Three Gold Coinages of Third-Century Ptolemaic Egypt

Julien OLIVIER & Catharine LORBER *

THREE GOLD COINAGES OF THIRD-CENTURY PTOLEMAIC EGYPT

Abstract – ﬈e paper reports the results of die studies of three major Ptolemaic gold coinages of Alexandria: the coinage in the name of the ﬈eoi Adelphoi, featuring the jugate busts of the two ﬁrst Lagid couples — the mnaieia in the name of Arsinoe Philadelphus — and the main issue of mnaieia depicting the radiate Ptolemy III wearing the aegis like a chlamys. ﬈e die studies reveal a distinct production pattern for each of these coinages. Elemental analyses identify the stocks of metal used, and provide new evidence for the absolute chronology of the ﬁrst two coinages. ﬈e authors also discuss other evidence relevant to chronology, hoards and circulation, and the probable ﬔnctions of the three coinages.

introduction he production of important quantities of coined gold has long been recognized as one of the principal innovations of Ptole- T maic monetary policy, yet this coinage has usually been treated only generally in numismatic scholarship. ﬈e ﬁrst specialized work was H.A. Troxell’s chronological investigation of the coinage in the name of Arsinoe Philadelphus, based on a die study which was not ﬔlly published but only summarized in her commentary. [1] ﬈e Master’s thesis of J. Olivier applied a wide range of numismatic methods to the study of Lagid gold coinage, including analyses of hoards and circulation, metrology, and metallurgy. [2] F. Duyrat and J. Olivier compared the metrology, circulation patterns, and metal stocks of Seleucid and Ptolemaic gold coins and traced the move- ment of earlier stocks of metal. [3] ﬈e present authors agreed to collaborate on die studies of three major Alexandrian series of Ptolemaic mnaieia – gold coins valued at 100 silver drachms, o﬇en called octadrachms following

* ﬈e authors warmly thank M. Amandry and F. Duyrat, respectively director and chief curator of the Greek coins of the Cabinet des Médailles at the Bibliothèque nationale de France, together with J. van Heesch, curator of the Coin Cabinet of the Royal Library of Belgium, who allowed us to have the gold coins from their collections analyzed by the iramat laboratory. [1] Troxell 1983. [2] Olivier 2006. [3] Duyrat & Olivier 2010. rbn clix (2013), p. 49-150. 50 julien olivier & catharine lorber the terminology of J.N. Svoronos. J. Olivier undertook the die study of the jugate bust coinage in the name of the ﬈eoi Adelphoi, which includes pentekontadrachma, quarter mnaieia, and eighth mnaieia as well as mnaieia. C. Lorber undertook die studies of the first series of Arsinoe Philadelphus mnaieia and of mnaieia with the radiate portrait of the deified Ptolemy Euergetes. Olivier greatly expanded the available metallurgical data on all of these coinages through many new elemental analyses conducted at the iramat laboratory (umr 5060, cnrs, University of Orléans). the jugate bust coinage (Julien Olivier) ﬈e reign of Ptolemy II saw the appearance of a series of remarkable gold pieces portraying the first two royal couples of the Lagid dynasty. ﬈ese coins are especially impressive on account of their weight (27.8 g for the mnaieia). ﬈eir chronology, relative as well as absolute, is extremely difficult to fix and has sustained an abundant bibliography. ﬈e goal of this contribution is to assess the evidence relevant to the dating and organization of this coinage. I. ﬈e composition of the type: Obverse and reverse ﬈e original typology of this coinage does not correspond to the usual format in which the royal portrait appears on the obverse (a) and a symbol (eagle or, later, cornucopiae) on the reverse (r). One side features the jugate, draped busts of the first royal couple of the dynasty: Ptolemy I wearing the chiton and himation, and Berenice I veiled, both diademed. [4] On the other side their successors are represented in the same manner, Ptolemy II wearing the chiton and the chlamys, and Arsinoe II veiled, with an oblong shield behind the head of the king. [5] ﬈e legend ΘΕΩΝ ΑΔΕΛΩΝ appears on the same side on one variety (Sv. 934) but more commonly it is separated: ΘΕΩΝ accompanies Ptolemy I, while ΑΔΕΛΩΝ is associated with Ptole- my II (Sv. 603-607, 613var.-614, 618). ﬈e form of these pieces and the variable disposition of the legend have rendered it problematic to identify the obverse and reverse. R.S. Poole, in 1883, presumed that Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II appear on the obverse. [6] ﬈is point of view was accepted by J.N Svoronos in 1904, but he did not follow it in his plates. [7] In 1927, G.F. Hill believed that Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II could only be on the reverse because it is on this side that the legend is inscribed in its totality on the variety Sv. 934, and the legend generally appears on the reverse of Greek coins. He remarked in addition

[4] Kyrieleis 1975, p. 6. [5] Kyrieleis 1975, p. 17. [6] Poole 1883, pp. xxxviii-xxxix and 40-41. ﬈is position was followed by Brett 1952, p. 6. [7] Svoronos 1904, col. σβ-σγ and pl. xiv. ptolemaic gold coinages 51 that the three examples then known to him were all struck from the same die. [8] It is important to note that this point concerns only three pieces of the rarest variety and these conclusions can hardly be extended to the coinage as a whole. ﬈e elements that are normally useﬔl in identifying obverse and reverse fail us in this particular case: – It is impossible to define a principal type given that both sides are occupied by a royal couple. – ﬈e form of the coin exhibits little if at all any of the normal deformation resulting from the hammer blow; the two types are generally of equal convexity. – Except for the variety Sv. 934, the legend is divided on the two sides of the coin. – ﬈e few control letters that appear (and which might signal the obverse, as on coins of the Arsinoe type), occur almost entirely on the pentekontadrachma, and are positioned under the chin of Arsinoe II as well as under the chin of Berenice I. [9] A mixed solution was proposed by A.B. Brett in her catalogue of the collection of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. She distinguished between the few coins with the legend on one side and the bulk of the emission with the legend on both sides. For her, in the first issue, the Philadelphus couple was on the reverse with the entire legend, then “on the succeeding common issues the former reverse became the obverse and ΘΕΩΝ was transferred to the new reverse.” [10] In 1994, A. Davesne supported this hypothesis with an argument based on the die links in the Aydıncık hoard, which occur more frequently among the sides with the portrait of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II. He judged that this indicated the obverse. [11] ﬈e present study revealed very clearly that the double portrait of Ptole- my II and Arsinoe II figures on the obverse (21 obverse dies and 73 reverse dies for the mnaieia and 52 versus 124 for the pentekontadrachma), with the exception of the variety with the single legend, Sv. 934 (1 obverse die and 4 reverse dies). In this second case, it is Ptolemy I and Berenice I who are placed on the obverse. [12]

[8] Hill 1927, p. 208. E.T. Newell and H.A. Troxell accepted this point (Newell 1937, p. 102; Troxell 1983, p. 60, especially n. 31), while H. Cadell and G. Le Rider did not (Cadell & Le Rider 1997, no. 15, p. 12; Le Rider 1998b, p. 119; Le Rider & Callataÿ 2006, p. 149). [9] ﬈is point was already noted by A. Davesne (Davesne 1994, p. 40). [10] Brett 1952, p. 6-7 z 1955, p. 301. [11] Davesne 1994, p. 39-40. [12] Even though the distinction of obverse and reverse deduced from the die study is irreﬔtable, all the examples of Sv. 934 personally examined by the author present a more pronounced relief on the reverse than on the obverse. 52 julien olivier & catharine lorber

II. ﬈e chronology and the organization of the emission A. ﬈e date of the first emissions Poole and Svoronos both attributed the introduction of the jugate bust coinage to Ptolemy II, but they specified that these coins were minted until the reign of Ptolemy III. [13] Svoronos gave the variety with the entire legend on one side to the latter king. [14] However, E.T. Newell proposed a low chronology with an inauguration of the jugate bust coins under the reign of Ptolemy III, a﬇er the coins of Arsinoe. [15] ﬈e appearance of the Benha hoard (igch 1695) in 1922-1923, where the jugate bust coins are mixed with the gold coinages of the second half of the third century, led Newell to imagine that the totality of the jugate bust coinage could date to the reign of Euergetes I. [16] A careﬔl study of the different hoards now known inspi- res us to reject this argument (see Table 1 below). In 1983, H.A. Troxell drew attention to the resemblance of Arsinoe’s portraits on the jugate bust coinage and on the earliest Arsinoe decadrachms, which she dated around 270 or a bit later. [17] Consequently she proposed that the first mnaieia of the jugate bust type appeared between c. 270 and c. 261. In 1994, A. Davesne concluded similarly that the jugate bust type was introduced between 265/4 and 262/1. [18] He based his chronology in part on the fact that the majority of jugate bust coins (the unmarked varieties Sv. 603 and 604) do not depict a knot where the diadem is tied, and the knot is similarly lacking from some examples of the tetradrachm variety Sv. 555, which he dated to these same years. [19] ﬈e dates proposed by Davesne follow from the controversial chronology he developed based on his study of the Meydancıkkale hoard, and they must be treated with due caution. [20]

[13] Poole 1883, p. xxxviii-xxxix; Svoronos 1904, col. σβ-σγ. [14] Svoronos 1904, col. σκη-σλ. [15] Newell 1924, p. 301; 1937, p. 102; 1941, p. 230. A.B. Brett agreed with this position (Brett 1952, p. 7; 1955, p. 302). [16] ﬈e editors of igch generally considered these pieces as dating from the reign of Ptolemy III and not that of Ptolemy II. ﬈is had an important impact on the dating of certain hoards, for example Naupactus (igch 174) or Zagazig (igch 1692). ﬈e former contained pieces dating to 250 at the latest and a jugate bust mnaieion, but according to the editors of igch it was deposited c. 225. ﬈e latter, dated c. 220, was buried in the Nile Delta and contained only coins of the jugate bust type (of which we have unfortunately no illustrations). [17] Troxell 1983, p. 61. [18] Davesne 1994, p. 41. [19] Davesne & Le Rider 1989, p. 276-277. [20] Davesne & Le Rider 1989, p. 275-277. His proposed chronology of emissions was reﬔted by Callataÿ 2005a. ptolemaic gold coinages 53

Next Davesne proposed a correlation between the letters on the jugate bust coins and the letters on the Arsinoe decadrachms. Following his dating of the first, unmarked emissions of the jugate type to 265/4, he submitted that the first Arsinoe decadrachms should date to the same year, contrary to the chronology proposed by Troxell. He accepted Troxell’s chronology for the rest of the series, so that in his schema the coins with K and with  should date from 262/1 to 260/59. [21] However nothing indicates that the few letters on the jugate bust coins (A, Γ, Δ, and K, but not ) [22] should be related to the continuous series of letters on the Arsinoe decadrachms. ﬈e differences are even more flagrant with regard to the proportions of unmarked pieces in each series. While only 10% of the jugate bust coins have a symbol and/or a letter, the immense majority of the Arsinoe decadrachms are marked. ﬈ese contrasts, in our opinion, serve to separate the series of letters on these two coinages. A fragile chronological consensus later emerged around the proposal of O. Mørkholm, followed and developed by G. Le Rider, for an essentially contemporary introduction of the mnaieia of the jugate bust and Arsinoe types around 261. [23] ﬈is hypothesis is based principally on the study of the papyri P. Cair. Zen. 59 021 and 59 022. ﬈ese documents offer a secure ter- minus ante quem. ﬈e second document, probably dated close to 258, mentions both mnaieia and pentekontadrachma in the context of a cash deposit in a bank. [24] At this date, only the coinage of jugate bust type included fractions of the mnaieion. P. Cair. Zen. 59 021, more o﬇en called the ‘letter of Demetrius’, deals specifically with the exchange of gold coins at Alexan- dria. ﬈is document, dated 23 October 258, is considered ﬔndamental for Ptolemaic monetary history and has been discussed many times. [25] For most commentators, Demetrius is the master of the Alexandria mint and he complains that he is unable to comply with a royal prostagma ordering the recoining of foreign coins arriving at the port, as well as trichrysa, into mnaieia. [26] In 1998, G. Le Rider drew attention to the use of the adjective καινόν (ℓ. 13) in reference to the coins about to be struck. [27] Following the definition of L. Robert, he interpreted this expression as referring to a new coinage that had replaced the old one which would then be qualified as

[21] Davesne 1994, p. 41-42. [22] ﬈e reading Γ replaces Svoronos’ reading of  for his catalogue no 621. [23] Mørkholm 1991, p. 103; Le Rider 1998b, p. 1120-1121; Le Rider & Callataÿ 2006, p. 151-153. [24] ﬈e document itself does not include a date, but papyrologists have proposed to date it close in time to P. Cair. Zen. 59 021. [25] Préaux 1939, p. 271-275; Orrieux 1983, p. 28-32; idem 1985, p. 168-171; Gara 1988; Le Rider 1998a; Burkhalter 2007, p. 46-80. [26] Only F. Burkhalter rejects this reading: Burkhalter 2007, p. 47-61. [27] Le Rider 1998b, p. 1120-1121. 54 julien olivier & catharine lorber

παλαιόν, so that the papyrus attested the replacement of the old trichrysa by a new gold currency. [28] Accordingly the reform of the gold coinage must have occurred shortly before 258, perhaps around 261. ﬈us Le Rider concluded by writing that “les deux séries [géminé et Arsinoé] ont été inaugurées à peu près en même temps.” [29] Le Rider’s reading of the term καινόν was recently rejected by A. Cava- gna. ﬈e word appears again in ℓ. 45, referring to newly minted coins fresh from the die, and Cavagna showed that nothing prevents us from interpre- ting the expression in ℓ. 13 in the same sense. [30] Cavagna offered several arguments against an introduction of the jugate bust coinage c. 261. He recalled Troxell’s observation about the strong stylistic kinship between the first Arsinoe decadrachms, issued around 270, and the portrait of the queen on the jugate bust mnaieia. [31] Examination of the discreet Δ present on many obverse dies of gold and silver pieces from the end of the fourth century and the beginning of the third century, considered in parallel with the appearance of the shield on Lagid coin emissions, led Cavagna to suggest that the trichrysa with the shield were struck at Alexandria between c. 280 and 270, and not until c. 262/1 as Davesne proposed in his study of the Mey- dancıkkale hoard. [32] Finally, P. Hib. 2, 199 provides the first mention of the priest of the ﬈eoi Adelphoi in 272/1. [33] ﬈e divinization of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, and their inclusion in the cult of the deified Alexander, offers a context conducive to the emission of the first gold pieces depicting the two first royal couples of the dynasty associated precisely with this epithet. [34] Cavagna thus favored a high date for the replacement of the trichrysa by the pieces of jugate bust type, from 272-270. A date before c. 261 for the introduction of the jugate bust coinage is confirmed by analysis of the numismatic material discovered at the foot of Mt. Hymettus, on the site of Heliopolis, in Attica. I. Varoucha-Christodou- lopoulou reported the discovery of a hoard that included three gold coins: a stater of Alexander the Great (the variety is unfortunately not specified) and two pentekontadrachma of the jugate bust type with K (Sv. 614 and Sv. 614var.). [35] Varoucha indicated that this site also yielded large quantities of arrowheads and Ptolemaic bronze coins identical to those discovered on

[28] For the definition of L. Robert, see Robert 1951, p. 169, n. 4. [29] Le Rider 1998b, p. 1120; Le Rider & Callataÿ 2006, p. 152. [30] Cavagna 2008, p. 165-167. [31] Cavagna 2008, p. 167-168. [32] Cavagna 2008, p. 168-180. For the dates proposed by A. Davesne, see Davesne & Le Rider 1989, p. 276-277. [33] Fraser 1972, p. 216; concerning the date of the document, see n. 219 then n. 208. [34] Cavagna 2008, p. 180-182. [35] Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou 1965, p. 225. ﬈e Ptolemaic pieces are illustrated on pl. xviii, nos 1 and 2. ptolemaic gold coinages 55 the peninsulas of Koroni and Mikrokavouri, also in Attica. [36] ﬈ese finds are obviously connected with the Egyptian military camps installed in Attica in the course of the Chremonidian War between 268/7 and c. 263/2, date of the Athenian surrender in the face of Macedonian troops. [37] If we admit that the pentekontadrachma of the jugate bust type arrived at Heliopolis in the same context as the bronze coinage and the arrowheads, this find provides a definite chronological boundary placing the introduction of the coinage before 263/2, thus before the mnaieia of the Arsinoe type. ﬈e specific date proposed by Cavagna for the introduction of the jugate bust coinage is supported by F. Burkhalter’s reading of the papyrus P. Hib. i 110, a document first brought to bear on the question by Burkhalter herself. ﬈is text collects several extracts from documents dated between 13 March 274 and 27 August 272, including a sale of grain transported from Hiera Nesos (in the Arsinoite nome) to Alexandria. ﬈e proceeds of this sale are paid in gold and silver coinage to a certain Criton: 950 drachms in gold coinage and 448 drachms in silver (col. ii, ℓ. 19-20). Burkhalter remarked that “la somme de 950 (drachmes) en monnayage d’or désigne la valeur nominale des pièces. Cette somme est un multiple de 50, mais pas de 60, ni de 6, et ne pouvait donc pas être payé en trichrysa ni en dixième de trichrysa. En revanche, elle s’adapte parfaitement à un paiement en mnaieia et pentekontadrachma.” [38] ﬈is document is undoubtedly the earliest clue so far known to us implying the use of mnaieia and pentekontadrachma, even if the reference is implicit rather than explicit. We must conclude that the jugate bust coins were introduced before August of 272.

B. ﬈e duration of the issues We can now pose the question of the duration of the production of the whole jugate bust coinage. In this discussion we leave aside the three small issues of later style (Sv. 613 [39], Sv. 1129 and 1247-1248) to concentrate on the main

[36] Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou 1965, p. 225-226. On the Lagid military camps in At- tica during the Chremonidian War: Vanderpool et al. 1962; McCredie 1966; Heinen 1972, p. 152-159; Lauter 1989, p. 33; Lauter-Bufe 1989; Habicht 2000, p. 163-164. [37] On this conflict, see Will 1966, p. 224-228; Habicht 2000, p. 161-167; Hölbl 2001, p. 40-43. [38] Burkhalter 2007, p. 71-72. ﬈e date of P. Hib. i 100 is not precisely known, but all the specialists concur in dating it shortly a﬇er 27 August 272, or around 270: Gren- fell & Hunt 1906, p. 286-287; Maresch 1996, p. 192; Cadell & Le Rider 1997, p. 32- 33; Burkhalter 2007, p. 71. ﬈is date applies to the recto of the papyrus. ﬈e verso is occupied by a second and later text, dated around 255: Bagnall & Derow 2004, no. 86, p. 147-148; Austin 2006, no. 309, p. 546-548. [39] ﬈ree mnaieia of the jugate bust type marked with A and the Dikeras and issued from a single obverse die are of a very different style from Sv. 613var. with A and the cornucopiae (New York, ans, 1956.183.28; Glasgow, Macdonald, p. 367, 38, pl. lxxxi, 15 = Sv. 613α, pl. xiv, 27; Naville xv, 2/vii/1930 (coll. Woodward), 1173). ﬈e com- 56 julien olivier & catharine lorber series of jugate bust coins. Most specialists believe that these pieces were struck under both Ptolemy II and Ptolemy III. [40] ﬈e pattern of production revealed by the die study, with many obverse dies linked by shared reverses, allows us to envision an ongoing production of these coins with never more than one or two obverse dies in service at the same time. We must discard any thought of a single massive emission accounting for most of these coins in a short period of time. ﬈e idea of a prolonged production lasting until late in the third century was no doubt inspired by the number of surviving pieces as well as their presence in various hoards dating from the middle of the third century to the reign of Ptolemy IV (see Table 1). ﬈ese ten known hoards attest to a prolonged circulation of the jugate bust coins, from the 260s to the last quarter of the third century, rather than a prolonged production. ﬈e composition of the different finds de- monstrates the longevity of coins struck many decades before the deposit of the hoards. ﬈is is the case, especially, of the trichrysa that are still found in the Alexandria hoard (ch 8·303), buried around 245, or in the Benha hoard (igch 1694), buried around 217, even though the trichryson denomination had not been produced since the end of the 270s at latest. ﬈e presence of jugate bust pentekontadrachma with K (Sv. 618) in the Antalya hoard (ch 1.69), in the Benha hoard (igch 1694), and in ‘Com- merce 2007’ has the same implication. ﬈e find from Mount Hymettus bears witness that these pieces were struck before 263/2. ﬈e small number of dies (five obverse dies) and the die linkage exclude the possibility that the class was issued over a long period. ﬈is point is ﬔrther confirmed by the identity of the obverse dies of a piece from Hymettus and another from the Benha lot. ﬈ese coins circulated, or at least remained extant, for at least fi﬇y years before ending up in the hoards of the last quarter of the third century. ﬈e analysis of lead content in the different series of third-century gold coins may provide material evidence against a prolonged production of the jugate bust coinage. Lead is always present in gold alloys at the level of several tens to hundreds of ppm. In the present case, these traces are manifestly correlated with the presence of copper (see Graph 1).

parison of these rare pieces with the mnaieia of the same types struck in Coele Syria during the Fi﬇h Syrian War (Sv. 1247-1248) absolutely requires that they be dated to the same period. [40] See above, p. 52. Also Mørkholm 1991, p. 106 (at least until 242/1); Lorber 2012a, p. 17. G. Le Rider apparently adhered to this idea of continuity but did not for- mulate it explicitly: “des mnaieia aux portraits géminés apparaissent aussi après Ptolémée II, mais d’autres types encore ornèrent cette dénomination, notamment sous Ptolémée IV et Ptolémée V” (Le Rider 1998b, p. 1122). ptolemaic gold coinages 57

hoard date of jugate bust arsinoe type other (gold deposit type (alexandria) or silver) Mt. Hymettus 267-263 2 pente. Zagazig ? ? Before c. 261 (igch 1692)

ii Aydıncık 1+ mn. (ch 4·486, A﬇er c. 261 [41] 1+ mn. 15+ pente. ch 8·284) Naupactus Middle of tolemy 1 pente. p (igch 174) third century Near 2 trich., 1 mn, Alexandria c. 245 1 mn. 20 deca., (ch 8·303) 74 tetra. Tarik Darreh (ch 8·312, c. 225? 1 mn. iv ch 2·70) Benha Shortly 2+ mn., 1+ trich.,

and 10+ mn. (igch 1694) a﬇er 217 3+ pente. 13+ mn. iii Benha Shortly 8 mn., 6 mn. (igch 1695) a﬇er 217 ? pente. ‘Commerce Shortly 55+ mn., 140+ mn. 135+ mn. 2007’ a﬇er 217 53+ pente. tolemy p Antalya End of 1 mn., 8+ mn. (ch 1·69) third century 18+ pente. Table 1 – Ptolemaic coins associated with jugate bust pieces (mn. = mnaieion/a; pente. = pentekontadrachmon/a; trich. = trichryson/a; deca. = decadrachm(s), tetra. = tetradrachm(s)). Some hoards were re-dated in light of current knowledge

Graph 1 allows us to divide the principal Ptolemaic gold series of the third century into two groups. ﬈e coins of jugate bust type, with just one exception, match the proﬁle of coins struck in the ﬁrst half of the century. ﬈ese latter are characterized by copper content between 1,700 and 3,270 ppm, and lead content almost always superior to 100 ppm. Conversely, the later coins, struck under the reigns of Ptolemy III or Ptolemy IV, generally have less copper, for the most part less than 1,520 ppm, and above all less lead, never more than 100 ppm and usually between 50 and 80 ppm.

[41] A. Davesne proposed to date the burial of the Aydıncık hoard to 261 or shortly a﬇erward (Davesne 1994, p. 39). ﬈e mnaieion and pentekontadrachma of the jugate bust type were accompanied by the ﬁrst variety of mnaieion with the portrait of Arsinoe II (with no letter on the obverse, Sv. 408) dated by H.A. Troxell c. 261 (Tro- xell 1983, p. 56). However Davesne himself emphasized that the Aydıncık hoard was not complete. ﬈e coins were uncovered in the course of terracing work and were recovered from the pockets of the workers. ﬈ere is no doubt that many examples escaped the vigilance of the authorities; Davesne stipulated that the original number of coins must have approached 60 or 65. Even if no other type was attested, he admitted that “il est évidemment impossible de dire si elles possédaient des lettres ou autres signes sur elles” (Davesne 1994, p. 38). 58 julien olivier & catharine lorber

Graph 1 – Copper and lead content in Ptolemaic gold coins of Alexandria between 305 and c. 217

﬈is graph attests to an enhanced refinement of gold under the reign of Ptolemy III, from the introduction of the coinage of Berenice type; [42] this practice continued at least until 217. Except for one specimen, all coins of the jugate bust type fit perfectly in the group struck before the reign of Ptole- my III. ﬈e elemental analyses thus provide an indication that the jugate bust coinage was minted mainly or exclusively under the reign of Ptolemy II. Must it be limited to the decade c. 270-260, until the moment of the introduction of the gold coinage of Arsinoe type? Or were the two types struck concurrently in the Alexandria mint? A. Cavagna expressed skep- ticism about a contemporary production of two gold coinages with different types, mainly for ideological reasons. [43] His view finds some support in the composition of hoards. With the exception of the Aydıncık hoard, the jugate bust coins are mixed with Arsinoe coins only in hoards of the late third century. Before that, two sequences appear: hoards of the years 260 to

[42] ﬈e Berenice coinage is generally associated with the ﬈ird Syrian War (246-241) or with its consequences: Newell 1927, p. 6-12; Naville 1951, p. 105, n. 1; Mørkholm 1991, p. 106; Hazzard 1995, p. 4-5; Vagi 1997; Bagnall 1999, p. 198, n. 3; Le Rider 1999, p. 93-96; Le Rider & Callataÿ 2006, p. 53; Olivier 2006, p. 118-121; Lorber 2012b, p. 217. [43] Cavagna 2008, p. 167. ptolemaic gold coinages 59

245 contain either one type or the other, as if these two coinages did not circulate together (see Table 1 above). ﬈is observation, though far from definitive, nevertheless lends credibility to the hypothesis that the jugate bust coinage was replaced by the Arsinoe mnaieia around 261, perhaps close to the burial date of the Aydıncık hoard? [44] ﬈is hypothesis implies a massive production of the jugate bust coinage within a reduced period of a dozen years, employing annually a bit more than two obverse dies for mnaieia and five to six obverse dies for pentekontadrachma. Such a rate of production is completely possible. ﬈is chronology could easily be consistent with the political and military history of the Lagid kingdom. ﬈e inauguration of the jugate bust coinage seems to coincide with the birth of the cult of the ﬈eoi Adelphoi. Its production begins during the First Syrian War (274-271) and continues during the Chemonidian War (268/7-263/2). ﬈e dispersion of the coin finds outside Egypt, mainly in Greece and in Cilicia, correlates with the battle- fields of this period. [45] ﬈is long decade appears to C. Marquaille as the climax of Ptolemy II, and the huge emissions of gold coins might be linked with the different operations of the Ptolemaic army through the Hellenistic world. [46]

III. Propositions for relative chronology Despite the homogeneity of the jugate bust coinage as a whole, a few varieties stand out because of the presence of a letter and/or a speciﬁc symbol in addition to the repetitive Galatian shield, or because of the disposition of the legend. ﬈e order of these varieties in relation to the bulk of the unmarked issue can be suggested principally on the basis of die links and stylistic observations.

A. ﬈e varieties linked with the unmarked issue ﬈e die study revealed an obverse die link between unmarked mnaieia (Sv. 603) and the two mnaieia with the kerykeion, as well as a reverse link between the pentekontadrachma with K (Sv. 618, 618var.) and those without a letter (Sv. 604). ﬈e important stylistic distance between these fractions with K and the mnaieia with kerykeion leads us to assume that these two varieties could not have been struck at the same time. We therefore hypothesize that one group was prior to the unmarked coinage and the other posterior. A closer look at particular features of these coins can help to determine which was more likely to be earlier and which later.

[44] On the composition and burial date of the Aydıncık hoard, see Davesne 1994, p. 7. [45] Only the Zagazig hoard, containing solely coins of the jugate type, was buried in Egypt, probably before c. 261. [46] Marquaille 2008, p. 49. 60 julien olivier & catharine lorber

﬈e K group (enlarged by one coin with Γ, Sv. 621) is by far the most original in its accumulation of distinctive aspects, for example portraits with crude features such as the sharp noses of the queens.

Figure 1 – Pentekontadrachmon Sv. 618 (Cat. No 180 – scale 150%) Some coins show a specific way of representing the  of ΑΔΕΛΩΝ, withthe loop clearly drawn, whereas on most of the other coins only a cur- ved line can be distinguished (). ﬈e knot of the diadem is represented as a triangle for both Ptolemy I and II or only the first in accordance with the exact variety (Sv. 618 or 618var.). Finally, on the reverse of Sv. 618 the neck of Ptolemy I is represented in a particular manner, with two deep creases defining a prominent bulge of flesh that runs diagonally across the sove- reign’s neck. ﬈e presence of the knot of the diadem and the form of So- ter’s neck can be observed on all tetradrachms and trichrysa emitted under the reigns of Ptolemy I and II: [47]

Figure 2 – Tetradrachm Sv. 538 (cng e-Auction 266, 19/x/2011, 199) ﬈ese details do not appear on the jugate variety without letter and it is possible to deduce a chronology from their appearance only on the K coins. Probably these details, coming from the traditional portrait of Ptolemy I on previous gold and silver coins, were perpetuated on the ﬁrst jugate coins toward the end of the 270s. ﬈is point is supported by the observation of hoards. As noted above, two pentekontadrachma with K were found near Mount Hymettus in the archaeological context of the Chremonidian War (c. 268-263). ﬈e absence of other varieties of jugate bust coins may indicate the priority of the K series. [48] Moreover, in the publication of the

[47] With the notable exception of the variety Sv. 555. [48] It can be suggested that these pieces arrived in Attica early in the conﬂict. ﬈e decree of the deme of Rhamnous for the strategos Epichares (seg xlvi, 157) informs ptolemaic gold coinages 61

Aydıncık hoard A. Davesne signaled traces of wear only for the unique piece with K. [49] Finally, it is notable that despite the small number of pieces with K in our catalogue, these ﬁgure in the two oldest hoards containing coins of the jugate bust type (see Table 1). All these details combined with the structure of the die study allow us to propose a stylistic evolution of the pentekontadrachma with Γ and K to the variety without letter:

position of position of shape of section svoronos no. the letter the knot the  1 Sv. 621 (Γ) a + r 2 a  Sv. 618 (K) 3 r 4 Sv. 618var. (K) r , then  r 5 Sv. 604  None (by a die link [50]) (without letter) 6 None  Table 2 – Evolution of the jugate pentekontadrachma from the variety with Γ then K (Sv. 621 and 618-618var.) to the variety without letter (Sv. 603) ﬈e modification of the position of the control letter goes along with a change in portrait style. ﬈e coins of sections 1 to 3, with an obverse letter, have a rather crude style while the next coins, from section 4, have a better style, much closer to that of the unmarked issue. ﬈e accumulation of these different elements points to a logical evolution of the type from the Γ coins to the unmarked issue passing through the K coins. ﬈e stylistic difference between the coins with K and those with the kerykeion seems to exclude any possibility that these two series were contemporary. If the first group is clearly anterior to the unmarked coins, most likely the second is later, as indicated by the obverse die link cited above. Close observation of the die in question tends to support this order:

Figure 3 – Obverse die no 19 on the unmarked coin no 151 (on the le﬇) and on the coin with kerykeion no 154 (on the right)

us that the Ptolemaic troops commanded by Patroclus set foot in Attica in 268/7 (Habicht 2000, p. 163, n. 83). [49] Davesne 1994, p. 38, coin no 17. ﬈e bad condition of the other pentekontadrachma is due principally to damage from the digging equipment. [50] ﬈e reverse die no 9 links a pentekontadrachmon without letter with coins with a K on the obverse. 62 julien olivier & catharine lorber

﬈e pieces with kerykeion present traces of die wear. ﬈ere is a series of small flaws clearly visible on the lower part of Arsinoe’s jaw and a more important flaw, of irregular shape, near the nape of Ptolemy’s neck. A last flaw begins near the fastening of the chlamys on the neck of Philadelphus. To be sure, these three elements are also visible on the unmarked coin, but the first two, at least, are significantly smaller. [51] ﬈e state of the die used to strike the mnaieia with the kerykeion would indicate that these coins are later than their unmarked counterparts.

B. ﬈e position of the other series with special features Two varieties are still unaccounted for: the few coins with the entire legend on the reverse (Sv. 934), and the mnaieia and pentekontadrachma with A or Δ above the shield and a cornucopia under the chin of Arsinoe II (Sv. 614- 614var.). We saw earlier that the variety with the entire legend on the reverse is different from the rest of the jugate bust coinage because of its inversion of the obverse and the reverse. [52] Various authors have interpreted the different composition of the type as an argument for placing this variety either at the very beginning or the very end of the jugate bust series. J.N. Svoronos considered in 1904 that the pieces with the single legend followed the rest of the series and therefore must have been issued under the reign of Ptole- my III. [53] In complete opposition, A.B. Brett reasoned in 1955 that given “the superior style and extreme scarcity of the issue with ﬈eon Adelphon together on the reverse, it is obvious that such oktadrachms were the fore- runners of the whole class.” [54] Brett’s hypothesis can no longer be retained given the indications that the series was inaugurated by the pentekontadrachma with K. As she herself observed, the style of Sv. 934 is excellent, far from the crude style of the first coins with K. It is, in fact, closer to the style of the other marked coins (see fig. 4). ﬈e noses of the four rulers point downward without, however, being crooked, and the locks of hair on the necks of the two kings are long, whereas those on top of Soter’s head are fine and short. [55] ﬈ese elements suggest these three varieties of jugate bust coins emerged in a shared artistic ambiance. ﬈us we are inclined to consider them as later than the unmarked coins. ﬈e die link of the variety with kerykeion logically designates it as

[51] ﬈is is less clear for the small break on the neck, but prudence is required because of the strong lighting of the photo at our disposal. [52] See above, p. 50-51. [53] See n. 14 above. [54] Brett 1955, p. 302. O. Mørkholm agreed with this hypothesis (Mørkholm 1991, p. 103-104). A. Fulinska attributed the division of the legend “to the artistic purpose of creating a more symmetric, harmonious image.” (Fulinska 2010, p. 75). [55] ﬈is last observation does not apply to the coins with A above the shield. ptolemaic gold coinages 63 the oldest of this group, and the modiﬁed disposition of the legend makes Sv. 934 the last issue of this type.

Figure 4 – ﬈e stylistic similarities of the coins with special features (except the Γ/K issue) : catalogue nos 154, 156 and 162

C. Balance: proposition for classification of the jugate bust coins Pursuant to the foregoing analysis, the table below summarizes our propositions regarding the classification of different varieties of coins with the jugate bust type:

Quarter and eighth Mnaieia Pentekontadrachma mnaieia Γ K with / (Sv. 621, 618 and 618var.) unmarked unmarked unmarked (Sv. 603) (Sv. 604) (Sv. 605-606)

with kerykeion (Sv. 603var.) A A Δ with and cornucopia with / and cornucopia (Sv. 613var.) (Sv. 614 and 614var.) with the entire legend

on the reverse (Sv. 934)

Table 3 – Proposition for classiﬁcation of coins of the jugate bust type 64 julien olivier & catharine lorber

Very clearly, some of these propositions fall within the realm of hypothesis, and must be conﬁrmed before being accepted. ﬈is is especially the case for the coins with the A and the cornucopia. Both mnaieia seen on the numismatic market in recent years show important marks of wear. If the hundreds of Ptolemaic gold coins on the market since 2007 represent a hoard, as seems likely, this variety might be earlier than the unmarked coins. [56] Moreover, the few weights recorded for the pentekontadrachma with A fall in the high end of the average weight range of the coins with K, whereas the bulk of the unmarked coins are a bit lighter. [57] Despite these uncertainties, some points appear to be more clearly established. ﬈e series of coins with letters Γ and K very certainly precedes the issue of unmarked coins. ﬈is implies that at the beginning of the jugate bust coinage the only denomination struck was the pentekontadrachmon. ﬈e ﬁrst mnaieia must have been slightly later, along with the quarter and eighth mnaieia.

D. Conclusion

﬈e inauguration of the jugate bust coinage corresponds to the introduction of a new monetary system replacing the trichrysa. P. Hib. i 110 enables us to date this development before August of 272. ﬈e minting of jugate bust coins cannot have lasted beyond the reign of Ptolemy II. ﬈e most likely hypothesis is that it gave way to the mnaieia of Arsinoe II around the end of the 260s. Several features of the jugate bust coinage suggest possible hesitations on the part of the authorities. ﬈e ﬁrst mnaieia were apparently not issued as a part of the original reform, but only a﬇er the early production of pentekontadrachma bearing the letters Γ and K. ﬈is seems to imply that the original plan was to replace the trichryson with a smaller gold denomination, involving a reduction in value from 60 to 50 silver drachms. ﬈e date at which the mnaieion was introduced, and the motive for its creation, remain an area for ﬔture study. Even the organization of the jugate bust type evolved: on the earliest pentekontadrachma the control letters appear sometimes on the obverse, sometimes on the reverse, whereas the disposition of the legend was reformed on the latest mnaieia.

[56] ﬈e Ptolemaic gold varieties observed on the coin market in exceptional numbers include the three main gold coinages of the third century, which are also the sub- jects of our paper: mnaieia and pentekontadrachma of the jugate bust type, mnaieia of Arsinoe Philadelphus, and mnaieia depicting the radiate Ptolemy III. [57] Only six weights of pentekontadrachma with A have been recorded, of which ﬁve fall between 13.90 g and 13.94 g. ﬈e small sample size allows only tentative conclusions. For comparison, the majority of the coins with K fall between 13.85 and 13.94 g (20 of 24 weights), while the majority of the unmarked coins fall between 13.80 and 13.89 g (125 of 177 weights). ptolemaic gold coinages 65

IV. Catalogue ﬈is work is based on a catalogue of 399 pieces recorded from the great collections as well as from commerce. ﬈e catalogue is organized by denomination, from the heaviest to the lightest.

Mnaieia (164 ex.) a ΘΕΩΝ above, jugate busts r. of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, the former diademed and wearing chlamys, the latter diademed and veiled – Galatian shield with thunderbolt device behind Ptolemy’s head – dotted border. r ΑΔΕΛΩΝabove jugate busts r. of Ptolemy I and Berenice I, the former diademed and wearing himation, the latter diademed and veiled – dotted border. Unmarked (= Sv. 603)

1. 27.78 g a1 r1 Leu 86, 5/v/2003, 454; Monnaies & Médailles 53, Bâle, 165; idem, 90.

2. 27.68 g a1 r2 Spink 9008, 19/iii/2009, 417.

3. 27.69 g a1 r3 Hess 267, 65.

4. 27.71 g a1 r3 Classical Numismatic Group 88, 14/ix/2011, 541.

5. 27.71 g a1 r4 New York, ans, 1980.109.94.

6. 27.74 g a2 r5 sng vol. i 49, Salting Coll.

7. 27.78 g a2 r6 Paris, BnF, Beistegui 45.

8. 27.74 g a2 r7 Dix Noonan 22/vi/2011, 1038; Classical Numismatic Group 90, 23/v/2012, 765.

9. 27.79 g a2 r8 Vinchon, 29/iv/1974 (Peyreﬁtte), 117.

10. 27.74 g a2 r8 Sincona 10, 27/v/2013, 200.

11. 27.78 g a2 r9 Classical Numismatic Group, Triton xvi, 8/i/2013, 591.

12. 27.76 g a2 r9 Dr. Busso Peus 395, 213.

13. 27.6 g a2 r10 Künker 193, 26/ix/2011, 313.

14. 27.75 g a3 r10 Hess 254, 230.

15. 27.78 g a3 r11 Hess-Divo 309, 28/iv/2008, 96; Künker 133, 11/x/2007, 8269.

16. 27.7 g a3 r11 Classical Numismatic Group 88, 14/ix/2011, 540.

17. 27.61 g a3 r11 Künker 168, 12/iii/2010, 7449.

18. 27.73 g a3 r12 Historisches Museum Frankﬔrt am Main, 37.

19. 27.78 g a3 r12 Heritage 419, 15/ix/2006, 51051.

20. 27.74 g a3 r13 Naville xvi, 3/vii/1933, 1468.

21. 27.67 g a3 r13 Hirsch 21, 4480; Naville xvii, 3/x/1934 (coll. Burrage et Evans), 632. 66 julien olivier & catharine lorber

22. 27.69 g a3 r14 Vinchon, 22/xi/1999, 66. Ex Benha hoard, 23.

23. 27.5 g a4 r14 Malter 1968, 17.

24. 27.69 g a4 r15 Dr. Busso Peus 369, 31/x/2001, 263.

25. 27.76 g a4 r15 Hirsch 141, 452.

26. 27.72 g a4 r15 Künker 97, 7/iii/2005, 1017; idem 94, 27/ix/2004, 1559.

27. 27.69 g a4 r15 Künker 204, 12/iii/2012, 384; idem 226, 11/iii/2013, 649.

28. 27.75 g a4 r15 Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 2174.

29. 27.71 g a4 r16 Ponterio 146, 25/iv/2008, 1322; Commerce hoard 2007, 2.2.

30. 27.85 g a4 r16 Ira & Larry Goldberg 69, 29/v/2012, 3211; Roma numismatics 2, 2/x/2011, 342.

31. a5 r16 Ex coll. Larry Bonner.

32. 27.8 g a5 r17 Rauch 89, 5/xii/2011, 1232.

33. 27.77 g a5 r18 New York, ans, 1957.191.39.

34. 27.76 g a6 r19 Leu 83, 6/v/2002, 459; Numismatic Fine Arts xxii, 374; Leu 28, 218; Hess-Leu 36, 381.

35. a6 r19? Benha hoard, 22.

36. 27.74 g a7 r19 Bruxelles, kbr, coll. Hirsch 1806.

37. 27.73 g a7 r19 Maison Palombo 7, 13/vi/2009, 132; Naville xii, 18-23/x/1926 (coll. Bissen, Werthem, Evans et de Petrowicz) i, 945.

38. 27.55 g a7 r19 Künker 182, 14/iii/2011, 386.

39. 27.79 g a7 r20 Heritage 3016, 2/i/2012, 23090; idem 3020, 6/ix/2012, 25033.

40. 27.74 g a7 r21 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. 2.5).

41. 27.66 g a7 r21 Classical Numismatic Group Triton xiii, 6/i/2010, 1353.

42. 27.64 g a7 r21 Künker 182, 14/iii/2011, 384.

43. 27.82 g a7 r22 New York, ans, 1997.9.181.

44. 27.75 g a7 r22 Gemini vii, 9/i/2011, 696.

45. 27.8 g a7 r22 Gemini i, 11/i/2005, 247.

46. 27.69 g a7 r22 Numismatic Fine Arts xx, 818.

47. 27.64 g a7 r23 Freeman & Sear Mail Bid Sale 15, 27/vi/2008, 220; Commerce hoard 2007, 3.1.

48. 27.7 g a7 r23 Vinchon, 26/x/1964, 8; idem, 20-22/v/1959, 624.

49. 27.76 g a7 r24 Monnaies & Médailles, Bâle, 41, 18-19/vi/1970, 305.

50. 27.66 g a7 r24 Classical Numismatic Group 93, 22/v/2013, 606.

51. 27.65 g a7 r24 Gorny & Mosch 190, 11/x/2010, 383.

52. 27.74 g a7 r25 Classical Numismatic Group Triton x, 9-10/i/2007, 417; Künker 94, 27/ix/2004, 1560.

53. 27.78 g a8 r26 ﬈e New York Sale xvii, 9/i/2008, 129; Monnaies & Médailles xxxviii, Bâle, 287. ptolemaic gold coinages 67

54. 27.66 g a8 r26 Vinchon, 29/iv/1974 (Peyreﬁtte), 118.

55. 27.78 g a8 r26 Baldwin’s, ﬈e New York Sale xvii, 129.

56. 27.55 g a8 r26 Classical Numismatic Group 87, 18/v/2011, 693.

57. 27.75 g a8 r27 Athens, mn, Δ 204a. Sv. 603β, pl. xiv, 16.

58. 27.65 g a8 r27 Gorny & Mosch 195, 7/iii/2011, 314.

59. 27.85 g a8 r27 Classical Numismatic Group 64, 24/ix/2003, 482.

60. 27.72 g a8 r27 London, bm, bmc 40, 4. Poole pl. vii, 4; Sv. 603γ, pl. xiv, 17.

61. 27.69 g a8 r27 Künker 226, 11/iii/2013, 648.

62. 27.67 g a8 r28 Ponterio 154, vi/2010 Baltimore C, 8086; Helios 2, 25/xi/2008, 204.

63. 27.78 g a8 r28 Naville vii, 23-24/vi/1924 (coll. Bement), 1838.

64. 27.71 g a8 r28 Dr. Busso Peus 374, 23/iv/2003, 203.

65. 27.64 g a8 r28 Paris, BnF, Luynes 3563.

66. 27.78 g a8 r28 Garrett ii, 16-18/x/1984, 320.

67. 27.68 g a8 r28 Vinchon, 21/iv/1969, 74; idem, 7-8/xi/1988, 15; Spink 5003, 31/iii/2005, 97; Gemini llc viii, 14/iv/2011, 126.

68. 27.82 g a8 r29 lhs 95, 25/x/2005, 746.

69. 27.64 g a9 r29 Monnaies & Médailles 95, Bâle 4/x/2004, 106. Coll. Y.E. Hind- mian; Ciani-Vinchon, 6-8/ii/1956, 673.

70. 27.75 g a9' r30 cgb 18, 19/vi/2003, 146.

71. 27.76 g a9' r30 Monnaies & Médailles xiii, Bâle, 1219.

72. 27.65 g a9' r31 Classical Numismatic Group 66, 14/v/2004, 743.

73. 27.75 g a9' r31 Hirsch 33, 950.

74. 27.36 g a9' r32 Classical Numismatic Group 49, 747.

75. 27.6 g a9' r33 Monnaies & Médailles viii, Bâle, 865.

76. a10 r33 London, bm, bmc 40, 2. Poole pl. vii, 2; Sv. 603γ.

77. 27.81 g a10 r34 New York, ans, 1977.158.112.

78. 27.66 g a10 r35 Künker 182, 14/iii/2011, 385.

79. 27.68 g a10 r36 cng 94, 18/ix/2013, 778.

80. 27.67 g a10 r37 Gorny & Mosch 138, 7/iii/2005, 1605.

81. 27.56 g a10 r37 Sincona 10, 27/v/2013, 197.

82. 27.72 g a10 r37 ubs 52, 11/ix/2001, 171; Classical Numismatic Group Triton ix, 10-11/i/2006, 1073; iNumis 11, 19/iii/2010, 26.

83. 27.7 g a10 r37 Vinchon, GH, 30-31/x/1978, 4.

84. 27.74 g a10 r37 Numismatic Fine Arts xiv, 213.

85. 27.54 g a10 r37 Hess 267, 66.

86. 27.8 g a10 r37 Numismatica Ars Classica 25, 25/vi/2003, 207. 68 julien olivier & catharine lorber

87. 27.43 g a10 r37 Palombo 5, 7/vi/2008, 50; Classical Numismatic Group Triton ix, 10-11/i/2006, 1073.

88. 27.65 g a10 r37 Classical Numismatic Group e-Auction 144, 26/vii/2006, 148.

89. 28.15 g a10 r37 Palombo 8, 27/xi/2009, 26.

90. 27.84 g a10 r37 Nomos 1, 6/v/2009, 129; Commerce hoard 2007.

91. 27.81 g a10 r37 Paris, BnF, aa.gr.120.

92. 27.73 g a10 r38 Classical Numismatic Group 28, 208; idem 25, 465.

93. 27.61 g a10 r39 Stack’s, 11/i/2010, 225.

94. 27.74 g a10 r40 Vinchon, 14-15/xi/1981, 13.

95. 27.67 g a10 r40 Numismatic Fine Arts (Rosen), 18 decembre 1987, 514.

96. 27.71 g a11 r40 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. 2.6).

97. 27.65 g a11 r40 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. 3.2).

98. 27.72 g a11 r40 Classical Numismatic Group, shop 861630.

99. 27.81 g a11 r40 Monnaies & Médailles, Bâle, 61, 216; Leu 38, 168.

100. 27.74 g a11 r40 Künker 111, 18/iii/2006, 6374.

101. 27.79 g a11 r41 Numismatic Fine Arts i, 30-31/iii/1975, 263.

102. 27.63 g a12 r41 Naville xv, 2/vii/1930 (coll. Woodward), 1172.

103. 27.75 g a12 r42 Monnaies & Médailles 52, Bâle, 19-20/vi/1975, 238; Aguttes, 17/xii/2009, 4; Classical Numismatic Group 91, 19/ix/2012, 396.

104. 27.66 g a12 r43 Classical Numismatic Group Triton iii, 30/xi/-1/xii/1999, 653.

105. 27.44 g a12 r43 Classical Numismatic Group Triton vi, 14-15/i/2003, 490.

106. 27.75 g a12 r44 Astarte xxii, 12/vi/2010, 64.

107. 27.71 g a12 r44 Classical Numismatic Group 85, 15/ix/2010, 536.

108. 27.77 g a12 r44 ubs 83, 8/ix/2009, 36.

109. 27.79 g a12 r44 London, bm, bmc, 1964, 1303.3 (ex coll. Sir Allen George Clark).

110. 27.65 g a12 r45 Pegasi xxvi, 15/v/2012, 276.

111. 27.64 g a12 r46 ﬈e New York Sale xx, 7/i/2009, 343.

112. 27.74 g a12 r46 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. 2.3).

113. a12 r46 New York Sale xx, 7/i/2009, 324.

114. 27.75 g a12 r46 Vinchon, Monte Carlo, 13/iv/1985, 411.

115. 27.81 g a12 r46 Bruxelles, kbr, coll. du Chastel 294.

116. 27.43 g a13 r46 Classical Numismatic Group Triton iii, 30/xi/-1/xii/1999, 652.

117. 27.79 g a13 r47 Numismatica Ars Classica 52, 7/x/2009, 193.

118. 27.66 g a13 r47 Numismatic Fine Arts xiv, 212; Hess-Divo 320, 26/x/2011, 267.

119. 27.67 g a14 r48 Vinchon, 15/xi/1965, 296; Gemini llc x, 13/i/2013, 146.

120. 27.76 g a14 r49 Hess-Leu, 7/iv/1960, 262. ptolemaic gold coinages 69

121. 27.8 g a14 r49 Hirsch 31, 210.

122. a14 r50 ‘Image 742’.

123. 27.8 g a14 r51 Athens, mn, Δ = fcd 204, Sv. 603α, pl. xiv, 15.

124. a14 r51 ArtCoins Roma 5, 14/v/2012, 268.

125. 27.66 g a14 r52 Ponterio, 8/i/2013, 304.

126. 27.72 g a14 r53 Naville X, 15-18/vi/1925 (coll. de Petrowicz et Rogers), 1623.

127. 27.73 g a14 r54 Naville X, 15-18/vi/1925 (coll. de Petrowicz et Rogers), 1624.

128. 27.67 g a14 r54 Lanz 151, 30/vi/2011, 541.

129. a15 r55 lhs 86, 484.

130. 27.7 g a15 r56 Vinchon, 2-3/xii/1975, 177.

131. a15 r56 Classical Numismatic Group 5, 155.

132. 27.7 g a15 r56 Naville iv, 17-19/vi/1922 (coll. Michaïlovitch et Evans), 980.

133. 27.72 g a15 r57 Vinchon, 2-3/xii/1975, 176.

134. 27.2 g a16 r58 sng vol. iii 3404 Locket Coll.

135. 27.62 g a16 r58 Gorny & Mosch 199, 10/x/2011, 575.

136. 27.73 g a16 r58 sng vol. iii 1151 Blackburn Museum.

137. 27.8 g a16 r59 Gemini vi, 10/i/2010, 371; Tkalec, ix/2008, 46; Vinchon, 22- 23/v/1995, 167.

138. 27.8 g a16 r60 Numismatica Ars Classica 41, 20/xi/2007, 3.

139. 27.71 g a16 r60 Hirsch 156, 311.

140. 27.76 g a17 r61 Classical Numismatic Group Triton xv, 3/i/2012, 1310.

141. 27.74 g a17 r62 Classical Numismatic Group 46, 542; Naville xvii, 3/x/1934 (coll. Burrage et Evans), 3/x/1934 (coll. Burrage et Evans), 631.

142. 27.66 g a18 r63 Monnaies & Médailles, Bâle, 6, 317.

143. 27.66 g a18 r64 Classical Numismatic Group 55, 13/ix/2000, 722.

144. 27.72 g a18 r65 Numismatic Fine Arts i, 20-21/iii/1975, 264; Hess-Leu 28, 313.

145. 27.79 g a18 r66 Naville xii, 18-23/x/1926 (coll. Bissen, Werthem, Evans et de Petrowicz), 2597; Naville xvii, 630; Hess-Leu 49, 294; Hirsch 33, 951.

146. 27.55 g a18 r67 Malter 1968, 16.

147. 27.7 g a18 r68 Classical Numismatic Group Triton xiv, 4/i/2011, 386; Nomos ag 2, 17/v/2010, 149.

148. 27.64 g a18 r68 Tkalec, 29/ii/2008, 434.

149. 27.77 g a18 r69 Ponterio, 8/i/2013, 303.

150. a? r? Antalya hoard (ch 1·69), 1.

151. 27.72 g a19 r70 Ira & Larry Goldberg 63, 31/v/2011, 2513; idem 55, 29/x/2009, 102; Numismatica Ars Classica 46, 2/iv/2008, 305.

152. 27.75 g a19 r70 Aydıncık hoard (ch 4·486, ch 8·284), 2.

70 julien olivier & catharine lorber

Type as preceding – Kerykeion behind head of Ptolemy I (= Sv. 603var.).

153. 27.74 g a19 r71 Classical Numismatic Group Triton xiv, 4/i/2011, 387.

154. a19 r71 Harlan J. Berk 158, 26/iii/2008, 11. Commerce hoard 2007.

Type as preceding – A above Galatian shield, simple cornucopiae under Arsinoe’s chin (= Sv. 613var.).

155. 27.75 g a20 r72 Freeman & Sear Fixed price list, Winter 2008, 26.

156. 27.74 g a20 r73 Classical Numismatic Group 81/1, 20/v/2009, 642. a Jugate busts r. of Ptolemy I and Berenice I, the former diademed and wearing himation, the latter diademed and veiled – dotted border. r ΘΕΩΝ ΑΔΕΛΩΝ above, jugate busts r. of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, the former diademed and wearing chlamys, the latter diademed and veiled, Galatian shield with thunderbolt device behind Ptolemy’s head – dotted border. Unmarked (= Sv. 934)

157. 27.71 g a21 r74 Athens, mn, Δ 877a. Svoronos 934α, pl. xxviii, 1.

158. 27.1 g a21 r74 Vinchon, 29/iv/1974 (Peyreﬁtte), 122.

159. 27.6 g a21 r74 Classical Numismatic Group Triton xii, 6/i/2009, 383.

160. 27.7 g a21 r74 Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 2173.

161. 27.6 g a21 r74 Ex coll. Victor Adda.

162. 27.58 g a21 r75 Paris, BnF 292.

163. 27.69 g a21 r76 Vinchon, Monte Carlo, 13/iv/1985, 416; Monnaies & Médailles ix, Bâle, 89.

164. a21 r77 La Haye, Cat. van Damme 93. Sv. 934β, pl. xxviii, 2.

Pentekontadrachma (228 ex.) a ΘΕΩΝ above, jugate busts r. of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, the former diademed and wearing chlamys, the latter diademed and veiled, Galatian shield with thunderbolt device behind Ptolemy’s head – dotted border. r ΑΔΕΛΩΝabove jugate busts r. of Ptolemy I and Berenice I, the former diademed and wearing himation, the latter diademed and veiled – dotted border. Γ under Arsinoe’s chin (= Sv. 621)

165. 13.83 g a1 r1 Athens, mn, Δ 208. Sv. 621α, pl. xiv, 31. ptolemaic gold coinages 71

Type as preceding – K under Arsinoe’s chin (= Sv. 618)

166. 13.92 g a2 r2 Hess 251, 139.

167. 13.93 g a3 r3 ﬈e New York Sale xxv, 5/i/2011, 123; Sternberg, Zürich; G. Apparuti xv, Zürich, 1985, 158.

168. 13.9 g a3 r3 London, bm, bmc 40, 3. Poole, pl. vii, 3; Sv. 618ζ.

169. 13.87 g a3 r3 Athens, mn, Δ = fcd 207. Sv. 618α, pl. xiv, 29.

170. 13.9 g a3 r4 Hirsch 293, 25-26/ix/2013, 2485.

171. 13.87 g a3 r5 Numismatic Fine Arts 14, 214.

172. 13.9 g a3 r5 Aydıncık hoard (ch 4·486, ch 8·284), 17.

173. 13.85 g a4 r6 Gorny & Mosh 213, 7/iii/2013, 2292.

174. a5 r7 Benha hoard, 26.

175. 13.89 g a5 r8 Naville xvi, 3/vii/1933, 1469.

176. 13.87 g a5 r8 Classical Numismatic Group 78, 14/v/2008, 988.

177. a5 r8 Mt. Hymettus, Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou 1965, pl. xviii, 1.

178. 13.92 g a5 r9 Bâle 6, 318.

179. 13.84 g a5 r9 Classical Numismatic Group 43, 888.

180. 13.93 g a5 r9 Gemini, llc iv, 270; lhs Numismatik ag 95, 747.

181. 13.8 g a5 r9 Hirsch 25, 1778.

182. 13.88 g a5 r9 New York, ans, 1944.100.64173.

183. 13.91 g a5 r9 Musée des Timbres et des Monnaies, Monaco = Huber Num. Aeg. S. 243,15. Sv. 618γ, pl. xiv, 30.

Type as preceding – K under Berenice’s chin (= Sv. 618var.)

184. 13.94 g a6 r10 Gemini vii, 9/i/2011, 697.

185. 13.84 g a6 r10 Paris, BnF, 295. Sv. 618ε.

186. 13.9 g a6 r10 Vinchon, 24-25/xi/1994, 156.

187. 13.88 g a6 r11 Historisches Museum Frankﬔrt am Main, 38.

188. a6 r11 Christie’s, 9/x/1984, 290 (collection Victor Adda).

189. a6 r12 Mt. Hymettus, Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou 1965, pl. xviii, 2.

190. 13.92 g a6 r13 Vinchon, 22/xi/1995, 67; Leu 23, 195.

191. 13.88 g a6 r13 Classical Numismatic Group 91, 19/ix/2012, 397.

192. 13.93 g a6 r13 Sincona 10, 27/v/2013, 201; Vinchon, 24/xi/1994, 156 (Ex Coll. James et Sneja Velkov).

193. a? r13? Antalya hoard (ch 1·69), 3.

72 julien olivier & catharine lorber

Type as preceding – Unmarked (= Sv. 604).

194. a7 r9 Benha hoard, 24.

195. 13.9 g a7 r14 Classical Numismatic Group 87, 18/v/2011, 694.

196. a7 r15 Benha hoard, 25.

197. 13.81 g a7 r16 Classical Numismatic Group 84, 5/v/2010, 755; Classical Numismatic Group 861639.

198. 13.91 g a7 r17 Brussels, kbr, Hirsch 1807; Sv. 604κ.

199. a7 r18 Stack’s, Saint Ludovico and Firth of Clyde Collection, 22/iv/ 2009, 1178.

200. 13.87 g a7 r18 sng Vol. vi 1182 Fitzwilliam Museum.

201. 13.84 g a8 r17 Aydıncık hoard (ch 4·486, ch 8·284), 6.

202. a8 r17 Naupactus hoard (igch 174; bch 80, 1956, pl. vi, 4).

203. 13.84 g a8 r19 Cairo, sr6c.1, 9-3.

204. 13.82 g a8 r20 Paris, BnF 297. Sv. 604ιβ.

205. 13.87 g a8 r20 Hess-Leu 7/iv/1960, 263.

206. 13.8 g a8 r21 Hirsch 211, 1419.

207. 13.87 g a8 r22 Cairo, sr6c.3, 2689-2.

208. a8 r23 Vinchon, 20/xi/1961, 164.

209. 13.84 g a8 r24 Harlan J. Berk 169, 53.

210. 13.79 g a8 r24? Aydıncık hoard (ch 4·486, ch 8·284), 11.

211. 13.83 g a9 r19 Vinchon, Monaco, 13/iv/1985, 412; Palombo 5, 51.

212. 13.84 g a9 r25 Bâle xliv, 16.

213. a9 r25 Harlan J. Berk 165, 28/vii/2009, 16.

214. 13.87 g a9 r26 Vinchon, 27/x/2000, 257.

215. 13.85 g a9 r27 Vinchon, 6-8/ii/1956, 674.

216. 13.68 g a10 r18 Classical Numismatic Group Triton xii, 6/i/2009, 384.

217. 13.86 g a10 r28 Heritage 397, 9/i/2006, 12038.

218. 13.85 g a10 r28 Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 2175.

219. 13.86 g a10 r29 Baldwin, New York Sale xxx, 9/i/2013, 237.

220. 13.88 g a10 r30 Leu Numismatik ag 83, 460.

221. 13.75 g a11 r30 Classical Numismatic Group e-Auction 177, 28/xi/2007, 135; Künker 216, 8/x/2012, 569; Sincona 10, 27/v/2013, 199.

222. 13.78 g a11 r31 Classical Numismatic Group 78, 14/v/2008, 986.

223. 13.89 g a12 r32 Bâle liv, 396.

224. 13.85 g a12 r32 Aydıncık hoard (ch 4·486, ch 8·284), 3.

225. 13.87 g a12 r32 Hess-Leu 31, 566. ptolemaic gold coinages 73

226. 13.9 g a12 r33 Hess 254, 231; Numismatic Fine Arts 22, 375.

227. 13.85 g a12 r33 Aydıncık hoard (ch 4·486, ch 8·284), 4.

228. 13.84 g a12 r34 Classical Numismatic Group e-Auction 195, 10/ix/2008, 106.

229. 13.76 g a12 r35 Classical Numismatic Group e-Auction 176, 48.

230. 12.86 g a13 r36 Naville xvii, 3/x/1934 (coll. Burrage et Evans), 633; Naville V, 18/vi/1923 (coll. Bertier de la Garde), 2920.

231. 13.84 g a13 r37 VAuction 264, 26/v/2011, 13; Classical Numismatic Group 861640.

232. 13.85 g a13 r37 Cairo, sr6c.1, 126.

233. 13.74 g a13 r37 Künker 174, 27/v/2010, 465.

234. 13.87 g a13 r38 Bâle 7, 343.

235. 13.8 g a13 r38 Classical Numismatic Group 78, 14/v/2008, 987.

236. 13.85 g a13? r? Aydıncık hoard (ch 4·486, ch 8·284), 13.

237. 13.83 g a14 r38 Classical Numismatic Group 67, 941.

238. 13.72 g a14 r39 Classical Numismatic Group e-Auction 239, 25/viii/2010, 242.

239. 13.82 g a14 r39 Künker 97, 7/iii/2005, 1019.

240. 13.83 g a14 r39 Strasbourg, bnu, iv.21.c9.

241. 13.82 g a14 r39 Hess 251, 138.

242. 13.86 g a14 r39 Numismatic Fine Arts 4, 444.

243. 13.92 g a15 r40 Bâle xi, 91.

244. 13.92 g a15 r40 Hess-Leu, 12-13/iv/1962, 383.

245. 13.93 g a15 r40 Leu 15, 363.

246. 13.78 g a15 r40 Künker 94, 27/ix/2004, 1561.

247. 13.86 g a15 r40 Aydıncık hoard (ch 4·486, ch 8·284), 10.

248. 13.85 g a15 r41 Classical Numismatic Group Triton iii, 30/xi-1/xii/1999, 655.

249. a15 r41 Hess-Divo 314, 4/v/2009, 1254.

250. 13.82 g a16 r42 Bâle xxiv, 377; idem xxii, 396.

251. 13.79 g a16 r42 Classical Numismatic Group 88, 14/ix/2011, 542.

252. 13.81 g a16 r43 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. 3.4).

253. 13.85 g a16 r43 Numismatica Ars Classica 59, 4/iv/2011, 1706.

254. 13.84 g a16 r44 Classical Numismatic Group 84, 5/v/2010, 754.

255. 13.86 g a16 r44 Aydıncık hoard (ch 4·486, ch 8·284), 16.

256. 13.83 g a17 r45 Bâle xxviii, 195.

257. 13.87 g a17 r45 Paris, BnF, Beistegui 46.

258. 13.86 g a17 r45 Naville xii, 18-23/x/1926 (coll. Bissen, Werthem, Evans and de Petrowicz), 2598.

259. 13.9 g a17 r45 Hirsch 29, 843. 74 julien olivier & catharine lorber

260. 13.8 g a17 r46 Ira & Larry Goldberg 74, 4-5/vi/2013, 3539.

261. 13.8 g a17 r47 Künker 133, 11/x/2007, 8270; Hess-Divo 315, 28/x/2009, 206; Chaponnière & Hess-Divo 3, 21/v/2012, 204.

262. 13.85 g a17 r48 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. g8797).

263. a17 r48 Vinchon, 24-26/iv/1996, 38; Vinchon, 28/x/1962, 12.

264. 13.8 g a17 r48 La Haye. Sv. 604β, pl. xiv, 19.

265. 13.9 g a17 r48 Saint-Pétersbourg. Sv. 604γ, pl. xiv, 20.

266. 13.81 g a17 r49 Classical Numismatic Group e-Auction 183, 5/iii/2008, 100.

267. 13.89 g a17 r50 Harlan J. Berk 16/iii/2010, 25.

268. 13.83 g a18 r50 Classical Numismatic Group Triton xi, 8/i/2008, 338.

269. 13.81 g a18 r51 Marti Hervera 61, 23/x/2010, 13; Spink 9008, 19/iii/2009, 485.

270. 14.2 g a18 r51 Hirsch 14, 657.

271. 13.86 g a18 r51 Aydıncık hoard (ch 4·486, ch 8·284), 12.

272. 14.89 g a18 r52 Numismatica Ars Classica 54, 24/iii/2010, 891.

273. 13.75 g a18 r52 Meister & Sonntag 4, 31; Spink 5014, 28/ix/2005, 154. 274. 13.78 g a18 r52 Classical Numismatic Group 21, 198.

275. 13.89 g a18 r52 Numismatic Fine Arts 18.i, 258.

276. 13.87 g a19 r52 Hirsch 275, 22/ix/2011, 4131.

277. 13.95 g a19 r52 Gemini, llc i, 248.

278. 13.79 g a19 r53 ubs Gold & Numismatks 53, 78.

279. 13.88 g a19 r54 Bâle xlxvi, 308.

280. 13.86 g a19 r54 Aydıncık hoard (ch 4·486, ch 8·284), 5.

281. 13.77 g a19 r55 Künker 174, 27/ix/2010, 463.

282. 13.77 g a19 r55 Classical Numismatic Group 49, 748.

283. 13.92 g a19 r55 Hess 252, 103.

284. 13.83 g a19 r55 Nomisma, Winter 1981, 29.

285. 13.91 g a19 r55 Numismatica Ars Classica 41, 4.

286. 13.94 g a19 r56 Gemini, llc i, 249.

287. 13.83 g a19 r56 Leu 28, 219.

288. 13.84 g a19 r57 Stack’s Vermeule, Ward and Maxico Collections, 11/i/2010, 183.

289. 13.87 g a20 r58 Dr. Busso Peus Nachfolger 368, 415.

290. 13.82 g a20 r58 sng Vol. iii 3405 Lockett Collection.

291. 13.86 g a20 r59 Leu 7, 302; Naville v, 18/vi/1923 (coll. Bertier de la Garde), 2919.

292. 13.85 g a20 r60 Vinchon, 26/iv/1999, 252.

293. 13.85 g a20 r60 Aydıncık hoard (ch 4·486, ch 8·284), 15.

294. a20 r61 Vinchon, 29-30/x/1973, 36.

295. 13.8 g a20 r61 Classical Numismatic Group 88, 14/ix/2011, 543. ptolemaic gold coinages 75

296. 13.81 g a21 r62 Dr. Busso Peus Nachfolger 378, 28/iii/2004, 339.

297. 13.86 g a21 r63 Aydıncık hoard (ch 4·486, ch 8·284), 8.

298. 13.89 g a22 r64 Paris, BnF, Luynes 3564.

299. 13.82 g a22 r64 Künker 89, 8/iii/2004, 1692.

300. 13.7 g a22 r64 Künker 125, 19/vi/2007, 18.

301. 13.86 g a22 r65 Aydıncık hoard (ch 4·486, ch 8·284), 14.

302. 13.9 g a22 r66 Griechische Münzen xvi, 690; Hirsch 33, 952, Benha hoard, 25.

303. 13.91 g a22 r66 Comptoir Général Financier 51, 17/xi/2011, 315.

304. 13.9 g a22 r67 Leu 2, 306.

305. 13.82 g a22 r68 Paris, BnF, 298. Sv. 604ια.

306. 13.84 g a22 r68 Elsen 93, 15/ix/2007, 407.

307. 13.82 g a22 r68 Vinchon, 16/xi/1991, 4.

308. 13.87 g a23 r68 Spink 9008, 19/iii/2009, 418.

309. 13.8 g a23 r69 Hirsch 31, 642.

310. 13.9 g a24 r70 Numismatic Fine Arts 2, 322.

311. 13.88 g a24 r70 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. g8796).

312. 13.89 g a24 r71 Numismatic Fine Arts 6, 427.

313. 13.9 g a24 r71 New York, ans, 1944.100.75919.

314. 13.78 g a24 r72 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. 3, 6).

315. 13.87 g a24 r72 Aydıncık hoard (ch 4·486, ch 8·284), 9.

316. 13.8 g a24 r72 Numismatica Ars Classica 59, 4/iv/2011, 1705.

317. 13.79 g a24 r73 Classical Numismatic Group e-Auction 170, 8/viii/2007, 133.

318. 13.86 g a25 r74 Aydıncık hoard (ch 4·486, ch 8·284), 7.

319. 13.83 g a25 r75 Classical Numismatic Group Triton viii, 582.

320. 13.84 g a26 r76 Bâle 11, 245.

321. 13.83 g a26 r77 Cairo, sr6c1, 9-2.

322. 13.69 g a26 r77 Hirsch 242, 2297.

323. 13.79 g a26 r78 ubs Gold & Numismatks 76, 1315.

324. 13.83 g a26 r79 Classical Numismatic Group Triton xi, 8/i/2008, 339.

325. 13.83 g a27 r79 Künker 77, 2002, 4013; Künker 97, 7/iii/2005, 1018.

326. 13.9 g a27 r79 Hess-Divo 320, 26/x/2011, 268.

327. 13.81 g a27 r80 Vinchon, 27/x/2000, 258; idem 14-15/xi/1981, 14.

328. 13.83 g a28 r81 Künker 174, 27/ix/2010, 464.

329. 13.8 g a29 r82 Classical Numismatic Group e-Auction 175, 142.

330. 13.8 g a30 r83 Classical Numismatic Group 11, 137; idem 16, 233, Hirsch 162, 396.

331. 13.84 g a30 r83 Classical Numismatic Group e-Auction 212, 17/vi/2009, 134. 76 julien olivier & catharine lorber

332. 13.85 g a31 r84 Classical Numismatic Group 16, 232.

333. 13.81 g a31 r85 Gorny & Mosch 190, 11/x/2010, 387.

334. 13.86 g a31 r85 Cairo, src.3, 2689-3.

335. 13.86 g a31 r85 Nomisma, Winter 1981, 28.

336. 13.78 g a31 r85 Vinchon, 22/xi/1995, 68.

337. 13.82 g a31 r86 Classical Numismatic Group Triton xiii (sessions 3 & 4), 6/i/2010, 1354; Gorny & Mosch 185, 8/iii/2010, 200.

338. 13.86 g a32 r87 Nomos ag, 87; Gorny & Mosch 169, 166.

339. 13.74 g a32 r87 Classical Numismatic Group 82, 16/ix/2009; Ponterio 148, 9/i/2009, 407.

340. 13.83 g a32 r88 Classical Numismatic Group 63, 21/v/2003, 722; idem 76, 12/ix/2007, 766; Ira & Larry Goldberg 62, 1/ii/2011, 3163.

341. 13.81 g a32 r88 Paris, BnF, Smith Lessouëf 89.

342. 13.82 g a33 r89 Classical Numismatic Group 860036.

343. 13.83 g a33 r89 Harlan J. Berk 16/iii/2010, 26.

344. 13.92 g a34 r90 Freeman & Sear Mail Bid Sale 13, 761.

345. 13.89 g a34 r91 Gemini v, 6/i/2009, 689.

346. 13.93 g a34 r91 Numismatic Fine Arts18 oct 1990, 399.

347. 13.77 g a34 r91 Vinchon, 24/xi/1969, 146.

348. 13.8 g a34 r92 Schlessinger, monnaies grecques de l’Hermitage, 4-5/ii/1935, 1575.

349. 13.87 g a34 r92 Naville vii, 23-24/vi/1924 (coll. Bement), 1839.

350. 13.87 g a35 r92 sng Vol. viii 1152 Blackburn Museum.

351. 13.85 g a35 r93 Paris, BnF 296.

352. 13.87 g a35 r93 Hess-Leu 45, 405.

353. 13.82 g a35 r94 Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung 117, 348.

354. 13.85 g a35 r95 Palombo 8, 27/xi/2009, 27.

355. 13.82 g a35 r96 Classical Numismatic Group Triton xiv, 4/i/2011, 388.

356. 13.81 g a36 r97 Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung 115, 1244.

357. 13.85 g a36 r97 Classical Numismatic Group Triton x, 9/i/2007, 418.

358. 13.85 g a36 r98 Hirsch 29, 844.

359. 13.87 g a36 r99 Numismatic Fine Arts 18.i, 257.

360. 13.86 g a37 r100 Cairo, sr6c.1, 9-1.

361. 13.84 g a38 r101 Cairo, sr6c.3, 2689-1.

362. 13.85 g a38 r102 Numismatic Fine Arts 1, 265.

363. 13.9 g a38 r103 Athens, mn, Δ = fcd 206. Sv. 604α, pl. xiv, 18.

364. 13.78 g a39 r104 Numismatic Fine Arts 28, 798. ptolemaic gold coinages 77

365. 13.7 g a40 r105 Schlessinger, monnaies grecques de l’Hermitage, 4-5/ii/1935, 1574.

366. 13.78 g a40 r106 Künker 226, 11/iii/2013, 650.

367. 13.7 g a40 r106 Vinchon, 20-22/v/1959, 625.

368. 13.78 g a40 r107 Naville xvii, 3/x/1934 (coll. Burrage et Evans), 634.

369. 13.87 g a40 r108 Ponterio 157, 7/i/2011, 2139.

370. 13.8 g a40 r108 Saint-Pétersbourg. Sv. 604δ, pl. xiv, 21.

371. 13.65 g a40 r109 Hirsch 21, 4481.

372. 13.82 g a41 r110 Classical Numismatic Group Triton ix, 10-11/i/2006, 1074.

373. 13.82 g a41 r111 Stack’s, ﬈e Golden Horn Collection 2009, 2199.

374. a41 r112 Vinchon, Hotel Loews, 2-3/xii/1975, 178.

375. 13.81 g a42 r113 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. 3.5).

376. 13.85 g a42 r114 Meister & Sonntag, 5/iv/2008, 64.

377. 13.86 g a43 r115 Christie, 9/x/1984, 21; Classical Numismatic Group Triton iii, 30/xi-1/xii/1999, 654; idem Triton iv, 5/xii/2000, 313.

378. a44 r116 Vinchon, Monte Carlo, 30/vi/1978, 97.

379. a45 r117 Vinchon, coll. R. Peyreﬁtte, 29/iv/1974, 119.

380. 13.44 g a46 r118 Hirsch 154, 288.

381. 13.81 g a47 r119 Gemini llc viii, 14/iv/2011, 127; Spink 5003, 31/iii/2005, 98 (ex. coll. Bon de Portanova).

382. 13.89 g a48 r120 Classical Numismatic Group e-Auction 178, 12/xii/2007, 36.

383. a49 r121 St. James’s 12, 5/xi/2009, 909.

384. a? r? Antalya hoard (ch 1·69), 2.

Type as preceding – A above Galatian shield, double cornucopiae under Arsinoe’s chin (= Sv. 614).

385. 13.95 g a50 r122 Numismatic Fine Arts 8, 381.

386. 13.91 g a51 r123 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. 3.3).

387. 13.92 g a51 r123 Athens, mn, Δ 208a. Sv. 614α, pl. xiv, 28.

388. 13.95 g a51 r123 London, bm, bmc 40, 1. Poole pl. vii, 1. Sv. 614β.

389. 13.83 g a51 r123 Künker 158, 28/ix/2009, 370; Vinchon, Hotel Loews, 2-3/xii/ 1975, 179.

Type as preceding – Δ above Galatian shield, double cornucopiae under Arsinoe’s chin (= Sv. 614var.).

390. a52 r123 Athens, mn, 6/7 IZ' 1; Π = Egger xiii (1906), lot 31. Sv. 616α, pl. B, 25. 78 julien olivier & catharine lorber

391. 13.93 g a52 r124 Bâle 8, 402.

392. a? r? Antalya hoard (ch 1·69), 4.

Quarter mnaieia (5 ex.) Type as preceding – Unmarked (= Sv. 605).

393. 6.93 g a1 r1 Vinchon, coll. R. Peyreﬁtte, 29/iv/1974, 119; Classical Numis- matic Group Triton iii, 30/xi/-1/xii/1999, 656.

394. 6.94 g a1 r2 New York, ans, 1966, 54, 2.

395. a2 r3 Vinchon, Monte Carlo, 30/vi/1978, 97.

396. 6.95 g a2 r3 Vienne, 23517. Sv. 605α.

397. 6.94 g a2 r4 Leu Numismatik ag 86, 456.

Eighth mnaieia (2 ex.) Type as preceding – Unmarked (= Sv. 606).

398. 3.42 g a1 r1 Hirsch 21, 16/xi/1908, 4482.

399. 3.48 g a1 r1 Paris, BnF, 300. Sv. 606α, pl. xiv, 23.

the alexandrian mnaieia of arsinoe philadelphus (first series) (Catharine Lorber)

A﬇er the death of Arsinoe II in 270 or 268, [58] the Alexandria mint honored her memory with a precious metal coinage in three denominations. ﬈e most conspicuous of these are gold mnaieia and silver decadrachms with identical types: on the obverse, a head of the deiﬁed Arsinoe with ram’s horn, diademed stephane, veil, and lotus sceptre over her far shoulder; and on the reverse, a double cornucopiae (dikeras) bound with a royal diadem,

[58] ﬈e Mendes stela (Kamal 1904-1905, no. 22181), ℓ. 11-12 = Meulenaere 1976, p. 175 = Schäfer 2011, p. 249, reports her death in regnal year 15, first month of summer. ﬈is was long interpreted as 270, until Grzybek 1990, p. 103-112, advanced arguments for placing Arsinoe’s death in July 268, based on the Pithom stela (Kamal 1904-1905, no. 22183), ℓ. 23 = ﬈iers 2007, p. 67, where she is apparently still alive in year 16. ﬈e various issues are discussed by C.J. Bennett at www.tyndale.com/ egypt/ptolemies/genealogy.htm, q.v. Arsinoe II, n. 17, where Grzybek’s solutions are favored, and by Schäfer 2011, p. 264-267, who concludes that the Pithom stela refers in the relevant passages to the dead and deified Arsinoe and that the death date recorded in the Mendes stela can be accepted as correct. ptolemaic gold coinages 79 framed by a legend advertising the cult name Arsinoe Philadelphus. [59] Greek letters placed behind the queen’s head seem to represent a control system. ﬈e mnaieia begin with no letter and then run from A through O, while a parallel series of tetradrachms, struck from the same obverse dies but employing the Ptolemaic eagle reverse, runs from A through Z. Mnaieia with the letters B and Γ are unknown, but the corresponding tetradrachms complete the alphabetic sequence. ﬈e series of decadrachms is much longer and uses the entire alphabet, then double letters, and finally special symbols representing triple A and triple B, beginning a third iteration; examples with the letters I and K are unknown. [60] J.N. Svoronos regarded these letters as dates based on a supposed era of Arsinoe. [61] In 1983 H.A. Troxell published an important study that demonstrated through stylistic analysis that mnaieia and decadrachms bearing the same control letter were not in fact contemporary and that the series of decadrachms commenced earlier than the series of mnaieia and their corresponding tetradrachms. [62] Troxell’s Group 1 comprised only decadrachms, with the earliest mnaieia and tetradrachms marking the beginning of her Group 2. She dated the beginning of Group 2 no later than 261/0 because in this year Ioppe struck the first of the dated Syro-Phœnician mnaieia of Arsinoe Philadelphus. [63] ﬈e stylistic evolution of the latter, over the years 261/0-242/1, became the basis for Troxell’s proposed chronology for the Arsinoe mnaieia of Alexandria: Group 2 (Unmarked‒Z) c. 261/0-253/2 Transitional to Group 3 (H‒Θ) c. 253/2 Group 3 (I‒Λ) c. 253/2-246? Group 4 (M‒Ξ) c. 246/5?-c. 241?

Troxell shared the principal results of a die study of the Alexandrian decadrachms, mnaieia, and tetradrachms of Arsinoe Philadelphus. [64] It showed that, with rare exceptions, each control letter marked a single obverse die of each denomination, and the reverse die links conﬁrmed that

[59] For discussion of the iconography, see Parente 2002; Müller 2009. [60] Troxell 1983, p. 41, n. 11 observed that the sole example cited by Svoronos with letter M (in Athens) was in fact a specimen with MM partially of the ﬂan. However a genuine example marked with the single letter M exists in Paris. [61] Svoronos 1904-1908, vol. i, col. ρμη'-ρξβ'vol. iv, col. 83-95. [62] Troxell 1983, p. 35-59. [63] Troxell 1983, p. 53, no 37 with n. 20, p. 55. ﬈e same logic was followed by Mørkholm 1991, pp. 102, 104; Le Rider 1998b, p. 795-796 (1119-1120); Le Rider & Callataÿ 2006, p. 151-153. [64] Troxell 1983, p. 41-46. 80 julien olivier & catharine lorber the obverse dies were employed in alphabetical order. [65] Troxell did not, however, provide a corpus of specimens. She limited herself to reporting the number of specimens and dies for each control letter of each denomination, and to illustrating all obverse dies of the mnaieia and all known reverse die links. It therefore seemed useﬔl to replicate her die study of the mnaieia in the framework of our own work on Ptolemaic gold coinage. As she no longer has her material in her possession, the new study began afresh with examples from the coin market and several public collections. In the course of the work a good portion of Troxell’s record was recovered in the card ﬁle of the American Numismatic Society. [66]

I. Results of the die study ﬈e new corpus comprises 314 mnaieia as compared with 131 recorded by Troxell. [67] Table 4 provides a more detailed comparison of the quantitative results of the present study and those of Troxell. ﬈ese results conﬁrm Troxell’s study with respect to the number of obverse dies, with one exception. ﬈e discovery of an obverse die marked O reveals a new variety unknown to Svoronos and Troxell, yielding a total of 17 obverse dies. Troxell already commented on the great variability in the size of these emissions, observing that the varieties marked Θ and K accounted for well over half the specimens and reverse dies. [68] ﬈e contrast between large and small issues is even more pronounced in the present larger study. ﬈is is probably not a bias introduced by hoards. Arsinoe mnaieia were represented in the Benha hoard of 1936 (igch 1694), which closed in the reign of Pto- lemy IV, long a﬇er the completion of the ﬁrst series of Arsinoe mnaieia. ﬈e large number of third-century Ptolemaic gold coins appearing in commerce since 2007 appear to represent another hoard with an identical point

[65] Troxell identified reverse die links between the unmarked mnaieia and the single known specimen with A, between Δ and E, between E and Z, between Θ and I (first obverse die), between M and Ξ, and between N and Ξ ﬈e present study identified an additional reverse die link between Θ and I (second obverse die). [66] ﬈e ans card file is now housed by cng in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. We thank Victor England and his staff for giving us access to the card file and for helping us to make use of it. [67] Excluded from the die study were three specimens of the Θ issue not struck from the known obverse die, whose relationship to the original issue is unclear. One was observed in commerce but not photographed; another was an apparent imitation of somewhat stiff style but seemingly good gold. ﬈e third was a Gaza mnaieion dated 257/6 (Sv. 823) altered in antiquity to produce a facsimile of the Alexandrian Θ issue, i.e., the Θ was added on the obverse and the reverse controls were smoothed away; this piece was offered by Glenn Woods on VCoins in February of 2008 (Pro- duct = 7505) and reported by Adam D. Philippidis. [68] Troxell 1983, p. 58. ptolemaic gold coinages 81 of closure. Yet the late issues marked M, N, and O remain very rare, and the count of specimens for the issue marked Ξ has increased only slightly since Troxell’s study

Lorber Troxell Letter Specimens a dies r dies Specimens a dies r dies None 11 3 5 8 3 5 A 1 1 1 1 1 1 Δ 2 1 1 1 1 1 E 4 1 2 4 1 3 Z 3 1 1 3 1 1 H 9 1 4 5 1 4 Θ 111 1 34 42 1 24 I 29 2 10 7 2 4 K 80 1 24 32 1 17 Λ 40 1 15 11 1 9 M 5 1 4 3 1 3 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ξ 17 1 8 13 1 6 O 1 1 1 – – – Table 4 – Quantitative results of Lorber and Troxell die studies

﬈e original number of obverse dies can be estimated from the results of the die study, based on the totals of 314 specimens from 17 obverse dies. Carter’s simpliﬁed method [69] yields an estimate indicating that the study probably captured all of the original obverse dies.

Specimens Dies n/d Estimated (n) (d) Dies (Carter) 314 17 18.47 17 Table 5 – Statistical estimate of the original number of obverse dies

﬈e wide range in the number of reverse dies paired with each obverse, from 1 (in ﬁve cases) to 34, suggests that the reverse dies may be an inter- esting variable in this series. ﬈erefore the Carter method was also used to estimate the original number of reverse dies for each obverse letter. ﬈e

[69] Carter 1983. 82 julien olivier & catharine lorber following table omits the results for varieties with only a single reverse die because these estimates are manifestly unrealistic in light of the rarity of the issues involved. ﬈e estimate for the M issue is also highly suspect.

Estimated dies Letter Die(s) n/d (Carter) None 05 2.2 08 (?) E 02 2.0 03 (?) H 04 2.25 06 (?) Θ 34 3.265 45 (?) I 10 2.9 13 (?) K 24 3.333 29 (?) Λ 15 2.667 20 (?) M 04 1.25 16 (?) Ξ 08 2.125 12 (?) Table 6 – Statistical estimates of the original number of reverse dies Much in contrast to the obverse dies, the reverse dies have low n/d ratios. ﬈e statistical estimates suggest that many original reverse dies were not recorded in the die study. The poor survival rate of coins from ﬔlly half of the obverse dies – two of the three unmarked dies, those marked A, Δ, E, Z, N, and O, and the first of the two dies marked I – may perhaps be related to the important proportion of singletons in die studies generally, indicating a high rate of early failure of dies. [70] Yet the hypothesis of early failure finds a possible confirmation only in the case of the first die marked I, which was replaced with a second die bearing the same letter, and it can be suspected in the case of the two unmarked dies, since each of them accounts for only one specimen in the die study while the third unmarked die accounts for nine. A high rate of early die failure is less likely for gold coinage than for silver, because the notorious softness of gold should have extended the lifetimes of the dies. [71] Although medieval mint archives impy low die productivity for gold coinages, this almost certainly reflects limited amounts of gold made available for coining rather than an inferior capacity of the dies. [72] In the case of the Arsinoe mnaieia, the replacement of the first die marked I by a second die similarly marked, and then the reengraving of that second die to change the I to K, argues that the size of these issues was not determined by the capacity of the obverse dies.

[70] Callataÿ 1995, p. 294-295. [71] Callataÿ 2011a, p. 3. [72] Callataÿ 1995, p. 297-298 for the archival evidence; Callataÿ 2011a, p. 3. ptolemaic gold coinages 83

II. Chronological proposition ﬈e above considerations point to the conclusion that the extreme variability in the size of issues of Arsinoe mnaieia reflects the intentions of the Pto- lemaic state. But what was the significance of the control letters? Troxell demonstrated that the letters could not represent year dates as Svoronos believed. She suggested that they might represent “sporadic half-years, months, or some other chronological unit; or perhaps they simply marked certain amounts of bullion ordered to be struck from time to time.” [73] Her remarks seem especially apposite for the decadrachms, whose control letters are certainly too numerous to identify annual issues. But this is not true for the letters of the mnaieia and the tetradrachms. A sequence of fi﬇een letters each representing a year’s coinage, preceded by the unmarked variety, would fit into the period 261/0-241. We can hypothesize a series of annual issues for the mnaieia and tetradrachms, even if the letters do not denote dates according to an era: 261/0 [74] Unmarked 253/2 Θ 260/59 A 252/1 I 259/8 B (tetradrachms only) 251/0 K 258/7 Γ (tetradrachms only) 250/49 Λ 257/6 Δ 249/8 M 256/5 E 248/7 N 255/4 Z (last tetradrachms) 247/6 Ξ 254/3 H 246/5 O ﬈is alternate chronology differs little from that of Troxell, except that it compresses the dates of Groups 3 and 4. Troxell in fact expressed little confidence in her ability to date the transition from her Group 3 to her Group 4 or the end of Group 4. [75] A terminal date of 246/5 is at any rate consistent with the results of the elemental analyses reported above by J. Olivier, which revealed that the mnaieia of Arsinoe Philadelphus, like the gold coinage in the name of the ﬈eoi Adelphoi, contain small quantities of copper and lead that are almost entirely absent from the gold coins of Berenice II or from mnaieia portraying the radiate Ptolemy Euergetes.

[73] Troxell 1983, p. 58. [74] ﬈e use of three obverse dies for this variety could conceivably correlate with a period of production lasting longer than a year. ﬈e emission could have begun earlier, perhaps as early as 263/2. ﬈is year was already proposed as the possible inaugural date of the Arsinoe mnaieia by Troxell 1983, p. 55, because it was in this year that Ptolemy ordered changes in the tax on orchards and vineyards to support the cult of Arsinoe in Egyptian temples, see n. 81 below. ﬈e alternative, of an unmarked issue lasting for several years a﬇er 261/0, seems less likely because from that date the Syro-Phœnician mints integrated Arsinoe mnaieia within an annual rhythm of production attested by the regnal dates inscribed on the coins. [75] Troxell 1983, p. 55. 84 julien olivier & catharine lorber

III. A closer look at some aspects of Troxell’s Groups 3 and 4 Of the 34 reverse dies employed to strike the mnaieia marked with Θ two were reused to strike mnaieia marked I. ﬈e I issue is the first since the initial unmarked issue to employ more than one obverse die, and each of its two obverses is linked by a reverse die to the preceding issue. ﬈e first of these obverse dies (I-a1) was short-lived: Troxell recorded only one coin struck from it, and that coin remains unique in the present corpus. It shows no signs of damage to die I-a1 that might account for its early retirement. ﬈e portrait already displays the stylistic changes that Troxell used to define her Group 3: the edge of the stephane is visible beneath the clinging veil, and the tip of the horn of Ammon begins to curve downward very slightly. ﬈e downward curve of the horn is far more pronounced on the second obverse die of the I issue (I-a2), and this die was the last to be paired with reverse dies that leave some space between the tip of the horn and the right end of the diadem. ﬈e letter I was subsequently recut on this second obverse die to trans- form it into a letter K. Nevertheless, the present study found no reverse die link between the I and K issues. In the course of the K issue some distinctly late reverse features begin to appear. ﬈e right end of the diadem tie now always undulates close to the lower end of the horn, and the lettering beco- mes large and coarse; in particular, the final Σ of ΑΡΣΙΝΟΗΣ and the final Υ of ΦΙΛΑΔΕΛΟΥ are o﬇en larger than the other letters. ﬈e stylistic changes, in combination with the reuse of an older obverse die, suggest that the mint was in a somewhat unsettled state during the production of Troxell’s Group 3. ﬈e stylistic changes could reflect a lapse of time between the I and K issues, and such a lapse might favor Troxell’s less compressed chronology. Alternatively, the stylistic changes could be explained by the employment of new engravers and/or more hasty production of dies. ﬈e key to Troxell’s classification was a comparison of stylistic details as they appear on Alexandrian mnaieia and decadrachms and also on the dated mnaieia of the Syro-Phœnician mints. Only three elements were considered for the Syro-Phœnician issues: the shape of Arsinoe’s chignon (oval or flat), the shape of the ram’s horn (curling around the ear or pointing downward), and the decoration of the tip of the cornucopiae (flat disc or calyx ornament). ﬈e Syro-Phœnician mnaieia present inconsistent patterns, as Troxell herself conceded, and in the end she cited only the introduction of the calyx ornament at Tyre and Sidon as a basis for dating the transition to Alexandrian Group 3. [76] Her tentative date for Group 4 rests on the facial similarity of Arsinoe’s portrait in Alexandrian Group 4 and on Syro-Phœnician issues struck under Ptolemy III, where Troxell saw a resem-

[76] Troxell 1983, p. 54-55. ptolemaic gold coinages 85 blance to Berenice II. [77] In light of the various discrepancies between the Alexandrian and Syro-Phœnician series, including the negligible undula- tion of the diadem on the Syro-Phœnician issues of Ptolemy III, we should be cautious about accepting the implied parallel.

IV. Hoards and circulation ﬈e Alexandrian mnaieia of Arsinoe Philadelphus have been reported from the following hoards (see Table 7). ﬈e hoard record indicates that circulation of the Alexandrian mnaieia of Arsinoe Philadelphus was centered on Egypt. [78] A few specimens found their way to Rough Cilicia and Syria. ﬈e Aydıncık hoard can be related to military ﬁnance, but the nature of the Syria, 1989 hoard is less clear and it does not shed light on the manner in which the Arsinoe mnaieia arrived in Syria.

hoard date of deposit arsinoe mnaieia other contents Aydıncık, 1974 c. 260 Unmarked (1) 20 jugate bust gold (ch 4·486) [79] Upper Egypt, before 1905 c. 245? 112 unspeciﬁed (igch 1687) Egypt, 1927? c. 245? E, H, Θ I, K, Ξ (igch 1682) 1 trichryson, 5 jugate Unmarked, H, Θ (2), Benha, 1936 soon bust gold, Ephesus I, K (2), M, Ξ (2) mnaieion of Berenice (igch 1694) a﬇er 217 9 provincial issues II, 3 mnaieia depicting Ptolemy III 94+ jugate bust gold, a few Berenice II ‘Commerce, soon 140+ pentadrachms, 136+ 2007’ a﬇er 217 mnaieia depicting Ptolemy III  pentadrachm of Syria, 1989 soon a﬇er Berenice II, tetra- Θ I (ch 8·462) 217 [80] drachms of Ptolemy I, II, and IV Table 7 – Hoards containing Alexandrian mnaieia of Arsinoe Philadelphus

[77] Troxell 1983, p. 55. [78] Olivier 2006, p. 61. [79] Davesne 1994, p. 37, no. 1, pl. ii. [80] In ch 8 the hoard was dated to the mid-second century based on reported presence of coins of Ptolemy VI. Olivier 2012 observed that the third-century coins were very fresh and concluded that two separate hoards had been conﬔsed. 86 julien olivier & catharine lorber

V. ﬈e function of the Arsinoe mnaieia Troxell suggested that the Arsinoe mnaieia might actually have been introduced in 263/2, when the apomoira, a tax on orchards and vineyards, was imposed for the first time on kleroi and doreai to support the cult of Arsi- noe Philadelphus in Egyptian temples. [81] While the date for the introduction of the mnaieia may be correct, any implication that they were directly connected with the apomoira must be rejected. ﬈e Revenue Laws explicitly state that the apomoira was to support sacrifices and libations to the goddess Arsinoe Philadelphus. [82] ﬈is should have been a more-or-less fixed expense and cannot account for the extreme fluctuations in the size of the different issues of mnaieia. In his master’s thesis treating Ptolemaic gold coinage, J. Olivier cited the Egyptian circulation of the mnaieia and the religious aspect of their imagery; he found it tempting to propose that they were struck for the pay of priests and the support of various cults, but he did not exclude a role in court life, especially in the provision of gi﬇s and donatives. [83] ﬈e inaugural issue was surely significant in the sphere of royal ideo- logy, and the number of dies involved – three obverse and five reverse dies – should imply a relatively large production. Yet this emission survives in only 11 examples and its survival rate, while low, is not abnormally so when compared with other early issues. Two of the three obverse dies are each represented by only one mnaieion in the corpus, a possible indication that their lifetimes were very short, either because of defect or because they were not used to their ﬔll capacity. ﬈e presence of one unmarked mnaieion from this initial issue in the Aydıncık hoard, in association with jugate bust coins, suggests that mnaieia of Arsinoe Philadelphus could have played a role in financing the Second Syrian War or in paying garrisons in the Ptolemaic ex- ternal possessions. But because the bulk of the Aydıncık hoard disappeared without record, this possibility rests on the weak evidence of a single coin. A﬇er the first two issues, the production of Arsinoe mnaieia was sus- pended for a time, as can be deduced from the gap in the sequence of control letters. Even when production was resumed on a regular basis, the volume of the coinage remained low. ﬈e four issues marked A, Δ, E, and Z account for a mere 10 specimens in the corpus. ﬈e very low level of production is especially remarkable when we consider that these issues belong to the time of the Second Syrian War, whether dated by Troxell’s chronology or the alternative hypothesis of annual issues. Even if the inaugural issue of Arsinoe mnaieia may have contributed to the war finances, this can hardly have been the purpose of the series as a whole.

[81] P. Rev. Laws col. 36, ℓ. 18-19; Troxell 1983, p. 55; Clarysse & Vandorpe 1998; von Reden 2007, p. 95-102. [82] P. Rev. Laws col. 36, ℓ. 18-19. [83] Olivier 2006, p. 63. ptolemaic gold coinages 87

﬈e famous ‘letter of Demetrius’ (P. Cair. Zen. 59 021) can perhaps be interpreted in this context. It describes a situation in which foreign and Alexandrian merchants were unable to exchange their foreign coinage or demonetized trichrysa for new gold coinage. ﬈e text of the papyrus is unfortunately unclear about the reason why it was impossible to exchange adokimos coinage in the expected manner, and we are equally in the dark about the reasons for intermittent and low production of Arsinoe mnaieia in the early 250s. But the two may be related. It is particularly intriguing that the date of the letter, 24 October 258, corresponds to a period in which no Arsinoe mnaieia were struck according to the hypothetical annual chronology; even if Troxell’s chronology is preferred, this date would correspond to a period of low production. [84] Troxell regarded the Arsinoe mnaieia marked H and Θ as transitional between her Groups 2 and 3, and posited a reorganization of the coinage c. 253/2. ﬈e production of Arsinoe tetradrachms ceased with the variety marked Z, and the mnaieia marked H represent the ﬁrst variety that is not reverse die linked to a preceding or following variety. For the H and Θ issues the present study records 120 specimens, nearly six times the total for the preceding decade. In fact, the Θ issue alone, with 111 specimens, accounts for most of this increase while the H issue appears anticipatory. Both the reorganization of the coinage and the dramatic increase in volume suggest that the purpose of the mnaieia had changed. ﬈e Second Syrian War was formally concluded by a treaty negotiated at the end of 253. ﬈e army was demobilized and it was necessary to settle the veterans. Already in July 253, the king had visited Memphis, apparently to make the formal announcement of klerouchic grants of reclaimed land in the villages of the Fayum. [85] It seems very likely that the sudden dramatic increase in production of Arsinoe mnaieia was also related to the settlement of the veterans. Ptolemy Philadelphus may have followed the pharaonic tradition of rewarding his loyal troops with ‘gold of honor’ [86] or the klerouchic grants may be been accompanied by a cash gi﬇ to allow the klerouchs to build or purchase homes, make improvements to their land, and survive until their ﬁrst crops came in (in the case of orchards and vineyards, which were

[84] Against this, it may be objected that in ℓ. 5-7, Demetrius refers to having taken in 57,000 gold. According to the traditional interpretation of the text, he recoined the 57,000 gold into an equivalent quantity of new gold coinage. But Burkhalter 2007, p. 51-52, argued that the verb phrase κατεργασάμενος ἀπέδωκα refers not to recoining but to completing a conversion from one monetary system to another. And on p. 49-51, she demonstrated that the number ‘57,000 gold’ refers to the nominal value of the gold coins in silver drachms, thus to an amount equivalent to 570 mnaieia or 950 trichrysa. [85] Clarysse 1980, pp. 85, 88-89. [86] Binder 2008. 88 julien olivier & catharine lorber especially encouraged by royal tax policy, [87] it would have been some years before the plantings became productive). ﬈e use of a coinage honoring Arsinoe Philadelphus would have been appropriate in connection with the development of the new nome bearing her name, the Arsinoites. Troxell’s Group 3 includes the varieties marked I though Λ and accounts for 149 specimens in the present corpus. Troxell’s chronology, which spreads this coinage over a period of as much as eight years (c. 253/2-246?), implies that the pace of production slowed considerably a﬇er the remarkable spike c. 253/2. ﬈e hypothesis of annual issues, in contrast, would compress this coinage into the years 252/1-250/49, implying only a slight relaxation in the rate of production. We can plausibly assume that the mnaieia of these years, like the preceding Θ issue, were produced in connection with the reclamation of the Fayum and the settlement of veterans of the Second Syrian War, there and elsewhere in Egypt. ﬈is huge project was not accomplished in a single year. Kleon, the engineer in charge of land reclamation in the Fayum, was already active in 255/4 and his successor, ﬈eodoros, wrote to the hypo- dioiketes c. 249/8 to complain about delays in the payment of his salary and of the sums he dispensed to his staff in the field. [88] Troxell’s Group 4 covers the varieties marked M through O and accounts for just 24 coins in the corpus. ﬈is output reflects a sharp decline in the rate of production on either chronology (Troxell: 246?-242/1?; annual issues: 249/8-246/5). ﬈e low volume of Group 4 may indicate that land reclamation and the settlement of veterans had slowed significantly. ﬈e Ξ issue stands out as more ample, accounting for nearly three quarters of the coinage of Group 4. According to the hypothesis of annual issues it belongs to 247/6, the year of the accession of Ptolemy III; possibly the Ξ mnaieia were used for a limited accession donative. ﬈e lack of any second great spike in production comparable to the Θ issue suggests that mnaieia of Arsinoe Phila- delphus were not struck to finance the ﬈ird Syrian War or to reward its veterans. It should follow that the series of Arsinoe mnaieia ended before or shortly a﬇er the accession of Ptolemy III, as already suggested by J. Oli- vier’s elemental analyses.

[87] Clarysse & Vandorpe 1998, p. 18-19; von Reden 2007, p. 97; ﬈ompson 2008, p. 33. [88] P. Lond. vii, 2024; Monson 2012, p. 228-229. ﬈e pay in question was 300 drachms in cash for the chief engineer, together with a food stipend, and another 300 drachms and a food stipend for his staﬀ. Although Monson refers to these sums as a probable annual salary, he cites the same sum of 300 drachms as the monthly salary of the police chief in the Arsinoite nome. It is unthinkable that the police chief was remu- nerated at a rate twelve times higher than the chief engineer of this important royal project. ﬈eodoros received his salary in Alexandria, indicating that the chief engineer ranked high in the royal bureaucracy. Possibly he received the cash part of his salary in gold currency. ptolemaic gold coinages 89

VI. Catalogue of the die study No letter behind head (Sv. 408, pl. xv, 6) Troxell: 5 reverse dies – Specimens: Troxell 8, present study 11 Reverse die link to control letter A

1. 27.74 g a1 r1 Naville 1925? (Evans), 981; Hirsch xxv, 1909 (Phi- lipsen), 3188; Hamburger, 24/x/1898, 56. Sv. 408γ. Troxell nl1-a-1. Troxell 1983, pl. 3, 1. 2. 27.74 g a2 r2 Athens, Demetriou 187d. Sv. 408α pl. xv, 6. Troxell 1983, pl. 3, 2. 3. 27.8 g a3 r3 Coin Galleries, 20/iv/1961, 9. Troxell nl3-b-1. 4. 27.78 g a3 r3 Aydıncık hoard, 1974. A. Davesne, Le trésor d’Ay- dıncık 1974, in M. Amandy & G. Le Rider (eds.), Trésors et circulation monétaire en Anatolie antique (Paris: BnF, 1996), p. 37, no. 1, pl. ii. 5. 27.80 g a3 r3 Superior, 30/v/1995 (Egnew), 7988. 6. a3 r4 Provenance unknown; found in ans card ﬁle having fallen from ﬁle card. Troxell nl3-a-1. 7. 27.64 g a3 r4 Naville xvi, 1933, 1465; idem xv, vii/1930, 1169; Sotheby, 3-11/vii/1911 (Butler), 31. Troxell nl3-a-2. 8. 27.76 g a3 r4 nfa xxvi, 14/viii/1991, 119; idem viii, 6/vi/1980, 378. 9. 27.78 g a3 r4 Leu 54, 28/iv/1992, 188; Christie’s, 8/x/1985 (Pro- perty of a Lady), 386. 10. 27.70 g a3 r4 Christie’s, 8/x/1985 (Property of a Lady), 387. 11. n.w. a3 r5 Bullowa, 12-13/vi/1953, 497. Troxell nl3-c-1. Troxell 1983, pl. 3, 3. Same reverse die as A|r1.

A behind head (Sv. 419, pl. xv, 7) Troxell: 1 reverse die – Specimens: Troxell 1, present study 1 Reverse die link to issue with no control letter

12. 27.75 g A|a1 A|r1 Athens, Demetriou 183A. Sv. 419α pl. xv, 7. Same reverse die as r5 employed with unmarked issue.  Δ behind head (Sv. 434, pl. xv, 8) Troxell: 1 reverse die – Specimens: Troxell 1, present study 2 Reverse die link to control letter E

13. 27.63 g Δ|a1 Δ|r1 Glasgow. Hunterian p. 363, 8, pl. lxxxi, 6. Sv. 434α pl. xv, 8. Same reverse die as E|r1. 14. 27.75 g Δ|a1 Δ|r1 Goldberg 44, 10/ii/2008, 3681; Leu 42, 12/v/1987, 382.

E behind head (Sv. 443, pl. xv, 9) Troxell: 3 reverse dies – Specimens: Troxell 4, present study 4 Reverse die links to control letters Δand Z

15. 27.79 g E|a1 E|r1 Athens, Demetriou 184A. Sv. 443α pl. xv, 9. Same reverse die as Δ|r1 90 julien olivier & catharine lorber

16. 27.73 g E|a1 E|r1 Uncertain sale, 9/xi/1946, 11; Naville xvii, 1/x/1934 (Burrage et al.), 624. Troxell E-b-1. 17. n.w. E|a1 E|r1 Stack’s, 22-24/i/1953, 459. Troxell E-b-2. 18. 27.80 g E|a1 E|r2 Leu 54, 28/iv/1992, 190; Christie’s, 8/x/1985 (Pro- perty of a Lady), 389; Knobloch, iv/1969, c21; Na- ville vii, Geneva, 1924 (Bement ii), 1833. Clarence S. Bement collection, no. 334; Hirsch xxi, 1908 (We- ber), 4483. Sv. 443βTroxell E-a-1. Same reverse die as Z|r1 (Troxell Z-a).

Z behind head (Sv. 454, pl. xv, 10) Troxell: 1 reverse die – Specimens: Troxell 3, present study 3 Reverse die link to control letter E

19. 27.67 g Z|a1 Z|r1 Glasgow. Hunterian p. 363, 9. Sv. 454α pl. xv, 10. Same reverse die as E|r2 (Troxell E-a). 20. 27.77 g Z|a1 Z|r1 Glendining, 18-20/iv/1955, 42; Münzhandlung Basel iv, 1/x/1935, 979. Troxell Z-a-1. 21. 27.77 g Z|a1 Z|r1 nfa vi, 27/ii/1979, 429; idem iv, 24/iii/1977, 447; Stack’s, 10-11/vi/1970, 670; mmag fpl 258,/x/1965, 18. Troxell Z-a-3.

H behind head (Sv. 459, pl. xv, 11) Troxell: 4 reverse dies. Present study: 4 reverse dies – Specimens: Troxell 5, present study 9

22. 27.78 g H|a1 H|r1 Naville xvii, 1/x/1934 (Burrage et al.), 625. Troxell H-a-1. 23. 27.62 g H|a1 H|r1 Glasgow. Hunterian p. 363, 10, pl. lxxxi, 7. Sv. 459γ 24. 27.77 g H|a1 H|r2 Athens, Demetriou 184b. Sv. 459β pl. xv, 11. 25. 27.27 g H|a1 H|r2 Boston, mfab 2267; J. Sambon, 26/iii/1889, 1850. Troxell H-b-1. 26. 27.80 g H|a1 H|r2 Meister & Sonntag 6, 1-2/x/2003, 156. 27. 27.75 g H|a1 H|r2 Triton xiii, 5/i/2010, 233. 28. 27.75 g H|a1 H|r3 nac 23, 19/iii/2002, 1308; Hess-Leu, 27/iii/1955, 337. Troxell H-c-1 29. n.w. H|a1 H|r4 Benha 2. Troxell H-d-1. 30. 27.71 g H|a1 H|r4 Christie’s, 8/x/1985 (Property of a Lady), 390. Possi- bly the Benha hoard specimen, but this is not certain.

Θ behind head (Sv. 460, pl. xv, 12) Troxell: 24 reverse dies. Present study: 34 reverse dies – Specimens: Troxell 42, present study 111 Two reverse die links to control letter I

31. 27.69 g Θ|a1 Θ|r1 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. 1.1). 32. 27.76 g Θ|a1 Θ|r1 Helios 1, 17-18/iv/2008, 184. 33. 27.80 g Θ|a1 Θ|r1 Berk 162, 15/i/2009, 7. 34. Θ|a1 Θ|r1 cng xvi, 230. cng 11, 134. ptolemaic gold coinages 91

35. 27.77 g Θ|a1 Θ|r2 Freeman & Sear Manhattan Sale 1, 5/i/2010, 123; Freeman & Sear fpl 11, Spring/Summer 2006, 66; lhs 95, 25/x/2005, 748. 36. Θ|a1 Θ|r2 Ciani-Vinchon, 6-8/ii/1956 (Hindamian), 675. Troxell Θ-t-1. 37. 27.79 g Θ|a1 Θ|r2 Tkalec, 29/ii/2008, 433. 38. 27.78 g Θ|a1 Θ|r3 nfa Fall Mail Bid Sale 1990, 18/x/1990, 1008. 39. 27.72 g Θ|a1 Θ|r4 Vinchon, 27/x/2000, 259; idem, Monte Carlo, 23- 24/iv/1976, 199. Troxell Θ-b-2. 40. 27.67 g Θ|a1 Θ|r4 M.G. Lee, 10-11/v/1954, 661. Troxell Θ-b-1. 41. Θ|a1 Θ|r4 Hess-Leu 45, 404. 42. 27.79 g Θ|a1 Θ|r5 Lanz 76, 18/v/1996, 297. 43. 27.72 g Θ|a1 Θ|r5 Triton xv, 3/i/2012, 1313. 44. 27.74 g Θ|a1 Θ|r5 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. g8800). 45. 27.82 g Θ|a1 Θ|r6 Hess-Divo 309, 28/iv/2008, 92. 46. Θ|a1 Θ|r6 Vinchon, 10-11/v/1979, 3. 47. 27.80 g Θ|a1 Θ|r7 Paris. Pellerin, Rois, p. 41. Mionnet vi, 14, 124. Lenormant pl. 85, 5. Sv. 460β 48. 27.75 g Θ|a1 Θ|r7 Künker 216, 8/x/2012, 565; ska Zürich fpl 28, spring 1979, 70; Hess, 14/iv/1954, 196. Jameson 1811. Troxell Θ-h-1. 49. 27.68 g Θ|a1 Θ|r7 New York, inv. 1980.109.102. Bequest of Arthur J. Fecht, 3/iv/1980. Naville i, 14/iii/1921 (Pozzi), 3222. Troxell Θ-h-2. 50. 27.68 g Θ|a1 Θ|r7 Schulman, 24/xi/1913 (Kreling), 996. Troxell Θ-h-3. 51. Θ|a1 Θ|r7 Leu 28, 5-6/v/1982, 217. 52. 27.74 g Θ|a1 Θ|r7 Rauch 82, 23/iv/2008, 19. 53. Θ|a1 Θ|r7 Tkalec, 8/ix/2008, 45. 54. 27.67 g Θ|a1 Θ|r7 Berk 171, 27/x/2010, 19; idem 169, 1/vi/2010, 54. 55. 27.67 g Θ|a1 Θ|r8 mmag xxv, 17/xi/1962, 491. Troxell Θ-n-1. 56. 27.76 g Θ|a1 Θ|r9 Triton ix, 10/i/2006, 1076; Classical Numismatic Re- view xxvi, Summer 2001, 68; Stack’s, 5/xii/2000, 19. 57. Θ|a1 Θ|r9 mmag 41, 18-19/vi/1970, 320. 58. 27.59 g Θ|a1 Θ|r9 Künker 153, 14/iii/2009, 8418; ubs 78, 9/ix/2008, 1066. 59. 27.78 g Θ|a1 Θ|r9 Berk 168, 16/iii/2010, 29. 60. 27.74 g Θ|a1 Θ|r9 Vinchon, 23/i/2001, 9; idem, Monte Carlo, 7-8/xi/ 1977, 16; idem, 24/xi/1969, 147. Troxell Θ-k-2. 61. Θ|a1 Θ|r9 Hess 247, 203. Sotheby, 1900 (Late Collector), 468, pl. x. Sv. 460ιθ Troxell Θ-k-1. 62. n.w. Θ|a1 Θ|r9 Vinchon, 29-30/x/1973, 35. Troxell Θ-k-3. 63. 27.82 g Θ|a1 Θ|r9 Hess-Leu 22, 4/iv/1963, 102. Troxell Θ-k-4. 64. 27.74 g Θ|a1 Θ|r9 Gemini iv, 8/i/2008, 271. 65. 27.66 g Θ|a1 Θ|r9 cng 84, 5/v/2010, 760. 66. 27.52 g Θ|a1 Θ|r9 ﬈e Holyland for Ancient Coins & Antiques on VCoins, 15/vi/2010, 4769. 67. 27.75 g Θ|a1 Θ|r9 Triton xv, 3/i/2012, 1312. 68. 27.83 g Θ|a1 Θ|r10 Naville xiii, 1928 (Allatini et al.), 943. Troxell Θ-e-1. 69. 27.85 g Θ|a1 Θ|r10 Glendining, 27/v/1938, 94. Troxell Θ-e-2. 70. 27.78 g Θ|a1 Θ|r10 Olivier Chaponnière mbs 4, 26/xi/2007, 10. 71. 27.73 g Θ|a1 Θ|r11 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. 2.10). 72. 27.70 g Θ|a1 Θ|r11 Paris. Sv. 460ς 92 julien olivier & catharine lorber

73. 27.78 g Θ|a1 Θ|r11 Triton vii, 13-14/i/2004, 377; idem ii, 1-2/xii/1998, 527; nfa xxv, 29/xi/1990, 284; Leu-mmag, 3-4/xii/ 1965 (Niggeler), 520. 74. 27.72 g Θ|a1 Θ|r11 Hess-Divo 271, 4/vi/1997, 6; Giessener Münzhand- lung 60, 5/x/1992, 307; Myers, 11-12/v/1972, 179. Troxell Θ-i-2. 75. 27.72 g Θ|a1 Θ|r12 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. 2.7). 76. 27.75 g Θ|a1 Θ|r12 Berk 159, 3/vi/2008, 7 (inv. 2.8). 77. 27.75 g Θ|a1 Θ|r13 Athens, Demetriou 184. Sv. 460α pl. xv, 12. 78. 27.71 g Θ|a1 Θ|r13 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. g8798). 79. 27.74 g Θ|a1 Θ|r13 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. 4.1). 80. 27.76 g Θ|a1 Θ|r13 New York, inv. 1967.152.624. Bequest of Adra Marshall Newell. Sotheby, 5/vii/1909 (Hazlitt), 36. Troxell Θ-q-1. 81. 27.75 g Θ|a1 Θ|r13 Historisches Museum Frankﬔrt am Main, inv. 1787. Noeske no. 39. 82. 27.70 g Θ|a1 Θ|r13 cng 76/1, 12/ix/2007, 875. 83. 27.63 g Θ|a1 Θ|r13 Künker 136, 10/iii/2008, 760. 84. 27.71 g Θ|a1 Θ|r13 Gorny & Mosch 169, 12/x/2008, 165. 85. 27.80 g Θ|a1 Θ|r13 Goldberg 53, 24/v/2009, 1724. 86. Θ|a1 Θ|r13 Vinchon, 15/xi/1965, 295. Troxell Θ-q-3. 87. Θ|a1 Θ|r13 Vinchon, 24-25/xi/1994, 157. 88. 27.83 g Θ|a1 Θ|r13 Leu 54, 28/iv/1992, 191; nfa xxii, 1/vi/1989, 376; idem xiv, 29/xi/1984, 215; Hess-Leu 36, 17/iv/1968, 380. 89. 27.70 g Θ|a1 Θ|r13 Münzhandlung Ritter GmbH on VCoins, 15/vi/2010, 43964. 90. Θ|a1 Θ|r13 Naville i, Geneva, 14/iii/1921 (Pozzi), 3221. Troxell Θ-q-2. 91. 27.76 g Θ|a1 Θ|r14 Triton xii, 6-7/i/2009, 386. 92. 27.71 g Θ|a1 Θ|r14 nac 52, 7/x/2009, 192. 93. 27.71 g Θ|a1 Θ|r14 Peus 374, 23/iv/2003, 202. 94. 27.81 g Θ|a1 Θ|r14 Hess-Leu, 7/iv/1960, 261. Troxell Θ-r-1. 95. 27.70 g Θ|a1 Θ|r15 Hirsch xxxiii, 17/xi/1913, 953. Troxell Θ-s-1. 96. 27.63 g Θ|a1 Θ|r16 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. 1.2). 97. 27.70 g Θ|a1 Θ|r16 Triton xv, 3/i/2012, 1314. 98. 27.77g Θ|a1 Θ|r17 St. James’s Auction 12, 5/xi/2009, 907; mmag 54, 26/ x/1978, 398; idem 37, 20/x/1966, 181. Troxell Θ-g-2. 99. Θ|a1 Θ|r17 J. Schulman, 1-4/iii/1962, 1292. Troxell Θ-g-1. 100. 27.66 g Θ|a1 Θ|r17 ﬈e Holyland for Coins & Antiques on VCoins, 12/i/2011. 101. 27.77 g Θ|a1 Θ|r17 cng 88, 14/ix/2011, 547. 102. 27.75 g Θ|a1 Θ|r18 Christie’s, 8/x/1985, 391. 103. 27.96 g Θ|a1 Θ|r18 Nomos 3, 10/v/2011, 155. 104. 27.80 g Θ|a1 Θ|r18 Canessa iii, 28/vi/1923 (Caruso), 98. Troxell Θ-l-i. 105. 27.73 g Θ|a1 Θ|r18 cng 87, 18/v/2011, 698. 106. 27.635 g Θ|a1 Θ|r19 Künker 124, 16/iii/2007, 7538; Stack’s, 8-9/ix/1988, 591; Coin Galleries fpl 2, iii-iv/1960, g242; Hess, x/1907 (Berlin duplicates), 1484. Troxell Θ-c-1. 107. 27.73 g Θ|a1 Θ|r20 Triton viii, 11/i/2005, 583; Lanz 102, 28/v/2001, 340. 108. 27.70 g Θ|a1 Θ|r21 Berk 165, 28/vii/2009, 17. 109. 27.83 g Θ|a1 Θ|r22 Berk 162, 15/i/2009, 6. 110. 27.63 g Θ|a1 Θ|r23 cng e-Auction 225, 13/i/2010, 183. ptolemaic gold coinages 93

111. 27.76 g Θ|a1 Θ|r23 Triton xiv, 4/i/2011, 389. 112. 27.74 g Θ|a1 Θ|r24 Freeman & Sear mbs 16, 5/vi/2009, 242; Ponterio 148, 9/i/2009, 405. 113. 27.79 g Θ|a1 Θ|r24 Cahn 75, 30/v/1932, 429. Troxell Θ-p-1. 114. 27.64 g Θ|a1 Θ|r25 ubs 83, 8/ix/2009, 38. 115. 27.73 g Θ|a1 Θ|r25 Gorny & Mosch 190, 11/x/2010, 384. 116. 27.76 g Θ|a1 Θ|r25 cng 90, 23/v/2012, 768; Dix Noonan Webb, 22/vi/ 2011, 1039. 117. 27.73 g Θ|a1 Θ|r25 Santamaria, 12-13/x/1949, 101; A. Hess, 15/ii/1934, 523; Hess 1931, 784. Troxell Θ-m-1. 118. 27.80 g Θ|a1 Θ|r26 Copenhagen, sng Copenhagen 134. Sv. 460θ 119. 27.74 g Θ|a1 Θ|r26 Berk 179, 24/v/2012, 35; idem 176, 8/ix/2011, 13; idem 173, 15/iii/2011, 41. 120. 27.73 g Θ|a1 Θ|r26 Ingemar Wallin Mynthandel on VCoins, 20/viii/ 2010. 121. 27.54 g Θ|a1 Θ|r27 Gemini v, 6/i/2009, 690. 122. 27.74 g Θ|a1 Θ|r27 Goldberg 67, 31/i/2012, 3241. 123. 27.72 g Θ|a1 Θ|r28 Bourgey, 24-25/vi/1975, 28. Troxell Θ-d-1. 124. 27.88 g Θ|a1 Θ|r28 Heritage 397, 9/i/2006, 12040. 125. 27.69 g Θ|a1 Θ|r28 cng 88, 14/ix/2011, 548. 126. 27.76 g Θ|a1 Θ|r29 Berlin 1845/4364. 127. 27.71 g Θ|a1 Θ|r30 Gorny & Mosch Stuttgart 1, 22/xi/2010, 321. 128. 27.74 g Θ|a1 Θ|r30 Naville xvii, 1/x/1934 (Burrage et al.), 626. Troxell Θ-a-1. 129. 27.80 g Θ|a1 Θ|r30 Piollet Sabatier, 25/v/1975, 35. Troxell Θ-a-2. 130. 27.72 g Θ|a1 Θ|r30 Heritage 3019, 26/iv/2012, 23196. 131. 27.58 g Θ|a1 Θ|r31 Münzhandlung Basel iv, 1/x/1935, 980; Sotheby 1898 (Bunbury ii), 688. Troxell Θ-f-1. 132. n.w. Θ|a1 Θ|r31 Lanz 151, 30/vi/2011, 542. 133. 427 gr Θ|a1 Θ|r32 Sotheby, 1918 (An Artist and Well-Known Ama- teur), 4. Troxell Θ-o-1. 134. 27.78 g Θ|a1 Θ|r33 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. g8799). 135. 27.80 g Θ|a1 Θ|r33 mmag xix, 5-6/vi/1959, 581. Troxell Θ-u-1. Same reverse die as I-r1 (Troxell I1-a). 136. 27.71 g Θ|a1 Θ|r33 nac 46, 2/iv/2008, 306. 137. 27.76 g Θ|a1 Θ|r33 Leu 36, 7-8/v/1985, 210. 138. Θ|a1 Θ|r34 cng 2, 199. Same reverse die as I|r2. 139. Θ|a1 Θ|r34 Vinchon, 25-26/ii/1980, 71; idem, 10-11/v/1979, 4 (mounted). 140. 27.74 g Θ|a1 Θ|r34 New York, inv. 1964.79.58. Gi﬇ of Horace and Harry Havemayer, ii/1964. Troxell Θ-x-1. 141. 27.73 g Θ|a1 Θ|r34 Nomos 5, 25/x/2011, 208.

I behind head (Sv. 471, pl. xv, 13) Troxell: 4 reverse dies. Present study: 10 reverse dies – Specimens: Troxell 7, present study 29 Two reverse die links to control letter Θ

142. 27.74 g I|a1 I|r1 Vinchon, 14-15/iii/1989, 15; idem, Monte Carlo, 23-26/iv/1976, 200. Troxell I1-a-1. Same reverse die as Θ|r32Troxell Θ-u) 94 julien olivier & catharine lorber

143. 27.71 g I|a2 I|r2 cng 76/1, 12/ix/2007, 876. Same reverse die as Θ|r33(Troxell Θ-x) 144. 27.69 g I|a2 I|r2 Goldberg 44, 10/ii/2008, 3682. 145. I|a2 I|r2 Vinchon, 15/xi/1989, 136. 146. 27.76 g I|a2 I|r3 Heritage 3015, 7/ix/2011, 23172 (mounted) (inv. g8803). 147. 27.70 g I|a2 I|r3 Berk 164, 20/iii/2009, 10. 148. 27.63 g I|a2 I|r4 nfa xx, 9/iii/1988, 819; Leu 36, 7-8/v/1985, 211. 149. I|a2 I|r4 Vinchon, 15/xi/1986, 6. 150. 27.80 g I|a2 I|r4 Triton xv, 3/i/2012, 1315. 151. 27.70.g I|a2 I|r5 Paris. Sv. 471γ 152. I|a2 I|r5 Coin Galleries fpl 2, 1972, b346; idem, 20/iv/196x, 10; Naville xvii, 1/x/1934 (Burrage et al.), 627. Troxell I2-a-1. 153. 27.7 g I|a2 I|r5 Frankﬔrter Münzhandlung 113, 16-18/i/1967, 16; Hess-Leu 28, 5-6/v/1965, 311; Ciani 1924 (Barra- chin), 300. Troxell I2-a-2. 154. 27.70 g I|a2 I|r5 Ciani 1936 (de Luynes), 3562. Troxell I2-a-3. 155. 27.33 g I|a2 I|r5 Gorny & Mosch 190, 11/x/2010, 385. 156. 27.71 g I|a2 I|r5 Gorny & Mosch 195, 7/iii/2011, 315. 157. 27.70 g I|a2 I|r6 Athens, Demetriou 185. Sv. 471αpl. xv, 13. 158. 27.76 g I|a2 I|r6 Paris, Beistegui 47. Sv. 471β 159. 27.81 g I|a2 I|r6 Superior, 6-7/xii/1991, 561; idem, 1-2/xii/1990, 2311. 160. 27.70 g I|a2 I|r6 Superior, 10-11/xii/1988 (Moreira), 2178. 161. 27.79 g I|a2 I|r6 ubs 61, 14/ix/2004, 4450. 162. 27.68 g I|a2 I|r7 Berk 169, 1/vi/2010, 55. 163. 27.64 g I|a2 I|r8 cng 82, 5/v/2010, 761. 164. 27.76 g I|a2 I|r8 Hess-Divo 317, 27/x/2010, 366. 165. 27.73 g I|a2 I|r9 Berk 168, 16/iii/2010, 30. 166. 27.74 g I|a2 I|r9 Goldberg 70, 4/ix/2012, 3158. 167. 27.72 g I|a2 I|r10 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. 8802). 168. I|a2 I|r10 nfa viii, 6/vi/1980, 380. 169. 27.78 g I|a2 I|r10 Triton xiii, 5/i/2010, 234. 170. I|a2 I|r10 Benha 5. Troxell I2-c-1.

K behind head (Sv. 475, pl. xv, 14) Obverse die is same as for Sv. 471. Troxell: 17 reverse dies. Present study: 24 reverse dies – Specimens: Troxell 32, present study 80

171. 27.84 g K|a1 K|r1 New York, inv. 1935.117.1085. 172. 27.72 g K|a1 K|r1 Berk 174, 10/v/2011, 21. 173. 27.79 g K|a1 K|r2 New York Sale xx, 7/i/2009, 344. 174. 27.63 g K|a1 K|r2 Künker 111, 18/iii/2006, 6344; lhs 95, 25/x/2005, 749. 175. 27.80 g K|a1 K|r2 Elsen 80, 12/vi/2004, 317; idem 51, 13/ix/1997, 227. 176. 27.72 g K|a1 K|r2 Hess-Divo 311, 22/x/2008, 442. 177. 27.78 g K|a1 K|r2 Berk 169, 1/vi/2010, 56. 178. 27.82 g K|a1 K|r3 Glendining, 21-22/ix/1960, 851; Naville 1922 (Grand Duke Mikhailovich, Evans), 982; Morgen- thau 322, 12/i/1934, 430. Troxell K-a-1. ptolemaic gold coinages 95

179. 27.73 g K|a1 K|r4 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. 3.8). 180. 27.72 g K|a1 K|r4 Ponterio 160, 16/viii/2011, 21560 (mounted); Stack’s, 11/i/2010, 184. 181. 27.68 g K|a1 K|r4 Naville xvii, 1/x/1934 (Burrage et al.), 628. Troxell K-e-1. 182. 27.64 g K|a1 K|r5 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. 1.3). 183. 27.78 g K|a1 K|r5 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. g8807). 184. 27.80 g K|a1 K|r5 Naville i, 14/iii/1921 (Pozzi), 3223. Troxell K-i-1. 185. 27.92 g K|a1 K|r5 Peus 270, 10-12/vi/1969, 105. 186. 27.70 g K|a1 K|r5 Künker 104, 27/ix/2005, 344. 187. 27.77 g K|a1 K|r5 Berk 171, 28/x/2010, 18; Heritage 3010, 12/viii/2010, 20083. 188. 27.79 g K|a1 K|r6 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. g8804). 189. 27.73 g K|a1 K|r6 Boston, mfab no. 2268. 190. 27.77 g K|a1 K|r6 New York, inv. 1957.191.42. 191. 27.76 g K|a1 K|r7 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. 4.2). 192. 27.72 g K|a1 K|r7 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. g8808). 193. 27.81 g K|a1 K|r7 Berlin 1866/28754, object no. 18217867. Sv. 475ζ. 194. 27.78 g K|a1 K|r7 cng 90, 23/v/2012, 769. 195. 27.74 g K|a1 K|r7 Roma 3, 31/iii/2012, 340. 196. 27.78 g K|a1 K|r8 Athens, Demetriou fcd 202. Sv. 475α, pl. xv, 14. 197. 27.81 g K|a1 K|r8 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. g8805). 198. 27.77 g K|a1 K|r8 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. g8806). 199. 27.70 g K|a1 K|r8 Canessa iii, 28/vi/1923 (Caruso), 97; Rollin et Feu- ardent, 9/v/1910 (Duruﬂé), 676. Troxell K-b-1. 200. 27.65 g K|a1 K|r8 mmag fpl 185, xi-xii/1958, 350. Troxell K-b-2. 201. 27.76 g K|a1 K|r9 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. g8810). 202. 27.82 g K|a1 K|r9 Berk 176, 8/ix/2011, 14; idem 174 10/v/2011, 20. 203. 27.82 g K|a1 K|r9 Hirsch xxxiii, 17/xi/1913, 954. Troxell K-h-1. 204. 27.75 g K|a1 K|r10 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. g8809). 205. 27.72 g K|a1 K|r10 Spink, 15-16/ii/1977, 181. Troxell K-k-1. 206. K|a1 K|r10 Vinchon, 25-26/v/1998, 74. 207. 27.769 g K|a1 K|r11 New York, inv. 1980.109.103. Bequest of Arthur J. Fecht, 3/iv/1980. 208. 27.75 g K|a1 K|r11 Ponterio 146, 25/iv/2008, 1321. 209. 27.74 g K|a1 K|r11 nac 59, 4/iv/2011, 1703. 210. 27.78 g K|a1 K|r12 Freeman & Sear mbs 15, 27/vi/2008, 221 (inv. g8819). 211. 27.72 g K|a1 K|r12 Hirsch 271, 17/ii/2011, 2113; Heritage 3010, 12/viii/ 2010, 20084. 212. 27.70 g K|a1 K|r13 Künker 62, 13/iii/2001, 175; Vinchon, 26/x/1964, 7; idem, 20/xi/1961, 165. Troxell K-d-1. 213. K|a1 K|r13 Serrure, 28/iii/1906, 373. Troxell K-d-2. 214. K|a1 K|r13 New York. Bourgey, 3/xii/1928 127. Troxell K-d-3. 215. 27.75 g K|a1 K|r13 Heritage 3010, 12/viii/2010, 20082. 216. 27.74 g K|a1 K|r13 Berk 180, 16/viii/2012, 34; idem 173, 15/iii/2011, 42. 217. 27.77 g K|a1 K|r13 nac 59, 4/iv/2011, 1702. 218. 27.74 g K|a1 K|r13 Berk 175, 7/vii/2011, 58. 219. 27.83 g K|a1 K|r13 New York, inv. 1944.100.75924. Bequest of Edward T. Newell. 220. 27.65 g K|a1 K|r13 Künker 136, 10/iii/2008, 761. 221. 27.59 g K|a1 K|r13 Künker 153, 14/iii/2009, 8419; ubs 78, 9/ix/2008, 1067. 96 julien olivier & catharine lorber

222. 27.86 g K|a1 K|r14 cng 60, 22/v/2002, 997. 223. 27.68 g K|a1 K|r14 Rauch 67, 26/ii/2001, 116; Hirsch 85, 6-9/xi/1973, 4195; H.M.F. Schulman, 18-21/iii/1964, 85. Troxell K-f-3. 224. 27.70 g K|a1 K|r14 mmag 41, 18-19/vi/1970, 304. Troxell K-f-6. 225. 27.8 g K|a1 K|r14 Hirsch xxxii, 22-24/x/1912, 2486. Troxell K-f-1. 226. 27.75 g K|a1 K|r14 Grabow, 9/vii/1930, 589. Troxell K-f-2. 227. 27.76 g K|a1 K|r14 Kricheldorf, 20-21/vi/1958, 149. Troxel K-f-4. 228. K|a1 K|r14 H. Schulman, 26-28/iii (ii?)/1973, 5. Troxell K-f-5. 229. K|a1 K|r15 Vinchon, 29/iv/1974 (Peyreﬁtte), 120. 230. 27.77 g K|a1 K|r16 Vinchon, 17/xi/1958, 105. Troxell K-l-1. 231. 27.71 g K|a1 K|r16 Berk 168, 16/iii/2010, 28. 232. 27.73 g K|a1 K|r16 Berk 177, 15/xi/2011, 31. 233. 27.78 g K|a1 K|r16 Leu 77, 11-12/v/2000, 383. 234. K|a1 K|r17 Vinchon, 24-25/xi/1994, 170. 235. 27.67 g K|a1 K|r17 Superior, 1-2/xii/1990, 2312. 236. 27.74 g K|a1 K|r18 Sternberg xix, 18-19/xi/1987, 248; Hirsch xxxiii, 17/xi/1913, 955. Troxell K-g-1. 237. 27.72 g K|a1 K|r18 cng on VCoins, 15/vi/2010, 868977. 238. 27.71 g K|a1 K|r18 Ponterio 155, 6/xi/2010, 703. 239. 27.84 g K|a1 K|r19 Berk 163, 25/iii/2009, 16. 240. 27.70 g K|a1 K|r19 Berk 164, 20/v/2009, 11. 241. 27.64 g K|a1 K|r19 Heritage 3010, 12/viii/2010, 20085; Helios 2, 25/xi/ 2008, 305. 242. 27.75 g K|a1 K|r19 Klassische Münzen on VCoins, 11/ii/2013, sku 110608. cng 87, 18/v/2011, 699. 243. 27.75 g K|a1 K|r19 Heritage 3020, 6/ix/2012, 25037; Goldberg 67, 31/i/ 2012, 3242. 244. 27.75 g K|a1 K|r20 Hess, x/1907 (Berlin duplicates), 1486. Troxell K-j-1. 245. K|a1 K|r20 London, bmc 10, pl. viii, 4. Sv. 475ε Troxell K-j-2. 246. 27.75 g K|a1 K|r20 Rauch 82, 23/iv/2008, 110. 247. 27.72 g K|a1 K|r21 Münzhandlung Ritter GmbH on VCoins, 15/vi/ 2010, 43965. 248. 27.80 g K|a1 K|r22 Bourgey, 6-7/v/1971, 119 (120 on plate). Troxell K-c-1. 249. 27.75 g K|a1 K|r23 Baldwin’s 75, 26/ix/2012, 2241. 250. 27.72 g K|a1 K|r24 cng 69, 8/vi/2005, 725.

Λ behind head (Sv. 476, pl. xv, 15) Troxell: 9 reverse dies. Present study: 15 reverse dies – Specimens: Troxell 11, present study 40

251. 27.75 g Λ|a1 Λ|r1 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. 8812). 252. 27.71 g Λ|a1 Λ|r1 Triton xiii, 6/i/2010, 1355. 253. Λ|a1 Λ|r2 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (2089.jpg). 254. 27.78 g Λ|a1 Λ|r2 mmag, 28/iv/1972, 166. Troxell Λ-a-1. 255. 27.80 g Λ|a1 Λ|r3 Athens, Demetriou 187A. Sv. 476α pl. xv, 15. 256. 27.75 g Λ|a1 Λ|r3 Berlin, 1873 Fox, object no. 18203063. Sv. 476β 257. Λ|a1 Λ|r3 Sotheby 1929 (Pritchard), 98. Troxell Λ-f-1. 258. 27.75 g Λ|a1 Λ|r3 Vilmar on VCoins, 19/i/2011. 259. 27.70 g Λ|a1 Λ|r4 Heritage 3015, 7/ix/2011, 23171 (mounted). 260. 27.77 g Λ|a1 Λ|r4 Gorny & Mosch 180, 12/x/2009, 253. ptolemaic gold coinages 97

261. 27.76 g Λ|a1 Λ|r4 Vilmar on VCoins, 15/vi/2010, 4102. 262. 27.73 g Λ|a1 Λ|r4 Baldwin’s 75, 26/ix/2012, 2242. 263. 27.78 g Λ|a1 Λ|r5 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. 1.4). 264. 27.72 g Λ|a1 Λ|r5 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. g8811). 265. 27.80 g Λ|a1 Λ|r5 Berk 164, 20/v/2009, 12. 266. 27.73 g Λ|a1 Λ|r5 Hess-Divo 314, 4/v/2009, 1255. 267. 27.74 g Λ|a1 Λ|r5 Heritage 3005, 29/v/2009, 20042. 268. 27.74 g Λ|a1 Λ|r5 Helios 6, 9/iii/2011, 78. 269. 27.70 g Λ|a1 Λ|r6 New York Sale xvii, 9/i/2008, 130; Künker 125, 19/vi/2007, 17. 270. 27.72 g Λ|a1 Λ|r6 Künker 216, 8/x/2012, 567; Hess-Divo 320, 26/x/ 2011, 270; idem 317, 27/x/2010, 367. 271. 27.77 g Λ|a1 Λ|r6 Cahn 75, 30/v/1932, 430. Troxell Λ-d-1. 272. 27.70 g Λ|a1 Λ|r6 Naville i (Pozzi), 3224. Troxell Λ-d-2. 273. 27.80 g Λ|a1 Λ|r6 Glendining, 27/v/1936, 95. Troxell Λ-d-3. 274. 27.721 g Λ|a1 Λ|r6 Leu 30, 28/iv/1982, 220. Troxell Λ-d-4. 275. 27.72 g Λ|a1 Λ|r6 Hauck & Aufhäuser 16, 16-17/x/2001, 213. 276. Λ|a1 Λ|r7 Vinchon, 17-18/xii/1996, 130; idem, Monte Carlo, 13/iv/1985, 415. 277. 27.75 g Λ|a1 Λ|r8 Hess 249, 250. Auctiones 11, 20/ix-1/x/1980, 244. 278. Λ|a1 Λ|r8 Münzhandlung Ritter on VCoins, 11/ii/2013, sku 57145. 279. 27.74 g Λ|a1 Λ|r9 Vinchon, Monte Carlo, 23-24/iv/1976, 201. Troxell Λ-b-1. 280. Λ|a1 Λ|r10 cng 40, 1143; idem 36, 2140. 281. 27.78 g Λ|a1 Λ|r11 Giessener Münzhandlung 82, 29/iv/1997, 172; Leu 59, 17/v/1994, 160; Sotheby’s, New York, vi/1991 (Hunt iv), 500; mmag xxv, 17/xi/1962, 492. Troxell Λ-e-1. 282. Λ|a1 Λ|r12 Christie’s, 27/xi/1962, 172. Troxell Λ-c-1. 283. 27.78 g Λ|a1 Λ|r12 Stack’s, 10-12/vi/1996, 40. 284. 27.71 g Λ|a1 Λ|r13 London, bmc 11. Sv. γ Troxell Λ-h-1. 285. 27.80 g Λ|a1 Λ|r13 cng e-Auction 221, 28/x/2009, 416. 286. 27.72 g Λ|a1 Λ|r13 Berk 176, 8/ix/2011, 15. 287. 27.62 g Λ|a1 Λ|r14 Schweizerische Bankverein, 16/x/1979, 325. 288. 27.73 g Λ|a1 Λ|r14 Gorny & Mosch 190, 11/x/2010, 386. 289. 27.76 g Λ|a1 Λ|r15 Berk 173, 15/iii/2011, 43. 290. 27.76 g Λ|a1 Λ|r15 Goldberg 67, 31/i/2012, 3243.

M behind head (Sv. 486, pl. xv, 16) Troxell: 3 reverse dies. Present study: 4 reverse dies – Specimens: Troxell 3, present study 5 Reverse die link to control letter Ξ

291. 27.72 g M|a1 M|r1 Hirsch 275, 22/ix/2011, 4132. nac 10, 9/iv/1997, 261. 292. 27.80 g M|a1 M|r1 Tradart, 12/xii/1991, 212; Hirsch 179, 712; Christie’s, 9/x/1984, 279. 293. 27.79 g M|a1 M|r2 Boston, mfab no. 2269. Warren 1326. Troxell M-a-1. 294. 27.80 g M|a1 M|r3 Athens, Demetriou 187b. Sv. 486α, pl. xv, 16. 295. M|a1 M|r4 Benha 8. Troxell M-b-1. Same reverse die as Ξ|r1 (Troxell Ξ-a). 98 julien olivier & catharine lorber

N behind head (Sv. –) Troxell: 1 reverse die. Present study: 1 reverse die – Specimens: Troxell 1, present study 1 Reverse die link to control letter Ξ

296. 27.76 g N|a1 N|r1 mmag xi, 23/i/1953, 88. Troxell N-a-1. Same reverse die as Ξ|r2 (Troxell Ξ -c).

Ξ behind head (Sv. 489, pl. xv, 17) Troxell: 6 reverse dies. Present study: 8 reverse dies – Specimens: Troxell 13, present study 17 Reverse die links to control letters M and N

297. 27.81 g Ξ|a1 Ξ|r1 Athens, Demetriou 187c. Sv. 489α pl. xv, 17. Same reverse die as M|r4 (Troxell M-b). 298. Ξ|a1 Ξ|r1 Hess-Leu 28, 5-6/v/1965, 312. Troxell Ξ-a-1. 299. 27.68 g Ξ|a1 Ξ|r1 Künker 216, 8/x/2012, 568; Vinchon, 2-4/iii/1973, 520. Troxell Ξ-a-2. 300. 27.66 g Ξ|a1 Ξ|r1 Triton xiii, 6/i/2010, 1356. 301. 27.77 g Ξ|a1 Ξ|r2 Leu 18, 5/v/1977, 273; Münzhandlung Basel iv, 1/x/ 1935, 981. Troxell Ξ-c-1. Same reverse die as N|r1 (Troxell N-a). 302. 27.71 g Ξ|a1 Ξ|r3 Recorded from commerce in 2007 (inv. 1.5). 303. 27.7 g Ξ|a1 Ξ|r3 Schlessinger 13 (Hermitage, 1935), 1576. Troxell Ξ-e-1. 304. Ξ|a1 Ξ|r3 Vinchon, 29-30/x/1973, 34. Troxell Ξ-e-2. 305. 27.82 g Ξ|a1 Ξ|r3 Naville xvii, 1/x/1934 (Burrage et al.), 629. Troxell Ξ-e-3. 306. 27.70 g Ξ|a1 Ξ|r4 Berk 164, 20/v/2009, 13. 307. 27.79 g Ξ|a1 Ξ|r4 Vinchon, Monte Carlo, 29/iv/1974 (Peyreﬁtte), 121. Troxell Ξ-d-1. 308. 27.27 g Ξ|a1 Ξ|r5 Hess-Divo 314, 4/v/2009, 1257; idem 309, 28/iv/ 2008, 93. 309. 27.72 g Ξ|a1 Ξ|r6 Brussels, kbr, du Chastel 293. Sv. 489β 310. Ξ|a1 Ξ|r7 Feuardent 1913(?) (Burel), 376. Troxell Ξ-b-1. 311. 27.73 g Ξ|a1 Ξ|r7 Glasgow, Hunterian p. 363, 13, pl. lxxxi, 8. Sv. 489γ 312. 27.68 g Ξ|a1 Ξ|r7 Künker 136, 10/iii/2008, 763. 313. Ξ|a1 Ξ|r8 Benha 10. Troxell Ξ-f-1.

O behind head (Sv. –) Troxell: –. Present study: 1 reverse die – Specimens: 1

314. 27.70 g O|a1 O|r1 Goldberg 47, 25/v/2008, 1280; Goldberg 46, 26/v/ 2008 (Millennia), 1280; Superior, 5-6/xii/1997, 1595; Christie’s, 8/x/1985 (Property of a Lady), 392.

ptolemaic gold coinages 99 the principal issue of alexandrian mnaieia depicting ptolemy iii (sv. 1117) [89] (Catharine Lorber)

Ptolemy IV Philadelphus produced a number of gold issues bearing a bust of his father, Ptolemy III Euergetes, depicted with a radiate diadem, a trident over his shoulder, and wearing the aegis like a chlamys. [90] By far the most abundant of these emissions was a coinage produced at Alexandria and marked with the letters ΔΙ. ﬈e issue comprised predominantly mnaieia (Sv. 1117), but included also a small number of pentekontadrachma (Sv. 1118) and eighth mnaieia (Sv. 1119). ﬈e mnaieia were the subject of the present die study.

I. Results of the die study An earlier die study of these coins was undertaken by V. Van Driessche in the context of her unpublished mémoire de license treating the coinage of Ptolemy III and IV. [91] J. Olivier scanned her catalogue and that allowed the incorporation here of all specimens whose dies could be veriﬁed. ﬈e card ﬁle of the American Numismatic Society was of inestimable help in searching older literature, including that cited by Van Driessche. [92] ﬈e present study records 263 specimens of Sv. 1117 struck from 7 obverse dies and 25 reverse dies, for a highly reassuring n/d of 37.57. ﬈e following table summarizes the principal results. Type on a dark background indicates the principal reverse die used with each obverse, accounting for at least ⅓ and, in the case of a5 and a6, as much as ⅔ of the production.

a die r dies Specimens

a1 4 (r1|r2|r3|r4) 27

a2 2 (r5|r6) 3

a3 11 (r6|r7|r8|r9|r10|r11|r12|r13|r14|r15|r16) 109

a4 8 (r14|r15|r17|r18|r19|r20|r21|r22) 80

a5 5 (r8|r15|r21|r23|r24) 31

a6 3 (r15|r21|r25) 8

a7 1 (r21) 5 Table 8 – Overview of dies and die links for Svoronos 1117

[89] I am grateﬔl to Christelle Fischer-Bovet for very helpﬔl comments on an earlier dra﬇ of this section. I am responsible for any remaining errors of interpretation. [90] Svoronos 1904, Vol. ii, nos 1117-1119 and 1131 (Alexandria), 1132-1134 (uncertain provincial mints), 1184 (Sidon). [91] Van Driessche 1987, p. 176-179. [92] See n. 66. 100 julien olivier & catharine lorber

Obverse dies a1 and a2 differ from the others in having small busts, and apparently represent an early phase in the production. ﬈e two dies are of contrasting style and obviously represent the work of two different engravers, whose hands can still be recognized in the next pair of dies. a3 is so similar to a1, and a4 to a2, that they seem intended to reproduce the same images on a slightly larger scale. For the next three dies artist attri- bution is not so certain. All three treat the aegis in the manner of a2 and a4, with multiple folds on the front of the chest and the snake on the far side of the chest slithering upward, rather than poised to strike as on a1 and a3. But the facial features are not obviously attributable to either of the two earlier engravers and may reflect a blending of styles or the involve- ment of a new artist. Obverse dies a3 and a4 are by far the most important of the seven, together accounting for over 70% of the surviving specimens. It is surprising to observe that the majority of the obverse dies show signs of damage, some- thing we do not expect to see in a prestige coinage. Die a3 developed two small but conspicuous flaws in the field before the king’s face, and at a later stage another flaw appeared behind the diadem ties. Eventually there was also an area of flatness and filling affecting the rays. Die a4 has an area of roughness in the field below the trident head and extensive filling between the rays. Die a5 developed a lumpy flaw on the face, which eventually extended across the lower cheek toward the sideburn, lending Ptolemy an unattractive, ‘jowly’ appearance. Die a7 has major flaws on the trident and in the rays above it. ﬈e corpus includes only four examples from this obverse die. Possibly its defects led to its early retirement, but it appears to be the only obverse die whose lifetime was cut short because of damage. ﬈e use of other flawed dies may be an indication that the issue was minted in haste. ﬈e pattern of reverse die linkage provides stronger evidence of hurried production. a2 is linked to a3 by reverse die r6. ﬈ere are multiple reverse links among a3 through a7, and each of the reverse dies involved in this linkage served as the principal reverse die for one obverse die: r8 was paired with two obverse dies (a3 and a5), and was the principal reverse die of a5. r15 was paired with four obverse dies (a3-a6), and was the principal reverse die of a4. r21 was also paired with four obverse dies (a4-a7), and was the principal reverse die of a6 (as well as the only reverse die of a7). ﬈e pattern of die links and the shrinking size of the output from each successive obverse die a﬇er a3 suggest that additional obverse dies and anvils were added alongside die a3, one by one, until eventually five dies were in use simultaneously. From this we can deduce that there was some urgency involved in the production of this coinage; indeed, it looks very much as though the mint made repeated adjustments in order to meet a deadline. ptolemaic gold coinages 101

﬈e usual procedure in a die study is to estimate the original volume of the coinage based on assumptions about die productivity, but this is a bit tricky for gold coinage. Because of the so﬇ness of gold, dies used in the production of gold coins had the potential for longer lifetimes than dies used in the production of silver or bronze coinage. However many ancient gold issues must have had limits other than the lifetime of dies, in particular the quantity of gold made available for conversion into coinage. In the case of the mnaieia under study here, the pattern of reverse die linkage implying the simultaneous use of five anvils, probably to meet a deadline, suggests this is very likely an instance in which obverse dies were not used to the limits of their lifetimes. For such cases, Fr. de Callataÿ has recommended an assumption of average productivity of 10,000 coins per die. [93] Applying this figure to our seven obverse dies, we can estimate the size of the emission at 70,000 mnaiea. We shall return to this estimate later. ﬈e time frame for the production of our mnaieia can also be estimated. Medieval mint archives suggest a maximum daily output of c. 3,000 coins on a single anvil. [94] ﬈is translates into 90,000 coins in an Egyptian month of 30 days. With five anvils in use concurrently, the Alexandria mint could theoretically produce 450,000 coins per month. ﬈e entire emission of Sv. 1117, estimated at 70,000 mnaieia, falls well short of this figure and could have been produced in less than a month. II. ﬈e mnaieia and the Raphia donative ﬈e remarkable iconography of Ptolemy Euergetes’ portrait provides a clue as to the purpose of this coinage. It has inspired various interpretations that may all be valid. [95] For our purposes one in particular is relevant: M. Berg- mann described the coin type as a pantheistic image with symbolic allu- sions to power on land and sea and to the military successes of Ptolemy Euergetes. [96] Following a hint of H. Kyrieleis, she emphasized the association of these coins with the Fourth Syrian War. [97] In that context, the por-

[93] Callataÿ 2011, p. 23, n. 47, with reference to Callataÿ 1997, p. 67, with reference to Duncan-Jones 1994, p. 164-165. [94] Callataÿ 1995, p. 301. [95] Huß 1976a; Alföldi 1977; Iossif & Lorber 2012. [96] Bergmann 1998, p. 60-61. [97] ﬈e gold is linked by the control ΔΙ to the main silver issue of Ptolemy IV from the Alexandria mint, which was almost certainly struck to finance the Fourth Syrian War and whose types are also thematically linked to the war. ﬈e obverse bears the jugate busts of Sarapis and Isis. ﬈ey would have been foremost among the gods of Egypt who sent the king an oracle in a dream, promising him victory over his Seleucid enemy, see Raphia Decree, demotic ℓ. 7-10; ﬈issen 1966, pp. 13, 51-53; Simpson 1996, p. 242-245. ﬈e religious policy implied by the type found ﬔller expression a﬇er the battle of Raphia, when Ptolemy IV founded a cult to Sarapis and Isis as Sa- vior Gods and apparently credited them with a miraculous battlefield intervention that led to his victory, see Bricault 1999. 102 julien olivier & catharine lorber trait not only recalled the triumph of Ptolemy III in the ﬈ird Syrian War but also evoked him as a divine guarantor of victory in the latest confron- tation with the Seleucid kingdom. ﬈e rays symbolize the east, the trident alludes to Euergetes’ conquests by sea, and the aegis identifies him as the protector of Egypt against its hated foreign enemies. It is of particular significance that the aegis is worn like a chlamys. ﬈e hybrid aegis-chlamys was a Ptolemaic invention. It is the principal identifying feature of an Egyp- tian statue type called the Alexander Aigiochos. [98] ﬈is statue type has usually been described as replicating the cult statue of Alexander ktistes, Alexander as founder of the city of Alexandria. [99] But of the nineteen examples recorded recently by K. Parlasca, one was found at Coptos and two at Luxor. Another was found near Sohag, in the environs of ancient Ptolemais in the ﬈ebaid, which had its own founder cult to Ptolemy Soter. [100] ﬈is dispersion of the statue type in Upper Egypt is difficult to explain if it pertained to a city cult of Alexandria. We must conclude with G. Kleiner that the Alexander Aigiochos type represented Alexander in his far more important role as dynastic god of the Ptolemies. [101] On the gold coins depicting the deified Ptolemy Euergetes the aegis worn like a chlamys identifies him as a new Alexander, a second conqueror of the Orient. [102] Possibly the cult statue of Alexander Aigiochos was also the source of the rays. On three of the replicas there is a bare area on the skull for the addition of some ornament. [103] A Roman cameo formerly in the treasury of Cammin cathedral showed a version of the Alexander Aigiochos statue with rays and diadem. [104] It is not certain whether rays were a feature of the original cult statue, but in any case they were a symbol of epiphany, enriching the imagery of the apotheosis of Ptolemy Euergetes as a new Alexander. In light of the victorious military symbolism of the portrait type, it seems almost certain that our hastily produced gold issue was minted to pay a donative a﬇er the battle of Raphia. ﬈is decisive battle to recover the province of Syria and Phœnicia from Antiochus III was fought at Raphia on

[98] See most recently Parlasca 2004; Lorber 2011, p. 312-315. [99] Von Schwarzenberg 1976, p. 233-234; Grimm 1978, p. 103; Svenson 1995, p. 7; Par- lasca 2004. [100] Stewart 1993, pp. 247, 250, makes the same point about the distribution of the Ale- xander Aigiochos statue type but states that four replicas were found at Ptolemais Hermiou. [101] Kleiner 1950-51, p. 214-215. Stewart 1993, pp. 243, 247, argued the case in more detail, noting that the founder cult is first attested in the Hadrianic era, and then only by a single papyrus, and citing the testimony of Nikolaus Rhetor that the cult statue was an equestrian figure. [102] Lorber 2011, p. 318. ﬈e two kings had already been associated during the lifetime of Ptolemy III, who was titled Great King in the Adulis inscription, ogis 54, ℓ. 1. [103] Stewart 1993, p. 246. [104] Stewart 1993, pp. 52, 246-247, 334, and fig. 82; Svenson 1996, pl. 4. ptolemaic gold coinages 103

22 June 217. [105] ﬈e Lagid army included a substantial number of native Egyptian troops in the phalanx, who had been specially trained to fight in the Macedonian manner. [106] ﬈e panic of Ptolemy’s Ethiopian elephants nearly cost him the battle. [107] At this critical moment queen Arsinoe ha- rangued the troops in a state of high emotion, beseeching them to defend themselves and their families and promising two gold minae per man if they won the battle. [108] Ptolemy’s sudden epiphany before his phalanx alarmed the enemy and inspired his own troops to charge, resulting in an unexpected victory for which the Egyptian phalangites deserved much of the credit. [109] A﬇er a foray into enemy territory, Ptolemy spent several months touring the recovered province of Syria and Phœnicia, making thank offerings, restoring temples, and arranging for the repatriation of Egyptian sacred images. [110] His return to Egypt coincided with the Festival of the Birth of Horus, and he celebrated his triumph at Memphis in No- vember 217. [111] ﬈e occasion was commemorated by a trilingual decree of the assembled Egyptian priesthood, known as the Raphia Decree. [112] ﬈e Greek text of the decree records that Ptolemy distributed a donative to the army worth 300,000 chrysoi. [113] Chrysoi or gold staters had not been minted in Egypt since the reign of Ptolemy I. H. Cuvigny argued that chrysous was merely an accounting term equivalent to 20 silver drachms, and that it does not necessarily imply that the donative was paid in gold. [114] S. von Reden restated this argument using demotic accounting terms, equating the chrysous with one deben or five silver staters. [115] ﬈e present die study, however, can allay these scholarly doubts. ﬈e battlefield promise of queen Arsinoe, of two gold minae per man, does reflect the actual currency of the day. ﬈at promise, taken together with the mention of gold in the Raphia Decree and the proven existence a large issue of mnaieia minted in haste, is strong circumstantial evidence that the donative was indeed paid in gold.

[105] Polyb. 5.82-5.86.6; Walbank 1957, p. 589-592; Huß 1976b, p. 55-68; Galili 1976-77; Bar-Kochva 1979, p. 128-141. [106] Polyb. 5.65.5, 5.65.8-9, 5.82.6, 5.85.9. [107] Polyb. 5.84-5.85.6. [108] ﬈ird Macc. 1.4. [109] Polyb. 5.85.7-5.86.6; ﬈ird Macc. 1.5; Huß 1976b, p. 55-68. [110] ﬈ird Macc. 1.6-7; Raphia Decree, demotic ℓ. 14-23; ﬈issen 1966, pp. 15-19, 56- 60; Simpson 1996, p. 244-251; Huß 1976b, p. 69-74. [111] Raphia Decree, demotic ℓ. 26-30; Greek A (seg viii, 467), ℓ. 1-22; ﬈issen 1966, pp. 19-21, 63-65; Simpson 1996, p. 250-253; Huß 1976b, p. 77-82. [112] ﬈issen 1966. [113] Raphia Decree, Greek A (seg viii, 467), ℓ. 20-22. [114] Cuvigny 2003, p. 115-116, citing the similar conclusions of Claire Préaux and Hélène Cadell/Georges Le Rider. [115] Von Reden 2007, p. 77. 104 julien olivier & catharine lorber

﬈e mnaieion was equivalent to a mina of silver or 100 silver drachms, thus also to five gold staters. Hence the donative of 300,000 chrysoi represents 60,000 gold mnaieia, a figure comfortably close to our earlier estimate that the emission of Sv. 1117 numbered 70,000 coins. A total of 60,000 mnaieia yields an average of 8,571 coins for each of our seven obverse dies, falling slightly below the average proposed by Callataÿ for cases in which the size of issues was determined by factors other than die capacity. ﬈e total of 60,000 mnaieia, however, is inconsistent with other figures relating to the battle of Raphia. It is enough to pay the promised donative to only 30,000 troops and falls far short of two mnaieia per head if we accept Polybius’ figures for the size of the Ptolemaic army fielded at Raphia. At 5.79.2-10 he numbers the troops at 70,000 foot and 5,000 horse. At 5.86.6 he informs us that about 1,500 infantry and about 700 cavalry perished in the battle, meaning that the surviving soldiers who received the donative must have numbered around 72,800. ﬈e total size and composition of the Ptolemaic army at Raphia have been disputed, due largely to some ambiguities in Polybius’ account. At 5.65 he lists individual units, including a phalanx of 25,000 and 20,000 Egyptian phalangites. According to this passage, the combined phalanx totaled 45,000, of whom 20,000 were Egyptian. Eminent historians have questioned Poly- bius’ numbers. [116] If 25,000 Greek phalangites had been available, as implied by this passage, there would have been little reason to spend two years training Egyptians to fight in the Greek manner. G.T. Griffith offered an influential critique of Polybius’ figures. [117] He observed that a phalanx of 45,000 would have vastly outnumbered the 20,000-man phalanx of Antio- chus III, and this should have been reflected in the battle tactics. Yet the Ptolemaic phalanx was held back while the wings were the first to engage the enemy. Griffith concluded that Polybius had conﬔsed his numbers and that his first number for the phalanx included the 20,000 Egyptian phalangites, who were then counted again separately. In Griffith’s view, the combined phalanx numbered only 5,000 Greeks and Macedonians and 20,000 Egyptians, reducing the size of the Ptolemaic army at Raphia to 55,000 troops. F. Walbank endorsed Griffith’s conclusion. [118] Even with the army reduced to only 55,000 troops (or 52,800 when the casualities are taken into account), 60,000 gold mnaieia would not be adequate to pay the bonus promised by queen Arsinoe. In any case, scholars a﬇er Walbank have not favored revising the size of the Ptolemaic phalanx at Raphia. ﬈e military historians B. Bar-Kochva and E. Galili both accepted Polybius’ figures, and Galili observed that Griffith’s calculation would imply

[116] ﬈ese include J.P. Mahaffy, W.W. Tarn, and M. Cary; see Galili 1976-77, p. 62-64, who criticized their position. [117] Griffith 1935, p. 118-123. [118] Walbank 1957, p. 589-590. ptolemaic gold coinages 105 a remarkable ethnic imbalance in the army at Raphia and a military esta- blishment too weak to sustain the Ptolemaic regime. [119] K. Goudriaan also reﬔted Griffith’s arguments, noting that Polybius 5.82.2-6 mentions the phalanx (understood to be the Græco-Macedonian phalanx) and the Egyp- tian phalanx separately in different positions in the line of battle. [120] In demographic studies based primarily on papyrological sources, D. Rath- bone and C. Fischer-Bovet both found Polybius’ figures credible, and Fischer-Bovet explicitly rejected the Griffith-Walbank interpretation because it implies a failure of the kleruchic system that is not supported by the docu- mentation overall. [121] Perhaps we should not automatically assume a bonus of two gold minae for every soldier who fought on the Ptolemaic side at Raphia. Arsinoe’s harangue occurred during the battle, with both wings in motion. Only the phalanx remained stationary, [122] and conceivably her promise applied only to the phalanx which, in the event, distinguished itself and won the battle. According to the low estimate for Ptolemy’s army, the phalanx numbered 25,000 men of whom 20,000 were Egyptians. If the rank and file received two gold minae per head, the officers must have received multiples of that amount, very likely a minimum of ten times as much for the lowest officers and more for those of higher rank. Under these assumptions, a bit less than 50,000 mnaieia could have been expended to pay 2 minae per head to the surviving phalangites, while the remaining 10,000+ mnaieia went to their officers. But as we have seen, a single phalanx of 25,000 men is not really credible. ﬈e combined Græco-Macedonian and Egyptian phalanxes described by Polybius total 45,000 men (minus casualties), who should have received nearly 90,000 mnaieia at two mnaieia per head, to say nothing of the rewards due to their officers. At least one of the terms of the discussion must be abandoned or rede- fined if we are to arrive at an acceptable hypothesis concerning the Raphia donative. W. Huß interpreted the word chrysous as a generic term for a gold coin. [123] Based on Polybius’ total of 75,000 troops, Huß calculated that each soldier received four gold pentekontadrachma. ﬈is solution has the virtue of respecting the sources, since four pentekontadrachma were equivalent to the two gold minae promised by queen Arsinoe. It is hardly possible to propose that the donative comprised 300,000 pentekontadrachma with the radiate portrait of Ptolemy III (Sv. 1118), since this seems to have

[119] Bar-Kochva 1979, p. 135 and map 8; Galili 1976-77, pp. 64, 68. [120] Goudriaan 1988, p. 122. [121] Rathbone 1990, p. 112-113; Fischer-Bovet (forthcoming), p. 138-141. [122] Polyb. 5.85.6. [123] Huß 1976b, p. 81-82 with n. 360. 106 julien olivier & catharine lorber been a tiny issue. [124] But two hoards that close with portrait mnaieia of Ptolemy Euergetes also include gold coins of the ﬈eoi Adelphoi, both mnaieia and pentekontadrachma, demonstrating that the latter coins were still available at the time of Raphia. [125] Cuvigny, however, questioned the suspicious perfection of Huß’s arithmetic, noting that it did not take account of the likelihood that soldiers received unequal rewards according to their rank and the prestige of their units. [126] We can now point to another problem with Huß’s solution: if we accept it, there is no explanation for the rapid minting of a large issue of mnaieia with a portrait type that can be related to victory in Palestine. If we retain our understanding of chrysous as an accounting term equivalent to a gold stater or twenty silver drachms, we might reject ﬈ird Mac- cabees, with its story of queen Arsinoe’s promise, as the least reliable of our sources, a mere literary exaggeration (to use Cuvigny’s phrase). Under these assumptions, the total of 300,000 chrysoi could conceivably represent a combination of mnaieia and pentekontadrachma. ﬈e following table shows a few of the possible combinations.

Mnaieia Pentekontadrachma Total number of coins

50,000 020,000 070,000

45,000 030,000 075,000

40,000 040,000 080,000

30,000 060,000 090,000

20,000 080,000 100,000

10,000 100,000 110,000

05,000 110,000 115,000 Table 9 – Combinations of mnaieia and pentekontadrachma equivalent to 300,000 chrysoi

[124] ﬈e present die study identiﬁed only one obverse and two reverse dies for the issue. Svoronos catalogued just three specimens, one each in the British Museum and the Hunterian Museum, and another in commerce. We found only one specimen in commerce in the last quarter century and cannot determine whether it is identical with Svoronos’ third specimen, or whether it represents the fourth known. [125] Benha, 1936 (igch 1694); Benha, 1922-1923 (igch 1695). [126] Cuvigny 2003, p. 116. ptolemaic gold coinages 107

In order to achieve a bare minimum of one gold piece per man, with nothing extra for the officers, nearly a third of the donative would have to be paid in pentekontadrachma, and more adequate totals would require half or more of the donative to be paid in the smaller denomination. But the rare pentekontadrachma with the radiate portrait of Ptolemy III (Sv. 1118) could have played only a minor part; pentekontadrachma of the ﬈eoi Adel- phoi would have had to make up the difference. ﬈is solution (like that of Huß) is unsatisfying from the ideological point of view. Having developed a triumphal iconography significant for the Fourth Syrian War, and with four months to strike coinage in advance of the victory celebration, why would Ptolemy IV have paid the largest part of the donative in a coinage with types relating to royal cult and dual sovereignty? Instead of rejecting ﬈ird Maccabees, we might reject the assumption that the Raphia Decree used the word chrysous as equivalent to the gold stater and accept Huß’s suggestion that it was a generic term for a gold coin. Under these assumptions the entire donative could have been paid in the form of 300,000 mnaieia, a staggering expenditure equivalent to thirty million silver drachms or 5,000 talents. According to this hypothesis, a sum approaching 150,000 mnaieia could have been distributed to the troops at the rate of two mnaieia per man and a similar sum could have been distributed among the officers at varying rates. [127] ﬈e mint organization implied by our die study, with five anvils operating concurrently, had a maximum theoretical productivity of 450,000 coins per month, but the actual output was almost certainly lower. Nevertheless, it seems more than possible that a workshop in this configuration could have struck 300,000 coins during the four months between the battle of Raphia and the return of Pto- lemy IV to Egypt. ﬈is solution implies an average die productivity of c. 43,000 coins per die, more than a third above the theoretical capacity of c. 30,000 gold coins per obverse die tentatively suggested by Callataÿ. [128] In the end, we are unable to reconcile the testimony of all the sources with the results of the die study or to draw confident conclusions about the original size of the emission, even if the hypothesis of an issue of 300,000 mnaieia appears the most plausible. ﬈is result is not very satisfying, but it is not unexpected. As Callataÿ has pointed out, the quantifications in die studies regularly fall short of meeting military needs as inferred from the relevant literary sources. [129]

[127] According to Polyb. 13.2.3, under Ptolemy V the strategos Scopas received a daily salary of ten minae, and all subordinate officers received one mina per day. ﬈ese figures are offered in a passage condemning Scopas’ greed, but it is not quite clear whether his military pay itself was considered extraordinary, or whether his vice consisted in seeking additional wealth. [128] Callataÿ 2011a, p. 3. [129] Callataÿ 2011b, p. 17-18. 108 julien olivier & catharine lorber

III. Catalogue of the die study

Early Issue with Small Busts – Obverse die a1

1. 27.83 g a1 r1 Hess-Leu 28, 5-6/v/1965, 315; Canessa iii, 28/vi/1923 (Caruso), 101; Rollin & Feuardent, 9/v/1910 (Duruﬂé), 679. 2. 27.8 g a1 r1 Schulman, 24/xi/1913 (Kreling), 997. 3. 27.81 g a1 r1 Stack’s, 10-11/xii/1987; Egger xlvi, 1914, 2744. 4. 27.42 g a1 r1 Künker 83, 17/vi/2003, 455; Vinchon, 26/x/1964, 10; idem, 17/xi/1958, 107. 5. a1 r1 New York, inv. 1974.26.3995. 6. 27.79 g a1 r1 Recorded from commerce, 2007 (inv. 1.6). 7. 27.80 g a1 r1 Tkalec, 7/v/2009, 55. 8. 27.85 g a1 r1 Berk 164, 20/v/2009, 14. 9. 27.79 g a1 r1 Gorny & Mosch 180, 12/x/2009, 254. 10. 27.81 g a1 r1 Roma iv, 30/ix/2012, 417; idem 2, 2/x/2011, 343; ﬈e Holyland for Ancient Coins & Antiques on VCoins, 15/vi/2010, 4770; idem, 14/i/2010. 11. 27.77 g a1 r2 Freeman & Sear fpl 13, Winter 2008, 28 (inv. g8741). 12. 27.76 g a1 r2 nac 52, 7/x/2009, 196. 13. 27.76 g a1 r2 cng e-Auction 253, 6/iv/2011, 202. 14. 27.72 g a1 r3 Vinchon, 15/xi/1989, 137. 15. a1 r4 BnF Armand Valton 571. 16. 27.85 g a1 r4 Berlin, www.smb.museum/ikmk/object.php?id= 18234608. Sv. 1117β, pl. xxxvi, 7. 17. 27.81 g a1 r4 A.E. Cahn 84, 29/xi/1933, 463. 18. a1 r4 Benha hoard (igch 1646), Brett, ansmn v (1952), 28. 19. 27.74 g a1 r4 cng 60, 22/v/2002, 1001; idem 7, 4/v/1989, 96. 20. 27.77 g a1 r4 Giessener Münzhandlung 84, 13/x/1997, 5468. 21. 27.81 g a1 r4 cng 46, 24/vi/1998, 549. 22. 27.86 g a1 r4 cng 64, 24/ix/2003, 485. 23. 27.79 g a1 r4 Recorded from commerce, 2007 (inv. g9163). 24. 27.73 g a1 r4 Helios 2, 25/xi/2008, 206 (inv. g9162). 25. 27.81 g a1 r4 cng 88, 14/ix/2011, 550. 26. 27.76 g a1 r4 cng 90, 23/v/2012, 771. 27. 27.83 g a1 r4 Stack’s Bowers & Ponterio 173, 8/i/2013, 309.

Obverse die a2

28. 27.79 g a2 r5 Goldberg 55, 29/x/2009, 103. 29. 27.82 g a2 r5 cng 87, 18/v/2011, 701. 30. n.w. a2 r6 Coin Galleries fpl 5-6, xi-xii/1960, g5116.

Main Issue with Large Busts – Obverse die a3

31. n.w. a3' r6 Feuardent, 17/xii/1921 (Engel-Gros), 67. 32. 27.76 g a3' r6 Monnaies & Médailles 68, Bâle, 15/iv/1986, 321; Münzhandlung Basel iv, 1/x/1935, 1040. 33. 27.76 g a3' r6 cng e-Auction 226, 27/i/2010, 306. ptolemaic gold coinages 109

34. 27.82 g a3" r6 Rauch 89, 5/xii/2011, 1234; Egger, 28/xi/1904 (Prowe), 1668. 35. 27.74 g a3" r6 Formerly L. Bonner collection. Monnaies & Médailles 52, Bâle, 19-20/vi/1975, 241. 36. 27.83 g a3 r7 London, bmc p. 56, 103, pl. xii, 4 (Bank collection). pcg pl. 34, 24. Head, Guide to the British Museum, 30. Sv. 1117δ. No ﬂaws visible on obverse. 37. 27.792 g a3' r7 New York, inv. 1997.9.178. From the estate of John D. Leggett, Jr. Clarence Bement Collection 338. Naville vii, 23-24/vi/1924 (Bement), 1851; Serrure, 26/v/1907, 30; idem, 28/iii/1906, 374. 38. 27.76 g a3' r7 Parke-Bernet, 16-17/x/1968 (E.T. Newell), 294; Hirsch xxvi, 29/xi/1909 (Philipsen), 3196. 39. 27.67 g a3' r7 Naville xvii, 1/x/1934 (Burrage et al.), 636. 40. 27.78 g a3' r7 Hess-Leu 36, 17-18/iv/1968, 384. 41. 27.56 g a3' r7 Hess-Leu 49, 27-28/iv/1971, 295. 42. 27.66 g a3' r7 nac 29, 11/v/2005, 237; cng xxix, 30/iii/1994, 375. 43. 27.76 g a3' r7 lhs 95, 25/x/2005, 750. 44. 27.79 g a3' r7 Recorded from commerce, 2007 (inv. 4.6). 45. 27.81 g a3' r7 Recorded from commerce, 2007 (inv. g9165). 46. 27.71 g a3' r7 Antiqua xv, 2008, 50. 47. 27.19 g a3' r7 Nomos 1, 6/v/2009, 132. 48. 27.74 g a3' r7 Spink 12026, 26/ix/2012, 367; C.J. Martin on VCoins, 15/vi/2010, 589; idem, 6/vii/2009. 49. 27.82 g a3' r7 Berk 165, 28/vii/2009, 18. 50. 27.74 g a3' r7 Künker 158, 28/ix/2009, 371. 51. 27.77 g a3' r7 Ponterio 154, 18/vi/2010, 8088 (inv. 4.7). 52. 27.88 g a3' r7 Dix Noonan Webb, 22/vi/2011, 1040. 53. 27.77 g a3' r7 Stack’s Bowers & Ponterio 173, 8/i/2012, 310. 54. 27.58 g a3' r8 Gorny & Mosch 164, 17/iii/2008, 284. 55. a3' r8 Tkalec, 17/v/2010, 60. 56. 27.77 g a3' r8 Goldberg 59, 30/v/2010, 2252. 57. 27.64 g a3' r8 Heritage 3015, 7/ix/2011, 23175. 58. 27.71 g a3' r8 Künker 204, 12/iii/2012, 386. 59. 27.78 g a3" r8 Leu 54, 28/iv/1992, 201; Vinchon, Monte Carlo, 13/iv/ 1985 (Pﬂieger), 417; Naville i, 14/iii/1921 (Pozzi) 3239; Sotheby, 1900 (Late Collector), 472. 60. 27.80 g a3" r8 Monnaies & Médailles 37, Bâle, 5/xii/1968, 288; Santa- maria, 12-13/x/1949 (Magnaguti i) 108; Naville xvii, 1/x/1934 (Burrage et al.), 635. 61. 27.70 g a3" r8 Künker 193, 26/ix/2011, 314; Künker 168, 12/iii/2010, 7451. 62. 27.81 g a3" r8 Gorny & Mosch 199, 10/x/2011, 579. 63. n.w. a"'3 r8 Vinchon, 29-30/x/1973, 37. 64. 27.82 g a"'3 r8 Berk 168, 16/iii/2010, 31. 65. 27.73 g a3' r9 Sotheby, 23-28/iii/1896 (Montagu), 792. 66. 27.86 g a3' r9 Sotheby, 1907 (Delbeke), 235. 67. 27.83 g a3' r9 Recorded from commerce, 2007 (inv. g9176). 68. 27.76 g a3' r9 lhs 102, 26/iv/2008, 320. 69. a3' r9 Hess-Divo 309, 28/iv/2008, 97. 70. 27.67 g a3' r9 Künker 143, 6/x/2008, 291. 71. 27.76 g a3' r9 Ponterio 157, 7/i/2011, 2140; cng 84, 5/v/2010, 766. 72. 27.84 g a3' r9 Goldberg 60, 21/ix/2010, 2344. 110 julien olivier & catharine lorber

73. 27.71 g a3' r9 Berk 175, 7/vii/2011, 60. 74. 27.73 g a3' r9 Chaponnière & Hess-Divo 3, 21/v/2012, 205. 75. 27.74 g a3" r10 Athens. Sv. 1117α, pl. xxxvi, 6. 76. 27.81 g a3" r10 Berk 173, 15/iii/2011, 44. 77. 27.71 g a3"' r10 Triton viii, 11/i/2005, 585. 78. 27.85 g a3"' r10 Sincona, 29/vi/2011, 50; ubs 85, 7/ix/2010, 21; idem 84, 19/i/2010, 34. 79. 27.77 g a3"' r10 nac 54, 24/iii/2010, 892. 80. 27.77 g a3"' r10 cng 90, v/2012, 770; Freeman & Sear Manhattan Sale ii, 3/i/2012, 154. 81. 27.64 g a3" r11 Coll. de Nanteuil 452. 82. 27.77 g a3" r11 Münzhandlung Basel 10, 15-16/iii/1938, 404. 83. 27.79 g a3" r11 Berk 177, 15/xi/2011, 33. 84. a3"' r11 Paris, BnF 329. 85. a3"' r11 New York, inv. 1980.109.97. 86. a3"' r11 Sotheby, 27/ii/1908, 61. 87. 27.67 g a3"' r11 Egger xl, 2/v/1912 (Prowe), 1236. 88. 27.80 g a3"' r11 Hirsch xxxiii, 17/xi/1913, 961. 89. 28.10 g a3"' r11 Naville xiii, 27-29/vii/1928 (Allatini), 948. 90. 27.70 g a3"' r11 Ciani, 1936 (Luynes), 3579. Sv. 1117μ. 91. 27.80 g a3"' r11 Glendining, 19/vii/1950, 18. Weber 8264. 92. 27.75 g a3"' r11 Vinchon, Monte Carlo, 2-3/xii/1975, 182; Ratto fpl, 1939, 41. 93. 27.805 g a3"' r11 Monnaies & Médailles xix, Bâle, 5-6/vi/1959, 586. 94. 27.81 g a3"' r11 Monnaies & Médailles xxviii, Bâle, 19-20/vi/1964, 196. 95. 27.83 g a3"' r11 Leu 30, 28/iv/1982, 226. 96. 27.82 g a3"' r11 Leu 48, 10/v/1989, 270. Ex BnF duplicates and Beiste- gui 53. 97. 27.36 g a3"' r11 Tradart, 12/xii/1991, 214. 98. 27.82 g a3"' r11 Leu 86, 5-6/v/2003, 459. 99. 27.78 g a3"' r11 Recorded from commerce, 2007 (inv. 4.3). 100. 27.77 g a3"' r11 Recorded from commerce, 2007 (inv. 4.4). 101. 27.83 g a3"' r11 Recorded from commerce, 2007 (inv. g9166). 102. 27.79 g a3"' r11 Triton xii, 6-7/i/2009, 387. 103. 27.79 g a3"' r11 Heritage 3021, 6/i/2013, 21274; Tkalec, 7/v/2009, 54. 104. 27.75 g a3"' r11 Gorny & Mosch 180, 12/x/2009, 255. 105. 27.79 g a3"' r11 Stack’s Coin Galleries, 28/iv/2010, 178. 106. 27.81 g a3"' r11 Noble 94, 27/vi/2010, 4682. 107. 27.73 g a3"' r11 Lanz 150, 13/xii/2010, 183. 108. 27.80 g a3"' r11 Triton xvi, 4/i/2011, 392; idem xiv, 4/i/2011, 392. 109. 27.79 g a3"' r11 Maison Palombo 10, 27/xi/2011, 11. 110. 27.80 g a3"' r11 Heritage 3016, 2/i/2012, 23093. Slabbed. 111. 27.80 g a3"' r11 Triton xv, 3/i/2012, 1316. 112. 27.76 g a3"' r11 Triton xv, 3/i/2012, 1317. 113. 27.81 g a3"' r11 nac 64, 17/v/2012, 857. 114. 27.74 g a3"' r11 Triton xvi, Sessions 1-2, 8/i/2013, 601. Slabbed. 115. 27.54 g a3"' r12 Leu 13, 29-30/iv/1975, 342; Christie’s, 27/xi/ 1962, 176. 116. 27.77 g a3"' r12 Goldberg 46, 26/v/2008 (Millennia), 70; Leu 83, 6-7/v/ 2002, 463. 117. 27.70 g a3"' r12 Hess-Divo 311, 22/x/2008, 443; Künker 136, 10/iii/ 2008, 765. 118. 27.84 g a3"' r12 Goldberg 53, 24/v/2009, 1730 (inv. g9164). ptolemaic gold coinages 111

119. 27.83 g a"'3 r12 cng e-Auction 221, 28/x/2009, 417. 120. 27.70 g a"'3 r12 Künker 168, 12/iii/2010, 7453. 121. 27.74 g a"'3 r12 Stack’s, Bowers & Ponterio 168, 8/viii/2012, 20441; Goldberg 67, 31/i/2012, 3244. 122. 27.82 g a"'3 r13 Cairo, Egyptian Museum (al-Qoba Palace) j.984.12. 123. 27.75 g a"'3 r13 Sotheby, 1914 (Cumberland Clark), 334; Ratto, 1912 (Num. Stran.), 1168; Sotheby, 3-11/vii/1911 (Butler), 39. 124. a"'3 r13 Feuardent, 1914 (Burel), 378. 125. 27.86 g a"'3 r13 Naville xvii, 1/x/1934 (Burrage et al.), 638. 126. a"'3 r13 Bourgey, 14/xii/1934, 138. 127. a"'3 r13 Platt fpl (Coll. A), 772. 128. 27.64 g a"'3 r13 Vinchon, Monte Carlo, 2-3/xii/1975, 183; Ciani-Vin- chon, 6-7/v/1955, 239. 129. 27.75 g a"'3 r13 cng 42, 29-30/v/1997, 637. 130. 27.81 g a"'3 r13 Recorded from commerce, 2007 (inv. g9170). 131. 27.84 g a"'3 r13 Goldberg 53, 24/v/2009, 1731 (inv. g9167). 132. 27.77 g a"'3 r13 Triton xvi, Sessions 1-2, 8/i/2013, 602. 133. 27.75 g a"'3 r14 Copenhagen, sng Copenhagen 196. Sv. 1117ιζ. 134. 27.76 g a"'3 r14 Freeman & Sear mbs 15, 27/vi/2008, 226 (inv. g8821). 135. 27.84 g a3' r15 cgf 26, 22/vi/2008, 108. 136. 27.77 g a"'3 r15 Tradart, 8/xi/1992, 141; Giessener Münzhandlung 42, 11/x/1988, 471; Monnaies & Médailles 47, Bâle, 30/xi- 1/xii/1972, 545; Malter 21, 1968, 19. 137. 27.85 g a"'3 r16 Glendining, 27/v/1936, 96. 138. 27.82 g a"'3 r16 Leu 77, 11-12/v/2000, 391. 139. 27.75 g a"'3 r16 Palmyra Heritage on VCoins, 14/i/2011; Ponterio 157, 7/i/2011, 2141.

Obverse die a4

140. 27.68 g a4 r14 Brussels, du Chastel 295. Sv. 1117ιε. 141. 27.68 g a4 r14 Superior Stamp & Coin, 9-10/xii/1994, 836; idem, 6-7/ xii/1991, 564; Hirsch xxxiii, 17/xi/1913, 962. 142. 27.7 g a4 r14 J. Schulman, 14-16/ii/1955, 1276; Platt, 3/iv/1933, 207. 143. a4 r14 Benha hoard (igch 1694), Brett, ansmn v (1952), 27. 144. 27.61 g a4 r14 nfa, 14/xii/1989, 821. 145. 27.81 g a4 r14 Heritage 3006, 10/ix/2009, 20060. 146. 27.77 g a4 r14 Triton xiii, 5/i/2010, 237. 147. 27.79 g a4 r14 Gemini vii/Heritage cicf sale, 14/iv/2011, 130. 148. 27.83 g a4 r14 Berk 174, 10/v/2011, 19. 149. a4 r17 Paris, Ciani 1936 (Luynes), 3573. 150. n.w. a4 r17 Tkalec, 8/ix/2008, 47. 151. 27.79 g a4 r17 Berk 171, 27/x/2010, 17; idem 162, 15/i/2009, 9. 152. 27.80 g a4 r17 Künker 216, 8/x/2012, 571; Roma 3, 31/iii/2012, 341. 153. 27.82 g a4 r15 Berlin, www.smb.museum/ikmk/object.php?=id 18234607. Imhoof-Blumer 1900. Sv. 1117γ. 154. 27.84 g a4 r15 cgf 24, 24/vi/2005, 156; Sotheby, 10/vii/1914 (Schles. Guz.), 43; idem, 7/xii/1896 (Bunbury ii), 693. 155. 27.74 g a4 r15 Hirsch xxx, 11/v/1911 (Percy Barron), 615; idem xviii, 27/v/1907, 2513. 112 julien olivier & catharine lorber

156. 27.80 g a4 r15 Ciani-Vinchon, 6-8/ii/1956 (Hindamian), 678; Egger, 1-7/i/1908, 683. 157. 27.50 g a4 r15 Florange, 14/vi/1923, 8; Hirsch xxi, 16/xi/1908 (Con- sul Weber), 4497. Sv. 1117κδ. 158. a4 r15 Feuardent, 26-27/v/1914, 337. 159. 27.74 g a4 r15 Glendining, 21-23/ii/1961 (Lockett), 2810; Naville v, 18/vi/1923 (bm duplicates), 2923. 160. 27.06 g a4 r15 Hess 207, xii/1931, 780. 161. 27.75 g a4 r15 Hamburger 96, 25/x/1932, 217. 162. 28.00 g a4 r15 A.E. Cahn 80, 27/ii/1933, 479. 163. 27.77 g a4 r15 Naville xvii, 1/x/1934 (Burrage et al.), 637. 164. 27.76 g a4 r15 Monnaies & Médailles viii, Bâle, 8-10/xii/1949, 868; Glendining, 27/v/1936, 97. 165. 27.80 g a4 r15 R. Ball fpl 39, 1937, 852a. 166. 27.79 g a4 r15 J. Schulman, 17-19/v/1938, 1451. 167. 27.61 g a4 r15 Hirsch 43, 21-23/vi/1965, 1261. 168. 27.85 g a4 r15 Stack’s, 29-30/xi/1990, 147; idem, 10-11/vi/1970, 671. 169. 27.82 g a4 r15 Numismatica Genevensis i, 27/xi/2000, 127; Bank Leu/ nfa, Garrett Sale ii, 16-18/x/1984, 324. 170. 27.80 g a4 r15 Helios 5, 25/vi/2010, 125 (inv. g9171). 171. 27.78 g a4 r15 Goldberg 59, 30/v/2010, 2250 (dscn 8707-8709). 172. 27.80 g a4 r15 cng 76/1, 12/ix/2007, 880. 173. 27.69 g a4 r15 Künker 174, 27/ix/2010, 466; idem 136, 10/iii/2008, 764. 174. 27.79 g a4 r15 Goldberg 59, 30/v/2010, 2251; Ponterio 148, 9/i/2009, 409 (inv. 4.5). 175. 27.87 g a4 r15 Berk 179, 24/v/2012, 36; idem 176, 8/ix/2011, 12; idem 173, 15/iii/2011, 45; idem 166, 15/x/2009, 15; idem 162, 15/i/2009, 8. 176. 27.70 g a4 r15 Hess-Divo 314, 4/v/2009, 1259. 177. 27.81 g a4 r15 Goldberg 53, 24/v/2009, 1728 (G9168). 178. 27.67 g a4 r15 Künker 155, 24/vi/2009, 3006. 179. 27.77 g a4 r15 Heritage 3021, 6/i/2013, 21275; Stack’s Coin Galleries, 20/x/2010, 107; Heritage 3006, 10/ix/2009, 20061. 180. 27.73 g a4 r15 Stack’s Coin Galleries, 20/x/2010, 108; Heritage 3006, 10/ix/2009, 20062. 181. 27.74 g a4 r15 cng e-Auction 225, 13/i/2010, 184. 182. 27.76 g a4 r15 Rauch 91, 5/xii/2012, 140; Künker 216, 8/x/2012, 272; Elsen 105, 12/vi/2010, 119. 183. a4 r15 Maison Palombo 9, 26/vi/2010, 18. 184. 27.80 g a4 r15 Gorny & Mosch 190, 11/x/2010, 389. 185. 27.78 g a4 r15 Heritage 3012, 2/i/2011, 24510. 186. 27.69 g a4 r15 cng e-Auction 247, 12/i/2011, 148. 187. 27.81 g a4 r15 Lanz 151, 30/vi/2011, 543. 188. 27.81 g a4 r15 Berk 177, 15/xi/2011, 32. 189. 27.77 g a4 r18 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 2283. 190. a4 r18 New York, inv. 1935.190.31. 191. 27.6 g a4 r18 A. Hess, 7/x/1907 (Berlin duplicates), 1495. Sv. 1117κ. 192. 27.82 g a4 r18 ubs 49, 11-13/ix/2000, 259; Vinchon, 20-22/v/1959, 627; Serrure, 30/iii/1914, 194. 193. 27.62 g a4 r18 Hess, 25/iii/1929 (Vogel), 467. 194. 27.63 g a4 r18 J. Schulman, 8/vi/1931, 194; idem, 5/vi/1930, 194. 195. a4 r18 Stack’s, 20/i/1938 (Faelton), 193. 196. 27.84 g a4 r18 Bourgey, 6-7/v/1971, 121. ptolemaic gold coinages 113

197. 27.68 g a4 r18 Vinchon, 24-25/xi/1994, 159. 198. 27.84 g a4 r18 Freeman & Sear fpl 14, Winter 2008/9, 78 (inv. g9174). 199. 27.80 g a4 r18 Heritage 3008, 3/i/2010, 21292 (inv. 3.9). 200. 27.80 g a4 r18 Gorny & Mosch 195, 7/iii/2011, 316. 201. 27.79 g a4 r18 nac 59, 4/iv/2011, 1711. 202. 27.77 g a4 r18 Berk 180, 16/viii/2012, 36; idem 175, 7/vii/2011, 61. 203. 27.80 g a4 r19 Monnaies & Médailles 53, Bâle, 29/xi/1977, 167; idem xi, 23-24/i/1953, 92. 204. 27.77 g a4 r19 Maison Palombo 5, 7/vi/2008, 52. 205. n.w. a4 r19 St. James’s Auction 12, 5/xi/2009, 912. 206. 27.91 g a4 r19 New York Sale xxx, 9/i/2013, 241; cng 88, 14/ix/2011, 549. 207. 27.74 g a4 r20 Milan, inv. 3930 Br (Belloni Vol. i, 56). 208. 27.82 g a4 r20 Pegasi on VCoins, 25/i/2013; J. Schulman, 27/xi/1911, 744; Hirsch xxix, 9/xi/1910 (J.P. Lambros), 858; Sothe- by, 1903 (O’Hagan), 776; idem, 6-7/v/1895 (Ashburn- ham), 235; idem, 5-16/xii/1859 (Northwick), 1519; idem, 8-19/vii/1844 (﬈omas), 2859. Sv. 1117κε. 209. 27.80 g a4 r20 R. Ball fpl 39, 1937, 852b. 210. 27.73 g a4 r20 Glendining/Baldwin, 10/xii/1986 (Knoepke), 359. 211. 27.76 g a4 r20 ubs 83, 8/ix/2009, 39. 212. 27.75 g a4 r20 Triton xiii, 6/i/2010, 1358. 213. 27.71 g a4 r21 Stack’s, 20-22/xi/1967, 826. 214. 27.80 g a4 r21 nfa i, 20-21/iii/1975 (Santa Barbara Museum), 266. 215. 27.74 g a4 r21 Recorded from commerce, 2007 (inv. g9173). 216. 27.74 g a4 r21 Gemini iv, 8/i/2008, 274. 217. 27.62 g a4 r21 Künker 168, 12/iii/2010, 7452. 218. 27.78 g a4 r21 Rauch 87, 8/xii/2010, 175. 219. 27.85 g a4 r22 Hess-Divo 321, 25/x/2012, 190.

Obverse die a5

220. 27.81 g a5 r8 Lisbon, Calouste Gulbenkian Museum 1076. 221. 27.81 g a5 r8 D. Wildung & G. Grimm, Götter Pharaonen: Ausstel- lungskatalog (Mainz: von Zabern, 1978), 90. Alexan- dria 25304. 222. 27.81 g a5 r8 Jameson 1817. 223. 27.85 g a5 r8 Helbing, 24/x/1927, 3166. 224. 27.79 g a5 r8 Naville xiii, 27-29/vii/1928 (Allatini), 949. 225. 27.85 g a5 r8 J. Schulman, 5/vi/1930, 193. 226. 27.73 g a5 r8 cng 69, 8/vi/2005, 727; Monnaies & Médailles 95, Bâle, 4/x/2004, 108; Leu 38, 13/v/1986, 170; Monnaies & Médailles 61, Bâle, 7-8/x/1982, 221; Hess-Leu 22, 4/iv/ 1963, 105; James Kelly, vi/1953, 953. 227. 27.75 g a5 r8 Leu 2, 25/iv/1972, 307. 228. 27.77 g a5 r8 Gemini v, 6/i/2009, 710; Goldberg 41, 27/v/2007, 2897; cng 64, 24/ix/2003, 485; idem 38, 7/vi/1996, 565; Leu 15, 4-5/v/1976, 365. 229. 27.76 g a5 r8 Hess 257, 12/xi/1986, 157; idem 251, 7-8/v/1981, 141. 230. 27.89 g a5 r8 nfa, 14/viii/1991, 120. 231. 27.76 g a5 r8 nac 10, 9/iv/1997, 263. 114 julien olivier & catharine lorber

232. 27.57 g a5 r8 ubs 52, 11-13/ix/2001, 173; idem 47, 14-16/ix/1999, 126. 233. n.w. a5 r8 Tkalec, 29/ii/2008, 435. 234. 27.84 g a5 r8 Helios i, 17-18/iv/2008, 185 (inv. 2.9). 235. 27.78 g a5 r8 Goldberg 53, 24/v/2009, 1729 (inv. g9169). 236. 27.76 g a5 r8 cng 84, 5/v/2010, 765. 237. 27.87 g a5 r8 Astarte xxii, 12/vi/2010, 66. 238. a5 r8 Maison Palombo 9, 26/vi/2010, 19. 239. 27.78 g a5 r8 cng 85, 15/ix/2010, 540. 240. 27.82 g a5 r8 Dix Noonan Webb, 23/ix/2010, 590. 241. 27.77 g a5 r8 nac on VCoins, 22/xi/2010. 242. 27.80 g a5 r8 Emporium Hamburg 68, 15/xi/2012, 112. 243. 27.81 g a5 r8 Stack’s Bowers & Ponterio 173, 8/i/2013, 308. 244. 27.75 g a5 r15 J. Schulman, 31/v/1938, 184; Helbing 70, 9/xii/1932, 710. 245. 27.22 g a5 r21 New York, inv. 1944.100.57794. Edward T. Newell collection. 246. 27.78 g a5 r21 Recorded from commerce, 2007 (inv. 1.8). 247. 27.79 g a5 r21 Gemini vi, 10/i/2010, 376. 248. 27.83 g a5 r21 Hess-Divo 317, 27/x/2010, 369. 249. 27.80 g a5 r23 Forum Ancient Coins (inv. 3.10). 250. 27.90 g a5 r24 Berk 169, 1/vi/2010, 57.

Obverse die a6

251. a6 r21 Cairo, Egyptian Museum (al-Qoba Palace), j.89612. tr 15/04/1957. Mounted in a gold belt. 252. 27.82 g a6 r21 Cairo, Egyptian Museum (al-Qoba Palace), j.98412. 253. a6 r21 Paris, Smith-Lessouëf 91. 254. 27.75 g a6 r21 Ratto, Lugano, 4/iv/1927, 2884; Canessa iii, 28/vi/1923 (Caruso), 102. 255. 27.86 g a6 r21 Goldberg 55, 29/x/2009, 105; Freeman & Sear mbs 16, 5/vi/2009, 248 (inv. g9172). 256. 27.81 g a6 r25 Recorded from commerce, 2007 (inv. g9175). 257. 27.84 g a6 r15 Leu 18, 5/v/1977, 276. jnfa Vol. 3, Nos. 2-4, Autumn 1974, g49. Monnaies et Médailles xxv, Bâle, 17/xi/ 1962, 496. 258. 27.76 g a6 r15 nac 59, 4/iv/2011, 1710.

Obverse die a7

259. a7 r21 Sotheby, 1905 (H.P. Smith), 358. 260. a7 r? Feuardent, 17-19/xii/1919 (Collignon), 433. 261. a7 r21 Leu, 26/ii/1955, 151; H.M.F. Schulman, 20-22/v/1954, 1235. 262. 27.83 g a7 r21 Ponterio 146, 25/iv/2008, 1323 (inv. 1.7). 263. 27.76 g a7 r21 Goldberg 55, 29/xi/2009, 104.

Pentekontadrachma (Sv. 1118)

1. a1 r1 London, bmc p. 56, 105, pl. xii (Bank collection). Sv. 1118α, pl. xii, 8. ptolemaic gold coinages 115

2. 13.83 g a1 r2 Goldberg 55, 29/x/2009, 106; idem 53, 24/v/2009, 1732; Triton xi, 8/i/2008, 340; Christie’s, 9/x/1984 (Property of a Lady), 302; Glendining, 21-23/ii/1961 (Lockett), 2811.

Eighth mnaieion (‘Gold drachm’) (Sv. 1119)

1. 3.10 g a1 r1 Paris. Sv. 1119α pl. xxxvi, 9.

comparison of the jugate bust, arsinoe, and radiate ptolemy iii gold coinages (Julien Olivier & Catharine Lorber) ﬈e numismatic material brought together in this study reflects certain constants, but each of the great third-century coinages of mnaieia also exhibits its own specific character. Different aspects can be compared to gain a better understanding of the policies governing these coinages and their ﬔnctions both as tools of the Ptolemaic state and in the economy at large.

I. Relative volume and patterns of production Our study of three major Ptolemaic gold series struck in Alexandria in the third century revealed diﬀerent patterns of production for each series. ﬈e following table brings together the available data on obverse dies:

n d n/d Carter jugate bust Mnaieia 164 21 7.810 22 Pentekontadrachma 228 52 4.385 59 1/4 mnaieia 005 02 2.5 03 1/8 mnaieia 002 01 1 01 total 399 76 5.25 84 arsinoe Mnaieia 314 17 18.47 17 ptolemy iii with radiate crown Mnaieia 263 07 37.57 07 Pentekontadrachma 002 01 2 02 1/8 mnaieia 001 01 1 01 total 266 09 29.56 09 Table 10 – ﬈e volume of the Ptolemaic gold coinages of the third century 116 julien olivier & catharine lorber

Clearly the jugate bust coinage was produced in greater volume than the two other series. For the jugate bust mnaieia 21 or 22 obverse dies were employed, [130] as against 17 for the coins of Arsinoe type and only 7 for those of the radiate Ptolemy III type. ﬈e important production of pentekontadrachma of the jugate bust type required an additional 52 to 59 obverse dies. [131] ﬈ese half-mnaieia are not attested in the Arsinoe coinage and were extremely rare in the series with the portrait of Ptolemy III, with only two examples known, struck from the same obverse die. ﬈is observation highlights the important difference in structure that separates the jugate bust coinage from the two later series. In addition, the existence of some quarter- and eighth-mnaieia makes the jugate bust series emission the most complete of the coinages studied here. ﬈e die links of the jugate bust coinage conform to a pattern common in numismatics, in which most obverse dies were paired with several reverse dies (up to five for the mnaieia, up to seven for the pentekontadrachma). ﬈e few reverse die links are consistent with successive use of the obverse dies on a single anvil for each denomination, though possibly two anvils were employed at times, e.g. for the early pentekontadrachma. ﬈e exceptional volume of this coinage is reflected in metallurgical analyses which reveal that the jugate bust coinage, alone among our three series, required the use of a second source of gold in addition to the regular stock employed by the Alexandria mint (see below). ﬈e impression overall is one of steady production at a rate sufficient to exhaust the regular stock of gold, yet the demand for this coinage was not so exigent as to inspire the regular use of multiple anvils. ﬈e mnaieia of Arsinoe Philadelphus stand apart from the jugate bust series in that they were part of a larger, empire-wide coinage honoring the deified sister and wife of Ptolemy II. In addition to the silver decadrachms and tetradrachms produced at Alexandria, mnaieia were struck on a somewhat irregular basis in the provinces, by the three Cypriote mints (Salamis, Citium, and Paphos) and by the five Syro-Phœnician mints (Sidon, Tyre, Ptolemais, Ioppe, and Gaza). ﬈e Syro-Phœnician issues bear regnal dates extending over a period of twenty years, from 261/0 to 242/1, with a revival in 225/4. ﬈e Alexandrian mnaieia of Arsinoe Philadelphus were struck on

[130] Excluding 7 obverse dies employed for revivals in the later third or early second century. [131] Since the pentekontadrachmon weighs half as much as the mnaieion, the production of each denomination would have required approximately the same amount of metal, based on the die count. However, the minting experiments conducted at Melle (Deux-Sèvres, France) demonstrated that the weight of the planchets, but even more their shape, aﬀected die wear. ﬈e thicker the planchet of metal, the more it absorbs the blow of the hammer and protects the die. ﬈us it is not improbable that die productivity was less for pentekontadrachma than for mnaieia. On these matters, see especially Faucher et al. 2009, p. 70-73; Faucher 2011a, p. 116-117. ptolemaic gold coinages 117 a single anvil, and the sequence of the obverse dies is assured by control letters in alphabetical order. ﬈e die study, like the earlier study of Troxell, revealed an unusual pattern of production. An initial issue of modest size was followed by a period of intermittent mint activity and feeble production. ﬈ere was a dramatic increase in output for the issue marked with Θ, dated by Troxell c. 253/2, and production levels remained relatively high for the next several issues, declining again for most of the latest issues. Mnaieia depicting the radiate Ptolemy III were also struck throughout the Ptolemaic empire, but on a very limited scale compared with the Arsi- noe mnaieia. Alexandria produced two issues, Sidon three, and uncertain mints a few others. In almost every case, these mnaieia were associated through shared controls with other coins of varying types: at Alexandria with a revival of mnaieia of Arsinoe Philadelphus and with Sarapis and Isis tetradrachms; [132] at Sidon with mnaieia and tetradrachms portraying Pto- lemy IV and with Sarapis and Isis tetradrachms; [133] and at uncertain mints with mnaieia portraying Berenice II and with mnaieia or tetradrachms portraying Ptolemy IV. [134] Much in contrast to the jugate bust and Arsinoe series, the main Alexandrian issue of mnaieia depicting the radiate Pto- lemy III was extremely compact. Multiple reverse die links imply that up to 5 of the 7 obverse dies were used concurrently, on diﬀerent anvils. ﬈is distinctive pattern of production indicates that the issue was minted inten- sively within a short period. ﬈e provincial issues, which were much smaller, were probably contemporary.

II. Metrology

In August 272 at the latest, Ptolemy II reformed the gold:silver ratio of his kingdom by striking new gold denominations, of which the heaviest was the mnaieion. ﬈is monetary system was maintained for the entire Ptole- maic period, and the three coinages studied here conform to this standard. However, an attentive observation of the weights of the examples recorded reveals diﬀerences from one series to another (see Table 11).

[132] An unmarked issue of mnaieia depicting the radiate Ptolemy III (Sv. 1131) apparently had no associated coinage. Sv. 1117, the main Alexandrian issue of these mnaieia and the subject of the die study published here, was associated with smaller gold denominations (Sv. 1118 and 1119), a revival of Arsinoe mnaieia (Sv. 1120), and Sarapis and Isis tetradrachms (Sv. 1123 and 1124). [133] Sv. 1184 and Sotheby’s, Zürich, 28/x/1993, 942, are associated with nfa xxv, 1990, 285, and with Sv. 1185 and 1186. Coordinated (control linked) coinages were also produced at Tyre (Sv. 1177-1181) and Ptolemais (Sv. 1187), but these did not include mnaieia depicting the radiate Ptolemy III. [134] Sv. 1133 and 1134 are associated with mmag, 5-6/vi/1959, 585, and with Leu 77, 11-12/v/2000, 392. Sv. 1132 is associated with Triton xiii, 5/i/2010, 239. 118 julien olivier & catharine lorber

Weight (g) Jugate bust Arsinoe Ptolemy III x 27.90 1 3 4 27.85-89 2 3 15 27.80-84 15 40 77 27.75-79 37 95 79 27.70-74 42 106 31 27.65-69 31 21 11 27.60-64 14 18 9 27.55-59 5 3 3 27.50-54 2 2 2 ~ 27.50 5 4 5 total 154 295 236 Median 27.72 27.74 27.78 Table 11 – Weights of the gold mnaieia of the third century bc

﬈ese figures draw attention to the slightly higher weights of the two later series, and this point is confirmed by the median weights calculated in the bottom line of the table. [135] A first impression is that these metrological differences could be due to the relative age of the issues, assuming that many extant specimens stem from hoards in which the different series were associated. ﬈e lower weights of the jugate bust mnaieia may be the result of the wear visible on many specimens, whereas mnaieia of the other series are nearly always in an excellent state of preservation. Against this interpretation, marked wear has been observed mainly for the pentekontadrachms while the jugate bust mnaieia are generally conserved in a better state. Study of the pentekontadrachma revealed a very slight weight reduction from the first emissions bearing a K (13.89 g) to the following unmarked emission (13.83 g). [136] ﬈is contradicts the supposition that the weights might be correlated with the relative chronology of the coinage. ﬈e lowered weight of the unmarked pentekontadrachma corresponds almost exactly to half of the weight of the mnaieia (27.66 versus 27.70 g) and is thus perfectly coherent. ﬈is allows us to envision a policy decision reducing the weight

[135] However, the interquartile spaces are quite similar for each series, from 0.11 g between 27.67 and 27.77 g for the jugate bust coinage to 0,09 g between 27.74 and 27.82 g for the radiate Ptolemy III coinage. [136] See above, n. 57. ptolemaic gold coinages 119 of the gold coinage, even as the dispersion of the weights suggests a weaker metrological control within the mint. ﬈e study of platinoid traces in the gold of the jugate bust coins seems also to attest a conscious decision by the issuing authority regarding the good quality of these coins.

III. ﬈e gold used [137]

Platinum (Pt) and palladium (Pd) are present in trace amounts in gold. Both have similar physical and chemical properties and will accompany gold during the metallurgical treatments to which the ore is subjected. ﬈erefore, their levels can be interpreted as a marker of gold stock used. [138] ﬈e different platinoid signatures should be understood in a broader context, that of the principal gold emissions coined in the Orient at the beginning of the Hellenistic period, following the conquests of Alexander the Great. In a recent article F. Duyrat and J. Olivier sought a better understanding of the great movements of the stocks of coined gold in the Mediterranean Orient in the course of the fi﬇h and fourth centuries bc. [139] Before the conquest of Alexander the Great, two large ensembles appeared clearly. ﬈e first is distinguished by extremely weak traces of platinum and palladium (from one to a few ppm), and is not represented in Graph 2 below. ﬈is gold, detected in the numerous emissions of Philip II and later at the beginning of the reign of Alexander the Great, was most certainly extracted from the rich mines of the Pangaeum. ﬈e second metallic stock is known to us thanks to very numerous gold coins struck in Macedon and in the former Persian empire by Alexander and his successors, the Diadochoi. In contrast to the first group, this metal is characterized by much higher traces of palladium (generally around 15 ppm) but especially of platinum (several hundred ppm) and is designated as Group 2 in the graph below. ﬈is signature was the result of the confisca- tion of the fabulous Persian treasures by the conquering Macedonians. A third and final ensemble appeared in the third century. It occupies a middle position between the two preceding ensembles and is very certainly the product of mixing them. [140] ﬈is third ensemble includes the bulk of

[137] We thank M. Blet-Lemarquand for careﬔl reading and comments she provided to this section. Any errors remain the sole responsibility of the authors. [138] Elemental analysis performed using la-icp-ms (Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry). For ﬔrther information on the method: Gratuze et al. 2004; Dussubieux & van Zelst 2004; Blet-Lemarquand et al. 2009. [139] Duyrat & Olivier 2010, p. 84-89. [140] ﬈e traditional interpretation of the papyrus P. Cair. Zen. 59 021 provides an attractive hypothesis to explain this mixture. ﬈e coins brought by foreign merchants, gathered at the port of Alexandria by royal oﬃcials for exchange, are melted 120 julien olivier & catharine lorber the gold coinage struck at Alexandria as well as issues of the Seleucid mints of Antioch and Asia Minor and is designated as Group 1 in the graph below. ﬈e following graphs place our three Ptolemaic coinages (with the notable addition of some examples from the Berenice coinage) in the context of these great stocks of metal:

Graph 2 – Platinum and palladium content of gold coins featuring jugate busts, gold coins from the time of the Diadochoi and from the Seleucid kingdom [141]

Two groups appear rather distinctly in Graph 2. ﬈e pieces possessing less than c. 400 ppm of platinum (Group 1) consist essentially of coins struck in Alexandria and in the western part of the Seleucid kingdom (Antioch

down and reminted as new Ptolemaic coins. ﬈e mixture of gold coming from all regions of the Mediterranean ultimately resulted in the creation of an original signature: Le Rider 1998a (on the provenance of coins arriving at Alexandria); Duyrat & Olivier 2010, p. 88. Even if the papyrus does not refer to recoining, as maintained by Burkhalter 2007, p. 47-57, such a process is a logical corollary of the closed Ptolemaic economy. [141] ﬈e data concerning the coinage struck between Macedon and Mesopotamia during the last quarter of the fourth century are published in Gondonneau & Guerra 2000, p. 30-31; Gondonneau et al. 2002, p. 371-373. ﬈e data concerning the Seleucid gold coins come from the unpublished Master’s thesis of Feuillassier 2007. All these analyses were performed in the iramat laboratory, and their results are gathered at the end of the article. ﬈e platinium and palladium contents are scaled to gold and the ratios Pt/Au and Pd/Au are displayed in order to compare coins that have diﬀerent gold contents; ppm = parts per million. ptolemaic gold coinages 121 and Asia Minor), as well as some rare pieces of the types of Philip or Alexan- der emitted from c. 323. ﬈e latter issues usually have much higher and more widely dispersed values in platinoids (and to a lesser extent in palladium), generally between 400 and 1000 ppm. Five jugate bust pieces fall outside of Group 1 and in the middle of Group 2, as deﬁned in Graph 2 above. ﬈e following Graph 3 includes only Alexandrian issues, including trichrysa of Ptolemy II:

Graph 3 – Platinum and palladium content of gold coins featuring jugate busts, Arsinoe II, and Ptolemy III with the radiate crown

It is immediately apparent that coins of the jugate bust type comprise two separate populations. [142] ﬈e ﬁrst includes eight of the thirteen pieces analyzed that had between 260 and 390 ppm of platinum and from 8 to 13 ppm of palladium. ﬈is proﬁle is perfectly consistent with the values calculated for the emissions of Arsinoe II and of Ptolemy III with the radiate crown (Group 1). ﬈e second exhibits quantities of platinoids that are glo- bally more elevated but also more dispersed: between 430 and 720 ppm of platinum and from 11 to 17 ppm of palladium (Group 2). In other words, only a part of the jugate bust coinage seems to have been manufactured from metal with an identical signature to the metal of the emissions of trichrysa (until c. 272?), of Arsinoe II (c. 261-242?), and of Ptolemy III with the radiate crown (c. 217).

[142] ﬈is phenomenon was ﬁrst reported in the article treating the Ptolemaic and Seleu- cid policies concerning gold: Duyrat & Olivier 2010, p. 86-87. Many new analyses have been completed since that publication, but without modifying the structure of the graph. 122 julien olivier & catharine lorber

It appears that coins of the jugate bust type separate out into two groups that correspond to two ensembles already well defined by Duyrat and Oli- vier. ﬈e coins of Group 1 were made of gold issuing from a mixture of Macedonian and Persian sources, which was habitually employed in the Lagid capital throughout the third century. In contrast, the coins of Group 2 are far closer to the Persian metal employed in emissions from the end of the reign of Alexander and the time of the Diadochoi and in emissions of the eastern Seleucid kingdom. ﬈is metal could come from bullion stocks immobilized in Egypt for many decades or from booty taken in the course of the numerous conflicts that mark the period. Alternatively the Alexan- dria mint may have drawn on gold from the Wadi al-Allaqi, which became available a﬇er Philadelphus’ annexation of Lower Nubia c. 275 to the late 270s. [143] However this remains merely a hypothetical possibility, because the metallic signatures of native Egyptian and Nubian gold have not yet been established. Whatever the cause, it is evident that the minting of the vast jugate bust coinage required the use of two quite distinct sources of metal. ﬈e separation of the jugate bust coins into two ensembles could be interpreted as evidence for a chronological distinction. Yet Graph 3 shows that the jugate bust pieces are unique in this respect, as compared with both earlier and later mintages. ﬈e trichrysa struck at the beginning of the reign of Ptolemy II already present a platinum/palladium signature fitting perfectly within Group 1. ﬈e same is true for the later mnaieia of the third century, and even beyond. [144] ﬈e use of two distinct metallic stocks thus stands apart from a practice maintained over the decades and must be considered as a discrete phenomenon limited to the coinage of jugate bust type. ﬈e results of elemental analyses combined with those of the die study ﬔrther disqualify the idea of a correlation between metal content and chronology. Coins nos 198 and 204 belong to Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. Although they do not share an obverse die, the two dies (die a7 and a8) are linked by two reverse dies (die r17 and r18). It thus appears probable that the two sources of gold described above were used in parallel and not consecutively. Evidently the production of coins of the jugate bust type required the use of the regular gold stock and also a supplementary resource. ﬈e large size of the emission, of which weak metrological control may perhaps be a symptom, suggests that the Alexandria mint drew on this new source because of an insufficient supply of the regular gold.

[143] Diod. 1.37.5; 3.36; ﬈eoc. Id. 17.86-87; Agatharchides frg. 20. On the mining of gold in the eastern desert, notably in the Ptolemaic period: Klemm et al. 2001, p. 654- 656; Klemm et al. 2002, p. 218-219; Sidebotham et al. 2008, p. 213-226; Klemm & Klemm 2013, pp. 12-15 and 294-340 (on the Wadi al-Allaqi region). [144] Elemental analyses of coins of the second century show that the metal employed remained the same: Olivier 2006, p. 77-79; Olivier 2012, p. 676ﬀ. ptolemaic gold coinages 123

IV. Hoards and circulation

Hoards and circulation are discussed above in connection with the jugate bust and Arsinoe series. For purposes of comparison, we add hoard data for provincial mnaieia of Arsinoe Philadelphus and for the gold coinage depicting the radiate Ptolemy III:

Arsinoe Arsinoe Radiate Hoard Date Jugate (Alexan- (provin- Ptolemy Other bust dria) cial) III 1 Alexander Mt. Hymettus c. 263 2 pente. Ptol. bronze Zagazig Before 100 mn. (igch 1692) 261? Aydıncık A﬇er 1+ mn., 1+ mn. (ch 4·486, 8·284) 261 15+ pente. Naupactus Mid-3rd 2 Aetol. Lg., 1 pente. (igch 174) century 2 Seleucid Near Alexandria 2 trichrysa, c. 245 1 mn. 1 mn. (ch 8·303) 136 silver Upper Egypt c. 245? 112 mn. (igch 1684) Egypt, 1927? c. 245? 6+ mn. (igch 1682) 25+ Alexan- der, 38 Se- Tarik Darreh ? c. 225 1 mn. leucids, (ch 2·70, 8·312) 1 Carthage, 1 Cyrene Benha, 1936 A﬇er 2+ mn., 2 Alex.,1 10+ mn. 9+ mn. 1 trichryson (igch 1694) 217 3+ pente. prov. Benha, 1922‒1923 A﬇er 8 mn., 6 Alex. (igch 1695) 217 ? pente. A﬇er 55+ mn., 136+ A few Ber. II ‘Commerce, 2007’ 138+ mn. 217 53+ pente. Alex. pentadr.

Syria, 1989 A﬇er Ber. II pen- 2 mn. tadr., Ptol. (ch 8·462) 217 silver Antalya 1 mn., 3+ Ber. II c. 200 4+ mn. 1 unspec. (ch 1·69) 18+ pente. mn.

Table 12 – Hoards containing gold coins of the jugate bust, Arsinoe, and radiate Ptolemy III types 124 julien olivier & catharine lorber

For the circulation of the jugate bust pentekontadrachma we also note a single specimen found near the site of Ptolemais in the disputed province of Syria and Phœnicia. [145] As noted earlier, gold coins of the jugate bust, Arsinoe, and radiate Pto- lemy III types circulated mainly in Egypt, especially a﬇er the middle of the third century. A significant number of jugate bust pentekontadrachma have been found outside of Egypt, in territories that were garrisoned by the Pto- lemies and in actual war zones. Mnaieia of the three series occur only occasionally outside of Egypt, in similar contexts. ﬈e only anomaly is the Tarik Darreh hoard, from Kangavar province in western Iran. ﬈is is by far the most eastern findspot for any Ptolemaic gold coin, and it is very distant from the normal area of circulation of such coins. It is tempting to suggest that the jugate bust mnaieion was carried east during the spectacularly suc- cessﬔl invasion of Ptolemy III during the ﬈ird Syrian War. It is now accepted that his army advanced as far as Persis and Susiana. [146] ﬈e mnaieion probably entered a Seleucid treasury and moved north into Media during the Parthian campaign of Seleucus II. In Egypt, the jugate bust and Arsinoe series tend to appear in separate hoards down to the mid-third century: the Zagazig hoard contained only jugate bust types, the Upper Egypt and Egypt, 1927? hoards contained only Arsinoes, while a hoard found near Alexandria contained one specimen from each series. ﬈is configuration could be due in part to the different chronology of the two series, or it could suggest that the two coinages were hoarded separately, perhaps because they had different ﬔnctions or different recipients. ﬈e Upper Egypt hoard is the only one from this region and it raises the possibility that the Arsinoe mnaieia circulated more extensively within Egypt than the jugate bust coinage. Finally, both coinages are found together in Egyptian hoards only in the various deposits of the last quarter of the third century, mixed with coins of Ptolemy III and IV. A striking aspect of these Egyptian hoards is their size. ﬈e Zagazig hoard was worth more than 1.5 talents, the Upper Egypt hoard nearly 2 talents. ﬈e three apparently small finds, Egypt, 1927? and the two Benha hoards, were recorded incompletely and were certainly larger than their known contents suggest. In the case of the Benha hoard of 1936, the coins were already on the Cairo market when A.B. Brett was notified; she described it

[145] Found close to TelAkko by M. Prausnitz and delivered to the Israel Antiquities Authority on 20/vii/1972 (information from D.T. Ariel). [146] New confirmation comes from the Alexandria Decree of 243, El-Masry, Altenmüller & ﬈issen 2012, hieroglyphic ℓ. 9 (pp. 16, 23, 40, 97), demotic § 10 (pp. 54, 97), Greek § 10 (pp. 97, 217), with commentary p. 100-102. See also Adulis inscription (ogis 54 = Bagnall & Derow 2004, no. 26 = Austin 2006, no. 268), ℓ. 18-20; Hieron. In Dan. 11.6 (Por. FGrHist ii 260 f 43). ﬈e primary sources for the ﬈ird Syrian War are collected and discussed by El-Masry, Altenmüller & ﬈issen 2012, p. 151-163. ptolemaic gold coinages 125 as ‘a sizable hoard’ and reported that “the commoner coins of the class popularly known in Egypt as ‘﬈eon Adelphon’ were probably numerous as they were ‘going begging’, so to speak.” [147] We also note certain patterns in the deposition of these hoards. ﬈ree of them, apparently, were deposited around 245. A possible cause for the simultaneous deposit of several hoards could be the domestica seditio of 245 that compelled Ptolemy Euergetes to abandon his conquests in the Seleucid kingdom in order to restore order in his own realm. [148] Historians have debated the nature of the sedition, and the recently published synodal decree of 243 provides some guidance. [149] When praising the king’s benefactions, the priests do not mention a failure of the Nile inundation and a threat of famine averted by Ptolemy’s grain purchases abroad at his own expense. ﬈is benefaction is the centerpiece of the Canopus Decree of 238, [150] so we can conclude that it occurred a﬇er 243 and cannot be connected with the sedition of 245. [151] ﬈e Alexandria Decree of 243 does allude to tax reduc- tions, remissions of arrears, and releases of prisoners, terms typical of a pharaonic amnesty decree, which anticipate the philanthropa issued by later Ptolemies a﬇er periods of civil unrest. [152] If our hoards are correctly dated, they imply that the unrest was widespread, affecting both the environs of Alexandria and some unknown site in Upper Egypt. Another cluster of hoards closes with mnaieia portraying the radiate Ptolemy III and can thus be dated a﬇er the battle of Raphia. ﬈e loss of these especially valuable hoards can perhaps be related to the native unrest that, according to Poly- bius, broke out a﬇er the battle of Raphia because the success of Egyptians fighting in the phalanx inspired ethnic pride and a spirit of revolt. [153] In fact, Egyptian documents do not provide evidence of a rebellion immediately a﬇er the victory at Raphia, though Lycopolis in the Delta was in revolt before the end of the reign. [154] ﬈e three gold hoards lost in the reign

[147] Brett 1952, p. 1. [148] Just. 27.1.9; Hieron. In Dan. 11.7 (Por. FGrHist ii 260 f 43); P. Haun. 6, ℓ. 14-17, see Bülow-Jacobsen 1979. See also Huß 1978; Peremans 1981; Hauben 1990, p. 32-35; McGing 1997, p. 274-277; Veïsse 2004, p. 3-5. [149] El-Masry, Altenmüller & ﬈issen 2012. [150] Canopus Decree, Urk. ii, no. 30, § 8; Kom el-Hisn stela ℓ. 4-5, Tanis stela ℓ. 14-20, Simpson 1996, p. 226-229; ogis 56 (Bagnall & Derow 2004, no. 164 = Austin 2006, no. 271), ℓ. 13-19. [151] ﬈e unrest of 245 was related to poor inundations by Bonneau 1971, p. 119-147, followed by Huß 1978, p. 155-156, and Hauben 1990, p. 33-34. [152] Smith 1968. Similar measures are commended in the Memphis Decree of 196, as noted by El-Masry, Altenmüller & ﬈issen 2012, p. 91. [153] Polyb. 5.107.1-3; 14.12.3-4. See also Peremans 1978; McGing 1997, p. 278-283; Veïsse 2004, p. 5-7. [154] Peremans 1978; McGing 1997, p. 278-283; Veïsse 2004, p. 5-7. In the Memphis Decree of 199 (ogis 90), ℓ. 27-28, the account of the suppression of the long-stand- 126 julien olivier & catharine lorber of Ptolemy IV supplement the written sources and suggest serious problems, if not open revolt, then at least violent attacks on wealthy men or perhaps even on temples. [155] Two of the three hoards were found at Benha (ancient Athribis), and if they were not two parts of a single hoard, they would point to Athribis as a particular trouble spot. A ﬔrther important aspect of this last group of hoards is that they were deposited at a time when silver hoards had become rare and were usually small. For the entire reign of Ptolemy IV only two silver hoards have been recorded: Suez Canal, 1860 (igch 1693), containing one gold and two silver pieces of the Attic-weight coinage of Berenice II, and Delta, 1922 (igch 1690), containing 21 silver coins, mostly tetradrachms of Ptolemy IV of the Sarapis and Isis type. ﬈e paucity of silver hoards reﬂects a shortage of coined silver in the Egyptian economy, and conﬁrms the observation of papyrologists that silver coins are rarely mentioned in their documents a﬇er the reign of Ptolemy III. [156]

V. ﬈e functions of gold coinage ﬈e ﬔnctions of Lagid gold coinage include both the original purpose for which the state coined the money and released it to particular recipients, and its subsequent history as it circulated in the Egyptian economy and/or entered into various types of hoards. ﬈e introduction of the jugate bust coinage is now best dated before August of 272, placing it in the context of the First Syrian War (274-271). Gold trichrysa have also been dated to the First Syrian War. [157] Most likely the trichrysa were struck at the outset of the war, and were subsequently superseded by the jugate bust coinage with its diﬀerent metrology and denominational system. ﬈e two coinages share the same adjunct symbol, a Galatian shield, which links them to one another and implies a military ﬔnction. ﬈is interpretation is supported by the hoard provenances described above. Hoards of jugate bust gold coins, mainly pentekontadrachma, have been found in Pamphylia and Rough Cilicia, both garrisoned Ptolemaic possessions in

ing revolt at Lycopolis in the Delta is immediately followed by praise of Ptolemy Epiphanes for executing the rebels who revolted against his father. [155] On the prevalence of banditry, see Reekmans 1949, p. 337-338; Peremans 1978, p. 42-43. [156] Lorber forthcoming. On the Ptolemaic silver shortage, see also Préaux 1939, p. 277; Rostovtzeff 1941, Vol. i, p. 400, Vol. ii, p. 712; Reekmans 1948, pp. 18, 22; id. 1951, pp. 66-67, 68, 77; Will 1982, Vol. ii, p. 32; Hazzard 1995, p. 80-81; Maresch 1996, pp. 15, 56-57; von Reden 2007, pp. 61, 68. Cf. Burkhalter & Picard 2005, p. 53, where the scarcity is dated from the end of the third century. [157] Davesne & Le Rider 1989, p. 275-277; Lorber 2012a, p. 39. Both treat tetradrachms with which trichrysa were associated by shared controls. ptolemaic gold coinages 127 southern Asia Minor, and in a Lagid military camp in Attica, where they were introduced during the Chremonidian War (c. 268/7-263/2). It seems safe to conclude that the jugate bust pentekontadrachma played a role in the pay of garrisons and of soldiers on active combat duty; in both cases the gold coins were probably reserved for the pay of officers. [158] ﬈e jugate bust mnaieia, in contrast, have been found mainly in Lower Egypt, and thus are not strongly associated with the pay of provincial garrisons or soldiers in combat. But the mnaieia should not be distinguished too strictly from the pentekontadrachma. ﬈e papyrus P. Cair. Zen. 59 022 records a deposit of 93 pentekontadrachma into a bank account at Diospolis Kato in the Egyptian Delta, along with 37 mnaieia and 85 trichrysa. Burk- halter associated this deposit, among other documents, with syntaxeis to finance the travels of the dioiketes and his retinue in the Delta and the Fayum in the years 258-256 in order to organize the logistics of the Second Syrian War and to inspect the progress of land reclamation. [159] We can also infer that all three of these gold denominations were essen- tial for the foreign trade on which the wealth of the Ptolemies depended. ﬈e ‘letter of Demetrius’ (P. Cair. Zen. 59 021) describes both foreign tra- ders and local merchants clamoring to exchange their imported coinage and trichrysa for new gold coinage so that they can buy merchandise in the chora. ﬈is lack of access to new gold coinage was a crisis for the merchants and their inability to conduct trade is represented as damaging the revenues of the king. [160] An earlier attestation of the use of gold coinage in large- scale commercial transactions is P. Hib. i 110, cited above in connection with the chronology of the jugate bust coinage. For the Arsinoe mnaieia we have deduced a very particular role in military finance. While the purpose of the early issues remains enigmatic, an enormous spike in production c. 253/2 corresponds to the end of the Second Syrian War. It is logical to assume a connection: the later Arsinoe mnaieia were struck to pay donatives to retiring veterans of the Second Syrian War, who also received klerouchic land grants as a reward for their service. Our third gold coinage had a comparable purpose. Its elaborate obverse type presents Ptolemy III, glorious victor over the Seleucid kingdom, as a new Alexander, conqueror of the Orient. ﬈e combination of this type and the hurried minting of the issue makes it virtually certain that these coins were used to pay the victory donative a﬇er the battle of Raphia.

[158] See n. 127 above. [159] Burkhalter 2007, p. 74-78. [160] It was customary for petitioners and others seeking an oﬃcial decision to align their requests with the interests of the king, but in this case the claim should probably be taken seriously. 128 julien olivier & catharine lorber

Despite their different original ﬔnctions, the vast majority of the gold series studied here ended up together in large Egyptian hoards. ﬈e con- centration of these coins into large treasures a﬇er many of them had been distributed to individual soldiers is a noteworthy phenomenon. Unhappily, because of the lack of archaeological context, we cannot classify the gold hoards according to ﬔnction; we do not know if they represent temple treasuries, official accumulations, commercial capital, and/or the savings of elite individuals or families. We can only hope that ﬔture analyses of papyrological sources will shed additional light on the role of gold coinage in the Egyptian economy, and thereby illuminate the processes that led to the formation of these hoards. general conclusions Although our three gold coinages conform to the same monetary system, probably inaugurated in or before 272, our study has exposed important differences among them. Quite apart from their contrasting typologies, they differ in volume, denominational structure, production patterns, duration of production, and area of circulation. It is clear that the minting of Ptole- maic gold coinage was neither regular nor continuous, even in its heyday in the third century. ﬈ere was no single, constant policy governing gold coinage: each series appears to be a response by the royal authority to a particular historical context. ﬈e military ﬔnction of gold coinage is implied by the chronological correlation of our three series with several of the great conflicts of the third century. ﬈e hypothesis of military ﬔnction is ﬔrther supported in different ways by our numismatic data – hoards and areas of circulation for the jugate bust coinage, the production pattern of the Arsinoe mnaieia, and both iconography and the production pattern of the mnaieia depicting the radiate Ptolemy III. Egyptian papyri attest to other uses of the gold coinage, notably in commercial transactions. ptolemaic gold coinages 129 bibliography

Alföldi 1977 = A. Alföldi, From the Aion Plutonios of the Ptolemies to the Saecu- lum Frugiferum of the Roman Emperors, in K.H. Kinzl (ed.), Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean in Ancient History and Prehistory, Berlin, p. 1-30. Austin 2006 = M. Austin, ﬈e Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Con- quest. A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation, Cambridge, 2nd edition. Bagnall 1999 = R.S. Bagnall, Review of Cadell & Le Rider 1997, snr 78, p. 197-203. Bagnall & Derow 2004 = R.S. Bagnall & P. Derow, ﬈e Hellenistic Period. Histor- ical Sources in Translation, Malden, Oxford y Carlton. Bar-Kochva 1979 = B. Bar-Kochva, ﬈e Seleucid Army: Organization and Tactics in the Great Campaigns, Cambridge. Bergmann 1998 = M. Bergmann, Die Strahlen der Herrscher: ﬈eomorphes Herr- scherbild und politische Symbolik im Hellenismus und in der römischen Kaiser- zeit, Mainz. Binder 2008 = S. Binder, ﬈e Gold of Honour in New Kingdom Egypt, Studies of the Australian Centre for Egyptology 8, Oxford. Blet-Lemarquand et al. 2009 = M. Blet-Lemarquand, G. Sarah, B. Gratuze & J.-N. Barrandon, Nuclear Methods and Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry: How Can ﬈ese Methods Contribute to the Study of Ancient Coinages? in First Symposium International Archaeomet, Ancient and Medieval Monetary Technologies and Metrology: ﬈e Contribution of the Atomic and Nuclear Analyses, Bucarest, 4-5 May 2007, Cercetări Numismatice xv, Bucarest, p. 43-56. Bonneau 1971 = D. Bonneau, Le Fisc et le Nil : Incidences des irrégularités de la crue du Nil sur la ﬁscalité foncière dans l’Égypte grecque et romaine, Paris. Brett 1952 = A.B. Brett, ﬈e Benha Hoard of Ptolemaic Gold Coins, ansmn v, p. 1-8. Brett 1955 = A.B. Brett, Catalogue of Greek Coins, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Bricault 1999 = L. Bricault, Sarapis et Isis, sauveurs de Ptolémée IV à Raphia, CdE lxxiv, fasc. 148, p. 334-343. Bülow-Jacobsen 1979 = A. Bülow-Jacobsen, P. Haun 6. An Inspection of the Ori- ginal, zpe 36, p. 91-100. Burkhalter 2007 = F. Burkhalter, Comptes et monnaies en Égypte ptolémaïque d’après les papyrus, unpublished PhD Dissertation directed by O. Picard, Uni- versité de Paris iv (La Sorbonne). Burkhalter & Picard 2005 = F. Burkhalter & O. Picard, Le vocabulaire ﬁnancier dans les papyrus et l’évolution des monnayages lagides en bronze, in F. Duyrat & O. Picard (eds.), L’exception égyptienne ? Production et échanges monétaires en Égypte hellénistique et romaine : Actes du Colloque d’Alexandrie, 13-15 avril 2002, Études alexandrines 10, Cairo, p. 53-80. Cadell & Le Rider 1997 = H. Cadell & G. Le Rider, Prix du blé et numéraire dans l'Égypte lagide de 305 à 173, Papyrologica Bruxellensia 30, Brussels. 130 julien olivier & catharine lorber

Callataÿ 1995 = Fr. de Callataÿ, Calculating ancient coin production: seeking a balance, nc 155, p. 289-312. Callataÿ 2011a = Fr. de Callataÿ, Production et innovations monétaires dans l’Asie Mineure hellénistique, in Arkeo Atlas online. Callataÿ 2011b = Fr. de Callataÿ, Quantifying Monetary Production in Greco- Roman Times: A General Framework, in Fr. de Callataÿ (ed.), Quantifying Monetary Production in Greco-Roman Times, Bari, p. 7-29. Carter 1983 = G.F. Carter, A Simpliﬁed Method for Calculating the Original Number of Dies from Die Link Statistics, ansmn 28, p. 195-206. Cavagna 2008 = A. Cavagna, L’Oro dei theoi adelphoi, in G. Zanetto, S. Mar- tinelli Tempesta & M. Ornaghi (eds.), Nova vestigia antiquitatis, Milan, p. 161-182. Clarysse 1980 = W. Clarysse, A Royal Visit to Memphis and the End of the Se- cond Syrian War, in D.J. Crawford, J. Quaegebeur & W. Clarysse, Studies on Ptolemaic Memphis, Studia Hellenistica 24, Lovanii, p. 85-89. Clarysse & ﬈ompson 1995 = W. Clarysse & D.J. Thompson, ﬈e Salt-Tax Rate Once Again, CdE 70, p. 223-239. Clarysse & Vandorpe 1998 = W. Clarysse & K. Vandorpe, ﬈e Ptolemaic Apo- moira, in H. Melaerts (ed.), Le culte du souverain dans l’Égypte ptolémaïque au iiie siècle avant notre ère : Actes du Colloque international, Bruxelles 10 mai 1995, Studia Hellenistica 34, Louvain, p. 5-37. Cuvigny 2003 = H. Cuvigny, Les avatars du chrysous dans l’Égypte ptolémaïque et romaine, bifao 103, p. 111-130. Davesne & Le Rider 1989 = A. Davesne & G. Le Rider, Le trésor de Meydancıkkale (Cilicie Trachée, 1980), Gülnar II, Paris. Davesne 1994 = A. Davesne, Le trésor d’Aydıncık, in M. Amandry & G. Le Rider (eds.), Trésors et circulation monétaire en Anatolie antique, Paris, p. 37-43. Dussubieux & van Zelst 2004 = L. Dussubieux & L. van Zelst, la-icp-ms Analysis of Platinium-Group Elements and other Elements of Interest in Ancient Gold, Appl. Phys. A 79, p. 353-356. Duyrat & Olivier 2010 = F. Duyrat & J. Olivier, Deux politiques de l’or. Séleu- cides et Lagides au iiie siècle avant J.-C., rn 166, p. 71-93. El-Masry, Altenmüller & ﬈issen 2012 = Y. El-Masry, H. Altenmüller & H.-J. Thissen, Das Synodaldekret von Alexandria aus dem Jahre 243 v. Chr., Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur Beihe﬇ 11, Hamburg. Faucher 2011 = T. Faucher, Productivité des coins et taux de survie du monnayage grec, in Fr. de Callataÿ (ed.), Quantifying Monetary Supplies in Greco- Roman Times, Bari, p. 113-126. Faucher et al. 2009 = T. Faucher, F. Tereygeol, L. Brousseau & A. Arles, À la recherche des ateliers monétaires grecs : l’apport de l’expérimentation, rn 166, p. 43-80. Feuillassier 2007 = B. Feuillassier, Les monnaies d’or séleucides, unpublished Master’s thesis directed by F. Duyrat, Université d’Orleans. ptolemaic gold coinages 131

Fischer-Bovet forthcoming = C. Fischer-Bovet, Counting the Greeks in Egypt: Immigration in the First Century of Ptolemaic Rule, in C. Holleran & A. Pudsey (eds.), Demography and the Graeco-Roman World: New Insights, Cam- bridge, p. 135-154. Fulinska 2010 = A. Fulinska, Iconography of the Ptolemaic Queens on Coins: Greek Style, Egyptian Ideas? Studies in Ancient Art and Civilization 14, Kra- ków, p. 73-92. Galili 1976-77 = E. Galili, Raphia, 217 bce, Revisited, sci 3, p. 52-126. Gara 1988 = A. Gara, Il signiﬁcato economico della politica monetaria nell’Egitto ellenistico, in F. Angeli (ed.), Stato Economia Lavoro nel Vicino Oriente antico. Atti del Convegno promosso dal Seminario di orientalistica dell’Istituto Gramsci toscano, Milano, p. 128-137. Gondonneau 2001 = A. Gondonneau, Développement et application des tech- niques icp-ms et la-icp-ms à la caractérisation de l’or : Circulation monétaire entre Orient et Occident dans l’Antiquité et au Moyen Âge, unpublished PhD Dissertation directed by M.F. Guerra, Université d’Orléans. Gondonneau & Guerra 2000 = A. Gondonneau & M.F. Guerra, L’or perse à tra- vers l’analyse de monnayages antiques et médiévaux, Revue d’Archéométrie 24, p. 27-38. Gondonneau et al. 2002 = A. Gondonneau, H. Nicolet-Pierre & M.F. Guerra, ﬈e Persian and Macedonian Gold from Darius to Alexander the Great, in E. Je- rem & K.T. Biro (eds.), Archaeometry 98. Proceedings of the 31st Symposium, Budapest, April 26 – May 3, 1998, vol. ii, bar 1043 (ii), p. 369-374. Goudriaan 1988 = K. Goudriaan, Ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt, Dutch Mono- graphs on Ancient History and Archaeology 5, Amsterdam. Gratuze et al. 2004 = B. Gratuze, M. Blet-Lemarquand & J.-N. Barrandon, Caractérisation des alliages monétaires à base d’or par la-icp-ms, Journées numismatiques d’Arles 4-6 juin 2004, bsfn, Actes des journées numismatiques d’Arles avec le concours du musée de l’Arles et de la Provence antique, 59e an- née, no 6. Grenfell & Hunt 1906 = B.P. Grenfell & A.S. Hunt, ﬈e Hibeh Papyri, part i, London. Griﬃth 1935 = G.T. Griffith, ﬈e Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World, Cam- bridge. Grimm 1978 = G. Grimm, Die Vergöttlichung Alexanders des Grossen in Ägypten und ihre Bedeutung für den ptolemäischen Königskult, in H. Maehler & V.M. Strocka (eds.), Das ptolemäische Agypten. Akten des internationalen Sympo- sions 27.-29. September 1976 in Berlin, Mainz, p. 103-112. Grzybek 1990 = E. Grzybek, Du calendrier macédonien au calendrier ptolémaïque : Problèmes de chronologie hellénistique, Basel. Habicht 2000 = C. Habicht, Athènes hellénistique. Histoire de la cité d’Alexandre le Grand à Marc Antoine, Paris. Hauben 1990 = H. Hauben, L’expédition de Ptolémée III en Orient et la sédition domestique de 245 av. J.-C., apf 36, p. 29-37. 132 julien olivier & catharine lorber

Hazzard 1995 = R.A. Hazzard, Ptolemaic Coins: An Introduction for Collectors, Toronto. Heinen 1972 = H. Heinen, Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichte des 3. Jh. v. Chr. Zur Geschichte der Zeit des Ptolemaios Keraunos und zum Chremoni- deischen Krieg, Wiesbaden. Huß 1976a = W. Huss, Ptolemaios III as Sarapis? jng 26, p. 31-36. Huß 1976b = W. Huss, Untersuchungen zur Außenpolitik Ptolemaios’ IV., Münche- ner Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 69, München. Huß 1978 = W. Huss, Eine Revolt der Aegypter in der Zeit des 3. Syrischen Krieges, Aegyptus 58, p. 151-156. Iossif & Lorber 2012 = P.P. Iossif & C.C. Lorber, ﬈e Rays of the Ptolemies, rn 169, p. 197-224. Kamal 1904-1905 = A.B. Kamal, Stèles ptolémaïques et romaines, Cairo. Kleiner 1950-51 = G. Kleiner, Das Bildnis Alexanders des Grossen, jdai 65/66, p. 206-230. Klemm et al. 2001 = D.D. Klemm, R. Klemm & A. Murr, Gold of the Pharaohs – 6000 Years of Gold Mining in Egypt and Nubia, Journal of African Earth Science 33, p. 643-659. Klemm et al. 2002 = D.D. Klemm, R. Klemm & A. Murr, Ancient Gold Mining in the Eastern Desert of Egypt and the Nubian Desert of Sudan, in R. Friedman (ed.), Egypt and Nubia. Gi﬇s of the Desert, London, p. 215-231. Klemm & Klemm 2013 = D.D. Klemm & R. Klemm, Gold and Gold Mining in An- cient Egypt and Nubia. Geoarchaeology of the Ancient Gold Mining Sites in the Egyptian and Sudanese Eastern Deserts, Berlin y Heidelberg. Kyrieleis 1975 = H. Kyrieleis, Bildnisse der Ptolemäer, Archäologishe Forschun- gen 2, Berlin. Lauter 1989 = H. Lauter, Das Teichos von Sunion, Marburger Winckelmann-Pro- gramm 1988, p. 11-33. Lauter-Bufe 1989 = H. Lauter-Bufe, Die Festung auf Koroni und die Burcht von Porto Raphti, Marburger Winckelmann-Programm 1988, p. 67-102. Le Rider 1977 = G. Le Rider, Le Monnayage d’or et d’argent frappé par Philippe II en Macédoine de 359 à 294, Paris. Le Rider 1998a = G. Le Rider, Sur un passage du papyrus de Zénon 59 021, in J.-Y. Empereur (ed.), Commerce et artisanat dans l’Alexandrie hellénistique et romaine, Athènes y Paris, p. 403-407. Le Rider 1998b = G. Le Rider, Histoire économique et monétaire de l’Orient hel- lénistique. Le monnayage des Ptolémées, Annuaire du Collège de France 1997- 1998. Résumé des cours, Paris, p. 1107-1133. Le Rider & Callataÿ 2006 = G. Le Rider & Fr. de Callataÿ, Les Séleucides et les Ptolémées : L’héritage monétaire et ﬁnancier d’Alexandre le Grand, Paris. Lorber 2011 = C.C. Lorber, ﬈eos Aigiochos: ﬈e Aegis in Ptolemaic Portraits of Divine Rulers, in P. Iossif, A. Chankowski & C. Lorber (eds.), More than Men, ptolemaic gold coinages 133

Less than Gods: Studies in Royal Cult and Emperor Worship. Proceedings of the International Conference organized by the Belgian School at Athens, 1-2 November 2007, Studia Hellenistica 51, Leuven, p. 293-356 Lorber 2012a = C.C. Lorber, Dating the Portrait Coinage of Ptolemy I, ajn 24, p. 33-44. Lorber 2012b = C.C. Lorber, ﬈e Coinage of the Ptolemies, in W. Metcalf (ed.), ﬈e Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage, Oxford, p. 212-234. Lorber forthcoming = C.C. Lorber, ﬈e Grand Mutation: Ptolemaic Bronze Coin- age in the Second Century bc, in S. Bussi & D. Foraboschi (eds), Egitto: am- ministrazione, economia, società, cultura dai Faraoni agli Arabi. Milano, Uni- versità degli Studi, 7-9 Gennaio 2013. Maresch 1996 = K. Maresch, Bronze und Silber: Papyrologische Beiträge zur Ge- schichte der Währung im ptolemäischen und römischen Ägypten bis zum 2. Jahr- hundert n. Chr., Papyrologica Coloniensia 25, Opladen. Marquaille 2008 = C. Marquaille, ﬈e Foreign Policy of Ptolemy II, in P. Mc- Kechnie & P. Guillaume (eds.), Ptolemy II Philadelphus and His World, Mne- mosyne Supplements, History and Archaeology of the Classical World Vol. 300, Leiden y Boston, p. 39-64. McCredie 1966 = J.R. McCredie, Fortiﬁed Military Camps in Attica, Hesperia Suppl. xi, Princeton. McGing 1997 = B.C. McGing, Revolt Egyptian Style: Internal Opposition to Ptole- maic Rule, apf 43, p. 273-314. Meulenaere 1976 = H. de Meulenaere, Translation of the Mendes Stela, in H. de Meulenaere & P. MacKay, Mendes ii, Warminster, p. 174-177. Molinari 2003 = M.C. Molinari, Gli aurei a nome di Giuglio Cesare e Aulo Irzio, rin 104, p. 165-253. Monson 2012 = A. Monson, From the Ptolemies to the Romans: Political and Eco- nomic Change in Egypt, Cambridge. Mørkholm 1991 = O. Mørkholm, Early Hellenistic Coinage, from the Accession of Alexander to the Peace of Apamea (336-188 bc), Cambridge. Müller 2009 = S. Müller, Das hellenistische Königspaar in der medialen Reprä- sentation: Ptolemaios II. und Arsinoe II, Beiträge zum Altertumskunde 263, Berlin y New York. Newell 1924 = E.T. Newell, Egyptian Coin Hoards, ﬈e Numismatist 37, no 4, p. 301-302. Newell 1927 = E.T. Newell, Two Recent Egyptian Hoards, Numismatic Notes and Monographs 33, New York. Newell 1937 = E.T. Newell, Royal Greek Portraits Coins, Racine (Wisconsin). Newell 1941 = E.T. Newell, ﬈e Coinages of the Western Seleucid Mints from Seleucus I to Antiochus III, Numismatic Studies 4, New York. Olivier 2006 = J. Olivier, Les Monnayages d’or des Ptolémées, unpublished Mas- ter’s thesis directed by A. Davesne, Université d’Orléans. 134 julien olivier & catharine lorber

Olivier 2012 = J. Olivier, Archè et Chrèmata en Égypte au iie siècle avant J.-C. (204-81 av. J.-C.). Étude de numismatique et d’histoire, unpublished PhD Dis- sertation directed by A. Suspène and supervised by M. Blet-Lemarquand, Uni- versité d’Orléans. Orrieux 1983 = C. Orrieux, Les papyrus de Zénon, l’horizon d’un Grec en Égypte au iiie siècle av. J.-C., Paris. Orrieux 1985 = C. Orrieux, Zénon de Caunos, parépidémos et le destin grec, Paris. Parente 2002 = A.R. Parente, Ritrattistica e simbologia sulle monete di Arsinoe II, qt xxxi, p. 259-278. Parlasca 2004 = K. Parlasca, Alexander Aigiochos: Das Kultbild des Stadtgrün- ders von Alexandria in Ägypten, Städel-Jahrbuch 19, p. 340-362. Peremans 1978 = W. Peremans, Les revolutions égyptiennes sous les Lagides, in H. Maehler & V.M. Strocka (eds.), Das ptolemäische Ägypten: Akten des internationalen Symposions 27.-29. September 1976 in Berlin, Mainz, p. 39-49. Peremans 1981 = W. Peremans, Sur la domestica seditio de Justin xxvii, 1, 9, ac 50, p. 628-636. Picard 2003 = O. Picard, La création d’un Royaume : Les Lagides, in O. Picard, Fr. de Callataÿ, F. Duyrat, G. Gorre & D. Prévost, Royaumes et cités hellé- nistiques de 323 à 55 av. J.-C., Paris, p. 17-44. Picard & Faucher 2012 = O. Picard & T. Faucher, Les monnaies lagides, in O. Pi- card, C. Bresc, T. Faucher, G. Gorre, M.-C. Marcellesi & C. Morrisson, Les monnaies des fouilles du Centre d’Études Alexandrines : Les monnayages de bronze à Alexandrie, de la conquête d’Alexandre à l’Égypte moderne, Études Alexandrines 25, Alexandria, p. 17-108. Préaux 1939 = C. Préaux, L’économie royale des Lagides, Bruxelles. Rathbone 1990 = D. Rathbone, Villages, Land and Population in Graeco-Roman Egypt, PCPhS 216, p. 103-142. Reekmans 1948 = T. Reekmans, Monetary History and the Dating of Ptolemaic Papyri, in Varia, Studia Hellenistica 5, Lovanii, Lutetiae Parisiorum y Lugduni Batavorum, p. 15-43. Reekmans 1949 = T. Reekmans, Economic and Social Repercussions of the Ptole- maic Copper Inflation, CdE 24, p. 324-342. Reekmans 1951 = T. Reekmans, ﬈e Ptolemaic Copper Inflation, in E. Van ’t Dack & T. Reekmans (eds.), Ptolemaica, Studia Hellenistica 7, Leuven y Lei- den, p. 61-118. Robert 1951 = L. Robert, Étude de numismatique grecque, Paris. Rostovtzeff 1941 = M. Rostovtzeff, ﬈e Social and Economic History of the Hel- lenistic World, Oxford, 3 vols. Schäfer 2011 = D. Schäfer, Makedonische Pharaonen und hieroglyphische Stelen. Historische Untersuchungen zur Satrapenstele und verwandten Denkmälern, Studia Hellenistica 50, Leuven, Paris y Walpole (MA). ptolemaic gold coinages 135

Sidebotham et al. 2008 = S.E. Sidebotham, M. Hense & H.M. Nouwens, ﬈e Red Land. ﬈e Illustrated Archaeology of Egypt’s Eastern Desert, Cairo. Simpson 1996 = R.S. Simpson, Demotic Grammar in the Ptolemaic Sacerdotal De- crees, Oxford. Smith 1968 = H.S. Smith, A Note on Amnesty, jea 54, p. 209-214. Stewart 1993 = A. Stewart, Faces of Power: Alexander’s Image and Hellenistic Politics, Hellenistic Culture and Society xi, Berkeley y Los Angeles. Svenson 1995 = D. Svenson, Darstellungen hellenistischer Könige mit Götterattri- buten, Archäologische Studien 10, Frankﬔrt am Main. Sv. = Svoronos 1904-1908 = J.N. Svoronos, Τα νομίσματα τοῦ κράτους τῶν Πτολε- μαίων/Münzen der Ptolemäer, Athens, 4 vols. ﬈iers 2007 = C. Thiers, Ptolémée Philadelphe et les Prêtres d’Atoum de Tjékou : Nouvelle édition commentée de la « stèle de Pithom » (cgc 22193), Orientalia Monspeliensia xvii, Montpellier. ﬈issen 1966 = H.-J. Thissen, Studien zum Raphiadekret, Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie He﬇ 23, Meisenheim am Glan. ﬈ompson 2008 = D.J. Thompson, Economic reforms in the Mid-Reign of Ptole- my Philadelphus, in P. McKechnie & P. Guillaume (eds.), Ptolemy II Phila- delphus and His World, Mnemosyne Supplements, History and Archaeology of the Classical World Vol. 300, Leiden y Boston, p. 27-38. Troxell 1983 = H.A. Troxell, Arsinoe’s Non-Era, ansmn 28, p. 35-70. Vagi 1997 = D.L. Vagi, ﬈e Ptolemaic Pentekaidekadrachm, san 20(1), p. 5-10. Van Driessche 1987 = V. Van Driessche, Ptolémée III Évergète, Ptolémée IV Philo- pator. Essai historique et numismatique, unpublished Master’s thesis, Louvain- la-Neuve. Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou 1965 = I. Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou, Les témoignages numismatiques sur la guerre chrémonidienne (265-262 av. J.-C.), Congresso Internazionale du Numismatica, Roma 11-16 Settembre 1961, Vol. ii, Rome, p. 225-226, pl. xviii. Vanderpool et al. 1962 = E. Vanderpool, J.R. McCredie & A. Steinberg, Koroni, A Ptolemaic Camp on the East Coast of Attica, Hesperia xxxi, p. 26-61. Veïsse 2004 = A.-E. Veïsse, Les « Révoltes égyptiennes » : Recherches sur les troubles intérieurs en Égypte du règne de Ptolémée III à la conquête romaine, Studia Hel- lenistica 41, Leuven, Paris y Dudley (Massachusetts). von Reden 2007 = S. von Reden, Money in Ptolemaic Egypt from the Macedonian Conquest to the End of the ﬈ird Century bc, Cambridge. von Schwarzenberg 1976 = E. von Schwarzenberg, ﬈e Portraiture of Alexander, in Alexandre le Grand : Image et realité, Vandouvre/Genève, 25-30 août 1975, Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique 22, Genève, p. 223-278. Walbank 1957 = F.W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Vol. i: Com- mentary on Books i-vi, Oxford. Will 1982 = E. Will, Histoire politique du monde hellénistique, Vol. ii, Nancy, 2nd ed. 136 julien olivier & catharine lorber

results of elemental analysis by la-icp-ms

three gold coinages of third-century ptolemaic egypt ﬈e Jugate Bust Coinage (all coins struck at Alexandria) Mnaieia

Cat. Au Ag Cu Pb Pd Pt Collection Reign Reference No % ppm Paris, BnF, Beistegui 7 Sv. 603 99,04 0,64 0,23 119 15 438 45 Paris, BnF, 294 = Luy- 65 Sv. 603ια 98,81 0,85 0,23 183 11 447 nes 3563 Paris, BnF, Ptolemy II AA. GR. 91 Sv. 603 99,31 0,08 0,59 1,5 1 10 120 Bruxelles, KBR, coll. 115 Sv. 603ιξ 98,96 0,73 0,22 123 10 289 Chastel 294 Paris, BnF, 162 Sv. 934 98,97 0,60 0,33 193 9 263 292 Pentekontadrachma Paris, BnF, ε 295 185 Sv. 618 99,6 0,24 0,08 22 16 575 Bruxelles, KBR, 198 Sv. 604χ 98,9 0,73 0,28 175 11 314 Hirsh 1807 Paris, BnF, 204 Sv. 604ιβ 98,8 0,79 0,25 130 17 720 297 Paris, BnF, Beistegui 257 Sv. 604 99,0 0,71 0,25 186 11 321 46 Ptolemy II Paris, BnF, 299 = Luy- 298 Sv. 604 98,8 0,81 0,32 159 10 295 nes 3564 Paris, BnF, 305 Sv. 604 99,2 0,52 0,20 115 13 388 298 Paris, BnF, Smith- 341 Sv. 604 98,8 0,77 0,32 135 13 334 Lesouëf 89 Paris, BnF, 351 Sv. 604ια 98,9 0,76 0,26 126 12 361 296 Eighth mnaieion Paris, BnF, α 300 399 Ptolemy II Sv. 606 98,9 0,74 0,29 153 16 428 ptolemaic gold coinages 137

The Alexandrian Mnaieia of Arsinoe Philadelphus (First Series; all coins struck at Alexandria) Paris, BnF, 47 Sv. 460β 99,1 0,60 0,22 100 13 346 318 Paris, BnF, 72 Sv. 460ς 98,8 0,79 0,32 226 13 386 310 Paris, BnF, Smith- - Sv. 460 99,2 0,50 0,20 133 12 344 Lesouëf 90 Ptolemy II Paris, BnF, 311 = Luy- 151 Sv. 471γ 99,0 0,63 0,25 190 10 274 nes 3562 Paris, BnF, Beistegui 158 Sv. 471β 99,0 0,67 0,26 99 15 336 47

The Principal Issue of Alexandrian Mnaieia Depicting Ptolemy III (all coins struck at Alexandria)

Mnaieia Paris, BnF, Armand 15 Sv. 1117 98,7 0,98 0,22 98 14 323 Valton 571 Paris, BnF, 329 = Luy- 84 Sv. 1117ξ 99,2 0,55 0,12 61 10 303 nes 3579 Ptolemy IV Paris, BnF, 330 = Luy- 149 Sv. 1117η 99,0 0,70 0,15 81 12 299 nes 3573 Paris, BnF, Smith- 253 Sv. 1117 99,1 0,70 0,13 63 11 279 Lesouëf 91 Eighth mnaieion Paris, BnF, α 331 1 Ptolemy IV Sv. 1119 99,4 0,39 0,09 61 15 450

138 julien olivier & catharine lorber

Other Ptolemaic coins of the third century bc (all coins struck at Alexandria)

Au Ag Cu Pb Pd Pt Collection Reign Reference % ppm Paris, BnF, 33 Sv. 103β 99,1 0,55 0,30 172 6 177 Paris, BnF, Sv. 151 98,8 0,82 0,30 158 5 666 Beistegui 44 Paris, BnF, 14 Sv. 181β 99,0 0,66 0,27 242 15 465 Paris, BnF, 25 Ptolemy I Sv. 182β 99,4 0,34 0,17 150 5 287 Paris, BnF, 31 Sv. 200γ 98,6 0,78 0,46 180 22 849 Paris, BnF, 23b Sv. 207 99,1 0,51 0,26 83 13 457 Paris, BnF, 21 Sv. 357α 98,8 0,82 0,27 262 14 375 Paris, BnF, Sv. 547δ 98,9 0,77 0,26 81 11 293 Luynes 3558 Paris, BnF, F.G.15 Sv. 547γ 98,6 0,81 0,42 106 6 192 Bruxelles, KBR, coll. Sv. 547ε 98,7 0,82 0,40 122 9 292 Chastel 289 Ptolemy II Paris, BnF, 18 Sv. 558δ 99,2 0,52 0,18 107 13 346 Paris, BnF, 17 Sv. 590β 99,2 0,49 0,19 154 8 291 Paris, BnF, Armand Sv. 590 99,2 0,48 0,19 141 10 280 Valton 560 Paris, BnF, 321 = Ptolemy II? Sv. 935α 98,8 0,94 0,20 165 18 452 Luynes 3510 Paris, BnF, Sv. 972 98,4 1,2 0,26 94 14 349 Beistegui 50 Paris, BnF, Sv. 978 99,3 0,41 0,10 95 14 372 Beistegui 51 Paris, BnF, 289 Sv. 978α 99,4 0,51 0,03 50 1 14 Ptolemy III Paris, BnF, 345 = Sv. 978β 99,3 0,49 0,09 31 14 415 Luynes 3572 Paris, BnF, 347a = Sv. 979 99,4 0,42 0,11 74 12 312 Luynes 3224 Paris, BnF, 347 Sv. 982ζ 99,8 0,11 0,01 65 1 1 Paris, BnF, 344 = Sv. 1113ε 99,2 0,59 0,14 96 12 333 Luynes 3580 Paris, BnF, 305 Ptolemy IV Sv. 1120β 99,1 0,67 0,15 47 12 304 Paris, BnF, 354 = Sv. 1139γ 99,6 0,27 0,05 49 14 358 Luynes 3578

ptolemaic gold coinages 139

seleucid coins

Inventory No (all Au Ag Cu Pb Pd Pt coins at the BnF in Reign Mint Reference Paris) % ppm Babelon 1 Seleucia on sc 138.1 98,4 1,2 0,35 1 21 617 Babelon 3 the Tigris sc 115.2 99,5 0,31 0,07 5 24 955 1973.1.195 Seleucos I Carrhae sc 40.2 99,0 0,85 0,08 5 14 537 Louis de Clercq 15 Susa sc 163 99,1 0,68 0,10 170 15 387 400 Ecbatana sc 202.2c 99,7 0,15 0,03 6 16 526 Louis de Clercq 31 sc 397.2a 96,9 2,6 0,41 10 25 776 Susa Luynes 3271 sc 398 98,1 1,2 0,66 26 14 462 Louis de Clercq 36 sc 435.1 98,0 1,9 0,13 4 5 65 112 sc 435.3 98,3 1,5 0,21 9 4 55 110 Antiochos I Bactra sc 436.6 98,8 0,79 0,18 9 10 291 Luynes 3272 sc 436.6 99,3 0,39 0,31 12 8 240 Louis de Clercq 37 sc 436.6 99,1 0,68 0,08 2 19 369 Uncertain 54 sc 469.1 99,1 0,65 0,06 15 20 688 East 193 Smyrna? sc 515 98,4 1,4 0,14 60 7 203 Seleucia on 1973.1.197 sc 586 98,2 1,4 0,32 89 14 590 Antiochos II the Tigris 355 sc 616.2 99,8 0,2 0,01 92 3 94 Bactra Beistegui 35 sc 616.2 99,8 0,12 0,02 3 3 59 Louis de Clercq 43 sc 687.2 98,6 0,98 0,32 90 16 364 Luynes 3281 Antioch sc 687.4 99,8 0,1 0,1 3 19 590 244 Seleucos II sc 687.6 98,6 0,98 0,32 126 13 353 West of Luynes 3283 sc 729 95,8 3,0 1,18 16 19 498 Nisibis? 1996.109 Susa sc 786 98,4 1,4 0,17 4 19 497 365 Antiochos III sc 1108 98,5 1,1 0,25 115 13 308 Antioch 534 Antiochos IV sc 1394 97,0 2,5 0,41 91 15 295

140 julien olivier & catharine lorber

a note on the plates

All obverse dies of the jugate bust coinage are illustrated. For the Arsinoe mnaieia, all obverse dies and all linking reverse dies are illustrated. As for the mnaieia depicting Ptolemy III (Svoronos 1117), we chose to illustrate them more ﬔlly because of the importance of reverse die links in the analysis of the issue; in this case, every die combination is illustrated, with two exceptions. Many or most of the mnaieia of all three series are shown very slightly below their actual size. We acknowledge, with gratitude, the copyright holders who granted permission for the use of their images.

American Numismatic Society: jugate bust nos. 33, 77, 182, 313. Cabinet des Médailles de la Bibliothèque nationale de France, photos by T. Faucher: jugate bust nos. 7, 65, 162, 204, 257, 298, 341, 351, 399. Cabinet des Médailles de la Bibliothèque royale de Belgique, photos by J. Olivier: jugate bust nos. 36, 115, 198. Egyptian Museum, Cairo, photos by T. Faucher: jugate bust nos. 232, 321, 334, 360, 361; Sv. 1117 nos. 122, 251. Numismatic Museum, Athens, photos by J. Olivier: jugate bust nos. 390. Courtesy of Harlan J. Berk: jugate bust no. 213; Sv. 1117 no. 8. Courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group: jugate bust nos. 147, 156, 216, 221, 228, 251, 268, 319, 329, 331, 342, 357, 372, 377, 382, 393; Arsinoe nos. 27, 142; Sv. 1117 nos. 13, 25, 29, 80, 119, 206. Courtesy of Freeman & Sear: Sv. 1117 no. 134. Courtesy of Gemini LLC: jugate bust nos. 119, 137, 184, 277, 345, 381; Sv. 1117 nos. 147, 247. Courtesy of Ira and Larry Goldberg: jugate bust nos.30, 151; Arsinoe nos. 14, 314; Sv. 1117 no. 263. Courtesy of Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung: jugate bust no. 173; Sv. 1117 nos. 54, 71. Courtesy of Hess-Divo A.G.: jugate bust nos. 15, 118, 249, 326; Sv. 1117 no. 219. Courtesy of G. Hirsch Nachfolger: jugate bust no. 170; Arsinoe no. 291. Courtesy of Künker Münzauktionen und Goldhandel: jugate bust nos. 100, 239, 328, 366, 389. Courtesy of Nomos A.G.: Arsinoe no. 141. Courtesy of Roma Numismatics, www.RomaNumismatics.com: Sv. 1117 no. 152. Courtesy of St James’s Auctions: jugate bust no. 383. Courtesy of Vilmar: Arsinoe no. 261. ptolemaic gold coinages 141

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

7 4 15 30

33 34 36 65

68 73 77 100

142 julien olivier & catharine lorber

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

115 118 119 132

137 140 147 151

ptolemaic gold coinages 143

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. 144 julien olivier & catharine lorber

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. ptolemaic gold coinages 145

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. 146 julien olivier & catharine lorber

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

1 2 9 12

ptolemaic gold coinages 147

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

18 21 27 31

135 141 142 143

191 261 291 296

148 julien olivier & catharine lorber

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

298 301 314

8 (a1|r1) 13 (a1|r2) 25 (a1|r4) 29 (a2|r5)

30 (a2|r6) 35 (a3|r6) 44 (a3|r7) 54 (a3|r8) ptolemaic gold coinages 149

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

71 (a3|r9) 80 (a3|r10) 99 (a3|r11) 119 (a3|r12)

122 (a3|r13) 134 (a3|r14) 136 (a3|r15) 138 (a3|r16)

147 (a4|r14) 152 (a4|r17) 177 (a4|r15) 199 (a4|r18) 150 julien olivier & catharine lorber

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

206 (a4|r19) 208 (a4|r20) 215 (a4|r21) 219 (a4|r22)

234 (a5|r8) 244 (a5|r15) 247 (a5|r21) 249 (a5|r23)

251 (a6|r21) 256 (a6|r25) 257 (a6|r15) 263 (a7|r21)