2015–2016 Editorial Board Jennifer Andre Jennifer Cha Brendan Coyne Stephen Freeman Kaitlyn Krall Maggie McDowell David O’Connor Sheridan Rosner Tianyi Tan Editors-in-Chief Irina Celentano Guido Guerra Joe Kelly The Man Who Would Be King: The Prophetic Iconography of Lysimachus’ Post-Ipsus Tetradrachms Abstract I aim to show how the iconography of the tetradrachm coin1 of Lysimachus of Thrace utilizes prophetic imagery to express his right to rule as Alexander the Great’s heir. Lysimachus started production of his tetradrachm after his victory at the Battle of Ipsus in 301 B.C.E., and while he used iconographic elements found in the coins of Alexander and the other Successors, Lysimachus modified them circulate a message of his own future might. My interpretation is based on the idea that Lysimachus, unlike his peers, did not have a record of victories with which he could gain the military support to expand his territory. The obverse of Lysimachus’ tetradrachm features a dynamic portrait of Alexander the Great, depicted with his signature anastolé hairstyle, the ram’s horns of Zeus Ammon, and a royal fillet. My examination of extant primary sources and secondary scholarship, demonstrates that each of these attributes relate to Lysimachus’ prophesied rule. The reverse of Lysimachus’ tetradrachm depicts a reclining Athena holding a Nike. I compare Lysimachus’ coin to those of his peers, and argue that both Athena and Nike are derivative but uniquely presented; they reinforce the message on the obverse of future success by implying that Lysimachus is secure in his victory. Ultimately, Lysimachus’ tetradrachm demonstrates the importance how well literary and iconographic propaganda help to establish his right to rule. The overall success of this coin type will be briefly argued by discussing its continual minting well after the death of Lysimachus in 281 B.C.E. 1 All coin plates used with permission pursuant to the non-commercial regulations governing owning entities’ copyright policies. All coin plates © The Trustees of the British Museum or © American Numismatic Society. Introduction After the Battle of Ipsus in 301 B.C.E., Lysimachus of Thrace began minting a silver tetradrachm coin that innovatively combined iconographic elements from the coinage of Alexander the Great and that of Lysimachus’ fellow Successors Ptolemy I Soter and Seleucus I.2 Ptolemy I Soter had begun minting his own variation on the Alexander III tetradrachms shortly after Alexander’s death,3 and Seleucus I followed Ptolemy’s example in 305 B.C.E.4 Ptolemy and Seleucus incorporated headdresses and Nikes into the iconography of their tetradrachms, just as Alexander had. These numismatic images may be interpreted as Ptolemy and Seleucus’ attempts to express their respective claims to Alexander’s empire by emphasizing their own military accomplishments and those of Alexander before them. The iconographic program of Lysimachus’ tetradrachm also contains these elements, but, until Ipsus, Lysimachus did not possess victories equal to those of 2 The tetradrachm was the most common silver coinage minted circulated during the Hellenistic period. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology (2nd ed.), a tetradrachm is a silver coin worth 4 drachmas. Brill’s New Pauly states that the weight ratios of coins was usually 1 talent= 60 minai, 1 mina = 50 staters, 1 stater= 2 drachmas, 1 drachma= 6 oboloi. This particular coin had lasting, widespread popularity: Bellinger 1962: 30 argues that the Lysimachean tetradrachm was so popular that originals and copies of the coin occur all over the Hellenistic World for centuries after Lysimachus’ death: See Thompson et al. 1973: nos.138, 141, 142, 144, 158, 163, 175, 176, 181, 332, 444, 448, 449, 454, 850, 867, 1292, 1293, 1299, 1302, 1303, 1356, 1369, 1403, 1423, 1450, 1529, 1537, 1735, 1764, 1766, 1768, 1772, and 1774. 3 These tetradrachms maintained the Alexander tetradrachm reverse, but replaced the Alexander/Heracles obverse with one depicting Alexander wearing an elephant scalp headdress. For the different dating traditions of this coin, see especially Zervos 1967, Lorber 2005, Hazzard 1995: 72, Green 1993: 13, Hölbl 2001: 15. 4 For in depth dating and discussion of the Successor’s coinage, see Mørkholm 1991, cf. Dahmen 2007, and Hadley 1965. Ptolemy, Seleucus, or Alexander.5 I propose that while Ptolemy and Seleucus’ iconography is primarily focused on the past victories of Alexander and their own present conquests, every aspect of Lysimachus’ numismatic program is designed to emphasize his future reign as Alexander’s heir. Lysimachus utilizes prophetic imagery such as the horns of Zeus Ammon, the royal filet, and the Nike on his tetradrachm to compensate for a past lack of military victory, by implying that his victories had not yet come. The deft combination of divine attributes on the obverse with Athena and Nike on the reverse, along with an examination of literary sources such as Curtius, Arrian, Appian, Plutarch, Justin and Aristotle to contextualize Lysimachus’ iconography, create the prophetic message of Lysimachus’ right to rule as Alexander’s heir. As a mid-level currency, the tetradrachm was not only worth more than bronze coinage, but also was physically larger, allowing for the use of more complex iconography. The iconography of the tetradrachm theoretically needed to be tailored to its specific audience, which posed a problem for Lysimachus, since his new tetradrachm, introduced after Ipsus in 297 B.C.E.,6 was primarily used to pay the wages of his mercenaries and soldiers.7 According to Aristotle (Pol. 5.10.8= 1310b 38 trans. Jowett), kings were individuals who “…have benefited… states and nations; some… have prevented the state from being enslaved in war; others… have given their country freedom, or have settled or gained territory…” The victory at Ipsus and the territory Lysimachus gained in that battle were the foundation of his claim to be the next βασιλεύς βασιλέων, but he did not have any other victories to show.8 The strength of a Macedonian king 5 Lysimachus’ reign in Thrace: Bosworth 2002: 269-72 cf. Lund 1992: 19- 50; Chamoux 2003: 61-62. 6 Thompson 1968, cf. Brown 1981:20 and Dahmen 2007: 49-50. 7 Lund 1992: 162, cf. Hadley 1974: 61; also Dahmen 2007 and Grainger 2007. For the role of silver coinage in particular, see Panagopoulou 2007. 8 For Lysimachus’ role under Alexander, see Heckel 1982 (“The Early Career of Lysimachos.”) For Lysimachus’ assignment to Thrace: Anson 2014: 25-26. Lysimachus’ reign in Thrace: Bosworth 2002: 269-72 cf. Lund 1992: 19-50; Chamoux 2003: 61-62. For Lysimachus’ internal wars depended on his military accomplishments, which allowed him to reward his army and maintain its loyalty.9 Without a strong military record Lysimachus may have had difficulty justifying his right to rule to his armies. Complicating matters further, Lysimachus was not the only one vying for Alexander’s former territories: he was one of over a dozen Diadochi or ‘Successors’ -those individuals who were competing to acquire portions of Alexander’s empire after his death in 323 B.C.E.10 Lysimachus had to contend with his fellow Successors for the loyalty of his troops, as it was not unheard of for one’s forces to change sides at the most inopportune moments.11 It is possible that a leader’s success in battle depended greatly on the satisfaction of his troops. Until 301 B.C.E., Lysimachus may have been caught in a dilemma: he did not have the forces necessary to expand his territory, but he also lacked the resources normally gained through territorial expansion to satisfy his troops. But after the Battle of Ipsus, Lysimachus gained new, rich territory, and was closer to controlling the entirety of Alexander’s empire than any of the other in Thrace: see especially Delev 2000 (“Lysimachus, the Getae, and Archaeology.”) 9 For further discussion of Macedonian kingship, see Samuel 1988. For Hellenistic kingship, see Chamoux 2003: 214-54. 10 Many of the Successors played small roles in the Diadochi Wars that ensued after Alexander’s death in 323 B.C.E.; The most well-known of the Successors are as follows: Antigonus I and his son Demetrius Poliorcetes; Cassander, son of Antipater; Lysimachus; Perdiccas; Ptolemy I; and Seleucus I. Secondary discussions of the Successors and their wars are myriad, but for discussion of the initial division of Alexander’s empire after his death in 323 B.C.E., see: Waterfield 2011: 16-22 & 25-6, Anson 2014: 25-28, Bosworth 2002: 29-63. For secondary source discussion of the rumors and propaganda surrounding the death of Alexander the Great, see Bosworth 1971: 112-136. 11 Plut. Pyrrh. 12.6: According to Plutarch, Lysimachus himself managed to sway the troops of Pyrrhus the ruler of Macedonia to his side by chiding them for following a foreigner Plut. Pyrrh. 12.6. Successors.12 He had the finances needed to attract followers, but not the military prowess to satisfy the Macedonian profile of a king,13 so he still needed to create propaganda to encourage others to follow him despite his sparse credentials. I propose that Lysimachus’ response to this problem was original, and demonstrates how a ruler without the qualifications necessary for kingship could utilize iconography to amass support that was otherwise unobtainable. Lysimachus did not possess a history of military victories comparable to those of his fellow Successors when he began minting his coinage in 297 B.C.E., so I suggest that in order to gain the support of his subjects, he utilized an innovative and subtly propagandistic numismatic program, which anticipates his inevitable inheritance of Alexander’s empire. Propaganda was not an incidental component of these coins, though they are primarily meant to function as currency.