both more and less than its percentage
(70^-885 = 7.9%) of the total production. But only two of the ten hoards (Aleppo and
Demanhur) contained less than the estimated percentage of groups K/J, and only Demanhur
contained considerably lessalmost exactly half its proportional amount. Newell was well
aware of the low representation of I and K/J, "because of the apparently general law observable
in coin hoards that, for perfectly natural reasons, the issues contemporary with the burial are
usually comparatively scantily represented. . . . Also, certain material at the writer's disposal
would tend to show that groups J and K, and probably also I, were originally much larger than
our find would seem to indicate."36 One might counter that, on the contrary, the latest group a
33 Coins 4446 ff.
34 Tarsos, p. 34.
35 "Babylon Mint," p. 122, and "Babylon," p. 276.
5 Demanhur, pp. 68-69.
94
Table 18
Percentages of I and K/J in Groups A through K/J
in Hoards Containing
10 or More Macedonian Coins of Groups A through K/J
Coins Percentage
Hoard
Total A-K/J
K/J
K/J
Hoards ending with K/J
10 Demanhur 1905
2,005
81
50
4.0
2.5
13 Central Greece 1911
15
20.0
20.0
18 Akcakale 1958
7.7
7.7

26
20 Andritsaena 1923
33
18.1
18.1
28 Drama 1935
10
80.0
10.0
Hoards ending with L
24 Abu Hommos 1919
57
8.8
10.5
26 Kuft 1874-1875
45
2.2
8.9
Later hoards
39 Phacous 1956
61
3.3
8.2
40 Aleppo 1893
115
7.0
4.3
95
be used in ca. 308-305, there is ample time before that for group L and the A-bucranium and
A-torch groups even if group L started several years after 318.
Second, two hoards buried shortly after Demanhur also contain our mint's coins only through
groups K/J, with no examples of the very large group L, suggesting that L was not yet in
circulation. They are Akcakale 1958, which was buried ca. 317-316, and Andritsaena 1923,
whose burial date, despite the doubts expressed in IGCH, seems to have been ca. 316-315.41
These two hoards contained, respectively, 26 and 33 coins of groups A through K/J, so that the
absence of the large group L supports a proposed starting date for group L a few years after 318.
Until recently there seemed to be one contradictory bit of hoard evidence for the beginning of
group L, the Sinan Pascha 1919 Hoard of Alexander and Philip III drachms, whose burial date
of 317-316 seems quite firm. The hoard contained one drachm with P as its sole marking, an
issue which had usually been considered as belonging with group L, where the F is the constant
primary marking. The issue's appearance in the new Near East 1993 drachm hoard,42 however,
buried a few years earlier, ca. 322 or 321, together with iconographical evidence, places the P
drachms in group E or group F. Thus Sinan Pascha no longer can be understood to show that
group L was introduced prior to its burial ca. 317-316.
All the hoard evidence, then, seems to suggest, even if it does not prove, that group L was
introduced only a few years after the burial of the great Demanhur Hoard, perhaps in ca. 316 or
315.
PHILIP II REISSUES
As discussed in Chapters 4-7, reissued tetradrachms and smaller coins with Philip IPs types
and name (Philip groups 1-8) were struck parallel with Alexander groups K and J, and some
may possibly have been struck in parallel with the earlier Alexander group I. The tetradrachms
(Philip group 9) then continued parallel to Alexander group L. Succeeding Philip groups paral-
leled succeeding Alexander groups, until perhaps 294-290 B.C. when Demetrius Poliorcetes

assumed power in Macedonia. Because these Philip reissues lasted so long, much later than
Philip III's death, it is most unlikely that their issue had anything to do with that unfortunate
monarch. Had any coinage at Amphipolis been intended to support him, it surely would have
been struck in his own namebut no such coinage is known.
By Newell's chronology, Alexander group I was struck ca. 322-321 B.C., by my chronology,
perhaps 320-319. Groups K and J on Newell's chronology would have been issued ca. 320-318,
by mine, perhaps 318-317. My best estimate of when these Philip reissues started is, then,
ca. 320 or 319 B.C. Newell suggested that they were reissued because of the popularity of
Philip's coinage in the Balkans to the north, where the hoards show that they circulated widely.
Georges Le Rider has recently put forth another explanation: the fiscal advantage of a double
coinage to the ruling parties in Macedonia.43
SUMMARY
The chronology proposed here for Amphipolis's Alexanders, then, is:
Groups A-D ca. 332 - ca. 326
Groups E-F ca. 325 - ca. 323/322
Groups G-K/J ca. 322 - ca. 317?
Group L ca. 316 -?
41 Chapter 8, hoards 18 and 20.
42 Chapter 8, hoard 7; see also p. 36.
43 Demanhur, p. 21. See now G. Le Rider, "Les deux monnaies macedoniennes des annees 323-294/90,"
BCH 117 (1993), pp. 491-500, esp. pp. 497-500.
96
Figure 6 shows in schematic form, on the left, Newell's dating, and the estimated total
number of dies found for each group. On the right is the chronology proposed here, with the
estimated totals for groups A-D, E-F, G-K/J, and L. Also shown are the total estimated
number of Philip dies employed at various times, given in terms of Attic-weight equivalents of
the amount of silver struck."
Figure 6
Comparison of Newell and Troxell Dating
(+110 Philips)
Newell
Dale
Troxell
Dies
Group
Group
Dies
mid-336
88
A<
335
334
333
49
B'
332
17
331
76

330
329
A-D
230
241
328
327
89
326
114
325
109
324
323
E-F
330
70
322
321
33
.1
320
319
G-K/J
336
10
318
317?
316-?
232
( + 110 Philips)
97
Arrhidaeus, renamed Philip III, and to Alexander's unborn child by Roxane, should the child
turn out to be a male. It did, and he became Alexander IV. These two unfortunate individuals
became the wards of one after the other of the powerful successors, but nominally they were the
joint Kings of Macedonia, referred to in the sources as oi fkxaiXETs. Philip III's coinage, struck at
a number of mints but, remarkably, never at Amphipolis, often uses the title BAZIAEQZ, and so
the title would be perfectly appropriate should the reference be to Alexander IV. Antipater, an
old companion of Philip II, had been left as regent in Macedonia by Alexander III, and,
although Alexander may have been disaffected with him shortly before he (Alexander) died, still
Antipater would have had every reason to emphasize the continuance of the royal house.
Indeed, one eminent numismatist has explained why the title at Amphipolis must refer to the
young boy because Alexander would never have used the title on the mainland:
It is evident that throughout his lifetime Alexander contented himself with the mod-
est legend AAEEANAPOY. On the coins especially intended for use in the West it would
have been far from politic for Alexander to display a title so abhorrent to the Greek
mind. By force of arms and circumstances his undoubtedly was the hegemony over
Hellas and the Greeks, but he understood their character too well to advertise the fact
boldly on what he intended should be a national coinage....After his death, how-
ever....the legends BAZIAEQZ (DIAlrmOY and BAZIAEQZ AAEEANAPOY were intended to
indicate that these kings were the rightful successors....
This strong statement was made by Newell himself in Reattribution46 when the coinage's dates
were believed to be later than he subsequently demonstrated. It is a pleasure, although perhaps
a rather perverse one, to quote that great numismatist in support of my own thesis.
As for the explanation of why the title was subsequently dropped at Amphipolis, it seems
understandable in the light of events in 317-316. Olympias, in brief control of Macedonia in the
fall of 317, assassinated Philip III and his young wife Eurydice and put to death many of

Cassander's supporters. Cassander, returning from the Peloponnese, besieged her and her forces
in Pydna, finally defeating her in 316 and arranging her death. He then, according to Diodorus
Siculus, married into the royal family, espousing Thessalonice, Philip II's daughter and Alex-
ander's half-sister, and founded Cassandreia, named after himself. Cassander also, according to
Diodorus Siculus,
. . . had determined to do away with Alexander's son ... so that there might be no
successor to the kingdom; but for the present, since he wished to observe what the
common people would say about the slaying of Olympias ... he placed Roxane and the
child in custody, transferring them to the citadel of Amphipolis, in command of which
he placed Glaucias, one of his most trusted henchmen. Also he took away the pages
who, according to custom, were being brought up as companions of the boy, and he
ordered that he should no longer have royal treatment but only such as was proper for
any ordinary person of private station. After this, already conducting himself as a king
in administering the affairs of the realm, he buried Eurydice and Philip. . . .47
This may be the explanation for the removal of the title: Cassander wished it no longer to be
understood as legitimizing the young Alexander IV, for he was now allied by marriage to the
great Alexander and the royal house, and felt secure to pursue his own ambitions.
A modern view, most recently argued by Hammond and Walbank, holds that Diodorus's
source Hieronymus was repeating propaganda favorable to Cassander's enemy Antigonus,48 and
16 Reattrib., p. 31.
17 Diod. 19.52.
N. G. L. Hammond and F. W. Walbank, A History of Macedonia (Oxford, 1968), voi. 3, p. 145, n. 1.
08
that Cassander was not acting in an inimical fashion towards Alexander IV. One must agree,
certainly, that Cassander, who had been appointed administrator by Philip III and Eurydice,
acted appropriately in burying them: after all, who else was there to do so? At the same time,
though, they also discredit Diodorus's statement about the removal of the pages: "In fact the
Royal Pages, being recruited at the age of fourteen, were too old to be associated with Alexander
IV, who was only six or seven." But Diodorus's actual words are that Cassander ocrrEaTraaE 8E
Kal tous Eico0OTOts TraTSas auvTp9Ecr0ai. This could as easily simply refer to some suitable age-
mates as schoolmates or companions such as the heir to the throne would surely be provided
with, rather than the "Royal Pages," well-born teenage attendants on the reigning king. Con-
finement to the citadel is explained as simply safeguarding the young boy's person, but such
insulation from affairs would not be the normal thing for an heir truly expected to inherit the
throne.
Hammond and Walbank also discredit Diodorus's statement that Cassander had already
made up his mind to do away with the young Alexander and his mother, saying "that happened
six years later!" It strains belief, however, to think that Cassander intended to stand aside
quietly and relinquish power when his young charge should come of age. Certainly Cassander
later did indeed do away with both the boy and his mother.
In any case, whatever his behavior towards the young Alexander IV, Cassander was now
firmly in control of Macedonia and would have had every reason to discontinue a practice which
could be seen as promoting the interests of his ward. This, I believe, is the explanation for the
dropping of the title ca. 316 B.C.: the coinage was no longer to be understood as that of the
young Alexander IV, but as continuing that of the great Alexander, whose successor Cassander
plannedand wasto be.
In 1991 I rashly suggested that the title on Alexander's coins, no matter where struck, might
have appeared only after his death,49 but hoard evidence seems to show that the title was

adopted at a number of mints to the east probably shortly before 323, and almost certainly
before it appeared at Amphipolis."' In addition, the title was not discontinued at every mint at
the same time: at Babylon, for instance, it apparently persisted until the end of its Alexander
coinage, ca. 305 B.C. And, of course, many mints never used the title at ali. The arguments
above, therefore, refer only to the mint identified as Amphipolis.
19 "Earliest Silver," pp. 60-61.
50 E.g., most recently, the 1993 tetradrachm hoard buried ca. 323 or 322 (Chapter 8, hoard 4), which
contained coins with BAZIAEQS AAEEANAPOY from Citium, Myriandrus, and Aradus, but whose Amphipolis
component ended with E, the penultimate group before the title was added there.
PART II
ALEXANDER'S LIFETIME GOLD
This study describes in detail only an early subgroup of the common Alexander staters with
symbols of cantharus, trident head, or fulmen. At the American Numismatic Society, gold with
these markings has been traditionally assigned to Amphipolis, while elsewhere it has sometimes
been given to Pella. No decisive evidence exists for either attribution, and even whether all the
gold so marked emanated from a single mint seems quite uncertain. All gold coins with can-
tharus, trident, or fulmen as well as those with Boeotian (?) shield are therefore here assigned, as
in Philippe, merely to Macedonia.

99
10. THE LIFETIME STATERS
Some years ago, Georges Le Rider and the present author began a die study of Alexander III's
Macedonian gold coinagedistaters, staters, and quarter staters.1 A summary of part of this
coinage is given below, the part with the common Macedonian symbols of cantharus, trident
Table 19
Gold Coins and Obverse Dies Located
[[[
Distaters"
[[
Cantharus
Trident
Fulmen
Staters Published Below
[[[[[[[
Cantharus
Trident
Fulmen
Other Statersb
r r r Cantharus
L L L Trident
r r Fulmen
L L Shield
Quarter Statersc
r r r Cantharus
r |~ Fulmen
1 1 Shield
Obverse
Dies
141
22
61
10.5
37
2.5
109
30
38
14.2
54
13.2
17
2.7
238
78
28
8.5
62
21.5
109
38
39
10
88
16
23
4.5
62
9.5

Coins
Obverse
Links
between
Symbols
Obv.
Links/
Obv.
10. Staters
101
head (vertical only), fulmen, and Boeotian (?) shield. For brevity's sake, the trident head
symbol on the gold coins will in this and succeeding chapters be called simply trident; and the
shield simply shield. The results, while perhaps interesting statistically, have not as yet led to
any conclusions about either chronology or attribution to specific mints, with the exception of
what turned out to be a distinct group of staters with the first three symbols (cantharus, trident,
and fulmen), the group that is published here.
This distinct group consists of two series. Series 1 has only two reverse symbols, cantharus or
trident. It appears to be the immediate predecessor of series 2, which is a large, heavily die
linked series starting with cantharus and trident and adding the fulmen later. Nothing at all
approaching this group's coherence is found anywhere else among the more numerous other
staters bearing these symbols, and both the details of its iconography and its hoard appearances
set it off from the mass of those other such staters.2
Table 19 gives the numbers of coins and obverse dies found for the various denominations and
symbols and the obverse links discovered between different reverse symbols.3 As might be
expected, the survival rate is better for the rarer denominations (distaters, 6.41 coins per obverse
die, and quarter staters, 5.50 per obverse, as against 3.63 and 3.05, or 3.21 overall, for the
staters). What is striking in Table 19, however, is the difference in the number of die links
between symbols that the two stater groups contain. The staters published here have 14 such
links for 30 obverse dies, a ratio of 0.47; the remaining staters have but 5 such links for 78
obverse dies, a ratio of only 0.06. Other differences between the two stater groups are also
evident and will be discussed following the catalogue.
An unexpected result of this study has been that many of the staters Newell in 1918 assigned
to Tarsus in his series I, ca. 333-227 B.C./ must be included in the staters here published. Their
reattribution to Macedonia seems inescapable.
CATALOGUE

The material in the catalogue is arranged by reverse die symbols numbered consecutively.
Brackets to the left indicate obverse die links, brackets to the right indicate reverse links.
Horizontal lines to the left lead to other symbols found with the obverse dies. Figure 7, follow-
ing the catalogue, shows the coins' complex die linkage in schematic form, and Plates 20-23
repeat this arrangement. Bold Troxell numbers indicate dies that were reported by Newell as
part of Tarsos. A concordance of Newell's Tarsos die letters and the present author's die
numbers appears in Table 20, p. 108 below.
2 Compare the coins of series 1 and 2 to other staters with their symbols, e.g., Plate 25, E-H, Plate
31,11-26, and Alexander 164a-b, 168a, 172a-d.
3 The number of obverse dies reported for each symbol is the total number of dies used with that symbol,
less one half for each die shared with one other symbol, and less two thirds for each die shared with two other
symbols. This should give a reasonable approximation of the relative sizes of the issues. In counting die links,
a single obverse die connecting three symbols is counted as two links.
4 Tarsos, pp. 22-26. Newell's attribution to Tarsos has been rightly questioned by F. de Callatay, "Numis-
matique d'Alexandre III le Grand. Deux questions," Memoire presente en vue de l'obtention du grade de
licencie en Archeologie et Histoire de l'Art (Antiquite) (Universite Catholique de Louvain, 1983), pp. 125-28.
102
II. Alexander's Lifetime Gold
The staters' obverses show a head of Athena right, wearing a Corinthian helmet surmounted
by a serpent. The reverses show Nike standing, holding wreath and stylis, and are inscribed
AAEEANAPOY. Obverse dies have the prefix 0 and reverses are identified as C, cantharus; T,
trident; and F, fulmen. Hoards cited are discussed in Chapter 12.
Series 1 (Plate 20)
Cantharus
Trident
04-G1
1.
ANS = Tarsos 14 (dies E-e; pl. III, 15) (466)
2.
Hess 208, 14 Dec. 1931, 259
Trident
05-G2 -
1.
London = Alexander 3004 = Tarsos 14 (dies D-d; pl. III,
16) (467; Plate 25, N14)
06-G2 -
1.
ANS (468)
2.
Commerce 1994 hoard 3 (Plate 31, 3)
Trident
Cantharus
Cantharus
1.

Ol-Tl
Alexandria = Tarsos 15 (dies G-; pl. III, 18)
2.
Veliko Tarnovo = Samovodene hoard 58 (Philippe,
pl. 89, 13, obv. only) (469)
02-T2
1.
Paris = Tarsos 15 (dies F-f; pl. III, 17)
2.
ANS = R. Ratto, 4 Apr. 1927, 567 = R. Ratto, FPL
Dec. 1922, 1947
3.
Kovacs 9, 21 Nov. 1988, 3 = Munz. u. Med. 10, 22 June
1951, 240 (470; Plate 25, N15)
02-T3
1.
Athens = Corinth hoard 47 (471)
2.
CNG 26, 11 June 1993, 66 = Malko Topolovo hoard 34a
02-T4
1.
Commerce 1994 hoard 1 (472; Plate 31, 1)
03-T5
1.
Athens = Corinth hoard 48
2.
Coin Galleries, 9 Mar. 1956, 1296 = Malko Topolovo
hoard 34
3.
Potidaea hoard 5
4.
- 04-T6
1.
ANS = Ball 4, 23 Mar. 1931, 1625 (474)
2.
Balkans hoard 27
- 05-T7
1.
Mid-American, 24 May 1985, 1015 = Balkans hoard 26
2.
Veliko Tarnovo = Samovodene hoard 59 (Philippe, pl.
10. Staters
103
Cantharus
Trident
Trident
Trident
Trident
& Fulmen
Fulmen
Trident
& Fulmen
Trident
07-C3
1.
08-C3 J
1.
08-C4 -
1.
2.
010-C4 -
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
011-C4 -
1.

2.
012-C5
1.
012-C6
1.
014-C7
1.
0M-C8
A.
1.
016-C9 -
1.
2.
017 C9 -
1.
018-C10 -
1.
019-C10 -
1.
2.
020-C10 -
1.
02&-C11
1.
027-C12
1.
028-C13
1.
029-C14
1.
2.
030-C15
1.
2.
03O-C16
1.
2.
030-C17
1.
Veliko Tarnovo = Samovodene hoard 57 (Philippe,
pl. 89, 12, rev. only) (477). The stylis's cross-bar is in
front of Nike's wing, as on T10, T12, and T18-T19.
104
Trident
09-T9
Cantharus
Cantharus
Cantharus
Cantharus-
& Fulmen
09-T10
09-T11
010- T1
011- T12 i
012-T12 J
012-T13
013-T13
L 013-T14
Cantharus, 014-T13
& Fulmen
L 014-T15
Fulmen 015-T15
018-T15 J
1. ANS = Tarsos 13 (dies C-y; coin cited but not illus.)
(498; Plate 25, N13)
2. Munz. u. Med. 64, 30 Jan. 1984, 88 = Munz. u. Med. 8, 8
Dec. 1949, 809
3. Platt, FPL "Coli. H. H.," n.d., but ca. 1910-15, 17

1. St. Petersburg = Anadol hoard 8 = Tarsos 13 (obv. die
C; coin cited but not illus.) (499). The cast at the ANS,
marked "Hermitage 214," must be the coin listed by
Newell from "Petrograd" from dies C-y, but the rev. die
is not y. The stylis's cross-bar is in front of Nike's wing,
as on C3, T12, and T18-T19. After the striking of coins
from 09 and T9, two ringlets were added to the right of
Athena's neck on 09.
2. Lanz 28, 7 May 1984, 195
3. NFA, 10 June 1993, 40
1. Bucharest = Gildau hoard 4 (500)
1. Berk 56, 17 Jan. 1989, 12 (501)
1. Birkler and Waddell 2, 11 Dec. 1980, 128 (502). The
stylis's cross-bar is in front of Nike's wing, as on C3, T10,
and T18-T19.
1. Milan
2. Malko Topolovo hoard 31
3. Veliko TSrnovo = Samovodene hoard 54 (503)
1. ANS (504)
2. Potidaea hoard 10, 11, or 12 (not illus.)
3. Giessener 32, 12 Nov. 1985, 54
1. Ball 6, 9 Feb. 1932, 152 = Ball 4, 23 Mar. 1931, 1626
(505)
1. Peus 298, 23 Oct. 1979, 51 (506)
1. Balkans hoard 25 (507)
1. Athens = Corinth hoard 43 (508)
1. Athens = Corinth hoard 45 (509). This obv. has previ-
ously been described as the same as 018, following, but
differs from it in a number of ways: the nearer crest's
hairs radiating from its holder, the placement of the ser-
pent's head and tail, and the hair revealed by the indenta-
tion between helmet visor and flap.
1. Athens = Corinth hoard 44 (510)
2. Canessa, 22 May 1922, 391
Fulmen 021-T16 1. ANS (511)
2. Glendining, 24 Nov. 1950, 1543
3. Commerce 1994 hoard 9 (Plate 31, 9)
Fulmen
022-T17
1. Sotheby, 16 Apr. 1969, 269 = Paeonia hoard
2. Frankfurter 99, 2 Oct. 1958, 39
3. Miinz. u. Med. FPL 281, Oct. 1967, 7
10. Staters
105
Cantharus
4.
Munz. u. Med. FPL 317, Oct. 1970, 2
5.
Potidaea hoard 5
6.
023-T18
1.
Lanz 16, 24 Apr. 1979, 72 (513). The stylis's cross-bar is
in front of Nike's wing, as on C3, T10, T12, and T19.
023-T19
1.
Plovdiv (514). The stylis's cross-bar is in front of Nike's
wing, as on C3, T10, T12, and T18.
024 T20
1.
025-T21
1.
Auctiones 10, 12 June 1979, 118 (516)
026 T22
1.
Sternberg 11, 20 Nov. 1981, 74 (517)
026-T23

1.
Peus 328, 2 May 1990, 111 (518)
Fulmen
Cantharus
& Trident
Trident
Cantharus
Cantharus
& Trident
014-F1 "I 1. Mende hoard 73 (519; Plate 29, 73)
Trident
Trident
015- F1
016- F2
018-F2
018-F3
018-F4
018-F5
018-F6
018-F7
021- F7
022- F7
022-F8
1. Berk 52, 22 Feb. 1988, 11 (520)
1. Gotha (521)
1. Oslo (522)
1. ANS = SNGBerry 136 (523)
2. Lanz 48, 22 May 1989, 176
1. Alexandria (524)
1. Glendining, 29 Apr. 1954, 3 (525)
1. Glendining, 20 July 1976, 2 (526)
1. Sofia = Varna hoard 32
2. Malko Topolovo hoard 29 (527). There is a die break on
Nike's right wing.
1. Peus 277, 25 Oct. 1971, 80
2. London = Alexander 164A = Larnaca hoard 62 (528)
1. Hamburg = W. Hornbostel, et al, Kunst der Antike.
Schatze aus Nord-deutschen Privatbesitz (Mainz/Rhein,
1977) 536 = Munz. u. Med. FPL 258, Oct. 1965, 9 (529)
The die break noted under 018-F7 has enlarged.
1. Kricheldorf 15, 15 June 1965, 6 (530)
106
Figure 7
Series 1
(Plate 20)
Die Linkage in Series 1 and Series 2
Cantharus Trident
01- T1S
02- T2
02- T3c
I-02-T4
03- T5c
04- C1
05- C2
06-C2
T.
-04-T6
05-T7:
05-T8
SI!
Fulmen
Series 2, all
die linked
(Plates
20-23)
07-C3
r 08-C3
]'

L08-C4
010- C4
011- C4-
r 012-C5
L012-C6
CSS
r014-C7
Loi4-C8c
016- C9 -r
017- C9 -1
018- C10
019- C10
020- C10
-09-T10
L09-TII -I
010-T11-l
011-T121
-r-on-TM-1*
L012-T13
r013-T13
L013-T14
-r014-T13
I-014-T15
015-T1f
-018-T15
021- T16-
022- T17-
-014-F1
-015-F1 -1
-016-F2-]
-018-F2-
h 018-F3
018-F4
018-F5
018-F6
018-F7-'
-021-F7;,
'7-
-F8
T022-r
10. Staters
107
THE COINS AND THEIR ATTRIBUTION
The bulk of series 2, the coins struck from obverses 07-022 (Plates 20-22), consists of one
tightly die linked group which includes the three common Macedonian symbols of cantharus,
trident, and fulmen.5 Eight other obverse dies, 023-030 (Plate 23), although not yet actually die
linked to this main section of series 2, seem on stylistic grounds firmly bound to it. Die 023, so
similar to 09, is coupled with reverses (T18-T19) with the stylis's cross-bar shown awkwardly in
front of Nike's wing, a feature known to me on no other Macedonian staters except those from
the reverses C3, T10 and T12, which occur early in series 2's die linked group.
And obverses 023-030, like 07-022, exhibit most or all of the iconographic details which,
taken together, distinguish series 2 from all the numerous other Macedonian staters bearing the
same symbols: small heads with finely drawn profiles; elongated helmet crests of which the
nearer extends almost horizontally below several of Athena's thin parallel ringlets; two complete
ringlets to the immediate right of the helmet flap; two or more tightly curled ringlets (as
opposed to the loose locks in this position on the bulk of Macedonian staters) to the right of her
neck; and often, unrealistically and rather disconcertingly, ringlet tips depicted also under the
goddess's neck truncation. Series 1 and 2 reverses also show a fairly broad cross-piece on the
stylis. Many other staters with the same symbols have much narrower cross-pieces, some so
short as to give the stylis the appearance of a trident.6
At the outset of series 2 a certain amount of variation and experimentation is evident. Die 07,
although the hair is in ringlets, has the thin, lank helmet crests of 01-05 in series 1, while 08 has
a coiffure of rather loosely twisted ringlets which are arranged not in parallel but in a gracefully
irregular fashion. Die 09 was used with T9 without the ringlet tips to the right of Athena's neck,
but the tips were added by the time T10 and T1 1 were employed, and 010 has a unique curve in
the nearer helmet crest. And as just mentioned, C3, T10, and T12 (as well as T18-T19) have a
peculiar feature found nowhere else on the hundreds of Macedonian gold staters studied, the

stylis's cross-bar in front of rather than above Nike's wing.
The cantharus of C3, and to a lesser degree that of C7, have no apparent bases depicted and
they terminate below in a point. The handles of these canthari are almost semicircular and their
top attachments reach outward, not upward, from the cup's brim. The canthari on subsequent
dies of series 2 have distinct bases and elongated handles which reach vertically upward from the
cup. This more elegant shape is found on all the other such Macedonian gold studied, i.e., on all
cantharus distaters, quarter staters, and staters other than those published here.7
Although series 1 is not die linked to series 2, and although its coiffures differ from those of
that series, it seems on close inspection firmly associated. Its two obverse-linked symbols,
cantharus and trident, are those which, again obverse linked, are the first symbols employed in
series 2. Athena's profiles in scale and in their general fine and delicate aspect are almost
identical in both series. The homogeneity of series 1's previously known coiffures on 01-05 is
now broken by the newly emerged reverse-linked 06, with its loose flowing locks replacing the
earlier dies' short curly hair, and with its helmet crest extending horizontally below Athena's
ringlets, anticipating the crests' arrangement from series 2's 08 onward. Die 08, which strangely
was not illustrated by Newell, also repeats the loose locks of 06. The thin, lank helmet crests of
01-05 appear also on the new 07, at the outset of series 2. And CI and C2, the only cantharus
reverses known in series 1, have the unusual cantharus of series 2's C3, with no base, and with
5 The die chart of Figure 7 shows the die linkage of both series 1 and 2 in compact form. Plates 20-23
follow its arrangement.
6 E.g., Plate 25, F-H.
7 See enlargements, Plate 25, C (C3), D (C4), and E (one of the "other" cantharus staters not in series 1 or
2).
108
semicircular handles.8 Finally, of course, there is the feature which was key in Newell's associa-
tion of coins of the two series in Tarsos, the unusual down-turned ends of the stylis's cross-bar,
seen most clearly on series 1's T4 and T5, and series 2's C4. The two series, too, contain most of
the known cantharus staters as measured by obverse dies employed (see Table 19, p. 100) but
only a minute fraction of all the abundant known fulmen staters.
Enough similarities thus exist between series 1 and the early coins of series 2 to warrant
considering them the output of a single mintas did Neweli. The variations in details of
iconography in series 1 and early series 2 can be explained simply enough by experimentation at
the outset of the new coinagecompare the initial obverses of Philip I I's gold, with their long
hair and one head facing left.9
Newell in 1918, early in his career, attributed most of series 1 and some of the early coins of
series 2, with cantharus and trident symbols, to Tarsus, although he placed series 2's coins
(Tarsos issues 12-13) earlier than those of series 1 (Tarsos issues 14-15). Table 20 relates Ne-
well's Tarsos issues 12-15 and their dies to the arrangement proposed here.
Plate 25 shows representative examples of Tarsos 12-15. Dies marked with an asterisk in the
following table are those illustrated there.
Table 20
Concordance of Newell's Tarsos Dies and Troxell Dies
Newell Die Newell Issue Newell PI. III Troxell Die
Newell's First Group, Included in Troxell Series 2
Obv. A* 12 14 010
Obv. B* 12 08
Obv.C* 13 09
Rev. a* 12 14 C4
Rev. p 12 = a (C4)

Rev. r* 13 T9 and T10
Newell's Second Group, Included in Troxell Series 1
Obv. D* 14 16 05
Obv. E 14 15 01
Obv. F* 15 17 02
Obv.G 15 18 01
Rev. 8* 14 16 C2
Rev. e 14 15 CI
Rev. f* 15 17 T2
Rev. X, 15 18 T1
Newell did not realize that the coins of his first group (part of series 2 here) were firmly linked
to coins of more nearly "standard" ringlet style, nor, more important, to coins with fulmen
symboi. Had he known of these links it is inconceivable that he would have given his first
group, now bound to all of the present series 2 with its three quintessential Macedonian symbols,
to any place other than Macedonia. Series 2 certainly was produced in Macedonia.
In the absence of actual die links, however, Newell's attribution of his second group (here part
of series 1) to Tarsus cannot be decisively disproved. One might think that the early icon-
ographic details of series 2 which repeat those of series 1 were due to one mint's (Macedonia's)
copying of another's (Tarsus's) coins. But the new 06, firmly die linked into series 1 yet antici-
8 See enlargements, Plate 25, A-B.
9 Philippe, Pella gold obverse dies D1-D4, pp. 129-30, and pl. 53.
10. Staters
109
pating the ringlets and long helmet crests of series 2, argues against this interpretation. An
origin in Macedonia for both series seems almost certain.
The frequent presence of series 1 staters along with those of series 2 in hoards from the Greek
mainland is not necessarily an argument for a Macedonian origin, for all those hoards also
contained staters from elsewhere.10 Series 1's attribution here to Macedonia rests solely on an
analysis of the coins themselves, with the many similarities between series 1 and series 2the
coiffures and helmet crests of 06 and 07 and the shapes of the canthari of C1-C3." In addition,
series 2 at its outset uses only the two symbols of series 1, cantharus and trident, adding the
third common Macedonian symbol of the fulmen only later.
Most of Newell's dies in question from Tarsos are reproduced here on Plate 25, the coins
identified by Newell's issue numbers N12-N19, and with his die letters and my die numbers both
also given. N18-N19, known from but one shared obverse die, have the prominent vertically
placed plow to left that is the unvarying primary symbol on the large output of analogous silver
(N20-N40) at Tarsus, which Newell dated after 327 B.C. N18-N19 are surely from Tarsus.
But then Newell took N16-N17 as the link between N18-N19 and the issues now reattributed
to Macedonia (N12-N15). N16-N17's obverses do indeed have the tightly curled hair of
N14-N15, but there all resemblance ceases. In the arrangement of the helmet crests, the
absence of locks to the right of Athena's neck, and their large scale and general coarseness,
N16-N17's obverses are most unlike those of both N14-N15 and N18-N19. Similarly with the
reverses. N16 and N17 do have cantharus and trident symbols, but those symbols are placed
differently from those of N12-N15 and from the primary symbol of N18-N19, and N16-N17's
cantharus has a different shape, and the trident a different orientation, from those of N12-N15.
Finally, the elaborate sty lis of N16-N17, topped with small Nikes, makes these issues a most
unlikely bridge between N14-N15 and N18-N19. Where or when N16-N17 were struck I should
not like to hazard a guess, but even after the removal of N12-N15 from Tarsus they seem

improbable on stylistic grounds as predecessors of N18-N19, the earliest certain Tarsiote gold.
There remains, however, the possibility or even probability that N18-N19 were modeled on
N14-N15. Despite the appearance of the griffin on N18-N19's helmet and those issues' thick
helmet crests, there is an overall similarity between the two pairs. It would be only natural if
Tarsus, for its small first gold issue ca. 327 B.C., took as a model a stater from the main Macedo-
nian mint, i.e., from this series 1 which includes N14-N15. The gold of Tarsus then would not
have commenced until after the main Macedonian mint had started to strike Alexander's gold.12
If it be granted, then, that all of series 1 and 2 were struck in Macedonia, a specific association
may be suggested. The word "association" is used deliberately, for this study would prefer to
avoid definite mint attributions. But in Philip I I's gold coinage, only two groups employ all
three symbols of cantharus, trident, and fulmen, and these two groups' symbols are obverse
linked as tightly as are those of these Alexander coins. The two Philip groups are Le Rider's
Philippe, Pella group II.1, which he dates to ca. 340/336-ca. 328 B.C.,13 and most of his Pella
group IIIA, struck ca. 323-ca. 315 B.C.14 Table 21 compares the three groups (obverse links
refer only to links between different symbols).15
10 See p. 121, Table 23.
11 See pp. 107-8.
12 See Chapter 13 for a discussion of the meager evidence as to when the main Macedonian mint may first
have struck Alexander's gold.
13 Philippe, pp. 135-63, pl. 55-64. Note that the small II.2 is not necessarily considered later than II.1.
See Philippe, p. 417. Pella group II contains the last Philips struck there before the hiatus which ended only
with the reissuance of Philip's types after Alexander's death.
14 Philippe, pp. 171-82, 398-516, pl. 65-69. See commentary below (p. 117) on the Samovodene hoard for
the retention of the ca. 323 starting date for Philippe's Amphipolis and Pella groups IIIA.
15 See Philippe, pp. 415-16, for the number of II.1 dies and links. Only the IIIA staters with cantharus,
trident, and fulmen symbols are included here (there are other less important symbols also). Again, a single
obverse used with three symbols is counted as two obverse links.
110
Table 21
Comparison of Series 1 and 2 with Philippe Pella Groups
Obv.
Coins/ Obv.
Obv.
Links/
Coins
Dies
Obv. Die Links
Obv.
Die
Pella
II.1
513
124
4.14 54
0.43
Series
1 and 2
109
30
3.21 14
0.47
Pella
IIIA
47

187
3.98 25
0.53
The three groups' survival rates are very close, and so the frequency of die linkage between
symbols in each case is comparable. Both common symbols and similar die linkage associate our
staters with Pella's Philips. Further, the earliest canthari of series 1 and 2 are very similar to
those of Philippe's Pella II.1.16
These Alexander staters are a relatively small group compared to the two great outpourings of
Philip staters comprising Le Rider's Pella II.1 and IIIA. But the three groups' use of the same
three symbols and above all their extensive obverse linkage between symbols clearly associate
them.
If Philippe's Pella groups truly belong to that city, then seemingly so do these earliest Alex-
ander staters. This attribution to Pella is opposed to the usual view, at least that of the ANS,
that they, along with all the other Macedonian staters bearing their symbols, were produced at
Amphipolis.17 But whether these "other" staters came from the same mint as the early ones of
series 1 and 2 is quite unclear.18 In the absence of any good evidence, I follow Le Rider's
practice in Philippe of ascribing all of them merely to "Macedonia."
COMMENTARY ON ALEXANDER ISSUES
With cantharus, trident, and fulmen staters struck at different times and places in Macedonia,
one cannot consider all coins with, e.g., a cantharus symbol as a single emission. Price's massive
compilation was, of necessity, selective and no concordance of his issue numbers with the stater
groups here published or with others similarly marked is possible. Comments on his illustrated
examples may however be usefui.
Issue Marking Comments
164 fulmen, Neither of the illustrated examples is in our series 2, but they are among
vertical the "other staters" of pp. 100, 107, and 122, and Plate 31, 11-26.
164A fulmen, The illustrated example of 164A (dies 021-F7) is part of series 2 but, as
slanted shown by the obverse-linked examples in series 2, the distinction be-
tween 164 and 164A merely on the basis of the symbol's orientation
seems unwarranted.
168 cantharus 168a does not belong to series 1 or 2, but it is one of the "other staters"
discussed on pp. 100 and 107. Coins 168b (dies 018-C10), 168c (dies
026-C11), and 168d (dies 019d0) are part of series 2.
172 trident, None of the illustrated examples is part of series 1 or 2. Coin 172a is one
vertical of a subgroup showing three helmet crests. See p. 100, note b. 172b-d
belong with the "other staters" discussed on p. 100.
175 trident, Coins with this symbol so placed are quite separate from those with
horizontal vertical trident heads. Again, note the three helmet crests on both
illustrated examples.
16 Compare Plate 25, A-C (C1-C3) with the canthari of Philippe's pls. 57^50.
17 E.g., SNGBerry 136 ff.; Sardes and Miletus, p. 70; and p. 116 below.
18 See p. 127.
10. Staters
111
176
3004
3005
3006
3008
shield
cantharus
cantharus,
below wing
trident,
vertical
trident,
horizontal
(below wing)
The issue is not in series 1 or series 2, but is discussed on pp. 100 and
127.
Price retains Newell's attribution to Tarsus for this coin, distinguished
from issue 168 (itself not a homogeneous output) only by its obverse
style. The example illustrated is however here reattributed to Ma-
cedonia (series 1, dies 05-C2).
The attribution to Tarsus seems correct.
This coin's attribution is puzzling. It is from the Larnaca hoard, buried
ca. 300 B.C. Its obverse style is surely not that of any Macedonian
coins with this symbol, nor does the obverse seem to fit with coins
Newell attributed to Tarsus. In Alexander, p. 48, discussing the sim-

ilarities between the Corinth, Samovodene and Balkans hoards, Price
identifies the trident staters of series 2 in Corinth and Samovodene (not
in Balkans) as this issue 3006, saying that its presence "in all
three...hoards may suggest that despite its very different obverse style,
this variety ought to be placed in Macedonia." But the sole example of
3006 shown is obviously from an entirely different output than the
coins in these hoards.
As with 3005, the probable attribution is to Tarsus.
11. THREE GROUPS OF DISTATERS
Very little has been written on the subject of Alexander's distaters. With two of the earliest
known hoards containing his Macedonian distaters published here for the first time, this seems
an appropriate place to make a few observations about these handsome coins. The present
author distinguishes three groups, A, B, and C, so indicated in Chapter 12 in the commentaries
on the five relevant hoards (Mende, Saida, Commerce 1993, Paeonia, and Varna) and in the
hoard chart, Table 23. These groups bear no relation to the similarly designated silver groups of
Chapters 1-3 above.
Group A (531-36)
The first group, A, comprises most of the Macedonian distaters with the usual symbols of
cantharus, trident, and fulmen, summarized above in Table 19.1 Little need be said about
these. They are by far the most common such coins (I have located 22 obverse dies), stylistically
quite homogeneous, and exhibiting but three known obverse links between symbolstwo can-
tharus-trident, and one cantharus-fulmen. Two links and other representative examples are
shown on Plate 24.
Group B (537-39)
The second group, B, is the fulmen-A distaters, Sicyon 6-7, for which I have located six
obverse dies. They and the rest of Sicyon's group I (other distaters, rare staters, and silver
tetradrachms) were reattributed by me in 1971 to an uncertain mint in Macedonia, and more
Table 22
Comparison of Sicyon 1-5, 6-8, and 9-16
Issue Markings Distater Stater Tetradrachm Second
Obv. Dies Obv. Dies Obo. Dies Symbol?
1-5
Youthful figure
(athlete? boxer?)
yes
6-8

Fulmen A"
2<
9-16
Similar youthful
figure A
1"
yes
The three examples of Sicyon issue 6 are from an obverse known in issue 7, and the A given as the second
marking on issue 6's sole reverse die seems on close inspection to be merely A, as on issues 7-8.
b Sicyon records six obverse dies. A11, however, seems a retouched version of A8, while the coin illustrated
from die-pair 7.8, supposedly from 7.7's A12, is from another, uncounted, obverse. The total thus remains at
six.
c The second die-pair of this issue (Plate 25, L) surfaced in the Commerce 1994 hoard (Chapter 12, hoard 8,
lot A), CNG 32, 7 Dec. 1994, 1110. The main Macedonian component of the hoard is catalogued in Appendix
4.
d Sicyon's A16 is the same as A17.
1 See p. 100.
11. DlSTATERS
113
recently have been given by Martin Price to "Aegae (?)."2 Since my 1971 work, two northern
Greek provenances, the Mende and Paeonia hoards,3 have been identified. A Macedonian origin
now looks even more probable, at least for the coins with fulmen and A, which may be strikings
of a mint other than that which produced the remainder of Sicyon's group I. This group I is
broken down in Table 22 into its three component sub-groups of issues, which between them
include distaters, staters, and tetradrachms.
No die links connect any of these three sub-groups to another. The fulmen-A coins (Sicyon
6-8) differ from the other two groups in their relative abundance, in their lack of a second
symbol, and, most important, just as with other Macedonian gold, in not being accompanied by
any silver with the same markings. The only common element is the marking A, shared with the
third group. This hardly seems sufficient: this marking, or its possible variant , is found on
Amphipolis's Alexander tetradrachms of group K, and on their contemporary Philip II reissues
of tetradrachms and smaller coins.4 And perhaps more significantly, it is also found on staters
with the other two typical Macedonian symbols, cantharus and trident.5
The rare fulmen-A staters' divergent styles are revealing. Whether they truly accompany the
similarly marked distaters is a question, as the obverse styles of the two denominations are quite
different. If the two denominations are not associated, the resulting lack of staters further
differentiates the fulmen-A distaters from the other Sicyon gold. If they are associated, how-
ever, the staters' connections with simple fulmen staters are significant. The obverse shown in
Sicyon (Plate 25, J) is very similar indeed to one known with simple fulmen reverses (Plate
25, I; see also Plate 31, 21, 22). And the newly emerged second fulmen-A obverse (Plate 25, L)u
is actually known used with a fulmen reverse (Plate 25, K).
It remains possible that the gold with the youthful figures and its accompanying silver was
also struck somewhere in Macedonia. But the new shared stater obverse just mentioned
strengthens the suggestion that the fulmen A gold coins, lacking matching silver issues, were

struck in Macedonia and may also indicate that they formed part of the output of the chief
Macedonian gold mint.
Group C (540-48)
But even the three simple markings of cantharus, trident, and fulmen, unaccompanied by any
secondary marking, seem to have been revived on distaters, again obverse linked, at some period
after the issuance of groups A and B. There exists a third separate, small sub-group of distaters,
with obverses of different style with two crests rather than three shown on Athena's helmet, and
with the Nike on the reverse often quite obviously walking. Only 17 coins are known, from three
obverses.
In the catalogue below, dies are prefaced by "D" for distater. Thus, e.g., DO1 = distater
obverse 1, DC2 = distater cantharus reverse 2, DTI = distater trident reverse 1, etc. Brackets
to the left indicate obverse die links, brackets to the right, reverse links, and horizontal lines to
the left lead to other symbols found with the obverse dies.
2 "Peloponnesian Alexanders," pp. 42-44; Alexander 185-200.
3 Chapter 12, hoards 4 and 7.
4 See pp. 23, 53, and 58.
5 Cantharus A: SNGCop 624; trident A: Philippe, p. 271, 19, pl. 91.
6 See p. 112, note c, above. The obverse link is noted also in the author's "Staters, Serendipity, and Soli,"
in Xagaxrrjg. AqpiBQcu/ia artj Mavxw Oixovofiidov, ed. E. Kypraiou, D. Zafiropoulou et ai. (Athens, 1996),
pp. 283-86.
114
CATALOGUE
Trident
& Fulmen
Fulmen
Cantharus'Tu
& Fulmen
Cantharus
& Trident
DO1-DC1 n
D02-DC1
D03-DC2
-DO1-DT1
L D01-DF4
Cantharus
D02-DF4 J
Cantharus
1. Commerce 1993 hoard 19. Nike walking (540; Plate 30,
19)
1. Berlin (541)
1. ANS = SNGBerry 135. Nike walking
2. Paris (542)
3. In commerce, 1976
Trident
1. NFA 1, 20 Mar. 1975, 82 = Parke-Bernet, 9 Dec. 1969,
140 = Paeonia 1968 hoard. Nike walking (543)

2. Parke-Bernet, 9 Dec. 1969, 141 = Paeonia 1968 hoard
Fulmen
1. Paris (544)
1. Miinz. u. Med. FPL 227, Nov. 1962, 434 = Santamaria, 12
Oct. 1949, 16 = Egger, 7 Jan. 1908, 420 (545)
1. Berk 82, 13 July 1994, 10 (possibly from the Commerce
1993 hoard) (546). See 540 and 547 from the same
obverse and from that hoard
1. Commerce 1993 hoard 18 (547; Plate 30, 18)
2. Boston = MFA 659
3. Florence
4. Paris = De Luynes 1604
5. Schlessinger 13, 4 Feb. 1935, 649
6. Naville-Ars Classica 17, 3 Oct. 1934, 359
1. Boston = MFA 658 (548)
The die links are summarized in the following figure. Reverses in italics are those whose Nikes
are shown walking.
Figure 8
Die Linkage among Group C Distaters
Cantharus
DOl-DCl (540)
D02-DC1 (541)
D03-DC2 (542)
Trident
DOl-DTl (543)-
Fulmen
DO1-DF1 (544)
D01-DF2 (545)
D01-DF3 (546)
L D01-DF4 (547) i
D02-DF4 (548) J
This small concentrated output is obviously distinct from group A. The hoards also distin-
guish group C from the more common distaters of group A, as will be seen in following chapters.
12. THE GOLD HOARDS
The following hoards are those known to me which contained gold coins of Alexander from
Macedonia; which were buried by the time of Philip III's death in 317 B.C. or perhaps a very
few years later; and of which I have seen casts or photographs of the actual coinsfor a mere
listing of, e.g., a trident-symbol stater does not allow it to be identified as a part of series 1, or of
series 2, or of the larger group of staters with this symbol not included in these series.
The coins listed for each hoard under "series 1," "series 2," and "other" refer only to the
Macedonian gold staters of Alexander present. Macedonian distaters of three distinct groups (A,
B, and C) are also listed (for discussion of these groups see the preceding chapter). Publications
given in IGCH are generally cited only when their contents are discussed. Table 23 at the end of
the chapter summarizes the hoards which are discussed in chapter 13.
ALPHABETICAL INDEX
Hoard
Number
Hoard
Number
Asia Minor 1950
13
Mende 1983
Balkans 1967
Paeonia 1968
10
Commerce 1993
Ruse ca. 1952

Commerce 1994
Saida 1829, 1852,
Corinth 1930
1863
Gildau 1960
11
Samovodene 1954
Jasna Poljana 1969
Varna 1949
12
INDIVIDUAL HOARDS
1. Corinth, Corinthia, 1930 (IGCH 77)1
Series 1: 2 staters, from 02-T3 (471), 03-T5
Series 2: 5 staters, from 010-C4, 014-C8 (485), 014-T15 (508), 015-T15 (509), 018-T15
(510)
Other: none
The Corinth hoard, found during excavations, is the only hoard listed here whose full contents
are known with certainty. It is also possibly the earliest buried, and thus its interment date,
unfortunately uncertain, should be of high importance for the terminal date of the striking of
series 1 and series 2.
With the realization that Alexander's Attic-weight tetradrachms were introduced in Mace-
donia at the earliest only ca. 332 B.C., and with the present reattribution of the early "Tarsus"
gold to Macedonia,2 Thompson's reasons for dating the Corinth deposit to ca. 327-325 B.C. must
be reexamined. Her arguments, perfectly valid at the time, were that Philip II's coins were all
in excellent condition, and that none of the Alexanders (her coins 42-51) could be dated to after
329/8. Some issues which seemed to be early are now more doubtful and a review of the current
evidence for the hoard's burial is indicated, with remarks by Thompson in quotation marks.
1 G. R. Edwards and M. Thompson, "A Hoard of Gold Coins of Philip and Alexander from Corinth," A J A
74 (1970), pp. 343-50, esp. Thompson, "The Coins," pp. 347-50 (all coins illus.); Philippe, pp. 257-59, and
429-30, pl. 87-88 (all coins illus.); Alexander, p. 47; M. J. Price, "The Coinage of Philip II," NC 1979, p. 234,
and "Reform," p. 188, n. 20; "Balkan Peninsula," with an illuminating comparative table of the Corinth,
Samovodene, and Balkans hoards; T. R. Martin, Sovereignty and Coinage in Classical Greece (Princeton, 1985),
App. 4, pp. 271-92.
2 See pp. 86-90, 101, and 108-9.
116
42-45: four "Amphipolis" staters, series 2's 014, 015, and 018, "from dies which Newell
placed early in the sequence from that mint [Amphipolis]." As Newell's chronology for
Amphipolis's silver started in 336,3 presumably he and Thompson considered that the gold
too commenced then, but the current evidence indicates that the silver seems to have been
introduced no earlier than ca. 332 B.C. Further, the dies, to 018, no longer seem particularly
early in their sequence.
46-48: three "Tarsus" staters, 46 from series 2's 010, 47-48 from series 1's 02 and 03. The
Tarsos date of 333-329 B.C. is eliminated by the present reattribution to Macedonia.
49: a Salamis stater with harpa symboi. Thompson notes this issue as fourth in a series of
five issues which Newell had dated to the rather wide range 332-320 B.C.,' "which might
seem to indicate a date toward the end of Alexander's lifetime or possibly after his death."
But Thompson next adduced Newell's comparison in Tarsos of two coins coincidentally from
the very dies of Corinth 46 and 49,5 where he described the Cypriot piece as a contemporary
imitation of the "Tarsiote" (now Macedonian) one. This led her to consider the Salamis
piece as struck in the early 320s. It has recently become clear that the Salamis issue as 49,
with harpa, is not the fourth issue in its series, but among the first if not the very first of a
few extremely small issues.6 If it can only be dated by comparison to 46, however, it is of no
independent value in dating the hoard.
50: a "Sidon" stater with caduceus symbol, which Newell considered struck ca. late
333-ca. 330 B.C.7 Price has recently voiced important doubts about the attribution of Ne-
well's undated Sidon 1-7, both on the basis of the coins' internal evidence and on Newell's
later thought that perhaps they emanated from Damascus.8 If so, they may well be contem-
porary with the dated Sidon gold which will have commenced only in the early 320s.
51: an uncertain stater, with grain ear symbol, "of the same general period as
nos. 42-50." This coin is clearly of no help.

We are then left without any coins which can be assigned to a date before the early 320s.
Thompson also observed that the absence of the gold of "Sicyon," thought to have commenced
330-325,9 tended to confirm her early dating of the hoard. Price has noted, however, that a
recent reattribution of the early "Sicyon" staters and distaters to some mint outside of the
Peloponnesus, perhaps in Macedonia, makes their absence in the Corinth hoard less dramatic
and thus less of a confirmation of a burial date so early as first thought.10 More important,
"Sicyon" distaters are known from only three of the hoards listed here, all buried ca. 323 or
later, and the "Sicyon" staters, known from but four obverse dies, appear only in the very large
hoards 6 and 8 below. Those staters' absence from the Corinth hoard means nothing.
3 Demanhur, pp. 26 and 68. No later publication shows any change in his thinking here.
* "Cypriote Alexanders," pp. 306-7, 1-5.
5 Tarsos, p. 24, fig. 12.
6 SNGBerry 171, at the ANS (Newell's Salamis issue 4, with harpa symbol), is from the obverse die of
Newell's Salamis issues 1-3. The ANS has one or more coins or casts from each of these issues and from a new
fifth issue as well, all from the same obverse die. The Berry coin alone lacks several small obverse die breaks
present on all other examples, and its harpa issue is thus probably the firstif indeed issues 1-4 were even
struck in sequence. The activity at this mint is also more complex than appears from "Cypriote Alexanders."
See Sardes and Miletus, p. 70, n. 64; and pp. 118 and 125 below.
7 Sidon and Ake, pp. 7 8 (Sidon 2).
8 Alexander, p. 436. Sidon 1-7, close stylistically in other respects to the certain Sidonian gold, have a
griffin replacing the usual serpent on Athena's helmet.
9 Sicyon, p. 25.
10 "The Coinage of Philip II," review of Philippe, JVC 1979. p. 234. The suggested reattribution was that of
the present author, in "Peloponnesian Alexanders," p. 44. Price now specifically suggests Aegeae (Alexander
185-200). See also Chapter 11, group B.
12. Gold Hoards
117
2. Samovodene, Bulgaria, 1954 (IGCH 395)"
Series 1: 2 staters, from 01-T1 (469), 05-T7 (475)
Series 2: 5 staters, from 07-C3 (477), 010-C4 (2 coins) (Plate 25, P), 012-T12 (503),
029-C14 (494)
Other: one "other" stater with fulmen symbol (Plate 25, M). See p. 127.
Samovodene's two Philip II staters of Philippe's Pella group III (Plate 25, Q and R) were not
recognized as from this group until 1987. The IGCH earlier had dated the hoard's burial to
ca. 325-320 B.C., and Le Rider, citing the close resemblance of the coins known to him to those
of the Corinth hoard, suggested a burial ca. 327-325 B.C. Dimitrov, subsequently able to obtain
a record of all the hoard coins, including these Philips issued after Alexander's death, has now
shown that the hoard must have been buried after 323.12
One might consider that Philippe group III of both Pella and Amphipolis should perhaps now
be dated to after 320. It is argued above in Chapter 9 that the reissues of Philip IPs silver after
Alexander's death started together with Alexander groups K/J, or perhaps I, perhaps only in
321 or 320 B.C. If the gold reissues were introduced at the same time, then they also might have
started only ca. 321-320 B.C. The reissues of Philip II gold staters from Asia Minor, however,
are dated to ca. 323 and later13 and, as the gold and silver strikings of both Philip II and
Alexander seem to be quite separate phenomena," it seems more reasonable to assume that the
Philip II gold reissues from Macedonia (i.e., Philippe's groups III) commenced around that
date. Thus Samovodene may be dated to ca. 323 B.C. or shortly afterward.
3. Balkans 196715
Series 1: 2 staters, from 04-T6, 05-T7
Series 2: 1 stater, from 014-T13 (507)
Other: none
Le Rider terms this hoard "Commerce 1967," although noting it as "decouvert probablement

dans la region des Balkans." I have adopted Dimitrov's "Balkans" as more descriptive. The
latest coin in the hoard is a stater of Salamis, with rudder symbol, issue 11 in Newell's "Cypriote
Alexanders." Newell dated the Salaminian coins with this symbol in both gold and silver to
after 320 B.C. on two grounds: that the first use of the rudder on silver was on coins inscribed
11 Philippe, pp. 259-61, 3, and 430, pls. 88-89 (20 coins listed and illus.); Alexander, p. 47; "Balkan Penin-
sula." Note that the illustration of the exceptional fulmen stater 52 is actually a duplicate of 57. Here Plate
25, M, has the correct photo of 52. Dimitrov in "Balkan Peninsula" points out that the casts furnished to Le
Rider and illustrated by him as Philip's Pella 172 and 368, and Amphipolis 55b, and Alexander's 12, 13, and
18 were in each case not pairs from the same coin. Dimitrov shows further that the hoard's discovery date
was 1954, not 1957, and plans to publish it and related hoards in fuller format in his forthcoming Philip and
Alexander Coin Hoards in Hellenistic Thrace (Gold and Silver).
12 Philippe, p. 261; "Balkan Peninsula," p. 105.
13 M. Thompson, "Posthumous Philip II Staters of Asia Minor," in Studia Paulo Naster Oblata I. Numis-
matica Antiqua, ed. S. Scheers (Louvain, 1982), pp. 57-61, at p. 60 and n. 8, "These Asia Minor Philips were
issued for only a few years . . . and there is no compelling reason to date any of the coins earlier than 323 B.C.
An earlier date for the initial emission of Philips at several Asia Minor mints is given in the publication of the
Bab Hoard. . . .1 am now inclined to think that the dates should be brought down slightly." This statement
was based on the evidence of the 1964 Asia Minor drachm hoard, IGCH 1437, subsequently published by her
in Sardes and Miletus, pp. 81-85. Now the far larger and thus more conclusive Near East 1993 drachm hoard
(Chapter 8, hoard 7) provides confirmation that the earliest series which included Philip II staters at any Asia
Minor mint were little if any earlier than those including coins of Philip III, hence struck no earlier than very
late in 323, more probably in 322.
14 See pp. 122-23.
15 Philippe, pp. 262-64, 5, and 430, pls. 89-90 (all coins illus.); Coin Hoards 2, 50; Alexander, p. 47; "Balkan
Peninsula."
118
with the name of Philip III, and that Philip III's name seems to have been used at neighboring
mints not immediately upon Alexander's death but only from ca. 320 B.C. Also, Cyprus came
under Ptolemaic control in 320, and the rudder seemed an appropriate symbol for a long series of
issues struck while the Egyptians maintained a naval base there.
In his commentary, however, Newell wondered if the rudder staters might possibly have
started before 320, "as their style is at first a close development of the latest of the previous
staters."16 On this basis, Le Rider dated the Balkans hoard to 323 or a bit later, and Dimitrov
agreed.17 Newell's study of Salamis, however, must be revised and amplified. Several obverse
linked stater issues are now known to follow his issues 1-5, and they employ at least two
different obverse styles.18 Issue 11, with rudder, may well at its outset imitate the early issues
1-5, but it does not seem to follow directly on them. One may conclude only that the Balkans
hoard was buried probably no earlier than 323 B.C., and very likely as late as late as 320, or even
possibly a bit later.
4. Mende, Macedonia, 198319
Series 2: 1 stater, from 014-F1 (519; Plate 29, 73)
Other: 10 distaters, 4 "A," 6 "B" (Plate 29, 63-72) The group B coins are from 3 obverse
dies and an unknown number of reverse dies.
Georges Le Rider provided a photographic record of this hoard. Appendix 2 and p. 121, Table
23, constitute Mende's fullest publication. The latest coins are Alexander and Philip II staters
of Miletus (series I, ca. 325-323, the Philips most probably from late 323),20 so that the Mende
hoard also was interred ca. 323 or a few years later.
5. Ruse, Bulgaria, ca. 195221
Series 2: 1 stater, from 020-C10 (490)
Other: none
This small hoard, of four coins only, was surely correctly dated by Dimitrov to

ca. 323-320 B.C. Its latest coin was a Miletus Alexander stater: cf. Miletus 127-29, series II, ca.
323/2 B.C.
6. Saida (anc. Sidon), Phoenicia, 1829, 1852, 1863 (IGCH 1508)22
No identifiable coins of series 1 or 2, except, possibly, one from series 2's 010-C4 (480).
Other identifiable: 2 staters, 1 shield, 1 trident-A. Also listed by Waddington were dista-
ters of group B, and others with cantharus, trident, and fulmen symbols which could be
from either group A or C or from both.
The seven to nine thousand coins of this remarkable hoard, most of Philip II and Alexander
III, were soon dispersed, but a sizable fraction was seen and listed by W. H. Waddington in RN
1865. Staters with cantharus, trident, and fulmen were noted, but in the absence of illustrations
it is impossible to know whether they belong to series 1 and 2, or to later issues.
16 "Cypriote Alexanders," pp. 313-14.
17 Philippe, p. 264; "Balkan Peninsula," p. 106.
18 See Sardes and Miletus, p. 70, n. 64. Die studies in preparation for a projected ANS sylloge volume of
Alexander's gold have revealed that the eagle staters specifically rejected as Salaminian by Newell "Cypriote
Alexanders," p. 307, n. 19), and still other issues, are obverse linked to his early gold stater issues at Salamis.
For their subsequent styles, see Sardes and Miletus, pl. 32, 14 18. See also n. 6 above and p. 125, n. 16.
19 Alexander, p. 48, partial listing only. See Appendix 2.
20 See p. 117, n. 13.
21 "Balkan Peninsula," pp. 105, 112, and 114 (all four coins illus.); burial date, p. 105.
22 Philippe, p. 262, 4; Alexander, pp. 48-49; W. H. Waddington, "Trouvailles de Saida et Marmora," RN
1865, pp. 1-28, esp. pp. 6-8; U. Westermark, "Notes on the Saida Hoard (IGCH 1508)," Nordisk Numisma-
lisk Arskrifl 1979-80, pp. 22-35 (the 42-43 known coins listed and all but 2 illus.); Sardes and Miletus,
pp. 71-72.
12. Gold Hoards
119
The only two Macedonian staters of Alexander identifiable today are those noted above under
"Other," both no doubt singled out because of their relative rarity. The issue with shield is
discussed below, together with the anomalous fulmen stater of the Samovodene hoard.23 West-
ermark dated the stater with trident and A to ca. 331 using an invalid comparison with Mac-
edonian tetradrachms with trident symboi. Its date and mint are uncertain, however.
Waddington stated clearly that no coins of Philip III were included in the hoard (but note
that only two of the five final hoards of Table 23, buried after Philip III's death, contained his
coins). Further, Saida included a Salamis stater with rudder symbol, a marking used also by
Philip III (Alexander tetradrachm issue P129). The IGCH dated Saida's burial to ca. 324/3 and
Le Rider agreed. Thompson, considering only the Alexander material, opted for "soon after
Alexander's death but perhaps closer to 320 than to 323." She probably was taking account of
the fact that, while Philip III acceded late in 323, most of his datable coins seem to postdate
320, and no doubt also considered that the issue with trident and A was posthumous. Wester-
mark agreed with Thompson.
7. Commerce 1993
Series 2: 1 stater, from 018-F3 (Plate 30, 20)
Other: 3 distaters, 1 "A" (Plate 30,17), 2 " C" (540, 547; Plate 30,18 and 19). The two
"C" coins are from the same obverse, which is that of the two "C" distaters in
hoard 10 below; 2 staters, 1 fulmen (Plate 30, 21), 1 shield (Plate 30, 22).
The hoard is catalogued in full in Appendix 3. Aside from occasional sale catalogue appear-
ances of individual coins, this is its only publication. Its burial would seem to have occurred
within a few years of 321 B.C., the date of its latest at least fairly firmly datable coin.
8. Commerce 1994
Series 1: 3 staters, from 02-T4 (472), 03-T5 (473), 06-C2
Series 2: 7 staters, from 011-C4 (481), 016-F2, 019-C10 (489), 021-T16, 022-T17 (512),

024-T20 (515), 030-C17 (497)
Other: 21 staters, 13 fulmen, 3 cantharus, 5 shield
Lot A of 134 coins was reliably stated to be the remainder of a larger hoard. Lot B of 85 (or
94) coins and lot C of 20 were possibly but not definitely from the same hoard. See Appendix 4,
where all the lots are discussed briefly (more complete descriptions are on file at the ANS), and
the Macedonian portion of A is catalogued in fuli.
9. Jasna Poljana, Bulgaria, 1969 (IGCH 777)24
Series 2: 1 stater, from 030-C16
Other: 4 staters, 2 trident, 2 fulmen
The latest coin present was from the dies of Abydus 169b, series XI, ca. 318/7 B.C. All
scholars agree on a burial date in the neighborhood of 317-315 B.C.
10. Paeonia 1968 (IGCH 410)25
Series 2: 1 stater, from 022-T17
Other: 7 staters, 2 trident, 4 fulmen, 1 trident-A
23 See p. 127.
24 Philippe, pp. 266-67, 8, Sardes and Miletus, pp. 74-75, pl. 33 (all 24 coins illus.); "Balkan Peninsula,"
p. 105; Lampsacus and Abydus, p. 68.
25 The primary sources are the two sale catalogues listed and summarized in IGCH, whence the data in
Table 23. Other references are Philippe, pp. 298-304, 14 (discusses Alexanders and other coins included, but
lists specifically only the known Philips, gold and silver); Alexander, p. 50; Sardes and Miletus, pp. 73-74 (lists
7 Sardes and Miletus staters of Alexander and Philip III).
120
3 distaters, 1 "B," 2 "C." The two "C" coins are die duplicates and from the
obverse of the "C" distaters in hoard 7 above.
Only a portion of the hoard's thousands of gold and silver coins of Paeonian and Macedonian
rulers is known. According to Le Rider and Thompson, the hoard is dated to shortly after 316/5
by the known silver, the latest being from Philip IPs group 9 with P, and by a Babylon stater as
Alexander 3750, struck ca. 316-315/4.26
11. Gildau, Rumania, 1960 (IGCH 774)
Series 2: 1 stater, from 09-T11 (500)
Other: 4 staters, 1 cantharus, 2 trident, 1 fulmen
The IGCH dated Gildau's burial to ca. 320 B.C. and Thompson, in Sardes and Miletus, to after
316 because of a Colophon stater that she believed was struck after Philip III's death.27
12. Varna, Bulgaria, 1949 (IGCH 796)28
Series 2: 2 staters, from 012-C6 (483), 018-F7
Other: 1 distater, "A"
Only 34 of the thousands of coins in this deposit are known. Relying on those 34, Le Rider
based his burial date of after 316/5-311/0 on a Babylon stater which N. M. Waggoner in "Baby-
lon Mint" dated to that intervai. The specific dies of this coin, which might allow a closer
dating, are not known to me, but in any case Varna's burial will fall after ca.316.
13. Asia Minor 1950 (IGCH 1442)29
No coins of series 1 or 2
Other: 2 staters, fulmen
The IGCH dates the hoard's burial to ca. 310 B.C. because of the presence of a Babylon stater
of the same period as that in the previous hoard. Thompson suggested the piece may be intru-
sive and offered a burial date of ca. 322/1 if so. As so many of the gold hoards listed here contain
but one or two coins later than the bulk of their contents, however, there seems no real need to

accept intrusion.
Coins catalogued in Chapter 10 come from four additional hoards, all buried in the third
century and thus useless for the chronology of these early staters. These hoards are Larnaca
1870 (IGCH 1472), buried ca. 300 B.C.; Malko Topolovo 1940 (IGCH 853), buried ca. 285-280;30
a new hoard of Philip II, Alexander III, and Lysimachus, buried after 281 B.C., found in
Potidaea in 1984;31 and Anadol 1895 (IGCH 866), buried ca. 228-220.
26 See also Chapter 8, hoard 34.
27 Sardes and Miletus, pp. 72-73; Price also places the issue (Alexander 1785) midway in his ca. 319-310
group. Two earlier publications of the hoard are listed in IGCH. Note that in B. Mitrea, SCN 4 (1968),
pp. 327-29, the reverse illustration of hoard coin 4 (from dies 09-T11) is a duplicate illustration of the reverse
of hoard coin 3 (not in the stater group here published). The correct reverse of hoard coin 4 is shown only in
B. Mitrea, Omagiu lui P. Constantinescu-Iai (Bucharest, 1965), pp. 73-79, at p. 76.
28 Philippe, pp. 268-69, 10, lists the 34 known coins. The identification of the two Alexander staters as
part of series 2 is made possible by photos obtained by Georges Le Rider.
29 Sardes and Miletus, pp. 70-71, pl. 32 (all 24 coins illus.).
30 Now published in Kamen Dimitrov, "A Hoard of Gold Staters from Topolovo (IGCH 853)," Bulletin of
the Museums in South Bulgaria 15 (1989), pp. 189-207 (partially illus., in Bulgarian with English abstract and
summary).
31 Alexander, p. 58, now published by G. Le Rider, "Tresors de stateres d'or trouves a Potidee en 1984 et a
Skione en 1985," RN 1991, pp. 89-96, at pp. 89-94.
tc
to
CA
>
~L
Table 23
Gold Hoards Buried by ca. 315 B.C.
Containing Identifiable Staters with Cantharus, Trident, or Fulmen
Asia 5inor
195
WCH 1,,2
2,
2,

2 fulmen
1 Babylon,
5,51;
5 55;
1 55;
1 Cyp;
1 5E
12
Varna
19,9
WCH 796
5 (known)
35+
,+
"some"
.'ill
1A
1 Babylon,
5,51
"5ome"
Gildau
I965
WCH 77,
in
13. GOLD DISCUSSION AND CHRONOLOGY
THE LIFETIME STATERS
So far, the die linkage and hoard evidence for the gold staters is fairly satisfactory. A portion
(series 1 and 2, catalogued in Chapter 10) of the many staters known with the quintessential
Macedonian symbols of cantharus, trident, and fulmen has been separated out. This distinct
group differs from the other staters with these symbols in its iconography and in its unique
tightly die linked structure so different from that of other similarly marked such coins, which
are almost never die linked with each other. It differs also in containing with virtually no
exceptions' the only coins with these symbols to appear in hoards buried around the time of
Alexander's deathi.e., hoards 1-6 or 1-7 in the previous chapter, ca. 323 or perhaps one or two
years later.
That series 1 and 2 must have been struck during Alexander's lifetime comes as no surprise.
What is surprising is that, at least according to the hoard evidence, virtually no other staters
with cantharus, trident, and fulmen symbols seem to have been lifetime strikings. These other
staters' appearances in the slightly later hoards suggest that many of them at least were very
early posthumous issues.
But just when during Alexander's life were the staters of series 1 and 2 minted? In examining
the meager and suggestive but far from conclusive evidence, I shall confine myself to the gold
coins of Alexander and Philip II, for the silver output of the two kings seems to be a quite
separate phenomenon.
Modern numismatists tend to think in terms of the following pairs of emissions: Philip II's
silver and gold, and Alexander's silver and gold. But, quite unusually in ancient numismatics,
in the case of each of these monarchs' Macedonian outputs, the gold and silver struck by each do
not bear similar markings. Philip's gold cannot be related by its issue markings to his silver, nor
can Alexander's gold to his silver. Indeed, the gold's markings under both kings, chiefly these
three symbols of cantharus, trident, and fulmen, were repeated again and again, at different
times and places,2 while the two kings' silver strikings followed a more typical pattern with

different markings, or groups of markings, succeeding each other in fairly orderly fashion.
The relevant pairs to consider are not Philip's gold and silver, and Alexander's gold and silver,
but Philip's silver and Alexander's silver, and Philip's gold and Alexander's gold. Common
markings join each of these pairs: Alexander's tetradrachm group A repeats the symbols found
on certain silver issues of Philip,3 and Alexander's gold repeats those of Philip's gold.4
The silver of the two kings was of course struck to different standards. Silver of both mon-
archs seems to have circulated together in Macedonia and in Greece proper. But Philip's silver,
on its parochial local standard, was not struck and is not found overseas, while to the north of
Macedonia it is found in much greater numbers than Alexander's Attic-weight coins.5 The silver
of Philip and Alexander must be considered together, but the two series of strikings were not
everywhere interchangeable.
The two kings' gold, on the other hand, struck to the same standard, assuredly was.6 Today
we ask of a given coin, where was it struck and by whom? The ancients would ask, what is this
1 The fulmen staters in hoards 2 and 7, see the preceding chapter. That in hoard 2 was in all probability
struck at a secondary Macedonian mint, and hoard 7 was buried ca. 321 at the very earliest.
2 Philips in Philippe: cantharus staters, Pella groups, II, III, Amphipolis III; trident, Pella II, III, Amphi-
polis II, III; fulmen, Pella II, III, Amphipolis II. For Alexander, see Chapter 12.
3 See p. 48.
4 See pp. 109-10.
5 E.g., the Paeonia hoard, with its gold of both kings, but silver only of Philip and of Paeonian kings
(Chapter 12, hoard 10, and Table 23).
6 See Table 23, in particular the Saida hoard.
13. Chronology
123
coin worth to me in the marketplace? The names and images on the coins must have been
irrelevant to their usersPhilip II's and Alexander's gold were clearly interchangeable. This is
why Philip's gold can be found everywhere together with Alexander's. Indeed, in the second
century B.C. all Macedonian staters, no matter by whom issued, were known by the general
term nummi aurei philippei (or o-Tar/jpe? ypuaoi <piXi7tTCioi) and the same term may well have
been in use also in the early hellenistic period, although recent apparent proof of this no longer
seems valid.7
Several types of evidence, none conclusive, provide the only help in dating the Alexander
staters of series 1 and 2. they are A) the Corinth hoard, B) the known dates of other Alexander
gold strikings, C) what is known of the Philip II gold, and D) the wear on certain hoard coins.
A. The Corinth Hoard
This hoard until recently seemed to provide a firm terminus ante quem for the staters of series
1 and 2. It is the only hoard known containing Alexander's gold which could have been buried
during his lifetime, and its first proposed burial date of ca. 327 or perhaps a year or two later
appeared to indicate that these staters were all struck by ca. 328, in the early years of Alex-
ander's reign. But the reasons for dating its interment so early now seem to be not so convinc-
ing,8 and there are new reasons for questioning a lifetime buriai.
Thomas Martin has very reasonably argued that the circumstances of Corinth's burial
together with a gold necklace, and in the basement of a stoa perhaps occupied by Macedonian
troopspoint not to a circulation but to a savings deposit, and thus that the hoard is useless in
any case for the chronology of its contents.9 If he is right, of course, there is no point at all in
discussing the Corinth hoard. But whether or not he is correct here, his cautions about savings
deposits are especially relevant to all gold hoardsoften coins in that precious metal received
relatively little circulation and wear and gold deposits in general often contain coins in excellent
condition struck over considerable periods of time.

More important, perhaps, the more recently discovered hoards 2-5 in the previous chapter
(Samovodene, Balkans, Mende, and Ruse) now provide illuminating comparisons to Corinth. At
first, only a portion of Samovodene was known, which did not include its two post-323 staters
with Philip II's types. Understandably, Samovodene was, because of its remarkable resem-
blance to Corinth, believed to have been buried at approximately the same time (i.e., in the
early or mid-320s). Dimitrov's full listing of Salovodene's contents now shows that it must be
brought down to after 323 B.C., because of the two late Philips. A glance at Table 23 will show
that Samovodene's inclusion of only two late coins is analogous to the compositions of Balkans,
Ruse, and Mende, all interred ca. 323 or a bit later. Only two of Samovodene's 67 coins can be
dated later than ca. 330 B.C. (or perhaps ca. 327);10 only one of Balkans' 29 and one of Ruse's
four to later than that date; and only one to three of Mende's 80 to later than 327, but in each of
these four hoards those one to three late coins were struck after 323. One may well suspect that
only chance may have kept Corinth too from including one or two post-323 coins, and that it
also might be considered as interred only after 323.
7 M. B. Hatzopoulos, Actes de vente d'Amphipolis, Meletemata 14 (Athens, 1991), inscriptions VII, X.A,
X.B and XI, and commentary on pp. 84-85. Georges Le Rider has pointed out that Hatzopoulos's restora-
tion 85 (Txar^pwv [xpuowv 9iXi7t7ret]wv (xeYiXtov in X.B could equally well be restored with [xpuaoiv aXeav8pei],
"La date des premiers stateres d'or de Philippe," in Xagaxr^g (above, p. 113, n. 6), p. 268. As these 85 "large
staters" are shown by inscription X.A to be equivalent to 170 regular cnazrjQoi yiXuindoi, and as Philip issued
no distaters, it had seemed that Alexander distaters must have been involved, and called "large Philips." But
the alternate restoration suggested by Le Rider, with which he reports Hatzopoulos concurs, destroys the
seeming proof that these particular Alexanders were actually called "Philips." Nevertheless, such a name
remains possible, and perhaps even probable, in the light of known second-century practice.
8 See pp. 115-16.
9 See p. 115, n. 1.
10 See p. 116 for comments on the undated "Sidon" staters.
124
Le Rider also notes the heavy die linkage among the Philips in Corinth, especially among the
coins from Amphipolis, which suggested that their striking preceded the hoard's burial by a
rather short time." Similar heavy die linkage is found also, however, in other hoards. There are
19 die links, obverse and reverse, among the 41 Macedonian Philips in Corinth, but also 19
among the 51 similar coins of Samovodene. Even the considerably later Varna deposit (hoard
11) has 11 among 30 such coins.12
The only significant difference between Corinth and other hoards with large numbers of Philip
II coins seems to be the varying proportions in each from different portions of Le Rider's groups
II at Pella and Amphipolis (both cities' groups I are early and very small, and their groups III
of course fall after Alexander's death). Le Rider divides his Pella group II into II.1 and 11.2.
II.1, with 124 obverse dies employed for coins bearing cantharus, trident, and fulmen symbols,
is the largest stater group in his entire study. 11.2, which shares one obverse die with II.1,
employed but 18 obverse dies for its four other symbols.13 Le Rider considers 11.2 a subsidiary
group of Pella issues whose chronology in relation to II.1 is uncertain.
Amphipolis's group II is not formally subdivided by Le Rider, but he notes that the last two
of its ten issues were, unlike the first eight, struck in parallel rather than sequentially.14 For the
sake of discussion, these first eight issues, which employed 48 obverse dies, are here called
"II.A," and the last two, which used 30 obverses, "II.B."
Table 24 compares the contents of the five hoards which contained significant numbers of
group II Philips.
Table 24
Philippe Group II Gold Coins in Selected Hoards
Obv.
Corinth
Samovodeni
Mende

Balkans
Varna
Dies
Coins
Coins
Coins
Coins
Coins
Pella II.1
124
24
10
19
16
Pella l1.2
18
16
Amphipolis
"II.A"
48
19
11
15
11
Amphipolis
"II. B"
30
21
In Corinth the numbers of coins from Pella II.2 and Amphipolis II.B are higher than the
numbers from the larger Pella II.1 and Amphipolis II.1. This situation is the reverse of that in
each of the other four hoards, where the number of coins in each sub-group bears some vague if
varying relation to the original number of dies used for each sub-group. Further, 17 of the 19 die
13. Chronology
125
at Corinth, where Antipater and his successors maintained a garrison. A mint at Corinth itself
would nicely explain Pella II.2's or Amphipolis II.B's high representation in the Corinth hoard,
whenever it was buried. But this is mere conjecture. We are unfortunately left with no real
confidence that its burial had to be earlier than ca. 323 B.C., and thus that it can be taken as
proof that stater series 1 and 2 must necessarily antedate Alexander's death by a number of
years. However, the tentative conclusion reached later in this chapter is that the early 320s are
indeed the most probable time for their emission.
B. Other Alexander Gold
Few Alexander mints struck gold before 323 BC. Sidon's issues 1-7 were given by Newell to
the years immediately before 330, but the Sidonian attribution and early dating are both quite
questionable.15 The earliest dated Sidonian gold is of year 7, 327/6 B.C., although this was
probably preceded by the small undated issues Sidon 11-14 and 19. No gold is known, however,
corresponding to the silver dated years 1 and 2, 333/2 and 332/1 B.C., so that it is a fair
assumption that Sidon's gold started only after its silver, perhaps 330-328. The situation is
similar at Ake where no gold corresponds to the earliest silver, again of 333/2 and 332/1. These
two cities, of course, furnish the only dated series struck during Alexander's lifetime.
At Tarsus, the first two of the three groups of staters which Newell assigned to his series I,
ca. 333-327, are composed of his issues Tarsos 12-15in the present study reattributed to
Macedonia. Hence no Tarsiote gold can be reasonably assigned to earlier than ca. 330. At
Salamis, Newell himself was firm that the earliest strikings imitated our series 2.16 If so, the
Salamis coins cannot be placed earlier than our staters and do not help in dating them, and one
would suspect that other Cypriot mints initiated their gold at the same time as Salamis.
Thompson dates the opening of the mint at Sardes to ca. 330, the earliest of any Asia Minor
mint. But so early a date depended in part on assigning three years to the issuance of Sardes
series IV-VI and perhaps III and, as she notes, "the time span may have been even shorter."17

All in all, there seems no need to believe that any Alexander gold struck overseas antedated ca.
330 B.C.
C. Philip II's Gold
Le Rider in Philippe tentatively assigned a terminus ante quem of 328 B.C. to Philippe's
group II because the Corinth hoard was at the time of his writing believed buried ca. 327.18
This burial date is now quite uncertain, as discussed in the previous chapter, and it may well be
323 or later.
The dates of Philip's Pella staters, struck either late in his lifetime or early in that of Alex-
ander, and those of the Alexander series 1 and 2 are obviously related.19 But even aside from
absolute dates the question is, how are the staters of the two kings related? With the same
symbols, used in similarly die linked fashion, and with exactly the same standard so that in the
marketplace they were equivalent, did one necessarily replace the other? Or could they not
have been struck simultaneously, or alternately? Note that both series continued, or resumed,
after Alexander's death. And, again, note that in early hellenistic Macedonia, as in later centu-
ries, Alexander's staters may have been known as azoLxripzc, XPU<10' (piMnneioi.
15 See p. 116.
16 Tarsos, p. 24. Despite Thompson's comments (p. 118, above, n. 18) I believe that Newell's Salamis 1-5
were indeed the earliest emissions of the mint and expect to publish the evidence in a planned festschrift
honoring Georges Le Rider.
18 Philippe, p. 429-430.
19 See pp. 109-10.
20 See p. 123.
126
It is thus not at all clear that the introduction of gold with Alexander's types and name must
have produced even a temporary cessation of the coins with Philip's types and name. Certainly
in the first four hoards of Table 23, buried probably shortly after 323, Philip's gold was over-
whelmingly predominant over Alexander's Macedonian strikings, with a total of 174 staters of
Philippe groups I and II compared to only 19 Macedonian Alexander staters. The heavy die
linkage in Alexander's series 1 and 2 suggests that this coinage must have been produced over a
quite short period of time. It seems entirely possible, even probable, that staters of Philip's
types continued to be struck at least sporadically until the end of Alexander's reign.
D. The Wear on Certain Hoard Coins
Among the eight earliest gold hoards of Table 23, those most probably buried by shortly after
323, three (Corinth, Balkans, and Ruse) show no helpful disparity in wear between the coins of
series 1 and 2 and the hoards' latest coins, and the contents of Saida are not known in detaii.
But the wear in the four other hoards may be instructive.21
Six of Samovodene's seven series 1 and 2 coins are illustrated here (series 1: 469, 475; series 2:
477, 494, 503, and Plate 25, P). All show a good amount of wear, particularly when compared
to the two post-323 Philip II staters which date the hoard (Samovodene 28 and 29, Plate 25,
Q-R), both in superb condition.
By far the most worn coin in the Mende hoard is its 73, from series 2 (519; Plate 29, 73),
particularly when compared to the hoard's latest coins, a post-323 Philip II stater (Plate 29, 61)
and contemporary Alexanders (Plate 29, 74-75), all in excellent condition.
Commerce 1993 seems to have been interred a few years later than Samovodene and Mende,
perhaps 320 B.C., so its evidence is not as strong as that of those two deposits. But its coin 20
(Plate 30, 20), from series 2, was considered in only EF condition by the dealer offering it, while
the bulk of the hoard coins were termed MS (mint state) or near-MS. Comparison of coin 20 with
the other two Macedonian Alexander staters in the hoard (Plate 30, 21-22) shows it is far more

worn. Coin 20 was also offered at the lowest price of any of the hoard coins, save only the rather
wretched coin 42, struck from flawed dies.
In Commerce 1994, buried perhaps as late as 318, and thus also of lesser importance, the only
two of the 26 staters with fulmen, cantharus, or trident symbols considered to be a grade lower
than VF or Good VF/VF+ were one each of series 1 and series 2.22
Wear cannot be quantified, of course, but a reasonable deduction is that series 1 and 2 were
not struck during the great outpouring of silver coin which occurred throughout Alexander's
empire from 325 on, but that they antedated Alexander's death by quite a few years. As already
noted, their tight die linkage suggests a fairly short period of emission.
The only conclusion the present writer can draw about the dates of series 1 and 2 is thus
unfortunately the rather imprecise one that they were minted at some time or times between
ca. 336 and ca. 323 B.C., and perhaps nearer to 332 than to 323. Alexander's gold and silver
strikings, like those of this father, bore no obvious relationship to each other, as has been
emphasized several times in this study. Even if Alexander's silver started no earlier than
ca. 332, there seems no decisive reason why his earliest gold cannot even have preceded his
initial silver. But perhaps the most likely date for the introduction of series 1 and 2 falls after
332, when the silver coinage commenced. By 327, at any rate, overseas gold was certainly being
struck.
21 Hoards 2, 4, 7, and 8 in Chapter 12.
22 See p. 143.
13. Chronology
127
OTHER CANTHARUS, TRIDENT, AND FULMEN STATERS
Not yet fully discussed is another striking feature of Table 23. Leaving aside Saida, whose
Macedonian component is effectively unknown, in the first five hoards of Table 23 there are 19
Macedonian staters of series 1 and 2,23 and only one single Macedonian stater of the more
numerous others bearing the same symbols: the slightly worn fulmen stater in Samovodene.2"1
This coin is exceptional in that it belongs to a small group of fulmen staters of unusually
homogeneous style, two of whose obverses are used also for coins with the unusual shield sym-
boi.25 Dimitrov has plausibly suggested that this Samovodene fulmen stater was struck at a
mint other than that which produced the series 1 and 2 staters in Samovodene.26
These obverse-linked fulmen and shield staters, with their accompanying similarly obverse-
linked fractions,27 may then be from a second Macedonian mint. They may have commenced
shortly before 323, but must have been struck for the most part in following years. The shield
staters certainly appear in abundance in the Commerce 1994 hoard (Plate 31,27-31).
More significant, however, than this Samovodene fulmen stater is the remarkable fact just
mentioned that, except for this stater, of the nineteen staters of series 1 and 2 and the distaters
of the Mende hoard, not one single Alexander gold coin with the common symbols of cantharus,
trident, or fulmen appears in any of the first five hoards of Table 23, those buried by 323 B.C. or
a very few years later. Staters with these markings not included in series 1 and 2 are far more
numerous than those in these two series;28 had they been struck much before 323 they would
surely have appeared in these early hoards.
They first occur, and in quantity, accompanied by relatively few examples of series 1 and 2, in
hoards 7-13, those buried perhaps 320-315. One must conclude that these "other" Alexander
staters with cantharus, trident, and fulmen symbols, absent from the earliest hoards, were in
large part posthumous strikings.
Another interesting observation is the very few obverse links between symbols among these

other, later, gold staters. There are also, as the present author's examination has shown, very
few reverse links between obverse dies as well as many minor variations in, particular, obverse
style.29 These "other" coins' absence in the early hoards of Table 23 together with their pres-
ence in six of the seven latest hoards there suggests a rather short period of striking. The variety
of obverse styles in Commerce 1994 (see Plate 31) suggests that their output may have been
largely completed by that hoard's burial date of perhaps 318, or very shortly after. They thus
would have spanned the aproximate time, ca. 324-319, when the present author believes the
heaviest silver production of Amphipolis occurred. Unlike the silver, however, the lack of die
links and the varying styles suggest that the large output of these "other" staters may have
been produced in a number of workshops, even perhaps in different mints.
23 This section concerns itself only with the coins of these symbols included in Table 19 on p. 100. It
excludes those mentioned on p. 100, note b.
24 "Balkan Peninsula," Samovodene 52; here Plate 25, M. Note that 52's illustration in "Balkan Penin-
sula" is an error, a duplicate of that of hoard coin 57.
25 E.g., Plate 25, N and O. Note also that a stater of this shield issue was present in the Saida hoard.
26 "Balkan Peninsula," p. 104.
27 See p. 100, Table 19.
28 See Table 19.
29 Table 19 shows the paucity of obverse links between symbols. Plate 25, E-H, and Plate 31,11-26 show
the varying obverse styles. See also pp. 110-11 for the classification of the coins illustrated in Alexander.
128
DISTATERS
In Chapter 11 three groups of Macedonian distaters were distinguished: A, the bulk of the
coins with the usual cantharus, trident, and fulmen symbols (22 known obverse dies and little
linkage between symbols); B, coins with marking of fulmen and A, previously attributed to
Sicyon (6 known obverse dies); and C, with the markings of A (3 known dies and tight linkage).
The Mende hoard appears to show, at a minimum, that groups A and B had been struck by
323 or very shortly after. The heavy linkage among only the group B coins there suggests that
they were produced later than group A, and very shortly before the hoard's buriai.
Group C, however, with the same markings as group A, is first known to appear (again with
die linkage) in Commerce 1993, buried after 321 at the very earliest, and Gildau, interred after
316. It almost surely is the latest of the three groups.
Whether any or all of these distater groups emanated from the mint of the early stater series 1
and 2 is unclear, but the proportional use of the three symbols by group A, the largest and
probably the earliest, is extremely similar to that of series 1 and 2, at least as measured by the
numbers of obverse dies used with each symboi.30 On the other hand, A's obverses resemble
those of certain "other" fulmen and shield staters more than they do those of series 1 and 2.31
SUMMARY
Some staters formerly attributed to Tarsus (Tarsos 12-15) were struck in Macedonia, perhaps
at Pella. They are part of a tightly die linked sub-group of staters with cantharus, trident, and
fulmen symbols. The hoards show that this sub-group was struck during Alexander's lifetime,
perhaps in the years following 332 B.C. The more numerous staters with the same symbols, and
those with shield symbol, were probably largely early posthumous. Their many stylistic differ-
ences and lack of die links raise the possibility that they were struck at a number of mints. The
small amount of hoard evidence available seems to show that the bulk of the distaters with the
common symbols of cantharus, trident, and fulmen was also struck during Alexander's lifetime,

although a small emission with the same markings was produced after his death.
Distaters and staters with fulmen and A (Sicyon 6-8) need not be associated with other Sicyon
issues. They appear from the hoards to have been lifetime issues, probably of some mint in
Macedonia, but their exact place of issue, like that or those of the staters with cantharus,
trident, and fulmen markings, remains unclear.
The present study has produced some limited results, but, failing important new evidence, the
mint attributions and exact chronology of most of Alexander's Macedonian gold remain
unclear. One thing abundantly clear, however, is that it is unwarranted to consider Alexander's
gold staters or distaters with cantharus, trident, or fulmen symbols as an "issue": a variety, yes,
but not an "issue" if by such we mean a discrete output produced at one given time and place.
30 See p. 100, Table 19.
31 Compare 531-36 with Plate 25, M-O.
APPENDICES
The convenient abbreviations devised by Price for Alexander are used with the addition of one
more needed for coins of Philip II. They indicate the placement of the reverse markings.
LF to left TH below throne, on silver
LW to left, below wing, on gold EX in exergue
RW to right, below wing, on gold BL below horses' bellies, on Philip II gold
RF to right
APPENDIX 1
COMMERCE 1993 HOARD, TETRADRACHMS
In the spring of 1993 two lots of early Alexander tetradrachms appeared on the United States
market. The obvious similarities and numerous die links between the two lots (A, 50 coins, and
B, 23 and a probable intrusion) prove their common origin.
At first there seemed a possibility that the tetradrachms derived from the same deposit as the
Near East 1993 hoard of Alexander drachms, also very early strikings, which surfaced at about
the same time.1 One very knowledgeable and reliable dealer, however, saw all the coins in their
original condition before they left Europe and reported that the surface appearance of the
tetradrachms was quite different from that of the drachms. Therefore the two denominations
probably derive from two separate deposits. Their burial dates, however, are so similar that
their evidence for the Amphipolis mint is the same.
No information as to the hoard's provenance could be obtained. Its contents are extremely
varied, and its large Amphipolis component is no different from that found in most Alexander
hoards wherever buried. Even the many coins of Lampsacus, given that port's importance as a
place of embarkation for returning soldiery at the time of the hoard's burial (ca. 323-322 B.C.),
is not decisive. "Commerce 1993" seems the only possible description. In the catalogue, A or B
indicates the lot to which each coin belonged.
Celator references are to non-numbered illustrations on the back cover of The Celator, July
1993. Group letters and issue numbers given for the Amphipolis coins are to the present work.

Brackets to left or right indicate obverse or reverse die identities. All coins (except 62, from the
dies of 61) are illustrated on Plates 26-28, where they are identified by hoard coin numbers.
A more detailed catalogue, with most weights and die axes, is on file at the ANS.
Amphipolis
10
LF prow r. Alexander 1. A1.
LF prow i. Alexander 4. A1.
LF fulmen. Alexander 8. A4.
LF ivy leaf. Berk 80, 18 Jan. 1994, 54 = Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 63. Alexander 23.
B6.
LF caduceus. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 64. Alexander 32. B8.
LF quiver. Celator. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 65. Alexander 38. C2.
LF Pegasus forepart. Alexander 44. C5.
LF bow. Alexander 48. C6.
LF Macedonian shield. Alexander 57. D2.
LF caduceus over iti. Alexander 66. D7.
130
Appendix 1
11
LF herm. Alexander 78. E2.
12
LF cock. Alexander 79. E3.
13
As 12.
14
As 12. Berk 82, 13 July 1994, 205
15
As 12. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 67.
16
As 12.
17
LF crescent. Alexander 89. E7.
- 18
LF bucranium. Alexander 93. E8.
- 19 -
As 18.

L 20 -
As 18.
[-21 -
As 18.
- 22 -
As 18.
- 23 -
As 18.
- 24 -
As 18.
L 25 -
As 18. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 68.
= Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 66.
Uncertain Greece or Macedonia2
26
27
LF youthful figure (athlete? boxer?).
As 26. Sicyon 3.5 (A4-P7).
Alexander 187. Sicyon A3 = A5: new rev.
Lampsacus
28
29
30
r31
L 32
33
34
35
36
r 37
Commerce 1993 hoard, Tetradrachms
131
Tarsus
50 A LF n; TH A. The right vertical stroke of the n is faint, but definitely present.
The issue, with the n to i., is not in Alexander or Tarsos, although it must be from
series I. The ANS possesses a coin from the same dies, but with the n incom-
pletely erased.
51 A TH B. Alexander 3000. Tarsos series I, issue 4.
52 A TH plow; TH O; to inner r., globule, Alexander 3019. Tarsos series II, issue 29.
"Amathus" (Soli)3
53 B LF prow r. Celalor. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993,71. Alexander 3094; obv. die of 3091.
Citium
54 A LF T; RF BAZIAEQZ; EX AAEEANAPO [sic]. Alexander 3107. "Cypriote Alex-
anders" series I, group A, issue 4.
Paphos
55 A LF dove. Alexander 3116.
Salamis
56 A LF bow. Alexander 3139. "Cypriote Alexanders" series I, issue 7.
57 B As 56. Celator. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 72.
Damascus
58 A LF ram forepart; TH globule and AA. Alexander 3203.
59 B LF ram forepart; TH AA and four globules. Celator. Berk 80, 18 Jan. 1994, 55 =
Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 73. Alexander 3209.
60 B As 59. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 74.
Myriandrus (Issus ?)4
61
h 62

A LF; THIH; EX and RF BAZIAEQZ AAEEANAPOY. Alexander 3222. Myr-
iandros series III, issue 21, obv. IX. This obverse is not known in issue 21 in
Myriandros, but occurs in issues 20 (the same markings and inscription except
that the inscription is simply AAEEANAPO) and 22 (see 63 below, without the
title).
A As 61.
63 A LF ; TH ftl. Alexander 3223. Myriandros series III, issue 22.
Ake? Tyre ?5
r 64 A TH M. Alexander 3240. Ake series I, issue 3, obv. IV.
L 65 A As 64.
66 A TH O. Alexander 3244. Ake series II, issue 6, obv. V.
67 A As 66, but obv. IX.
3 The present author's "Staters, Serendipity and Soli" in Xagaxrrjg (above, p. 113, n. 6) shows that the
proper mint of the prow-symbol coins is the Cypriot Soli. "Alexanders from Soli on Cyprus," to appear in a
forthcoming festschrift honoring Martin Price, contains her discussion of the prow-symbol coins in all three
metals.
4 J. D. Bing has recently argued strongly for Issus rather than Myriandrus in "Reattribution of the
'Myriandrus' Alexanders: The Case for Issus," AJN, Second Series, 1 (1989), pp. 1-32.
5 See p. 84.
132
Appendix 1
68 B LF HO. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 75. Alexander 3248. Ake series III, issue 10, dies
X-e.
Aradus
69 B LF Z; TH EX BAZIAEQZ. Alexander 3316.
Byblos
70 A LF A. A lexander 3426, where Price notes that the attribution to Byblos is "very
doubtfui."
Babylon
71 A LF O; TH M. Alexander 3581. "Babylon Mint" issue I.
72 B LF kylix; TH W over M. Celator. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 76. Alexander 3654.
"Babylon Mint" issue II.
Memphis
73 B LF Rose; TH and RF AIO. Alexander 3971. "Ptolemy," series A, issue II.
Also purchased by the dealer who owned lot B was an extremely well-preserved tetradrachm
of Ake of year 32, Alexander 3283 (Celator; Berk 79, 2 Nov. 1993, 103). Struck 316/5 B.C.
(Sidon and Ake) or 315/4 (Alexander), six or seven years later than any of the 73 certain hoard
coins, it was judged an intrusion.
The latest coins of most mints present in the hoard have been thought to date from 323 B.C.
or a few years earlier both by the original studies of their mints (where such exist) and by Martin
Price in Alexander. In general, only mints whose latest coins might be a bit later are discussed
below. Discussion of Amphipolis is placed last.
Uncertain Greece or Macedonia. Noe in Sicyon assigned a large group of issues to
330/325-ca. 318, but 26-27 are from the first tetradrachm issue there. Alexander places them
first in a group given to 336-323.
Lampsacus. Thompson in Lampsacus and Abydus dated series V to 325/4-324/3. Twenty-

three obverses were known to her. This hoard's 17 series V coins are from one new die, whose
style clearly places it at the head of the series (coin 30), and from seven of Thompson's first 13
dies. Her final ten dies in series V are not represented in this hoard. If series V is correctly
dated, these hoard coins, all from the earlier half of its dies, may be considered to have been
struck in 325-324.
Miletus. Thompson in Sardes and Miletus dated series III to 323/2 B.C. and Alexander places it
similarly. A date after 323 is required only by the somewhat uncertain assumption that staters
of Philip IPs types were associated with series I at this mint,6 but in any case hoard evidence
places series III approximately to this time.
"Amathus," Citium, Paphos, Salamis. Any of these imprecisely dated coins may have been
struck shortly after 323, where Alexander seems to place them all, but no really satisfactory
evidence exists.
Byblos. This coin, too (the only one in the hoard showing Zeus with crossed legs) could date
from after 323, but the issue is not precisely dated.
6 See Alexander, p. 276. I share Price's reservations.
Commerce 1993 hoard, Tetradrachms
133
Aradus. Coin 69's issue is placed, although early, in Alexander's ca. 328-320 group. It pre-
ceded the Aradus issue with caduceus (Alexander 3332), whose accompanying drachm issue
(3333) was present in the Near East 1993 Hoard interred ca. 322,7 and it thus should be dated no
later than ca. 323.
Ampbipolis. The great bulk of Commerce 1993 thus was struck by 323: only a very few coins
may be a year or so later. Its large Amphipolis component ending with the many die linked
coins of group E accords far better with the present author's downdating of group E to
ca. 324-323 B.C. than with Newell's date of 328-327 for that group.

7 "Near East" coin 1399.
APPENDIX 2
MENDE 1983 HOARD, GOLD
Georges Le Rider has obtained photographs of this hoard of 80 gold coins, 62 staters of Philip
II and 18 coins of Alexander III (10 distaters and 8 staters). No weights or die axis positions
were secured. Professor Le Rider has generously provided the photographs and allowed me to
publish this account of the hoard, whose evidence as to the date of Alexander's earliest gold is
important even if not conclusive.1
The coins are listed below. The quality of the photographs (some roughly life-size, some at
various magnifications) of the Philip coins is often insufficient to allow exact die identification,
either in comparisons with other hoard coins or with the die numbers given in Philippe. Pro-
fessor Le Rider and I are in accord, however, that no Macedonian Philips are later than Phi-
lippe's groups II.
The photographs of the Alexander coins are somewhat clearer, but unfortunately all are also
enlarged. As noted, some of the distater reverses lack photos, but the coins' mints and issues are
not in doubt.
Illustrations on Plate 29 are thus in many cases only approximations of the coins' true sizes.
Because of the generally low clarity of the photographs only a selection is shown. A few of the
more significant coins are also illustrated at 2x magnification. All photographs are on file at the
ANS.
All the coins are staters except 63-72 (distaters). See Chapter 11 for discussion of their groups
A-B. The groups and dies given for the Philip II coins are those in Philippe. Asterisks indicate
varieties illustrated on Plate 29.
PHILIP II
Pella
Group IC
1-3 BL grapes. 2 and 3 are die duplicates.
4 BL grasshopper.

Group II.1
5-9 RL fulmen.
10-15* BL cantharus. The obv. die of 10 (probably D44) is known in Philippe only with
fulmen symboi. 13 is from the obv. of 8, retouched.
16-24* BL trident. 21-23 are from the same obv., 23 and 24 from the same rev.
Group II.2
25 BL prow.
26* BL prow (?). The rev. is probably Philippe's R268. It and R269 are the only
two prow revs, known in Philippe.
27* Obv. die of 25. Rev. die of 26, with symbol recut to Nike. The rev. again seems
to be R268, known in Philippe only with prow, but here recut.
28 As 27. R269'. Philippe's R269 has a prow symboi. On R269' the symbol has
been recut to Nike.
29-34 BL Nike. 30-32 are from the same obv., 33-34 from the same rev.
1 See p. 126.
Mende 1983 Hoard, Gold
135
35 BL lion's skin.
36-40* BL profile shield. 37-40 are from the same obv., 37-39 from the same rev., and
36 and 40 from another rev.
Amphipolis
Group II
41-42 BL grain kernei.
43-44 BL club.
45 BL caduceus.
46-49* BL ivy leaf.
50-54* BL crescent. 51-52 are from the same obv.
55* BL grain ear.
56-60 BL trident.
Miletus
61* BL PT. Cf. Miletus 22-23 (different dies), from series I, dated to 325-323 B.C.
Uncertain
62 BL uncertain or no marking.
ALEXANDEB III
Macedonia
Distater Group A
63* LF fulmen. Alexander 163.
64* Probably as 63. Only the obv. photo was included, but the die is known to have
been used for 12 fulmen coins and 1 cantharus coin, strongly suggesting that 64
also bore a fulmen.
65* LF cantharus. Alexander 167.
66* LF trident. Alexander 171.

Distater Group B
67* LF fulmen; LW A. Alexander 191. Sicyon A8-P14.
68* As 67. Obv. of 67. Sicyon A8; no rev. photo.
69* As 67. Obv. of 67. Sicyon A11 (= A8, retouched?); no rev. photo.
70* As 67. Sicyon A10; no rev. photo.
71* As 67. Sicyon A13-P26.
72* As 67. Obv. of 71. Sicyon A13; new rev.
Stater
73* LF fulmen. Alexander 164 or 164A. This study's series 2, 014-F1.
Miletus
74* LF n Alexander 2078. Miletus series I, 13-14.
75* Obv. below, fulmen (off flan); LW H. Alexander 2079. Miletus series I, 18.
"Sidon"2
76-77 Obv. on helmet, griffin; RW club. Alexander 3460. Sidon 4. 76-77 are from the
same obv.
See p. 116 above for questioning the attribution to Sidon.
136
Appendix 2
78 Obv. as 76. RW grain kernei. Alexander 3464. Sidon 6.
Sidon
79 Obv. as 76. RW filleted palm branch. Alexander 3470. Sidon 11.
80* Obv. as 76. LW ZI; RW filleted palm branch. Alexander 3472. Sidon 13.
The Mende hoard's latest coins are the Miletus staters of Philip II (61) and Alexander
(74-75). All are in Miletus series I, dated by Thompson to ca. 325-323 B.C. Thompson consid-
ered the Philip II issue as struck "in the beginning of the reign of Philip III," i.e., at the earliest
in late 323 B.C, so that coin 61 furnishes the hoard's burial date of 323 or a few years later.3
The hoard has two especially interesting features. One is Macedon's series 2 Alexander stater
(73), whose extremely worn conditionit is by far the most worn coin in the hoardprovides
valuable evidence for the start of Alexander's gold. One may question the evidence of a single
coin, but it is still highly suggestive of a date fairly early in Alexander's reign.
The second remarkable feature is the presence of the ten distaters from an uncertain Macedo-
nian mint or mints, four of group A (63-66), and six of group B (67-72) with markings of fulmen
and A. Mende is the earliest known hoard in which Alexander's distaters occur, and there can be
little doubt that at least those of group A were lifetime emissions. The close die linkage among
those of group B seems to show that they were somewhat later emissions than those of group A.
3 Sardes and Miletus, pp. 33 and 66, in connection with a Philip II issue at Sardes. The association of the
Philip II coins with Miletus, however, and thus also the dating of series I, is subject to some question. As
Price notes (Alexander, p. 276) the Philips' monogram is not quite that of the Milesian Alexanders, and at
least one of the Philips' dies is shared with coins of Magnesia of slightly later date. I share Price's reserva-

tions, but in any case hoard evidence places Miletus series I to approximately 323 B.C.
APPENDIX 3
COMMERCE 1993 HOARD, GOLD
Photographs, weights, and professional assessments of most coins' states of preservation were
provided by Harlan Berk, to whom I am greatly indebted for enabling this hoard to be put on
record. No information about the hoard's origin was available, however, so it is termed merely
"Commerce 1993."
All the coins are staters except 17-19 (distaters). See Chapter 11 for the division of Macedo-
nian distaters into three groups. As their mints remain uncertain, they are attributed simply to
Macedonia.
Philip II groups, die combinations, and dies are those of Philippe. Celator references are to
non-numbered illustrations on the back covers of The Celator, May or June 1993. The coins are
illustrated on Plate 30, where they are identified by hoard coin numbers. A more detailed
catalogue, with weights and assessments of wear, is on file at the ANS.
PHILIP II
Pella
Group II. 1
1 BL fulmen. 67, D31-R54.
Group IIIA
- 2 As 1. Berk 80, 18 Jan. 1994, 4 = Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 4 = Celator, June 1993.
413, D185-R305.
3 As 1. 436, D197-R324.
4 BL cantharus. Berk 79, 2 Nov. 1993, 7 = Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 5 = Celator, June
1993. 455?, D187 7-R337.
5 As 4. Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 6 = Celator, May 1993. D192-R342.
6 As 4. 477, D216-R349.
- 7 BL trident. 491, D185-R358.
8 As 7. 498?, D187?-R359.

L 9 BL bucranium. D185-R384.
10 As 9. Celator, May 1993. 522, D224-R382.
L 11 BL fly r. Celator, May 1993. 540?, D187?-R390.
12 As 11. 535, D226-R390.
Amphipolis
Group II
13 BL trident. D64?-R104?
Group IIIA
14 As 13. Celator, May 1993. 222, D98-R176.
Lampsacus
15 BL facing head and fi. Lampsacus VI: new dies.
138
Appendix 3
Magnesia
16 BL spearhead and bee. Dies of Thompson, "Posthumous Philip II Staters of Asia
Minor," Studia Paulo Naster Oblata, ed. S. Scheers (Louvain, 1982), p. 58, 2. The
obv. die had previously been used for an issue ascribed to Miletus. See Sardes and
Miletus, p. 50 (but see doubts about this attribution, p. 136 above, n. 3). The rev.
markings are those of the new Alexander stater 26 below.
Macedonia
Distater Group A
17 LF fulmen. Alexander 163.
Distater Group C
r 18 As 17.
L 19 LF cantharus. Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 7 = Celator, June 1993. Alexander 167. See
Staters
20 Rev. as 17. Alexander 164; obv. of Alexander 168b (with cantharus). Series 2,
018-F3.
21 Rev. as 17. Alexander 164.
22 LF Boeotian (?) shield. Berk 80, 18 Jan. 1994, 5 = Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 8.
Alexander 176.
See also coin 40, probably a Macedonian imitation.
Uncertain Greece or Macedonia?
23 LF Corinthian helmet I. Alexander 794.
Lampsacus
24 LF addorsed horse foreparts and t. Celator, May 1993. Alexander 1358. Lampsacus
V.105: new rev.
25 As 24. Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 9. Dies of Alexander 1358c. Lampsacus V: new dies.

26 Obv. below, ram's head r.; LF bee and spearhead. Berk 79, 2 Nov. 1993, 9 =
Celator, May 1993. Apparently unpublished, but from the obverse die of Alexander
1924 (with griffin to 1.) and 1928 (with ram's head and Eff to i.). The rev. markings
are those of the posthumous Philip II stater 16 above.
27 RW bipennis; RF grain ear. Alexander 2095. Miletus III.127a.
28 LW grain ear; RW bipennis. Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 10 = Celator, June 1993.
Alexander 2096. Miletus III.129: new rev.
ALEXANDER III
p. 114, D01-DF3, for another distater from the obverse of 18-19, which may also be
from this hoard.
Magnesia
Miletus
Sardes
LF serpent. Alexander 2532. Sardes 111.8.
As 29.
Commerce 1993 Hoard, Gold
139
Side
31
Tarsus
32
Salamis
33
34
35
LF BAZIAEQZ; LW Ol over BZ. Alexander 2956.
LF caduceus and BAZIAEQZ; LW E over Z (partially off flan). Dies of Alexander
3043c. Tarsos series III, third group, 50, dies N-o.
LF harpa. Dies of Alexander 3136. "Cypriote Alexanders" series I, issue 4.
As 34. Alexander 3136.
LW eagle i. Alexander 3125; obv. of 3129a (with eagle r.). This and coins of similar
style (e.g., Sardes and Miletus, pl. 32, 14-18) were rejected as Cypriot by Newell in
"Cypriote Alexanders," but later placed by him at Salamis. See Sardes and Miletus,
p. 70, n. 64. The evidence at the ANS does not indicate to the present writer, how-
ever, that the coins similar to 35 were the earliest emissions of Salaminian gold.
Aradus
36
"Sidon"
37
Sidon
38
Memphis

39
Obv. to i., Z; LF BAZIAEQZ; LW A.
June 1993. Alexander 3315.
Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 11 = Celator, May and
Obv. on helmet, griffin; RW fulmen. Alexander 3461. Sidon series I, group A, but
the issue is not known there. The issue is known in Alexander and 37's reverse die is
that of Balkans hoard 29 (Chapter 12, hoard 3; see Philippe, pl. 90, 29).
Obv. as 37. RW filleted branch. Alexander 3470. Sidon series II, issue 11.
Rev. no markings. Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 12 = Celator, May and June 1993.
Alexander 3961 (same obv.). The obverse appears to be that of an ANS coin with
reverse markings of ram head with Isis crown and A (Alexander 3963), whose corre-
sponding tetradrachm issue is dated to 324 B.C. in "Ptolemy," p. 14.
Uncertain
40
LF fulmen. The obverse style differs so drastically from other Macedonian fulmen
staters that this coin must be an imitation.
Uncertain East
41
42
Obv. on helmet, griffin; LF BAZIAEQZ; LW Al. Apparently unpublished, but from
the obv. of Alexander 3994 ("Uncertain East," with BAZIAEQZ, and LW E).
Obv. as 41. LF fulmen over <D, and BAZIAEQZ. Apparently unpublished.
Perhaps the latest dated coin in the hoard is 15 of Lampsacus, whose markings are known
with Philip III's name and whose issue is dated by Thompson to 323/2-322/1 B.C. The drachm
issue corresponding to 15 was not in the large Near East 1993 hoard buried ca. 322 and thus 15
probably was struck ca. 321. Nos. 16 and 26 of Magnesia, whose markings are also known with
See p. 116 above for questioning of the attribution to Sidon.
140
Appendix 3
Philip III's name, again can be no earlier than the very end of 323 or more probably 322;
nos. 27-28 of Miletus were also dated to 323/2 by Thompson. The number of post-323 Philip II
coins (Philippe groups III) in the hoard is also large. It is hard to suggest a burial date for the
hoard earlier than ca. 320.
For present purposes, the importance of the hoard lies in its inclusion of the distaters of group
C, but even more in the two staters 20 and 21, both with the same fulmen symboi. Coin 20, from
our early series 2, is somewhat worn and was described in only EF condition. Coin 21, one of the
"other" staters struck later than groups 1 and 2, is far better preserved and was described as in
near mint state.
Further, Mr. Berk also supplied his asking prices for the coins. One comparison is highly
relevant here. The price asked for stater 20, from series 2, was the third lowest of all the hoard
coins' prices, higher only than those asked for 1 ("F/VF"), from Philip's early Pella group II.1,
and 42, from deteriorated or damaged dies. The stater 21, however, with the same fulmen
marking as 20, had a very high asking price. Again, although we are discussing only two coins,
their conditions support the conclusions reached in Chapter 13: series 1 and 2, lifetime issues,
were struck considerably earlier than most of the staters with the common symbols of cantharus,

trident, and fulmen, and those later staters were in large part early posthumous.
APPENDIX 4
COMMERCE 1994 HOARD, GOLD
Lot A. On December 7, 1994, 132 staters of Alexander III and 2 of Philip III were sold at
auction by Classical Numismatic Group, Inc., in its Auction 32. Kerry K. Wetterstrom of CNG
kindly allowed me to examine the coins prior to their dispersal, and he and Peter L. Lampinen
assisted me materially in photographing and grading the 30+ Macedonian coins and a few
others. The coins were clearly understood to be the last section of a larger hoard which had
passed through the hands of Giessener Miinzhandlung of Munich.
Lot B. In May of 1994 at Giessener Miinzhandlung, Charles Hersh recorded a lot of 80 staters
of Alexander III and 5 of Philip III. Of these, Giessener Miinzhandlung sold in its Auction 69,
November 18, 1994, 24 of Alexander III and 3 of Philip III, accompanied by 9 of Philip II.
Because of the probable association of lot C with lot A and thus with lot B, I am assuming that
these 9 coins of Philip II were also part of the original group. Their presence or absence,
however, does not affect the dating of the chief and largest group, lot A.
Lot C. In March of 1994 Classical Numismatic Group issued a flyer offering for sale 20
"exceptional" staters of Philip II. These coins had also passed through Giessener
Miinzhandlung, and the staff at CNG, although they could not be certain, suspected that the
coins might have come from the same deposit as lot A.
The association of the three lots is not assured, but they are extremely compatible, and may
well have originated from the same hoard. See the summaries on Table 23, at the end of Chapter
12. Almost certainly there were other coins present, but there is now no way of tracing them.
A further question is whether the Commerce 1993 hoard of staters, with the same approximate
burial date, also originated from the same deposit. It is notable that an Alexander stater of
uncertain attribution in Commerce 1993 was from the dies of a coin in lot A, and that another
uncertain coin in Commerce 1993 may have been from the obverse of a second coin in lot A.1
Commerce 1993 surfaced in the spring of that year, however, nearly a year before any of Com-
merce 1994, and no other specific circumstances or provenance connects the 1993 hoard with

that of 1994. They are therefore separately described here, but the import of each hoard
remains the same, whether or not they truly are one hoard or two.
Commerce 1993 is described in full in Appendix 3, as it has no other publication. Commerce
1994's lot A appeared in the sale catalogue noted above, but illustration was incomplete, and
inevitably some attributions were erroneous. Lot B was only partially published, and lot C was
fully described and illustrated, although only in a flyer. Summaries of all three lots' contents
appear in Table 23. Full descriptions of each lot, too lengthy to include in this work, together
with direct photos of lot C kindly supplied by Classical Numismatic Group, are at the ANS.
As can be seen from Table 23, lot A's latest coins were 2 of Sidon dated 322/1, 1 Philip III of
Babylon dated by Waggoner to 322-321, 2 of Miletus of 320/19, and 1 Philip III of Sardes of
319/8. Lot B contained 1 Philip III of Sardes of 322/1, 4 of the Philip III Babylonian issue of
322-321, and no fewer than 18 of the same Miletus issue of 320/19. The latest coins (Philip II) in
lot C were of Lampsacus of 323/2-322/1. The closing dates of all three lots are thus highly
compatible. Taking the Sardes coin of 319/8 as perhaps issued in 319, we may postulate a burial
date for the hoard as a whole (if indeed it is a whole, of course) of perhaps 318 or 317 B.C.
The hoard contained two Pella coins (one in lot B, one in C) of Philip II of group 11 IB, which
followed IIIA. They may provide an indication of the end of the Macedonian groups IIIA. But
1 Commerce 1993 (Appendix 3) 41-42; lot A, 128-29 (full description on file at the American Numismatic
Society).
142
Appendix 4
the significant aspect of the hoard for present purposes is the 31 coins present from our Macedo-
nian Alexander mint (or mints) in lot A. A catalogue follows of the Macedonian coins in CNG's 7
Dec. 1994 sale. Those of series 1 and 2 are listed in order of obverse dies, with 4 and 7 from the
non-linked portion of series 2 inserted in appropriate spots into the linked obverses.
Macedonia
Series 1
1 LF trident. 02-T4. Alexander 172. Sale lot 1108.
2 As 1. 03-T5. 1116b.2
3 LF cantharus. 06-C2. Alexander 168. 1154b.
Series 2
4 As 1. 024-T20. 1157b.
5 As 3. 011-C4. 1107.
6 LF fulmen. 016-F2. Alexander 164. 1154a.
7 As 3. 030-C17. 1125b.
8 As 3. 019-C10. 1125a.
9 As 1. 021-T16. 1121a.
10 As 1. 022-T17. 1156b.
Other
11 As 3. 1135b. The coin is from the second cantharus obv. known to me which shows
three full helmet crests as on distaters, the rearmost looping to the right directly
under the helmet bowl with its tip appearing between the tips of the nearer and
central crests.
[12
L 13
14
16
L 18
19
20
21
22
23
24 j
25 J
26

15
27 LF shield. Alexander 176. 1115b. The obverse die is known also with reverses
bearing a fulmen symboi.
28 As 27. 1123b.
29 -I As 27. 1109.
30 J As 27. 1112b.
31 As 27. 1111b.
As
3.
1136b.
As
3.
1155b.
As
6.
1156a.
As
6.
1123a.
As
6.
1114a.
As
6.
1106.
As
6.
1115a.
As
6.
1135a.
As
6.
Commerce 1994 Hoard, Gold
143
Mr. Lampinen of CNG was kind enough to grade these Macedonian coins with the usual three
symbols strictly on the basis of wear and without taking into account any of the other criteria
which enter into the usual dealer grading.
VF+or
Good Very Fine Very Fine Fine
Series 1 and 2, 1-10 4 4 2
"Other," 11-26 10 6 -
These numbers are hardly dramatic, but it must be remembered that the lot represents the
remnants of a far larger hoard, and that that hoard was buried no earlier than 318. The results
are completely compatible, however, with the suggestion that series 1 and 2 preceded the

"other" staters.
KEY TO PLATES
Unless otherwise noted, all coins are in the collection of the American Numismatic Society.
They are identified as ANS only when a previous publication or a hoard provenance is known.
SNGANS numbers identify the ANS's coins of Philip II's types (and one of Perdiccas III, Plate
18, D). SNGBerry numbers are given for all ANS coins included in that publication.
Most non-ANS coins are known through casts in the ANS cabinet or from its photograph file
and library. Hoards are discussed in Chapters 8 (silver) and 12 (gold). Alexander references for
London coins are not merely to issues but identify the specific British Museum coins there
catalogued.
Plates 1-5, 1-103, Alexander Tetradrachms. See pp. 21-23, Table 1.
1 ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 13, 13
10 ANS, ex Demanhur 1905 hoard
14 ANS = SNGBerry 196
32 Location unknown. Demanhur, pl. II,3
50 Artemis FPL 4, June-July 1970, 2 = Artemis FPL 2, 1968, 3
55 Cast at ANS marked "R & F," presumably at one time in the inventory of Rollin and Feuardent,
Paris
71 Vienna
72 Paris
73 Petsalis
75 London = Alexander 421
77 Location unknown; photo at ANS
79 Athens, ex Empedocles and ex Andritsaena ca. 1923 hoard

85 Petsalis
92 Munz. u. Med. FPL 333, Apr. 1972, 12
93 Hersh
98 Berlin
Plates 5-6, 104-30, Alexander Tetradrachms Showing Intra-Group Linkage. See pp. 24-25, Figures
1-3.
122 London = Alexander 111e
124 Dattari
127 Cast at ANS marked "Rollin & Feuardent"
129 St. Petersburg
Plate 7,131-47, Alexander Didrachms. See pp. 30-31, Table 3.
132 Hersh = Glendining, 7 Mar. 1957, 21
133 Saroglos
145
146
Key to Plates
135 Copenhagen = SNGCop 667
136 Hersh = Giessener 58, 9 Apr. 1992, 229
137 ANS = Realtrib., pl. 15, 2
138 Hersh = Giessener 60, 5 Oct. 1992, 114
141 Berlin = Reattrib., pl. 15, 4
142 Berlin = Reattrib., pl. 15, 3
143 Munz. u. Med. FPL 178, Apr. 1958, 8 = Kricheldorf 3, 25 Feb. 1957, 1174 = Coin Galleries, 11
July 1955, 342 = Munz. u. Med. 13, 17 June 1954, 1106
144 Berlin
147 NFA 25, 29 Nov. 1990, 80
Plates 7-8, 148-79, Alexander Drachms. See pp. 31-32, Table 3.
148 Cambridge, Eng. = McClean 3507
151 Athens
152 Hersh
153 Hersh
154 ANS = Reattrib., pl. 7, 3 (erroneously called hemidrachm)
157 Hersh = Malter 49, 15 Nov. 1992, 250 = Glendining, 7 Mar. 1957, 20
158 Hersh
159 London = Alexander 95 = Reattrib., pl. 7, 5 = J. Hirsch 13, 15 May 1905, 1126
160 Hersh = Sotheby, 27 Oct. 1993, 412 = Numismatica Ars Classica 5, 25 Feb. 1992, 105 = Leu-
Munz. u. Med., 3 Dec. 1965, 236 = Munz. u. Med. 8, 8 Dec. 1949, 807
161 ANS = Sotheby, 1 Dec. 1924, 55

163 Hersh
164 Glendining, 20 Nov. 1975, 879
165 Munz. u. Med. 13, 17 June 1954, 1098
166 Bank Leu 15, 4 May 1976, 198
167 Hersh = Numismatica Ars Classica B, 25 Feb. 1992, 1274
168 Tradart, 8 Nov. 1992, 71 = Munz. u. Med. 54, 26 Oct. 1978, 184 = Naville 1, 4 Apr. 1921, 862
169 Hersh = Near East 1993 hoard 1
174 ANS = Sinan Pascha 1919 hoard 3
175 Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria = Calim 1976 hoard 1
178 Near East 1993 hoard 14
179 Hersh
Plate 8,180-96, Alexander Triobols. See p. 32, Table 3.
181 Hersh
182 London = Alexander 41 = Reattrib., pl. 7, 7
183 Hersh
184 Hersh
Key to Plates
147
185 Munz. u. Med. 13, 17 June 1954, 1099
189 Athens
190 Hersh
192 Giessener 58, 9 Apr. 1992, 233
193 ANS = Giessener 62, 20 Apr. 1993, 126
194 Leiden
195 ANS = Hess 207, 1 Dec. 1931, 360
196 Hersh
Plate 8,197-208, Alexander Diobols. See pp. 32-33, Table 3.
197 Vienna
198 Paris = Traiti IV.2, 900, pl. 311, 7 = Reattrib., pl. 7, 8
199 St. Petersburg
201 AMNG 11l.2, pl. 31, 21 (rev. only)
202 Hersh
203 Athens
204 Paris = Traiti IV.2, 901, pl. 311, 8
206 Egger 40, 2 May 1912, 749
207 ANS = Weber 2086
208 Weber 2087
Plate 8, 209-14, Alexander Obols. See p. 33, Table 3.
209 Paris = Traiti IV.2, 903, pl. 311, 9
210 Hersh
212 Berlin = AMNG III.2, pl. 31, 22

213 Hersh
Plates 9-11, 215-78, Links between Alexander Groups. See Chapter 3 for individual coin descriptions.
Plates 12-14, 279-335, Philip II Tetradrachms. See pp. 52-53, Table 7.
279 Paris = Philippe, p. 120, pl. 43, 1
280 SNGANS 571
282 SNGANS 572
283 SNGANS 573
284 Munich
285 SNGANS 576
286 SNGANS 577
287 Parke-Bernet, 9 Dec. 1969, 41b = Philippe, p. 302, 66, pl. 44, 9; ex Paeonia 1968 hoard
288 SNGANS 579
289 SNGANS 580
290 Sofia = Philippe, p. 121, pl. 44, 10
291 St. Petersburg
118
Key to Plates
292 Commerce = Philippe, p. 122, pl. 44, 21
293 SNGANS 590 = Philippe, p. 315, 34, pl. 44, 19; ex Megara 1917 hoard
294 Philippe, p. 122, pl. 44, 22 = Munz. u. Med. FPL 343, Mar. 1973, 11
295 SNGANS 592
296 London
297 SNGANS 593
298 Munich
299 Munich = Philippe, p. 122, pl. 44, 33
300 Volo
301 Cast at ANS, ex ANS
302 London = Philippe, p. 123, pl. 45, 25
303 SNGANS 606
304 SNGANS 607
305 SNGANS 610
306 SNGANS 615
308 SNGANS 630 = SNGBerry 118
309 Cast at ANS marked "Rous"
310 SNGANS 643
311 Stockholm
312 SNGANS 639
313 London
314 Brussels = de Hirsch 1041
315 SNGANS 674
316 SNGANS 687

317 Oxford = SNGAshm 2477
318 SNGANS 688
319 SNGANS 691 = Philippe, p. 123, pl. 46, 1
320 London
321 SNGANS 693
322 London
323 SNGANS 740
325 London
326 Blaser-Frey 19, 7 Sept. 1968, 1077
327 Vienna
328 SNGANS 748
329 Munz. u. Med. FPL 309, Feb. 1970, 6
330 Berlin
332 Glendining, 3 May 1967, 11
333 Coin Galleries FPL 2.1 (1978), C28
334 Leiden
335 Philippe, p. 303, 83 = Sotheby, 16 Apr. 1969, 60; ex Paeonia 1968 hoard
Plates 14-15,336-85. Philip II Fifths of the Tetradrachm. See pp. 57-58, Table 9.
336 Berlin = Philippe, p. 121, pl. 44, 4
337 Munich = Philippe, p. 121, pl. 44, 3
338 Turin
339 SNGANS 574
Key to Plates
149
340 SNGANS 581
341 Berlin
343 Berlin = Philippe, p. 122, pl. 44, 28
344 SNGANS 583
346 Philippe, p. 121, pl. 44, 15 = Kunst u. Miinzen FPL 7, 1969, 56
347 Wertheim
348 SNGANS 587
349 London = Philippe, p. 120, pl. 43, 8 = Weber 2060
350 SNGANS 588
351 SNGANS 591
352 Joannina = Philippe, p. 122, pl. 44, 26
353 Cambridge, Eng. = SNGFitz 2073
354 Wertheim
355 SNGANS 596 = Philippe, p. 122, pl. 44, 34
356 London = Philippe, p. 122, pl. 44, 35 = Weber 2061
357 SNGANS 597
359 SNGANS 598
360 SNGANS 599
361 SNGANS 618
362 Weber 2062
363 London
364 London

365 Berlin
366 SNGANS 652
367 G. Hirsch 32, 22 Oct. 1962, 2343
368 SNGANS 654
369 Berlin
370 Berlin
371 SNGANS 658
373 SNGANS 696 = Philippe, pp. 120 and 318, 2, pl. 43, 2, and pl. 52, 2; ex Arta ca. 1929 hoard
374 SNGANS 697
375 SNGANS 698
376 SNGANS 701
377 SNGANS 704
378 Berlin
379 SNGANS 714
380 SNGANS 719
381 Naville 1, 4 Apr. 1921, 860
382 SNGANS 734
383 SNGANS 724
384 SNGANS 726
385 Empedocles
Plate 15,386-87, Philip II Tenths. See p. 62, Table 14.
150
Key to Plates
Plate 15,388-92, Philip II Attic-Weight Drachms. See p. 62, Table 15.
388 Cambridge, Eng. = SNGLewis 500
389 Lanz 36, 21 Apr. 1986, 217
390 London
391 Berlin = Muller, p. 337, 10, and pl. XXVI, 273
392 Private collection
Plates 16-17,393449, Die Links between Philip II Groups. See Chapter 6 for individual coin
descriptions.
Plates 18-19, A-F and 450-65, Start of Alexander's Macedonian Silver Coinage. See pp. 86-88.
A ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 11, 5, stater of Mazaeus, struck at Tarsus
B ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 11, 6, stater of Mazaeus, struck at Tarsus
G ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 11, 7, Alexander tetradrachm, from first issue struck at Tarsus:
Tarsos 2
D SNGANS 112 = SNGBerry 79 = "Earliest Silver," pl. 12, 8, stater of Perdiccas III
E SNGANS 396 = "Earliest Silver," pl. 12, 10 = Philippe, Pella 314c, lifetime didrachm of Philip
II
F SNGANS 538 = "Earliest Silver," pl. 12, 9 = Philippe, Amphipolis 386b, lifetime or early
posthumous tetradrachm of Philip II
450 ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 12, 11 = "Earliest Coins," pl. 44, 1 = Reattrib., pl. 1, 1
453 ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 13, 14 = "Earliest Coins," pl. 44, 4 (enlargement of throne only)
454 G. Hirsch 21, 25 June 1959, 21

462 "Earliest Silver," pl. 14, 19 = Santamaria, 25 Oct. 1951, A429
463 ANS = "Earliest Coins," pl. 44, 3 and 5 (enlargement of throne)
465 Paris
Plates 20-23, 466-530, Alexander Lifetime Staters. See Chapter 10 for individual coin descriptions.
Plate 24, 53148, Alexander Distaters. See Chapter 11 for descriptions of 540-48.
534 Canessa 3, 28 June 1923, 41
535 Naville 16, 3 July 1933, 1022 = Naville 10, 15 June 1925, 435
537 Cambridge, Eng. = SNGFitz 2093 = Sicyon 7.1 (A8-P14)
538 Athens =? Naville 14, 2 July 1929, 198 = Ratto, 4 Apr. 1927, 566 = Sicyon 7.4 (A9-P17)
539 Cambridge, Eng. = SNGFitz 2092 = Naville 5, 18 June 1923, 1385 = Sicyon 7.17 (A13-P29)
Key to Plates
151
Plate 25, N12-N19 and A-R, Gold Comparative Materiai. See Chapters 10-13.
Tarsos stater issues and obverse dies.
N12 ANS. Tarsos 12, A-a = 010-C4.
N12 Berlin. Tarsos 12, B-a = 08-C4
N13 ANS. Tarsos 13, C-y = 09-T9
N14 London = Alexander 3004. Tarsos 14, D-S = 05-C2
N15 Kovacs 9, 21 Nov. 1988, 3 = Miinz. u. Med. 10, 22 June 1951, 240. Tarsos 15, F-f = 02-T2
N16 ANS. Tarsos 16, H-y)
N17 Berlin. Tarsos 17, J-6
N18 London = Alexander 3009. Tarsos 18, K-t
N19 Berlin. Tarsos 19, K-x
Enlargements of cantharus symbols
A ANS, 04-C1
B ANS, 06-C2
C ANS, 08-C3
D ANS, O10-C4
Late lifetime or early posthumous staters
E ANS = Tarsos, p. 23, fig. 10
F Leiden = Tarsos, p. 23, fig. 11
G Paris
H Stockholm
Staters with fulmen, or fulmen and A, markings
I Commerce 1994 hoard 21 (Appendix 4)
J ANS = Sicyon 8.1
K Cast of coin of unknown provenance

L CNG 32, 7 Dec. 1994, 1110, ex Commerce 1994 hoard lot A (Appendix 4)
Late lifetime or early posthumous staters, perhaps from a second Macedonian mint
M Samovodene hoard 52, a fulmen stater not in series 1 or 2
N Oxford = SNGAshm 2520, a fulmen stater not in series 1 or 2
O Brussels = de Hirsch 1049, a shield stater
Samovodene hoard coins
P Samovodene 56, O10-C4
Q Samovodene 28, Philip II, Philippe, Pella IIIA
R Samovodene 29, Philip II, Philippe, Pella IIIA
Plates 26-28, Commerce 1993 Hoard, Tetradrachms. See Appendix 1.
With the exception of 1, 47, and 50 in the Hersh collection, all the coins are in commerce, their
locations unknown.
Plate 29, Mende 1983 Hoard. See Appendix 2.
All the coins are in commerce, their locations unknown.
152 Key to Plates
Plate 30, Commerce 1993 Hoard, Gold. See Appendix 3.
Plate 31, Commerce 1994 Hoard, Gold. See Appendix 4.

INDICES
1. ALEXANDER'S AMPHIPOLIS SILVER MARKINGS
Tetradrachms (Chapter 1) are shown by group letter and issue number. Smaller coins (Chap-
ter 2) with the same markings are indicated by denomination only, the rare Zeus-reverse
drachms being shown by "Zeus-dr." Where the smaller coins have no exactly corresponding
tetradrachm issue, their group letters are given in parentheses. BAZ indicates the presence of the
title BAZIAEQZ on the tetradrachms, while "etc." is used for series not treated in detail in this
study which have varying subsidiary markings. Brackets enclose issues whose reliably reported
examples I have been unable to locate.
No marking
(E) dr, 3ob, 2ob, ob
Amphora
Antler BAI
Aplustre
Aplustre P
Arrow
Athena Promachus
Athena Promachus BAZ
Attic helmet
Axe P
B2
HI
D12
L3
(F) Zeus-dr
F4
G2
L10
Bow

See helmet, Attic
Bow and quiver
Bow and quiver BAZ
Branch, forked P
Branch, laurel
Branch, laurel BAI
Branch, laurel P BAZ
Bucranium
Bucranium A, etc.
Bucranium v, etc.
C6, 2dr, 2ob
F5
G3
LI
(E or F) Zeus-dr
J3
J6
E8, 2dr, dr, 2ob, Zeus-dr
See pp. 24 and 94-95
Caduceus
Caduceus
Caduceus il
Caduceus Jwi
Caduceus, filleted
Caduceus, filleted M
Caduceus, filleted
Cantharus
Cap, Phrygian BAZ
Club
Club ifi
B8
E9, 2dr, dr, 3ob, Zeus-dr
D7, 2dr?
D8, 2dr?
CI, 2dr
D6
(D) dr
B1
H2
D3
154
Index 1
Club iwi
Club, filleted P
Cock
Cornucopia
Cornucopia BAZ
Crescent
Crescent BAZ
Crescent P BAZ
Crescent P
Dolphin
Dolphin P
Double heads
Eagle head
Filleted caduceus, et ai.
Filleted club P
Forked branch P
Fulmen
Fulmen P
Fulmen I, etc.
Grain ear
Grain ear BAZ
Grain ear P BAZ
Grain ear P
Grapes
Heads, double

Helmet, Attic
Helmet, Macedonian BAZ
Herm
Horse head
Ivy leaf
Laurel branch
Macedonian helmet
Macedonian shield
Obelisk, star, X etc.
Pegasus forepart
Pentagram
Phrygian cap BAZ
Profile shield P
Prow
Quiver
D10
L2
E3, 2dr, 3ob, Zeus-dr
F3
G1
E7, 3ob, Zeus-dr
J2
J5
L5
D11, dr
L7
See heads, double
D1, dr, 2ob, ob
See caduceus, filleted
See club, filleted
See branch, forked
A4
L9
See p. 24
C3, 2dr, dr, 3ob, 2ob
J1
J4
L4
B7
A3, dr
B5
H3
E2, 2dr, 3ob
Alexander: Silver Markings
Rose E1, dr
Rudder A5
Scallop shell F1
Shield, Macedonian D2
Shield, profile P L8
Star D5, 2dr, 3ob, 2ob
Star, obelisk, X etc. See p. 24
Star in circle F2
Stern A2
Stylis B4
Torch A, etc. See pp. 24 and 94-95
Torch etc. See pp. 24 and 94-95
Trident head C4
Trident head BAZ H4
Tripod BAZ H5
Wreath B3, 3ob, ob
Wreath P L6
I fulmen, etc. See p. 24
A BAZ K1
A bucranium, etc. See pp. 24 and 94-95
A torch, etc. See pp. 24 and 94-95
AT BAZ K4
A A BAZ K5
A BAI K6
A P (or H BAI K2
A "E BAZ K3

M caduceus, filleted D6
P branch, laurel BAI J6
P crescent BAZ J5
P grain ear BAZ J4
T A BAZ K4
X obelisk, star, etc. See p. 24
m BAZ 12
A A BAZ K5
A BAZ K6
t bucranium, etc.
t torch, etc.
Index 1
M, Ffl, or variants BAZ II
filleted caduceus (D) dr
P (E or F) Zeus-
P aplustre L3
P axe L10
P branch, forked LI
P club, filleted L2
P crescent L5
P dolphin L7
P fulmen L9
P grain ear L4
P shield, profile L8
P wreath L6
P BAZ K7
P (or H A BAZ K2
B BAZ 13
J E5, dr
"E E l, 3ob
T A BAZ K3
ifl caduceus D7
il club D9
Jwi caduceus
iwi club
D8

D10
2. PHILIP II S POST-323 AMPHIPOLIS SILVER MARKINGS
The number of the group where each marking or set of markings is found is given, followed by
the known denominations: T = tetradrachms, f = fifths, t = tenths, and d = Attic-weight
drachms. The tetradrachms are found in Chapter 4, the smaller coins in Chapter 5. For series
not treated in detail in this study, "etc." indicates that varying subsidiary markings are also
employed. Brackets enclose issues whose reliably reported examples I have been unable to
locate.
Amphora
2? 3?
Aplustre P
Axe P
Bee M (or W)
T, f
Branch, forked
Branch, forked P
Branch, forked P

Branch, laurel
8?
f, t
Bucranium A, etc.
See pp.
24 and 94-95
Bucranium etc.
See pp.
24 and 94-95
Causia A
Causia E
T, f
Causia A
[T], f
Causia M
T, f
Causia T
Causia, globule A
Causia, globule E
Causia, globule M
Causia, globule T
T, f
Club A
Club /V
Index 2
Grapes A! 3 T, f
Grapes At 4 T, f
Ivy leaf A 3 T, f
Ivy leaf W (or W) 2 T
Laurel branch See branch, laurel
Shield, Macedonian 8 f
Shield, Macedonian P 8 T
Shield, profile 8 f
Shield, profile P 8 T
Shield, profile P 9 T?
Star 2? 3, 4? f
Star A 3 T, f
Star A? 4 T, f
Star PR (or Iff) 2 f
Torch A, etc. See pp. 24 and 94-95
Torch t, etc. See pp. 24 and 94-95
Trident head 8 T, f
Trident head P 8 T
Uncertain marking A 3 f
Wreath 9 T
Wreath A 6 T, f
Wreath E 6 T, f
Wreath A 6 T, f
Wreath M 6 T, f
Wreath T 6 T, f
Wreath O 6 T

Wreath P 9 T
Wreath "E 6 T
A causia 5 f
A causia, globule 5 T
A wreath 6 T, f
E causia 5 T, f
E causia, globule 5 T
E wreath 6 T, f
I fulmen, etc. See p. 24
A7f
A bucranium, etc. See pp. 24 and 94-95
A causia 5 [T], f
A torch, etc. See pp. 24 and 94-95
A wreath 6 T, f
A 1 7 T
Philip: Silver Markings
A7T
A P (or P)> 7 T
AF9T
AT 7 T
M causia 5 T, f
M causia, globule 5 f
M wreath 6 T, f
P aplustre 8 T
P crescent 8 T
P forked branch 8 T
P grain ear 8 T, d
P shield, profile 8 T
P trident head 8 T
T causia 5 T
T causia, globule 5 T, f
T wreath 6 T, f
<D wreath 6 T
Ai amphora 3 T?
Ai club 3 T?, f
Ai globule 3 T, f
Ai grapes 3 T, f
Ai ivy leaf 3 T, f
Ai star 3 T, f
Ai uncertain marking 3 f
Ai * 3 T
At club 4 T

At grapes 4 T, f
At star 4 T, f
At * (or re) 4 T, f
1 7 f
1 A 7 T
7f
A 7 T
$ bucranium, etc. See pp. 24 and 94-95
t torch, etc. See pp. 24 and 94-95
5, P, or r 7 f
P (or P) A 7 T
P aplustre 9 T
P axe 9 T
P crescent 9 T
160
Index 2
P dolphin
P forked branch
P grain ear
P shield, profile
T?
P wreath
PA
Ffl amphora
Ffl globule

Ffl (or SI) bee
T, f
Ffl (or SI) ivy leaf
Ffl (or SI) star
SI
Rl globule
"E wreath
"E A
*A
* (or rf) /f
T, f
3. GENERAL
Only subjects not covered in the detailed Table of Contents are included here.
1. Macedonian Coins
Alexander III, gold: cantharus, trident, and fulmen-symbol staters other than the earliest,
100-101, 107, 110, 121-22, 127; fulmen-symbol staters other than the earliest: see can-
tharus...staters and also shield-symbol staters; quarter staters, 100; reattribution to Mac-
edonia of Tarsos issues 12-15, 101-9; iconography, 107 8, 113; shield-symbol staters linked
with some early fulmen-symbol staters, but from a secondary mint, 127; staters termed
aTOL-rfipza xpuaoi <piXi7t7reioi or nummi aurei philippei at least by late Hellenistic and Roman
times, 123
Alexander III, silver: drachms' reverse change from eagle to Zeus, 31-35, 71, 91; smaller coins
not divisions of eagle-reverse tetradrachms or staters of Macedonian weight, 35; earliest coins'
reverses modeled on Alexanders from Tarsus, 86-89; earliest coins' obverses modeled on coins
of Perdiccas III and Philip II, 87; iconographic variations in groups E and F, 35-36, 91-92;
BAEIAEQZ: introduction, discontinuance, and reference to Alexander IV, 92-98
Alexander III, bronze: eagle-reverse bronzes probably not related to eagle-reverse silver coins, 35
Alexander IV: BASIAEQi; as reference to, 96-98
Amphipolis: traditional but not certain mint of Alexander silver, 19; at the ANS considered the
chief gold mint, 99, 110
Pella: perhaps Alexander's chief Macedonian gold mint, 99 and 109 10
Perdiccas III: silver stater obverses as models for earliest Macedonian Alexander silver, 87
Philip II, gold: interchangeable everywhere with Alexander gold, 89, 122-23; terminus ante
quem of lifetime gold, 89-90, 125-26; Philippe s gold Pella groups compared to earliest Alex-
ander staters, 109-10; possibility of a small output at Corinth, 124-25
Philip II, silver: lifetime didrachm obverses as models for earliest Macedonian Alexander silver,
87; terminus ante quem of lifetime issues, 89-90; found in mainland and northern Greece but
not elsewhere, 89, 122

2. Alexander III Coins of Non-Macedonian Mints
Mere hoard occurrences are not indexed; they are included only when they occasion discussion
or further references.
Ake: possible reattribution to Tyre, 84
Amathus: reattribution to Cypriot Soli, 113, 131
Aradus: chronology, 74, 85, 92
Babylon: chronology, 74-75, 81, 84 85; chronology and introduction of BASIAEQIl, 92-93;
problems of attribution, 84-85
Damascus: possible mint of Sidon 1-7, 116
Miletus: chronology of Miletus Series I, 136
Salamis: order and chronology of stater issues, 116-18, 125, 139
Sardes: gold may have commenced later than Sardes and Miletus's 330 B.C., 125
Sicyon: separation of Sicyon 6-8 from remaining Sicyon gold, and probable Macedonian origin,
112-13, 116, 128
Sidon: Sidon 1-7 perhaps struck at Damascus, 116
Soli (Cypriot): reattribution of "Amathus" coins, 113, 131
Tarsus: silver reverses as models for earliest Macedonian Alexander silver, 86 89; introduction of
BASIAEQH, 93; Tarsos stater issues 12-15 reattributed to Macedonia, 101-109; earliest gold
330 B.C. or later, 125
Tyre: possible reattribution to of Ake coins, 84

PLATES

Plate 1
ALEXANDER TETRADRACHMS

Plate 2

Plate 3

Plate 4


Plate 6
PIate 7
I)4
138
D5
1)7/8
139 /
140
D9
141
142
E2
143
E3
144
a8
145
E8
146
a9
147
A1 148 A3 149 B6 150 C3 151 D1 152 I)4 153 D- 154 1)11 155
mm
E1
ji
156 E5 157 E6 158 EH 159 E8 160
8 161 K9 162 E9 163 164 K- 165 E- 166 K- 167 E- 168

ALEXANDER: SMALL COINS
8 3JW
SNI0C 11AMS :HNDAX31A
viz eiz ziz uz oiz _60z
#&&#o
-a i a so 9H 9H j.h
S ) Q
IOZ '.I Z.OZ S I 90S SOZ 8E *0Z 'Jd EOZ HI ZOZ HI VYlJ 002 J:') 661 9H 861 9H 61 IV
m ^ ^m i o" i ^
96i -a 961 -a
*6i fia
61 Z61 6E
161 Ha
061
681 L7\

881 7a m 9si ea ssi ca *si ea esi sa zsi t:o isi 9H osi s:h

Plate 9
ALEXANDER: OBVERSE LINKS BETWEEN GROUPS

Plate 10

Plate 11

Plate 12
PHILIP II TETRADRACHMS

PIate 13
PHILIP II TETRADRACHMS

Plate 14
PHILIP II: TETRADRACHMS AND SMALL COINS

5 355 5 356 5 357
5 358
361 6 362 6 363 6 364
7 366 7 367 7 368 7 369
7 370
8 373 8 374 g 375 8 376 8 377
8 380 8 381 8 382 8 383 8 384
^ lb?
8 386 8 387
8 388 8 389 8 390
PHILIP II: SMALL COINS

Plate 16

Plate 17
PHILIP II: OBVERSE LINKS BETWEEN GROUPS

PIate 18
THE START OF THE MACEDONIAN ALEXANDERS

PIate 19
THE START OF THE MACEDONIAN ALEXANDERS

Plate 20
iI
07 ^^^^ 477 ^^^^F C3
ALEXANDER STATERS: SERIES I (466-76) AND 2 (477-79)
Plate 21
010 480 G4
.,^^^^^^481 ^^^^^34
012 482 C5
^^^^
012 483 C6
01^^^^ 484 ^^^^.,.7
^)
Oil 485 C8
498
499 T10
500 Ti1
010 501 Ti1
502 112
012 503 T12
012 504 T13
013^"^ 505 T13
013 506
Oi1 507 T13
014^^^^ 508 ^^^^11.")
.,^^^^^ 509 ^^^^^1 >
ALEXANDER STATERS: SERIES 2
As
01 1 519

015 520 II

Plate 22
ALEXANDER STATERS: SERIES 2

Plate 23
ALEXANDER STATERS: PROBABLY SERIES 2

Plate 24
532
533
534
ALEXANDER DISTATERS

PIate 25
N16 II-7) N17 _ J-6 N18 K-i N19 K-k
CI
C2
^^^^^ ^^^^^
'^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
CI
II
ALEXANDER GOLD: COMPARATIVE MATERIAL

Plate 26
COMMERCE 1993 HOARD (APPENDIX 1)

PIate 27

PIate 28
COMMERCE I993 HOARD (APPENDIX 1)


Plate 30
COMMERCE I993 HOARD (APPENDIX 3)

COMMERCE I994 HOARD l-3I (APPENDIX 4)

Studies in The Macedonian Coinage of Alexander The Great / Hyla A. Troxell

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Studies in The Macedonian Coinage of Alexander The Great / Hyla A. Troxell

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 18:50 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.

STUDIES IN THE MACEDONIAN

ALEXANDER THE GREAT

THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 18:50 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015041531644

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 18:50 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015041531644

Obverse of a group F tetradrachm of no particular significance,

selected merely for the appealing depiction of the

dead lion's eyelashes (private collection).

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 18:50 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015041531644

Dedicated to the memory of

with awe and affection

Issues and Groups 20

The Size of the Groups 25

Concordance to and Commentary on Alexander Issues 26

2: Alexander Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm 30

Issues and Groups 30

Concordance to and Commentary on Alexander Issues 37

3: Alexander Groups: Relative Chronology 41

4: Post-323 Philip II Tetradrachm Reissues 51

Issues and Groups 51

The Size of the Groups 54

Commentary on Philippe Issues 55

5: Post-323 Philip II Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm 56

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 18:50 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015041531644

Commentary on Philippe Issues 63

6: Philip II Groups: Relative Chronology 65

7: Alexander and Philip Groups: Summary and Relative Chronology 71

8: The Silver Hoards 73

9: Alexanders and Philips: Absolute Chronology 86

Groups A-D and the Start of the Coinage 86

Group G and the Introduction of the Title 92

Group L and the Dropping of the Title 94

Alexander's Lifetime Gold

10: The Lifetime Staters 100

The Coins and Their Attribution 107

Commentary on Alexander Issues 110

11: Three Groups of Distaters 112

12: The Gold Hoards 115

Alphabetical Index 115

Individual Hoards 115

13: Gold Discussion and Chronology 122

The Lifetime Staters 122

Other Cantharus, Trident, and Fulmen Staters 127

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 18:50 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015041531644

1. Alexander Tetradrachm Groups and Issues 21

2. Alexander Tetradrachm Group Sizes 26

3. Alexander Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm: Groups and Issues 30

4. Alexander Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm: Examples Located 33

5. Alexander Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm: Obverse Dies Located 34

6. Alexander Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm: Reverse Types 34

7. Post-323 Philip II Tetradrachm Groups and Issues 52

8. Post-323 Philip II Tetradrachm Group Sizes 54

9. Philip II Fifths: Groups and Issues 57

10. Philip II Tetradrachms and Fifths: Examples Located 59

11. Occurrence of Symbols on Philip II Fifths and on Tetradrachms of Groups 8 and 9 59

12. Philip II Tetradrachms and Fifths: Examples Located 60

13. Certain Philip II Tetradrachms and Fifths: Examples Located 61

14. Philip II Tenths 62

15. Philip II Attic-Weight Drachms 62

16. Summary of Relative Chronology of Alexander and Philip II Tetradrachms and of

Accompanying Smaller Coins 71

17. Relative Amounts of Silver Struck as Measured by Estimated Dies 72