Egypt Exploration Society

The Currency of Egypt under the Ptolemies

Author(s): J. G. Milne
Source: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Dec., 1938), pp. 200-207
Published by: Egypt Exploration Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3854792 .
Accessed: 27/02/2011 13:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ees. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Egypt Exploration Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal
of Egyptian Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org
 (200)

THE CURRENCY OF EGYPT UNDER THE PTOLEMIES

BY J. G. MILNE

BEFORE the conquestof Egypt by Alexanderthe Great,there was nothing that could be
describedas a native coinagein circulationin the country:certainmetals, usually gold or
copper,weretradedin exchangebothforlocalandforforeignbusiness,but they weretreated
as commoditiesand werenot given standardsof value: they passedby weight at the market
price. Silver is more rarelymentionedin the recordsof businesstransactions:it was not
obtainedfromlocal sources,and, thougha substantialamountmust have beenimported-
the inscriptionsof OsorkonI show that he had given at least 560,000 pounds of silver,
mainly manufactured,to the templesin the first four years of his reign-its use seems to
have beenconfinedto articlesof luxuryor ornament.It is truethat muchof this silvercame
fromGreeklandsin the formof coin, but the reasonfor this is that to the Greeksa coinwas
virtually an ingot, and an orderfor silver bullionwouldmost naturallybe met by the dis-
patch of coinsto the requiredweight. Thedestinyof Greeksilvercoinsin Egypt is clearfrom
the conditionof the hoards-about a scorein numberbeforethe Greekconquest-that have
been recorded;1they are typically miscellaneouscollectionsfrom differentdistrictsand of
differentstandards,sometimesmixed up with scrap metal, and often hackedto test their
compositionin such a way as to obscurewhat was the most essentialpoint in a coin for the
purposesof a Greektrader,the badgeof the issuingauthority. It wouldhave been a com-
plicated affairfor an exchangeagent or bankerto evaluate such a collectionin terms of
specie: treated as bullion,they simply had to be weighedout. In two or three cases their
destiny is even clearer,as the processof meltingand remakingthe metal had been started
beforethe hoardswere concealed,and half-meltedcoins or lumpsfromcruciblesare mixed
up with the coins.2It may be taken as certain that these coins, so far as the Egyptian
merchantswere concerned,were regardedsolely as bullion. It might have been expected
that, afterthe Persianconquestof Egypt, the Persiancoinageof gold daricsand silversigloi
wouldhave beenmadelegalcurrencyin the country;but thereis no evidencethat they were
so used. Two instancesare recordedof the occurrenceof daricsin hoards,3but these are
comparativelylate, and with the daricsthereweregold coinsof Philip II of Macedon;while
there is only one case in whichsigloiwerefoundin a hoard,4and then in associationwith a
mixed lot of Greeksilver. Sigloi do not occurcasuallyon Egyptiansites, as practicallyall
kinds of currencyof later periodsdo, and it seemsfair to concludethat they did not form
an officialpart of the mediafor the transactionof businessin Egypt. Herodotus,it may be
said, regardsAryandesas having struck silver coins when he was satrap of Egypt; but,
whatevervalue may be placedon the story, it does not suggestthat the coins were meant
for local use, and we need not supposethat they were.
An approximationto coinagemay be foundin somepiecesof gold stampedon both faces
with hieroglyphicsigns, the readingof whichis 'good Gold': these are of adjustedweight,
and might be regardedas belongingto the same class as the early Greekcoins of pale gold
1 The hoards of Greekcoins have been collected and indexed by S. P. Noe, Bibliographyof GreekCoin-
hoards(2nd edn., New York, 1937). 2 E.g. Noe, 143 (Benha el-'Asl) and 144 (Beni Iasan).
3 Noe, 322 and 420. 4 Noe, 888. 6 Herodotus iv, 166.
 THE CURRENCY OF EGYPT UNDER THE PTOLEMIES 201
or silver, but for the fact that they bear no sort of clue to the authority under which they
were issued, and so lack the guarantee which was indispensable to the Greek idea of a coin.
Obviously under these circumstances they could not have a face value, and it is most
probable that they are ingots of gold made up after the convenient Greek pattern in handy
lumps: a Greek might have regarded them as staters, but certainly not as nomismata.1
The only coins which can be definitely accepted as struck in Egypt before the time of
Alexander belong to the middle of the fourth century, and are copies of Athenian types
of the preceding century. In all probability these were produced to be used for the pay of
Greek mercenaries, who were employed by the native rebels against the Persian rule, and
would naturally want to be paid in Greek money: an Athenian general, Chabrias, had been
sent over, and might have taken with him some old dies from the Athenian mint as part of
his equipment. Two specimens of such Athenian tetradrachm dies have been found in Egypt,
in one case associated with a quantity of old coins ;2 and another hoard was composed of
defaced Phoenician coins, scrap silver, and melted metal, together with new Athenian coins
of these old types, presumably just produced on the spot.3 But these copies of Greek coins
would only have a currency value to the mercenaries, and the types would have carried no
meaning outside the camps of the insurgent party. The same may be said of a solitary gold
coin, showing like them Athenian types, though not from regular Athenian dies, which has
the name of Tachos, the leader of the rebellion:4 dies for gold would not be procurable from
Athens, so he had some made with the familiar types for his mercenaries.
When Alexander conquered Egypt, therefore, it is fairly certain that the mass of the
inhabitants had no acquaintance with coinage in the Greek sense-the idea that a piece of
metal could have a definite purchasing power assigned to it, apart from its metal content
and the local market prices, was quite outside their experience. Moreover, the system of
coinage to which they were introduced was complicated by the fact that it was on a bimetallic
basis, and the ratio of metal values in Egypt had never been the same as in Europe. Egypt,
like all the rest of the Empire of Alexander, was to be Hellenized, and the Hellenic ideal of
a universal Empire postulated a common currency of one standard for all provinces. Alex-
ander had adopted the Athenian standard, which was based on silver, with gold at a fixed
ratio of 10:1, and bronze as a subsidiary token currency; but under the native kings the
ratio of gold to silver had been only 2:1.5 It may be doubted whether the Alexandrine system
would ever have taken root in Egypt, even if the Empire had held together.
In the first instance a mint was set up in Egypt, presumably at Alexandria, and there was
an issue of tetradrachms of the normal Alexandrine types :6 it is not certain whether any
lower denominations were struck at the same time. These tetradrachms were not of course
intended for purely local circulation: they would be current throughout the Empire, and
equally the issues of other mints would be current in Egypt. So they are found in hoards
outside the country, and a large proportion of the Alexandrine tetradrachms that have come
from Egypt are of external mints. The Egyptian would not need to trouble about the mint-
marks on the coins: they would all be classed together as silver of Alexander, and the aipyvptov
'AAXeav8pelov mentioned in an Elephantine papyrus of 311-10 B.C.7would doubtless be of this
kind. But a change began to be manifest, even before the death of the boy Alexander put
an end to all pretence of unity in the provinces: the silver was still struck in the name of
Alexander, though with new types-on the obverse a head of Alexander the Great in an
1 G. F. Hill in Num.Chron.,1926,132.
2 285: G. F. Hill in Num.Chron.,1922 14.
J. N. Svoronosin CorollaNumismatica,
3
JEA 19, 119. 4 G. F. Hill in Num. Chron.,1926, 130. 5 JEA 15, 150.
6 E. T. Newell, Alexanderhoards:Demanhur(New York, 1923), 144-7. 7 P.
Eleph., 1.
202 J. G. MILNE

elephant-skincap, on the reversea figureof Athene-and the tetradrachmswere kept on

the Alexandrinestandard;but the smallercoins, the drachmasand half-drachmas,wereof
reducedweight, approximatingto the Asiaticstandardcommonlyknownas Rhodian.1The
reasonfor this changewas doubtlessthat the largercoins would be requiredas much for
externaltradeas forinternal,whilethe smallerwerefor localcirculation:so the tetradrachms
conformedto the standardof the Empire,but the drachmascould convenientlybe assimi-
lated to Egyptian values of metal.
It is not clear at what date preciselythe next changewas made in the standardof the
silver:it may have been afterthe death of AlexanderIV, or whenPtolemytook the title of
king in 306, or at some intermediatedate. The issue of tetradrachmswith the name of
Alexanderand the types describedabove continued,but the weight was reducedto the
Phoenicianstandard.2 This meant that the Alexandrineideal of a commonstandardfor
the Greekworldhad beendefinitelyabandoned:therewasno longera singleauthorityfor the
determinationof the circulatingvalue of coins, and each of the Successorscouldfix it as he
wished. For the purposesof externaltradewhichinvolvedpaymentsin silverPhoeniciawas
far the most importantpart of the dominionsof Ptolemy: Egypt importedsilver, but did
not export it; but the Phoenicianmerchantswould requirea supply of silver staters, and
thereforePtolemy adjustedhis coinageto their valuation. As will be seen, it was this prin-
ciplewhichgovernedthe standardof the Ptolemaicsilverfor the next century.
This dropin the weight of the silverstaterwas accompaniedby a correspondingdropin
the gold: hitherto gold staters and double staters of the Alexandrinestandardhad been
coinedin Egypt, the staterbeingapproximatelyof the weightof two Alexandrinedrachmas;
andPtolemyreducedhis staterto the weightof two 'Phoenician'drachmas.But the change
in the silverstandardhad beenduein partat any rate to the highervalue of silveras against
gold in Egypt, and for internalpurposesit was a mistaketo bring downthe gold to corre-
spondwith the silver. So the next issueof goldwas of a differentcharacter:the weightof the
unit was approximatelythat of the doublestater of Alexander,which would pass outside
Egypt on the basisof a weightequivalentto four drachmas,whileit was approximatelyfive
times the weight of the Egyptian silver drachma:as all Greekgold coinageat this period
seems to have been intendedto serve merelyas an expressionof silver for conveniencein
payinglargesums,weightagainstweightat the localratio of values,it was obviouslydesir-
able to securethe acceptanceof a coin by makingit of a weight that could be related to
alternativestandardsused in the areas to which it was likely to be sent. This principle
governedthe issues of gold in Egypt till the middleof the reignof Philadelphus.
Thereis very little evidenceof the use of bronzecoins in Egypt duringthe earlieryears
of Greekrule; it may be surmisedthat the classesof the populationwho would have had
most occasionto use it, the peasantryand artisans,had not becomefamiliarwith the new
idea of coinage,and so low valueswerenot issuedin any quantity. Thefirstplentifulbronze
issueswereafterthe assumptionof the royaltitle by Ptolemyin 306: theseareof the ordinary
Greekmodule,with nothingmuch morethan an inch in diameter,and probablyservedas
tokens for fractionsof the drachma:there is no sure basis on whichto estimatetheir de-
nominations,but if a comparisonwith Syriancoinagecanbe accepted,the chiefdenomination
may have beena half-drachma.
Duringthe reign of Ptolemy Soter, and for the first part of that of Philadelphus,the
officialEgyptiancurrencycontinuedon this basis,whichwas practicallythat of Alexander
1 J. N. Svoronos,ra vojllaiauaa TWrV
IlToAc'paLwv, ii, pp. 7 ff., seriesiv. 2. (The head of Alexanderhad appeared
with the old reversetypes earlier,but no changein weight is associatedwith this.)
2
Svoronos,pp. 18 ff., group 1, seriesi.
 THE CURRENCY OF EGYPT UNDER THE PTOLEMIES 203

with a reduced silver unit. But it is noticeable that a substantial proportion of the silver
tetradrachms of this period are punch-marked or scratched with signs, which is evidence
that they were not accepted in trade at the value put on them by the issuing authority. Suoh
marking is found on several series of Greek coins, and in every case it can be shown to
be due to the original guarantee of value having ceased to be effective; for instance, the coins
of Aegina were freely punch-marked after the reduction of Aegina by Athens, and so were
the Persian sigloi after the fall of the Persian Empire.1 It would appear that the Egyptian
merchants took the Ptolemaic silver, not at its nominal value, but as bullion, which at
Egyptian rates would be much higher, and marked the coins to signify the fact: it was
probably illegal, but the government could not have enforced the acceptance of their coins
at an artificial rate without causing a considerable dislocation of trade, and so acquiesced in
the practice.
The situation was however obviously unsatisfactory, especially in view of the possession
of the greater part of Phoenicia by the Ptolemies: the coinage which was not suited to
Egyptian requirements was quite suitable for the Phoenicians; and, so far as silver was con-
cerned, the Phoenician merchants were more important than the Egyptian, for the reasons
already stated. About 270 the whole system seems to have been revised, and separate treat-
ment accorded to Phoenicia and to Egypt. There is a plentiful coinage of silver, which
belongs to the reigns of Philadelphus, Euergetes, and Philopator, and consists almost en-
tirely of tetradrachms: it is on the Phoenician standard, and the majority of the coins can
be assigned by their mint-marks to the mints of Tyre, Sidon, Ptolemais Ake, Joppa, and
Gaza; these are normally dated by regnal years.2 Coins generally similar to these, but with-
out mint-marks, are also found, and these have been regarded as the issues of the mint of
Alexandria.3 But it should be observed that the coins of the mints of Phoenicia have on the
reverse the legend PTOAEMAIOY flTHPOX, not PTOAEMAIOYBAVIAEfl as on the
earlier coins of Soter and Philadelphus and the later ones of the second and first centuries:
this distinctive formula may have been adopted for use in these mints from a desire to consult
the feelings of the Phoenicians: the omission of the title BASAlEnY would avoid emphasis
on the foreign overlordship. In the next century a somewhat similar idea may be traced in
the coinage of the Seleucid kings at their Phoenician mints: this was on the Phoenician
standard, instead of the Alexandrine which was used at Antioch and other Seleucid mints,
and so clearly intended for Phoenician trade; and on it the laudatory titles, which were
inscribed on the Antiochene issues, do not appear. As the coins of the series under considera-
tion which have no mint-marks bear the same legend as those with the mint-marks of
Phoenicia, it is fair to assume that, even if they were struck at Alexandria, they were de-
signed primarily for circulation in Phoenicia. So far as Egypt was concerned, they were on
much the same economic footing as foreign coins, and this renders their treatment, or
maltreatment, by punching more understandable.
The most important item in the revision of the system for the purposes of Egyptian local
circulation was the introduction of an entirely new series of bronze coins,4 which were evi-
dently intended to contain an amount of metal bearing some relation to their face values,
so as to remove them out of the category of mere tokens. The largest of them are of a size
and weight for which there is no parallel to be found in the issues of Greece or Asia Minor:
they average about six times the weight of the chief bronze coin of Soter, and if, as is not
improbable, they were issued as drachmas, while the earlier coin may have been a half-
1 Num. Chron., 1931, 177.
2
Svoronos, pp. 78 ff., group 8, 1, series ii; 2, ii; 3, ii; 4, i; 5, i: p. 150, group 7: pp. 197 ff.
3 4
Svoronos, p. 61, group 2: p. 156, group 4: p. 178, group 2. Svoronos, pp. 64 ff., group 3.
204 J. G. MILNE

drachma,the increasein weight was threefold. Such an increasecannot be explainedas a

raisingof the standard:thereare a few instancesin Greekcoinageof the standardof bronze
beingraised,thoughthe reverseprocessis muchmorecommon;but no raisingby morethan
abouttwenty-fiveper cent. is known. Theonly possibleexplanationis that the government
decidedto initiate an independentcoinageon a bronzestandard,whichwasnot to be subject
to the fluctuationsof pricesof silver: in otherterms it may be said that they forsookthe
Alexandrinesilver standard,and dissociatedtheir coinagefromthe Greeksystem.
Theresultsof this changeareevidentalmostat once,bothin the hoardsandin the papyri:
in the middleof the third centurythe typical Egyptian hoardconsistsnot of silver tetra-
drachms,as was the case about 300, but of bronzeof the two largestsizes, which may be
taken to be drachmasand half-drachmas;and payments of substantial sums in bronze
appearin the papyri. The fact that the Ptolemaicbronzeof this periodhad a real metal
value also appearsfromits exportin considerablequantitiesto foreigncountries:the coins
of this serieshave been foundall roundthe Mediterranean, and even as far afieldas Britain,
and in Italy they were occasionallyrestruckfor the local bronzecoinage. Technicallyit
would seem that both silverand bronzewerelegal tenderto any amountin Egypt, and no
adjustmentshouldhave beenneededas betweenthe two for the reckoningof payments:but
the fact that silver was undervaluedas currencywould naturallytend to drive it out of
circulation:no one would want to give a silver tetradrachmin paymentfor a debt of that
amount,if he knewthat he couldget morethan fourdrachmasforit in the silvermarket.
Goldceasedto playanimportantpartin the Egyptiancurrencyafterthe reignof Philadel-
phus: this may have been to someextent due to the exhaustionof the Persianreservewhich
had been thrownon the marketby Alexander,and the consequentrecoveryof goldvalues,
whichwould make it better from an economicalpoint of view for the kings of Egypt to
exporttheirgold than to useit for local circulation;but in any case internaltradein Egypt
wouldnot call for a largesupplyof coinsof high value. Theonly gold coinsstruckin Egypt
after about 270 are differentiatedfromthe regularsilverby the choiceof obversetypes: the
Egyptian silvertetradrachmfromfirst to last continuedto bearthe head of Ptolemy Soter,
with only one brief exception,'resemblingin this consistencythe great Greekcommercial
coinages;but the gold of the later kings,and a seriesof silver doublestaters, had portraits
of the reigningking or his queen,alongsideof whichran a serieswith commemorativepor-
traits of ArsinoeII.2 The formerseriesendedin the reignof Epiphanes,the latter went on
till that of EuergetesII. Thesecoinsof exceptionaltypes andexceptionalsizewereprobably
intendedquite as much to serve as medalsas to be used for ordinarycirculation;and this
suppositionis borneout by the absenceof any recordof their having beenfoundin hoards.
Till the end of the third century,then, there was a dual currencyin Egypt: the mints
of Phoeniciacontinuedto issue coin for the Ptolemies so long as they remainedin the
possessionof Egypt, the last knowncoin of the seriesbeing dated in year 4 of Epiphanes.
But that the silverhad ceasedto be currentat its nominalvalue is shownby an entry in an
account,probablyof the end of the thirdcentury,in whicha man pays 16 dr. 5? obolsfor a
silver stater, whichwould be eitherof Alexandrineor Phoenicianstandard:3in the former
case the silver drachmawas worth a little morethan four Egyptian drachmas,in the latter
somewhatmore. This agrees adequatelywith the rate of exchange known for the first
century s.C., which gave an Attic drachmaor a Roman denariusfor a Ptolemaic tetra-
drachm. So it was naturalthat forpurposesof tradingconveniencesomekindof adjustment
shouldbe made: in certaincases,mainlyofficialpaymentswherelargesums of moneywere
2
Svoronos,nos. 1123-4, 1136. The series begins with Svoronos, p. 64.
3 UPZ, 149, 1. 32.
 THE CURRENCY OF EGYPT UNDER THE PTOLEMIES 205

likely to be involved, regulations were issued for taking bronze at a discount, to compensate
for the trouble involved in handling it, in others it was taken at par. But as the bronze was
exported at a metal value, and the silver was mainly used for foreign trade, the ratio of
metals had to be related to external values as well as internal; and, though there are no
definite equations recorded in the third century, the terms of certain documents suggest that
the conversion of silver drachmas into bronze and vice versa was becoming a recognized
practice.'
The situation was altered by the loss of the Phoenician possessions of Egypt at the turn
of the century: there was no longer the need to supply the merchants of Tyre and Sidon
with silver coinage, but Cyprus still remained in the hands of the Ptolemies, and did not use
the heavy Egyptian bronze as its normal currency. So almost simultaneously with the last
issues of Ptolemaic coins from a Phoenician mint, there appeared a new series of tetradrachms
at the Cypriote mints of Paphos, Salamis, and Citium.2 These continue the same types, but
go back to theold legend of P TOAEMAIOY BA IAEf , which suggests that they were struck
with a view to circulation in Egypt rather than in the outlying possessions; and they actually
did circulate in Egypt much more freely than the Phoenician issues, occurring in considerable
numbers in hoards as well as sporadically. It is noticeable that they are not punch-marked
like their predecessors, which shows that they were taken at their face value in Egyptian
trade: also, while the weight of the coins was approximately the same as before, they were of
inferior metal: analysis shows a debasement which steadily increased, till at the end there
was only about 25 per cent. of silver in them. This can clearly be connected with the local
valuation of silver at the end of the third century mentioned above: if silver was worth four
times as much in Egypt as in Greece, the Egyptian drachma should only contain one quarter
of the silver in the Greek. Of course this meant that the currency of the debased Ptolemaic
silver was practically confined to Egypt; no one outside would look at it at its face value,
nor was it attractive as metal. So, while the third-century coins are found in Greece and Asia
Minor, the second and first-century tetradrachms hardly ever occur there.
But the debasement of the silver involved a revisiqn of the rates of exchange for the
bronze; the two had been related to suit the foreign market, and when outside support
forsook the debased silver tetradrachm, the bronze drachma lost ground in sympathy; and
its collapse was the more rapid because it had no recognized equivalent in the ordinary
Greek schemes of currency. Early in the second century the bronze drachma and its frac-
tions ceased to be struck on the standard introduced under Philadelphus, and a fresh set of
bronze coins was issued, which must have been regarded as unrelated to the earlier series,
since they are not found associated with them in hoards to any extent: large hoards of the
third-century bronze are common, and likewise of the later, but it is rare to come upon even
one or two stray examples of the third-century coins in a hoard of the second century. The
new model of bronze continued to be struck with little variation in standard till the end of
the Ptolemaic dynasty; and the valuation put upon the coins can be deduced from the
denominations which appear on the last issues of the series in the reign of CleopatraVII. The
two common bronze coins of this reign are marked respectively P and M,3which Regling has
shown to represent 80 and 40 bronze drachmas,4and it is the more probable that this valua-
tion can be carried back to the beginning of the series, as the sums recorded as paid at this
period in papyri postulate the existence of some currency in which the drachma was of very
light weight: it is common to find statements of the payment of many talents in bronze
money, which would have been an impossible burden in the third-century bronze with its
1 2 The series begins with Svoronos, p. 217, group 5, 2.
E.g. P. Mich., 173.
4
Svoronos, p. 311, Nos. 1871 and 1872. Z.f. Numism., 1901, 115.
3
206 J. G. MILNE
drachma weighing about a quarter of a pound, but was comparatively easy when the bronze
talent was represented by seventy-five pieces of eighty drachmas weighing perhaps five
pounds in all.
The exact date of the official change-over cannot be settled at present. The new silver
coinage began in the second year of Epiphanes, so far as known coins show, but it does not
follow that the alteration in the bronze issues was contemporaneous with this: it is quite
probable that it was effected somewhat later, when the results of the depreciation of the
silver were felt in trade. But it seems to be clear from the evidence of P. Mich. 182 that the
change was operating before 182 B.C.; in this papyrus there is a record of a loan of 44T.
4800dr. in bronze, though the penalty for non-fulfilment of the contract is expressed in
silver of the old coinage. Whether the payment of the fine would have been made in this old
coinage, if a default had occurred, may be doubted: but as the depreciated silver was legally
of the same value as the good silver, the terms of the contract would have been satisfied by
payment in the new tetradrachms. As a matter of fact, the old third-century tetradrachms
lingered on in circulation, and are found mixed up with their debased successors in hoards of
the second century and even later: there is no complete break at this point in the silver
currency, as there is in the bronze. As the Ptolemaic coinage was from first to last on a
nominally silver standard, even when it was expressed in bronze, the purchasing power of
the standard coin, the tetradrachm, was not affected by its debasement, any more than the
purchasing power of the English silver coinage has been affected by its debasement in 1920.
But after the bronze drachma lost its intrinsic relation to the silver and became a mere token,
it collapsed at the first crisis and was no more than a term of account.
The natural result of this was that for business purposes a ratio had to be fixed as between
the silver and the bronze coins; and from about 160 B.C.it is the normal feature in accounts
to convert silver drachmas into bronze or vice versa. The rates vary considerably, but are
seldom above 500:1 or below 400:1, and the average works out at nearly 440:1. This in-
dicates that the rate of conversion, like exchange rates to-day, was a matter for settlement
in the money market: it is not clear whether the government made any attempt in the second
century to control the movements, but if they did it seems to have had as little effect as
similar attempts by governments have now. Thirty years ago the rate of the piastre to the
pound Turkish at Smyrna, nominally 100:1, varied in commercial quotations from 108:1
to 182:1. In the last years of the dynasty Cleopatra, as we have seen, appears to have tried
to stabilize the ratio by marking her coins as of eighty and forty bronze drachmas, which
suggests a ratio of 480 :; at this figure the coin of eighty bronze drachmas would be an obol
of the silver standard. This agrees approximately with the statement of Festus' that the
Alexandrian talent was of twelve denarii; as the silver content of the denarius was about the
same as that of the Alexandrian tetradrachm, this gives a ratio of 500:1. It is possible that
in the second century the government intended the bronze to be taken at a similar rate, but
as the coins have no marks of value nothing certain can be said: the commonest pieces,
which form the bulk of the hoards of the second and first centuries,2 are of a size comparable
with that of the eighty drachma coins of Cleopatra.
The evidence of coins found in Egypt shows that there was more joint circulation of silver
and bronze in the second and first centuries than in the latter part of the third, and this
accords with the evidence of papyri-not so much the official records as the stray entries in
private papers. Thus in the middle of the second century we find a man at Tebtunis collect-
ing four drachmas silver-i.e. a tetradrachm-and five hundred drachmas bronze on every
1 Festus, p. 359 (Miiller).
2 Svoronos, Nos. 1224 and 1384, and 1424.
 THE CURRENCY OF EGYPT UNDER THE PTOLEMIES 207

thirty arourae;and at the same place a complaintof the theft of six hundreddrachmasof
coinedsilverand seven talentsof bronze.1Fortunatelythe differencebetweenthe silverand
the bronzedrachmais so great that thereis little risk of confusionwhenwe have to decide
whichis meantin a statementof pricesor payments:but the variationsin the exchangerates
must be taken into consideration.
1 P. Tebt. 739 and 743.