Lifetime coinage of Alexander the Great

[kapphnwn]

Now for the gold. The lifetime gold coinage of Alexander III can be a very vexing issue. Like the silver coinage some of the symbols Kantharos Thunderbolt and Trident are carried over from the staters minted in the name and types of Philip II, however in some cases these symbols particularly the Thunderbolt and the Trident carry over even as  late as the reign of Kassander (300-290 BC) . I should note that Hoover (2016) does not mention any of the three symbols being used for his "Alexander IV"  coinage 323-310 BC. However it may simply be the difficulty in distinguishing the two series that caused him to adopt this position. It should be noted that he does record that the staters in the name and type of Philip II minted during the reign of Kassander (316-310 BC) do employ all three symbols. I should state that the dates given for the coins of Kassander are the ones given in his book. 

  Troxell divided the lifetime staters into two groups. 

Series 1 Av Stater of Alexander III Standard types Kantharos  332 -330 BC? Troxell Series 1 460 8.60 grms 18 mm Auctiones GmbH E Auction 10 Lot 11 November 18 2012

The helmet is rather large in relation to the face . The lower face guard is quite a way forward in front of the face. The crest is seen as two looses strands coming forward at a roughly 45degree angle towards the back of the neck. This coinage is known by 7 obverse dies. 

Series 2 Av Stater of Alexander III Standard types Kantharos 332-323 BC Troxell Series 2 480 8.61 grms 18 mm Photo by W. Hansen

 The helmet is smaller in relation to the face. The face guard is now only slightly in front of the face. The crest is slightly thicker and more lively with one strand seen to the left curving backwards and the other seen to the right  initially heading towards the back of the next then curving downward

Just to show the contrast 

Av Stater of Kassander in the name and types of Alexander III Standard types Trident 300-290 BC Price 172 HGC 987 8.60 grms 18 mm Photo by W. Hansen.

In this case the face has become very large thus the helmet has shrunk in relationship to it. The lower face guard is more or less at about the same position as the previous coin but the bowl of the helmet is scarcely big enough to cover the back of the head. The crest is now thicker and more or less follows the pattern of the previous coin but a third strand seen in the middle is now visible and more or less mirrors the one to the right.

  So what to look for? As the symbols are no real help one needs to examine closely the style of the coinage. Big long helmets and small faces are good. Small helmets big faces not so good. Also the crest can be a help. The position of the crest on the Group 1 coins is pretty distinctive and while the Group 2 crest can pose an issue close study should be a help. The word on this coinage is due diligence. All I can say is that it took me 5 years to find one. 

Other denominations. Though other denominations are known the mint at Amphipolis produced two other denominations in number The first is the Distater the second is the Quarter stater

The Quarter Stater. The gold coinage of Philip II features a number of sub units, and this was likely carried on during the reign of Alexander. However when the gold coinage featuring his name and types only the Quarter stater was minted in any number. This coin is interesting in that it combined some of the features of the silver and gold  minted contemporaneously. The head of Athena wearing her Corinthian style helmet was retained from the stater. However rather than place the image of Herakles on the reverse, his trademark club and bow were used instead.  Thus both gods were honored on this coinage and thus the imagery from both the gold and silver were linked together in this denomination. 

Av Quarter Stater of Alexander III Kantharos 332- 323 BC Obv Head of Athena in crested Corinthian style helmet  Rv  Bow over club. Price 169 HGC 897a 2.13 grms 11 mm Photo by W. Hansen

The Quarter stater appears to be in the style of the Troxell Group 2 staters. The relative size and position of the helmet is similar to that of the Group 2 coins and the crest is positioned in a very similar pattern.  I have examined a number of these on line and have found a number with the more shallow eye socket similar to that of my stater, However a number of staters that feature a somewhat deeper eye socket as does my coin are noticed in some earlier examples. Though this type is not listed in Hoover (2016) for either Alexander IV nor Kassander we may still need to exercise some due diligence

The DiStater 

Av DiStater of Alexander III 325-323 BC Standard types Kantharos 17.20 grms 22.5 mm CNG Triton XXIII Lot 203 January 14 2020

 I had not really looked at this coinage closely. Judging from what I could see in Troxell (1999) the coin above is an example of her Group A. However the dating given by Hoover and the trade does give me some pause. If the 325 BC date is accurate I would have to think that the vast majority of these coins are posthumous. The rational is the same as that for the Group E silver coinage. These massive gold coins could only be minted for one purpose; to pay the returning veterans their pay and bonuses and those men are still in Tarsos at the death of Alexander. Otherwise I can see no reason for them to have been minted. However as pay for the wars among Alexander's successors they do make rather more sense. 

Next I return to the east and will look at the coins of Babylon and the Levant 

[kapphnwn]

While all of this is going on in the west Alexander is in India facing a dilemma. Sometime in late summer 326 BC his army which had followed him for the last 10 year had enough. They refuse to advance a step further. They wanted to go home. Thus if he wished to continue with his world tour there was really only two things that he could do. 1 Bring his army back home and pay it off. 2. Buy a new one. For 10 years Alexander had looked forward rarely looking back and now in order to achieve either of his goals he would need a great deal of money. So it probably at this time that Alexander sends out a message in effect calling in some of the disparate coinages circulating within the former Persian Empire and replace that coinage with his own.  However when this missive was sent out it clearly did not go out to all parts of the Empire. Egypt for one was exempt. However Egypt did not strike a "native" coinage except for some Pseudo Athenian Owls.  So the question of whether or not these instructions would have impacted the drachm coinage in Asia Minor will be dealt with later. 

According to Taylor (2018) The mint of Babylon  commenced production Very late 326/325 BC. The coinage from this mint is divided into two issues a very limited Group 1 and a much larger Group 2 It is within the second group that we see a much wider range of denominations.

Ar Tetradrachm of Alexander III Group I Standard types Taylor 7  17.20 grms 25 mm Hess Divo Auction 320 Lot 111 October 26 2011 

Taylor notes that there are 11 Obverse dies recorded. Given two anvils in operation the minting of this coinage could have taken perhaps as little as 4 months. The group 2 coinage is rather more difficult to assess. Taylor noted that there is some 77 obverses noted among the tetradrachms from this group but that does not cover the other denominations seen with this coinage. He does think that the whole coinage could have been dealt with within a year, and given the increased number of anvils this is likely. However the differences between the two groups give us pause. Alexander is thought to have returned to Susa early in 324 BC. So it is possible that the Group 2 coinage did not start until then. 

A few of the coins within Group 2

Av Stater of Alexander III Standard types 325-323 BC Price 3594 8.58 grms 18 mm CNG Triton VII Lot 140 January 12 2004

Compared the the later posthumous issues all recognizable with the title of Basileos these are very scarce.

Ar Dekadrachm of Alexander III Standard types 325-323 BC HGC 909 41.51 grms 35 mm Roma Numismatics Auction 23 Lot 175 March 24 2022 

Ar Tetradrachm of Alexander III Standard types 325-323 BC Price 3629 17.14 grms 26 mm Photo by W. Hansen

Ar Obol of Alexander III Standard types 325-323 BC Price 3606 var 0.62 grms 9 mm CNG E Auction 459 Lot 97 January 8 2020 This used to be my coin but I sold it. Personally I thought the picture did it a disservice. 

 The one interesting fact about this immense coinage was that it did not come even remotely close to the amount Alexander would need to pay off his army. According to ancient sources and modern scholarly estimates as recorded in Le Rider (2007) Alexander needed 20,000 Talents to pay off the debts incurred by his army plus he had given 10,000 retiring veterans a Talent each over and above their pay. True some of the Asiatic contingents he had picked up after he left Babylonia could have been paid in the Double Daric and Lion coinage but that still leaves a deficient.  So it is clear that the mints in the Levantine region would have to be called up and be used for this monumental pay out. However it is getting hot and I will start this a bit later.

Edited August 19, 2022 by kapphnwn
additional info

[NewStyleKing]

We don't hear about the "other " coinage much.  A hoard of dekadrachms was found OFF gaza recently  and the finders were somewhat cheated  by a dealer. The coins were sea damaged.  hemi drachms, obols etc are really scarce,  maybe because they were all eventually melted  like NewStyle small coinage  etc.....  I wonder really what use a Stater was, nevermind a Dekadrachm . A tetradrachm was quite valuable too!  Now bronze coinage was more useful!  Inflation when the troops came home must have been a problem!

 

NSK=John

[kapphnwn]

  When we last saw the Levant Alexander was heading east (331 BC). Thus these mints could be said to be now a backwater. However it cannot be overemphasized that the region remained important to Alexander.  What is generally not known by most was that throughout his eastern campaign Alexander received reinforcements from the Greek world. We know little about how mercenaries were recruited in the ancient world. It probably ranged from "Have spear Will travel" to some prince hiring out himself and a contingent of his army for pay. However they were recruited they would probably end up in Tarsos should they take the overland route or one of the ports along the Levantine coast should they come by sea. Beside this trade, the region would also be involved in moving other goods necessary for the invasion. Of course the usual commercial activities would be maintained. This is a rather complicated period in numismatic history as die cutters are being transferred from one mint to another. Furthermore new mints are established some as early as 328 BC however others more towards 325 BC. The reason for this increase in activity is complex however the activation of a number of mints  and the spike in their activity circa 325 BC suggests that Alexander at this point has ordered the calling in all the old non Macedonian coinage in the region and having it replaced with his. Alexander would need an immense amount of money. Just to pay the 1 Talent bonus to his 10,000 veterans he would need 15  Million tetradrachms or at least 750 dies. 

Map of the Levantine Mints. This is simply a modification of the first map that I had produced. I have left the color codes for the mints I have already discussed as they were. The newer mints are seen with a purple background. 

Tarsos: Ar Tetradrachm of Alexander III Standard types Symbol Plow 325-323 BC Price 3032 Hoover 910h 17.04 grms 26 mm Photo by W. Hansen

At some point the mint of Tarsos adopts the symbol of the plow. a symbol that is kept even after the death of Alexander in June of 323 BC and the introduction of the title of Basileos in early 322 BC.  In many respects the way this coinage is organized with its series of letters and globules reminds me a lot of the Babylon Group 2 coinage so it is possible that this coinage had a very short lifespan perhaps late 324-322 BC. Complicating any analysis is the mystery over the death of Balakros. If that mystery could be cleared up we might have a better understanding as to when the "Plow" actually commenced. As such the main impetus behind this coinage is the activity of Craterous and the roughly 10,000 veterans under his command. They were involved in the building of a fleet, which would in time take them home. 

Myriandros: Ar Tetradrachm of Alexander III  Standard types 325-323 BC MI Monogram. Price 3229 17.21 grms 27.5 mm CNG Triton XXIII Lot 208 January 13 2020

I believe that because the output from this mint is so small that it may have ceased production for a number of years, reviving in 325 BC. This may be the reason that the MI monogram for Myriandros was adopted. This mint was active as well after the death of Alexander as both the Basileos title as well as coins minted in the name of Philip III are known from this mint. 

Salamis: Ar Tetradrachm of Alexander III Standard types 328?-323 BC Price 3139 HGC 910h 17.18 grms 24 mm Photo by W. Hansen

 This coinage is perhaps the most vexing problem we facing in dating the coinage from this region. The main issue is that technically the King of Salamis is an ally of the Macedonians and not a conquered city. This coinage does resemble some of the earlier issues in that a monogram representing the name of the city is omitted but it is not a direct copy either of some of the earlier mints. I suspect that the coinage may have started in 328 BC. At the very latest this mint would have started in 325 BC

Karne: Ar Tetradrachm of Alexander III Standard types 327-326 BC KA Monogram Price 3429 17.22 grms 25 mm  Numismatik Lanz Auction 138 Lot 306 November 26 2007

Taylor (2018) added a great deal of information to the rather meager information provided by Price on this mint.  This mint appears to employ only  7 obverse dies  and appears to have a rather short life. It did however resume operations sometime late in 323 BC

Arados: Av Stater of Alexander III Standard types 328 -323 BC AR Monogram Price 3423 (Byblos) 8.58 grms 18 mm CNG Auction 99 Lot 71  May 13 2015

Arados: Ar Tetradrachm of Alexander III Standard types 328-323 BC AR Monogram Price 3424 (Byblos) 17.24 grms 26 mm CNG Auction 105 Lot 72 May 10 2017

If this mint has not started already the preponderance of evidence suggests that it had started in 328 BC. The organization of this mint is complex. Taylor (2020) makes a strong argument that there are two separate mints in operation at this time.  

Damaskos: Ar Tetradrachm of Alexander III  Standard types 325-323 BC DA Monogram Price 3204 Taylor 191 Group II A11/P1 17.20 grms 25 mm Photo by W. Hansen

Taylor(2017) gives a excellent revue of this coinage. The mint at Damaskos  appears to mint just tetradrachms and does so for a very short period of time possibly less than a year. 

Sidon: Av Stater of Alexander III Standard types 327/6 BC SI Monogram Price 3482  8.65 grms 17.5 mm CNG Auction 100 Lot 45 October 7 2015

Sidon: Ar Tetradrachm of Alexander III Obv Head of beardless Herakles wearing lions skin headdress Rv. Zeus Aetophoros seated left Back leg crossed. 325/4 BC Price 3487 17.16 grms 26 mm Leu Web Auction 17 Lot 516 August 8 2021.

This has to be one of major watersheds in the history of the coinage of Alexander III. This is the first coin seen with the iconic crossed legged reverse which eventually replaced the image of Zeus with parallel legs.  This reverse may have been inspired by this type. 

Balakros Ar Double Siglos Soloi 333-323 BC Obv  Baaltars seated left legs crossed. Rv Bust of Athena Helmeted facing slightly to the left. 10.90 grms 24.5 mm CNG Auction 114 Lot 359 May 12 2020.

It should be noted that the crossed legged image of Zeus did not immediately take off. Tyre needed a year to adopt the reverse type and it is not present in any of the contemporary mints in the region until much later.

Tyre Ar Tetradrachm of Alexander III Crossed legs reverse. 324/3 BC Price 3265 17.21 grms 25 mm CNG 108 Lot 76 May 16 2018

Whew In the next section I will attempt to discuss the drachm coinage of Asia Minor and after that the Aes coinage. I would like to thank all for their patience. This survey and that is exactly what this is only scratches the surface of this interesting and complicated coinage. 

[Pantoffel]

Lovely write ups, i enjoy reading them ! Thank you for writing them. 

[Kaleun96]

11 hours ago, kapphnwn said:

  When we last saw the Levant Alexander was heading east (331 BC). Thus these mints could be said to be now a backwater. However it cannot be overemphasized that the region remained important to Alexander.  What is generally not known by most was that throughout his eastern campaign Alexander received reinforcements from the Greek world. We know little about how mercenaries were recruited in the ancient world. It probably ranged from "Have spear Will travel" to some prince hiring out himself and a contingent of his army for pay. However they were recruited they would probably end up in Tarsos should they take the overland route or one of the ports along the Levantine coast should they come by sea. Beside this trade, the region would also be involved in moving other goods necessary for the invasion. Of course the usual commercial activities would be maintained. This is a rather complicated period in numismatic history as die cutters are being transferred from one mint to another. Furthermore new mints are established some as early as 328 BC however others more towards 325 BC. The reason for this increase in activity is complex however the activation of a number of mints  and the spike in their activity circa 325 BC suggests that Alexander at this point has ordered the calling in all the old non Macedonian coinage in the region and having it replaced with his. Alexander would need an immense amount of money. Just to pay the 1 Talent bonus to his 10,000 veterans he would need 15  Million tetradrachms or at least 750 dies. 

Map of the Levantine Mints. This is simply a modification of the first map that I had produced. I have left the color codes for the mints I have already discussed as they were. The newer mints are seen with a purple background. 

Tarsos: Ar Tetradrachm of Alexander III Standard types Symbol Plow 325-323 BC Price 3032 Hoover 910h 17.04 grms 26 mm Photo by W. Hansen

At some point the mint of Tarsos adopts the symbol of the plow. a symbol that is kept even after the death of Alexander in June of 323 BC and the introduction of the title of Basileos in early 322 BC.  In many respects the way this coinage is organized with its series of letters and globules reminds me a lot of the Babylon Group 2 coinage so it is possible that this coinage had a very short lifespan perhaps late 324-322 BC. Complicating any analysis is the mystery over the death of Balakros. If that mystery could be cleared up we might have a better understanding as to when the "Plow" actually commenced. As such the main impetus behind this coinage is the activity of Craterous and the roughly 10,000 veterans under his command. They were involved in the building of a fleet, which would in time take them home. 

Myriandros: Ar Tetradrachm of Alexander III  Standard types 325-323 BC MI Monogram. Price 3229 17.21 grms 27.5 mm CNG Triton XXIII Lot 208 January 13 2020

I believe that because the output from this mint is so small that it may have ceased production for a number of years, reviving in 325 BC. This may be the reason that the MI monogram for Myriandros was adopted. This mint was active as well after the death of Alexander as both the Basileos title as well as coins minted in the name of Philip III are known from this mint. 

Salamis: Ar Tetradrachm of Alexander III Standard types 328?-323 BC Price 3139 HGC 910h 17.18 grms 24 mm Photo by W. Hansen

 This coinage is perhaps the most vexing problem we facing in dating the coinage from this region. The main issue is that technically the King of Salamis is an ally of the Macedonians and not a conquered city. This coinage does resemble some of the earlier issues in that a monogram representing the name of the city is omitted but it is not a direct copy either of some of the earlier mints. I suspect that the coinage may have started in 328 BC. At the very latest this mint would have started in 325 BC

Karne: Ar Tetradrachm of Alexander III Standard types 327-326 BC KA Monogram Price 3429 17.22 grms 25 mm  Numismatik Lanz Auction 138 Lot 306 November 26 2007

Taylor (2018) added a great deal of information to the rather meager information provided by Price on this mint.  This mint appears to employ only  7 obverse dies  and appears to have a rather short life. It did however resume operations sometime late in 323 BC

Arados: Av Stater of Alexander III Standard types 328 -323 BC AR Monogram Price 3423 (Byblos) 8.58 grms 18 mm CNG Auction 99 Lot 71  May 13 2015

Arados: Ar Tetradrachm of Alexander III Standard types 328-323 BC AR Monogram Price 3424 (Byblos) 17.24 grms 26 mm CNG Auction 105 Lot 72 May 10 2017

If this mint has not started already the preponderance of evidence suggests that it had started in 328 BC. The organization of this mint is complex. Taylor (2020) makes a strong argument that there are two separate mints in operation at this time.  

Damaskos: Ar Tetradrachm of Alexander III  Standard types 325-323 BC DA Monogram Price 3204 Taylor 191 Group II A11/P1 17.20 grms 25 mm Photo by W. Hansen

Taylor(2017) gives a excellent revue of this coinage. The mint at Damaskos  appears to mint just tetradrachms and does so for a very short period of time possibly less than a year. 

Sidon: Av Stater of Alexander III Standard types 327/6 BC SI Monogram Price 3482  8.65 grms 17.5 mm CNG Auction 100 Lot 45 October 7 2015

Sidon: Ar Tetradrachm of Alexander III Obv Head of beardless Herakles wearing lions skin headdress Rv. Zeus Aetophoros seated left Back leg crossed. 325/4 BC Price 3487 17.16 grms 26 mm Leu Web Auction 17 Lot 516 August 8 2021.

This has to be one of major watersheds in the history of the coinage of Alexander III. This is the first coin seen with the iconic crossed legged reverse which eventually replaced the image of Zeus with parallel legs.  This reverse may have been inspired by this type. 

Balakros Ar Double Siglos Soloi 333-323 BC Obv  Baaltars seated left legs crossed. Rv Bust of Athena Helmeted facing slightly to the left. 10.90 grms 24.5 mm CNG Auction 114 Lot 359 May 12 2020.

It should be noted that the crossed legged image of Zeus did not immediately take off. Tyre needed a year to adopt the reverse type and it is not present in any of the contemporary mints in the region until much later.

Tyre Ar Tetradrachm of Alexander III Crossed legs reverse. 324/3 BC Price 3265 17.21 grms 25 mm CNG 108 Lot 76 May 16 2018

Whew In the next section I will attempt to discuss the drachm coinage of Asia Minor and after that the Aes coinage. I would like to thank all for their patience. This survey and that is exactly what this is only scratches the surface of this interesting and complicated coinage. 

Excellent write-up and coins too! I love your Salamis one in particular, it has such a unique style to the Zeus.

[kapphnwn]

About a year ago I started to look at the drachm coinage of Asia Minor, however during the intervening period I got involved with another project and did not pursue this one any further. I now have an incentive to continue with my work however unfortunately I will be unable to discuss this coinage to the detail that I would like. That will have to come in some time later either in this or a new thread. However I do feel that I can make a number of more general comments on this coinage, 

 Up to this point Alexander's use of his coinage has been primarily military. At first I he need to hire mercenaries and pay for their transport to the combat zone. Later he needs to pay off his army and in effect start creating a new one. So up to this point his motivations are simple. However when we get to the drachm coinage of Asia Minor we run into something of an issue. Why would the preponderance of drachms be minted in this region? To explain this situation some have tried to float the idea that the region became responsible for "small change" Troxell (1991) doe allude to this though her revision to the chronology does make this idea all but impossible. Thus we are again asking why? In my mind the answer is relativity simple. This was the region where the Ar siglos was the principle silver coin of the region and the Attic drachm was the closest  denomination  to that coinage. If this is the case then the impetus for change would not be external but internal. The warfare among Alexander's successors some of which was fought in the region would provide an incentive to harmonize the local coinage with the rest of the Macedonian coinage  now flooding the region. 

  However it is still possible that like the Levant, the city did start converting their coinage to that of the Attic standard circa 325 BC. The question now is can that be proven one way or another. At the present time that is what I was working on. What I had noticed is that there was a number of subtle variations of the image of Zeus with the parallel legs. I suspect that the original image taken from the levant was in many respects unsatisfactory. The pose was too stiff and rather ungainly. Thus if felt that if I could establish an internal sequence to this coinage I could in time establish an absolute chronology. This could be achieved by comparing the various styles to some markers such as the Basileos issues and the issues struck for Philip III. This explains some of my methodology.

This is my Map and please note that this is a working copy and thus in some cases may not be up to date. You can see that the varieties  that I am looking at are at the lower left. They are color coded. Thus a mint or date with that color indicates when that variety if seen at the mint in question.  Except for the Green Crossed Legged variety all a variants of the parallel legged Zeus. The reason that I am most interested in the varieties of the parallel legged images is that the crossed legged ones are all posthumous. I have already discussed the introduction of the crossed legged image in the previous thread. I had noted that the type had not spread much beyond the two mints that had initially adopted it. 

Ar Tetradrachm of Ptolemy I in the name of types of Alexander III  Memphis  322-321 BC Price 3971 CPE 19  17.20 grms  29 mm Photo by W. Hansen

Ar Tetradrachm of Kassander in the name and types of Alexander III Amphipolis 317-294 BC Price 447 17.05 grms 29 mm Photo by W. Hansen

This massive issue with the torch lambda is known by one issue with the image of Zeus being depicted with parallel legs. Thus the die cutters would have had to wait until well after the death of Alexander to have even seen this variety. The crossed legged variety is not seen at Tarsos and some of the other mints as well. 

  Thus if we look at the mint that Price had identified as Side (now identified as  Unknown Mint in Cilicia) we see this coin

Ar Tetradrachm of Alexander III "Side" Standard Types 323-317 BC Basileos  Zeus with Parallel legs Price 2949 17.10 grms 25 mm CNG Auction 108 Lot 102 May 16 2018

and compare it to this one

Ar Tetradrachm of Alexander III "Side" Standard types 323-317 BC Basileos Zues with fore leg reverted. Price 2949 17.18 grms 26 mm Photo by W. Hansen

As you can see though the difference is subtle it can be seen and the change in the design does continue. As both issues are seen with the title of Basileos we know that both were minted after 323 BC. As mentioned before this is going to entail a lot of work so I will take some time.

As for the aes. If I am having fun with the silver the aes is a complete black hole. The problem is that there really has not been anything even remotely comprehensive done on this coinage  since Price 1991. What is even worse is nothing has been done with the coins issued in the name and types of Philip II. Without any context it is very difficult to assess this coinage. All that I could safely say is that any of the coins that either use or hint at the title of Basileos are posthumous.  

 Well I would like to thank everyone for their patience and I will continue to change and modify this post as I continue with my studies. Hopefully what I have done here will help. But a word of caution This is only a survey on this long and complicated coinage and sometimes as a grapple with this often thorny subject matter I am reminded of this 

Again my thanks

Edited August 22, 2022 by kapphnwn

[LuckyLuudje]

Very interesting thread.

I have a Tetradrachme from Alexander III for a long while with a paper of the description.

After reading, I am wondering if the paper is wrong and if it is an Tetradrachm of Kassander in the name and types of Alexander III Amphipolis 317-294 BC.

Here is the coin

Edited September 4, 2022 by LuckyLuudje

[kapphnwn]

Actually the information on your coin is incorrect. However in this case the race torch symbol is not from Amphipolis but from Sardies   dated circa 322-319 BC. Besides the race torch seen in the left field on the rever one can see a very tiny TI below the throne on the reverse. This makes it a Price 2622  The coin below is a variant with the TI this time much larger just below the seat. 

iNUmis MBS 8 Lot 19 Tetradrachm in the name and types of Alexander III Standard types 17.19 grms 25 mm  March 20 2009  THIS IS NOT MY COIN

Yours looks most like a Thompson 239 and the coin pictured above looks more like a Thompson 238. The tetradrachms from this mint during this period are rather scarce. 

Edited September 5, 2022 by kapphnwn

[kapphnwn]

I have not done much with this thread though I am working on some of the drachm coinage. I might have something soon on my thoughts on the drachm coinage of Lampsakos. However recently there has been a couple of interesting lifetime coins featured on auction. Sadly I got neither though I was the underbidder on one. (At least that's something) 

Alexander III Ar Tetradrachm Tyre c325-324 BC Obv Standard types Rv Standard types but with date in the Phoenician  system in left field Price 3254  17.24 grms 25 mm Photo Jacquier Auction 50 Lot 74 September 2022 THIS IS NOT MY COIN

 

The mint of Tyre and its sister the mint at Sidon are important for the study of the coinage of Alexander as they are dated to a reginal year. This gives us a reasonably firm idea as to when changes in the iconography of this coinage occur. 

The second coin is part of the massive issue of coins struck in Babylon during the last years of Alexander's reign 

Alexander III Ar Didrachm Babylon Group II 325/4-324/3 BC Standard types Price 3603 8.43 grms 21 mm Photo Roma Numismatics E Auction 5 Lot 302 September 27 2022 Ex Italo Vecchi Collection  THIS IS NOT MY COIN 

This coin is part of the great issue struck in order to pay of some of the many debts incurred by the army while on campaign in the east. The didrachm is a scarce denomination for Alexander and was quickly discontinued. In closing I had hoped that I could had added at least one of these coins to my collection but ..............

[AETHER]

Hello,

 

Lovely thread, I like where its going. 

This interests me because I am not sure I agree with Price's dating on some coins or the general agreement. 

I have two coins, one from Amphipolis and one from Side(maybe). 

They are Price 123 and 2949

For instance, when I consider the size, weight, style , UNCROSSED legs and the mint. These are both lifetime to me, no matter the hoard speculation is on the given time frame.

To me it is clear that the authorities clearly decided to use crossed legs after death and vice versa. (The numbers discovered overwhelmingly support this. Sure there are exceptions.) Why? I dont know, I would love to see sources or discussion on this from the past. Why is this so prevalent and clearly noticeable across a large number of coins discovered? What are the stats of found hoards and how do they favor in this debate?

From what I read there is no clear decider, and both speculations on either side have evidence that is strong, Newell, Zervos, Price or the few others.  I do not think you can rely on Price's dates to the exact year simply because he has the most complete studies of specimens. I think you would have to be quite foolish to do so even thought it is a latest and greatest source we HAVE TO settle on(we dont). 

Either way, I believe both coins are Lifetime or at least designed in his lifetime.  I believe Alexander had every right to put ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ  on his coins, especially newly conquered regions, maybe not so much local.   There are coins dates 6 years before his death with this title.

I would love for anyone to provide strong enough evidence , siting whoever, to confirm they are indeed the same date range as Price suggests especially not lifetime. 

I will post all my Alexander examples I own when I have a chance, I found this forum and was moved to open an account and create this post

 

EDIT:

 

A few (not all) mints and price references that are lifetime, with the "king" title..

Amathus Mint
3085, 3086, 3087

Aradus
3308, 3309, 3316, 3320, 3321, 3322, 3323, 3324, 3325, 3326, 3327, 3328, 3329, 3332, 3336

Babylon
3673, 3674, 3675, 3676, 3677, 3678, 3679, 3680, 3681, 3682, 3683, 3684, 3685, 3686, 3687

Cabyle
882

Carne
3430

Side
2951

Susa
3832

Paphos
3122

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by AETHER

[robinjojo]

Thank you for this very interesting thread!  

I must admit that I become easily befuddled when considering the extensive and complex coinage of Alexander III and his successors, including the later civic issues, to say nothing of the imitations.  What few functional brain cells seize up, causing the eyes, in my case, to glaze over.  

Here's what is probably my highest grade Alexander III tetradrachm, from the east, Susa, the city where Alexander III married the Persian princess Stateira, eldest daughter of Darius and, according to some sources, Parysatis, youngest daughter of Artaxerxes III, in 324 BC.  According to some historical accounts Roxanna had them poisoned prior to Alexander III's death in 323 BC.

That aside, my understanding is that this particular coin is an early posthumous issue of Susa.

Alexander III tetradrachm, Susa Mint, late lifetime or early posthumous, circa 323 BC.

17.2 grams

Edited December 15, 2022 by robinjojo

[AETHER]

@robinjojo this the coin I have , it's Price 2949 and it is lifetime. Nice coin btw, quality example 

http://numismatics.org/pella/id/price.2949?lang=en

Edited December 15, 2022 by AETHER

[robinjojo]

Thank you!

[Pavlos]

@kapphnwn Very interesting thread, and I think you use good logic in determining the chronology. I was unaware of the whole situation about the Alexander coins in Egypt, but it makes sense. Also interesting to read about the different issues in Macedon related to an event. A lot of times tetradrachms were only struck for military purposes and sudden emissions are often related to some kind of ware preparation or other event.

Here a very late tetradrachm in the name of Alexander from Mesembria, it is struck in the event of Mithridates VI Eupator's arrival to Thrace/Greece.

Alexander III "the Great". AR Tetradrachm. Civic issue, Mesembria mint (80-72/1 B.C.). Struck in the time of Mithridates VI.

Obverse: Head of Herakles wearing lion's skin right, with the features of Mithradates VI.

Reverse: BAΣIΛEΩΣ / ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ / MEΣAM, Zeus seated left, holding spear and eagle; to left, ΔIO.

Reference: Price 1128; Karayotov I 316; HGC 3, 1570.

16.10g; 33mm 

[Kaleun96]

On 12/15/2022 at 10:38 PM, AETHER said:

Hello,

Lovely thread, I like where its going. 

This interests me because I am not sure I agree with Price's dating on some coins or the general agreement. 

I have two coins, one from Amphipolis and one from Side(maybe). 

They are Price 123 and 2949

There are definitely some mistakes, misattributions, and out-dated info in Price's work and a lot has been corrected by other authors in the subsequent years, though it's a bit of a pain to find since they're not all aggregated in one place. Often you have to find research on a specific type or mint to see if Price's attribution has been updated. Some authors who have issued corrections or alternative dates and attributions are: Hyla Troxell, Lloyd Taylor, Frederique Duyrat, Simon Glenn, Georges Le Rider, Christine Lorber, and more.

Quote

"To me it is clear that the authorities clearly decided to use crossed legs after death and vice versa. (The numbers discovered overwhelmingly support this. Sure there are exceptions.) Why?"

It is definitely not clear that authorities decided to use uncrossed vs crossed legs as an indication of lifetime vs posthumous. While nearly all crossed leg examples are posthumous, not all uncrossed leg examples are lifetime. I forget the exact numbers but something like 25% of uncrossed leg types are posthumous. You would not expect such a large error if the intent was to use the leg position as a lifetime indicator. You'd also want to ask yourself: why should Zeus' leg position have anything to do with Alexander's death? As many researchers have shown, what we see instead is a transmission of crossed legs as a stylistic choice beginning in the Levant around 325 BC. In fact, we actually know exactly when it originated as it first appeared on dated issues of Sidon (325/4 BC) and then soon after on dated issues of Tyre (324/3 BC) but it didn't completely take over until about 320 BC. Susa, was also an outlier in that it continued minting uncrossed leg examples for some time after Alexander's death.

In short, there's virtually no evidence to suggest uncrossed vs crossed legs is a purposeful indication of lifetime vs posthumous Alexander tetradrachms.

Quote

I do not think you can rely on Price's dates to the exact year simply because he has the most complete studies of specimens. I think you would have to be quite foolish to do so even thought it is a latest and greatest source we HAVE TO settle on(we dont)

Price's dates don't come from nowhere, no one is relying on his dating "simply because he has the most complete studies of specimens". If you read his work, you can see exactly how he determines the dates for each type. A lot is based on hoard evidence, and a lot is also based on the prior work of others (e.g. Newell), so oftentimes Price is not contributing anything new to the dating of the type, merely reaffirming what has been established in the past and is consistent with his own study of the coinage. He of course does contribute new insights too, and he'll usually say how he came to that conclusion - usually a mix of hoard evidence, die studies, stylistic evolution, and interpretation of control symbols. His date ranges can even be a bit too cautious, erring on the side of larger ranges that are almost certainly capturing the actual mint date versus shorter ranges which may be off by a year or two.

He was of course studying thousands of different types across many denominations and mints and also didn't have all the data, examples, evidence, and methods we have today so he doesn't get everything right. That's when it's great to read newer studies on specific mints because they have the room to dive into the detail much more than Price ever could, Duyrat's work on the Arados mint being an obvious example. Duyrat even agrees with Price on much of the dating and ordering, which is impressive given Duyrat devotes 400-odd pages to one mint, something that Price covers in a dozen or so, most of which are just cataloguing the examples and the plates.

 

Quote

Either way, I believe both coins are Lifetime or at least designed in his lifetime.  I believe Alexander had every right to put ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ  on his coins, especially newly conquered regions, maybe not so much local.   There are coins dates 6 years before his death with this title.

By designed do you mean engraved or just the conception of the design? The designs are certainly from Alexander's lifetime. As you say, ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ is not necessarily an indicator of lifetime vs posthumous (as with uncrossed vs crossed legs) as there are known exceptions, but oftentimes it is not simply the royal title that researchers are relying on to date these coins. Hyla Troxell's work on the Macedonian mints of Alexander is the best resource for Price 123 specifically. She has it in Group J, type 5 (J5).

Troxell notes the royal title first appears in Group G, which can be dated with hoard evidence to late 323 / early 322 BC. Again based on hoard evidence, this time from the famous Demanhur hoard dated to 319/8 BC, Troxell estimates groups J and K were struck concurrently only a short-time before the burial of this hoard due to the underrepresentation of these types in it. Subsequent hoards have a much higher percentage of Group J and K types, which indicates that they may have been mid-production when Demanhur was buried. But regardless of exactly when Group J was produced, it certainly wasn't earlier than 323 BC, when Group G was produced, so it's unlikely to be a lifetime example. Price's own dating of Price 123 to 320-317 BC holds up well in Troxell's work of 1997, it is very much consistent with the dates she proposes.

For Price 2949, I'm not sure if there is any newer research that provides firmer dates for when exactly it was minted. Some of these types from Side have been difficult to date and there's quite a few "uncertain" types that are also thought to belong to Side but lack conclusive evidence. The best hoard evidence is from Demanhur, which indicates it at least predates 318 BC and we can be fairly confident it wouldn't predate 325 BC, given that's the earliest evidence for the royal title. Price offers 325-320 BC as the likely date range and that seems most probable. It would be great if more evidence comes to light on this mint but in the mean time I think you just have to live with the "possible lifetime" attribution for it. 

Quote

 

A few (not all) mints and price references that are lifetime, with the "king" title

 

I didn't look into all of these but just want to point out not all are definitive lifetime, e.g. Price suggests 328-320 BC for Price 3332 but this does not mean it was minted over 8 years, only that it was minted at some point in those 8 years. Duyrat further refined this date range to 324-320 BC and given the substantial numbers this type produced, I think it likely at least some, if not many, examples of Price 3332 are posthumous.

Edited April 9, 2023 by Kaleun96

[AETHER]

@Kaleun96Thank you,  this is wonderful.

[kapphnwn]

I am very impressed with @Kaleun96 post seen above I would add that the mint of Amphipolis continued with the uncrossed legs version up to circa 317 . I guess I should discuss the title of Basileos. It would appear that at least in this case Pella chose to follow Price and continued with his chronology. Esentially Price believed that at some point in 325 BC the title of Baseleos was added to the coinage by Alexander III. The theory being that as he was returning from India he demands a change in his nomenclature.  This change of title is quite significant as none of the Macedonian kings used this title. However there are some serious issues with that assertation. The first are the actions  from the mint of Babylon. Price records some 109 types from this mint which he identifies as lifetime of which 16 (2 staters and 14 tetradrachms) use the title Basileos. This is a rather underwhelming, This would indicate at the very least the vast majority of the coins struck to pay off his army did not have the new title. As Taylor (2018) noted that the first and the second much larger issue from this mint could have been struck in less than a year. So the absence of Basileos is odd.

  Thus we are left with a number of possibilities

1. Alexander authorized the title to be placed on the coinage but did so after the bulk of the army was paid off.  Thus the title could have been authorized only weeks before his death. This has a few problems as both Tyre and Sidon do not show this title on the coinage. Damaskos could have suspended production by this time so the absence of the title on coins from this mint is not as big an issue. 

2. The title is posthumous either to A, Honor Alexander III or B. to enhance the status of Alexander IV and Philip III ( and the people behind the throne who are actually in charge). This could explain some of the issues with this coinage but I have not done much work on this subject.  

Stater of Alexander Babylon mint Standard Types Price 3671  8.57 grms 18 mm CNG E Auction 397 Lot 54 May 17 2017

Tetradrachm of Alexander Babylon mint Standard Types Price 3673 CNG Triton IX Lot 803 January 9 2006

 

Stater of Alexander Babylon Standard Types Basileos 322-318 BC Price 3691 8.58 grms 18 mm Photo by W. Hansen

As can be seen from this coin the same die cutter did both obverse dies However M an LY are known for striking coins of Philip III. There is a very extensive issue of coins of Philip III from the mint of Babylon along with coins in the name of Alexander. 

Tetradrachm of Alexander III Standard types Basileos 322-320 BC  Head of Helios KY Price 3697 17.12 grms 27 mm Photo by W. Hansen

Tetradrachm pf Philip III Standard types Basileos 322-320 BC Head of Helios KY Price P205 17.18 grms 26 mm Photo by W. Hansen

 It gets worse. When one studies the Levantine mints one notes that three mints Tyre Sidon and Damaskos do not employ the Basileos title at any time.  Furthermore both the mints of Tarsos  appears to adopt the title very late in the "plow" series Price 3011- 3034 (Only 3033 and 3034 have the title).  Though it is well represented in the subsequent "Nike" series 3036-3055. Myriandros second series MI has only a few coins as well.

Tetradrachm of Alexander III Tarsos Standard types Basileos  Price 3034 CNG Auction 84 Lot 262 May 5 2010

The mint of Arados does have an extensive issue of the Basileos coins. However it does not have an extensive series of coins without. This mint I am still trying to unravel as can be seen from my discussion of the coinage seen above. 

As to the coin formerly thought to be from Side Price 2949. This entire group has the title Basileos. Price 2948-2964. In his book he does question this attribution.  I have not seen any literature which would shed any further light on this series. However if it is from Cilicia it would most likely have something to do with the activities of Crateros which I discussed above on August 20. I would more likely attribute this coin to sometime after 322 BC. i

[kapphnwn]

 I have been silent for a rather long time on this subject. The main reason was that I was waiting on some books that might clarify some issues that I was having especially dealing with the drachm issues of Asia Minor. Well the books finally came and I began the process of digesting the contents. These new sources created as many problems as I had hoped they would solve. However, it became clear to me that I needed to broaden my approach to some degree. Andrew Meadows in his article "Invasion and Transformation The Development of the Civic Alexander Coinage in Western Asia Minor c. 323to 223 BC" suggests that it is not the silver drachms that we should be concentrating on, but the gold. Like most I have been concentrating on the drachm coinage and so I need to reassess my thinking. This is the book where the article can be found.

  Before I begin I should make some observations. The first is that the mints I am going to investigate are (in no particular order Sardes Miletos, Lampsakos and Abydos These are generally considered to have issued drachms during Alexander's lifetime. However, it must be noted that  in some cases the attribution to some of these mints are questionable. Price places a question mark behind his listings of the coins of Abydos?.  I know that there has been a great deal of reassessment of the mints in the Levant. 

  Another question is the why? That I will leave for now. Hopefully when I get through the four mints noted above, I will try to offer some conclusions on that subject.  The first mint I will attempt to discuss is the mint of Sardes.  This city was the capital of the Persian Satrapy of Lydia. It is the general  consensus that Sardes is where the  Royal Persian coinage consisting of the Gold Daric (struck at a weight standard of 8.35 grms ) and the silver siglos (struck at a weight standard of 5.35 grms) was struck . However as ubiquitous as this coinage is, there has not been a lot of study on it. Thus we cannot know if this coinage was minted on an annual basis, or if it was struck intermittently in answer to particular political crises.  

Persian Av Daric 375-336 BC 15 mm 8.33 grms Triton XXI Lot 529 January 8 2018 NONE OF THESE ARE MY COINS

Persian Ar Siglos 375-340 BC 13 mm 5.48 grms Triton XXIII Lot 508 January 14 2020

 Alexander takes the city in 334 BC and presses on in his efforts to come to grips with the Persian forces opposing him. As the coinage struck in his name is concentrated in the Levant, it would seem unlikely that there was any effort in Asia Minor until sometime in circa 325 BC. As I was concentrating on the drachm coinage I failed to recognize that the gold coinage could have been part of Alexander's efforts to pay off his army once he returned to Babylon.  The mint of Sardes struck some 6 issues of gold slaters the first? one being this issue. 

Alexander III Av Stater Sardes Mint c 325-323 BC Price 2528 symbol rams head 8.58 grms 18 mm Triton XIII Lot 103 January 4 2010 

The initial issues of gold staters were not stuck with accompanying minor denominations . The first one to do so is this series.

Alexander III Av Stater Sardes Mint c 325-323 BC  Price 2533 symbol griffin head 8.54 grms 17 mm  Triton XVIII Lot 460 January 5 2015

This is the drachm issue accompanying the stater. This coin does exhibit the severe parallel legs on the image of Zeus seen on the reverse. Another feature is that the god's feet are resting on a footstool a feature seen on many of the Levantine mints indicating that the prototype probably came from that region

Alexander III Ar Drachm Sardes Mint 325-323 BC Price 2536 symbol griffin head 4.28 grms 15.5 mm CNG E Auction 417 Lot 59 March 28 2018

There is another drachm which is not  associated with any gold issue. 

Alexander III Ar Drachm Sardes Mint 325-323 BC Price 2542 symbol kantharos 4.26 grms 15 mm CNG E Auction 459 Lot 93 January 8 2020

The kantharos is associated with gold issues from the mint of Amphipolis. It is not normally associated with a silver issue at this time. Both this and the Price 2536 drachm were scarce when M. Thompson looked at the coinage of Sardes back in 1983. She had only noted one die for each series.  A hoard which is being dispersed over the last few years has brought to light additional specimens,. This is not the case for the next issue, 

Alexander III Ar Drachm Sardes Mint circa 322 BC Price 2550 EY monogram 4.30 grms 16 mm CNG E Auction 462 Lot 40 February 26 2020

This issue is associated with both gold staters and silver tetradrachms However I was not able to find suitable example on line. As can be seen that the position of the legs have changed to that of the fore leg reverted with footstool. This is a feature associated with posthumous issues of Alexander. She also noted some 18 dies for this series which is rather more substantial than the drachm issues that preceded it. 

Hopefully in the next few weeks I will tackle the other three mints. 

 

 

[Kaleun96]

44 minutes ago, kapphnwn said:

 I have been silent for a rather long time on this subject. The main reason was that I was waiting on some books that might clarify some issues that I was having especially dealing with the drachm issues of Asia Minor. Well the books finally came and I began the process of digesting the contents. These new sources created as many problems as I had hoped they would solve. However, it became clear to me that I needed to broaden my approach to some degree. Andrew Meadows in his article "Invasion and Transformation The Development of the Civic Alexander Coinage in Western Asia Minor c. 323to 223 BC" suggests that it is not the silver drachms that we should be concentrating on, but the gold. Like most I have been concentrating on the drachm coinage and so I need to reassess my thinking. This is the book where the article can be found.

  Before I begin I should make some observations. The first is that the mints I am going to investigate are (in no particular order Sardes Miletos, Lampsakos and Abydos These are generally considered to have issued drachms during Alexander's lifetime. However, it must be noted that  in some cases the attribution to some of these mints are questionable. Price places a question mark behind his listings of the coins of Abydos?.  I know that there has been a great deal of reassessment of the mints in the Levant. 

  Another question is the why? That I will leave for now. Hopefully when I get through the four mints noted above, I will try to offer some conclusions on that subject.  The first mint I will attempt to discuss is the mint of Sardes.  This city was the capital of the Persian Satrapy of Lydia. It is the general  consensus that Sardes is where the  Royal Persian coinage consisting of the Gold Daric (struck at a weight standard of 8.35 grms ) and the silver siglos (struck at a weight standard of 5.35 grms) was struck . However as ubiquitous as this coinage is, there has not been a lot of study on it. Thus we cannot know if this coinage was minted on an annual basis, or if it was struck intermittently in answer to particular political crises.  

Persian Av Daric 375-336 BC 15 mm 8.33 grms Triton XXI Lot 529 January 8 2018 NONE OF THESE ARE MY COINS

Persian Ar Siglos 375-340 BC 13 mm 5.48 grms Triton XXIII Lot 508 January 14 2020

 Alexander takes the city in 334 BC and presses on in his efforts to come to grips with the Persian forces opposing him. As the coinage struck in his name is concentrated in the Levant, it would seem unlikely that there was any effort in Asia Minor until sometime in circa 325 BC. As I was concentrating on the drachm coinage I failed to recognize that the gold coinage could have been part of Alexander's efforts to pay off his army once he returned to Babylon.  The mint of Sardes struck some 6 issues of gold slaters the first? one being this issue. 

Alexander III Av Stater Sardes Mint c 325-323 BC Price 2528 symbol rams head 8.58 grms 18 mm Triton XIII Lot 103 January 4 2010 

The initial issues of gold staters were not stuck with accompanying minor denominations . The first one to do so is this series.

Alexander III Av Stater Sardes Mint c 325-323 BC  Price 2533 symbol griffin head 8.54 grms 17 mm  Triton XVIII Lot 460 January 5 2015

This is the drachm issue accompanying the stater. This coin does exhibit the severe parallel legs on the image of Zeus seen on the reverse. Another feature is that the god's feet are resting on a footstool a feature seen on many of the Levantine mints indicating that the prototype probably came from that region

Alexander III Ar Drachm Sardes Mint 325-323 BC Price 2536 symbol griffin head 4.28 grms 15.5 mm CNG E Auction 417 Lot 59 March 28 2018

There is another drachm which is not  associated with any gold issue. 

Alexander III Ar Drachm Sardes Mint 325-323 BC Price 2542 symbol kantharos 4.26 grms 15 mm CNG E Auction 459 Lot 93 January 8 2020

The kantharos is associated with gold issues from the mint of Amphipolis. It is not normally associated with a silver issue at this time. Both this and the Price 2536 drachm were scarce when M. Thompson looked at the coinage of Sardes back in 1983. She had only noted one die for each series.  A hoard which is being dispersed over the last few years has brought to light additional specimens,. This is not the case for the next issue, 

Alexander III Ar Drachm Sardes Mint circa 322 BC Price 2550 EY monogram 4.30 grms 16 mm CNG E Auction 462 Lot 40 February 26 2020

This issue is associated with both gold staters and silver tetradrachms However I was not able to find suitable example on line. As can be seen that the position of the legs have changed to that of the fore leg reverted with footstool. This is a feature associated with posthumous issues of Alexander. She also noted some 18 dies for this series which is rather more substantial than the drachm issues that preceded it. 

Hopefully in the next few weeks I will tackle the other three mints. 

 

 

I just picked up that book the other week as well, though still waiting on delivery. Did you find any other particularly useful books from the others you read, or was that one the best of the bunch?

I find the unpublished PhD dissertations the most annoying to track down. While I'm at it, you wouldn't happen to have a copy of Nancy Moore's "The Lifetime and Early Posthumous Coinage of Alexander the Great from Pella" thesis or know where I can find one, would you?

 

Looking forward to reading your next instalment on the topic!

[Akropolis]

Alexander III, the Great; 336-323 B.C. AR tetradrachm (27mm; 17.18  gm; 2h). Tarsos mint, dated year 23. Struck under Philip III Arrhidaios, circa 323-317 BC. Obv: Hd. of Herakles  r. wearing lion’s skin headdress. Rev: ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ to r., ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ above. Zeus std. l. on throne with cascading locks of hair, holding eagle in r. hand, scepter in his l. To left, Nike flying r., holding wreath; “B” and caduceus below. Monogram  below throne. Price 3050a. 

[Severus Alexander]

On 4/4/2023 at 12:32 PM, Kaleun96 said:

While I'm at it, you wouldn't happen to have a copy of Nancy Moore's "The Lifetime and Early Posthumous Coinage of Alexander the Great from Pella" thesis or know where I can find one, would you?

Check your messages. (If anyone else wants a copy, just let me know.)

[kapphnwn]

 As promised I am looking at the second of the four mints that I have noted in my previous post. I have chosen Lampsakos. Both Thompson (1994) and Price are confident in the attribution of the Alexander coinage to this mint. In this regard they both follow the pioneering work of Edward T. Newell. The mint initially  struck silver tetradrachms and drachms though sometime later it commenced striking gold staters. PLEASE NOTE; NONE OF THESE ARE MY COINS.

Alexander III Ar Drachm Lampsakos Mint Circa 323 BC Price 1343 symbol caduceus 15.5 mm 4.27 grms CNG E Auction 498 Lot 45 August 18 2021

Alexander III (IV)Ar Drachm Lampsakos Mint Circa 322 BC Price 1347 var symbol club and K 15.5 mm 4.25 grms CNG E Auction 498 Lot 46 August 18 2021

 As can be seen and noted by the auctioneer the obverse die is shared between these two issues. Again as the image of Zeus is resting his feet on a footstool, the likely prototype for this issue is from the Levant. This is somewhat surprising as one would have expected that the coins from the mint of Amphipolis would be in circulation in this region. Both issues of drachms have tetradrachms associated with the issue.  However looking on line I could not find any offered. This is evidence that initially the mint at Lampsakos was not very active. The first issue we can see that is represented by a number of coins is this one. 

Alexander III (IV)Av Stater Lampsakos Mint Circa 322 BC Price 1358 Symbol two horse foreparts conjoined DO Monogram 8.57 grms 18 mm CNG Feature Auction 114 Lot 116 May 13 2020

Alexander III (IV)Ar Tetradrachm Lampsokos Mint Circa 322 BC Price 1355 Symbol Demeter standing with two torches DO Monogram 17.22 grms 26 mm CNG Coin Shop Inventory No 525518 No Date. 

Alexander III(IV) Ar Drachm Lampsakos Mint Circa 322 BC Price 1356 Symbol Demeter standing with two torches DO Monogram 4.29 grms 18 mm CNG Auction 108 Lot 63 May 16 2018

 Commentary: Though the symbols are different the very distinctive monogram appears to link the two series together. The tetradrachm 1355 does exhibit a later image of Zeus with the foreleg reverted back  which can be seen on the drachm 1356 and even on the drachm 1347. To me this would indicate that the mint at Lampsakos did not commence production until after the death of Alexander III. Production was initially slow and there is no evidence of a sudden striking of Gold staters as can be seen on the coinage struck at Sardes. Thus I am more inclined to position this mint as starting later in 323 BC with limited production which changed somewhat later. 

[kapphnwn]

I will now look at the mint of Abydos. Though Thompson saw similarities to the mint of Lampsakos,,  Price rightly noted that the attribution to that mint was questionable. I too have some questions ones that I will address later in this post. However at this juncture I will discuss the coinage as attributed to this mint. Abydos has initially struck gold staters and quarter staters,  silver tetradrachms and drachms all with the same symbol, that of a figure of a male wearing chamys NONE of these coins are mine

Alexander III Av Stater Abydos Mint Circa 322 BC Price 1497 8.61 grms 18 mm CNG Coin Shop Inv No 730414 ND

Alexander III Av Quarter Stater Circa 322 BC Unpublished Price 1496 var 2.16 grms 9.5 mm CNG Auction 108 Lot 64 May 16 2016

Alexander III Ar Tetradrachm Circa 322 BC Price 1498 17.21 grms 26 mm CNG E Auction 448 Lot 50 July 17 2019

Alexander III Ar Drachm Circa 322 BC Price 1499 4.30 grms 16.5 mm CNG E Auction 426 Lot 35 August 8 2018

One of the more interesting aspects of the coins from this mint is that while the silver coinage follows the pattern of the other mints in the region thus deriving from the Levantine prototype the Av Quarter stater follows a prototype from the mint of Amphipolis.  Of the four denominations found in this issue the drachms are by far the most common. The silver denominations show the god's foot resting on a footstool.  However it is clear that this mint commenced striking Alexanders sometime after his death, The main rationale behind this assertation is the image of Zeus found on the reverse. This shows the god's legs spread widely. This is a style most notably associated with the mint of Sardes and because coins of this type can be linked to those struck for Philip III Arrhidaeus they are clearly posthumous 

Alexander III Ar Drachm Price 2599 Monogram over torch series 4.27 grms 16 mm CNG Auction 108 Lot 96 May 16 2018

 However this brings up another question. While this mint does follow somewhat in the pattern of Lampsakos the image of Zeus is closer to that found at the mint of Sardes. It would seem to me that this coinage probably comes from a mint that is in close proximity to that of Sardes. 

  It is now that I will try to grapple with the question of why. I believe that the main reason behind the massive issue of drachms in struck by the mints in Asia Minor is to replace the siglos coinage which was the main unit of currency within the region.  I will say that this theory has been postulated by other scholars but has generally been dismissed by the vast majority of scholars most recently by Andrew Meadows (2019). However I have not seen any plausible explanation as to why the Asia Minor mints would produce the vast bulk of the drachm coinage.   However I have seen evidence that the Persian Royal coinage was severely discounted after the fall of the empire. Thus there would be value in recycling the old Persian coins into the new Macedonian ones. However this is a theory only. 

 

Edited April 16, 2023 by kapphnwn
additional note

[Severus Alexander]

15 hours ago, kapphnwn said:

However I have seen evidence that the Persian Royal coinage was severely discounted after the fall of the empire.

This is a key point to support the contention that the drachms were replacements for the sigloi... I'd love to hear a summary of the evidence you refer to here.

I continue to follow your series with great interest, thanks for the posts!!

P.S. I was very happy to pick up this earliest dated Alex tet, Sidon, Price 3467. It was misidentified in the auction so I got a great deal. The Aramaic letter under the throne indicates RY 1 of Abdalonymos = 333/2, as explained in @Kaleun96's comment above. The coin got even better when I read Abdalonymos's story: a gardener of royal descent is raised to the throne of Sidon by Alexander at Hephaistion's request. Very cool!  Plus it turns out I had spent half an hour with his amazing sarcophagus in the Istanbul archaeological museum.

So a dumb question about dated tetradrachms had a very happy ending! 😊 Supports the old adage: don't be afraid to ask dumb questions!