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

NUMISMATIC STUDIES
No.
21
Obverse of a group F tetradrachm

selected
dead
of no particular
merely for the appealing depiction

lion's eyelashes
(private
significance,
of the
collection).
STUDIES IN THE MACEDONIAN

COINAGE OF
ALEXANDER THE GREAT

BY
HYLA A. TROXELL
NUMISMATIC STUDIES
No. 21
THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY

NEW YORK
1997
11*1ti, i -4 U l'
Indiana University
JUL 11
o
OC
L'fcKr. [ 5,
1597
Library
[V
COPYRIGHT
THE AMERICAN
1997
NUMISMATIC
SOCIETY
ISSN-0517-404x
ISRN 0-89722-261-x
PRINTED IN BELGIUM AT CULTURA, WETTEREN
Dedicated to the memory of
MARGARET THOMPSON,
with awe and affection
in equal measure
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
11
Abbreviations
1. Publications
13
13
2.
Sale Catalogues
14
3.
Collections
15
Introduction
17
Part I
Amphipolis Silver of Alexander
1:
III
and Philip
II,
ca. 332 - ca. 310 B.C.
Alexander Tetradrachms
20
Issues and Groups

The Size of the Groups
Concordance
2:
25
to and Commentary on Alexander
Issues
Alexander Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm
30
30
Discussion
35
to and Commentary on Alexander
Alexander Groups:
Obverse Links
Other Evidence
Issues
Relative Chronology
Post-323 Philip
41
47
48
II
Tetradrachm Reissues
51
Issues and Groups

The Size of the Groups
Commentary on Philippe
51
54
Issues
55
Philip II Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm

Fifths
Tenths
Attic-Weight Drachms
Commentary on Philippe Issues
5: Post-323
6:
Philip
II
Groups:
Obverse
37
41
Discussion
4:
26
Issues and Groups

Concordance
3:
20
Relative Chronology
8:
The Silver Hoards

Alphabetical Index
Individual Hoards
62
63
65
Discussion
Alexander and Philip Groups:
56
61
65
Links
7:
56
69
Summary and Relative Chronology
71
73
73
73
Table of Contents
Hoard Summary
Discussion
9:
83
84
Alexanders and Philips: Absolute Chronology

Groups A-D and the Start of the Coinage
Groups E-F
Group G and the Introduction of the Title
Groups H-I
Groups K-J
Group L and the Dropping of the Title
Philip II Reissues
Summary
Part
86
86
90
92
93
93
94
95
95
II
Alexander's Lifetime Gold

10:
The Lifetime Staters
100
Catalogue
101
The Coins and Their Attribution

Commentary on Alexander Issues
107
110
11:
Three Groups of Distaters
112
12:
The Gold Hoards

Alphabetical Index
Individual Hoards
115
Gold Discussion and Chronology

The Lifetime Staters
Other Cantharus, Trident, and Fulmen Staters
Distaters
Summary
122
13:
115
115
122
127
128
128
Tables
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Alexander
Alexander
Alexander
Alexander
Alexander
Alexander
Tetradrachm Groups and Issues

Tetradrachm Group Sizes
Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm: Groups and Issues
Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm: Examples Located
Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm: Obverse Dies Located
Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm: Reverse Types
Post-323 Philip II Tetradrachm Groups and Issues
Post-323 Philip II Tetradrachm Group Sizes
Philip II Fifths: Groups and Issues
Philip II Tetradrachms and Fifths: Examples Located
Occurrence of Symbols on Philip II Fifths and on Tetradrachms of Groups 8 and 9
Philip II Tetradrachms and Fifths: Examples Located
Certain Philip II Tetradrachms and Fifths: Examples Located
Philip II Tenths
Philip II Attic-Weight Drachms
Summary of Relative Chronology of Alexander and Philip II Tetradrachms and of
Accompanying Smaller Coins
Relative Amounts of Silver Struck as Measured by Estimated Dies
21
26
30
33
34
34
52
54
57
59
59
60
61
62
62
71
72
Table of Contents
Percentages
18.
Macedonian
K/J
20. Concordance
of Newell's Tarsos
Dies and Troxell Dies
21. Comparison of Series 1 and 2 with Philippe

22. Comparison
of Sicyon 1-5, 6-8, and 9-16
23. Gold Hoards Buried by ca. 315 B.C
24. Philippe Group II Gold Coins in Selected
Pella Groups
5.
6.
7.
8.
94
100
108
110
112
121
Hoards
Figures
Alexander Tetradrachms: Die Links within Group H
Die Links between Alexander Groups
Die Links between Philip II Groups
of Newell and Troxell Dating
Comparison
Die Linkage in Series 1 and Series 2
Die Linkage among Group C Distaters
1-3.
4.
in Hoards Containing 10 or More
Coins
Gold Coins
19.
K/J in Groups A through

of Groups A through K/J
and Obverse Dies Located
of I and
124
24-25
47
69
96
106
114
Appendices
Hoard, Tetradrachms
Mende 1983 Hoard, Gold
Commerce 1993 Hoard, Gold
1. Commerce
2.
3.
4.
Key
1993
129
134
137
141
to Plates
145
Indices
Alexander's Amphipolis Silver Markings

Philip Il's Post-323 Amphipolis Silver Markings
153
2.
3.
General
161
1.
157
PREFACE
Not the least of the attractions
of numismatics is the kindness and helpfulness of numismatists

and help of all sorts with this study I thank Maria Akamati, Michel
Harlan S. Berk, Mark Blackburn, Theodore V. Buttrey, A. S. De
Amandry, Carmen Arnold-Biucchi,
Shazo, Kamen Dimitrov, U. L. Diucov, Peter R. Franke, Stephen C. Glover, Silvia M. Hurter, Jonathan
themselves. For information
K. Kern, Frank Kovacs, Anne Kromann,
Peter L. Lampinen, Katerini Liampi, Joseph P. Linzalone,

Mando Oeconomides, Constantin Preda, Katerina Romiopoulou, Hans-Dietrich
Schultz, Iannis Touratsoglou, J. P. A. Van der Vijn, Hans Vogtli, Kerry K. Wetterstrom, and Orestes
Valerii P. Nikonorov,
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
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
illustrations
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
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.
offered willingly,
11
ABBREVIATIONS
1. Publications
Abydus
ACNAC
AJA
AJN
Ake
Alexander
AMNG
Andritsaena
ANSMN
ANSNNM
ANSNS
"Babylon
Mint"
Abydus die numbers in Lampsacus and Abydus

Ancient Coins in North American Collections (American Numismatic Society, New York)
American Journal of Archaeology
American Journal of Numismatics
Ake issue numbers in Sidon and Ake
M. J. Price, The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus (Zurich
and London, 1991)
Die antiken Miinzen 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. O. 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
B. V. Head, A Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Macedonia, etc. (London, 1879)
BMC
"Cavalla"
M. Thompson, "The Cavalla Hoard (IGCH 450)," 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 190,5, ANSNNM 19 (New York, 1923)
The Arthur S. Dewing Collection of Greek Coins, ACNAC 6, ed. L. Mildenberg and S. Hurter
Dewing
(New York, 1985)
"Earliest Coins" O. Zervos, "The Earliest Coins of Alexander the Great 1. Notes on a Book by Gerhard
Kleiner," NC 1982, pp. 166-79
"Earliest Silver" 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,
ESM
ANSNS 1 (New York, 1938)
HN
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,
Hunter
voi. I (Glasgow,
1899)
An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards, ed. M. Thompson, 0. Merkholm, and C. M. Kraay
IGCH
(New York, 1973)
JNFA
Journal of Numismatic Fine Arts
JNG
Jahrbuch fur Numismatik und Geldgeschichte
Lampsacus die numbers in Lampsacus and Abydus
Lampsacus
Lampsacus and Abydus M. Thompson, Alexander's Drachm Mints 2. Lampsacus and Abydus, ANSNS 19 (New
York, 1991)
McClean
S. W. Grose, Catalogue of the McClean Collection of Greek Coins, 2 (Cambridge,
1926)
MFA
A. B. Brett, Catalogue of Greek Coins [Museum of Fine Arts] (Boston, 1955)
Miletus
Miletus die numbers in Sardes and Miletus
Monn. gr.
F. Imhoof-Blumer, Monnaies grecques (Amsterdam, 1883)
Miiller
L. Muller, N umismatique d' Alexandre le Grand, suivie d'un appendice contenant les monnaies
de Philippe
et
(Copenhagen,
1855)
"Babylon"
II
III
13
Abbreviations
11
E. T. Newell, Myriandros- Alexandria Kat'isson, AJN 53, 2 (1919), rpt. New York (1920)
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
K. Dimitrov, "Tresor monetaire hellenistique de Nicopolis ad Nestum (IGCH 829),"
"Nicopolis"
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
G. Le Rider, Le monnayage d'argent el d'or de Philippe
Philippe
frappi en Macedoine de 359 d 294
(Paris, 1977)
0. Zervos, "Early Tetradrachms of Ptolemy I," ANSMN 13 (1967), pp. 1-16
"Ptolemy"
RBN
Revue Beige 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
Revue 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,
Myriandros
NC
II
1983)
S. P. Noe,
Sicyon
Sidon
Sidon
and Ake
SNGANS
SNGAshm
SNGBerry
SNGCop
SNGDavis
The Alexander
Coinage of Sicyon, ANSNS 6 (New York, 1950)
Sidon issue numbers in Sidon and Ake
E. T. Newell, The Dated Alexander Coinage of Sidon and Ake, Yale Oriental Series,
Researches 2 (New Haven and London, 1916)
Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum The American Numismatic Society, p. 8, Macedonia 2: Alex
ander I - Philip
(New York, 1994)
Museum Oxford
Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum [Great Britain), voi. 5, pt. 2, Ashmolean
(London, 1969)
Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum The Burton Y. Berry Collection (New York, 1961-62)
Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish National
Museum (Copenhagen,
1955)
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
II
don,
SNGFitz
SNGLewis
1936)
Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum [Great Britain],
General Collections (London, 1967)
voi.
4, Fitzwilliam
Museum: Leake and
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
Traiti
E. Babelon, Traite des monnaies grecques et romaines, pt. 2, voi. 4, (Paris, 1932)
Watcher de Molthein L. Walcher de Molthein, Catalogue de la collection des medailles grecques de. . . Leopold
Walcher 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)
E. T. Newell, The Coinage of the Western Seleucid Mints from Seleucus I to Antiochus III,
WSM
ANSNS 4 (New York, 1941)
2. Sale
Sylloge
Catalogues
Artemis
Artemis Antiquities, St. Petersburg, Florida
Auctiones
Auctiones A. G., Basel
Ball
Robert Ball Nachf., Berlin
Bank Leu
Bank Leu A.G., Zurich
Berk
Harlan J. Berk, Chicago, Illinois
Birkler & Wadd ell 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
Briider Egger, Vienna

Frankfurter Munzhandlung, Frankfurt am Main
Giessener
Giessener Munzhandlung, 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 Munzen, Lugano
Lanz
Numismatic Lanz, Munich
Leu
See Bank Leu
Alex G. Malloy, Inc., South Salem, New York
Malloy
Mid-American
Mid-American Rare Coin Auctions, Inc., Lexington, Kentucky
J. C. Morgenthau and Co., New York, New York.
Morgenthau
Miinz. u. Med.
Munzen und Medaillen A.G., Basel
Robert J. Myers, New York, New York
Myers
Naville
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
Peus
Busso Peus, Frankfurt am Main
Piatt
Clement Piatt, Paris
Ratto, M.
Mario Ratto, Milan
Ratto, R.
Rodolfo Ratto, Milan
Rauch
Hans Dieter Rauch, Vienna
Rollin & Feuardent Rollin & Feuardent, Paris
Santamaria
P. & P. Santamaria, Rome
Schulman
Jacques Schulman, Amsterdam
Kreditanstalt, Bern
Schweizerische
Kreditanstalt Schweizerische
Shore
Fred B. Shore (The Parthian), Fort Washington, Pennsylvania
Sotheby
Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge (1924) or Sotheby & Co. (1969), London
Stack's, New York, New York
Stack's
Frank Sternberg, Zurich
Sternberg
Tradart, Geneva
Tradart
Egger
Frankfurter
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
the present location of many of the coins themselves is not known. Many collectors of decades
photographs,
In a few cases
ago cannot be identified, and many once known older collections are now no doubt dispersed.
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.
Aberdeen
ANS
Athens
Marischal College
American Numismatic Society, New York
National Archaeological Museum
16
Abbreviations
Beirut
American University
Berlin
Staatliche Museen, Munzkabinett
Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria Historical Museum
Brett
Agnes Baldwin Brett
England See the individual publications cited
Cambridge,
Massachusetts
Harvard University, Fogg Art Museum
Cambridge,
Nationalmuseet, Royal Collection of Coins and Medals
Copenhagen
Dattari
Private collector, Cairo
Private collector, Athens. Many Empedocles
coins are in the National Archaeological
Empedocles
Museum,
but those here cited simply as "Empedocles" are not there
Florence
Museo Archeologico
Gillette
George A. Gillette, Rochester, New York
Hunterian Museum
Glasgow
Museum fiir Kunst und Gewerbe
Hamburg
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
Museo Archeologico Nazionale
Naples
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 TaYnovo, Bulgaria Regional Museum of History
Verroia, Greece
Archaeological Museum
Vienna
Kunsthistorisches Museum
Wertheim
Julius Wertheim, Berlin
Mr. E. Zygman
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 mints whose 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
No attempt was made to assemble a corpus, but the ANS's rich
were not present in Demanhur.1
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
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
small
tetradrachms.
Each of these three other silver series has helped to illuminate the main output of this chief
mint, the enormous strikings of Alexander tetradrachms. Die links and iconographical 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
Macedonian
and could
All
not be omitted.2
the series studied
exhibit random die axis relationships.

The Alexanders, silver and gold,
with a tetradrachm of ca. 17.2 g; the Philip tetradrachms are on the
are on the Attic standard,
1 Demanhur.
See Chapter 8, hoard 10, for additions to its Amphipolis
2 Chapter 8, hoards 4 and 7, and Chapter 12, hoards 7-8.
17
component.
Introduction
18
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 Reattribution 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
smaller coins. It does not include gold coins.
many of their corresponding
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 Neweli. 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 section i.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 II's
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 T-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 F perhaps 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
10
This last then is the only place where I differ from that great
they accompanied only group 8.
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 to or indeed
two basic and persistent questions : the coins' mint or mints, and
the reason for the reissue after Alexander's death of Philip II's coins." I happily leave to others
make much effort to address
the enjoyment of puzzling over these questions
3 See
p. 22.
4 See
p. 32.
5 See
p. 23.
6 See
p. 28, comments on Alexander issue
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 See
11 On
and wish
all success to them.
140.
pp. 58-62.
this last question,

see now
323-294/290," BCH 1993, pp. 491-500.
G.
Le
Rider,
"Les
deux
monnaies
macedoniennes
des
annees
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
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 Amphipolis but 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.
of Amphipolis.
19
1.
ALEXANDER
TETRADRAGHMS
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 fall. 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'?, 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 II's 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 Alexander1 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. 26-32, 65-66, finalizing the classification presented in Reattrib.
pp. 5-23, and Demanhur,
2 The exceptions are very small issues in groups K and L (K3, K5, K6, L2, L9), whose markings make their
certain.
group placements
3 See above, n. 1.
4 See
pp. 49-50.
5 Alexander,
pp. 89-103, with the addition of some issues from p. 132.
6 See
Philip reissues.
Chapters 4-6 for these late posthumous
7 Alexander,
pp. 89-103 and 132.
1.
21
The tetradrachms' types are

Obv. : Beardless
r., wearing lion's skin headdress.

(or BAZIAEQZ AAEEANAPOY in groups G, H, I,
holding scepter and eagle.
head of Heracles
Table
Alexander Tetradrachm Groups
and
and
Issues
Alexander
Initial
Issue
Demanhur
Coin No.
Found
4*
Plate
Markings
Issue
K,
seated
i.,
Rev. : AAEEANAPOY
82
5*
56
56
6*
91
65
8*. 9*
132
31
10*, 11*
151
16
Examples
AAEEANAPOY
A4
P?
Double heads
Fulmen
Rudder
Group B, 212 coins

Cantharus
Amphora
Wreath
Stylis
Attic helmet
Bl
B2
B3
B4
B5
12*
254
20
10
13*
162
48
11
14*
229
16
12
20*
240
22*
243
11
A5
Stern
Prow
1,
A2
A3
Group A, 250 coins

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
P
P
Al
13
21*,
14
B6
Ivy leaf
15
23*
266
55
B7
Grapes
16
29*
198
48
B8
Caduceus
18
32*
247
Filleted caduceus
19
36*
332
10
Quiver
Grain ear
20
38*
302
24
21
39, 39A
317
10
17
(also in E)"
C2
C3
C5
C6
Trident head
Pegasus forepart
Bow
C4
22
23
43*
327
Group C, 87 coins
CI
24
44*
340
27
25
48*
361
13
Macedonian shield
26
51*
373
32
27
57*
395
38
29
58*
422
head
Eagle
D2
30
59*
490
27
31
61*
501
16
32
65
426
Group D, 216 coins
Dl
33
34
66*
472
12
67*
481
10
36
70*
427
29
37
71*
455
20
D1
D5
D6
D7
D8
iwi.
35
has the shape
?;
in
D10
il
Caduceus
Club Jl
Club iwi.
D9
The caduceus
Caduceus
Club
Horse head
Star
Filleted caduceus
D3
28
in E9, Y.
J).
Zeus
I. Amphipolis
22
Issue
Dll
Silver, ca.
Markings
Plate
Dolphin
Aplustre
332 - ca. 310
Alexander
Initial
Issue
Demanhur
Coin No.
Examples
Found
38
73*
509
15
39
75*
514
- 40
76*
520
41
78*
716
124
42
43
L 44
79*
792
174
83*
536
75
84*
529
12
Pentagram
46
87*
521
13
E7
K8
Crescent
46
89*
579
54
93*
656
92
E9
Caduceus
48
99*
614
58
50
102*
51
103*
895
20
52
104*
909
76
D12
Group E, 605 coins
El
Rose"
E2
E3
Herm
Cock
K1
"E
E5
i-:ti
- 47
Bucranium
(also
L 48
in B)r
Group F, 224 coins

Scallop shell
Star in circle
Cornucopia
F1
F2
F3
53
Athena Promachus
Bow and quiver
F4
F5
54
105*
967
85
55
106*
1014
41
56
AAEEANAPOY
BAZIAEQZ
or BAZIAEQZ
AAEEANAPOY
Group- G, 287 coins
Gl
Cornucopia
Athena Promachus
Bow and quiver
G2
G3
BAZIAEQZ
57
108*
1043
111
58
109*
1100
107
59
110*
1168
69
AAEEANAPOY
Group H, 455 coins
HI
Antler*1
60
111*
1210
84
H2
Phrygian cap
Macedonian helmet
Trident head
Tripod
61
112*
1344
181
62
113*
1251
142
63
114*
1456
64
115*
1458
45
r65
(118*),
1471
40
(119*)
II3
III
H5
I1
P?
b This small issue
Group I, 177 coins

M, W, etc.c
El
is catalogued where Newell placed it in Demanhur.

above (40 and 44), but in Reattrib. (p. 10, issue
knew the die link shown

specimen
It
is not clear whether
XXVII),
he eventually
he commented
on the one
of previous coins [of group

style and workmanship with the following [group E[." Once again,
as there is now known a second obverse die in the issue, which was
17. El might thus belong to either D or E, but is here left in its
D and E are joined by one known obverse die.
he knew from the issue that the coin's "obverse
resembles
D), while the reverse is almost identical in

Newell's remarkable sense of style is clear,
used also in group D: see Chapter 3, link
traditional place. In either case, groups
c See issue B8 with note a, above.
d "Antler," the
accepted name for this symbol, is unsatisfactory.
c See
p. 27, commentary on Alexander issues 118-19.
the obverses
It
often looks more like a ragged branch.
1.
Plate
Markings
Issue
I2
Alexander
Initial
Issue
Demanhur
Coin No.
Found
120*
1488
63
121*
.1512
74
1 66
1 67
IN
Examples
68
I3
L69
70
Kl
K2
Group K,'
A
A,
18 coins
P)
(or
71-
72
421*,
'
1582
10
425, 426
73
74
K3
K4
K5
K6
K7
P
P
Group
Jl
75
A T
A T
A A
A
J,
J5 P P
J6
423
78
79
424
80
427
[-81
82
Crescent
J3
Laurel
J4 P P grain
422
77-
424A
1
1
1
2
147 coins
Grain ear
.12
76
116*
1538
117A
3
3
branch
83
117
1563
ear
84
122*
1541
46
123*
1551
34
124*
1564
59
91
14
52
12
85
crescent
86
87
laurel branch
L88
89
AAEEANAPOY
Group L,
LI P P
L2
L3
P P
coins
271
forked branch
90
(126*),
140
filleted club
91
aplustre
92
(127*),
128
129*,
(135)
93
L4
94
grain
ear
95
130*
96
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
L10P P
' For discussion
crescent
wreath
dolphin
profile shield
97
98
131*
99
132*
100
133*
101
136*.
fulmen
102
(137)
138
axe
103
139
of the disputed
placement
and even attribution
of group
K,
12
69
2
6
see pp. 49 50.
I. Amphipolis
24
Silver, ca.
Succeeding groups, all inscribed AAE=ANAPOY

to a die study. They include:
332 - ca. 310
and struck before
ca. 295 B.C.,8
were not
subjected
P
P
P
P
A or t
t over
A over
fulmen
star,
over bucranium, and varying additional marking;

race torch, and varying additional marking;
race torch, and varying additional marking or markings;
over
obelisk,
I,
and varying additional marking; and
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 identies. All coins are illustrated on Plates 5-6.
Figures
1-3
Alexander Tetradrachms:
Die Links within Group H
Obverse
HI
H2
Phrygian
Antler
Cap
H3
Macedonian
Helmet
Figure
104
H4
H5
Trident
Tripod
106 -i
108 J
105
107
Figure
109
111113115r
110
112
114
116
117
118
119
8 For these issues, see "Tetradrachms
Amphipolis."
120
121
Ehrhardt here also notes the posthumous Philip
I.
II
issues which were struck in parallel with the Alexanders through those with fulmen over
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.
1.
Figure
25
123
122
124
125
126
127
130 ]
129
128
A further confirmation of the contemporaneity of issues within groups is provided by the

groups described in Chapter 3. Issues struck in linear sequence would
obverse links between
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
great number
for
of issues.
THE SIZE OF THE GROUPS

Newell's coin numbers, as they are found on the ANS's coin boxes, cast cards, and photo file
only, and they encompass many numbers for which
cards, are provisional working numbers
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
there seem to be no examples.
consequently
cannot be taken as cumulative and do not show the total numbers
his die numbers
For example, in group I, his die numbers run from 660

numbers. Three pairs of those numbers, however, were given to
of obverse dies in the various groups.
through 723, for a total of

identical dies, for a loss of
64
the trays and not mentioned
Newell's apparent total of

obtain in each group.
Table
Similarly, there are
3.
in his notebooks),
dies for group
64
2 shows the numbers
13 numbers
with no examples known (not in
and I have found 8 additional dies.
I, there seem to
be
Instead
of
only 56. Similar situations
of coins studied in the various groups and the numbers
of obverse
"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
dies identified in each group.
with another group.

by the useful
The final column, the number of estimated
equations
Group E (605 coins,

seems probable,
a close
rival
(511
published
193 dies
known and
arrived at
is clearly the largest group, but, if as

into one group, then that resulting group would be
241 estimated)
and G should be combined

coins,
dies, is the number
by G. F. Carter.9
162.5 dies known and 203 estimated).
"A Simplified Method for Calculating
Group L was also very large.
the Original Number of Dies from Die Link Statistics," ANSMN

from the total numbers of coins and
28 (1983), pp. 195-206, at p. 202. The total estimated dies are calculated
dies, not by the addition of the estimated
dies in the various groups.
I. Amphipolis
26
Silver,
ca. 332 - ca. 310
Table
Alexander Tetradrachm Group Sizes

Obverse
Coins
Group
Obv. Dies
88
250
72.5
3.45
212
43.5
4.64
19
87
16
5.50
18
216
62.5
3.46
76
E
F
605
193
3.13
241
224
71
3.15
89
G
H
287
91.5
3.14
111
455
97
4.69
109
177
56
3.14
70
18
2.57
10
147
2,678
30
4.90
33
740
3.62
885
271
139
1.95
232
2,949
879
3.34
1,075
Totals
L
Totals
A-K/J
CONCORDANCE TO AND COMMENTARY

Troxell
ander
Issue
Estimated
Ratios
A
B
Alex-
Coin/Die
Dies
ON
ALEXANDER ISSUES
Issue
1,4
Al
A2
A3
A4
6
8, 9
10,
11
12
A5
Bl
36
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
CI
13
14
20
21, 22
23
29
32
38
C2
39, 39A
C3
43
C4
44
C5
48
C6
51
Dl
57
58
59
61
D2
D3
D4
D5
The prow on 1 faces r., on 4 i. The difference is significant, as the right-facing

prow seems to appear on the very earliest coins of the issue. See pp. 87 89.
The fulmen is slanted on 8; on 9 it is vertical, large, and crude. Alexander's

illustrated example of 9 perhaps shows a recut symboi. Other vertical fulmens
are smaller and more neatly executed.
The rudder has tiller up on 10, down on 11.
The Attic helmet faces r. on 21, l. on 22.
The grain ear is vertical on 39, slanted on 39A.
1.
65
D7
67
D8
D9
71
Dll
75
D12
78
79
83
84
87
89
93
99
102
El
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
E7
E8
E9
Fl
106
F2
F3
F4
F5
108
Gl
109
G2
110
G3
103
104
105
27
D10
73
76
Tetradrachms
D6
66
70
Alexander
The issue is described with AAEEANAPOY
110A
BAZIAEQZ,
and with dolphin l. in l.
issue 40 (pi. 9, 8). The symbol however seems

cornucopia of group G (as indeed Newell suggested,
field; the reference is to Reattrib.,
to be merely a degenerated
p. 33, n. 39), cut over the Athena Promachus of that group.
111
112
113
114
115
116
HI
Jl
Issues 116-17A are wrongly placed
part of group
links between
117A
118, 119
J3
J2
II
Alexander
from
120
13
122
J4
J5
J6
124
125
117A
J.
(J2)
Alexander
and 124
here, between groups H and I. They are

even, exceptionally (p. 86), notes obverse
(J6),
and between
117
(J3)
and
124.
lists and illustrates two variations, M and M (actually M, as is clear
a cast
at the ANS),
of the usual
monograms.
See 65-66.
12
121
123
110A is a
H2
H3
H4
H5
merely
117
Issue
phantom.
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.
I. Amphipolis
28
Silver,
ca. 332 - ca. 310
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
Issue 126 is a
examples of group L, and belongs instead in issue 140, below.
126
phantom.
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
127
128,
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
[L3]
136
L8
137
[L8]
138
L9
L10
139
so issue
127
is a phantom.
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
140
LI
421,
K2
425, 426
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.
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.
The cowrie shell described
profile shield as on 136.
on 137 is almost
certainly merely
a degenerated
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 J6 (Demanhur 1564 and Newell's list of the Kuft hoard) and
LI (Aleppo 1893 hoard, and Walcher de Mollhein 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.
The three issues seem but three variations in the secondary marking. Alexander
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
and others as group K. See below, Chapter 6, links
Philip II issues as group
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
1.
427
428
29
K7
The issue is described with AAEZANAPOY, 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 TETRADRAGHM

ISSUES AND GROUPS
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,
All coins are inscribed simply AAEEANAPOY.
pp. 34-35.
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 P1 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 of which I have seen no examples are shown in brackets, and are not
issues are shown.
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.
These
smaller
coins
have received
Table
Alexander Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm:

Groups and Issues
Corresponding
Tetradrachm
Alexander
Plate
Markings
Issue
Issue
Examples
Found
Didrachms
Rev. : Zeus seated
Group B,
B6
1 Reattrib.,
1 coin
Ivy leaf
Group C,
131
Filleted caduceus
C2
Quiver
Grain ear
pp. 12-14
and
23.
24*
14 coins
CI
C3
l.
r 132
133
134
37
(107)
40
4
3
2.
Smaller Alexander
Coins
Corresponding
Tetradrachm
C5
C6
Alexander
forepart
Pegasus
Bow
Group D,
Horse head
Star
D7/8
Caduceus
D9
Club Jft.
Examples
Found
135i
45*
136
137
49
138
139
62
140
68
142
72
143
144
78A
Cock
80
Bucranium
145
94
Caduceus
146
147
JOL (J21?
Group E,
E9
8 coins
Issue
\-
D4
D5
E2
E3
E8
Plate
Markings
Issue
L
L
141
8 coins
Herm
Drachms
A. Rev. : Eagle, head sometimes
Al
A3
Group A,
Group B,
C3
Grain ear
D4
D-
Dll
El
E5
E6
E8
G, 1 coin
151
40A
152
153
154
52*
60*
69
155
74
Group D,
9 coins
Eagle head
Horse head
Filleted caduceus
Dolphin
Group E,
36 coins
Rose
r 156
77
157
158
159
160
85
87A
3": eagle on club
Pentagram
Bucranium: vertical;
horizontal;
eagle on thyrsus? or torch?
Caduceus
E-
No marking: eagle on caduceus;

eagle on club;
EE-
1 coin
E9
E-
148
149
150
Ivy leaf
Group
standing l. or r. on fulmen
5 coins
Prow
Double heads
B6
Dl
reverted,
163
164
165n
166 J
167
eagle on thyrsus;
eagle on torch
168
96*
161
162
95*
(33*),
101
1
5
144
145*
148
151
81
B. Rev. : Zeus seated i.
Group E,
E3
E7
Cock
Crescent
6 coins
169
170
I. Amphipolis
32
Corresponding
Tetradrachm
Issue
E8
E9
Silver,
ca. 332 - ca. 310
Alexander
Markings
Plate
Bucranium
h
L
Caduceus
Issue
Examples
Found
94 A
171
172
100
1 11
10
173
Group E or F,
E?F? P
E?F? Laurel
13 coins
174
branch
175
176
Group F,
18 coins
Arrow
177
50*
18
178
179
Triobols
Rev. : Eagle standing l. or r. on fulmen
Group B, 2 coins
B3
B6
Wreath
Ivy leaf
180
Group C,
2 coins
Grain ear
C3
Group D,
D5
182
41*
183
63
1 coin
Star
Group E,
24 coins
E2
E3
Cock
E4
"E
|E6]
E7
Pentagram"
Herm
184
head
Crescent
-
Caduceus
E-
No marking: eagle on club
E-
No marking
185
186
1
J
187
-
E9
15*
181
188
82
86
88
[1]
3
(53), 90
189
190
191
34*
192
-
193-j
194 J
195
146, (149)
150, 154
196
Diobols
Rev. : Two eagles standing facing
Al
Group A,
each other,
on fulmen or exergue
line
1 coin
Prow
197
Group B,
Bti
7 coins
Ivy leaf: in center;
to right
198
199
25, (16)*
25A
"
Alexander's sole reference is to Reattrib., p. 14, XXXIV. This cites "Imhoof-Blumer,"
which presumably
is Monn. gr., p. 119, 25, a coin of 2.10 g with pentagram symboi.
This coin is from an unidentified private
collection
and cannot be traced.
2.
Smaller Alexander
Coins
Corresponding
Tetradrachm
Alexander
Plate
Markings
Issue
Group C,
Group D,
Dl
7 coins
Eagle head
Horse head
Star
D4
D5
Examples
Found
Issue
2 coins"
Grain ear
Pegasus forepart
C3
C5
33
200
42
201
46
202-
54*
203
204
3
1
64
Group E,
13 coins
Bucranium
No marking: eagles on club;
eagles on torch
No marking
E8
EEE-
r 205
98*
206
207
L
208
147
1
3
152
155*
Obols
Rev. : Fulmen
Group A,
[Al]
Prowc
B3
B6
Wreath
Ivy leaf
1 coin
3A
Group B,
Group
C5
Dl
E-
Pegasus
4 coins
209
210
211G, 1
17
26*
212
47
- 213-
55
214
157*
coin
forepart
Group D,
3 coins
Eagle head
Group E,
[1]
9 coins
No marking
b While this
to
study was in page proof, Charles Hersh acquired a diobol with bow symbol corresponding
tetradrachm issue C6. The litte coin is from new dies. It is not illustrated, but it is included in Tables 4-6.
c It has
unfortunately not been possible to obtain a cast or photo of this coin, seen by Price in a private
collection, but there seems no reason to doubt the issue.
Table

Examples Located
Group
Didrachms
Drachms, eagle
Triobols
Diobols
A
5
1
Obols
6
14
36
52
24
29
13
31
Drachms, Zeus
Totals
15
21
28
or
Tok
31
17
13
18
37
13
18
197
I. Amphipolis
34
332 - ca. 310
Silver, ca.
Table

Obverse Dies Located*
A
Group
Didrachms
Drachms, eagle
Triobols
Diobols
Obols
Drachms, Zeus
Table
6 summarizes
ER
ERH
EL
or
Tola
14
9.5
14
1 0.5
2.5
13
1 0.5
2.5
4
11
21.5
13
2.5
16.5
41
92
15
the issues known of the small coins.
following abbreviations
=
is the same as the tetradrachms'.
/;
Totals
tions
The obverse type of all denomina

The reverse types are indicated in the table by the
Zeus seated, as on the tetradrachms
Table
i.,
Eagle standing r., usually on fulmen

Eagle standing r., head reverted, usually on fulmen
= Eagle standing
usually on fulmen
= Two eagles standing facing, on fulmen or exergue line
2E
= Fulmen
Issues in Alexander of which no specimens have been seen by me are shown in brackets.

Reverse Types
Marking
Prow
Double heads
B3
B6
Wreath
CI
Filleted caduceus
C2
Quiver
Grain ear
Pegasus forepart
Bow
C3
C5
C6
Dl
D4
D5
D7/8
DD9
Dll
Ivy
leaf
Eagle head
Horse head
Star
Caduceus
(JV?
Filleted caduceus
Club JSI
Dolphin
Drachms
Triob.
ERH
ERH
/I?)
ER
EL
ER
EL
EL
EL
ER
ER
Diob.
2E
ER
ER
A3
Didr.
Obols
[F]
Issue
Al
r2E-
2E
2E
2E
2E2E
2E
LFJ
2.
Issue
Marking
El
Rose
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
E7
E8
E8
E9
EEEEEE-
Smaller Alexander
Didr. Drachms
Herm
rZ
I Z
ERH
ERH
eagle on club
Pentagram
Crescent
Bucranium:
eagle on thyrsus?
Caduceus
35
Triob.
Diob.
Obols
ER
Cock or cock head
Coins
or torch?
No marking:
eagle on caduceus;
eagle[s] on club;
eagle on thyrsus;
eagle[s] on torch
ER, ERH|
ERH
ER, ERH|
ERH
ERH
ERH
No marking
No marking
ER
-ER
EL
[ER]
ER
2E
ER
ERH
ER
2E
ER
2E
2E
EL
E3
E7
E8
E9
Bucranium
Caduceus
E?F?
E?F?
Laurel branch
F-
Arrow
Cock
Crescent
DISCUSSION
It should hardly be necessary to state once again that these small coins, most with eagle as
reverse type, are not subdivisions of the rare Alexander tetradrachms with eagle reverse.2 Those
tetradrachms were struck to the old standard employed by Philip II, whereas the small coins are
all of full Attic weight and most of their markings are clearly those of the Attic-weight tetra
drachms of Chapter 1. The type of standing eagle with reverted head was simply an old Macedo
nian type continued by Alexander. It was used by Archelaus I, Amyntas III, and Perdiccas
III,3 and the latter two, Alexander's grandfather and uncle, coupled with it the Heracles head
obverse used by Alexander.
Unaware of the numerous obverse links now known between the many small coins without
reverse symbols and those with symbols of group E, Alexander unfortunately has catalogued
these no-symbol issues together with the eagle-reverse tetradrachms (while of course listing the
symbol-bearing small coins together with the tetradrachms bearing their markings).4 All the
small coins with eagle reverses can now, however, be associated with specific groups of the Attic
weight tetradrachms. Together with the didrachms, which bear the tetradrachms' seated Zeus
It seems unnecessary to
as reverse type, they are all simply subdivisions of the tetradrachms.
consider them a separate series struck "for local circulation" only.5
In groups A through D, the small coins' markings are exactly those of the tetradrachms,
except for one drachm with filleted caduceus and , which probably should be assigned to group
2 Alexander issues 142-43. Long assumed Bactrian or Indian in origin, these rare tetradrachms were firmly
placed in Macedonia by E. Pegan, "Die friihesten Tetradrachmen Alexanders des Grossen mit dem Adler . . ,"
JNG 18 (1968), pp. 99-111. See Philippe, p. 394, and p. 18 above, n. 11.
3 E.g., BMC,
pp. 165, 171-72, 176; SNGCop 505, 513-15, 522; SNGANS 94-96, 113.
1 Alexander 144-52, 154-55, 157. See Tables 3 and 6 and comments on 144-57, pp. 39-40. The association
of the eagle-reverse bronzes of issues 158-62
5 Alexander,
pp. 24, 88, and 103-4.
with the eagle-reverse
small silver coins is also quite uncertain.
I. Amphipolis
36
Silver, ca.
332 - ca. 310
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 standard number of issues, number of examples located, or number of obverse dies
found group 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."
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
Museum of Blagoevgrad. . . . According to the control marking . . .
to the issue of Demanhur 1563, (J1, with laurel
coin
in
corresponds
question]
[the
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].
. . .
in the Historical
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.
with any tetradrachms' markings exist for these two interesting
No exact correspondences
issues, but the reverse variation and experimentation introduced in group E may in part explain
The obverses of these P and laurel branch drachms are extremely
their lack of correspondence.
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.9 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
6 Sardes and Miletus, p. 88; Alexander 141.
7 Chapter 8, hoard 7.
8 Chapter 8, hoard 11.
9 See
pp. 91-92, and 53.
10 Alexander 50 (placed after coins of group C), but see Sardes and Miletus, p. 88, where the placement
with group F.
is
2.
branch
Smaller Alexander
Coins
37
is very similar to tetradrachms of both groups E and F but in

one iconographical detail allows a firm placement in group F.
tetradrachms, their exergue lines, instead of the normal dotted ones, are
drachms just discussed,
the case of these arrow drachms,
Just
as on the group F
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
sometimes
confounded with an exergual line)" which is found only on the tetradrachms of group F.11 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 and 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.
drachms with eagle reverse
Groups A-D: Alexanders, several denominations,
drachms with both eagle and Zeus reverses
Group E: Alexanders, several denominations,
Group F: Alexanders, drachms, Zeus reverse
Groups
Groups
G-H:
K-J
and perhaps
I: Philips.
See
Chapter
5.
CONCORDANCE TO AND COMMENTARY

ISSUES
Alexander
ALEXANDER
Corresponding
Tetradrachm
Issue
Denom. Issue
dr.
2-ob.
3A
ob.
dr.
15
3-ob.
2-ob.
16
ON
Al
Al
[Al]
This
(B6)
as with wreath between two eagles on reverse, the only coin

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.
is the coin
seen
by Price in a private collection.
A3
B3
Described
cited
17
ob.
2-dr.
25, 25A2 ob.
24
B3
B6
B6
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 Reattrib.,
p. 17. See p. 92.
12 "Cavalla,"
p. 40 (discussion
of hoard
coin
17).
I. Amphipolis
38
bol erroneously
Silver, ca.
described
332 - ca. 310
as a bucranium), both with the eagle head of
group D. The symbol of these last two coins has been cut over the ivy
leaf of issue 25A. See also issue 54. Note the analogous recutting in the
26
ob.
B6
30
ob.
[B7]
33
dr.
E9
34
3-ob.
E9
37
2-dr.
C1
obols of groups B and D (issues 26 and 55).

The ivy leaf on the single reverse die of all three known specimens has
been recut to an eagle head on the two known specimens of group D's
issue 55.
40
2-dr.
C3
40A
dr.
C3
41
46
3-ob.
2-ob.
2-dr.
2-ob.
47
ob.
C5
49
2-dr.
C6
50
dr.
F-
52
dr.
Dl
53
3-ob.
(E7)
54
2-ob.
Dl
55
ob.
Dl
60
D4
63
2-dr.
2-dr.
3-ob.
42
45
62
C3
C3
C5
C5
See
pp. 36-37 for the placement
in group
F.
The issue is described with eagle head to right, but the sole known coin,
at the ANS (188), seems on close examination to bear a crescent, with
horns pointed downward which is also the orientation of the same
symbol in the exergue of a coin of issue 90 (189). Issue 53's flan and die
sizes also accord far better with group E than with D, so that the coin
probably belongs in issue 90. Issue 53 seems, at least from present
knowledge, to be a phantom.
The issue exists. See issues 25 and 25A for discussion of its recut sym
boi. SNGBerry 197, however, noted as an example, has not an eagle
head but a horse head. Coin 203 clearly shows the horse's bridle.
See
issue 26 for discussion
of the recut
symboi.
D5
D5
64
2 ob.
D5
68
2-dr.
D7/8
69
dr.
D-
13 See
Newell in Reattrib. mentions this issue, but I have found no examples.

Possibly an ivy leaf was seen as grapes. Compare issue 26.
Although listed in Alexander after the issues of group B, the shape of
the issue's caduceus argues for a placement with issue 101 in group E.13
Issue 34, also with caduceus, is obverse linked with other E issues.
Also listed after the group B issues, the issue belongs to group E. Of the
four known examples, only three are in sufficiently good condition to
allow die identification, and all three share their single obverse die with
coins of group E's issues 82 and 149.
The issue is perfectly valid. Note only that Lanz 48, 22 May 1989, 193,
from the dies of the coin illustrated here (132), is erroneously described
as bee on rose, and thus as a unique didrachm of Pella.
p. 21, note a.
Price calls the monogram iwl, but its small size and condition on the
known coins make it impossible to be certain whether it is iSl or m., or
perhaps simply f\.
The caduceus is filleted.
2.
72
2-dr.
74
dr.
77
dr.
El
78A
2-dr.
2-dr.
dr.
88
94
3-ob.
3-ob.
2-dr.
[E6]
E7
E8
94A
dr.
E8
95, 96
dr.
E8
97
3-ob.
98
2-ob.
100
dr.
dr.
3-ob.
85
dr.
86
3-ob.
90
39
Dll
87A
81
82
Coins
D9
E2
E3
E3
E3
E5
E4
E6
80
Smaller Alexander
p. 21, note a.
See also issue 53.
See
The sale catalogue reference cited in Alexander has a caduceus, not a

bucranium.
The two citations refer to the same coin, and the Giessener (Gorny) coin
number
101
dr.
E8
E9
E9
107
2-dr.
C2
141
dr.
144
dr.
E?F?
E-
EE-
145
dr.
146
3-ob.
147
2-ob.
148
dr.
EE-
149
3-ob.
E-
should
be 221.
The symbol is vertical on 95 and horizontal on 96.

Two examples are listed. The Hague (now Leiden) coin must be an
erroneous citation. J. P. A. van der Vijn has sent photographs of the
cabinet's only Alexander triobol, and it is from the dies of the other
examples of 146. The bucranium on the Hersh coin cited seems to be
merely the final Y of the inscription and the coin thus is part of issue
150.
Issue 97 seems to be a phantom.
Issues 33 and 101 both seem to belong to group E.

The symbol is not the upright bow and quiver of group F (where the
issue is placed) and G, but the simple quiver depicted in the slanting
position of group C, where 107 shares its single obverse die with issue 45
(with group C's Pegasus forepart symbol).
See p. 36 for the placement
in group E or F.
The object on which the eagle stands is not perfectly clear, but does
appear to be a club on the three examples known, which are all from the
same die pair.
See
also issue 149.
The issue exists, but the eagle on the Weber coin cited (now at the ANS)
seems to be standing on a club, not a thyrsus, and the coin thus belongs
in issue 145.
The eagle is described
as
ple cited is now in the
ANS
standing on
"thyrsus( ?)" and the sole exam

In fact it is the coin cited under
It is from the dies of the Hague (now
a
collection.
issue 146, with eagle on club.

Leiden) coin also cited under 146, and those of another
example
of 146
in the Hersh collection.
3-ob.
E-
151
dr.
152
2-ob.
EE-
150
found,
and issue 149
No triobols with eagle on thyrsus have been

appears to be a phantom.
Some examples at least of issues 150, 154, 155, and 157 may be coins
whose markings are off flan and which therefore belong elsewhere. The
eagle stands to right on 150, to left on 154.
I. Amphipolis
Silver, ca.
332 - ca. 310
Whether one accepts Thompson's attribution of this issue with H 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
All other known obols in this Macedonian
any inscription impossible.
a
fulmen
reverse
have
as
coinage
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.
GROUPS: RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
ALEXANDER
links provide by far the most important evidence for the order of the Alexander
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 BAZIAEQ2 on five of
Obverse
groups.
the groups, and certain repetitions of reverse markings put all the groups into a firm order, with
of the minute group K (whose placement will be discussed below). Some small
confirmation of this order is provided by other types of evidence hoards, stylistic considera
tions, and the small denominations of Chapter 2.
the one exception
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
as link 3, where
or there would doubtless be more instances of links such

for group B, then for A, and then for B again.
incomplete
a die was used
Group A with Group B
Link
1,
tetradrachms, Newell obverse

Stage
25
A2, stern (215) ANS; ANS
A
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

succeeding
Link
2,

Stage
"An
L
B"1
1, and become
ever larger in
stages.
28
B7, grapes (219) formerly ANS = Reattrib., pi. 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 = Realtrib., pi. 7,
11,
same recut
die; Saroglos
I. Amphipolis
42
SlLVliR, Ca. 332 - Ca. 310
Stage 2
A2, stem (221) ANS

The reverse die of 219 and 220 is the same but, when used for 220, group A's stern symbol
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.
had been cut over B's grapes.
Link
3, tetradrachms, Newell obverse

Stage
B2, amphora
[-] A
47
(222)
ANS
Stage 2
A3, double heads (223) ANS; Beirut, same die; ANS cast from Tripolitsa
1921 Hoard, IGCH 81, same die
B2, amphora (224) Berlin, die of 222
Stage 3
A3, double heads (225) ANS; ANS

B2, amphora (226) ANS
In stage
Heracles'
1 there are no breaks in the dotted border at the top of the die, no break between
brow and the border, and no break in the field at the top of his nose. In stage 2 slight
in all three areas. In stage 3 the breaks in the border and at the brow are
and the field behind the lion's mane is starting to deteriorate.
Clearly at least
breaks have appeared

more pronounced,
coins and B's amphora coins were struck simultaneously. The last coin
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.
some of A's double-head
listed,
Link
4,

Stage
40
A3, double heads (227) ANS = Reattrib., pi. 1, 8; cast marked "in trade, Cairo,"
same die; ANS; Knobloch FPL 33, Apr. 1968, 530, same die
A
B
Stage 2
B2, amphora
pi. 1, 9;
(228) London = Alexander
13a;
ANS, same die; ANS = Reattrib.,
ANS
2 are there die breaks at the corner of Heracles' mouth and on his neck below
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.
Only in stage
the lion's jaw.
Link
5,
tetradrachms, Newell obverse 52

Stage
B1, cantharus (229) ANS

L
Stage 2
A4, fulmen (230) ANS; Egger 40,

cast is at the
May 1912, 592. same die, not illustrated but
ANS
B1, cantharus (231) Saroglos, die of 229; Coin Galleries

Coin Galleries, FPL 4.3 (1963), C18, same die
FPL
5.3 (1964), C49 =
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 B4, stylis).
3.
Relative
Chronology
Alexanders
43
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
B-i
N'
LD
B6, ivy leaf in center (234) Paris = Traite IV, 2, 900, pi. 31 1, 7 = Reattrib., pi. 7,
= SNGDavis
8; London = Alexander 16, same die; Athens, same die; Aberdeen
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
rB
B6, ivy leaf (237) London = Alexander
DJ
26
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
Link
9,
with Group D
102
C2, quiver (239) ANS = Reattrib., pi. 3, 9; H. Schulman, 7 July 1970, 213, same
die; ANS; Egger 40, 2 May 1912, 632, same die, not illustrated, but a cast is at
D1, eagle head (240) ANS;
the
ANS
Weber 2082, same die; Reattrib.,
A cast at the ANS (from link 10's obverse
117 and
pi. 3, 10
240's reverse) associates obverses
110 and
117.
Link
-
LD
10,
117
C2, quiver (241) ANS

D1, eagle head (242) ANS; Thomas L. Elder, Remarkable
Collection of Greek Tetra1972,
drachms. . . (New York, n.d.), 71, same die; ANS; ANS; Malloy, 28 Feb.
322, same die; Berlin
The die is associated
with that of link
9.
Link
11,
Stage
116
121
C2, quiver (243)
332 - ca. 310
Silver, ca.
I. Amphipolis
41
Athens
Stage 2
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
ANS
D1, eagle head (245)
In
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
stage 2, a die break
all the remaining three symbols
includes
Link
L
12,
Stage
C
of group
C.
105
ear (246) ANS

Stage 2
C2, quiver (247) ANS; Berlin
C3, grain ear (248) ANS
C3, grain
C4, trident head (249) ANS

D5, star (250) Cambridge,
Mass.
= Dewing
1122
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.
In stage
Link
13,
1, there is a small die break
Stage
107
(251) ANS; cast marked
C1, filleted caduceus
D1, eagle head (252) Cambridge,

Brett," same die
Mass.
"Pozzi,"
= Dewing
same die
1117; ANS; cast marked
"Mrs.
Stage 2
D1, eagle head (253) ANS, die of 252; Saroglos,

In stage
2, a die break
beginning in the field at Heracles'
ANS
coin (251) shares a reverse die with another

coins of C4 (trident head) and C6 (bow).
Link
-
14,
Stage
LD
brow has greatly enlarged.

coin whose obverse
The first
was used also for
109
C5, Pegasus
ANS
same die; ANS
forepart (254) ANS
Stage 2
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
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, Dl (eagle head), D3 (club), D6 (filleted caduceus M), D8 (caduceus
iwt), and D10 (club iwl) (see 26-27, 29, 32, 34 and 37) and with a third ANS coin whose obverse
also a break
was used also for D4 (horse
head).
Relative Chronology
3.
Link
-
s/
15,
Stage
15
C1, filleted caduceus (256) Hersh = Glendining, 7 Mar. 1957, 21; Lanz 48, 22 May
1989,
193, same die, but the symbol
called bee on rose and the coin an
unpublished didrachm of Pella
Stage 2
D5, star (257) ANS
D7, caduceus iSV (258)
ANS; St. Petersburg, same die
Below the lower left lock of the lion's hair
"
Alexanders
didrachms
Link
16,
a small break appears
only on the coins of group D.
didrachms
forepart (259) Hersh = Giessener 58,
C5, Pegasus
Alexander
Apr. 1992, 229; London =
= Reattrib.,
pi. 7, 1, same die

C6, bow (260) ANS = Reattrib., pi. 15, 2
D4, horse head (261) Hersh = Giessener 60, 5 Oct.
LD
45
D7, caduceus
ifL,
or possibly D8,
caduceus
1992, 114
iwL, or caduceus
The last coin, 262, is extremely worn, but the obverse does seem to
be
1"\ (262) Berlin
that of the other coins.
Group D with Group E

Link
17,
"D
D5, star (263)
159
"Case"; ANS; ANS, same die
cast marked
Dl1, dolphin (264) ANS
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
Link
"E
18,
tetradrachms,
Stage
361
E3, cock (266) ANS; Parke-Bernet,

27
Newell obverse
July
1939, 244, same die;
16 Oct.
1968, 23, same die; Grabow 14,
ANS
F
Stage 2
E3, cock (267) ANS; Munz. 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.
I. Amphipolis
IB
Silver, ca.
332 - ca. 310
Group F with Group G
Link
-
19,
tetradrachms, Newell obverse 427 = 490
F4, Athena Promachus (269) ANS = Reattrib.,

G2, Athena Promachus (270) ANS = Reattrib.,
LG
Group I with Group
Link
-

Stage
pi. 9, 4; Petsalis, same die
681
I1, M (271)
12, IN
pi. 9, 3
Stage 2
J5,
ANS
(272) ANS
crescent
ANS
(273)
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.
Link
"I
L
13,
H (274) Stockholm; Berlin, same die
J1, grain
702
ear (275)
ANS
The last coin, 275, is in extremely poor condition, but its reverse seems to
without the P.
Group
Link
A-Bucr.
with A-Bucranium
be as described,
Group
896
L7, P dolphin (276) Athens from Lamia 1901-2 hoard (IGCH 93)
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
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
in which the dies were used. Numbers on the brackets are those
the order, when ascertainable,
Dotted brackets to the right indicate multiple identical reverse
of the links already described.
and L). As shown, groups G through K/J include the title
markings (groups F and G,
BAZIAEQZ in their inscriptions.
smaller
3.
Chronology
Relative
Figure
Alexanders
17
Die Links between Alexander Groups
16 15 1
r
i
\/
r
I
II
^{
9
14 13 12 11 10 1
.III
\/ \/ \/\/
R^8
1 1
C
J
VV
JI JI
L 17
18 L
19L
II
BAIIAEQZ
21 20 I
X
L
J .
22 L
-
A-Bucranium
Links 1-5, 9-14, 17-22: tetradrachms

Link 6: drachms
Link 7: dioboIs
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
are known. Of these,
through I, seven contiguous groups. Five hoards ending with group
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,
in Reattrib. His analyses cannot be improved by the present author, but such
at some length
See Chapters
8 and 9 for fuller discussion
of these hoards.
I. Amphipolis
48
aspects as are relevant

below in Chapter 9.
to absolute
Silver, ca.
chronology,
332 - ca. 310
whether
or not treated by him, will be discussed
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
presented in Reattribution, that the tetradrachm groups were all bound in sequence by
obverse dies linking one group to the next: ". . . group 'A' will possess certain dies that
in its production and then were continued in use, in a slightly more worn condition,
those few
a series of
were used
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
in Philip's issues, is a possible fourth symbol relating group A to Philip's coinage.8
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).
Group D
Groups C and D, linked by no fewer than eight obverse dies, are clearly contiguous.
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.
rarely
3 Demanhur,
pp. 65-66.
4 See discussion
5 Reattrib.,
6
Philippe,
following, and comments on link 2, above.

Amphipolis group I IB.
p. 21; Philippe,
pp. 389-90.
3.
Relative Chronology
Alexanders
49
Following group D, successive obverse links, the introduction and abandonment of the title
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 Reattribution 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 T-bucranium and A- or T-torch series which 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
This is surely correct.
dropped, that there would be no brief recurrence.
Second, he states that group
(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
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
and L, which is quite convincing.10
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
Philips analogous to group K and those analogous to group J. Moreover, any
posthumous
at our mint to K as the initial group at
suggestion that dies might have been transferred from
BAZIAEQZ,
7 Reattrib.,
1582.
p. 40, issue 62; Demanhur
8 Alexander,
previously given in his "On Attributing Alexanders
pp. 86-87, expanding on arguments
Some Cautionary Tales," in Greek Numismatics and Archaeology.
Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson, ed.
O. Merkholm and N. M. Waggoner (Wetteren, 1979), pp. 241-50, 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
(grain ear alone, 3 coins and 2 reverses known), J2 (crescent alone,
a firm
3 coins and 2 reverses known), and J3 (laurel branch alone, 2 coins and 1 reverse known). Nevertheless,
tie between group
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
Of
symbols: filleted caduceus, grain (or corn) ear, crescent, and laurel branch.
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 140 ("P and laurel branch"). Nevertheless, among the Philip
issues analogous to groups
and L there are four or possibly five common symbols.
See p. 53, Table 7, groups
8 and 9. Therefore, again, group
does seem closely connected to L.
II Citing his issues 126 and 127, Price states that a few coins of group
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.
Jl
I. Amphipolis
50
Silver, ca.
332 - ca. 310
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
and K, some not, but all so tightly and intricately
porary Philip groups, some analogous to
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
Price's sequence A through I to
to L is preserved, yet K being contem
presents no problem.
means that our mint need not be divided into two, at least at the spot Price
porary with
proposes.
And finally, link 22 above, between group L (with P) and the A-bucranium group, seems to
out Price's sequence at his proposed second mint of group K (with A), A-bucranium,
A-torch.
rule
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
links, for K before
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
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.
I-J
The last group in this study, L, despite its superficial similarity to group
(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
16
Several hoards contain coins of all or most groups down to
analogous Philip groups 8 and 9.
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 F1 may resemble P indeed may well be
an elaboration of
P but
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
$-torch, A-torch. The use of the letter A is not limited in any case to
was group J, K, L, A or -bucranium,
group K and the A-bucranium and A-torch groups: it is found in Philip groups 5 and 6, contemporary with 8
(with I"1), and also in Philip group 9 (with F).
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
TETRADRACHM 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 (DIAinnOY 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
markings found in each group, the plate locations of representative

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.
7 gives the issue
examples,
1 See "Tetradrachms Amphipolis"

2 Philippe,
p. 120-24.
3 Philippe,
p. 120.
4 See
Chapter 5.
5 See
p. 69.
for a summary of later Alexander and Philip issues.
I. Amphipolis
52
Silver, ca.
Table
Post-323 Philip
II
332 - ca. 310
Tetradrachm Groups and Issues
Plate
279
43, 1
bee
280
43,
amphora
or Ifl, ivy leaf
281
44,
Initial
Philippe
Plate
282
283
284
Markings
Group
Found
572
16 coins
(club?)
globule
star
grapes
285
286
287
288
289
290
576
44, 11
44,
577
579
44, 10
44,
44,
1 3 3 1 7 1
44,
3 1 3
43, 10
5,
8 6 9
3,
Group
Ai amphora
ivy leaf
571
globule
(SI or FR, star)
1 9
2, 9 coins
ffl
III ffl ffl
Group
Examples
Number
1, 1 coin
Ai Ai Ai Ai Ai
SNGANS
580
coins
291
44, 20
At grapes
At r [sic]
292
293
294
44, 21
44, 19
44, 22
295
44, 29
592
296
297
298
44, 30
299
44, 33
301
45, 24
600
302
45, 25
603
303
45, 22
45, 26
606
Causia,
globule,
300
A
is
594
304
305
306
- 307
45, 27
45, 23
45, 28
p. 122 and p. 308, 281.
607
7 6 6 7
45 coins
coin with causia and

reported in Philippe,
listed, as
have not seen it.
the examples
'
Wreath
Wreath
Wreath
Wreath
Wreath
Wreath "E
Wreath <6
M)
593
610
14
615
2 3
Group
T M A E A 6,
(Causia, globule,
Causia, globule,
44, 31
44, 32
1 1 2 2
globule,
Causia,
Causia
E A
Causia
A"
Causia
590
13 coins
(Causia
Causia
T M
Group
A) 5,
At club
589
2 1 2 2
At star
The coin
is
Group
4,
7
(Ai club)
not counted
4.
Philip II Tetradrachms
53
Initial
Group
A
SNGANS
Number
45, 5, 6
630
310
45, 15, 16
643
16
311
45, 11-13
638
24
45, 14
636
46, 3
46, 4
667
27
674
25
46, 5
683
20
688
691
Plate
Markings
K2
Philippe
Plate
Examples
Found
7, 72 coins
or P
308
25
309
K3
K6
ATE
A
312
313
A ^1
J4
J5
Group 8, 93 coins
P grain ear
P crescent
P forked branch
P aplustre
314
315
316
317
318
- 319
-
profile shield
Trident head
P trident head
P Macedonian shield
LI
L3
Group
46, 8
46, 6
46, 1
branch
P aplustre
320
46, 2
321
46, 7
692
322
323
46, 11
46, 17, 18
738
86
46, 12
736
46, 10
46, 14
737
15
747
17
749
95
9, 235 coins
forked
5
4
3241
P grain ear
P crescent
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8?"
P profile
P axe
P A
L10
wreath
Wreath
dolphin
325J
326
327
328
329
330
L
shield
331
332
333
334
335
46, 15
46, 9, 19
46, 13
46, 16
4
1
1'
b
Although the issue markings are those of Alexander's L8, the Philip issue may well be a phantom. Four
coins are known, from two die pairs. One die pair is illustrated here (333), but the reverse's general aspect is a
bit odd (note in particular the unique orientation of the shield). This may be an ancient imitation, a common
in group 9. Indeed, Newell marked an ANS cast from these dies as "Barbarian."
The other reverse die (Hunter, p. 291, 61, and the Paris coin, here 449) has a very fine, faint dot below the
P, very likely not made by the same tool which engraved the P, and in the Hunter catalogue itself the
marking is described as a simple P. If the dot on this second reverse is a mere accident, the die would belong
to group 8 which is made more likely by the fact that this reverse's accompanying obverse is found also in
group 8's P-crescent issue, forming the only possible die link between groups 8 and 9, see Chapter 6, link 18.
It is worth noting that the Paris cast at the ANS had been placed by Newell with his casts of group 8, not 9.
c Besides the coin illustrated,
three other examples of the issue are cited in Philippe, p. 308, 717-19.
Not
seen by me, these three coins are not included in the count of examples located.
occurrence
Ffl
Group 1 may well be a phantom. One single tetradrachm is known, and the fractions which
Le Rider places with it in Philippe solely on the basis of style would seem instead to belong with
others with the same issue markings, which clearly belong in other groups.6 The tetradrachm's
or IB, and perhaps the coin should be included
monogram M may well be a variant of group 2's
See pp. 63-64, comments
on Philippe,
pi. 43, 2-8.
I. Amphipolis
54
Silver, ca.
332 - ca. 310
Group l's monogram M also is identical to one variant in Alexander issue I1, and,
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
Some group 8 and 9 coins are possibly wrongly attributed in Table 7, but the overall
recognized.
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.
in that group.
as
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

each group.
All conventions are those of Table 2.
Table
number of obverse dies employed
Post 323 Philip Tetradrachm Group Sizes

Coins
Dies
Coin
Die Ratios
10
2.5
4.00
16
7.3
2.19
11
3
Obverse
Group
i"
3
Obv. Dies
2.5
2.80
13
2.5
5.20
45
15.5
2.90
20
72
26.5
2.72
35
93
29.2
3.18
36
86
2.98
110
Totals
7 See p. 70.
8 See p. 26.
Estimated
1-8
256
235
50
4.70
56
Totals
491
136
3.61
163
for
4.
Philip II Tetradrachms
COMMENTARY
ON
55
PHILIPPE ISSUES
concern three tetradrachms listed in Philippe, p. 124, and illustrated there

They are coins of groups 8 and 9, with the primary markings P or P.
These comments
on pi. 46.
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 Miinz. 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
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.
present,
"laurel branch and P." The coin would be the only known example of this
the fractions with a horizontal, quite different branch).9 It seems
more likely that the symbol of pi. 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.
Plate 46,
12,
supposed issue (note, however,
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 OlAirTnOY 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
Plate numbers in Philippe
example or examples.
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*
1 I follow Ulla Westermark in

the obverse head to be Apollo. See her "Remarks on the Regal
considering
Macedonian Coinage ca. 413-359 R.C.," in Kraay-Merkholm Essays. Numismatic Studies in Memory of C. M.
Kraay and 0. Merkholm, ed. G. Le Rider, G. K. Jenkins, N. Waggoner, and U. Westermark (Louvainla-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 (cf. 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
with Alexander's Attic-weight drachms.
used in this text to avoid confusion
3 See
pp. 61-63.
4 See
p. 58.
Smaller Philip
Table
II
Plate
Philippe
Plate
2, 9 coins
Rl globule
HI or Ifl, star
22 coins
/*)
Ai
grapes
club
uncertain marking
571
11, 14
581
44, 17
340
44, 13
44, 18
583
44, 15
44, 16
44, 12
coins
349
350
4,
9
Group
44, 28
43,
43,
584
586
588
coins
352
44, 25
44, 26
353
44, 23, 24
354
43, 3-5;
2,
Group
or
4,
6
351
At grapes
At f>
3,
At star
coins
Star
591
7 1 1
or
Globule
Amphora
4
1
6,
7 8
Group
3,
5
Ai Ai Ai
Grapes
Examples
Found
44, 4
44, 3
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
Number
336
337
338
339
341
globule
Star
star
SNGANS
Group 3,
A ivy leaf
57
Fifths: Groups and Issues
Markings
Group
1
If bee
Coins
2 6 2 1 3 1 3
Philip
II
3 2
5.
44, 27
globule,
45,
359*
360b
598
45,
16
599
45, 30
616
362
363
364
45, 31, 32
45, 29
621
45, 33
625
365
45, 34
628
366
367
45, 7-9
650
20
43 coins
361
T
7,
Group
*3. P, or
Group
Wreath
Wreath
Wreath
Wreath
Wreath
597
1 1 1 1 2 1
Causia,
596
44, 35
45,
8 7 7 5
Lr
globule,
M A E A 6,
Causia,
44, 34
1,
3 2
Causia
355
356
357
358
Causia
T M
Causia
13 coins
M A E A
Causia
5,
Group
622
50 coins
368
is
" The
globule (to left, below the end of the horse's tail) and the
(below the causia) are both faint, but
definitely present.
The globule (to left, below the end of the horse's tail)
again faint but definitely present.
I. Amphipolis
58
Silver, ca.
Plate
Philippe
Plate
Markings
369
370
8, 115 coins
Grain ear
373
Number
Examples
Found
663
10
661
13
45, 20
45, 19
658
660
43, 2;
696
29
372
Group
SNGANS
45, 21
45, 17-18
371
A
332 - ca. 310
45, 10;
Crescent
Forked branch
Aplustre
Profile shield
Trident head
Macedonian shield
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
"
46, 22-23
46, 24-25
46, 26-27
706
17
711
29
46, 31
46, 29, 32
721
731
46, 20-21
46, 30
723
13c
726
11
Group
8 ?, 9 coins
Laurel branch
385
46, 28
c Not included are

Philippe, Pella silver 541 43 (group III, pi. 22). The obverse of 541 is, as Le Rider
very close to 540's; 542 (an ANS coin, now SNGANS 453) seems to have a crescent, not noted in
Philippe, to the left of the trident head ; and 543 has a unique vertical ornamented trident head. None of the
states,
coins
shares
an obverse
die with any other
known fifths.
The final marking listed, the straight laurel branch, is not found on any known tetradrachms.
The symbol finds its nearest parallel in the rather sketchily executed straight laurel branch
found occasionally among the Alexander tetradrachms of group J, analogous to Philip group 8.5
Supporting this tentative association with group 8 is the fact that the only tenths issues known
The remaining
(see below) have the grain ear of group 8 and this horizontal laurel branch.
problematic issues are listed in Table 11.
Table 10 gives the total number of examples found and studied for the various groups of
tetradrachms and fifths. Because the fifths' dies are so small and often so similar, and because
the coins are often in such poor condition, no attempt to count their obverse dies has been
made. Hence the comparison with the tetradrachms is made not by actual or estimated obverse
dies used, but simply by the numbers of coins located.
In groups 2 through 6, virtually all of the securely placeable fifths bear the dual markings of
their corresponding tetradrachms. However, the single markings of group 7 are (except for the
one coin with a rather crude A) only the secondary markings of their group, whose primary
marking is A; but there can be no doubt as to the placement of this group's fifths.
After group 7 the situation is more difficult, because subsequent fifths also bear only a second
ary marking, and many of these markings were used both in group 8 (with P), and in group 9
of the symbols found on these problematic fifths with
(with P). Table 1 1 compares the incidence
the incidence of the same secondary markings on the tetradrachms of groups 8 and 9.
5 Cf. 83, 89.
Smaller Philip
5.
Table
Philip
II
II
Coins
59
10
Tetradrachms and Fifths: Examples Located

Tetradrachms
Group
Fifths
16
22
2 or 3
4
13
13
45
43
72
50
93
115
235
2, 3, or 4
Table
Occurrence
11
of Symbols on
Philip
II
Fifths
and on Tetradrachms of Groups 8 and 9
Group 8,
Tetradrachms
Fifths
Group 9, F
Tetradrachms
Grain ear
Grain ear
Grain ear
Crescent
Crescent
Crescent
Forked branch
Aplustre
Profile shield
Trident head
Macedonian shield
Forked branch
Aplustre
Profile shield
Trident head
Macedonian shield
Forked branch
Aplustre
?Profile shield
Wreath
Dolphin
Axe
A
Laurel branch
* See
p. 64, commentary on Philippe,
pi. 46, 32.
As can be seen, seven of the fifths' eight6 known markings occur in group 8, and all of group
8's seven secondary markings are found on the fifths. The only markings of group 9 which occur
on the small coins are the four (or five, if the profile shield really is found with P)7 which are
found also on the group 8 tetradrachms. The remaining four in group 9, peculiar to that group,
are not known on the fifths.
Clearly the trident head and Macedonian shield fifths, whose symbols are found only in group
8, must belong to that group. The first five issues listed, those with grain ear, crescent, forked
branch, aplustre, and profile shield, might, however, belong to either group, although the other
fifths' correspondences with group 8 together with their non-correspondences
with group 9
strongly suggest that all the small coins belong with group 8. Several other observations, none
convincing in itself, also lend weight to this supposition.
First, there are the numbers of tetradrachms and fifths located in the various issues from
group 2 on, listed in Table 12. The forms of the monograms given are those which occur most
commonly.
6 See
p. 58 for the eighth symbol, the horizontal laurel branch, and its probable association
Alexanders analogous to group 8.
7 See
p. 53, note b, and
p. 58, note
c.
with the
I. Amphipolis
Silver, ca.
Table
Tetradrachms and Fifths:

Examples Located
amphora
ivy leaf
club?
star
grapes
uncertain marking
2 2 2 1
At star
At grapes
At club
Causia
Causia,
globule,
Causia,
globule,
E A
Causia,
globule,
Causia,
globule,
Causia
A A A A
T T
T M A E A
Wreath
Wreath
Wreath
Wreath
Wreath
Wreath "E
Wreath *
A;
or
trident head.
and trident head
Macedonian shield
11
1
1
16
25
20
Hi
10
24
13
2 r>
Causia
1 1 2 2
Causia
T M A E A
Causia
7 6 6 7 1
At
2 3
Ai
A* club
Ai Ai
Ai globule
1 3 3 1 7 l
star
ivy leaf
3 1 3 1
:i 2 1 3
globule
Ai Ai SI SI ffl
ffl amphora
ffl
bee
Fifths
1 1 7 2 (i
Tetradrachms
1 12 1
Marking
m
13
Group
II
12
1 1
Philip
332 - ca. 310
8 7 7 5
60
11
is
By and large, the sizes of the tetradrachm issues and the fifths' issues correlate ever so
approximately, at least as measured by the numbers of examples located. Although there are
for larger tetradrachm issues to be accompanied by larger fractional
exceptions, the tendency
issues, and smaller by smaller.
comparison of the five fractional issues in question with the
tetradrachm issues bearing their symbols follows in Table 13.
and group
group
5.
Smaller Philip
Table
II
Coins
61
13
Certain Philip II Tetradrachms and Fifths:

Examples Located
Group 8
Tetradrachms
Fifths
Group 9
Tetradrachms
Grain ear
27
29
Crescent
25
17
15
Forked branch
Aplustre
Profile shield
20
29
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 symbol which 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 9 forked 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 well belong not to
group 9 but to group 8.
The Philip tetradrachms of group
9 are succeeded
repeat those of many Alexanders subsequent
known with these later emissions.

have ceased with those of group
to group
by other Philip
L, but
issues whose
markings
no Philip fractions of any size are
The small denominations with Philip's types would seem to

8.
TENTHS
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.
See note
7, above.
I. Amphipolis
62
Silver, ca.
Table
Philip
Plate
386
387
Markings
Grain ear
Laurel branch
II
332 - ca. 310
14
Tenths
Philippe
Plate
SNGANS
46, 33, 34
735A
Number
Examples
5
46, 35, 36
ATTIC-WEIGHT DRACHMS
Six such coins are known to me, from four obverse and three reverse dies. Their obverses
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
The combination of types should not be throught of as a hybrid, however,
porary tetradrachms.
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.
show a head of Heracles as on the standard
Table
II
Philip
Attic- Weight Drachms

Plate
388
389
Markings
grain
ear
Grain ear
Crescent
down:
(horns
15
r
L
390 1
391
392
Examples
1
2
3
]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
12
The first crescent coin illustrated here (390), acquired in 1841 by the
ogy), published in 1855.
British Museum, presumably also gave rise to Hisloria 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
SNGLewis 500. Its obverse also was used for a coin with grain ear symbol
Cambridge,
alone (not illustrated).
11 See p. 23,
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
It is not clear whether the coin was purchased
was "erworben 1852 vom Consul Spiegelthal in Smyrna."
Jl
"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
perhaps because of its Attic weight.
ing in Asia Minor
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.
5.
Smaller Philip
II
Coins
63
The unusual orientation of the crescent, with horns down, also points to a placement in group
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,
8. Such an
found on
of the Alexander tetradrachms in group
a number
J,
contemporary with Philip group
8.14
The weights and axes of the six known specimens are 4.03 -, P grain ear; 4.11 f and 4.18 |,
j, 4.06 J, (holed), and 4.13
crescent. Clearly drachms on the Attic stan
dard, they are
considerable anomaly, the only silver with Philip's type struck to this standard
a
J.,
grain ear; and 4.07

at any time.15
COMMENTARY
is
is
is
is
is
Private communications have revealed considerable doubt as to the coins' genuineness. First
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
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
similar to that on many Alex
ander tetradrachms of group J,16 the dots cut over
circular guideline are common at this
time,17 the incuse effect
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 author rather brashly, for she has not seen any of these drachms 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.
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
very few rare Alexander tetradrachms, and, second, that
those Alexander tetradrachms were contemporary with the Philips with the marking
(where
the T-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
the assumption that during the striking of Philip group
and the contem
few Attic drachms and, as
porary Alexander group
Amphipolis was called upon to produce
all other small denominations at the time bore Philip's types, appropriate Philip types were used
for these drachms also.
and most important, of course,
ON
PHILIPPE ISSUES
Plate 43, 2-8. Le Rider has placed these fifths of fine style, with grain ear, amphora, star, and
after his lone tetradrachm of group
with the single marking M. He likens the
1
globule symbols,
most probably roughly contemporary, gold staters of

which seems persuasive but which does not necessarily suggest an association with
any particular tetradrachm group.
small coins' obverses to those of certain,
Amphipolis,20
14
1.
ard. See Alexander,

p. 24, n.
20 Philippe,
p. 120, n.
2.
is
It
1,
6,
1,
E.g., 87.
with
agree with Price that
single known Philip tetradrachm of 16.72
poor and most peculiar
obverse style must be an ancient imitation (Alexander,
and K. Dimitrov and V. Penchev, Seulhop. 29, n.
and pi.
true that the coin has as
polis 2: The Ancient and Medieval Coins [Sofia, 1984], p. 52,
5).
crescent (horns right), but the coin's style seems simply impossible
for
symbol
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
15
I. Amphipolis
64
Silver,
ca. 332 - ca. 310
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 Ai.
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 pi. 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 pi. 43,
2-8, together
Plate 44,
12.
with others bearing
the same markings.
The coin, SNGANS 587, with only
Ai
visible, may well have
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
Stage
110
1
2,
globule
same die
(393)
Munich; Oxford = SNGAshm 2482 = Philippe,
pi. 44,
ivy leaf (394) SNGANS 573

star (395) Naples = Philippe, pi. 44,
Ffl
Stage
3, 2, 2
L
3
s'
with Group
2,
1,
ffl
Link
R!
3, 2,
globule
(396) Turin
globule
(397)
Cambridge,
Eng. = McClean 3359
3,
grapes (398) Peus 279, 14 Mar. 1972, 16 = Frankfurter 116, 27 Jan.

1969, 417 = Philippe, pl. 44,
= SNGCop 557 = Philippe, pi. 44,
causia
(399) London; Copenhagen
30
8
5,
fifths
14
ivy leaf (400) Berlin = Philippe, pi. 44,

causia
(401) Athens = Philippe, pi. 45,
Ai
5, 3,
4,
L
5
Link
be of this group.
tetradrachms, Newell obverse 56C
with Group
Ai
3,
Group
Link
odd, yet the coin must
is
monogram
The form of the group
L
3
fifths
Link
2,
In stage
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.
Silver, ca.
I. Amphipolis
66
Group
Link
-
s'
-
5,
with Group

Stage
332 - ca. 310
5 and
Group
56
1
3,
5,
causia,
star (402) SNGANS 579; Athens = Philippe

globule, T (403) cast marked "Volo"
6, wreath T (404) SNGANS 613
pi. 44, 9
Stage 2
5,
causia
(405) Auctiones
5, 2 Dec.
1975, 65
Stage 3
5, causia
5, causia
E (406) SNGANS 592 = Naville 12, 18 Oct. 1926, 1150

T (407) SNGANS 593; Glasgow = Hunter p. 291, 60 = Philippe,
pi. 44, 31
1 is evident in stage 3, with extra lines added at the
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.
As Le Rider notes, retouching of stage
back of the crown and below the beard.
Group
Link
L
v'
L
with Group
6, fifths
3,
6,
club (408) Wertheim

wreath M (409) SNGANS 625; (410) SNGANS 626 = SNGBerry
125
Link
-
7,
fifths
Stage
3, Ai star (411) SNGANS

pi. 44, 13; private coli.
pi. 52, 5; Paris
583 = Philippe,
= Philippe,
Stage 2
6,
wreath
(412) SNGANS 627 = Philippe, pi. 52,
Retouching is evident on the obverse of 412, probably occasioned
12
by
a rusted
die. The effect
of the rusting can be seen in the lower portions of the relief.
Group
Link,
8,

Stage
100
Stage 2
8,
(413) SNGANS 682; St. Petersburg, same die; Dresden;

"Commerce 1929," same die
crescent
marked
8
with Group
8,
P Macedonian
shield
cast
(414) SNGANS 692
Stage 3
4, AT star (415) St. Petersburg
8, P 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.
Link
|-
Relative Chronology: Philip
II
67
fifths
9,
8,
(417) Paris = Philippe, pi. 44, 24

forked branch (418) London = Philippe,
4, At
pi. 46, 27
The link is not noted by Le Rider.
Group
Link
10,
with Group
fifths
Stage
1
5, causia
5, causia
A (419) SNGANS 596 = Philippe, pi. 44, 34

= Philippe, pi. 44, 35
E (420) London = Weber 2061
Stage 2
6,
wreath A (421) Rudapest, Delhaes
= Philippe,
pi. 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
Link
11,
5,
6,
8,
|- 6
8,
8,
12,
Group
80
(422) Philippe, pi. 44, 29 (in commerce)

?A (423) Leiden
wreath A (424) SNGANS 600; London
grain ear (425) SNGANS 667 = SNGBerry 119
forked branch (426) SNGANS 683; Cambridge, Mass. = Dewing 1113, same
die; Athens, same die
P profile shield (427) SNGANS 688; Munz. u. Med. FPL 320, Feb. 1971, 8,
same die; Piatt, 27 Mar. 1922, 339
E
r
r
50
5, causia,
globule,
6, wreath A (429)
6 and
causia
Stage
with Group

5, causia
Link
A (428) SNGANS 595

Rerlin
Stage 2
6, wreath A (430) Frankfurter 123, 8 Mar. 1976, 67, same die
8, P grain ear (431) Yakountchikoff; Naville 1, 4 Apr. 1921, 854, same die
8,
aplustre (432) Florence
Stage 3
6, wreath "E (433) London
Gotha, same die
Stage 4
6, wreath M (434)
6,
In stage
= Philippe,
SNGANS
pi. 45, 23;
SNGANS
615, same die;
608
wreath T (435) St. Petersburg
2 there is some recutting of the hair at the crown, in stage 3 a small die break has
directly in front of the eye, and in stage 4 there is a new die break in the hair just
developed
above the ear.
Silver, ca.
I. Amphipolis
68
Group
Link
-
13,
41 = 111
forked branch (438) SNGANS 684; Oman,

Nov. 1973, 180, same die
Group
14,
Stage
Link
with Group
6, wreath A (436) Paris; M. Ratto, 16 May 1935, 217, same die

8,
grain ear (437) SNGANS 668
8,
L
332 - ca. 310
with Group
same die; Coin Galleries, 19
115
7,
(439) Zygman
grain ear (440) London; Paris = Philippe,

Galleries, 20 Nov. 1975, 2028, same die
8,
pi. 46,
3,
I"1
Stage 2
same die; Coin
is 2
In stage
clear die break has formed in the hair just above the lowest pair of leaves.
Coin 439
the only Philip II tetradrachm cast from the Zygman collection at the ANS, so the
cast pair must certainly be
true one.
(fifths)
8, 7,
16,
(441) SNGANS 658; London = Philippe, pi. 45, 20, same die
trident head (442) Berlin = Philippe, pi. 46, 21
fifths
(443) Vienna = Philippe, pi. 45,
grain ear (444) Hersh = Philippe, pi. 45,
L r
8 7
8, 7,
Link
10
and pi. 46,
Le Rider catalogues 444 not with other similarly marked examples (pi. 43,
coin.
22-23) but because of the obverse link together with this group
2,
15
1 r
8 7
Link
fifths
(445) Berlin
7,
17,
"E
8,
Link
crescent
= Philippe,
pi. 45, 21
(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
of 445.
?Group
monogram
with Group 9?
See p. 53, Table
7,
note
is
is
b.
is
highly questionable because of the similarity of the

The following link
and
markings
and the careless execution of many coins in these groups. Further, the very existence of the
doubtful, and thus the validity of the link
doubly uncertain.1
P-profile shield issue
Relative Chronology: Philip
6.
?Link
-
18,
69
121
8,
crescent
9,
profile shield (449) Paris; Glasgow
II
(448) SNGANS 677; London

= Hunter, p. 291, 61
= Philippe,
pi. 46, 13, same die
In Figure
indicate die links between tetradrachms in different groups and

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.
5, solid
brackets
show die links between
Figure
II
Groups
Markings
Group
1
2
6
12 11 10
13
/N
?18 L
HI etc.
etc.
etc.
5-
Causia
6-i
Wreath etc.
17
etc.
etc.
etc.
etc.
2-
7-,
17 16 15 14
Die Links between Philip
brackets
dashed
8,
5,
3,
4,
2,
1,
11-14, 18?
Tetradrachms: links
6-7, 9-10, 15-17
Fifths: links
DISCUSSION
See Chapter
See Chapter
8, 8,
3 2
if
is
is
8.
Hoards provide minimal help in proposing

relative order for the Philip groups here. Several
Alexander hoards' contents end with Alexanders parallel to groups
and 8.2 These will be
discussed in Chapters
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
and
Here we are totally dependent on the evidence of the coins, and this
not clear.
The Philip groups 1-8 are presented here in linear order, because on two-dimensional sheet
not all of
of paper there
no alternative. The evidence strongly suggests, however, that many
hoards
10, 13-14,
hoards
34-35.
18, 20, and 28.
I. Amphipolis
70
Silver, ca.
332 - ca. 310
these groups were struck more or less simultaneously or at least that groups
were struck concurrently with group 8.
1 (or 2)
through
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 3 and 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 IB of groups 1 and 2 are variations of
Alexander group I's M or W, then group 7's monogram P seems even more probably a variation of
Alexander group I's unusual monogram H, 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
Further, hoard evidence and other observations on the
shares no dies with any other group.
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 Amphipolis both
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:
= Zeus seated, as on the tetradrachms
Z
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
include the title BA2EIAEQZ 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
Obv. Heracles head
Alexander
Tetradr.
Group
A
B
C
D
E
2-dr.
1-dr.
3-ob.
E
Z
z
z
z
E
E,Z
Macedonian Weight
Obv. Zeus head (tetradrachms) or
Apollo head (smaller
2-ob.
2E
2E
2E
2E
2E
obols
F
F
F
F
Philip
Tetradr.
Group
denominations)
Fifths
Tenths
F?
G
H
K/J
L
1-8"
9
"
Philippe's Amphipolis group
b The
Philip
pp. 54 and 70.
II
reissues
may
IIB may have at least partially overlapped Alexander group A.

possibly have commenced during Alexander group I, as discussed above,
gives in its second and fourth columns the estimated number of obverse dies
in the Alexander and Philip tetradrachm groups, as discussed in Chapters 1 and 4.
The figures in the final column for groups A through I are the numbers of estimated dies used for
Table
employed
17
I. Amphipolis
72
Silver, ca.
332 - ca. 310
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,
at least in part, and C and D may well have also.
groups A and B must have overlapped
The Attic-weight fractions of all denominations, being so few, have not been taken into
But the Philip fifths corresponding to Philip groups 2-8 were, so far as is shown by
account.
surviving specimens, at least approximately equal in number to their corresponding tetradrachms, 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
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
Philip
Alexander
Dies
Group
Group
Total
Dies
Dies
A
B
88
18
18
D
E
76
76
241
241
89
89
114
114
109
109
70
K/J
43
Totals
L
Totals
88 +
49
A-K/J,
1-8
49
70
1-8
885
232
1,075
110
153
110
995
47
279
1,232
157
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
Abu Hommos 1919
Agios Ioannis 1949
Akcakale 1958
Aksaray 1968
Aleppo 1893
Andritsaena 1923
Asia Minor, S. 1960
Asia Minor 1964
Asia Minor 1964
Asia Minor 1965
Asia Minor 1966
Asia Minor 1968
Asia Minor 1968
Babylon 1973
Byblus 1931
Calim 1976
Central Greece 1911
Cilicia 1964
Commerce
18
Hoard
Karditsa 1925
Katd Paphos 1965
Khirbet-el-Kerak
1936
41
Kuft
40
Kyparissia 1892-93
Lamia (Hagioi Theodoroi) 1901-2
Lebanon 1985
Mageira 1950
Mavriki 1962
Number
24
37
20
42
8
See 22
Number
1874-75
15
38
14
26
1
45
6
2
44
32
Megara 1917
Messene 1922
22
Near East 1993
Nemea
23
See 22
5
31
11
13
12
1993
Demanhur 1905
Drama 1935
Egypt 1893
Egypt 1894
Karaman 1969
10
28
16
25
43
1938
Paeonia 1968
Paphos District 1945
Phacous 1956
Phoenicia 1968
Razinci 1961
Sfire 1932
Sinan Pascha 1919
Tel Tsippor 1960
Thessaly 1971
Tripolitsa 1921
Unknown Provenance ca. 1990
36
29
34
46
39
9
35
17
19
30
33
21
27
INDIVIDUAL HOARDS
Kyparissia, Messenia, 1892-93 (IGCH 76),1 35 coins, 20 Alexanders.
Amphipolis: 10 A, 2 B, C, 2 D. Newell dated the hoard's burial to shortly after 327 on the
basis of the five other Alexanders present from Tarsus and Ake, no later than 328 on his dating.
His burial date must be approximately correct.
1.
15
1 Philippe,
p. 295, 8; Alexander,
pp. 50-51.
I. Amphipolis
74
Silver,
ca. 332 - ca. 310
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.
2.
Argolis, 1938 (IGCH 79),3 3 coins, 1 Alexander.

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
3.
Nemea,
value.
4.
1993, 72 Alexanders.
Commerce
25
Amphipolis:
A,
B,
3 C, 2
D,
15
E. See Appendix
for
a complete
listing and discussion.
Babylon 1973,4 a large hoard including "many" Alexanders.

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 AAEEANAPOY, 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
5.
12
perhaps
321.
Lebanon ca. 1985, 26 Alexanders.

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 BASAEQZ (Alexander 3684), which Waggoner dated to ca. 324/3-323/2/ 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.
6.
2 Philippe, p. 296, 9; Alexander,

p. 51.
3 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

See p. 85.
7 "Babylon,"
pp. 273 and 276.
rather than paralleled
those
with Philip's name.
8.
Silver Hoards
75
Near East 1993,8 1,412 Alexander drachms.

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.
7.
17
Asia Minor 1964 (IGCH 1437),9 88

Amphipolis: F (arrow). Price notes
one Alexander drachm from Magnesia
Thompson dated the hoard's burial to
chronological value.
8.
Alexander drachms.
that although the hoard contained no Philip III coins,
was from an issue also struck in Philip III's name.
ca. 321/320. The burial date is thus too late to be of
Phoenicia 1968 (IGCH 1513),1" 9 Alexanders and 6 Philip III.

Amphipolis: 2 G, H, I. The hoard's 8 Babylonian coins include 5 of the Philip III issue with
and AY (Alexander P181), which Waggoner considered Babylon's second posthumous issue,
9.
4
M
ca. 322-321
B.C.11
Demanhur, Egypt, 1905 (IGCH 1664),12 8,000+ Alexander and Philip III.
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.
10.
2,005 Amphipolis.
Total
161
140
71
147
375
148
167
261
67
1,582
52
41
32
46
81
42
54
56
14
44
5
423
213
181
103
193
456
190
221
317
81
49
2,005
Group
Demanhur
Newell's
Notes
Total
This enormous
gives us the one securely fixed point in the dating of all lifetime and
Alexander issues by its inclusion of the dated coins of Ake and Sidon through
4,826 in
319/318 B.C. Of the 8,000+ coins present, some 5,951 can be identified by issue
Newell's Demanhur, and an additional 1,125 in Newell's notes at the ANS. The total additions
to each mint as recorded by Newell have been published by Orestes Zervos.13 The proportions of
these additions, as well as of the Amphipolis breakdown above, are close to those of the original
publication in Demanhur and confirm the general composition at the hoard as reported there.
hoard
early posthumous
Calim, Bulgaria, 1976, 14 3 Alexander drachms.

I Amphipolis: E or F (laurel branch). The coins were a drachm of Magnesia of ca. 322, one of
Sardes as Alexander 2639 (Sardes, series XV, 319/8 B.C.), and one of Amphipolis with Zeus
reverse, no title, and a laurel branch from Alexander group E or F.15 The Sardes coin dates this
hoard's buriai.
11.
8 Ca. 400
photos and some casts at the ANS. The hoard has been published by Charles A. Hersh and the
present author. See "Near East."
9 Sardes and Miletus,
pp. 81-85; Alexander,
pp.51, 320.
10 List of coins and some casts at the ANS.
II "Babylon Mint,"
pp. 134-35 and 148. See also pp. 74 and 85.
12 Alexander,
pp. 52, 406-7, and passim.
13 Orestes Zervos, "Additions to the Demanhur Hoard of Alexander Tetradrachms," NC 1980,
pp. 185-88.
14 "Nicopolis,"
pp. 48, 50, and 55.
15 175. See
pp. 32 and 36.
Silver,
I. Amphipolis
76
ca. 332 - ca. 310
Cilicia 1964 (IGCH 1421),16 22 coins, 4 Alexanders.

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.
12.
Central Greece 1911 (IGCH 81),17 37 + coins, 28 Alexanders.

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 T- (exact issue not ascertainable), dated
to ca. 325-320, and the Aradus caduceus issue of perhaps 322-319 (see comments on this issue in
13.
15
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.
III.
Khirbet-el-Kerak,
Galilee,
1936
J.
(IGCH
1510),18
118 + coins,
40 Alexanders and 13 Philip
7 Amphipolis: B, 2 G, 2 H, I,
The latest datable coin is a Sidonian tetradrachm of year 13
dates the hoard which is thus of no chronological help. A
(321/20 B.C.), but the coin of group
"considerable number" of coins were said, however, to have been dispersed before the remaining
were studied.
118
Karditsa, Thessaly,
Amphipolis: C, D,
30 Alexanders.
The latest coins are Tarsus as Alexander 3039
(Tarsos 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.
15.
15
(IGCH
E, F, 3 G,
1925
82),19
37 + coins,
H, I.
Egypt 1893 (IGCH 1665), 44 Alexanders.

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.
16.
18
Sfire, Cyrrhestica, 1932 (IGCH 1511), 84 Alexanders.

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.
17.
Alexanders and 27 Philip III.

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
a year later than Demanhur's latest coins. As Le Rider and Olcay remark, no other
318/7 B.C.
18.
Akcakale, Mesopotamia,
1958,20
163
26 Amphipolis: B, C, D, 9 E, 2 F, 4 G, 4 H, 2 I, 2
16 List of coins at the

18 Alexander,
p. 51.
20 G. Le Rider and N.
ANS.
ANS; Philippe,
p. 298,
13; Alexander,
p. 51.
ANS; Philippe, pp. 312-14, 18; Alexander, p. 51.

Olcay, "Un tresor de tetradrachmes d'Alexandre trouve a Akcakale en 1958," RN
The hoard is mentioned passim in Alexander, but only as a reference for certain issues; there
1988, pp. 42-54.

is no general discussion.
8.
hoard coins can be dated later than

or perhaps
early in 316,
Silver Hoards
Philip III's
77
reign, so the hoard's burial can be taken as 317
later than Demanhur.
a year
20. Andritsaena, Elis, 1923
(IGCH
S3),22 145+
(lot A, 74; lot B, 28).

Amphipolis
coins (lot A, 110; lot B, 35), 102 Alexanders and
Total
1 4
22
K
1
1 5
H
3 3
1
1
F
1 1
2
E
3 2
5
1 3
Total
B A
Lot
Lot
Group
33
III
Philip
F1
I*1
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 (F1), 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,
drachm, which she believed contemporary with the
Sinan Pascha contained a
tetradrachms
alone," which were not present in
of group L, "the immediate successors of coins with
Demanhur. As the
drachms were present in the Near East 1993 drachm hoard buried ca. 322,
are
now
seen
to
antedate
reason for Thompson's
by some years, and are no longer
they
group
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.
33
11
is
it
E,
A,
it
is
There are two components of the hoard. Lot

the 110 coins in Newell's original publica
tion (Andritsaena), which included 73 Alexanders of which 22 were from Amphipolis. Newell
dated the hoard's burial to ca. 315 B.C. because the latest coin known was one of Babylon,
which he considered struck ca. 316 B.C. This coin was of the issue of Alexander 3746, there
dated to ca. 311-305 B.C. However, this issue was struck over
period of several years, and the
dies of the Andritsaena coin are Waggoner's 280a, which she assigns to ca. 316 B.C. just the
time Newell thought.
second group of 41 (not 40, as in IGCH) coins forms IGCH's lot B. Newell learned of this
Of its Alex
group from the Greek collector Empedocles only after Andritsaena's publication.23
anders, 11 are identifiable issues of Amphipolis as shown above.
Several complications arise from this lot. As Thompson noted in IGCH,
included
and bucranium (the group which follows
post-323 coin of Philip II's types with markings of
Philip group
[analogous to Alexander group L]): "If this was part of the original hoard,
may
few years."
require lowering Newell's burial date of 315 B.C. by
But there are further complexities. Fortunately still preserved at the ANS
the scrap of
paper on which Newell recorded, rather sketchily, the coins of lot B. From this he added the lot
to the previous lot
in one of the bound notebooks in which he kept careful and precise records
of many hoards. Six of the tetradrachms of lot
were not transferred from the scrap of paper
21 Alexander,
pp. 52 (burial ca. 320-ca. 317), 248 (burial ca. 315); Sardes and Miletus, pp. 41, 86-89; Lampsacus and Abydus, p. 77.
22 Andritsaena Philippe,
pp. 309-10, 16; Alexander,
p. 55; "Babylon Mint," pp. 183-84.
23 IGCH states that
Empedocles acquired most of lot B. On Newell's record of the lot (see text below),
number of the coins. Many of Empedohe quoted Empedocles as saying that he had disposed of
are today in the Athens collection, but Dr. Oeconomides
kindly informs me that none can be
a
however,
cles's coins
and (79) can be identified as from

identified as from the Andritsaena Hoard. The unique Alexander with
Andritsaena only because of very old and poor cast at the ANS so marked. The cast illustrated was sent by
Dr. Oeconomides.
I. Amphipolis
78
Silver, ca.
332 - ca. 310
They included four coins of Philip II: two of Philippe's Pella group II, one of
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 AAEEANAPOY, A in left field and H" below the throne, and one with BAZIAEQZ AAEEANAPOY and a
to the notebook.
Amphipolis group
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 intrusions but 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.
Arcadia, 1921 (IGCH 84),27 23 coins, 14 Alexanders.

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.
21. Tripolitsa,
4
22. Asia Minor 1968
(IGCH 1440),29 90+ Alexanders.

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
32
1439 and
1440 as one hoard.30
IGCH 1440 included a Babylon tetradrachm

ANAPOY BAZIAEQZ, dated by Waggoner to ca.
as Alexander 3692, with M and AY and AAEE-
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
5
Amphipolis: D,
323-322 B.C.31
(IGCH 1443),34 29 Alexander and Philip III.

E, 2 L. The hoard's latest coins were Ake of year
Sardes whose dates are disputed.
The latter two are as Alexander 2645A
33 (315/4) and two of

= Sardes series XVI,
24 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.
26 See Alexander 776
(not illus.) and "Peloponnesian Alexanders," p. 67, 7; p. 69, II. 4; and p. 80.
27 Philippe,
p. 55.
28 Andritsaena,
pp. 32-36.
29 Alexander,
p. 51.
30 Alexander,
p. 51.
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.
Silver Hoards
8.
363-67,
and similar to Alexander
coins to ca. 310-302,
2671
ff. = Sardes series
79
XX,
393. Thompson dates these two
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
as at Spink's in London in July 1922. They (at least the 30 of
listed in Newell's hoard notebook
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).
1 1 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
1874-75 (IGCH 1670), 190+ Alexander and Philip III.

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.
26.
Kuft, Egypt,
53
Amphipolis.
Group
Nash
Zervos
19
10
7
9
6
6
A-torch
1
Total
71
53
Nash and Zervos dispute the contents of the hoard. Omitted from the Amphipolis coins above
are 2 group
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
follows Nash, but the present writer is convinced by Zervos's arguments, which accord fully with
from the material at the ANS and from coins and their provenances listed in Alex
ander. Newell's account of the coins is "as stated to me by Dr. Strachan Davidson, who had
secured the larger portion of the following in Egypt." This statement in Newell's notes (italics
mine) was not cited in Zervos's article.
The distinguishing feature of Kuft is its multiplicity of punchmarks and countermarks, often
several on one coin, and many unknown elsewhere. Newell's list includes only such coins. Nash,
however, would include many non-countermarked coins in modern collections on the basis of
their patina or merely because they are from the same issues as known Kuft coins, but this
seems unwarranted. It is clear that Newell believed, not just on his own, but on the basis of what
Dr. Davidson had told him, that all the hoard coins were punchmarked or countermarked, or
both.
In general, for the hoard's dating and its considerable significance for the Ptolemaic coinage,
the exact composition of the hoard makes little if any difference.
But for our purposes here, it is
significant that the A-torch coin listed by Nash is not in Newell's list. It is the British Museum
deductions
35 Alexander,
36 "Babylon
p. 55.
Mint," p.
37
Daphne Nash, "The
"Newell's Manuscript of
38 Nash
(above, n. 37),
39 Zervos
(above,
149.
Kuft Hoard of Alexander III Tetradrachms," NC 1974, pp. 14-30; Orestes

the Kuft Hoard," ANSMN 25 (1980), pp. 17-29; Alexander,
p. 56.
p. 18, n. 6.
n. 37), p. 24.
Zervos,
I. Amphipolis
80
Silver, ca.
332 - ca. 310
but it bears no punchmarks or countermarks. It therefore would seem

it, along with the other non-mutilated coins listed by Nash, as not part of
coin 457 in Alexander

correct
to consider
Kuft.
As stated above, Alexander follows Nash in its assignation of the British Museum holdings to
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.
the
27. Unknown
provenance ca. 1990, 77 coins, 69 Alexanders.

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
28
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,
("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
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,
1
1922 (IGCH 95),42 31 Alexander and Philip

I. The latest coin present was Ake of 310/9 B.C.
Messenia,
Amphipolis:
III.
1960 (IGCH 1514),43 63 coins, 59 Alexander and Philip III.

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.
30. Tel Tsippor, Judaea,
6
(IGCH 1515),44 141 coins, 137 Alexander and Philip III.

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.
31. Byblus, Phoenicia, 1931
8
32. Asia Minor 1966
1436),45 52 coins, 51 Alexanders.

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
8-9 Amphipolis:
40 Alexander lists
in the catalogue.
41 List of coins
42 List of coins
43 Alexander,
44 Alexander,
45
List
(IGCH
or
Kuft
coins on p. 56. To these add 103b (Amphipolis) and 3412 (Byblus), so identified only
at the ANS.
and
some casts at the ANS.
pp. 56, 490.

pp. 56, 490.
of coins
at the ANS.
8.
Silver Hoards
81
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.
throne,
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.
III
All
of
the Alexander issues not of Amphipolis and all those of Philip

were present in Demanhur.
The latest coins of Philip II's 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 lis present were: 1? group 3, 1 group 6, 3 group 7,
Philippe's contemporary Pella group III.
1 group 9, and 1 (2 ?) of
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.
34.
35. Razinci,
Bulgaria,
1961
1,446 Philip II tetradrachms.

2-8 (analogous to Alexander groups
to K and
or to L); 517 group 9 (analogous to
can be dated only by the latest Philips, and is thus of no
(IGCH
41 1),49 2,657+
996 Amphipolis: 40 Philippe groups I and

and J); 392 either group 8 or 9 (analogous
Alexander group L).

chronological value.
The hoard
II;
coins,
47 groups
1917 (IGCH 94),50 789+ coins, known are 208 Philip II, 174 Alexander.
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
36. Megara
65
hoard.
37. Aghios Ioannis, Cyprus, 1949 (IGCH 1470),51 58+ coins, 54 Alexanders, 4+ Philip
6 Amphipolis: C, D, F, G, J, L. The latest coins are Sidon of 307/6 B.C. and Carrhae
Alexander
hoard
38.
9), dated to ca. 310-302 in WSM, but to ca. 305-300 in Alexander.

have been buried at least some years after the introduction of group L.
3818
must
(WSM
Kato Paphos, Cyprus,
drachms,
1965
Alexander drachms.
(IGCH
1471),52
13 coins,
Alexander and Philip
III
III.
as
The
tetra
46 CH 1, 40; Philippe,
the hoard is
p. 318 (mention only, no details); Alexander,
p. 52. In Alexander
and considered a parallel to Demanhur the issue
erroneously described as ending with the P issues of group
to the correct P issues.
references given are, however,
47 Philippe,
See also Chapter 12, hoard
pp. 298-304, 14; Alexander, p. 50; Sardes and Miletus, pp. 73-74.
the Alexander gold component

is discussed.
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,
p. 55.
51 List of coins at the ANS
(79 known).
52 List of coins at the ANS; Sardes and Miletus,
and Abydus, p. 73.
p. 95; Lampsacus
10, where
48
I. Amphipolis
82
Silver, ca.
332 - ca. 310
Amphipolis: A. Thompson dates the latest Lampsacus drachm present to ca. 305/4, which
IGCH's burial date of ca. 305. In any case, burial was decades
after the striking of group A.
1
requires a slight lowering of the
39. Phacous, Egypt,
1956
A, 4 B,
(IGCH
1678a),53
D, 23E,
F,
456 Alexander and Philip
514 coins,
H,
I,
J,
L,
III.
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.
69
Amphipolis:
5 G, 6
(IGCH 1516),51 3,000+ coins, 949 Alexanders and Philip III.

Amphipolis: 10 A, 7 B, 3 C, 1 1 D, 34 E, 1 1 F, 7 G, 19 H, 8 I, 5 J, 33 L, 4 A-bucranium, 2
T-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.
40. Aleppo, Cyrrhestica, 1893

156
1968 (IGCH 1400),55 19 coins, 18 Alexander and Philip III.

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.
41. Aksaray, Cappadocia,

3
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.
Lycaonia, 1969 (IGCH 1398),57 49 Alexander and Philip III.

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
43. Karaman,
2
useful.
44. Mavriki,
Arcadia, ca. 1962 (IGCH 122), 30+ coins, 3 Alexanders.

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.
1
45. Lamia District (Hagioi Theodoroi), Thessaly, 1901-2
(IGCH 93),58 112 coins, 32 Alexander

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.
and Philip
III
1945 (IGCH 1469),59 39+ coins, 38 Alexander, 1 Philip III.

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.
46. Paphos District

7
53 Alexander,
p. 56; Sardes and Miletus, p. 91.
54 List of 922 coins at the ANS; Alexander,
p. 56; Sardes and Miletus, p. 92; Lampsacus
p. 90.
56 List of the nine known coins at the ANS.
57 Sardes and Miletus, p. 94.
58
Philippe, pp. 316-17, 21; Alexander, p. 55; Lampsacus

59 List of coins at the ANS; Sardes and Miletus,
p. 94.
and Abydus,
p. 74.
and Abydus, p. 73.
8.
Silver Hoards
HOARD SUMMARY
No.
IGCH
Hoard
Kyparissia
Mageira
1892-93
1950
Nemea
Commerce
Babylon 1973
Lebanon 1985
Near East 1993: drs.
Asia Minor 1964: drs.
Phoenicia 1968
Demanhur 1905
Calim 1976: drs.
Cilicia 1964
Central Greece 1911
1936
Khirbet-el-Kerak
Karditsa 1925
Egypt 1893
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1938
25
Akcakale 1958
Sinan Pascha 1919: drs.
Andritsaena 1923
Tripolitsa 1921
Asia Minor 1964: see 22
Asia Minor 1968: see 22
Asia Minor 1968
Asia Minor 1965
Abu Hommos 1919
Egypt 1894
26
Kuft
27
Unknown Provenance
21
22
23
24
1437
1874-75
Group
15
73
25
D
E
"Many"
12
26
1412
17
89
F
F
15
1664
5,951
2,005
1932
Amphipolis
1513
E?F?
1421
81
28
15
1510
53
82
30
15
1665
44
18
H
E
J
J
84
190
26
1395
682
83
102
33
84
14
1438
70
28
1439
80
18
1440
90
32
1443
29
1667
750
61
1511
Sfire
18
20
20
74
79
17
19
III*
76
1993
Latest
Alexander,
Philip
Number
L?
L
L
L
1669
45
11
1670
190
53
69
28
414
16
11
95
31
1514
59
1515
137
1436
51
8-9
20
A-torch ?
ca. 1990
28
Drama 1935
29
Messene
30
35
Tel Tsippor 1960

Byblus 1931
Asia Minor 1966
Thessaly 1971 or 1972
Paeonia 1968
Razinci 1961
36
Megara
37
Aghios Ioannis 1949

Katd Paphos 1965
Phacous 1956
31
32
33
34
38
39
1922
45
46
Theodoroi) 1901-2
Paphos District 1945
41
42
43
44
* Bracketed groups
and
numbers
are Philip
L
L
410
[139]
[93]
[=
411
[996]
[=
L]
L]
94
[1446]
174
1470
58
1, [64]
6
1471
13
1678a
456
69
1516
949
156
1400
18
1422
1398
49
122
93
35
16
A-torch
A-torch
1469
39
1917
Aleppo 1893
Aksaray 1968
Asia Minor, S., 1960
Karaman 1969
Mavriki 1962
Lamia District (Hagioi
40
II
reissues.
Only silver coins are included.
[A-bucr.]
A
A-torch
A-torch
A-torch
H
81
I. Amphipolis
Silver, ca.
332 - ca. 310
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
This evidence will be discussed in the following
groups in the decade after Alexander's death.

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 Sidon perhaps 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
Obverse dies are retired when no longer usable. They
six calendar years is highly questionable.
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 -r 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.
50 A. Lemaire, "Le monnayage de Tyr et celui dit d'Akko dans la deuxieme moitie du ivc siecle av. J.-C,"
1976, pp. 11-24; Alexander, pp. 405-7, with other bibliography. Georges Le Rider tells me that Lemaire
soon.
has further evidence supporting Tyre. One hopes to see this published
61 Alexander 3594-3687;
"Babylon Mint" and "Babylon."
62 Alexander,
p. 454-57, dates at p. 457.
RN
8.
Silver Hoards
85
Price also suggests that the Babylon issues with M and AY bearing either Alexander's or Philip
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.
III's
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
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
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 termination so far as our hoard is concerned by 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
a
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 START OF THE COINAGE

In November 333 Alexander fought and won the second of the three decisive battles in his
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, G). 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
conquest
1 A preliminary
2 Demanhur,
3 Demanhur,
version of the chapter has appeared
pp. 26-32.
p. 68.
4 See
p. 96, Figure 6.
as "Earliest
Silver."
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
None of these, except the probable
drapery at his waist, and the throne with its bell-covers.
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.
silver stater of Perdiccas III, brother and predecessor of Philip II, and Plate
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 Amphipolis and 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
do show an attempt at depicting bell-covers.
edges of the extra-large bottom protuberances
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.
Plate
18,
E,
18,
D, is
is a didrachm of Philip
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.
I. Amphipolis
88
Silver, ca.
332 - ca. 310
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 1 1 have 3E. 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 iconographical 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
as if imperfectly understood.
often poorly executed,
Finally, very shortly after their early
Even though many of them e.g., the flowering scepter and the
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
appearances
they drop out.
footstool are well known
7 See Chapter 3, link 2.

8 Cambridge = SNGFitz
2112.
I thank T. V. Buttrey
for verifying that the coin does indeed
have
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
Can it be that XV was an error for XI, the grapes issue of group B, where a Newell coin with
records.
footstool is indeed known?

10 E.g., Grabow 14, 27 July 1939, 220. The ANS has a coin from the same dies.
bucranium.
1i See p. 92.
The issue is E8, with
9.
Absolute Chronology
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
Rather, a coinage whose types
ander thought to do when suddenly propelled to the throne.
would be understandable
throughout a newly secured empire and, perhaps more important,
whose standard would be universally acceptable there would 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
his silver on the parochial Macedonian standard was not and its almost total
everywhere,
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.
I. Amphipolis
90
for
a time
Silver, ca.
332 - ca. 310
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
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 tetradrachms but it is still only a
heads had switched
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 and the very
small K) each group appears to have been the only one in production during its period of
It could be that there was a hiatus between the striking of D and E, despite the
striking.20
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 iconographic observations.
The Sizes of the Groups

Group E is the largest by far of any of the Alexander tetradrachm groups, employing some
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 ?
241 estimated
17 Philippe,
18 See
Amphipolis 430-494.
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
group F "group F, section 1," and group G "group F, section 2."
of coins known to him, Newell called
9.
Absolute Chronology
a revised starting date for the coinage of 332 instead of mid-336, and
dies out evenly (which is not in any case good practice), one arrives at a
E from the end of 329 to the end of 325.23 This span of several years seems most
stylistically is an extremely homogeneous group, with every indication of having
Positing
estimated
91
spreading the
date for group
unlikely, as E
been struck in
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
a concentrated
manner
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 struck didrachms,
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
II'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 -M 5). 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
ed. A.
Festschrift fur / Studies in Honor of Leo Mildenberg,
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.
I. Amphipolis
92
Silver,
ca. 332 - ca. 310
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
31
line (not to be confounded with an exergual line)" (51, 56).
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.
GROUP
AND THE INTRODUCTION
OF THE TITLE
For the start of group G, which introduced the title BAZIAEQZ at Amphipolis, there is hoard
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,
evidence.
30 See
p. 88.
31 Reattrib.,
p. 17.
32 Chapter 8, hoards
5, 6, and
22.
9.
Absolute Chronology
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
premise
to particular years (and each to either precisely one or two years) was based on the
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."34 Waggoner has followed his Babylon dating
extremely closely, but dates these earliest coins with the title to 324/3-323/2,33 i.e., approx
imately to 323. It requires no great adjustment to accept that AAEEANAPOY changed to
BA2AEQZ 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.
GROUPS H-I
Groups H and I, as discussed in Chapter 3, fall between group G and groups
no special
K/J,
and require
discussion.
GROUPS
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
were struck concurrently, and
in any case there would have seemed no need to devote a full year to the minute group K.
was
not a very large group either, although it must be remembered

types were contemporary with K/J.
that large reissues of Philip II's
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 -r 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 less almost 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
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,"
36 Demanhur,
p. 122, and
pp. 68-69.
"Babylon,"
p. 276.
I. Amphipolis
94
Silver, ca.
Table
Percentages
of I and
K/J
332 - ca. 310
18
in Groups A through
in Hoards Containing
10 or
More Macedonian Coins of Groups A through
Hoard
Hoards ending with

10
13
18
20
28
24
Demanhur 1905
Central Greece 1911
Akcakale 1958
Andritsaena 1923
Drama 1935
Hoards ending with
Abu Hommos 1919
26
Kuft 1874-1875
Later hoards
39
Phacous 1956
Aleppo 1893
Meydancikkale 1980*
40
K/J
K/J
Total
Coins
Percentage
K/J
K/J
A-K/J
2,005
81
50
4.0
2.5
20.0
20.0
15
K/J
26
7.7
7.7
33
18.1
18.1
10
80.0
10.0
57
8.8
10.5
45
2.2
8.9
8.2
61
3.3
115
7.0
4.3
95
10
11
10.5
11.6
* The Meydancikkale,
Cilicia, 1980 hoard was published by A. Davesne and G. Le Rider, Le Tresor de

Meydancikkale (Paris, 1989). Found in excavations, this enormous hoard contained 5,215 coins. There were
2,554 Alexander and Philip III, with 419 from Amphipolis: 3 Group A, 2 B, 1 C, 3 D, 27 E, 9 F, 10 G, 19 H,
10 I, 2 K, 9 J, 47 L, 8 A-bucranium, 7 Morch, 214 A-torch, and 48 later. The hoard, buried ca. 240-235, is far
too late to be of any chronological value to us, but is listed in Table 18 because its size provides a good
example of the proportion of group K/J coins to others.
hoard contains is often present in very great numbers.37 But an obvious alternative explanation
to Newell's for the relatively small numbers of groups K/J in Demanhur is that those groups
were still in the process of production when the hoard was interred. If so, they would have
continued for some period
of time after Demanhur's burial ca. 318 or 317 B.C.
GROUP L AND THE DROPPING
OF THE TITLE
Group L, the earliest not included in Demanhur, is generally assumed to have been struck
between 318 and 316/315, i.e., between the date of Demanhur's deposit and Cassander's firm
assumption of power in Macedonia.38 The hoard evidence for the start of group L, although
hardly conclusive, seems however to suggest a starting date for group L somewhat later than
318.
First, the groups after L are the very small ones with primary markings of A-bucranium,
T-bucranium, and T*-torch, and the enormous one with A-torch. There is no hoard evidence for
the absolute date of the introduction of the A-bucranium, T-bucranium, or ^-torch groups,39 but
the earliest possible appearance of the A-torch group is in the Unknown Provenance ca. 1990
hoard, buried perhaps ca. 308 B.C., although the interpretation of this hoard is problematicai.
The A-torch group was certainly in circulation a few years later, however, for five hoards of
ca. 305-300 include such coins.40 These groups after L are mentioned because if A-torch began to
37 E.g., Paeonia and Razinci (Chapter 8, hoards 34 and
35).
38 E.g., Philippe,
p. 304.
39 The latest coins in the Megara hoard (Chapter 8, hoard
36) were the Philip II reissues with A-Bucranium,
contemporary with the similarly marked Alexanders, but unfortunately the hoard can only be dated by these
A-Bucranium Philips.
40 Phacous, Aleppo, Aksaray, Mavriki,
44-45.
and
Lamia (Hagioi Theodoroi) in Chapter 8, hoards
39-41
and
9.
Absolute Chronology
95
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 P 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
be used in ca. 308-305,
315.
PHILIP II REISSUES
As discussed in Chapters 4-7, reissued tetradrachms and smaller coins with Philip II's types
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 name but no such coinage is known.
By Newell's chronology, Alexander group I was struck ca. 322-321 B.C., by my chronology,
on Newell's chronology would have been issued ca. 320-318,
perhaps 320-319. Groups K and
My best estimate of when these Philip reissues started is, then,
by mine, perhaps 318-317.
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
and name (Philip
SUMMARY
The chronology proposed
here for Amphipolis's
Groups A-D
Groups E-F
Groups G-K/J
Group L
Alexanders, then, is:
ca. 332 - ca. 326

ca. 325 - ca. 323/322
ca. 322 - ca. 317?
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
BCH 117 (1993), pp. 491-500, esp. pp. 497-500.
monnaies
macedoniennes
des annees 323-294/90,"
I. Amphipolis
96
Figure
Silver,
ca. 332 - ca. 310
form, on the left, Newell's dating, and the estimated total

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.41
number
6 shows
in schematic
of dies found
Figure
of Newell and Troxell
Comparison
Newell
Dies
Date
Group
Dating
Troxell
Group
Dies
A-D
230
E-F
330
G-K/J
336
(+110 Philips)
232
( + 47 Philips)
mid-336
88
335
334
333
49
332
17
331
76
I)
330
329
328
241
89
326
114
325
109
70
33
320
10
318
( + 110 Philips)
327
324
323
322
321
319
317?
316-?
The Troxell dates are extremely approximate and rough, e.g., groups A-D may not have
occupied the full span of 332 to 326, and the output of G-K/J was probably heavier at the outset
than at the end of these groups' striking. Nevertheless, the output at various periods seems to
make far more sense historically than does the rate of striking under Newell's chronology.
The heaviest striking,
as mentioned
above, would have come not in 328 and 327 when Alex
ander was at his greatest distance ever from home and when there was no apparent need for a
great deal of coinage there, but from 325 onward when back payment for many years of service
was due to returning troops.
This lowered chronology also produces one rather satisfactory result. The reason for the
introduction of the title BAZIAEQZ has never been adequately explained. Newell in Tarsos, only
after he had already decided upon 324 as its date of introduction there, ventured the suggestion
that it was due to Alexander's conquest of India and the finalization of his conquest of all the
Great King's domains.45 But if there has ever been any attempt to explain why the title was
dropped ca. 318-315, at least at Amphipolis, I have missed it.
An obvious explanation is that the inscription BAZIAEQZ AAEEANAPOY was intended to refer
not to the great Alexander but to his young son Alexander IV. After Alexander's death his
generals arrived at an uneasy truce leaving the succession to his mentally defective brother
44 The dies are estimated
15 Tarsos, p. 34.
as on p. 25, n. 9.
9.
Absolute Chronology
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 paaiAtTs. 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

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 OlAinnOY and BAZIAEQZ AAEEANAPOY were intended to
indicate that these kings were the rightful successors....
est legend AAEEANAPOY.
On the coins especially
intended
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
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, returning from the Peloponnese, besieged her and her forces
Cassander's supporters.
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,
understandable
to do away with Alexander's son
...
that there might be no

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
. . . had
successor
determined
to the kingdom; but for the present,
so
since he wished
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
46 Reattrib.,
p. 31.
47 Diod. 19.52.
48 N. G.
L. Hammond
and F. W. Walbank,
A History of Macedonia (Oxford, 1968), voi. 3, p. 145, n. 1.
I. Amphipolis
98
Silver, ca.
332 - ca. 310
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 orrrecnTacrE 6e
kocI tous eIgoSotocs ttcuSccs auvTpE<pEa0ai.
This could as easily simply refer to some suitable agemates 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
planned and was to be.
I rashly suggested that the title on Alexander's coins, no matter where struck, might
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
In addition, the title was not discontinued at every mint at
before it appeared at Amphipolis.50
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 all. The arguments
above, therefore, refer only to the mint identified as Amphipolis.
In
1991
have appeared
49 "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 BAZIAEQ2 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
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.
symbols
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 coinage distaters, 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
Obverse
Links
Obverse
Coins
Distaters0
141
[[
Staters
[[[L
Cantharus
Trident
Fulmen
Published Below
[[[[[[
Cantharus
Trident
Fulmen
Other Staters"
[[[
[[
Shield
Quarter Statersc
[[
Cantharus
[! [I [1 Fulmen
Shield
22
61
10.5
43
37
2.5
109
30
38
14.2
54
13.2
17
238
Cantharus
Trident
Fulmen
Dies
8.5
62
21.5
109
38
39
10
88
16
ti2
3
Links/
Obv.
Obv.
Die
Die
6.41
0.14
14
3.63
0.47
3.05
0.06
5.50
0.31
Symbols
2.7
78
28
23
between
Obv.
Coins
4.5
'.I.:.
2
" The tabulation is

only of the main group of distaters, group A in the following chapter.
b The tabulation does not include a number of anomalous coins: 20 trident coins
(10 obverses) of exceed
ingly poor style, which have one obverse link to a coin with torch symbol, and another obverse shared by both
trident- and A coins; a small number of anomalous and rather crude fulmen staters; and, as stated in the
text, no coins with horizontal trident heads. Also not included are still other staters with the usual symbols
whose obverses show the lower tip of a third crest on Athena's helmet (e.g., Plate 25, H). These seem to form
on each.
a separate group which leads into other staters with two markings (a symbol and a monogram)
c The
quarter staters probably fall into two groups, those with fulmen and cantharus and others with
fulmen and shield, but there seems no way to divide the fulmen coins listed. See pp. 126-27, where a group of
obverse linked fulmen and shield staters (with which the obverse linked fulmen and shield fractions must
belong) is distinguished from staters, early or late, with the common cantharus, trident, and fulmen symbols.
1 Professor Le Rider is due all credit for initiating this gold study and for gathering and studying a vast
amount of material from cabinets both public and private, much previously unpublished. This material has
resources of the American Numismatic Society, including its coins and
been augmented by the considerable
its extensive cast collection (largely assembled by E. T. Newell), its library, and its photo file. The present
author has restudied all the assembled examples and any errors or misinterpretations are hers alone.
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,
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
and fulmen), the group
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
of coins and obverse dies found for the various denominations and
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
symbols
19 gives the numbers
and
the obverse
What is striking in Table 19, however, is the difference in the number of die links
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
staters).
between
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.,4 must be included in the staters here published.
Their
obverse
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'
repeat this arrangement.
die linkage in schematic
form,
and Plates 20-23
indicate dies that were reported
A concordance of Newell's Tarsos

appears in Table 20, p. 108 below.
part of Tarsos.
numbers
complex
Bold Troxell numbers
die letters
and
the present
by Newell as
author's die
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, "Numismatique 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.
II. Alexander's Lifetime Gold
102
The staters' obverses show a head of

by a serpent. The reverses show Nike
AAEEANAPOY.
Obverse dies have the
trident; and F, fulmen. Hoards cited
Athena right, wearing a Corinthian helmet surmounted

standing, holding wreath and stylis, and are inscribed
prefix 0 and reverses are identified as C, cantharus; T,
are discussed in Chapter 12.
Series
(Plate 20)
Cantharus
Trident
04-C1
Trident
1.
05-G2
06-C2
2.
1.
1.
2.
= Tarsos 14 (dies E-e; pi. III, 15) (466)

Hess 208, 14 Dec. 1931, 259
London = Alexander 3004 = Tarsos 14 (dies D-<5 ; pi.
16) (467; Plate 25, N14)
ANS
III,
ANS
(468)
Commerce 1994
hoard
(Plate 31, 3)
Trident
Ol-Tl
1.
2.
02-T2
1.
2.
Alexandria = Tarsos 15 (dies G- ; pi. III, 18)

Veliko Tarnovo = Samovodene
hoard 58 (Philippe,
pi. 89, 13, obv. only) (469)
Paris = Tarsos 15 (dies F-f; pi. III, 17)
ANS = R. Ratto, 4 Apr. 1927, 567 = R. Ratto, FPL
Dec.
3.
02-T3
02- T4
03- T5
1922, 1947
Kovacs
9, 21
Nov. 1988,
3 =
Munz. u. Med.
10, 22
June
1951, 240 (470; Plate 25, N15)

1. Athens = Corinth hoard 47 (471)
2. CNG 26, 11 June 1993, 66 = Malko Topolovo hoard 34a
1994 hoard 1 (472; Plate 31, 1)
1. Commerce
1. Athens = Corinth hoard 48
2.
3.
Coin Galleries,
hoard 34
Potidaea hoard
Mar. 1956,
1296
Malko Topolovo
1994 hoard 2 (473; Plate 31, 2)

Commerce
1. ANS = Ball 4, 23 Mar. 1931, 1625 (474)
4.
Cantharus
04 T6
Cantharus
05-T7
2.
1.
2.
05-T8
1.
Balkans hoard 27
Mid-American, 24 May 1985, 1015 = Balkans hoard 26
Veliko Tarnovo = Samovodene hoard 59 (Philippe, pi.
89, 13, rev. only) (475)
Glendining, 9 June 1982, 114 (476)
Series 2 (Plates 20-23)
The coins struck from obverses 07 through 022 (Plates 20-22) form one large completely die
linked group. Those from obverses 023 through 030 (Plate 23) clearly on stylistic grounds belong
with those from 07-022, but no actual die links are as yet known.
10.
Staters
103
Cantharus
07-C3
08-C3
08-C4
1.
J
-
011-C4
Samovodene
3.
Cast: "Spink, Nov. 1920.
Saida
hd.?"
1.
Rauch 4, 26 June 1970,
2.
Commerce
1994
hoard
Plate 31, 5)
1.
Trident
& Fulmen
014-C7
1.
Istanbul (484)
2.
Coin Galleries, 19 Nov. 1971, 464

Athens = Corinth hoard 42 (485)
016-C9
017-C9
Trident
& Fulmen
018-C10
019-C10 020-C10
Trident
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
Malko Topolovo hoard 30

Glendining, 29 Apr. 1954, 2 (486)
Verroia = K. Romiopoulou, "EupYjjzaxa
ztz6
tou<;
Maxedovixovg
'Aibvfjiovq
Td<povg xr\g Btqoiac," A' Zvvavrrjarj yia rrjv EXXrjviaTixrj Kega/xeix^ (Joannina, 1989),
p. 35, 3 (inv. 13a), and pi. 15, obv. only (487)
London = Alexander
168b = Glendining, 14
July
1950,
(not illus.) (488)

London = Alexander
168d
Commerce 1994 hoard 8 (489; Plate 31, 8)

1. Ruse = Ruse hoard 3 (490)
1.
London = Alexander 168c (491)

New Netherlands 63, 18 Apr. 1972, 68 (492)
Stack's, 10 Dec. 1987, 3112 (493)
Veliko Tarnovo = Samovodene
hoard 53 (Philippe,
pi. 89, 12, obv. only) (494)
In commerce 1976, provenance unknown
G. Hirsch 17, 12 June 1958, 17 (495)
2.
Shore
1.
2.
Jasna Poljana hoard 13

Peus 270, 10 June 1969,
1.
Commerce
1.
1.
028-C13
1.
029-C14
1.
2.
030-C17
(483)
2.
027-C12
03O-C16
33
97
026-C11
030-C15
= Schweizerische
5 (481 ;
Berlin (482)
Sofia = Varna hoard
10;
5.
1.
Fulmen
(Philippe,
Kreditanstalt FPL 25, Spring 1978, 20 = Cahn 68, 26

Nov. 1930, 1222 (480)
Veliko Tarnovo = Samovodene hoard 55
Veliko Tarnovo = Samovodene hoard 56 (Plate 25, P)
012-C5
012-C6
014-C8
57
= Tarsos 12 (dies A-a; pi. III, 14; p. 23, fig.

p. 24, fig. 12) (Plate 25, N12, first example)
2. Athens = Corinth hoard 46
ANS
Trident
hoard
illus.) (479). This cast at the ANS, marked "Hermitage

198,"
is clearly the example
listed
by Newell as
"Petrograd (no. 198)," but described by him as from his
dies B-|3. The rev. die, however, is Newell's a.
Berlin (Plate 25, N12, second example)
1.
4.
Trident
Tarnovo
The stylis's cross-bar is in

pi. 89, 12, rev. only) (477).
front of Nike's wing, as on T10, T12, and T18-T19.
1. ANS = SNGBerry 169 (478)
1. St. Petersburg = Tarsos 12 (dies B-a ; coin cited but not
2.
010-C4
Trident
Veliko
FPL
16,
1994
n.d.,
20
hoard
55 (496)
(497; Plate 31, 7)
104
Trident
09-T9
1.
2.
ANS
= Tarsos 13 (dies C-y; coin cited but not illus.)

(498; Plate 25, N13)
Munz. u. Med. 64, 30 Jan. 1984, 88 = Miinz. u. Med. 8, 8
Dec.
3.
09-T10
1.
1949, 809
FPL "Coli. H. H.," n.d., but ca. 1910-15, 17

St. Petersburg = Anadol hoard 8 = Tarsos 13 (obv. die
Piatt,
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
Athena's neck on 09.
Cantharus
Cantharus
09-T11
010- Tl
011- T12
Cantharus
2.
Lanz 28,
3.
NFA,
June
10
Fulmen
,
L
012-T13
Bucharest = Gildau hoard 4 (500)

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 Tarnovo = Samovodene
hoard 54 (503)
1.
ANS
2.
Potidaea hoard
(504)
1.
014-T15
015-T15
1.
(MX
Fulmen
021-T16
Fulmen
T15
022-T17
1.
or 12 (not illus.)
11,
(505)
Peus 298, 23 Oct. 1979,
Balkans hoard 25 (507)
51
1626
(506)
2.

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.
Canessa, 22 May 1922, 391
1.
10,
32, 12 Nov.
1985, 54
1. Ball 6, 9 Feb. 1932, 152 = Ball 4, 23 Mar. 1931,
013-T14
014-T13
Cantharus
& Fulmen
195
1993, 40
1.
3. Giessener
Cantharus
& Fulmen
to the right of
1.
012 T12
013-T13
May 1984,
were added
1.
1.
ANS
2.
Glendining, 24 Nov. 1950, 1543
3.
Commerce
1.
Sotheby, 16 Apr. 1969, 269 = Paeonia hoard

Frankfurter 99, 2 Oct. 1958, 39
Munz. u. Med. FPL 281, Oct. 1967, 7
2.
3.
(511)
1994
hoard
(Plate 31, 9)
10.
4.
5.
6.
Cantharus
023-T18
1.
023-T19
1.
024-T20
025-T21
026-T22
026-T23
1.
1.
1.
1.
Staters
Miinz. u. Med.
Potidaea hoard
105
FPL
317, Oct.
1970, 2
1994 hoard 10 (512; Plate 31, 10)

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.
Plovdiv (514). The stylis's cross-bar is in front of Nike's
wing, as on C3, T10, T12, and T18.
Commerce 1994 hoard 4 (515; Plate 31, 4)
Auctiones 10, 12 June 1979, 118 (516)
Sternberg 11, 20 Nov. 1981, 74 (517)
Peus 328, 2 May 1990, 111 (518)
Commerce
Fulmen
Cantharus
& Trident
Trident
Cantharus -
014- F1
i
-1
1. Mende
hoard
73
(519; Plate 29, 73)
015- F1
016- F2
-i
1.
Berk 52, 22 Feb. 1988,

Gotha (521)
2.
Commerce
018-F2
018-F3
1.
1. Oslo
1.
2.
3.
018-F4
018-F5
018-F6
018-F7
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
021
I"
022-F7
022-F8
i
J
1.
2.
1.
1.
1994
hoard
11 (520)
6
(Plate 31, 6)
(522)
ANS = SNGBerry 136 (523)

Lanz 48, 22 May 1989, 176
Commerce 1993 hoard 20 (Plate 30, 20)
Alexandria (524)
Glendining, 29 Apr. 1954, 3 (525)
Glendining, 20 July 1976, 2 (526)
Sofia = Varna hoard 32
Malko Topolovo hoard 29 (527). There is a die break on
Nike's right wing.
Peus 277, 25 Oct. 1971, 80
London = Alexander 164A = Larnaca hoard 62 (528)
Hamburg = W. Hornbostel, et al, Kunst der Antike.
Schatze aus N ord-deutschen Privatbesilz (Mainz/Rhein,
1977) 536 = Miinz. u. Med. FPL 258, Oct. 1965, 9 (529)
The die break noted under 018-F7 has enlarged.
Kricheldorf 15, 15 June 1965, 6 (530)
Figure 7 summarizes the catalogue, and Plates 20-23 are arranged in the same manner.
Brackets to the left and horizontal lines indicate obverse links, and brackets to the right, reverse
links. Bold type identifies dies in Tarsos. Superscripts identify die combinations present in the
five earliest hoards of Table 23, those buried very shortly after 323 B.C. (see Chapter 12): C =
Corinth, S = Samovodene, B = Balkans, M = Mende, and R = Ruse. Some internal shuffling
of dies in the great die linked section of series 2, from 07 through 022, is surely possible, but the
overall arrangement seems justified.
106
Figure
Die Linkage in Series
Cantharus
7
1 and Series 2
Trident
Fulmen
01-T1S
Series 1
r02-T2
-02-T3c
(Plate 20)
1-02-T4
03-T5c
04- C1
05- C2
-04-T6B
r 05-T7SB
L05-T8
06- C2
s
Series 2, all
07- C3 -i
die linked
08- C3-I
08-C4 i
(Plates
20-23)
^OS-TS
09-T10
010- C4
011- C4
css
r012-C5
I-012-C6
-09-T11
010-T1
011-T12
-r012-T12
Loi2-T13-i
r013-T13-|
L013-T14
r014-C7Loi4-C8c
016- C9 j017- C9 -I
018- C10
019- C10
020- C10
-r014-T13
Ul4-T15
-014-F1
015-T15
-015-F1 -016-F2-1
-018-T15-
-018-F2018-F3
018-F4
018-F5
018-F6
021- T16022- T17-
018-F7-]
021-F7J
T022-F7J
I-022-F8
Probably
series 2, but
not as yet
die linked to
preceding
coins
(Plate 23)
026-C1 1
027-C12
028- C13
029- C14s
r030-C15
-030-C16
-030-C17
r023-T18
Lo23-T19
024-T20
025-T21
r 026-T22
L 026-T23
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^)30, 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
right of the helmet flap; two or more tightly curled ringlets (as
ringlets to the immediate
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 Tl 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 l's previously known coiffures on 01-05 is
06, with its loose flowing locks replacing the
now broken by the newly emerged reverse-linked
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
Plate 25, C (C3), D (C4), and E (one of the "other" cantharus staters not in series 1 or
enlargements,
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 l'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
them the output of a single mint as did Neweli. The variations in details of
considering
iconography in series 1 and early series 2 can be explained simply enough by experimentation at
the outset of the new coinage compare 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
Newell Die
Newell Issue
Dies and Troxell Dies
Newell PI.
IIl
Troxell Die
Newell's First Group, Included in Troxell Series 2

Obv. A*
Obv. B*
Obv. C*
12
Rev. a*
Rev. p
Rev. Y*
12
010
08
13
09
14
C4
= a (C4)
T9 and T10
12
13
Newell's Second
Obv. D*
Obv. E
Obv. F*
14
12
Group, Included in Troxell Series 1
14
16
14
15
05
04
15
17
02
Obv. G
15
18
01
Rev.S*
Rev.E
Rev. f*
Rev.!;
14
16
C2
14
15
15
17
CI
T2
15
18
Tl
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
Had he known of these links it is inconceivable that he would have given his first
symboi.
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
One might think that the early iconof series 1) to Tarsus cannot be decisively disproved.
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 antici8 See enlargements,
Plate 25,
9 Philippe, Pella gold obverse
A-B.
dies D1-D4,
pp. 129-30,
and
pi. 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 l's attribution here to Macedonia rests solely on an
analysis of the coins themselves, with the many similarities between series 1 and series 2 the
In addition,
coiffures and helmet crests of 06 and 07 and the shapes of the canthari of C1-C3."
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 stylis 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 l'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
11 See
p. 121, Table 23.

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, pi. 55-64. Note that the small II.2 is not necessarily considered later than II. 1.
See Philippe, p. 417. Pella group
contains the last Philips struck there before the hiatus which ended only
II
with the reissuance of Philip's types after Alexander's death.

14 Philippe,
hoard for
pp. 171-82, 398-516, pi. 65-69. See commentary below (p. 117) on the Samovodene
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
Comparison
of Series
1 and
21
with Philippe Pella Groups
Obv.
Coins
Dies
Obv.
Coins/
Obv. Die Links
Pella II. 1
513
124
4.14
54
Series
109
30
14
0.43
0.47
187
47
3.21
3.98
25
0.53
Pella
1 and 2
IIIA
Obv. Links/
Obv. Die
The three groups' survival rates are very close, and so the frequency of die linkage between
Both common symbols and similar die linkage associate our
symbols in each case is comparable.
staters with Pella's Philips. Further, the earliest canthari of series 1 and 2 are very similar to
those of Philippe's Pella II. I.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
them.
and above all their extensive
obverse linkage
between symbols
clearly associate
If Philippe's Pella
groups truly belong to that city, then seemingly so do these earliest Alex
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
But whether these "other" staters came from the same mint as the early ones of
Amphipolis.17
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."
ander staters.
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
examples may however be usefui.
is possible.
Comments
on his illustrated
Issue
Marking
Comments
164
fulmen,
vertical
fulmen,
Neither of the illustrated examples is in our series 2, but they are among
the "other staters" of pp. 100, 107, and 122, and Plate 31, 11-26.
The illustrated example of 164A (dies 021-F7) is part of series 2 but, as
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.
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 019-C10) are part of series 2.
None of the illustrated examples is part of series 1 or 2. Coin 172a is one
164A
slanted
168
172
cantharus
trident,
vertical
showing three helmet crests. See p. 100, note b. 172b-d

with the "other staters" discussed on p. 100.
Coins with this symbol so placed are quite separate from those with
vertical trident heads. Again, note the three helmet crests on both
illustrated examples.
of a subgroup
belong
175
trident,
horizontal
16 Compare Plate 25, A-C (C1-C3) with the canthari of Philippe's pis. 57 60.
17 E.g., SNGBerry 136 ff.; Sardes and Miletus, p. 70; and p. 116 below.
See p. 127.
10.
176
shield
Staters
The issue is not in series
111
or series
2,
but is discussed on pp.
100 and
127.
3004
cantharus
3005
cantharus,
wing
trident,
vertical
Price retains Newell's attribution to Tarsus for this coin, distinguished

from issue 168 (itself not a homogeneous output) only by its obverse
The example illustrated is however here reattributed to Ma
style.
cedonia (series 1, dies 05-C2).
The attribution to Tarsus seems correct,
below
3006
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.
3008
trident,
As with 3005, the probable
horizontal
(below wing)
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
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 symbols two cantharus-trident, and one cantharus-fulmen. Two links and other representative examples are
shown on Plate 24.
cantharus,
Group B (537 39)

The second group, B, is the fulmen-A distaters, Sicyon 6-7, for which I have located six
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
obverse
Table
Comparison
Issue
Markings
1-5
Youthful
6-8
9-16
(athlete? boxer?)
Fulmen A"
Similar youthful
figure A
figure
of Sicyon
22
1-5, 6-8, and 9-16
Distater
Stater
Tetradrachm
Second
Obv. Dies
Obv. Dies
Obv. Dies
Symbol?
yes
6b
1
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. Al1, 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

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
of tetradrachms and smaller coins.4
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
J)
is very similar indeed to one known with simple fulmen reverses (Plate
Sicyon (Plate 25,
25, 1 ; see also Plate 31, 21, 22). And the newly emerged second fulmen-A obverse (Plate 25, L)e
is actually known used with a fulmen reverse (Plate 25, K).
It
possible that the gold with the youthful figures and its accompanying silver was
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.
remains
also
Group C (540-48)
But even the three simple markings of cantharus, trident, and fulmen, unaccompanied by any
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
secondary
obverses.
In the catalogue below, dies are prefaced by "D" for distater. Thus, e.g., DOl = 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, pi. 91.
6 See
p. 112, note c, above. The obverse link is noted also in the author's "Staters, Serendipity, and Soli,"
in XagaxTTjg.
Ayiigajfia artj Mavrco Oixovofildov, ed. E. Kypraiou, D. Zafiropoulou et ai. (Athens, 1996),
pp. 283-86.
114
CATALOGUE
Trident
& Fulmen
Fulmen
Cantharus
DOl-DCl
1. Commerce
1993 hoard
19.
Nike walking (540; Plate 30,
19)
/tvD02-DCl
3.
Berlin (541)
= SNGBerry 135. Nike walking
Paris (542)
In commerce, 1976
1.
NFA
2.
Parke-Bernet,
-DOl-DFl
1.
Fulmen
Paris (544)
D01-DF2
1.
1.
D03-DC2
1.
2.
ANS
Trident
Cantharus& Fulmen
Cantharus
& Trident
-DOl-DTl
Miinz. u. Med.
1. Commerce
2. Boston =
4.
5.
6.
D02-DF4
1969, 141 = Paeonia 1968 hoard
1993 hoard) (546).

See 540 and
obverse and from that hoard
3.
Cantharus
9 Dec.
1969,
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
D01-DF3
L D01-DF4
1, 20 Mar. 1975, 82 = Parke-Bernet, 9 Dec.

140 = Paeonia 1968 hoard. Nike walking (543)
1.
1993 hoard
MFA
18 (547;
547 from
the
same
Plate 30, 18)
659
Florence
Paris = De Luynes 1604
Schlessinger 13, 4 Feb. 1935, 649
Naville-Ars Classica 17, 3 Oct. 1934, 359
Boston = MFA 658 (548)
The die links are summarized in the following figure.

walking.
Reverses in italics are those whose Nikes
are shown
Figure
Die Linkage among
(540)
D02-DC7 (541)
D03-DC2 (542)
This small concentrated
Group C Distaters
Trident
Cantharus
DOl-DCl
DOl-DTl
Fulmen
(543)-
DOl-DFl
D01-DF2
D01-DF3
D01-DF4
D02-DF4
(544)
(545)
(546)
(547) -|
J
(548)
output is obviously distinct from group A. The hoards also distin

distaters of group A, as will be seen in following chapters.
guish group C from the more common
THE GOLD HOARDS
12.
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 coins for 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
Asia Minor 1950
Balkans 1967
Hoard
Number
13
Mende
Number
4
1983
Commerce
1993
Paeonia 1968
Ruse ca. 1952
Commerce
1994
Saida
Corinth 1930
Gildau 1960
Jasna Poljana
1
1969
1829, 1852,
10
5
6
1863
11
Samovodene
Varna 1949
1954
2
12
INDIVIDUAL HOARDS
1.
Corinth, Corinthia, 1930 (IGCH

Series
1: 2 staters,
Series
2:
5 staters,
77)1
from 02-T3 (471), 03-T5

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
It is also possibly the earliest buried, and thus its interment date,
uncertain,
should
be of high importance for the terminal date of the striking of
unfortunately
are known with certainty.
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
Her arguments, perfectly valid at the time, were that Philip II's coins were all
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.
be reexamined.
in excellent
1 G. R. Edwards and M. Thompson, "A Hoard of Gold

74 (1970), pp. 343-50, esp. Thompson, "The Coins," pp.
429-30, pi. 87-88 (all coins illus.); Alexander, p. 47; M.
and "Reform," p. 188, n. 20; "Balkan Peninsula," with
Samovodene,
Coins of Philip and Alexander from Corinth," A A

347-50 (all coins illus.); Philippe, pp. 257-59, and
J. Price, "The Coinage of Philip II," NC 1979, p. 234,
an illuminating comparative table of the Corinth,
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
four "Amphipolis"
series 2's 014, 015, and 018, "from dies which Newell
that
mint [Amphipolis]." As Newell's chronology for
placed
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
42-45:
early
in the sequence
staters,
from
early in their sequence.

46-48: three "Tarsus" staters, 46 from series 2's 010, 47-48 from series l'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.,4 "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.
4 "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
on all other examples, and its harpa issue is thus probably the first if 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.
present
9 Sicyon, p. 25.
10 "The Coinage of Philip
the present
185-200).
II," review of Philippe, JVC 1979. p. 234. The suggested reattribution was that of
author, in "Peloponnesian Alexanders," p. 44. Price now specifically suggests Aegeae (Alexander
See also Chapter 11, group B.
12.
2.
Samovodene,
Series
Bulgaria, 1954 (IGCH
Gold Hoards
117
395)11
from 01-T1 (469), 05-T7 (475)

5 staters, from 07-C3 (477), 010-C4 (2 coins) (Plate 25, P), 012-T12 (503),
029-C14 (494)
one "other" stater with fulmen symbol (Plate 25, M). See p. 127.
1: 2 staters,
Series 2:
Other:
III (Plate 25, Q and R) were not

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 II's 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.
Samovodene's
recognized
3.
Balkans
Series
two Philip
II
staters of Philippe's Pella group
as from this group
196715
1: 2 staters,
Series 2:
1 stater,
Other:
none
from 04-T6, 05-T7

from 014-T13 (507)
Le Rider terms this hoard "Commerce 1967," although noting it as "decouvert probablement
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
dans la region des Balkans."
11 Philippe,
pp. 259-61, 3, and 430, pis. 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 Nasier Oblata I. Numismatica 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. . . .I 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,
Peninsula."
5, and 430, pis. 89-90 (all coins illus.); Coin Hoards 2, 50; Alexander,
p. 47; "Balkan
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
of the latest of the previous
started before 320, "as their style is at first a close development
staters."16 On this basis, Le Rider dated the Balkans hoard to 323 or a bit later, and Dimitrov
Newell's study of Salamis, however, must be revised and amplified. Several obverse
agreed.17
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.
Macedonia,
Mende,
Series 2:
198319
from 014-F1 (519 ; Plate 29, 73)

4 "A," 6 "B" (Plate 29, 63-72) The group B coins are from
dies and an unknown number of reverse dies.
1 stater,
10 distaters,
Other:
3 obverse
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.

Series 2:
1 stater,
Other:
none
This
small
195221
from 020-C10 (490)
of four coins only, was surely correctly dated

by Dimitrov to
Its latest coin was a Miletus Alexander stater: cf. Miletus 127-29, series II, ca.
hoard,
ca. 323-320 B.C.

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
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.
III,
16 "Cypriote
17 Philippe,
Alexanders," pp. 313-14.

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, pi. 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,
pp. 48 49; W. H. Waddington, "Trouvailles de Saida et Marmora," RN
p. 262, 4; Alexander,
1865, pp. 1-28, esp. pp. 6-8; U. Westermark, "Notes on the Saida Hoard (IGCH 1508)," Nordisk Numismatisk Arskrift 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 Westermark 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.
Westermark agreed with Thompson.
Commerce
7.
Series 2:
1993
from 018-F3 (Plate 30, 20)

"
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).
1 stater,
3 distaters,
Other:
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
Commerce
8.
Series
of 321 B.C., the date of its latest
datable coin.
1994
from 02-T4 (472), 03-T5 (473), 06-C2

from 011-C4 (481), 016-F2, 019-C10 (489), 021-T16, 022-T17 (512),
1: 3 staters,
Series 2: 7 staters,
024-T20 (515),
Other:
at least fairly firmly
21
staters,
030-C17 (497)
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.
Jasna Poljana, Bulgaria, 1969 (IGCH 777)M
9.
Series 2:
1 stater,
Other:
4 staters,
from 030-C16
2 trident, 2 fulmen
The latest coin present was from the dies of Abydus 169b, series
agree on a burial date in the neighborhood of 317-315 B.C.
XI,
ca. 318/7
B.C.
All
scholars
10.
Paeonia 1968 (IGCH

Series 2:
1 stater,
Other:
7 staters,
410)25
from 022 Tl 7
2 trident, 4 fulmen,
trident-A
23 See
p. 127.
24
Philippe, pp. 266-67, 8, Sardes and Miletus, pp. 74-75, pi. 33 (all 24 coins illus.); "Balkan Peninsula,"
and Abydus, p. 68.
p. 105; Lampsacus
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,
obverse
Only
of the
"B," 2 "C." The two "C"

"C" distaters in hoard 7
portion of the hoard's thousands
coins are die duplicates and from the

above.
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 II's group 9 with P, and by a Babylon stater as
Alexander
11.
3750, struck ca. 3 16-3 15/4. 26
Gildau, Rumania, 1960 (lGCH 774)

Series 2:
1 stater,
Other:
4 staters,
09-T11 (500)
2 trident,
from
1 cantharus,
fulmen
The IGCH dated Gildau's burial to ca. 320 B.C. and Thompson, in Sardes and Miletus, to after
was struck after Philip III's death.27
316 because of a Colophon stater that she believed

12.
Varna, Bulgaria,
1949
796)28
from 012-C6 (483),
Series 2: 2 staters,
Other:
(IGCH
distater,
018-F7
"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

No coins of series
Other:
2 staters,
1442)29
1 or 2
fulmen
The IGCH dates the hoard's burial to ca. 310 B.C. because of the presence of a Babylon stater
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.
of the same period as that in the previous hoard.
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.

pp. 72-73; Price also places the issue (Alexander 1785) midway in his ca. 319-310
Two earlier publications of the hoard are listed in IGCH. Note that in B. Mitrea, SCN 4 (1968),
group.
pp. 327-29, the reverse illustration of hoard coin 4 (from dies 09-T11) is a duplicate illustration of the reverse
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-Iasi (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.
pp. 70-71, pi. 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.
of hoard
51
11
5116
M 13
I II
1
1
77
11
2,
25
5
1
17
1 1
unc.
1 2
1
1 4
32
4 1 1
5 2 1 1 3
various
civic reg
nal
4
A 4 4 3
2 9 3 7 1
Sardes,
Bab.,
72-73
39/8;
Sardes,
Bab.,
322321
322/1
M
Paeonian kings
and Philip
to group
after ca. 36
MAE;
Unc.
II
of
18
1,
1,
9,
is
Colophon, Babylon,
36
36-31
M3
3om"
fulmen
Babylon,
36-33
M3;
33;
Cyp;
MAE
In each hoard except the first bold type indicates the latest firmly datable coin or coins. There are many omissions of "ca.," which may be assumed for most dates. The
following abbreviations are used: A&E, Africa and the East; Abyd., Abydus; Bab., Babylon; Cyp., Cyprus; Lamps., Lampsacus; Mac, Macedonia; Magn., Magnesia; SAM,
Southern Asia Minor; S&P, Syria and Phoenicia; "Sidon," Sidon 1-7 (Alexander 345fM>6),whose attribution
somewhat uncertain, see
116 above; Unc, uncertain; WAM,
Western Asia Minor.
6 1
2,
7 1 1 2 5 5 1 2
3 11
1 A
9,
trident;
cantharus;
fulmen
33
Aom"
Bab,
Abyd.,to
37;
36-35/4;
M3
M3;
AAE
33;
Cvp;
3P;
Unc.
M3;
33;
Cvp;
3P;
M&E;
Unc.
1
M3;
33;
3P;
AAE;
Unc.
5 1 1 1
125
to 322/1
A M3;
3 3 1
M3;
33;
3P;
AAE;
Unc.
fulmen;
trident;
trident-A
2 1 1
M3;
Cy;
I'nc.
73 on
2 2
trident;
fulmen
M3
30+
AsiaMinor
1953
IGCH 1442
4 2,
A,
A,
25,to
323/19
13,to
323/19
Abyd.
37;
M3
323/2
155 3 1
Fulmen;2-3 trident;
shield; 1-4 fulmen;
shield
canth.;
Pella
Lamps.,
323/2-72/3
M3
Much
5 4
Other
21
73 on
1
C
2
present
7M73
? 1?
73/2
2 1
Fulmen;
shield
M4
M4
34 (known)
Varna
139
IGCH 7M
Glldiu
1M3
IGCH 774
Philip III
6B
7A73
1
37
shield;
trident-A;
others?
M3
3alamis
3idon
3idon
Other
4 56
1
?
Lamps.,
73
Magn.322
2
1
421
I
12,323on
XO
distaters
Miletus
1 ti 1
2
1 41
+
18
53
Miletus,
late 323 on;
unc.
(AO
Paeonia
1M8
IGCH M3
2772
fulmen(see
commentary)
62 I3
16
XII
A 14
49
73 on
22
5
M
Oo r D
f,7
25
29
83
17
Lot
C
A
42
211
Lot
A4
7333+
known
6+
17+
Fulmen
Alexander
3eries
3eries
OtherMac.
staters
2
73
Philip
Philippe
Philippe
PhilippeIIIA
Philippe IB
OtherMints
3
Jas. Pol.
1M9
IGCH 111
or
13
4
13
Philip
Alexander
PhilipIII
Other
5
M
6
Commerce
193
1GCHLot
Trident,
12
Total Coins*
3aida
Commerce
1829-1863 1993
IGCH 1508 IGCH -
Ruse
1952
IGCH -
Cantharus,
by ca. 315 B.C.
23
Mende
1983
IGCH -
with
Buried
Table
Corinth 3amovodeneBalkans
1933
1954
1M7
IGCH
IGCH 395 1GCH-
Staters
Hoards
Hoard
Containing
Identifiable
Gold
to
p.
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
the only coins with these symbols to appear in hoards buried around the time of
Alexander's death i.e., hoards 1-6 or 1-7 in the previous chapter, ca. 323 or perhaps one or two
years later.
exceptions1
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 U 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
struck at a secondary
2 Philips in Philippe
polis II, III; fulmen,
in hoards 2 and 7, see the preceding chapter.

That in hoard 2 was in all probability
Macedonian mint, and hoard 7 was buried ca. 321 at the very earliest.
: cantharus staters, Pella groups, II, III, Amphipolis III; trident, Pella II, III, AmphiPella 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,

(Chapter 12, hoard 10, and Table 23).
6 See Table 23, in particular the Saida hoard.
but silver only of Philip and of Paeonian kings
13.
Chronology
123
coin worth to me in the marketplace? The names and images on the coins must have been
irrelevant to their users Philip 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 axaTTjpE*; XPUCT0' yOhzivzioi) 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
none conclusive, provide the only help in dating the Alexander
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.
Several
types
of evidence,
staters of series 1 and 2.
A. The Corinth Hoard

This hoard until recently seemed to provide a firm terminus ante quem for the staters of series
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
troops point 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 hoards often 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.
1 and 2.
7 M. B.
Hatzopoulos, Actes de vente d'Amphipolis, Meletemata 14 (Athens, 1991), inscriptions VII, X.A,
and XI, and commentary on pp. 84-85. Georges Le Rider has pointed out that Hatzopoulos's restora
X.B
tion 85 CTTai7)pcov[xpuacov <piAi7r7Te]cov

[AeyaXcovin X.B could equally well be restored with [xputrcov <xXei;av8pe],
"La date des premiers stateres d'or de Philippe," in Xagaxrrig (above, p. 113, n. 6), p. 268. As these 85 "large
staters" are shown by inscription X.A to be equivalent to 170 regular arar^goi (fikavneioi, 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
Nevertheless,
such a name
seeming proof that these particular Alexanders were actually called "Philips."
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
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
Even the considerably later Varna deposit (hoard
among the 51 similar coins of Samovodene.
coins from Amphipolis,
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 1I.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. 1 I.2, which shares one obverse die with II. 1,
employed but 18 obverse dies for its four other symbols.13 Le Rider considers 1 I.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
Philippe Group
Obv.
Dies
Pella II.1
Pella I I.2
Amphipolis
Amphipolis
"II.A"
"II.B"
II
24
Gold Coins in Selected
Corinth
Coins
Hoards
Coins
Balkans
Coins
Samovodine
Mende
Coins
Varna
Coins
124
24
10
19
18
16
48
19
11
15
11
30
21
16
In Corinth the numbers of coins from Pella 1 I.2 and Amphipolis II.B are higher than the
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
links in the Corinth hoard are from Amphipolis's II.B, which followed II.A. Although this may
be simply a consequence of the high relative representation
of this subgroup (21 coins from a
group employing only 30 obverse dies), still the concentration here sets Corinth apart from
Samovodene, Balkans, and Mende. Why ? It may simply be that the reason is purely geograph
ical as Corinth is the only mainland Greek hoard location, while the other hoards were all from
the north.
As an aside, one may also wonder if perhaps Philippe's Pella II. 2, or perhaps Amphipolis II.B,
each joined by only one obverse to its preceding group of issues, could have actually been struck
numbers
11 Philippe,
p. 430.
single die used with two coins is counted as one link; with three coins, as two; and with four, as three.
The photographs of the Mende hoard coins (see Appendix 2) are often not clear enough to allow positive die
identification, and so the number of die links in that hoard cannot be given.
13 I omit the last two small issues listed in
Philippe from I I.2 (p. 170, 393-97) from but three unconnected
obverse dies, as Le Rider seems to doubt strongly that they truly belong to II. 2 (p. 417). They occur in no
known hoards.
14 Philippe,
pp. 425^26.
12 A
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
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,
to the silver dated years 1 and 2, 333/2 and 332/1 B.C., so that it is a fair
corresponding
that Sidon's gold started only after its silver, perhaps 330-328. The situation is
assumption
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 12-15 in 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.
questionable.15
C.
Philip II's Gold
Le Rider in Philippe tentatively assigned a terminus ante quem of 328 B.C. to Philippe's
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 CTxar5jpe<; xpuaoL (pMnneioi.2"
group
15 See
p. 116.
16 Tarsos,
p. 24.
were indeed
Despite Thompson's comments (p. 118, above, n. 18) I believe that Newell's Salamis 1-5
the earliest emissions of the mint and expect to publish the evidence in a planned festschrift
honoring Georges
17 Sardes
Le Rider.
and Miletus, p. 10.

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
even a temporary cessation of the coins with Philip's types and name.
Certainly
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.
have produced
in the first four hoards
of Table 23, buried
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
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
series 1 and 2 and the hoards'
to the two post-323 Philip
Q-R), both
in superb
II
staters which date the hoard (Samovodene
28 and 29, Plate 25,
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
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.
than
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
several times in this study. Even if Alexander's silver started no earlier than
emphasized
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
By 327, at any rate, overseas gold was certainly being
332, when the silver coinage commenced.
struck.
ca. 332, there seems no decisive
21 Hoards 2, 4, 7, and 8 in Chapter 12.

22 See p. 143.
13.
OTHER CANTHARUS,
Chronology
127
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.24
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
in Samovodene.26
mint other than that which produced
the series 1 and 2 staters
These obverse-linked fulmen and shield staters, with their accompanying similarly obverselinked 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
certainly appear in abundance in the Commerce 1994 hoard (Plate 31,27-31).
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
staters
More
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
surely
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
Unlike the silver, however, the lack of die
heaviest silver production of Amphipolis occurred.
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
excludes those mentioned

itself only with the coins of these symbols included in Table 19 on p. 100.
on p. 100, note b.
52; here Plate 25,
Samovodene
It
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.
p. 104.
27 See
p. 100, Table 19.
28 See Table 19.
29 Table 19 shows the paucity of obverse links between
Plate 25, E-H, and Plate 31, 11-26 show
symbols.
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
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.
common symbols of cantharus,
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
II. They indicate the placement of the reverse markings.
more needed for coins of Philip
LF
to left
LW
RW
to left,
RF
TH
EX
BL
wing, on gold
to right, below wing, on gold
to right
below
below
below
APPENDIX
COMMERCE
1993
throne,
on silver
in exergue
horses'
bellies,
on Philip
II
gold
HOARD, TETRADRACHMS
In the spring of 1993 two lots of early Alexander tetradrachms appeared on the United States
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.
market.
Amphipolis
1
2
3
4
B
A
A
B
LF
LF
LF
LF
prow r.
prow l.
fulmen.
ivy leaf.
Alexander
1.
Alexander
4.
Al.
Al.
8.
A4.
Alexander
Berk 80,
18
Jan.
1994, 54 = Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 63. Alexander
B6.
B
B
A
A
A
5
6
10
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
1 Chapter 8, hoard
caduceus.
quiver.
Pegasus
bow.
Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 64. Alexander 32. B8.

Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 65. Alexander 38. C2.
forepart. Alexander 44. C5.
Celator.
Alexander
48.
C6.
Macedonian shield. Alexander 57. D2.

caduceus over isi. Alexander 66. D7.
7.
23.
Appendix
130
11
12
13
A
B
B
B
A
A
LF
LF
crescent.
As
As
As
As
As
As
As
18.
18
L20"
r21
L
Alexander
22
"
23 24
25
A
A
B
A
A
B
78.
Alexander
17
-19-
cock.
16
15
herm.
As
As
As
As
14
LF
LF
79.
E2.
E3.
12.
12.
12.
Berk 82,
Berk 78,
July
13
8 Sept.
1994, 205 = Berk 78, 8 Sept.
1993, 66.
1993, 67.
12.
89. E7.
Alexander
bucranium. Alexander
93.
E8.
18.
18.
18.
18.
18.
18.
Berk 78,
8 Sept.
1993, 68.
Uncertain Greece or Macedonia2

A
A
26
27
LF youthful figure (athlete? boxer?). Alexander

As 26. Sicyon 3.5 (A4-P7).
187. Sicyon A3 = A5: new rev.
Lampsacus
A
A
B
28
29
30
LF
LF
LF
caduceus.
caduceus;
Alexander
TH N.
Demeter standing,
1342.
Alexander
I.1: new rev.

Lampsacus
1345. Lampsacus
I. 2a.
holding two torches.
Alexander
1351. Lampsacus
V: new
dies.
r31
32
r33
A
A
B
A
L34
r 35
L
36
37 -I
38
39 -i
40
-42
-
V.22: same rev.
30.
Lampsacus
30.
Lampsacus
V.22:
new rev.
30.
Lampsacus
V.23:
same rev.
30.
Lampsacus
V.23:
new rev.
30.
Lampsacus
V.25: new rev.
30. Lampsacus V.25: rev. of Lampsacus 24, a die to which was later added the
of 37-46 below, becoming the rev. of Lampsacus 25b.
monogram
-41
As
As
As
As
As
As
-I
43
44
45
46
LF
Demeter
Lampsacus
B
A
A
A
As
As
As
As
As
As
As
As
As
B
A
A
LF
LF
LF
A
A
B
on 30;
as
TH
8.
Berk 78,
Sept.
1993, 69.
Alexander
1355.
V.27.
37.
37.
Lampsacus
V.28:
new rev.
37.
37.
Berk 78,
8 Sept.
1993, 70.
Lampsacus
V.28:
new rev.
37.
Lampsacus V.28: new rev.
V.28: new rev.
37.
Celator.
37.
Lampsacus
37.
Lampsacus
V.29: new rev.
37.
Lampsacus
V.32:
new rev.
Miletus
47
48
49
Celator. Miletus I, but the issue is not in Alexander

fulmen; TH H. Alexander 2086. Miletus I.24: new rev.
grain ear. Alexander 2099. Miletus 1 1 I. 136a.
H.
2 Sicyon: Demanhur,
der, pp. 109-10.
pp. 34-35, 75-80;
Macedonia:
or Miletus.
"Peloponnesian Alexanders," p. 44; Aegae (?): Alexan
Commerce 1993 hoard, Tetradrachms
131
LF Tl ; TH A. The right vertical stroke of the n is faint, but definitely present.

must be from
The issue, with the n to
not in Alexander or Tarsos, although
series
The ANS possesses
coin from the same dies, but with the
incom
pletely erased.
TH
TH
52
issue
4.
series
I,
Tarsos
to inner r., globule,
Alexander
3019.
Tarsos series
II,
issue 29.
(Soli)3
53
3000.
TH O;
plow;
LF
prow r. Celator.
"Amathus"
Alexander
B.
LF
Tc;
Berk
78,
51
I.
it
i.,
is
50
A A
Tarsus
1993,71.
Sept.
Alexander 3094; obv. die of 3091.
Citium
54
RF
EX
AAEEANAPO
A,
issue 4.
group
BAZIAEQZ;
I,
anders" series
[sic].
Alexander 3107.
"Cypriote Alex
55
LF
dove.
B A
Paphos
LF
bow.
Alexander 3116.
As 56.
"Cypriote Alexanders" series
3139.
Berk 78,
Sept.
issue
7.
Alexander
Celator.
56
57
I,
Salamis
1993, 72.
LF
LF
As 59. Berk 78,
forepart; TH globule and AA. Alexander 3203.

ram forepart; TH AA and four globules. Celator. Berk 80, 18
Berk 78,
Sept. 1993, 73. Alexander 3209.
ram
Jan.
1994, 55 =
59
B A
58
Damascus
61
(Issus
1993, 74.
?)4
LF ; TH
EX
RF
AAEEANAPOY.
Alexander 3222. MyrThis obverse
not known in issue 21 in
Myriandros, but occurs in issues 20 (the same markings and inscription except
that the inscription
simply AAEEANAPO) and 22 (see 63 below, without the
rtl;
series
III,
and
BAZIAEQZ
issue 21, obv.
IX.
Myriandros series
III,
is
iandros
is
Myriandrus
Sept.
60
66
67
LF ; TH
Itl.
Alexander
3223.
issue 22.
TH
M. Alexander 3240.
As 64.
TH O. Alexander 3244.
As 66, but obv. IX.
Ake series
Ake series
II,
issue
issue
3,
?5
obv.
6,
65
Tyre
A A A A
64
Ake
63
title).
As 61.
I,
A A
62
obv.
IV.
V.
is
6)
The present author's "Staters, Serendipity and Soli" in Xagaxr^g (above, p. 113, n.
shows that the
the Cypriot Soli. "Alexanders from Soli on Cyprus," to appear in
proper mint of the prow-symbol coins
forthcoming festschrift honoring Martin Price, contains her discussion of the prow-symbol coins in all three
metals.
J. D. Bing has recently argued strongly for Issus rather than Myriandrus in "Reattribution
'Myriandrus' Alexanders: The Case for Issus," AJN, Second Series,
(1989), pp. 1-32.
See p. 84.
of the
Appendix
132
LF
68
HO.
Berk 78,
8 Sept.
1993, 75. Alexander 3248.
Ake series
III,
issue 10, dies
X-e.
Aradus
69
LF
LF
A
B
LF
LF
Z; TH
A; EX
BAZIAEQZ.
Alexander
3316.
Byblos
70
A. A lexander 3426, where Price notes that the attribution to Byblos is "very
doubtfui."
Babylon
71
72
TH M. Alexander 3581. "Babylon Mint" issue I.

kylix; TH 1*1 over M. Celator. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993,
"Babylon Mint" issue II.
<D;
76.
Alexander 3654.
Memphis
LF
73
TH
Rose;
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),
coins, it was judged an intrusion.
six or seven years later than any of the 73 certain hoard
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.
of Amphipolis is placed last.

Greece or Macedonia. Noe in Sicyon assigned a large group of issues to
318, but 26-27 are from the first tetradrachm issue there. Alexander places them
Discussion
Uncertain
330/325-ca.
first in a group
given
to 336-323.
Lampsacus. Thompson
in Lampsacus and Abydus dated series V to 325/4-324/3.

Twentythree obverses were known to her. This hoard's 17 series V coins are from one new die, whose
it at the head of the series (coin 30), and from seven of Thompson's first 13
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 II's types were associated with series I at this mint,6 but in any case hoard evidence
places series III approximately to this time.
"Amathus," Gitium, 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
style clearly places
dies.
evidence
exists.
Byblos. This
from
coin, too (the only one in the hoard showing

after 323, but the issue is not precisely dated.
See Alexander,
p. 276.
I share Price's reservations.
Zeus with crossed legs) could date
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.

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.
Amphipolis.
7 "Near
East" coin 1399.
APPENDIX
MENDE
1983
HOARD, GOLD
Georges Le Rider has obtained photographs of this hoard of 80 gold coins, 62 staters of Philip
III (10 distaters and 8 staters). No weights or die axis positions

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 1 1 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.
II
and 18 coins of Alexander
were secured.
PHILIP II
Pella
Group IC
BL
BL
1-3
4
Group
grapes.
2 and
3 are die duplicates.
grasshopper.
1 I. 1
BL
BL
5-9
10-15*
fulmen.
cantharus. The obv. die of 10 (probably D44) is known in Philippe only with
13 is from the obv. of 8, retouched.
symbol.
trident. 21-23 are from the same obv., 23 and 24 from the same rev.
fulmen
BL
16-24*
Group
1 I.2
25
26*
27*
28
29-34
1 See
p. 126.
BL
BL
prow.
prow ( ?). The rev. is probably Philippe's R268. It and R269 are the only
two prow revs, known in Philippe.
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.
As 27. R269'. Philippe's R269 has a prow symboi. On R269' the symbol has
been recut to Nike.
BL Nike. 30-32 are from the same obv., 33-34 from the same rev.
Mende
1983
Hoard, Gold
135
BL
BL
lion's skin.
profile shield. 37-40 are from the same obv., 37-39 from the same rev., and
36 and 40 from another rev.
35
36-40*
Amphipolis
Group
41-42
43-44
45
46-49*
50-54*
55*
56-60
II
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
grain kernei.
club.
BL
Pf.
BL
uncertain or no marking.
caduceus.
ivy leaf.
51-52 are from the same obv.
crescent.
grain ear.
trident.
Miletus
61*
Cf. Miletus 22-23 (different dies), from series I, dated to 325-323 B.C.
Uncertain
62
III
ALEXANDER
Macedonia
Distater Group A
63*
64*
LF
fulmen. Alexander 163.

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*
66*
LF
LF
cantharus.
trident.
Alexander
Alexander
167.
171.
Distater Group B
67*
LF
68*
As
As
As
As
As
69*
70*
71*
72*
67.
LW A.
Obv. of 67.
Obv. of 67.
67.
Sicyon
67.
Sicyon
fulmen;
67.
67.
A10;
191.
Sicyon A8-P14.
A8; no rev. photo.
All (= A8, retouched?); no rev. photo.
Alexander
Sicyon
Sicyon
no rev. photo.
A13-P26.
Obv. of 71. Sicyon A13; new rev.
Stater
LF
fulmen.
74*
LF
H.
75*
Obv. below,
73*
Alexander
164
or 164A.
This study's series
2,
014-F1.
Miletus
Alexander
Miletus series I, 13-14.

(off flan); LW h. Alexander 2079.
2078.
fulmen
Miletus series I,
18.
"Sidon"2
76-77
Obv. on helmet, griffin; RW club.
Alexander 3460. Sidon
same obv.
See p. 116 above
for questioning the attribution
to Sidon.
4.
76-77 are from the
Appendix
136
78
Obv.
as
76.
Obv.
Obv.
as
76.
as
76.
RW
grain
kernei.
Alexander
3464.
Sidon
6.
Sidon
79
80*
The Mende
(74-75).
ered the
RW filleted palm branch.

LW H; RW filleted palm
hoard's latest
coins
Alexander
branch.
are the Miletus staters
3470.
Sidon
Alexander 3472.
11.
Sidon
13.
II (61) and Alexander

325-323 B.C. Thompson consid
of Philip
All are in Miletus series I, dated by Thompson to ca.

Philip II issue as struck "in the beginning of the reign
of Philip III," i.e., at the earliest

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 condition it is by far the most worn coin in the hoard provides
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.
in late 323 B.C, so that coin 61 furnishes
the hoard's

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
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
BL
Group
-
fulmen.
67, D31-R54.
1 11A
As
1.
Berk 80,
18
Jan.
1994, 4 = Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 4 = Celator, June 1993.
413, D185-R305.
3
As
1.
BL
cantharus.
1993.
6
7
8
L
9
10
Berk 79, 2 Nov. 1993, 7 = Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 5 = Celator, June
455?, D187?-R337.
Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 6 = Celator, May 1993. D192'-R342.
As 4.
As 4. 477, D216 R349.
BL trident. 491, D185-R358.
As 7. 498?, D187?-R359.
BL bucranium. D185-R384.
As 9. Celator, May 1993. 522, D224-R382.
BL fly r. Celator, May 1993. 540?, D187?-R390.
As 11. 535, D226-R390.
436, D197-R324.
11
12
Amphipolis
Group
13
Group
14
II
BL
trident.
D64?-R104?
11 IA
As
13.
Celator,
May 1993. 222, D98-R176.
Lampsacus
15
BL
facing head and K.
Lampsacus
VI:
new dies.
Appendix
138
Magnesia
and bee. Dies of Thompson, "Posthumous Philip II Staters of
Sludia Paulo Nasler Oblata, ed. S. Scheers (Louvain, 1982), p. 58, 2.
obv. die had previously been used for an issue ascribed to Miletus. See Sardes
Miletus, p. 50 (but see doubts about this attribution, p. 136 above, n. 3). The
markings are those of the new Alexander stater 26 below.
BL
16
spearhead
Minor,"
Asia
The
and
rev.
III
ALEXANDER
Macedonia
Distater Group A
17
LF
fulmen. Alexander
Distater Group
r
L
18
As
19
LF
163.
17.
Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 7 = Celator, June 1993. Alexander 167. See
cantharus.
p. 114, D01-DF3, for another distater from the obverse of 18-19, which may also be
from this hoard.
Staters
20
21
22
Series
Rev. as 17. Alexander 164; obv. of Alexander 168b (with cantharus).
018-F3.
Rev. as 17. Alexander 164.
LF Boeotian (?) shield. Berk 80, 18 Jan. 1994, 5 = Berk 77, 16 June 1993,
Alexander
See
2,
8.
176.
also coin 40, probably a Macedonian imitation.
Uncertain Greece or Macedonia ?

23
LF
Corinthian helmet
i.
Alexander
794.
Lampsacus
24
LF
addorsed
V.105:
25
horse foreparts
and t. Celator, May 1993. Alexander 1358. Lampsacus
new rev.
As 24. Berk 77,
16
June 1993,
9.
Dies of Alexander
1358c. Lampsacus
V: new dies.
Magnesia
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
and 1928 (with ram's head and & to i.). The rev. markings
are those of the posthumous
Philip II stater 16 above.
i.)
26
Miletus
27
28
RW bipennis; RF grain ear. Alexander

LW grain ear; RW bipennis. Berk 77,
Alexander
2096.
Miletus
III. 129:
2095.
16
new rev.
LF
serpent.
As 29.
Alexander
2532.
Sardes
1
1
Sardes
I.8.
III. 127a.
1993, 10 = Celator,
Miletus
June
June 1993.
139
Side
31
LF
BAZIAEQZ; LW
LF
caduceus
<DI over
BZ.
Alexander 2956.
Tarsus
32
3043c.
LW E over Z (partially off flan). Dies of Alexander

third group, 50, dies N-o.
and BAZIAEQZ;
Tarsos
III,
series
Salamis
33
LF
34
As 34.
35
LW
Dies
harpa.
of Alexander 3136.
"Cypriote Alexanders" series I, issue
4.
3136.
Alexander
eagle i. Alexander 3125; obv. of 3129a (with eagle r.). This and coins of similar
style (e.g., Sardes and Miletus, pi. 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
i.,
Z; LF BAZIAEQZ; LW A. Berk 77,

Obv. to
June 1993. Alexander 3315.
36
16
June
1993, 11 = Celator, May and
"Sidon"1
Obv. on helmet, griffin; RW fulmen. Alexander 3461. Sidon series
group A, but
the issue
not known there. The issue
known in Alexander and 37's reverse die
that of Balkans hoard 29 (Chapter 12, hoard
see Philippe, pi. 90, 29).
is
3;
is
is
I,
37
Sidon
Obv. as 37.
38
RW filleted
branch.
Alexander
3470.
Sidon series
II,
issue 11.
Memphis
16 June 1993, 12 = Celator, May and June 1993.
The
obverse appears to be that of an ANS coin with
(same obv.).
reverse markings of ram head with Isis crown and A (Alexander 3963), whose corre
dated to 324 B.C. in "Ptolemy," p. 14.
sponding tetradrachm issue
Rev. no markings.
39
Berk 77,
3961
is
Alexander
Uncertain
LF
40
fulmen. The obverse style differs so drastically from other Macedonian fulmen
that this coin must be an imitation.
staters
Uncertain East
Obv. on helmet, griffin;
41
the obv.
Obv.
42
LF
BAZIAEQZ; LW Al. Apparently unpublished, but from
3994 ("Uncertain East," with BAZIAEQZ, and LW E).

fulmen over <t>,and BAZIAEQZ.
Apparently unpublished.
of Alexander
as 41.
LF
See
p.
is
is
15 of Lampsacus, whose markings are known

Perhaps the latest dated coin in the hoard
with Philip III's name and whose issue
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
116 above
for questioning of the attribution
to Sidon.
140
Appendix
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 1 1. 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
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 Munzhandlung of Munich.
Lot B. In May of 1994 at Giessener Munzhandlung, Charles Hersh recorded a lot of 80 staters
of Alexander III and 5 of Philip III. Of these, Giessener Munzhandlung 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
II. These coins had also passed through Giessener
"exceptional" staters of Philip
Munzhandlung, 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
Society).
1993 (Appendix 3) 41-42;
lot A, 128-29 (full description on file at the American Numismatic
Appendix
142
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
LF
As
LF
trident. 02-T4. Alexander 172. Sale lot 1108.

03-T5. 1116b.2
cantharus.
06-C2. Alexander 168. 1154b.
1.
Series 2
As
As
024-T20. 1157b.
011-C4. 1107.
LF fulmen. 016-F2. Alexander
As 3. 030-C17. 1125b.
As 3. 019-C10.
1125a.
As 1. 021-T16. 1121a.
As 1. 022-T17. 1156b.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.
3.
1154a.
164.
Other
As
11
3.
1135b. The coin is from the second cantharus obv. known to me which shows
three full helmet

under
rL
12
13
14
15
16
rL
17
18
19
20
r21
L
-
22
23
-24-1
L25J
26
-
27
28
29-1
30
31
the helmet
crests as on distaters,
central crests.
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. 1155a.
As 6. 1122a.
As 6. 1136a.
As 6. 1113a.
As 6. 1117a.
As 6. 1157a.
As 6. 1111a.
LF shield. Alexander
bearing
a fulmen
As 27.
As 27.
As 27.
As 27.
1123b.
the rearmost
bowl with its tip appearing
176.
1115b.
looping to the right directly

the tips of the nearer and
between
The obverse die is known also with reverses
symboi.
1109.
1112b.
1111b.
2 The sale
catalogue grouped many coins in 5-coin lots, illustrating only one side of each coin. A lowercase
a or b indicates the first or second coin described in such lots, not necessarily the order in which the illustra
tions appeared.
143
Mr. Lampinen of CNG was kind enough to grade these Macedonian coins with the usual three
strictly on the basis of wear and without taking into account any of the other criteria
which enter into the usual dealer grading.
symbols
VF
+ or
Very Fine
Fine
10
Good Very Fine

Series
1 and
"Other,"
2,
11-26
1-10
are hardly dramatic, but it must be remembered that the lot represents the
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
These numbers
remnants
"other" staters.
KEY TO PLATES
noted, all coins are in the collection
of the American Numismatic Society.

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.
Unless
otherwise
They are identified
ANS only
as
Most non-ANS coins are known through casts in the ANS cabinet or from its photograph file
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
and library.
catalogued.
Plates 1-5, 1-103, Alexander
See pp. 21-23, Table
Tetradrachms.
25
ANS
ANS,
ANS
ANS,
32
Location
34
ANS,
50
Artemis
55
Cast at ANS marked
71
Vienna
72
Paris
73
Petsalis
75
London
77
81
photo at ANS
Athens, ex Empedocles and ex Andritsaena
London = Alexander 116
10
14
1.
"Earliest Silver,"
pi. 13, 13
1905 hoard
ex Demanhur
=
SNGBerry
196
ex Demanhur
1905 hoard
Demanhur, pi.
unknown.
ex Demanhur
FPL
4,
II,
1905 hoard
1970, 2 = Artemis FPL 2, 1968, 3
& F," presumably at one time in the inventory of Rollin and Feuardent,
June-July
"R
Paris
79
Alexander 421
unknown;
Location
84
ANS
85
Petsalis
92
Munz. u. Med.
93
Hersh
98
Berlin
SNGBerry
Plates 5-6, 104-30,
ca.
1923 hoard
201
FPL
333,
Alexander
Apr.
1972,
12
Tetradrachms
Showing
Intra-Group
1-3.
llle
122
London
124
Dattari
127
Cast at ANS marked "Rollin & Feuardent"
129
St. Petersburg
Alexander
Plate 7,131-47, Alexander

131
London
132
Hersh
133
Saroglos
=
=
Didrachms.
See pp. 30-31,
Alexander 24
Glendining,
7 Mar.
1957,
21
145
Table 3.
Linkage.
See pp. 24-25,
Figures
Key to Plates
146
135
Copenhagen
136
Hersh
137
ANS
= SNGCop 667
Giessener 58, 9 Apr.
138
Hersh
141
Berlin
Giessener 60, 5 Oct. 1992,
114
Reattrib., pi. 15, 4

= Reattrib., pi. 15, 3
142
Berlin
143
Munz. u. Med.
July
144
1992, 229
Reattrib., pi. 15, 2
FPL
1955,
Kricheldorf
1958, 8 =
178, Apr.
3, 25 Feb. 1957,
1174
= Coin Galleries,
11
Munz. u. Med. 13, 17 June 1954, 1106
342
Berlin
146
Hersh
147
NFA
25, 29 Nov.
Plates 7-8, 148-79,

148
Cambridge,
150
Hersh
151
Athens
152
Hersh
153
Hersh
154
ANS
157
Hersh
Hersh
Alexander
See pp. 31-32,
Drachms.
Malter 49, 15 Nov.
London
232
Reattrib., pi. 7, 3 (erroneously
159
1992,
80
Table 3.
Eng. = McClean 3507

Giessener 58, 9 Apr. 1992, 234
158
1990,
1992,
250
called hemidrachm)
= Glendining, 7 Mar. 1957, 20
160
= Alexander 95 = Reattrib., pi. 7, 5 = J. Hirsch 13, 15 May 1905, 1126

Hersh = Sotheby, 27 Oct. 1993, 412 = Numismatica Ars Classica 5, 25 Feb. 1992, 105 = LeuMiinz. u. Med., 3 Dec. 1965, 236 = Munz. u. Med. 8, 8 Dec. 1949, 807
161
ANS
162
London
163
Hersh
Sotheby,
=
164
Glendining,
165
Munz.
166
Bank
1 Dec.
1924,
55
Alexander 33
20 Nov.
u. Med.
1975,
13, 17
879
June
Leu 15, 4 May 1976,
1954,
Ars Classica B, 25 Feb. 1992,
167
Hersh
168
Tradart,
169
Hersh
Near East 1993 hoard 1
170
Hersh
171
Hersh
173
Hersh
174
ANS
175
Blagoevgrad,
176
Hersh
178
Near East
179
Hersh
Numismatica
1098
198
1274
8 Nov. 1992, 71 = Munz. u. Med. 54, 26 Oct. 1978, 184 =
1989,
221
Sinan Pascha 1919 hoard 3

Bulgaria
Calim 1976 hoard 1
1993 hoard
14
Plate 8, 180-96,
Alexander
180
London
Alexander 15
181
Hersh
182
London
Alexander 41 = Reattrib., pi. 7, 7
183
Hersh
184
Hersh
Triobols.
See p. 32, Table
3.
Naville
1, 4 Apr.
1921, 862
Key to Plates
185
Munz. u. Med. 13, 17 June 1954,
189
Athens
190
Hersh
192
193
ANS
194
Leiden
195
ANS
196
Hersh
1992,
Hess 207,
197
Vienna
198
Paris
199
St. Petersburg
1 Dec.
Alexander
Traite
IV.2,
Diobols.
AMNG III.2,
Hersh
203
Athens
204
Paris
205
London
206
Egger 40, 2 May 1912, 749
207
ANS
208
Weber
360
See pp. 32-33,
Table 3.
pi. 7, 8
pi. 31, 21 (rev. only)
Traite IV.2, 901, pi. 311, 8

=
Alexander 98
Weber
2086
2087
Plate 8, 209-14, Alexander

209
Paris
210
Hersh
211
London
212
Berlin
213
Hersh
214
London
Traite
=
IV.2,
Alexander
3.
pi. 311, 9
903,
pi. 31, 22
157
Links between Alexander Groups.
279
Paris
280
SNGANS
281
Paris
282
283
SNGANS
SNGANS
284
Munich
285
286
SNGANS
SNGANS
287
Parke-Bernet,
288
289
SNGANS
SNGANS
290
Sofia = Philippe,
291
St. Petersburg
See p. 33, Table
Alexander 26
12-14,279-335,
=
Obols.
AMNG III.2,
Plates 9-11, 215-78,
Plates
126
pi. 311, 7 = Reaiirib.,
900,
202
1993,
1931,
201
1099
233
Plate 8, 197-208,
147
Philippe,
Philip
II
Tetradrachms.
p. 120, pi. 43,
p. 121, pi. 44,
See Chapter 3 for individual
See pp. 52-53,
coin descriptions.
Table 7.
571
Philippe,
572
573
576
577
9 Dec. 1969,
41b
579
580
p. 121,
pi. 44, 10
Philippe,
p. 302,
66,
pi. 44, 9; ex Paeonia
1968 hoard
Key to Plates
148
292
Commerce
293
SNGANS
294
Philippe,
295
SNGANS
296
London
=
590
p. 122, pi. 44, 21
Philippe,
Philippe,
p. 315,
SNGANS
298
Munich
299
Munich
300
Volo
301
Cast at ANS, ex ANS
302
London
303
306
SNGANS
SNGANS
SNGANS
SNGANS
307
London
308
310
SNGANS 630 = SNG Berry 118

Cast at ANS marked "Rous"
SNGANS 643
311
Stockholm
305
309
Philippe,
p. 123, pi. 45, 25
610
Philippe,
SNGANS
London
314
Brussels
315
316
SNGANS
SNGANS
317
Oxford
318
SNGANS
688
319
SNGANS
691
320
London
de Hirsch
1041
674
687
SNGAshm
321
SNGANS
322
London
323
SNGANS
324
London
325
London
326
Blaser-Frey
327
Vienna
328
SNGANS
329
Miinz.
330
Berlin
331
SNGANS
332
Glendining,
333
Coin Galleries
334
Leiden
335
Philippe,
2477
Philippe,
p. 123, pi. 46,
693
740
=
Philippe,
p. 124, pi. 46, 8
19, 7 Sept.
FPL
756
309,
1077
FPL
83
Philippe,
Philippe,
574
Feb. 1970, 6
SNGBerry
3 May
p. 303,
1968,
748
u. Med.
1967,
2.1
=
Plates 14-15,336-85, Philip
339
pi. 45, 28
p. 123,
639
=
Turin
SNGANS
11
615
313
338
hoard
607
312
Berlin
1973,
606
Munich
1917
Mar.
p. 122, pi. 44, 33
Philippe,
337
343,
593
336
FPL
592
297
304
19; ex Megara
34, pi. 44,
Munz. u. Med.
p. 122, pi. 44, 22
120
11
(1978),
Sotheby,
II
C28
16 Apr.
Fifths of
the
p. 121, pi. 44, 4

p. 121, pi. 44, 3
1969,
60; ex Paeonia
Tetradrachm.
1968 hoard
See pp. 57-58,
Table 9.
Key to Plates
340
SNGANS
341
Berlin
342
London
343
Berlin
581
=
344
SNGANS
345
Paris
346
Philippe,
347
Wertheim
Philippe,
p. 121, pi. 44,
p. 121, pi. 44,
SNGANS
London
350
352
SNGANS
SNGANS
Joannina
353
Cambridge,
354
Wertheim
355
SNGANS
London
357
SNGANS
358
London
359
361
SNGANS
SNGANS
SNGANS
362
Weber
363
London
364
London
365
Berlin
7, 1969,
56
Weber
2060
596
=
p. 122, pi. 44, 26
Philippe,
Eng.
=
SNGFitz
2073
p. 122,
Philippe,
Philippe,
pi. 44, 34
p. 122, pi. 44, 35
Weber
2061
597
=
Philippe,
p. 122, pi. 45, 3
598
599
618
2062
SNGANS
652
32, 22 Oct.
368
SNGANS
654
369
Berlin
370
Berlin
371
SNGANS
SNGANS
SNGANS
SNGANS
1962,
2343
658
660
SNG Berry
696
Philippe,
127
pp. 120 and 318, 2, pi. 43, 2, and pi. 52, 2; ex Arta ca. 1929 hoard
697
698
376
SNGANS
SNGANS
377
SNGANS
704
378
Berlin
379
380
SNGANS
SNGANS
381
Naville
382
734
383
SNGANS
SNGANS
384
SNGANS
726
385
Empedocles
Plate
15,386-87, Philip
386
London
Philippe,
p. 124, pi. 46, 33
387
London
Philippe,
p. 124, pi. 46, 35
375
FPL
591
=
G. Hirsch
374
u. Miinzen
p. 120, pi. 43, 8 =
Philippe,
367
373
18
Kunst
588
366
372
15 =
587
=
356
17
p. 122, pi. 44, 28
583
348
360
p. 121, pi. 44,
Philippe,
Philippe,
349
351
149
701
714
719
1, 4 Apr.
1921,
860
724
II
Tenths.
See p. 62, Table
14.
Key to Plates
150
Plate
15,388-92,
Philip
Eng.
388
Cambridge,
389
Lanz
390
London
391
Berlin
392
Private
II
=
36, 21 Apr.
=
Muller,
SNGLewis
1986,
See p. 62, Table
15.
500
217
XXVI,
10, and pi.
p. 337,
273
collection
II
Die Links between Philip
16-17,393449,
Plates
Attic-Weight Drachms.
Groups.
See
6 for
Chapter
individual
coin
descriptions.
Plates 18-19,
A-F
A
B
"Earliest Silver,"
"Earliest Silver,"
"Earliest Silver,"
ANS
ANS
ANS
=
=
=
and 450-65,
Tarsos 2
SNGANS
SNGANS
SNGANS
450
112
=
=
396
II
538
Start of Alexander's
Macedonian
See pp. 86-88.
pi. 11, 5, stater of Mazaeus, struck at Tarsus

pi. 11, 6, stater of Mazaeus, struck at Tarsus
pi. 11, 7, Alexander
tetradrachm,
from first issue struck at Tarsus:
SNGBerry 79 = "Earliest Silver," pi. 12, 8, stater of Perdiccas III

"Earliest Silver," pi. 12, 10 = Philippe, Pella 314c, lifetime didrachm of Philip
"Earliest Silver,"
pi. 12, 9 =
Philippe,
Amphipolis
posthumous tetradrachm of Philip II

ANS = "Earliest Silver," pi. 12, 11 = "Earliest Coins,"
386b,
lifetime
or early
pi. 44, 1 = Reattrib., pi. 1, 1
464
"Earliest Silver," pi. 12, 12

= "Earliest Silver," pi. 13, 13
= "Earliest Silver," pi. 13, 14 = "Earliest Coins," pi. 44, 4 (enlargement of throne only)
G. Hirsch 21, 25 June 1959, 21
ANS = "Earliest Silver," pi. 13, 15
"Earliest Silver," pi. 14, 19 = Santamaria, 25 Oct. 1951, A429
ANS = "Earliest Coins," pi. 44, 3 and 5 (enlargement of throne)
465
Paris
451
452
453
454
455
456
459
460
462
463
ANS
ANS
ANS
Silver Coinage.
Plates 20-23, 466-530,
Alexander
Alexander
Plate 24, 53148,

533
ANS
534
Canessa
3, 28
535
Naville
16, 3
537
Cambridge,
538
Athens = ? Naville
539
Cambridge, Eng.
SNGBerry
June
July
Eng.
Lifetime
Distaters.
Staters.
See Chapter
See Chapter
10 for individual
11 for descriptions
coin descriptions.
of 54048.
140
1923,
1933,
41
1022
SNGFitz
14, 2
July
SNGFitz
Naville
2093
1929,
2092
10, 15
June
1925,
435
Sicyon 7.1 (A8-P14)

198 = Ratto, 4 Apr. 1927, 566
Naville
5, 18
June
1923,
1385
=
=
Sicyon 7.4 (A9-P17)

Sicyon 7.17 (A13-P29)
Key to Plates
Plate 25, N12-N19
and
Tarsos stater issues
N12
N12
N13
N14
N15
N16
N17
N18
N19
ANS. Tarsos
B
C
E
F
London
ANS.
10-13.
O10-C4.
08-C4
Tarsos 14, D-S = 05-C2
Alexander 3004.
Tarsos 15,
F-f
02-T2
Tarsos 16, H-y)
Berlin.
Tarsos 17,
London
Berlin.
Tarsos 19,
ANS,
ANS,
ANS,
ANS,
J-6
Tarsos 18,
Alexander 3009.
K-i
K-x
of cantharus symbols
04-C1
06-C2
08-C3
O10-C4
Late lifetime or early posthumous staters

ANS = Tarsos, p. 23, fig. 10
Leiden
Tarsos, p. 23, fig. 1 1
Paris
Stockholm
A-a
Kovacs 9, 21 Nov. 1988, 3 = Mttnz. u. Med. 10, 22 June 1951, 240.
See Chapters
Tarsos 13, C-y = 09-T9
Enlargements
Materiai.
Gold Comparative
and obverse dies.
12,
Tarsos 12, B-a
Berlin.
ANS.
A-R,
151
Staters with fulmen, or fulmen and A, markings

Commerce 1994 hoard 21 (Appendix
ANS
4)
Sicyon 8.1
Cast of coin of unknown
CNG
32, 7 Dec. 1994,
provenance
1110,
ex Commerce
1994 hoard lot
A (Appendix
Late lifetime or early posthumous staters, perhaps from a second
M
N
Samovodene hoard 52, a fulmen stater not in series
Brussels
Oxford
SNGAshm
=
=
a fulmen
1049,
a shield stater
Macedonian
mint
1 or 2
stater not in series
2520,
de Hirsch
4)
1 or 2
Samovodene hoard coins
Samovodene 56, O10-C4
Samovodene 28, Philip
Samovodene 29, Philip
II,
II,
Philippe,
Pella
Philippe,
Pella
Plates 26-28, Commerce 1993 Hoard,
With the exception of
IIIA
IIIA
Tetradrachms.
See Appendix
1, 47, and 50 in the Hersh collection,
locations unknown.
Plate 29, Mende 1983 Hoard.
All the coins
are
See Appendix
2.
in commerce, their locations unknown.
1.
all the coins are in commerce, their
Key to Plates
152
Plate 30, Commerce 1993 Hoard,
All the coins
are
are
See Appendix
3.
Plate 31, Commerce 1994 Hoard,
All the coins
Gold.
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 BAZ
Aplustre
Aplustre P
Arrow
Athena Promachus
Athena Promachus BAZ
Attic helmet
Axe P
B2
L3
(F) Zeus-dr
F4
Bow-
C6, 2dr, 2ob
Bow and quiver

Bow and quiver BAZ
Branch, forked P
Branch, laurel
Branch, laurel BAZ
Branch, laurel P BAZ
Bucranium
Bucranium A, etc.
Bucranium t, etc.
F5
HI
D12
G2
LI
(E
J3
J6
J?l
Jwt
Caduceus,
Caduceus,
Caduceus,
filleted
filleted
filleted
or F) Zeus-dr
E8, 2dr, dr, 2ob, Zeus-dr

See pp. 24 and 94-95
B8
E9, 2dr, dr, 3ob, Zeus-dr
D7, 2dr?
D8, 2dr?
Caduceus
Caduceus
Attic
G3
Caduceus
Caduceus
helmet,
See
L10
C1, 2dr
M
D6
(D) dr
Bl
Cantharus
Cap, Phrygian BAZ
Club
Club il
H2
D3
D9, 2dr
153
Index
Club iwi
Club, filleted P
Cock
Cornucopia
Cornucopia BAZ
D10
L2
E3, 2dr, 3ob, Zeus-dr
F3
Gl
E7, 3ob, Zeus-dr
Crescent
Crescent
BAZ
Crescent
Crescent
BAZ
J2
J5
L5
Dl1, dr
Dolphin
Dolphin P
Double heads
L7
Eagle head
D1, dr, 2ob, ob
Filleted caduceus, et ai.

Filleted club P
Forked branch P
Fulmen
Fulmen P
Fulmen
etc.
See
I,
Grain
Grain
Grain
Grain
ear BAZ
ear
See
See
heads,
P
P
BAZ
Grapes
double
caduceus, filleted
club, filleted
branch, forked
A4
L9
See
p. 24
C3, 2dr,
ear
ear
See
Jl
dr, 3ob, 2ob
J4
L4
B7
Heads, double
Helmet, Attic
Helmet, Macedonian BAZ
Herm
Horse head
A3, dr
B5
H3
E2, 2dr, 3ob
Ivy leaf
B6, 2dr, dr, 3ob, 2ob, ob
Laurel branch
See
Macedonian helmet
Macedonian shield
See
helmet,
See
shield,
Obelisk, star, X etc.
See
p. 24
forepart
Pentagram
Phrygian cap BAZ
Profile shield P
Prow
C5, 2dr, 2ob, ob
Quiver
C2, 2dr
Pegasus
D4, 2dr, dr, 2ob
branch,
laurel
Macedonian
Macedonian
E6, dr, [3ob]

See cap, Phrygian
See shield, profile
A1, dr, 2ob, [ob]
Alexander:
E1, dr
A5
Rose
Rudder
Scallop shell
Shield, Macedonian
Shield, profile P
Star
Star,
Silver Markings
obelisk,
etc.
Fl
D2
L8
D5, 2dr, 3ob, 2ob
See p. 24
F2
A2
B4
Star in circle
Stern
Stylis
Torch A, etc.
Torch t, etc.
Trident head
Trident head BAZ
Tripod BAZ
See
pp. 24 and 94-95
See
pp. 24 and 94-95
Wreath
Wreath
B3, 3ob, ob
L6
fulmen,
etc.
"E BAZ
(or
f)
BAZ
caduceus,
filleted
P branch, laurel
P crescent BAZ
P grain ear BAZ
BAZ
T A BAZ
X obelisk,
H4
H5
See p. 24
A BAZ
A bucranium, etc.
A torch, etc.
AT BAZ
A A BAZ
A BAZ
A
C4
Kl
See
K4
K5
K6
K2
K3
D6
J6
J5
J4
K4
star,
etc.
See
Ml BAZ
12
A A
BAZ
K5
A BAZ
K6
bucranium, etc.
t torch, etc.
pp. 24 and 94-95
p. 24
See
pp. 24 and 94-95
See
pp. 24 and 94-95
Index
variants BAZ
M, Ffl, or
II
filleted caduceus
(D) dr
aplustre
(E or F) Zeus-dr
L3
L10
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
grain ear
shield, profile
wreath
P
P
(or
axe
branch, forked
club, filleted
crescent
dolphin
fulmen
BAZ
r)
A BAZ
8 BAZ
LI
L2
L5
L7
L9
L4
L8
L6
K7
K2
13
E5,
E4,
T
"E
A BAZ
K3
ift. caduceus
D7
il
D9
club
iwi. caduceus
D8
Jwl club
D10
2.
PHILIP II
POST-323 AMPHIPOLIS SILVER MARKINGS
The number of the group where each marking or set of markings is found is given, followed by
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
Brackets enclose issues whose reliably reported examples I have been unable to
employed.
the known denominations:
locate.
Amphora
Aplustre
Axe P
Bee M (or W)
Branch, forked
Branch, forked P
Branch, forked P
Branch, laurel
Bucranium A, etc.
Bucranium t, etc.
2? 3?
9
9
T
T
T, f
8
9
T
T
8?
f, t

See
pp. 24 and 94-95
Causia
Causia
T, f
Causia
Causia
T, f
Causia
m.
globule
T
T
Causia,
globule
Causia,
globule
T, f
/*f
P P
T T
Dolphin
Crescent
Crescent
Crescent
f,
d
Club
Club
Causia,
globule
>*J
Causia,
Forked branch
Fulmen
etc.
See branch,
Globule
2? 3?
forked
See p. 24
I,
See
also causia,
f
d t,
d
f, f
T
f
2
2
8
T,
T,
Grapes
P P
Rl Ffl
Globule
Globule
Globule
Grain ear
Grain ear
Grain ear
globule
Index
T
f
T
T
f
f
f
f
T
T
T T T
T
T
T,
f
f
f
[T],
torch, etc.
wreath
See
pp. 24 and 94-95

f
See
causia
bucranium, etc.
24
See
p.
etc.
T,
6
6
T,
6
6
5
5
6
5
globule
9
4
8
8
3
9
6
T,
T,
T,
T,
T,
T,
fulmen,
T,
A A A A A A
pp. 24 and 94-95
wreath
pp. 24 and 94-95
See
A
M
P
"E
causia,
globule
4?
T,
T,
See
E
<t>T
A A A
E
causia
causia
causia,
A\
Uncertain marking
wreath
H)
ffl
Torch A, etc.
Torch t, etc.
Trident head
Trident head
Wreath
Wreath
Wreath
Wreath
Wreath
Wreath
Wreath
Wreath
Wreath
T?
/N
2?
3,
Star
Star
Star /V
Star
(or
P P
Shield,
Shield,
Shield,
branch, laurel
See
Macedonian
Macedonian
profile
profile
profile
Shield,
T, f
Laurel branch
Shield,
3
2
(or Ffl)
ffl
leaf
T, f
T, f
Ivy leaf A
Ivy
Grapes
pp. 24 and 94-95

f
Grapes
Philip: Silver Markings

A @
A P (or
A P
T
T
T
T
T,
r),
7
9
AT
M
causia
causia,
wreath
P
P
P
P
P
P
aplustre
crescent
globule
f
T, f
branch
T
T
T
grain ear
shield, profile
T,
trident head
T
T
T causia
T causia, globule
T wreath
5
6
T, f
T, f
d> wreath
T?
T?, f
T, f
T, f
T, f
T, f
f
At club
At grapes
At star
At
T, f
T, f
T, f
Ai
forked
amphora
Ai club
Ai globule
^1 grapes
Ai
ivy leaf
Ai star
Ai
Ai
uncertain marking
(or rE)
^
1
t bucranium, etc.
torch, etc.

(or P) A
P
P
P
aplustre
axe
crescent
5, P, or
T
T
Index
wreath
A
amphora
globule
T T
T,
globule
(or Ff) star
T T
T,
(or r) /V
A
A
Ffl Ffl
Ffl Ifl Ffl
T
T
(or Bl) bee

(or Fll) ivy leaf
Pfl
T?
"E wreath
*
*
T
T
T
grain ear
shield, profile
"E
9
9
dolphin
forked branch
P
P
P
P
P
P
3.
Only subjects
1.
not covered
GENERAL
in the detailed
Table of Contents are included here.
Macedonian Coins
III,
cantharus, trident, and fulmen-symbol staters other than the earliest,

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
crraT/jpea xpuaoi <piXin7rcioi or nummi aurei philippei at least by late Hellenistic and Roman
Alexander
100-101,
times,
gold:
107,
110,
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;
BAEIAE2 : 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: BA2IAEQ2 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,
2.
Alexander
89, 122
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 BASIAEQS, 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
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
BASIAEQS, 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
Sidon:
Sidon
1-7 perhaps
1 L.
PLATES
PIate
ALEXANDER TETRADRACHMS
PIate 2
PIate
PIate 4
PIate
PIate 6
PIate
ALEXANDER
SMALL COINS
Plate 8
198
H6
199
ten #
209
200
B6
210
192
E9
/JfVj
1)1
202
1)4
D5
B6
C5
211
212
# # ^
ALEXANDER
E4
E9
204
SMALL COINS
K8
194
195
1:8
205
206
9
D1
213
188
E7
187
(."
186
ft
193
203
E3
E9
- 90
(:}
B3
185
m ^
H6
191
E3
E9
184
190
E2
196
148 207
197
183
E7
D5
182
A1
C3
189
181
E7
B6
180
B3
208
ID

E-
214
PIate 9
an
Plate 10
ALEXANDER: OBVERSE LINKS BETWEEN GROUPS
PIate
ALEXANDER
OBVERSE LINKS BETWEEN GROUPS
11
PIate
12
PHILIP II TETRADRACHMS
PIate
PHILIP II TETRADRACHMS
13
PIate
14
y b:% @:
# #
"
^^34 knv341
2/3
349
'l*^342
2/3
350
343
351
344
352
345
346
353
PHILIP II: TETRADRACHMS AND SMALL COINS
347
2/3/4
354
355
356
361
366
<N
373
8^*^374
367
357
362
358
363
368
369
375
376
359
364
370
377
365
371
378
391
380
386
3i
381
382
388
383
PHILIP II
389
SMALL COINS
384
390
PIate
16
PIate
PHILIP II
OBVERSE LINKS BETWEEN GROUPS
17
PIate
18
THE START OF THE MACEDONIAN ALEXANDERS
PIate 19
THE START OF THE MACEDONIAN ALEXANDERS
Plate 20
PIate
010
(111
012
012
480
G4
481
G4
482
C5
483
C6
9
014
_84
^^^^C7
485
C8
ALEXANDER
STATERS: SERIES
21
ALEXANDER
STATERS: PROBABLY SERIES
PIate 24
PIate 25
010
N12
08
A-a
N12
02
09
B-a
N13
N14
C-y
D-d
CI
C4
C2
^ if ^
N16
H-Yj
N17
I !
N15
.I-fl
N18
K-i
N19
K-k
C.l
C2
CI
C3
i B
i)
^^^^^^
IP
^^^^^
11
ALEXANDER GOLD COMPARATIVE MATERIAL
Plate 26
PIate 27
COMMERCE
l993
HOARD (APPENDIX
1)
PIate 28
COMMERCE
1993
HOARD (APPENDIX l)
MENDE
l983
HOARD (APPENDIX
2)
COMMERCE
1993
HOARD (APPENDIX
3)
3 0000 055 614 865

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

NUMISMATIC STUDIES

Obverse of a group F tetradrachm

merely for the appealing depiction

STUDIES IN THE MACEDONIAN

ALEXANDER THE GREAT

THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY

PRINTED IN BELGIUM AT CULTURA, WETTEREN

Dedicated to the memory of

ca. 332 - ca. 310 B.C.

Issues and Groups

to and Commentary on Alexander

Alexander Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm

Issues and Groups

Philip II Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm

Issues and Groups

The Silver Hoards

Alexander and Philip Groups:

Summary and Relative Chronology

Alexanders and Philips: Absolute Chronology

Alexander's Lifetime Gold

The Lifetime Staters

The Coins and Their Attribution

Three Groups of Distaters

The Gold Hoards

Gold Discussion and Chronology

Tetradrachm Groups and Issues

Dies and Troxell Dies

21. Comparison of Series 1 and 2 with Philippe

in Hoards Containing 10 or More

K/J in Groups A through

Alexander's Amphipolis Silver Markings

of numismatics is the kindness and helpfulness of numismatists

themselves. For information

K. Kern, Frank Kovacs, Anne Kromann,

Peter L. Lampinen, Katerini Liampi, Joseph P. Linzalone,

too most heartily.

Abydus die numbers in Lampsacus and Abydus

N. M. Waggoner, "Tetradrachms from Babylon," in Greek Numismatics and Archaeology.

Museum: Leake and

Nummorum Graecorum [Great Britain], voi. 6, The Lewis Collection in Corpus

Briider Egger, Vienna

the series studied

exhibit random die axis relationships.

are on the Attic standard,

the enjoyment of puzzling over these questions

all success to them.

this last question,

ISSUES AND GROUPS

The tetradrachms' types are

r., wearing lion's skin headdress.

Alexander Tetradrachm Groups

Group B, 212 coins

Group A, 250 coins

Group D, 216 coins

has the shape

332 - ca. 310

Group E, 605 coins

Group F, 224 coins

Group- G, 287 coins

Group H, 455 coins

b This small issue

Group I, 177 coins

is catalogued where Newell placed it in Demanhur.