Meadows Countermarks.Pdf

Home , 160s BC, Aigai (Aeolis), Attic weight, Cistophorus, Cius, Lebedus

SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON İKİNCİ ULUSLARARASI THE HISTORY OF MONEY AND NUMISMATICS AKDENİZ DÜNYASINDA PARA TARİHİ VE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN WORLD NUMİSMATİK KONGRESİ 5-8 JANUARY 2017 5-8 OCAK 2017 ANTALYA

PROCEEDINGS BİLDİRİLER

OFFPRINT / AYRIBASIM

PROCEEDINGS BİLDİRİLER

Editor / Editör Oğuz TEKİN Second International Congress on the History of Money and Numismatics in the Mediterranean World - Proceedings

İkinci Uluslararası Akdeniz Dünyasında Para Tarihi ve Numismatik Kongresi - Bildiriler

Editor / Editör Oğuz TEKİN

Assistant Editor / Yardımcı Editör Remziye BOYRAZ SEYHAN

English Copy Editing / İngilizce Redaksiyon Mark WILSON

ISBN 978-605-2116-69-2 © Koç University Suna & ‹nan K›raç Research Center for Mediterranean Civilizations, 2018 Publisher Certificate No: 18318

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner without written permission from the AKMED and the authors. Bu kitapta yayınlanan bildirilerin yayım hakkı saklıdır. AKMED ve yazarlarının yazılı izni olmaksızın hiçbir yolla çoğaltılamaz, basılamaz, yayımlanamaz.

Mailing Address / Yaz›ma Adresi Koç Üniversitesi AKMED (Suna & İnan Kıraç Akdeniz Medeniyetleri Araştırma Merkezi) Barbaros Mah. Kocatepe Sok. No. 22 Kaleiçi 07100 Antalya - Türkiye Tel: +90 (242) 243 42 74 Fax: +90 (242) 243 80 13 [email protected] https://akmed.ku.edu.tr

Production / Yap›m Zero Prodüksiyon Ltd.

Printed by / Baskı Oksijen Basım ve Matbaacılık San. Tic. Ltd. Şti. 100. Yıl Mah. Matbaacılar Sit. 2. Cad. No: 202/A Bağcılar - İstanbul Tel: +90 (212) 325 71 25 Fax: +90 (212) 325 61 99 Sertifika / Certificate No: 40379

Cover Photo / Kapak Fotoğrafı Side, silver coin / gümüş sikke. (A. H. Baldwin & Sons Ltd., London, The New York sale XXVII, 581) Contents / İçindekiler

Preface / Sunuş

ANTIQUITY (Greek, Roman and Roman Provincial)

ZURBACH Julien 1 New Perspectives on Money in the Late Bronze to Iron Age Aegean FISCHER-BOSSERT Wolfgang 15 Electrum Coinage of the 7th Century B.C. WARTENBERG Ute 25 Archaic Electrum Coinage in Thrace and Macedonia in the Sixth Century: the Hoard Evidence ELLIS-EVANS Aneurin 41 Preliminary Observations on the Archaic Silver Coinage VAN ALFEN Peter of Lampsakos in its Regional Context KILLEN Simone 53 The Winged Horse Protome from Lampsacus and its Interpretations EROL-ÖZDIZBAY Aliye 65 The Coinage of Pordosilene (Pordoselene/Poroselene) KROLL John H. 85 Two Fifth-Century Lead Weights of Kyzikos on the Commercial Standard of Athens TEKIN Oğuz 91 Weights of Lysimachia: Identification, Iconography and Dating REGER Gary 119 Regionalism and Coins in the Hellenistic World CALLATAŸ François de 131 Overstrikes on Pamphylian and Cilician Silver Sigloi (5th-4th c. B.C.) DUYRAT Frédérique 151 Alexander’s Gold Distaters ASHTON Richard H. J. 161 The Pseudo-Rhodian Drachms of Kibyra KÖKER Hüseyin 175 Overstruck Coins of Etenna MEADOWS Andrew 185 Civic Countermarks on the Silver Coinage of Asia Minor in the 2nd Century B.C. PAUNOV Evgeni 221 On Both Shores of the Bosphorus: The Coinage of Rhoemetalces I, King of Thrace (ca. 12/11 B.C. – A.D. 12/13) BURNETT Andrew 245 An Early Imperial Coinage from Alexandria Troas? MARTIN Katharina VI Contents / İçindekiler

AMANDRY Michel 253 The Cistophoric Coinage of Hadrian: New Data GÜNEY Hale 257 Homonoia Coins and the City of Nicomedia ÜNAL Erdal 277 Bronze Coinage of Magydos PUGLISI Mariangela 305 Iconographic Choices in the Roman Provincial Coinage of Kyme (Aeolis) POLOSA Annalisa 327 Coins in the Northern Aegean: Testimonies from Lemnos STROOBANTS Fran 335 Daily Coin Use and the Level of Monetization at Roman Sagalassos and its Territory SPOERRI BUTCHER Marguerite 353 ‘Pseudo-autonomous’ Coins Issued in the Name of the Senate: Towards a Reappraisal of the Role of the Workshops within the Province of Asia (A.D. 238-253) SANCAKTAR Hacer 361 Analysis of the Coins Found at the Excavations of the 6th Bath Complex in Arycanda NOLLÉ Johannes 371 Creating Borders and Surpassing Them: Myths of the Propontis Region Reflected by City Coins CHAMEROY Jérémie 389 The Circulation of Gallic Empire Coins in Western Asia Minor in Light of Excavated Coins LEROUXEL François 413 Two Families and the Monetization of Arsinoite Villages in Roman Egypt MARCELLESI Marie-Christine 429 Coins from the Excavations at Agioi Pente of Yeroskipou near Paphos (Late Antiquity and Early Byzantine Times): A Preliminary Report

MEDIEVAL (Byzantine, European and Islamic)

ÜNAL Ceren 437 A Group of Billon Trachea: The Beydağ Hoard from the Archaeological Museum in Aydın YAĞIZ Oya – ÖZTÜRK Önder 449 The Veliköy Hoard: A Preliminary Report CAMPAGNOLO Matteo 457 From Copper to Glass: Technical Progress and Reliability of Early Byzantine Coin-Weights MORDECHAI Lee 467 The FLAME Project: Reconstructing the Late Antique and Early Medieval Economy ZAVAGNO Luca 477 Beyond the Periphery: Reassessing the Byzantine Insular Economy between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (ca. 650-850 A.D.) BAKER Julian 485 Coin Circulation in Fourteenth-Century Thrace and Constantinople According to the Evidence of the Hoards

YOUNIS Mohammad 505 Early Islamic Imitative Fulūs of Egyptian Coins from Bila- d al-Sha- m

NAUE Matthias 515 An Estimation of Early ʿAbbāsid Mint Output: Madīnat Jayy 162 A.H./778-9 C.E. Contents / İçindekiler VII

TEOMAN Betül 525 Figural Coins of the Seljūqs of Rūm TEOMAN Gültekin 549 Western Anatolian Beylik Coins Minted in the Name of the Īlkhāns

SCHULTZ Warren C. 561 How were Mamluk Fulūs Valued at the Beginning of the 9th/15th Century? Reflections on Two Passages from al-Maqrīzī and Some Archaeological Evidence AL-‘AKRA Hassa- n 567 Numismatic and Historical Studies on Medieval Coins Found in the Excavations of Baalbek: A Synthesis STAHL Alan M. 575 Archaeological Finds of Medieval Coinage in the Northeastern Mediterranean: Implications for the Study of Circulation and Site History

BOARDS / KURULLAR Honorary Board / Şeref Kurulu Suna Kıraç and İnan Kıraç

Organizing Board / Düzenleme Kurulu Engin Akyürek Oğuz Tekin

Academic Board / Bilim Kurulu Michel Amandry Stefan Heidemann Lee Mordechai Johannes Nollé Gary Reger Oğuz Tekin

Coordination Board / Koordinasyon Kurulu Remziye Boyraz Seyhan Emrullah Can Tuba Ertekin Mustafa İncebacak Özge Yanardağ FOREWORD

Bringing together noteworthy scholars who study the monetary history and numismatics of the Mediterranean World and contribute to the field through the sharing of original studies, the second International Congress on Monetary History and Numismatics in the Mediterranean World, was held at AKMED on 5-8 January 2017. I am delighted to say that we have been able to publish the proceedings of the Congress in the following year. The thematic and chronological scope of this book covers the coins minted or circulated in the Mediterranean world from the emergence of the concept of money through the end of the Ottoman period. Many people contributed to the preparation of the Congress. First of all is the support of Suna and İnan Kıraç, the founders of AKMED. Additionally, Engin Akyürek, Michel Amandry, Stefan Heidemann, Lee Mordechai, Johannes Nollé and Gary Reger made great contributions both for its preparation as well as during the Congress. The Congress was successfully realized because of the collaboration with Türkiye İş Bankası. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all the people and institutions mentioned above. Hope to see you at the next Congress…

Oğuz Tekin Editor ÖNSÖZ

Akdeniz dünyasına ilişkin para tarihi ve numismatik konularında çalışan değerli bilim insan- larının bir araya getirilerek özgün araştırmalarının sonuçlarının paylaşılması ve bu alana bilimsel bir katkı sağlanmasının amaçlandığı Uluslararası Akdeniz Dünyasında Para Tarihi ve Numismatik Kongresi’nin ikincisi, 5-8 Ocak 2017 tarihleri arasında AKMED’de gerçekleştirilmişti. Kongre’de sunulan bildirilerin elinizdeki kitapta bir sonraki yıl yayımlanmış olmasının bizleri oldukça mut- lu ettiğini söylemeliyim. Kitapta yer alan bildirilerin tematik ve kronolojik kapsamını, para kavra- mının ortaya çıkışından Osmanlı Dönemi’nin sonuna kadar Akdeniz dünyasının para ve ekono- mi tarihi ile bu coğrafyada basılmış veya dolaşım görmüş sikkeler oluşturmaktadır. Kongrenin düzenlenmesinde pek çok kişinin katkısı oldu. AKMED’in kurucuları Suna ve İnan Kıraç’ın destekleri kuşkusuz her şeyden öncedir. Engin Akyürek’in yanı sıra, Bilim Kurulu üyeleri arasında benimle birlikte yer alan Michel Amandry, Stefan Heidemann, Lee Mordechai, Johannes Nollé ve Gary Reger gerek kongrenin hazırlık aşamasında gerekse kongre sürecinde değerli katkılarını esirgemediler. Kongre sürecinin başarılı bir şekilde tamamlanmasını, Türkiye İş Bankası ile yapılan iş birliğine borçluyuz. Yukarıda adlarını saydığım tüm kişi ve kuruluşlara teşekkür ederim. Bir sonraki kongrede buluşmak dileğiyle…

Oğuz Tekin Editör

Civic Countermarks on the Silver Coinage of Asia Minor in the 2nd Century B.C.

Andrew MEADOWS*

In general the countermarking of Attic weight coins is comparatively rare, and when it occurs appears from the surviving evidence to be highly episodic. Assembly of the material suggests that there are five main phenomena. The focus of this paper will be the fifth episode, which belongs to the 2nd century B.C., as we shall see. But for comparison and contrast it is worth summarizing the earlier episodes first.

1. Egypt, late 4th century B.C. The first is a period of countermarking in Egypt in the late 4th century, largely attested by coins from the Kuft hoard (IGCH 1670), possibly to be linked to the closure of the currency system by the Ptolemaic authorities, but possibly also a sign that these coins were circulating in areas where silver coin was less common1. The countermarks are relatively simple, small and essentially an- epigraphic (although monograms are known). Specimens are attested bearing up to 10 of these marks (Pl. 1, A)2. They occur on coins of almost all Alexander mints active at that point (see Map 1), that is to say that application of the countermark is not selective by region of origin.

2. Byzantium, c. 230s-220s B.C. Next comes an episode of countermarking at the cities of Byzantium and Calchedon in the period probably from the mid 230s-late 220s B.C. At Byzantium the countermark takes the form of the prow of a ship, with a Megarian beta and upsilon, standing for the name of the city, and then an abbreviated magistrate’s name. At Calchedon the countermarks have three designs: Apollo (with or without laurel wreath); a veiled head of Demeter; and an unveiled head of Demeter or Persephone with a corn ear in her hair. These are all accompanied by a monogram composed of kappa and alpha, again the first two letters of the city’s name (Pl. 1, B and C)3. These countermarks are found on Attic coinage of various types. The main evidence for them and their chronology comes from three hoards: the Büyükçekmece (IGCH 867), Kirazlı (IGCH 1369) and Denizli (CH 7.61 = 10.271) hoards, wherein were contained countermarked issues of the authorities and mints listed in Tab. 1.

* Prof. Andrew Meadows, New College, Oxford. OX1 3BN, UK. E-mail: [email protected] 1 For the former assumption see Nash 1974, 15. The latter was the view of Newell, quoted by Zervos 1980, 20 and 29. 2 Zervos 1980, 22: ‘An inspection of the coins known to derive from Kuft shows that the majority of them have several punches —about 70 per cent have from 2 to 5 punches, and about 6 per cent, from 6 to 10 punches— but also that a considerable number, the remaining 24 per cent, are marked singly’. 3 See Thompson 1954, 25 for the typology and Seyrig 1968, 186 for the identification of the mint. 186 Congress on the History of Money and Numismatics / Para Tarihi ve Numismatik Kongresi

Map 1 Distribution of countermarked coins in the Kuft hoard (IGCH 1670).

Alexanders

Amphipolis (Price 4), c. 336-323 B.C. Apollo head. (B. 70) 1 Amphipolis (Price 6), c. 336-323 B.C. Prow. (B. 48) 1 Amphipolis (Price 51), c. 336-323 B.C. Apollo head. (B. 68) 1 Amphipolis (Price 93), c. 336-323 B.C. Prow. (BM ) 1 Amphipolis (Price 468) c. 315-294 B. C. Demeter head (ANS; B?) Amphipolis (Price 485) c. 315-294 B. C. Prow. (B. 42) 1 Uranopolis (Price 509), c. 300-290 B.C. Apollo head. (B. 76) 1 Amphipolis (Price 445) c. 315-294 B.C. Prow (K. 25) 1 Pella(?) (Price 248), c. 315-300 B.C. Prow. (B. 55) 1 Pella(?) (Price 624), c. 275-270 B.C. Demeter head. (B. 82) 1 Corinth (Price 693), c. 310-290 B.C. Apollo head. (B. 77) 1 Greece (Price 845), c. 310-275 B.C. Prow. (B. 63) 1 Mesembria (Price 992), c. 250-225 B.C.* Demeter head (ANS) Mesembria (helmet + illeg. mon.), c. 250-225 B.C. Prow. (B. 64) 1 Dionysopolis (Price 949), c. 225-220 B.C.** Apollo head. (B. 78) 1 Asia Minor (uncert. issue). Prow. (B. 43) 1 Abydus (Price 1528), c. 310-301 B.C. Dr. Prow. (B. 65) 1 Abydus (Price 1551), c. 310-301 B.C. Dr. Prow. (D. 35) 1

* For discussion of the date of this and the following specimen see Marinescu – Lorber 2012, 228-9. ** For discussion of the date see Marinescu – Lorber 2012, 227-8. Civic Countermarks on the Silver Coinage of Asia Minor in the 2nd Century B.C. 187

Lampsacus (Price 1372), c. 323-317 B.C. Dr. Apollo head (ANS) 1 Lampsacus (Price 1382), c. 310-301 B.C. Dr. Prow (Paris) 1 Lampsacus (Price 1382 or 1383) , c. 310-301 B.C. Dr. Demeter head (Paris) 1 Lampsacus (Price 1387), c. 310-301 B.C. Dr. Apollo (K. 200, 218) 2 Colophon (Price 1759), c. 323-319 B.C. Dr. Prow (K. 354) 1 Colophon (Price P43), c. 323-319 B.C. Dr. Prow (Oxford) 1 Erythrae (Price -; cf. 1894A), c. 290-275 B.C. Apollo head. (ANS) Magnesia (Price 2014), c. 282-225 B.C. Prow. (B. 53) 1 Magnesia (Price 2009), c. 282-225 B.C. Dr. Prow. (B. 49) 1 Magnesia (Price 1985), c. 305-297 B.C. Dr. Prow (Oxford) 1 Magnesia (Price 1995), c. 305-297 B.C. Dr. Demeter head (Oxford) Magnesia (Price 1945), c. 323-319 B.C. Dr. Prow (K. 517) 1 Miletus (Price 2090), c. 325-323 B.C. Dr. Prow (BM) 1 Miletus (Price 2138), c. 300-295 B.C. Dr. Prow (BM) 1 Miletus (Price 2143), c. 300-295 B.C. Dr. Apollo head. (B. 79) 1 Miletus (Price 2150) c. 295-275 B.C. Prow. (B. 44) 1 Miletus (Price 2151) c. 295-275 B.C. Dr. Apollo (K. 605) Miletus (Price 2158) c. 295-275 B.C. Prow. (ANS) Mylasa (Price 2488) c. 300-280 B.C. Prow (Paris) Sardis (Price 2578) c. 334-323 B.C. Prow (Paris) Sardis (Price 2632) c. 323-319 B.C. Dr. Prow (K. 679) Byblus (Price 3424) c. 330-320 B.C. Apollo head. (B. 80) 1 Αradus (Price P139) c. 323-316 B.C. Apollo head. (B. 71) 1 Sidon imit. (Price 3515) c. 310-300 B.C. Prow. (ANS) Carrhae, (Price 3787) c. 315-305 B.C. Apollo head (BM 3787) Babylon (Price 3650) c. 325-323 B.C. Demeter head. (B. 83) 1 Babylon (Price P205 or 3697), c. 323-317 B.C. Apollo head. (B. 72) 1 Babylon (Price 3701), 317-311 B.C. Prow. (BM) Babylon (SC 1. 95), c. 311-305 B.C. Demeter head (Paris) Carrhae (Price 3787), c. 315-305 B.C. Apollo head (BM) Uncertain mint Apollo head. (B. 81) 1 Dr. Prow (K. 709) Uncertain mint (types not recorded) All ctmkd. but no details. 29 Illegible. Dr. Prow. (B. 56, 58) 2 Dr. Demeter (D. 126) 1

Demetrius Poliorcetes (2) Amphipolis, c. 290-289 B.C. Prow. (B. 66) 1 Uncertain mint (type not recorded) Ctmkd. (B. Thompson [1954], p. 31)

Lysimachi (9) Perinthus c. 235-225 B.C.* Prow. (B. 59) Byzantium (Marinescu issue 16), c. 260-245 B.C. Prow. (B. 45) Calchedon, (Marinescu issue 29), c. 240-225 B.C. Prow. (B. 50)

* For discussion of the date see Marinescu – Lorber 2012, 234. 188 Congress on the History of Money and Numismatics / Para Tarihi ve Numismatik Kongresi

Calchedon (mon. illeg.), after 281 B.C. Prow. (B. 67) Cius, after 281 B.C. Demeter head. (B. 84) Cius (?), after 281 B.C. Prow. (B. 60) Cyzicus (?), after 281 B.C. Apollo head. (B. 69) Magnesia (Thompson 109), c. 290-281 B.C. Prow. (B. 51) Uncertain mint (type not recorded) Ctmkd. (B. 59)

Attalid Kingdom (1) Pergamum, Westermark IVA (263-241 B.C.) Prow. (B. 61) 1

Seleucus I (1) Tarsus, 294-290 B.C. (SC 10. 1a), c. 293-281 B.C. Apollo head. (B. 73) 1

Antiochus I (1) Seleucia, c. 263-261 B.C. (ESM 170) Prow (B. 46) 1

Antiochus II (3) Uncert. (SC 497) c. 261-246 B.C. Apollo head. (B. 74) 1 Seleucia (SC 587.1a) c. 261-246 B.C. Prow. (B. 52) 1 Ecbatana, 261-246 B.C. (SC 607) c. 261-246 B.C. Prow. (B. 54) 1 Istrus (SC 2. Ad112) c. 261-246 B.C.* Prow. (B. 62) 1

Seleucus II (2) Antioch (SC 689.1), c. 244-226 B.C. Prow. (B. 57) 1 Antioch (SC 689.4) , c. 244-226 B.C. Apollo head. (B. 75) 1

Antiochus Hierax (2) Alexandria Troas, c. 241-228/7 B.C. (SC 882) Prow. (B. 47) 1

Antiochus ? (2) (Neither ruler nor type recorded) Ctmkd. 2 (B. Thompson [1954], p. 31)

* On the attribution and chronology of the Seleucid issues of Istrus see Marinescu – Lorber 2012, 237-8.

Tab. 1 Countermarks in the Büyükçekmece (B), Kirazlı (K) and Denizli (D) Hoards, with additional specimens from the collections in London, Paris, New York and Oxford.

A map of the distribution of the host coins (Map 2) is not dissimilar from that produced by the Kuft hoard, although there are obvious local biases towards Cyprus in the case of Kuft, and towards the Black Sea region and Propontis in Büyükçekmece. There are in fact a similar number of host mints in the two hoards (24 in Kuft, 29 for the Byzantium and Chalcedon episode). Again there is the impression that application of the countermark is not selective by region of host coin’s origin. Analysis of the dates of coins countermarked by Byzantium and Chalcedon is also instruc- tive (Chart 1). There seems to be little sign here of the selection of particular types of coin to be countermarked. This looks broadly like a random sample of Attic weight coins likely to have been in general circulation in the 230s-220s B.C., i.e. before the flood of new coinage that would accompany the military convulsions of the Seleucid and Antigonid military expeditions into western Asia Minor in the last two decades of the 3rd century. Civic Countermarks on the Silver Coinage of Asia Minor in the 2nd Century B.C. 189

Map 2 Distribution of Attic-weight mints countermarked by Byzantium and Chalcedon (based on Tab. 1).

Chart 1 Coins countermarked by Byzantium and Chalcedon, by latest likely date of issue. 190 Congress on the History of Money and Numismatics / Para Tarihi ve Numismatik Kongresi

3. ‘Cistophoric’ Countermarks, c. 180s B.C. The next clear episode of countermarking of Attic weight coinage occurs with the so-called ‘cistophoric’ countermarks, applied to Alexanders and the so-called ‘autonomous’ type coinage silver of Side, actually struck with Alexander’s (gold) type, perhaps by Antiochus III4. These share a common design of a bowcase flanked by the abbreviated name of the countermarking authority (Pl. 1, D). Eleven such authorities are recorded: Sardis, Pergamum, Apameia, Tralleis, Adramytteion, Laodikeia, Synnada, Stratonikeia, Toriaion, Ephesus and Sala5. These have been much discussed in the recent past, and I will draw attention to just two aspects of them here. First is the geographic distribution of the mints of the host coins. These countermarks are attested only on coinage struck in Pamphylia (Map 3), at the mints of Phaselis, Aspendos, Perge and Side.

Map 3 Distribution of the host coinages of ‘Cistophoric’ countermarks.

Over 80% of the countermarks in the corpus were applied to coins of Side. However, to de- termine the true significance of the numbers of observed countermarks we need to factor in the original sizes of the four coinages. Using the estimates provided by Callataÿ (2013)6 we can rank them and their relative sizes (Tab. 2).

4 On the identity of this coinage see Meadows 2009, 81. 5 The overview of Bauslaugh (1990) remains fundamental, with the important addition by Thonemann (2008). For further discussion, augmentation of the corpus and intervening bibliography see Meadows 2013 and Callataÿ 2013. 6 For the coinage of Side, Callataÿ estimates 1200 drachm dies down to the end of Kleuchares group II. Both the Kleuchares I and Kleuchares II groups seem to postdate the application of cistophoric countermarks, however, and must be excluded from the calculation. Kleuchares II probably consumed c. 80 tetradrachm dies (320 dr. dies), Kleuchares I perhaps c. 30 tetradrachm dies (120 dr. dies). For the figures see Callataÿ [2013, 220 n. 46] and Meadows 2006). We may estimate c. 800 dr. dies in total for the pre-Kleuchares I coinage, therefore. Civic Countermarks on the Silver Coinage of Asia Minor in the 2nd Century B.C. 191

Mint Estimated size (drachm dies) No. of Countermarks Side (excl. Kleuchares I-II) 800 121 Aspendos 400 16 Perge 325 7 Phaselis 250 5

Tab. 2 Relative size of outputs of the Pamphylian mints before c. 180 B.C.

If we factor in the relative original sizes of the coinages, a clear distribution emerges (Chart 2).

Chart 2 Numbers of coins per mint of host coins of ‘cistophoric’ countermarks divided by relative size (%age cmks/drachm die).

For some reason, the authorities behind the cistophoric countermarks were marking a dispro- portionately large number of coins of Side, and only coins of the Pamphylian mints. In contrast to the first two episodes we have considered, therefore, this episode does seem to have targeted specific coinages from a relatively small region. The second point to note is the chronology of this episode. The latest dated countermarked coin is an issue of Aspendos of year 28 of its civic era (186/5 B.C.). This provides a terminus post quem for the end of the episode. It has seemed likely to most commentators that the whole phenomenon is to be dated to the 180s B.C.7

4. Anchor and Facing Helios, c. 170s B.C. The next episode we must consider is that of the Anchor and Facing Helios countermarks (Pl. 1, E and F). Again, these two phenomena have been investigated in the past, and the recent collection of material by Hoover allows us to present an overview8. The anchor countermarks present

7 So Bauslaugh (1990) proposing c. 188-183, the period of the payment of indemnity from Antiochus III to Eumenes II. The heterodox down-dating of Mattingly (1998) seems to have found no adherents. Cf. Meadows (2013, 170-2); Callataÿ (2013, 224-5). 8 Hoover (2008, 157-193), with 158-160 for the chronology. That they are later than the ‘cistophoric’ countermarks is proven (a) by examples where the anchor is stamped over a ‘cistophoric’ mark (see e.g. Bauslaugh (1990, 56) and (b) by the fact the 192 Congress on the History of Money and Numismatics / Para Tarihi ve Numismatik Kongresi

Map 4 Distribution of the host coinages of Anchor countermarks. the larger phenomenon: Hoover has gathered 784 specimens (compared to the 149 legible countermarks in the ‘cistophoric’ corpus). At first glance, the geographic distribution of host coins looks far broader (Map 4), with examples countermarked on coins of at least 15 different mints: Sicyon, Heracleia Pontica, Parium, Pergamum, Alexandreia Troas, Cyme, Myrina, Temnos, Chios, Nisyros, Phaselis, Aspendos, Magydos, Perge and Side. But as Chart 3 demon- strates, this is a mirage created by a tiny number of coins from Greece, northern and western Asia Minor that seem to have slipped through a net. Over 98% of all known anchor countermarks were applied to coins struck in Pamphylia. If we turn again to the distribution of anchor countermarks by mint, and factor in the relative size of the host coinages as presented above (Tab. 2) we see a very different pattern (Chart 4) to that exhibited by the cistophoric countermarks (Chart 2). The contrast is clear and dramatic. Where Phaselis had been the least countermarked mint proportionate to original size of coinage, it is now marginally the most, and where Side had been the most it is now clearly the least. Broadly speaking, there are two possible types of explanation for this difference: a deliberate policy by the countermarking authority or the opportunity presented by the circulating coin-stock. Since the decision was taken by both countermarking authorities to countermark coins of all these mints, it might seem less likely that policy is behind the difference in representation. However, we might consider the possibility that, for example, the cistophoric authority prioritized the countermarking of Sidetan issues, and turned to Alexander type coinage secondarily. The alternative type of explanation, that this difference represents a

Kleuchares I issues of Side are countermarked with anchors but never with ‘cistophoric’ marks. The earliest hoards to bear the countermarks were deposited in the 160s B.C.: for a list see Hoover, loc. cit., p. 161. Civic Countermarks on the Silver Coinage of Asia Minor in the 2nd Century B.C. 193

Chart 3 Percentage of anchor and facing-Helios countermarks by region of host coin.

Chart 4 Numbers of coins per mint of host coins of anchor countermarks divided by relative size (%age cmks/drachm die). difference in opportunity dictated by the circulation pool must be seriously considered. On this basis, it might be concluded that the cistophoric countermark zone was proportionately richer in coins of Side than posthumous Alexanders, and that the anchor zone was proportionately richer in Alexanders and less so in Side. Against this backdrop the pattern presented by the Facing Helios head countermarks, which are normally considered as analogous to the anchors, is interesting9. They are only attested on the four main Pamphylian mints (Phaselis, Aspendos, Perge and Side: see Chart 5). Broken down by mint and with relative size of output factored in, we can see that the pattern does indeed

9 Previous scholarship and the hoard evidence are summarised by Hoover (2008, 162-3). He follows Price in suggesting that at least one Helios appears to have been struck over an anchor. However, on the coin in question (Price 2903e) the Helios countermark was clearly applied before the anchor. 194 Congress on the History of Money and Numismatics / Para Tarihi ve Numismatik Kongresi

Chart 5 Numbers of coins per mint of host coins of Facing Helios countermarks divided by relative size (%age cmks/drachm die). conform to that of the anchor countermarks, suggesting a similar policy or opportunity (authority or circulation pool) behind their application. In short, if we assume that the Anchors and facing Helios head countermarks are Seleucid, we might tentatively suggest (a) that their host population is representative of non-Seleucid coinage being reissued/authorized within the Seleucid kingdom after the Peace of Apameia, and (b) that Alexanders were more common than Sidetan coinage in that process. And if we assume that the cistophoric countermarks are Attalid, we might tentatively suggest (a) that their host population is representative of non-Attalid coinage being reissued/authorized within the Attalid kingdom after the Peace of Apameia, and (b) that the Sidetan coinage is more common than Alexander coinage in that process.

5a. Tyche head, late 150s-140s B.C. Although it seems to belong almost a generation later, the Tyche head perhaps deserves to be considered alongside the Anchor and Helios head countermarks. In total I have noted 132 in- stances of this, all but one on the Alexander coinage of Alabanda. The majority of these in fact come to us from the Tell Kotchek hoard (IGCH 1773)10. It has been suggested that we should recognize in the design the obverse of Smyrna11. This was questioned by Martin Price on the basis that ‘the coins so countermarked regularly appear in a Syrian context’. In fact the evidence is far from strong. There are just three known contexts of these countermarks: the Tell Kotchek hoard, the Unknown findspot 1991 hoard (CH 9.517) and the Bassit hoard (CH 10.325). This countermark does not turn up in the hoards of the 160s that contain anchor and Helios head countermarks. The latest firmly dateable host coin is an Alabandan Alexander of Year 6 of the city’s era, probably to be dated to 162/1 B.C., which would suggest a likely date of the 150s for the beginning of this episode. However the occurrence of one Tyche head countermark on a wreathed issue of Kyme in the name of Metrophanes suggests that the application of this

10 A full list will appear in my forthcoming study of Alabanda. I have been able firmly to attribute 48 specimens to the hoard, but the original record suggests a total of 73. See Metcalf 1994, 41 n. 8. 11 Seyrig 1973, 70; Le Rider 1983, 456 n. 23. Civic Countermarks on the Silver Coinage of Asia Minor in the 2nd Century B.C. 195 countermark may not have occurred before 150, or at least continued after that date12. Why this countermark was applied largely just to the product of one mint remains a mystery. Since no other Attic weight coinage in the Seleucid realm seems to have received such treatment at this period, it may be correct to seek the countermarking authority closer to the origin of the coinage. In fact, while it might seem superficially attractive to attribute a Tyche head design to a Levantine city where the vogue for the design would emerge in the 2nd century, the Tyche of the countermarks is strikingly different from her depiction on the civic coinages of, for example, Aigai, Laodiceia, Seleuceia and Antioch. In all of these cities she wears a veil; on the countermarks she does not, and is thus much closer to the head that appears on the coinage of Smyrna (compare Pl. 1, G, H). If this is a civic countermark of Smyrna, then it should almost certainly be considered alongside the group of countermarks we must turn to next.

5b. The civic countermarks Now we arrive at the main focus of this paper, an episode of countermarking that has gone largely undiscussed in the literature. I present the evidence for this in the catalogue appended to this paper. The 25 recorded countermarks are there divided by type of host coin, part A contains countermarks thus far attested on coins of Side (nos. 1-16), part B those attested on other Attic weight coinages (nos. 17-25)13. Four countermarks (nos. 6-8 and 13) appear on Sidetan coinage and other coins. In addition to Side, at least ten other coinages come into consideration: the Alexanders of Alabanda, Temnos, Aspendos, Perge, Sagalassos and Colophon; the wreathed coinages of Myrina and Kyme; the New Style coinage of Athens and a Royal issue of Seleucus IV of Syria, mint of Tarsus (Map 5).

Map 5 Distribution of the host coinages of Civic countermarks.

12 SNG Copenhagen 104; Oakley 1982, 1t. On the date of the issues of Cyme see Meadows in Meadows – Houghton 2010, 180-181. 13 I have included the Tyche head countermark (above section 5a) in summary form in the catalogue (as no. 25), but have excluded it from statistical analysis, since the accident of preservation of the Tell Kotchek hoard, which is largely the cause of its massive survival, significantly warps the statistics. However, this exclusion has no impact on the number of host mints, since Tyche head only occurs on coins of three mints, all attested for other countermarks. 196 Congress on the History of Money and Numismatics / Para Tarihi ve Numismatik Kongresi

Again we should note that the map is somewhat deceiving. Since the mints marked in yellow are represented by a single coin each, whereas Side is represented by 77 coins (75% of the total). The evidence is summed up in Tab. 3 and Chart 6. Countermk. (shape; position)* Side Alabanda Alex: Temnos Alex: Aspendos Alex: Myrina Alex: Perge Pamphylia Alex: Colophon Alex: Sagalassos Alex: Sel: Seleucus IV Kyme Athens

1. Eagle AN (c;o) 3 2. Fulmen AN (c;o) 2 3. Radiate Hd. r. AN (c;o) 2 4. Lyre AN (c;o) 12 6. Zebu fpt. AN ΠΑ ΣΩ (c;o) 1 1 7. ΚΥΖΙ wreath (c;o) 1 1 8. ΠΡΙΗ (+Δ) (c;o) 1 2 9. Prow Φ (r;o) 1 10. Tripod ΑΠ(?) (c;o) 3 11. Ζebu +KI (c;o) 1 12. Bee (c;o) 39 13. Kore (c;o) 2 2 14. Lion (c;o) 3 15. Owl (c;o) 3 16. Facing head (c;o) 3 17. Anchor + (r;o) 4 1 18. Aphlaston (s-c;o) 1 1 19. Apollo hd. (c;o) 1 20. Crab (c;o) 1 21. Grapes (c;o) 4 1 1 22. Horseman r. (c;o) 1 23. Thyrsus (r;o) 1 24. Tripod (r;o) 1 1 1 25. Tyche head (c;o) 132 1 1 TOTALS (excl. Tyche) 77 9 4 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

* c = circular; r = rectangular; s-c = semi-circular; o = obverse; r = reverse

Tab. 3 Distribution of ‘civic countermarks’ by mint of host coin.

Chart 6, with its peak for the host coinage of Side finds its closest analogue among those we have been considering so far in Chart 2 for the cistophoric coinage. This once again invites us to ask whether this is a deliberate policy by countermarking authority or authorities, or the opportunity presented by the circulating coin-stock. The first of these alternatives requires us to question if this collection of countermarks consti- tutes a single phenomenon. Since, as I think will become apparent, the countermarks were certainly applied by more than one authority, the answer to this question might technically be no. Civic Countermarks on the Silver Coinage of Asia Minor in the 2nd Century B.C. 197

Chart 6 Numbers of ‘civic countermarks’ (excl. Tyche head) by mint of host coin.

However, there is sufficient similarity of conception across this corpus, sufficient unity of host coinage, and perhaps a certain tightness of chronology, that suggests that the majority of these marks were in fact applied in similar circumstances, and do in that sense constitute a phenomenon for which an explanation must be sought. We might begin by considering basic questions of form. Of the 24 certainly recorded countermarks, 19 (79%) are round in shape. Of the 103 applications of these countermarks known to me (238 including Tyche head [25]), every single one (100%) is located on the obverse of a coin. 11 of the countermarks (46%) bear letters in addition to, or in two cases instead of a pictorial design. In this respect they cannot but remind us of the ‘cistophoric’ countermarks and their letters designating locations of application. In another respect too, the majority of these countermarks are reminiscent of the ‘cistophoric’ countermarks in that they may be assumed to replicate a standard coin type of an authority that minted coinage. Just as the so-called ‘cistophoric countermarks’ took a design from earlier Attalid bronze, so, it may be suggested, a number of these later countermarking authorities also took their designs from earlier coinage. We shall return shortly to who these might have been. But we should note, also, one other feature that suggests that we are looking at least at a partially linked phenomenon or phenomena with these countermarks. No fewer than four (and perhaps five or six) of these countermarks are all marked with the same pair of letters A-N (1-5 and 6). Early in the history of scholarship of this phenomenon there was an understandable temptation to seek the name of a city behind this, and the combination with a kithara (4), the first published instance, suggested Antiphellos in Lycia14. The appearance of these letters on

14 See Mowat 1906, 196, 202 and 205 (‘A rapprocher les contremarques A lyre N et A trépied N en raison de leur symétrie remarquable qui tend a faire supposer une certaine entente entre les ateliers contremarqueurs d’Antiphellus (Lycie) et d’Antioche (Carie) quoique ces attributions qui paraissent fondées ne soient pas définitives’.). Antiphellus has found support more recently in Troxell 1982, 27 n. 64. 198 Congress on the History of Money and Numismatics / Para Tarihi ve Numismatik Kongresi countermarks bearing an Eagle, Fulmen, Radiate head, Lyre, and perhaps Zebu and Tripod (1-6)15, must rule out not only this identification, but also the likelihood that these letters refer to a city at all. We shall return to what this might instead signify later. In any case, four to six of these countermarks do seem to be related by their inscription. This brings us to the question of identification of countermarking authority. Of the remaining countermarks, four provide fairly unambiguous statements of their authority through the use of letters alone or in combination with distinctive designs. KYZI (7) and ΠΡΙΗ (8) leave no doubt about their attribution to Kyzikos and Priene. The former in fact copies a silver and bronze coin type of the city. Moreover it seems likely that another countermark featuring the head of Kore Soteira (13) is adopted from the obverse of the same silver coinage16. As others have noted, the prow plus the letter phi (9) can really only belong to Phaselis, and the zebu and kappa iota (11) seems bound to be attributed to Kibyra17. Amongst the other designs, the crab (20) seems likely to be that of Cos. The Lyre (4), if we are free to disassociate the accompanying letters A-N from a toponym, strongly suggests the Lycian League as the authority18. The grapes with tendril (21) are unarguably reminiscent of the mint mark of Temnos19. The horseman going r. (22) is identical to the one who appears on the coinage of Kibyra. The Thyrsus (23) applied on a coin of Colophon would neatly fit nearby Teos with its Dionysiac coinage of the second century (see note ad no. 23), although we should also note that it is a near constant feature on the cistophoric coinage minted at Pergamum in the second half of the 2nd century. The laureate head of Apollo (19) had been the obverse type of the wreathed issues of the substantial mint of Myrina and the much smaller, indeed perhaps subsidiary mint of Colophon20. For the facing head threequarters right (16), Rhodian influence has been suggested21, but the head does not appear to be radiate, and Halicarnassus, which has this design on the obverse of its silver drachms in the 2nd century seems also a plausible candidate. Contemporary with that coinage is the coinage of Myndos which features a fulmen on two of its denominations, and is therefore a candidate for the countermarking authority with this design (2). The owl (15) has a number of possible homes, including Pergamum and Synnada, and a similar (though not identical) countermark appears on bronze of Pergamum, but the owl of Athena Ilias is perhaps also to be considered22. The Zebu forepart (6) could belong to a number of mints, but if the two sets of letters in addition to AN stand for two personal names, this might be attributed to Magnesia on the Maeander, where double signing and the use of patronyms both occurred on bronze and silver of this period23.

15 On the problem with the description of this type see the note ad Corpus no. 10c. 16 For further discussion of the Cyzicene nexus see the Corpus below ad no. 13c. 17 For the Prow and phi see Sestini 1820, 80. Imhoof 1901-2, ii, 335; cf. Noe 1954, 87. The case for Kibyra is made by Schubert (1998). 18 This might be supported by the appearance of a similar countermark with lyre and letters K-Y attested on at least two coins of Rhodes, that has been attributed to Kyaneai in Lycia. For discussion of the identity of this countermark see Robert 1977, proposing Kythnos, and Troxell (1982, 27 n. 64), in favour of Kyaneai, first proposed by Head (BMC Caria and Islands, p. 245 ad no. 159) and Hill (BMC Lycia etc., p. 56). For the countermarked specimens see BMC 159 and Mionnet Suppl. VII, p. 10, nos. 36 and 37. 19 So Seyrig 1973, 70. 20 On the similarity of these two mints see Kinns 1980, 232. 21 See e.g. Mowat 1906, 205: ‘type rhodien de Telmessus’. Hill ad BMC 56 and at p. lxxxiii describes the head as Helios, but does not commit to an attribution. 22 For recent discussion of Pergamum see Chameroy 2016. For the owl as mint mark on cistophori of Synnada see e.g. BMC 1 (pl. i. 15); for the coinage of Athena Ilias see now Ellis-Evans 2016. 23 See catalogue below ad no. 6a for examples. Civic Countermarks on the Silver Coinage of Asia Minor in the 2nd Century B.C. 199

One of the countermarks in the corpus appears in sufficient numbers to require individual consideration. The Bee (12, sometime identified as a fly) appears on no fewer than 39 surviving coins, all of the mint of Side, and thus accounts for over half of all known countermarks on that coinage. All but uniquely among the countermarks we are considering24, its appearance splits across tetradrachms and drachms. Indeed it is one of only four countermarks to appear on drachms at all in this period25. It is also striking that, although we possess such a large sample on coins of Side, this countermark is recorded on no other coinage. The authority behind the Bee countermark has often been identified as Telmessos, which did indeed produce small issues of bronze with a fly or bee on the reverse26. But the realisation of the insect on those coins bears little resemblance to that on the countermarks. The latter in fact find their closest analogues on the coinage of Ephesos27. Attribution of the countermark to this mint might help to explain the preponderance of drachms as host coins, since Ephesos’ own silver production through the first third of the second century had been of drachms. Production of these drachms came to and end in the middle of the 2nd century, shortly before the beginning of the Bee countermarks on the chronology proposed here28. Certainly we should be looking for a major economic centre for this phenomenon. So, while there is much uncertainty, there is also plenty of scope to identify civic entities behind these marks. This links them most closely in conception with the countermarking episode at Byzantium and Chalcedon considered above. I summarise the possibilities in Tab. 4.

Appears Countermark Authority Latest host coin on Side Overstruck cmk 1 Eagle AN Side, c. 205-183 y 2 Fulmen AN Myndos? Side, c. 205-183 y 3 Radiate Hd. r. AN Rhodes? Side, c. 205-183 y Anchor, 170s 4 Lyre AN Lycia? Side, c. 183-175 y 6 Zebu AN ΠΑ ΣΩ Magnesia? Athens, 144/3 y Aspendos, c. 194/3; Side c. 7 ΚΥΖΙ wreath Cyzicus y 205-183 8 ΠΡΙΗ (+Δ) Priene Temnos, c. 155-151 y 9 Prow Φ Phaselis Side, c. 205-183 y 10 Tripod ΑΠ Side, c. 205-183 y 11 Ζebu forepart +KI Kibyra Side, c. 205-183 y 12 Bee Ephesus? Side, c. 183-175 y cistophoric, 180s Aspendos, c. 191/0; Side, c. 13 Kore Cyzicus? y 205-183

24 I know of one other countermark (Tyche head), attested on a single drachm of Myrina: catalogue no. 25b. 25 The other two are the threequarters facing head which is also confined to Sidetan drachms, grapes and Apollo head that appear on drachms of Myrina. Sidetan drachms were also countermarked with Anchor and Helios countermarks, but never, it seems, ‘cistophoric’ countermarks. See Leschhorn 2015, tab. 2. 26 For the attribution to Telmessos see Mowat 1906, 204 ad no. 56. For the bronze coinage of Telmessos (as BMC 2 [pl. xvii, 10]), see Tek 2006, 772-3 fig. 15. 27 Compare Pl. 1, I, J and K. 28 See Kinns (1999) for an overview and chronology of the Ephesian Bee/Stag drachms. 200 Congress on the History of Money and Numismatics / Para Tarihi ve Numismatik Kongresi

Appears Countermark Authority Latest host coin on Side Overstruck cmk 14 Lion Side, c. 205-183 y Anchor 170s 15 Owl Pergamum? Side, c. 205-183 y 16 Facing head Halicarnassus? Side, c. 183-175 y 17 Anchor + ΙΛΑ Myrina, c. 150-143 18 Aphlaston Perge, c. 197/6 Anchor 170s 19 Apollo hd. Myrina? Temnos, c. 150-143 20 Crab Cos Temnos, c. 151/0 Myrina, c. 150-143; 21 Grapes Temnos Kyme, c. 150-143 22 Horseman r. Kibyra Alabanda, c. 167/6 23 Thyrsus Teos? Colophon, c. 200-190 24 Tripod Cnidus? Seleucus IV, 187-175 25 Tyche hd Smyrna? Kyme, c. 150-143

Tab. 4 Summary of ‘civic’ countermarks.

If we dissect the countermarks through their host coins, we can observe that 15 of the 24 types (62%) are found on coins of Side, and of these 11 (46% of the total) are found only on the coins of Side. 14 of the 15 (93%) that appear on Side are round; 10 of them (66%) are epigraphic. By contrast, of the 9 countermarks that are not found on issues of Side, only 5 are round (55%), and only 1 (11%) is epigraphic (Chart 7).

Chart 7 Aspects of countermarks considered by host coin. Civic Countermarks on the Silver Coinage of Asia Minor in the 2nd Century B.C. 201

At first glance this might seem to point to two different phenomena; however, the numbers involved are tiny. For example, three of the countermarks apparently not applied to Sidetan coins are attested by just a single specimen. A larger sample might make a significant difference. In fact, what most draws these countermarks together for consideration as a single phenomenon is their broad chronological context. The hoard evidence is of little help (Tab. 5). Discussion must proceed from the countermarks themselves and their host coins.

Hoard Approximate burial date* Propontis 1950 (IGCH 888): 7b c. 180s-170s B.C. Larissa 1968 (IGCH 237): 24b c. 160s B.C. Çığlık 1997 (CH. 10.304): 3b, 14b c. 150-100 B.C. Unknown findspot 1986 CH( 9.521): 11a c. 150-100 B.C. Unknown findspot 1991 (CH 9.517): 21b c. 150-100 B.C. Unknown findspot 2007 CH( –): 12y, 12z, 12aa, 12bb, 12cc, 12dd, 12ee, c. 150-100 B.C. 12ff, 12gg Tell Kotchek, 1952 (IGCH 1773): 21a, 21d, 25 c. 140-100 B.C. Unknown Findspot 2004 (CH–): 12c c. 2nd cent. B.C.? Alexandria 1897 (IGCH 1721): 12j, 13b c. 1st cent. B.C.?

* For discussion of dates see Meadows (2006) and catalogue below ad locc.

Tab. 5 Summary of hoard evidence for ‘civic’ countermarks.

Detailed discussion of the chronological evidence is laid out in the accompanying Catalogue. Here it will suffice to summarise. Three of our countermarks have been struck over earlier countermarks (Tab. 4): Bee over ‘cistophoric’ (12h), Lion over anchor (14b), Aphlaston over anchor (18a), and Radiate head r. + A-N obliterating an earlier anchor on the other side of the coin (3a). The first of these provides a terminus post quem of the 180s, and the second and third must postdate the 170s. In general, therefore, we seem to be looking at a phenomenon that postdates the others we have been examining. This is borne out when we turn to consideration of the detailed evidence for the host coins laid out in the Catalogue. The following picture emerges (Tab. 6). Broadly speaking the countermarks may be broken down into three groups. This, it should be stressed, does not necessarily correspond to three distinct phases of application. It merely serves to break the 25 types down into a relative chronology that can only be defined on the basis of our very limited evidence. The early group certainly all belong within the period c. 180-168 B.C. The Late group are all firmly anchored by their host coins in the period after 151 B.C. The Middle group and its chronology are far less certain. The A-N group may, indeed, belong with the Late group. The dates of three listed here (9, 11 and 15) are completely uncertain, and for four we can place them in terms of relative chronology between the 180s/170s and before (in two cases) the application of Bee countermarks, which seem to be late. Thus, while the civic countermarks do not constitute a discrete and closely temporally circum- scribed phenomenon like other episodes of countermarking considered above, there is a core of at the minimum 9, and perhaps as many 21 countermarking authorities active in the decades after c. 150 B.C. The only clear outlier is Cyzicus, otherwise a precocious minter of wreathed silver at the same time, and the mysterious tripod authority. It might perhaps be worth considering 202 Congress on the History of Money and Numismatics / Para Tarihi ve Numismatik Kongresi whether the authority behind this mark is not Early group (c. 180-170?) Cyzicus too, where the tripod is a major bronze re- KYZI + wreath (7) 180-170 29 verse type in the 2nd century . If the remainder of Kore (13) the countermarks are spread out between the 160s Tripod (24) 187-168 and 130s, or perhaps the even tighter period of the Middle group (c. 170-150?) 140s to 130s, how are we to explain them? Tripod A-Π (10) Between cistophoric and Bee Where we can be certain, the countermarks all Lion (14) Post anchor 170s or later postdate the late 150s, and thus are contemporary Facing head (16) post 180s, pre Bee with, or perhaps even follow the last major silver Aphlaston (18) Post anchor coinages of civic type in western Asia Minor. Indeed, The A-N group:* we may characterise the host coinage of these coun- Eagle A-N (1) termarks in two ways (Chart 8). Fulmen A-N (2) Radiate head A-N (3) post anchor On the one hand there are the large numbers of Lyre A-N (4) coins of Side, constituting 75% of the total number Tripod A-N (5) of host coins. This, as we have noted, is reminiscent Uncertain: of the population for the cistophoric countermark Prow + Φ (9) uncertain host coins (80%), and strongly suggests that these Kibyra (11) uncertain later civic countermarks were being applied to a Owl (15) Uncertain similar circulating stock of now much more worn Sidetan coins. In addition to these are some other Late group Zebu AN ΠΑ ΣΩ (6) post 144/3 coins that serve as hosts. 8% of these are posthumous Priene (+Δ) (8) post 150-143 Alexanders of the same age as the Sidetan coins, in- Bee (12) cluding 6 (6%) of Pamphylian mints. A significant Anchor (17) post 150-143 second portion is made up of later coins, however: Apollo head (19) post 150-143 late posthumous Alexanders and wreathed issues of Crab (20) post 151 Kyme and Myrina (constituting 17% of the whole Grapes (21) post 150-143 number). These do not span the gap between the Horseman (22) 142/1 ? 180s and the 160s, but rather all cluster at the end Thyrsus (23) 150s/140s Tyche head (25) post 150-143 of this period: the latest issues of Temnos, the late issues of Alabanda and the wreathed issues of the * If it is correct to regard Cmk 6 (Zebu AN ΠΑ ΣΩ) 150s and 140s. And finally we should note the mini- as part of this group, then these issues should mal part played by Seleucid coinage (just a single move to the ‘Late group’. coin, 1%). Tab. 6 Chronological overview of Civic Countermarks. Overall, the impression is that the Attic weight circulating stock of western Asia Minor is being countermarked in certain cities of Asia Minor, and that this is being done in the period after the last mints have ceased production. Why now, and why here? The answer may perhaps lie in the rise in rivals to the Attic weight coinage that had dominated the region since the conquest of Alexander. In the 160s B.C., the Attalid kingdom had introduced the cistophorus into circulation. Initially this had been produced alongside Attic weight coinage, both of royal types and

29 Von Fritze (1917) Gruppe 3. Note especially no. 22, pl. ii. 1, with a Kore on the obverse stylistically very close to that appearing on the contemporary silver of Gruppe VI and Countermark 13. Noe 1954, 88, on the basis of the appearance of a tripod on the silver coinage there in the 3rd century B.C. suggested the authority might be Knidos. This is certainly possible. Hoover 2008, 164 suggested Selge on the (it seems to me mistaken) assumption that there is a pi-omicron monogram on the countermark. Civic Countermarks on the Silver Coinage of Asia Minor in the 2nd Century B.C. 203

Chart 8 Division of host coins of civic countermarks.

wreathed ‘civic’ coinage (perhaps also produced with Attalid silver). But by c. 140 B.C. both of these Attic coinages had ceased to be produced30. By the time the Romans took over the province of Asia in 133 B.C., the obvious model for silver coinage was the cistophorus. Similarly, to the south in Lycia, the Lycian League shifted onto the plinthophoric standard with its silver coinage, probably just as the impact of the cistophorus was beginning to be felt in the 150s B.C.31 Faced with a changing, and perhaps confusing supply of silver in circulation, as well as stock of ageing and worn Sidetan tetradrachms, certain cities, it seems, grasped the nettle and began to regulate the coinage in their market places. Against this background it is tempting to return to the A-N group of countermarks and ask whether these initials, rather than standing for the name of the countermarking authority, might signify the value being asserted for the coin: Ἀττικὸν or Ἀλεξάνδρειον Nόμισμα (Attic or Alexandrine coinage). A similar import may perhaps be adduced for the ΠΡIH + Δ countermark, affirming the value of the coin at 4 Attic drachms (compared to 3 for a cistophorus?). If much remains uncertain, and some of the suggestions made here speculative, it is now hopefully clear that there is a phenomenon to be explained. Moreover, we may now, perhaps, trace the monetary history of some Greek cities for a decade or two after their last silver coinages seem to have ended. In this curious and dispersed episode of countermarking we are witnessing, in effect, the death-throes of civic silver coinage in western Asia Minor. With a few fragile excep- tions, the history of silver in the late 2nd and throughout the 1st century B.C. would be that of the monopoly of the cistophorus and the impact of the denarius.

30 I follow here the chronology set out in Meadows 2013, 175-181, with the beginning of the cistophorus dated to 167/6 B.C., and the end of the Attic weight Philetairoi to c. 150 B.C. For the terminal date of the wreathed coinages see Meadows in Meadows – Houghton 2010, 179-186. 31 For the date of the introduction of Troxell’s Period II silver see Meadows in Ashton – Meadows 2008, 131-2. 204 Congress on the History of Money and Numismatics / Para Tarihi ve Numismatik Kongresi

A. Countermarked coins of Side32 With inscription

1. Eagle r.; to l. and r., A-N in round punch. Obverse. a. 16.02 Magistrate illegible. ANS 1972.69.3. Pl. 2, 1. b. 15.71 Magistrate illegible. Paris 1973.1.462. Also bears Cist. cmk. of Pergamum. c. XPY. Reported by Leschhorn (2015, 371 tab. 3). The two traceable host coins have seen considerable wear, to the point where the magistrates’ initials have become illegible. These coins had seen decades of wear. The countermarks, while also worn, appear less so. The design and letters are clearly visible.

2. Fulmen; to l. and r., A-N in round punch. Obverse. a. 15.64 ΔΗ-Μ. CNG e-sale 364 (2015, Witschonke), 299. Pl. 2, 2. b. 16.35 ΔΗ. Roma 4, part 2 (2012, 1817). Both host coins are worn, so too are the countermarks.

3. Radiate head r.; to l. and r., A-N in round punch. Obverse. a. 16.41 ΔΗ. CNG Electronic 88 (2004), lot 61, ex Lakeview, UBS 59 (2004), lot 5841. Also bears an Anchor cmk. on the reverse. Pl. 2, 3. b. 16.2 [XP]Y. Çığlık Hoard 1997 (CH. 10.304). Büyükyörük (2001) no. 6c. Note, coin 3a. also has an anchor countermark on the reverse, that has been partially obliterated by the application of the Radiate head countermark. Clearly the latter postdates the anchor.

4. Lyre; to l. and r., A-N in round punch. Obverse. a. 16.37 ΧΡΥ. CNG MB 66 (2004), 517. Unknown Findspot 2004 (CH–). b. 16.49 ΔΗ. CNG electronic 88 (2004) 60 (ex Lakeview, UBS 59 (2004), lot 5842). c. 16.12 ΧΡΥ. UBS 59 (Lakeview, 2004), lot 5840. Also bears Bee cmk (see below, no. 12b) d. 16.60 ΔΗ [Μ]. ΒΜ. BMC 29, ex Millingen coll., probably ex. Latour-Maubourg coll. (whence, Mionnet Suppl. VII, p. 63). Mowat nos. 59-60, pl. 10, 17. Also bears Cist. cmk. of Adramytteion. e. 16.00 ΔΗ. BM. BMC 29A (p. 293) ex Sotheby 7.xii.1896 (Bunbury ii), lot 357. Mowat no. 30. Pl. 2, 4. f. 15.45 ΔΗ. BM. 1929.4.5.7. Also bears Bee cmk. Troxell (1982, pl. 1. J). g. 16.48 ΔΗ. Helsinki. SNG Keckman 678. h. 16.41 ΔΗ. Copenhagen. SNG Cop. 395 (Lambros, 1898). Also bears Anchor cmk. i. 15.98 ΧΡΥ. Paris 1966.467. SNG Paris 702. Also bears Cist. cmk. of uncertain city. j. 16.06 ΧΡΥ. Paris 1973.1.461. SNG Paris 706. k. Side Museum, on display, January 2017. l. ΚΛ-ΕΥ. Reported by Leschhorn (2015, 371 tab. 3).

32 I am grateful to Peter Thonemann who drew my attention to a number of the specimens included in this catalogue. Civic Countermarks on the Silver Coinage of Asia Minor in the 2nd Century B.C. 205

For another possible example see below no. 10d. As with the other A-N countermarks, there is an observable difference in wear-state of the host coins and the Lyre countermarks in certain cases. Specimen 4e (Pl. 2, 4) provides a good example, with the high point of the lyre still preserved, while the host coin exhibits heavy wear.

5. Tripod + AN For a countermark of this description that I have been unable to locate see below no. 10d.

6. Zebu forepart + AN + ΠA + ΣΩ a. 16.37 ΔΗ. CNG e-sale 364, 297 (ex Witschonke). Also bears Cist. cmk. of Sardis. Pl. 2, 6.

The same punch is used on an issue of Athens (see below no. 6b), dated to 144/3 a B.C., providing a terminus post quem for this countermark. The type of a zebu could belong to a number of mints in the Maeander valley region33, but that of Magnesia in particular may perhaps be suggested if we are to assume that the two additional pairs of letters (ΠA + ΣΩ) stand for personal names. Mints with two signing magistrates, or indeed the use of name and patronym are rare, but both these phenomena occur on the silver and bronze of Magnesia in the 2nd cent. B.C. Names beginning with these letters are, of course, extremely common, but as it happens we have a ΣΩΣΙΣΤΡΑΤΟΣ and ΠΑΥΣΑΝΙΑΣ and ΠΑΜΦΙΛΟΣ attested at this period34.

7. ΚΥΖΙ in wreath in round punch. Obverse. The same countermark appears on an Alexander of Aspendos (below no. 7b). a. 15.42 ΔΕΙ-ΝΟ. Paris M7603 ex Mowat coll. (ex Mme. Stamati Vinga). Mowat 1906, no. 2, pl. 10, 2. This is almost certainly the coin described by Dutihl as forming part of the Alexandria 1897 hoard (IGCH 1721): Dutihl (1898, 151). Pl. 2, 7. a The host coin is extremely corroded, but had plainly seen a great deal of wear. The condition of the countermark is less easy to gauge, but the letters KYZI are certainly legible.

8. ΠΡΙΗ in round punch. Obverse. A variant of this countermark (with an additional delta) appears on Alexander coins of Temnos (see below nos. 8b and 8c). a. 16.32 ΔΙΟΔ. ANS 1972.69.2. Pl. 2, 8a. Both coin and countermark exhibit clear signs of wear. Assuming that this variety of countermark, without the additional Δ, belongs with those that do have the extra letter, then a date of application in the late 150s or 140s is likely. See below on 8b and 8c.

9. Prow + Φ r. in rectangular punch a. 16.08 CT. Gotha. Sestini (1820, 80). Imhoof-Blumer (1901-2, ii, p. 335, no. 7, pl. xi.16). Mowat (1906, no. 31 pl. 10, 30). Pl. 2, 9. Sestini, followed by Imhoof, read the element above the ship as a phi, making the identification of this countermark as Phaselite almost certain.

33 For a recent discussion see Thonemann 2011, 36-45. 34 See Imhoof-Blumer (1908, 71) for the first and last names (the former on a coin with zebu reverse); At least three different individuals by the name of Pausanias are attested on the wreathed silver coinage and bronze: Jones 1979, 65; BMC 39 and 43. 206 Congress on the History of Money and Numismatics / Para Tarihi ve Numismatik Kongresi

In the absence of a photograph of the coin itself it is difficult to comment definitively of the condition of this coin. From the apparent wear on the locks of Athena’s hair it seems that the coin had seen some circulation. The countermark, by contrast, looks very fresh.

10. Tripod; to l. and r., A-Π in round punch. Obverse. a. 16.57 ΔΗ. CNG e-sale 364, 298 (ex Witschonke). CNG 97 (2014), 256; G&M 200 (2011), 1960. Also bears Cist. cmk. of Apameia b. 16.47 ΧΡΥ. Obolos 6 (2016) 563. Also bears Cist. cmk. of Apameia and Bee cmk. (see below, no. 12d). Pl. 3, 10. c. ΔΗ. Münz Zentrum Lagerlist 11 (1972) 49. Also bears an Anchor cmk. [d. Commerce. Noted by Imhoof-Blumer (1901-2, 335 no. 9) on the basis of a rubbing made by R. Wiedermann of a coin seen in commerce in Smyrna. Described as bearing the letters AN, but no image is published. Mowat 1906, 196 and 205 no. 61. This coin also bears a cistophoric cmk. of Stratonikeia. In view of the similarity of design and coincidence of letters, one must question whether this might not be another example of the lyre + A-N countermark described above.] Coin 10b offers significant evidence for the relative chronology of three countermarks. The host coin itself is very heavily worn, the letters of the magistrate’s name and the pomegranate, for example, being worn almost flat. The same can be said of the cistophoric countermark, the letters of which are almost illegible. This comes as no surprise, given that the coin was probably struck in the 190s B.C., and the countermark in the following decade. The Tripod countermark has certainly seen some wear, but clearly not as much as the cistophoric: its letters are still easily legible. The freshest of the three countermarks is the Bee. This has clearly seen some wear at the high points, but not as much as the other two countermarks.

11. Zebu kneeling r. + KI in exergue, in round punch. Obverse. a. CT. Unknown findspot 1986 (CH 9.521); Schubert 1998, 599-600 no. 1. Pl. 3, 11. Both coin and countermark exhibit noticeable wear.

Without inscription 12. Bee in round punch. Obverse. Tetradrachms a. 16.20 ΔΗ. UBS 59 (Lakeview, 2004), 5839. Also bears Cist. cmk. of Pergamum. b. 16.12 ΧΡΥ. UBS 59 (Lakeview, 2004), 5840. Bee is from same stamp as 12e. Also bears Lyre and A-N cmk. c. 16.15 ΔΕΙ. CNG electronic 86 (2004), 38. Unknown Findspot 2004 (CH–). d. 16.47 ΧΡΥ. Obolos 6 (2016) 563. Also bears Cist. cmk. of Apameia and Tripod + AΠ cmk. (see above, no. 10b) e. 16.52 ΧΡΥ. ANS 1953.171.929 (Holzer coll.). Bee is from same stamp as 12b. Also bears Cist. cmk. of Apameia. f. 16.14 ΔΕΙ. ANS 1953.171.927 (Holzer coll.). Also bears Cist. cmk. of Apameia. g. 16.20 ΧΡΥ. Berlin. Imhoof (1901-2, ii, 335 no. 8 pl. xi, 17. Mowat (1906, 196 and 204 no. 56 pl. 10, 14). Also bears Cist. cmk. of Laodiceia. Pl. 3, 12. h. ΔΗ. Klagenfurt 3016. Mowat (1906, no. 58 pl. 10, 16). Also bears Cist. cmk. of Sardis, clearly overstruck by the bee. Civic Countermarks on the Silver Coinage of Asia Minor in the 2nd Century B.C. 207

i. 15.60 ΔΕΙ. Paris R2129. SNG Paris 672. Also bears Anchor cmk. j. Illegible. Alexandria 1897 hoard (IGCH 1721)35. Dutihl 1898, 151. Mowat 1906, 197 and 204, no. 57. Also bears Cist. cmk. of Pergamum. k. ΔΙΟΔ. Reported by Leschhorn (2015, 371 tab. 3). l. CT. Reported by Leschhorn (2015, 371 tab. 3).

Drachms m. 3.54 CT. MMAG 30 (2009) 624. Sammlung Roland Müller, St. Gallen n. 3.66 ΔΙΟΔ. Tom Vossen, Vcoins. http://www.asiaminorcoins.com/gallery/displayimage. php?pid=802 o. 3.70 [K]ΛΕ. Paris M7613 ex Mowat coll. Mowat (1906, no. 64 pl. 10, 5). Also bears Facing- head cmk. (see below 16b). p. 3.70 CT. BM. BMC 56; pl. 28, 2; ‘Purchased at Telmessus’. Mowat 1906, no. 63, pl. 10, 7. This coin also listed in error as Mowat (1906, no. 53), and illustrated by a different coin (pl. 10, 19). Also bears Facing-head cmk. (see below 16c). q. 3.31 Illegible. Paris M7611 ex Mowat coll. Mowat 1906, no. 51 pl. 10, 25. r. 3.69 CT. BM. BMC 57; pl. 28, 3. Mowat 1906, no. 53 pl. 10, 19. (listed in error as BMC 56, pl. 38, 9). s. 3.55 CT. P.S. Pavlou (VCoins). https://www.vcoins.com/en/stores/pavlos_s_pavlou_ numismatist/131/product/pamphyliasidecirca_19036_bcardrachma_counter marked_at_ephesus_with_a_bee/450085/Default.aspx. Viewed 27.xii.16. t. 3.84 CT. BMC p. 294, 56A ex Sotheby 7.xii.1896 (Bunbury ii), lot 354. Mowat 1906, no. 54 pl. 10, 18. u. CT. Location unknown (from a cast provided by Dressel). Mowat 1906, no. 55, pl. 10, 12. v. 3.31 Illegible. Paris 1965.987. w. 3.52 Illegible. Paris FG 563A. x. 3.65 ΔΗΜ. Paris M7612 ex Mowat coll. Mowat 1906, no. 49. y. 3.54 CT. Uncertain findspot 2007. Arslan 2010, no. 2. z. 3.79 CT. Uncertain findspot 2007. Arslan 2010, no. 3. aa. 3.92 CT. Uncertain findspot 2007. Arslan 2010, no. 4. bb. 3.60 CT. Uncertain findspot 2007. Arslan 2010, no. 5. cc. 3.31 CT. Uncertain findspot 2007. Arslan 2010, no. 6. dd. 3.57 XPY. Uncertain findspot 2007. Arslan 2010, no. 9. ee. 3.71 ΚΛ-ΕΥ. Uncertain findspot 2007. Arslan 2010, no. 10. ff. 3.45 ΚΛΕ-ΥΧ. Uncertain findspot 2007. Arslan 2010, no. 12. gg. A-K. Reported by Leschhorn 2015, 371 tab. 2. hh. ΔΕΙΝ. Reported by Leschhorn 2015, 371 tab. 2. ii-ll. CT. At least four further specimens reported by Leschhorn 2015, 371 tab. 2. mm. ΚΛΕ-ΥΧ. At least one further specimen reported by Leschhorn 2015, 371 tab. 2.

35 On the problems of dating and interpreting this hoard see Meadows 2006, 20-21. 208 Congress on the History of Money and Numismatics / Para Tarihi ve Numismatik Kongresi

Coins of Side bearing the Bee countermark are uniformly heavily worn. This is the case even when the Bee countermark itself seems fresh. A good example is provided by coin 12f, where the detail of the Bee’s body and wings are still clearly visible. One coin, 12h, has the Bee partially overstruck on a cistophoric countermark, reinforcing the relative chronology noted above in discussion of coin 10b. It is difficult to believe that the Bee countermark was applied much before the middle of the 2nd century B.C., and it may conceivably have been later than this.

13. Kore8 r. in round punch. Obverse. a. 16.62 ΔΗ. ANS 1997.9.198 (Leggett). Also bears uncertain Cist. cmk. Pl. 3, 13. b. 15.92 ΔΙΟΔ. Alexandria 1897 hoard (IGCH 1721). Paris M7601 ex Mowat coll. (ex Eddé). Dutihl 1898, 151. Mowat 1906, no. 1 pl. 10. 1. a b There is a noticeable difference in wear on coin 13a between that exhibited by the cistophoric countermark and the round mark with the female head. It seems likely that the latter countermark was applied in the 180s or 170s at Cyzicus; see the discussion below of 13c.

14. Lion seated r. in round punch. Obverse. a. 16.19 ΔHM. G&M 126 (2003) 1406. Also bears Cist. cmk. of Pergamum. Pl. 3, 14. b. 15.9 [Δ]HM. Çığlık 1997 hoard (CH 10.304). Büyükyörük 2001, no. 6a. Also bears an Anchor cmk. c. ΧΡΥ. Reported by Leschhorn (2015, 371 tab. 3). The lion countermark on coin 14b seems to have been overstruck on an anchor countermark. In any case, it appears fresher than the anchor, which seems to suggest that it was applied after the 170s B.C. By contrast the countermark on coins 14a appears somewhat flattened when compared with the Cistophoric countermark on the same coin. Conceivably this the result of damage to the countermark punch, or sudden blow to the lion countermark once it had been applied to this coin.

15. Owl facing in round punch. Obverse. a. 16.69 ΔΗ. BM. BMC p. 293, no. 29E, ex Sotheby 7.xii.1896 (Bunbury ii), lot 354; pl. xliii. 16; Mowat (1906, no. 62, pl. X. 4). Also bears an Anchor cmk. on the reverse. Pl. 3, 15. b. 16.02 ΔΕΙ. CNG MB 63 (2003) 582. Also bears Cist. cmk. of Sardis. c. A-K. Reported by Leschhorn (2015, 371 tab. 3). Both surviving countermarks exhibit some wear, as do the coins that bear them.

16. Facing head, three quarters r. in round punch. Obverse. a. 3.83 CT. G&M 170 (2008) 1484. Pl. 3, 16. b. 3.70 [K]ΛΕ. Paris M7613 ex Mowat coll. Mowat (1906) no. 64, pl. 10, 5. Also bears Bee cmk. (see above 12o). c. 3.70 CT. BM. BMC 56; pl. 28, 2; ‘Purchased at Telmessus’. Mowat 1906, no. 63 pl. 10, 7. This coin also listed in error as Mowat (1906, no. 53), and illustrated by a different coin (pl. 10, 19). Also bears a Bee cmk. (see above 12p). The countermark on coin 16a is in very fresh condition, though seems to have received a sharp blow to the nose. The coin on which it is found, by contrast, has clearly seen lengthy circulation. Civic Countermarks on the Silver Coinage of Asia Minor in the 2nd Century B.C. 209

The facing head countermarks on coins 16b and 16c are both significantly worn however. In the case of coin 16c, it seems clear that the facing head countermark is more worn than the Bee countermark also present on this coin. In fact, it is noticeable that on both coins 16b and 16c the facing head countermark occupies what we might consider the primary position on the coin (the bowl of Athena’s helmet), while the Bees are placed off-centre. This seems to suggest, once again, that the Bee countermark was placed last on these coins (compare commentary on nos. 10 and 12 above).

B. Countermarked coins of other mints 6. Zebu forepart + AN + ΠA + ΣΩ The same punch is used on an issue of Side (see above no. 6a). Athens (obv.) b. 16.29 ANS 1944.100.85073. Thompson, New Style 1846. (144/3 B.C.). Pl. 2, 6b. As has been noted above (ad no. 6), a terminus post quem of 144/3 for the application of this countermark is required by the date of the Athenian issue. The Athenian coin has seen significant wear, but so too has the countermark.

7. ΚΥΖΙ in wreath in round punch. Obverse. This countermark also appears on an issue of Side (see above no. 7a). Aspendos (obv.) b. 16.67 Aspendos, Year 20 (194/3 B.C.). Price 2899. ANS 1951.35.53 ex Propontis 1950 hoard (IGCH 888)36. Waggoner 1979, 15 no. 93. Pl. 2, 7b. Both coin and countermark have seen some wear, but that on the latter is difficult to gauge, as the countermark punch itself seems to have been damaged, so we may be seeing punch-ear as much as circulation wear here. The coin, which is dated to 194/3 B.C. on my chronology for Aspendos37, provides a terminus post quem for application. The deposit date of the Propontis hoard supplies a terminus ante quem, but is infuriatingly unclear. It contained examples of Cistophoric countermarks suggesting that it was buried no earlier than the 180s, but no Anchor countermarks, ruling out a date much after 170 B.C. On either of these chronologies, however, the Cyzicene countermark is early, applied around the same time or shortly after the Cistophoric countermarks.

8. ΠΡΙΗ (Priene) + Δ A variant of this countermark (without the delta) also appears on an issue of Side (see above 8a). Temnos (obv.) b. 15.73 Temnos. Price 1688. (c. 190-162 B.C.). Berlin 1909/343. Pl. 2, 8b. c. 16.51 Temnos. Price 1676 (c. 162-151 B.C.). BM 1676b. Coin 8b has a very fresh countermark on a slightly worn coin; 8c has a worn countermark on a very worn coin. The terminus post quem for application is provided by the second of the two coins. As Cathy Lorber has demonstrated38, Price 1676 must have been struck in the late 150s B.C. The Priene countermarks were applied after that.

36 Described in error as an issue of year 22 by Noe (1954, 86) followed by Price (1991, i. p. 000). 37 Meadows 2009. 38 Lorber 2010, 125-6. 210 Congress on the History of Money and Numismatics / Para Tarihi ve Numismatik Kongresi

13. Kore This countermark also appears on an issue of Side (see above nos. 13 a and 13b). Aspendos (obv.) c. 16.58 Aspendos, Year 20 (194/3 B.C.). Price 2899. Paris 1973.1.413. Pl. 3, 13c. d. 16.05 Aspendos, Year 23 (191/0 B.C.). Price 2902. Paris 1968.791. Pl. 3, 13d. d It is not entirely clear that the female heads in these two punches are intended as depictions of the same goddess. They are presented together here for convenience, and it may be necessary, if more evidence emerges to separate them. About the countermark that appears on 13d there is little more to be said. It may be that there are traces of corn ears in her hair above her forehead, but this is uncertain. About 13c there is more to be said. This punch seems very similar to that which appears on the issues of Side (13a and 13b). All three seem to be struck from different punches. There is a marked similarity between the Kore who appears on these punches, and the figure depicted on the second century silver coinage of Cyzicus: see Pl. 1, L39. What is more striking, if circumstantial, is the fact that the patently Cyzicene countermark (no. 7) is found not only on an issue of Aspendos dated to the same year (7b: year 20), but is applied to a coin struck from the same obverse die as 13c. The evidence is strong, then, to attribute the Kore countermark to Cyzicus, and it may well be contemporary with the KYZI countermark. In fact, both of these countermarks may be contemporary with the coinage with which they share types, since it seems that these smaller denominations and the wreathed issues that accompanied them may belong to the 170s if not earlier40.

17. Anchor + in rectangular punch Alabanda (all on obv.) a. 16.03 No date (c. 170-167 B.C.). Price 2456. Paris (Seyrig) R3940. Tell Kotchek, 1952 (IGCH 1773), 308 b. 16.01 Year 1 (167/6 B.C.). Price 2458. Hirsch 169 (1991) 270. c. 15.88 Year 2 (166/5 B.C.). Price 2461. ANS 1972.53.2. Tell Kotchek, 1952 (IGCH 1773). d. 16.69 Year 5 (163/2 B.C.). Price 2462. Paris (Seyrig) R 3932. Tell Kotchek, 1952 (IGCH 1773), 516. Pl. 3, 17. Myrina (obv.) e. Myrina, Sacks 1985, issue 46 (c. 151-143 B.C.). UBS 61 (2004), 4066. Hoover (2008), p. 192, no. 71A. Although superficially similar to the Anchor countermarks of the 170s B.C. discussed above, two factors distinguish them as different. First is the appearance of what appears to be a legend alongside the shaft of the anchor. The second is the population of host coins. Whereas the first phase of anchor countermarking was almost entirely (98%) confined to posthumous Alexanders of Pamphylia, this epigraphic variety is only known from Alexanders of Alabanda and a wreathed issue of Myrina. The former were struck in in the 160s B.C., the latter just before 143 B.C.41 A terminus post quem for application of 150 at the earliest, and thus 20 years later than the earlier anchors, is suggested.

39 Von Fritze 1914, 51 Gruppe VI, pl. vi. 20-21. To the denominations listed by him can now be added a drachm with the same types as the didrachm, but with a torch in place of the fulmen. See eg. British Museum CM1949-2-2-2. 40 See my discussion of this in Meadows – Houghton 2010, 179-180. 41 For the date of Myrina see Meadows, ibid. p. 181. Civic Countermarks on the Silver Coinage of Asia Minor in the 2nd Century B.C. 211

18. Aphlaston in semi-circular(?) punch Perge (obv.) a. 15.33 Year 27 (197/6 B.C.). Price 2941. Oxford, HCR23521. Also bears anchor cmk. Pl. 3, 18. Uncertain Pamphylian mint (obv.) b. 15.12 Uncertain mint. ANS 0000.999.52876. Noe 1954, 88 pl. xiv. 10. The aphlaston countermark on the Oxford specimen has clearly been applied over the anchor countermark. The latter thus provides a terminus post quem of the 170s.

19. Apollo head r. in round punch Temnos (obv.) a. 15.48 Temnos, c. 151-143 B.C. Price 1690. BM 1690b. Pl. 3, 19. The countermark on this coin looks to have seen somewhat less wear than its host coin. The latter belongs to the end of the Alexander production at the mint of Temnos, between 151 and 143 B.C.42

20. Crab Temnos (obv.) a. Temnos, Price 1678? (shortly before 151/0 B.C.). Countermark double struck. Ars et Nummus (Milan), list 10 (1964) 309. Pl. 3, 20. The quality of the image of the coin is poor, but gives the impression of a very fresh countermark on a slightly worn coin. The latter, if correctly identified, was struck shortly before the middle of the 2nd century. The countermark ought to belong in the 140s-130s.

21. Grapes Alabanda (all on obv.) a. 16.50 Year 1 (167/6 B.C.). Price 2460. ANS 1953.73.6 (Poladian). Tell Kotchek, 1952 (IGCH 1773) 348. Pl. 4, 21. b. 16.11 Year 1 (167/6 B.C.). Price 2460. Oxford HCR24029. Uncertain findspot 1991 (CH 9.517), 99. c. 16.25 Year 4 (164/3 B.C.). Price 2463. ANS 1954.247.2 (Friedberg). d. 16.45 Year 4 (164/3 B.C.). Price 2463. ANS 1952.177.45. (Poladian). Tell Kotchek, 1952 (IGCH 1773).

Myrina (obv.) e. 3.77 Sacks 1985, issue 42, 4a (c. 151-143 B.C.). London, BMC 5. Kyme (obv.) f. 16.68 MΗΤΡΟΦΑΝΗΣ. Oakley (1982), 2h (c. 151-143 B.C.). Oxford ex Naville 1 (Pozzi, 1921) 2300. A terminus post quem of the late 140s B.C. for the application of this countermark can be inferred from its use on a wreathed coin of Myrina, suggesting that the date of this countermark may be similar to the anchor with inscription43.

42 For the Temnian chronology see Lorber 2010, 126. 43 For the chronology see above no. 17. 212 Congress on the History of Money and Numismatics / Para Tarihi ve Numismatik Kongresi

22. Horseman riding r.; K Alabanda (obv.) 16.66 Year 1 (167/6 B.C.). Price 2460. SNG Berry 319. ANS 1965.77.72. Pl. 4, 22. This countermark looks comparatively fresh on a somewhat worn coin. If the letters on the countermark are to be interpreted as a date, it is not impossible that this represents year 26 on the same era as that of Alabanda (the era of Carian and Lycian freedom from Rhodes). This would date the countermark to 142/1 B.C.

23. Thyrsus in rectangular frame Colophon (obv.) a. 16.29 200-190 B.C. Price 1864. ANS 1944.100.31463. Noe (1954), p. 88, pl. xiv. 9. Pl. 4, 23. The host coin has seen significant wear, but so too it seems has the countermark. In general the poor condition of the coin makes comparison difficult. The thyrsus is a relatively uncommon coin type before the imperial period, but an obvious example occurs on the coinage of the Artists of Dionysus, probably to be attributed to neighbouring Teos and to the years c. 155-145 B.C.44 A date of around this period is certainly conceivable for the countermark.

24. Tripod Sagalassos (obv.) a. 16.73 200-188 B.C. Sagalassos. Price 2985. ANS. 1953.120.1. Noe 1954, 88 pl. xiv. 11. Pl. 4, 24. Tarsus (obv.) b. 187-175 B.C. Seleucus IV, mint of Tarsus. SC 1309. Larissa 1968 (IGCH 237) no. 1083. Aspendos (obv.) c. 15.91 Aspendos Yr. 24 (190/89 B.C.). Price 2903. BM 2903d. Both of the Alexanders that served as host coins for this countermark show heavy wear. The terminus post quem for application of this countermark is provided by the regnal dates of Seleucus IV (187-175 B.C.). A terminus ante quem is provided by the deposition date of the Larissa hoard (c. 168 B.C.).

25. Tyche head r. Alabanda (all on obv.) Undated (c. 170-167 B.C.) : 54/127 cmks/specs. (8 dies: 6.75 per die; 42%) Year 1 (167/6 B.C.) : 46/170 cmks/specs. (10 dies: 4.6 per die; 27%) Year 2 (166/5 B.C.) : 1/6 cmks/specs. (1 inherited die: 1 per die; 16%) Year 3 (165/4 B.C.) : 4/31 cmks/specs. (4 dies: 1 per die; 12%) Year 4 (164/3 B.C.) : 15/101 cmks/specs. (6 dies: 2.5 per die; 14%)

44 Lorber – Hoover 2003. Civic Countermarks on the Silver Coinage of Asia Minor in the 2nd Century B.C. 213

Year 5 (163/2 B.C.) : 5/110 cmks/specs. (6 dies: 0.83 per die; 4%) Year 6 (162/1 B.C.) : 8/85 cmks/specs. (4 dies 2 per die; 9%)

Kyme (obv.) a. 16.00 ΜΗΤΡΟΦΑΝΗΣ. SNG Copenhagen 104. Oakley (1982) 1t (151-143 B.C.)45.

Myrina (obv.) b. 3.91 Myrina, Sacks 1985, Issue 27 (c. 151-143 B.C.). Paris FG 358. Pl. 4, 25. As with the Anchor + inscription and the Grapes countermarks (nos. 17 and 21), the majority of countermarked specimens are Alexanders of the mint of Alabanda, while the terminus post quem is provided by wreathed issues of the 140s. All three of these countermarks are likely to be contemporary. The massive number of surviving numbers on Alabandan Alexanders is intriguing, but inexplicable on the current state of the evidence. No doubt it is in part an accident of survival.

Illustrations of coins not in the catalogue Pl. 1, A. Silver tetradrachm of Aegeae, Macedon with rosette countermark from the Kuft hoard (Oxford, HCR23304) Pl. 1, B. Silver drachm of Colophon with countermark of Byzantium (Oxford, HCR23956) Pl. 1, C. Silver drachm of Magnesia on the Maeander with two countermarks of Calchedon (Oxford, HCR23832) Pl. 1, D. Silver tetradrachm of Side with ‘cistophoric’ countermark of Pergamum (ANS 1984.5.102) Pl. 1, E. Silver tetradrachm of Aspendos with Anchor countermark (HCR23510) Pl. 1, F. Silver tetradrachm of Aspendos with Facing Radiate Head countermark (CNG electronic 375 [2016], 411) Pl. 1, G. Tyche head countermark (catalogue no. 25) Pl. 1, H. Obverse of Silver Tetradrachm, Smyrna (ANS 1967.152.450) Pl. 1, I. Bee countermark (catalogue no. 12e) Pl. 1, J. Reverse of bronze coin of Telmessos (Heidelberger Münzhandlung 64 [2014] 1193) Pl. 1, K. Obverse of a silver drachm of Ephesus (Obolos Webauction 4 [2016] 342) Pl. 1, L. Silver drachm of Cyzicus (ANS 1948.77.8)

45 For the identification of this countermark (described as Artemis in the Sylloge) see Noe 1954, 86 n. 3. 214 Congress on the History of Money and Numismatics / Para Tarihi ve Numismatik Kongresi

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Arslan 2010 M. Arslan, “Anamur Müzesi’ndeki Side Drahmi Definesi”, in: S. Aybek – A. Kazım Öz (eds.), Metropolis Ionia II. The Land of the Crossroads. Essays in Honour of Recep Meriç (2010) 35-45. Ashton – Meadows 2008 R. H. J. Ashton – A.R. Meadows, “The Letoon Deposit; Lycian Coinage, Rhodian Plinthophori, and Pseudo Rhodian Drachms from Haliartos (yet again) and Asia Minor”, NC 168, 2008, 111-134. Bauslaugh 1990 R. Bauslaugh, “Cistophoric Countermarks and the Monetary System of Eumenes II”, NC 150, 1990, 39-65. Chameroy 2016 J. Chameroy, “Manipulating Late Hellenistic Coinage: Some Overstrikes and Countermarks on Bronze Coins of Pergamum”, Chiron 46, 2016, 85-118. De Callataÿ 2013 F. de Callataÿ, “The Coinages of the Attalids and Their Neighbours: A Quantified Overview”, in: P. Thonemann (ed.), Attalid Asia Minor: Money, International Relations and the State (2013) 207-244. Dutihl 1898 E. D. J. Dutihl, “Monnaies de Side et d’Égypte. Trois importantes trouvailles de monnaies, faites dans le courant de l’année dernière en Égypte”, JIAN 1, 1898, 148-156. Ellis-Evans 2016 A. Ellis-Evans, “The Koinon of Athena Ilias and its Coinage”, AJN 28, 2016, 105-158. Hoover 2008 O. Hoover, “Appendix 4A. Countermarks on Seleucid and Foreign Silver Coins (Seleucus I-Antiochus VII”, in: A. Houghton – C. C. Lorber – O. Hoover, Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue. Part II. Seleucus IV through Antiochus XIII. Volume II (2008) 157-193. Imhoof-Blumer 1901-2 F. Imhoof-Blumer, Kleinasiatische Münzen (1901-2). Jones 1979 N. F. Jones, “The Autonomous Wreathed Tetradrachms of Magnesia on Meander”, ANSMN 24, 1979, 63-109. Kinns 1980 P. Kinns, Studies in the Coinage of Ionia: Erythrae, Teos, Lebedus, Colophon, 400-30 B.C. (Cambridge University Doctoral Thesis, 1980). Kinns 1999 P. Kinns, “The Attic Weight Drachms of Ephesus: A Preliminary Study in the Light of Recent Hoards”, NC 159, 1999, 47-97. Le Rider 1983 G. Le Rider, “Un trésor de Bassit”, BCH 107, 1983, 451-456. Leschhorn 2015 W. Leschhorn, “Die hellenistischen Drachmen der Stadt Side in Pamphylien”, in: K. Dörtlük et al. (eds.), First International Congress of Anatolian Monetary History and Numismatics - Proceedings, Antalya, February 25-28th, 2013 (2014) 369-381. Lorber 2010 C. C. Lorber, “Commerce (“Demetrius I” Hoard), 2003 (CH 10.301)”, Coin Hoards 10, 2010, 125-144. Lorber – Hoover 2003 C. C. Lorber – O. Hoover, “An Unpublished Tetradrachm Issued by the Artists of Dionysos”, NC 163, 2003, 59-68. Marinescu C. A. Marinescu, Making and Spending Money Along the Bosporus: the Lysimachi Coinages Minted by Byzantium and Chalcedon and their Socio-Cultural Context (Unpublished PhD Thesis, Columbia Univesity, 1996). Marinescu – Lorber 2012 C. Marinescu – C. C. Lorber, “The Black Sea Tetradrachm Hoard”, in: E. Paunov – S. Filipova (eds.), HPAKΛEOYΣ ΣΩTHPOΣ ΘAΣIΩN. Studia in honorem Iliae Prokopov (2012) 197-259. Mattingly 1998 H. Mattingly, “The Second-century B.C. Seleucid Countermarks: Anchor and Facing Helios Head”, QT 27 1998, 237-243. Meadows 2006 A. R. Meadows, “Side, Amyntas and the Pamphylian Plain”, in: P. Van Alfen (ed.), Agoranomia: Studies in Money and Exchange Presented to Jack Kroll (2006) 151-175. Meadows 2009 A. R. Meadows, “The Eras of Pamphylia and the Seleucid Invasions of Asia Minor”, AJN 21, 2009, 51-88. Meadows 2013 A. R. Meadows, “The Closed Currency System of the Attalid Kingdom”, in: P. Thonemann (ed.), Attalid Asia Minor: Money, International Relations and the State (2013) 149-205. Civic Countermarks on the Silver Coinage of Asia Minor in the 2nd Century B.C. 215

Meadows forthcoming A. R. Meadows, “Invasion and Transformation. The Development of the Civic Alexander Coinage in Western Asia Minor, c. 323 to 223 BC”, in: M.-C. Marcellesi – S. Kremydi (eds.), Les alexandres après Alexandre: histoire d’une monnaie commune. Meletemata (forthcoming). Meadows – Houghton 2010 A. Meadows – A. R. Houghton, “The Gaziantep Hoard, 1994 (CH 9.527; 10.308)”, CH 10, 2010, 173-223. Metcalf 1994 W. E. Metcalf, “A Late Second Century Hoard of Posthumous Alexanders”, SNR 73, 1994, 19-53. Mionnet T. E. Mionnet, Description de Médailles Antiques, Grecques et Romaines (1806-1830). Mowat 1906 R. Mowat, “Trois contremarques inédites sur des tétradrachmes de Side. Extension de L’union monétaire cistophorique”, in: G. F. Hill – B. V. Head (ed.), Corolla Numismatica: Numismatic Essays in Honour of B.V. Head (1906) 189-207. Nash 1974 D. Nash, “The Kuft Hoard of Alexander III Tetradrachms”, NC7 14, 1974, 14-30. Noe 1954 S. P. Noe, “Countermarked and Overstruck Greek Coins at the American Numismatic Society”, ANSMN 6, 1954, 85-93. Oakley 1982 J. H. Oakley, “The Autonomous Wreathed Tetradrachms of Kyme, Aeolis”, ANSMN 27, 1982, 1-37. Price M. J. Price, The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus. A British Museum Catalogue (1991). Robert 1977 L. Robert, “Monnaies Hellénistiques”, RN6 19, 1977, 7-47. Sacks K. S. Sacks, “The Wreathed Coins of Aeolian Myrina”, ANSMN 30, 1985, 1-43. Schubert 1998 H. Schubert, “Ein unbekannter Gegenstempel auf einer Tetradrachme von Side”, in: U. Peter (ed.), Stephanos nomismatikos: Edith Schonert-Geiss zum 65. Geburtstag (1998) 591-600. Sestini 1820 D. Sestini, Lettere e dissertazioni numismatiche, Vols. 7-9 (1820). Seyrig 1968 H. Seyrig, “Monnaies hellénistiques de Byzance et de Chalcédoine”, in: C. M. Kraay – G. K. Jenkins (eds.), Essays in Greek Coinage Presented to Stanley Robinson (1968) 183-200. Seyrig 1973 H. Seyrig, Trésors du Levant anciens et nouveaux, Trésors Monétaires Séleucides II (1973). Tek 2006 A. T. Tek, “Hellenistik ve Erken Roma İmparatorluk Dönemlerinde Likya’da Basılan Otonom Şehir Sikkeleri”, in: K. Dörtlük et al. (eds.), The IIIrd International Symposium on Lycia, Symposium Proceedings, Antalya, 7-10 November 2005 (2006) 769-787. Thompson M. Thompson, “The Mints of Lysimachus”, in: C. M. Kraay – G. K. Jenkins (eds.), Essays in Greek Coinage Presented to Stanley Robinson (1968) 163-182. Thompson 1954 M. Thompson, “A Countermarked Hoard from Büyükçekmece”, ANSMN 6, 1954, 11-35. Thonemann 2008 P. Thonemann, “Cistophoric Geography: Toriaion and Kormasa”, NC 168, 2008, 43-60. Thonemann 2011 P. Thonemann, The Maeander Valley: A Historical Geography from Antiquity to Byzantium (2011). Troxell 1982 H. A. Troxell, The Coinage of the Lycian League, American Numismatic Society Numismatic Notes and Monographs 162 (1982). Von Fritze 1914 H. Von Fritze, “Die Silberprägung von Kyzikos. Eine chronologische Studie”, Nomisma 9, 1914, 34-56. Von Fritze 1917 H. Von Fritze, “Die autonome Kupferprägung von Kyzikos. Eine chronologische Studie”, Nomisma 10, 1917, 1-32. Westermark U. Westermark, Das Bildnis des Philetairos von Pergamon: Corpus der Münzprägung. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Studies in Classical Archaeology 1 (1961). Zervos 1980 O. H. Zervos, “Newell’s Manuscript of the Kuft Hoard”, ANSMN 25, 1980, 17-29. 216 Congress on the History of Money and Numismatics / Para Tarihi ve Numismatik Kongresi

A B C D

E F G H

I J K L

Plate 1 Civic Countermarks on the Silver Coinage of Asia Minor in the 2nd Century B.C. 217

1 2 3 4

6a 6b 7a 7b

8a 8b 9 10

Plate 2 218 Congress on the History of Money and Numismatics / Para Tarihi ve Numismatik Kongresi

11 12 13 13c

13d 14 15 16

17 18 19 20

Plate 3 Civic Countermarks on the Silver Coinage of Asia Minor in the 2nd Century B.C. 219

21 22 23

24 25

Plate 4