Coins of the Ptolemaic Empire: Ptolemy I through Ptolemy IV. Part I 089722356X, 9780897223560

Citation preview

Lorber

The American Numismatic Society publishes books, journals, and monographs on coins, medals, and related objects of all periods and cultures. The American Numismatic Society 75 Varick Street, 11th floor New York, NY 10013 fron t jac ket photo: Si lver te t rad rachm of Ptolemy III f rom Unc er t ai n Mint 30, ne ar Ep ehsus jac ket design: Oliver D. Hoover

coins of the p tolemaic empire

Catharine Lorber holds a BA in Classical Greek from UCLA. She spent nearly 40 years as a cataloguer in commercial numismatics, from the early 1970s until her retirement in 2009. As an independent researcher she specialized in the publication of coin hoards as well as studies pertaining to North Greek, Thessalian, Judaean, Seleucid, and Ptolemaic coinages. Her most important previous contribution was in the Seleucid field, in collaboration with Arthur Houghton: Seleucid Coins: A Comprehensive Catalogue (Part I, 2002; Part II, 2008, with Oliver Hoover as a third coauthor). Her book credits also include Amphipolis: The Civic Coinage in Silver and Gold (1990). Since 2000 Lorber has published more than 40 papers and book chapters treating Ptolemaic coinage or iconography.

Coins of the p tolemaic empire Catharine C. Lorber Part I

Ptolemy I through Ptolemy IV Volume 1

Precious Metal

Part I Volume 1 Precious Metal

ANS

THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY

Coins of the Ptolemaic Empire, Part 1, by Catharine Lorber, is the long-anticipated catalogue of coins struck by the first four Ptolemaic kings. It essentially rewrites the sections on these rulers in J. N. Svoronos’ classic, but now much out of date, Ta Nomismata tou Kratous ton Ptolemaion (1904). The body of coinage catalogued by Svoronos is enlarged by more than 300 further emissions in precious metal and more than 180 emissions in bronze, recorded from subsequent scholarship, from hoards, from commercial sources, and from private collections, and constituting about a third of the total catalogue entries. Lorber’s attributions, dates, and interpretations rest on numismatic research since Svoronos, or on the latest archaeological and hoard information. She also provides extensive historical and numismatic introductions that give the coins deeper context and meaning. The coinage of Ptolemies I through IV is supplemented by a few issues possibly attributable to Cleomenes of Naucratis, the predecessor of Ptolemy I in Egypt, as well as by coinages of Ptolemy Ceraunus, Magas, and Ptolemy of Telmessus, members of the Lagid dynasty ruling their own kingdoms outside of Egypt.

COINS OF THE PTOLEMAIC EMPIRE Catharine C. Lorber

Part 1 Ptolemy I through Ptolemy IV Volume 1 Precious Metal

THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY NEW YORK 2018

Contents

Preface v Acknowledgements ix Guide for Users

xiii

Maps xv Introduction Ptolemy I Soter Ptolemy II Philadelphus Ptolemy III Euergetes Ptolemy IV Philopator

1 61 131 183

Precious Metal Catalogue Cleomenes of Naucratis Ptolemy I Soter Ptolemy II Philadelphus Ptolemy III Euergetes Ptolemy IV Philopator Third-Century Provincial(?) Tetradrachms Unattributable as to Reign (Ptolemy I–IV) Late Additions to the Catalogues

245 247 311 393 431 453 454

Appendices 1. Ptolemaic Precious Metal Hoards 2. Additional Provenances of Precious Metal Coins

457 513

Bibliography 517 Concordance to Svoronos 579 Indices 1. Remarkable Types in Gold and Silver 2. Remarkable Denominations in Gold and Silver 3. Remarkable Inscriptions on Gold and Silver 4. Controls on Precious Metal Coins

585 588 590 593

Image Credits 619 Plates 629

Preface Coinage of the Ptolemaic Empire updates the monumental work of the great Greek scholar J. N. Svoronos, Ta Nomismata tou Kratous ton Ptolemaion/Die Münzen der Ptolemaeer (Athens, 1904‒1908). Svoronos’ classification of the difficult Ptolemaic series was an extraordinary achievement. Its general outlines are still valid today, at least for the early Ptolemies, but inevitably there are errors of attribution and interpretation. The study of Ptolemaic coinage has made considerable progress in the century and more since Svoronos published his four volumes. For the coinage of the early Ptolemies the most important advances came in the areas of chronology, mint attribution, monetary policy, currency supply, and the economic role(s) of the coinage. We now have a solid grasp on the chronology of the successive coinages and reforms of Ptolemy I, as well as a clearer picture of the various currency reforms of Ptolemy II. The sequence of third-century Egyptian bronze issues is firmly established. Certain provincial bronze series have been reassigned so that the distribution of Ptolemaic mints is now better aligned with Lagid foreign possessions and involvements. Throughout the empire mint activity was probably always intermittent, and after the middle of the third century precious metal coinage was issued very infrequently. This pattern of production, along with other royal policies, contributed to the shortage of silver currency in Egypt in the later third century long discussed by papyrologists and economic historians. The record of Egyptian bronze hoards reflects a major demonetization of bronze currency near the century’s end that must be related to a fundamental accounting reform deduced from Egyptian documents by papyrologists and economic historians. In its scope of coverage, Coinage of the Ptolemaic Empire conforms to the general pattern established by Svoronos: the main focus is on royal coinage issued in the names of Ptolemaic kings and family members, but the catalogues also include the provincial coinage of Judah under the Ptolemies, the municipal coinage of dynastic foundations, and selected coin issues of subject or allied cities that bear Ptolemaic portraits, types, or dynastic symbols. This scope is not precisely identical with the monetary production of the Ptolemaic empire. Although royal Ptolemaic coinage held a monopoly in the core of the empire, this monopoly was established at different times in different regions. The catalogues exclude the Alexander coinage produced by Cypriote and Phoenician mints in the diadochic period and the native Cyrenaican and Cypriote coinages struck in the early years of Ptolemaic domination. There is no evidence for closed currency markets in the more remote Lagid possessions in Asia Minor and Thrace, and Ptolemaic coins accounted for only a tiny fraction of the currency supply in these regions. Svoronos’ Ta Nomismata tou Kratous ton Ptolemaion is a corpus listing individual specimens of each variety, in some cases many examples. The present work does not duplicate that enormous compilation but instead offers a type catalogue that draws on Svoronos and other scholarly publications, and also on commercial literature. This approach has not rendered Svoronos’ corpus obsolete; on the contrary, it will remain an v

vi

Preface

essential reference for further research. Although it was formerly rare and inaccessible, the original text is available as a downloadable document,1 and the plates can be viewed online.2 Coinage of the Ptolemaic Empire is organized as two separate catalogues, one devoted to the precious metal coinage, the other devoted to bronze coinage. This does not follow the model of Svoronos, who incorporated all the coinage into a single catalogue. A case can certainly be made for a single catalogue, because at the beginning of the Ptolemaic period the precious metal and bronze coinages were partially integrated, with many issues sharing the same controls and presumably minted contemporaneously. But this integration ended with the currency reforms of Ptolemy II Philadelphus beginning in 272 B.C. Thereafter the bronze coinage only occasionally shared the controls of the precious metal, so that an integrated catalogue would present problems of organization. For other reasons, as well, it seemed useful to segregate the bronze coinage from the precious metal. Since the two types of coinage developed independently, it is easier to follow their evolution when they are presented separately. Coin identification, too, is easier if the catalogues and plates contain more homogeneous material. The coinage is classified in the traditional manner, that is, the coins are attributed to particular reigns. To be sure, the coins themselves—the silver and bronze with repetitious types and legends, the gold often commemorative–do not usually declare which Ptolemy authorized their emission. Hoards, archaeological finds, controls, and stylistic analysis all contributed to the arrangement of the material, which in the end is largely congruent with Svoronos’ arrangement. Coinage of the Ptolemaic Empire catalogues many coin issues unknown to Svoronos. Numismatic methods like die studies and hoard studies were in their infancy during Svoronos’ lifetime and are scarcely reflected in Ta Nomismata tou Kratous ton Ptolemaion. The present work records die links insofar as they are known, along with information and interpretations gained from die studies. It also cites all hoards for which information is available, drawing on existing hoard literature and on hoards currently under study for initial publication or republication in the forthcoming IFAO volume Egyptian Hoards I. Coinage of the Ptolemaic Empire includes two detailed appendices of hoards, one dedicated to precious metal hoards, the other to bronze hoards, with the hoard contents crossreferenced against Svoronos and CPE catalogue numbers. In the catalogues, relevant hoards and provenances, especially from archaeological excavations, are noted after each catalogue entry. Hoards and provenances attest the wide circulation of Ptolemaic coinage, but provenances from outside Egypt must be used judiciously because some of them reflect secondary circulation after the Roman conquest. Volume 1 of Coinage of the Ptolemaic Empire includes historical accounts of the reigns of each of the first four Ptolemies, drawing on the many different sources from which Ptolemaic history must be reconstructed: the texts of ancient historians, Alexandrian court literature, Greek and Demotic papyri, Greek and Egyptian epigraphy, and Egyptian temple decorations. The aim of these essays is to provide a rich historical context for the 1. Available at https://www.scribd.com/document/115896566/Die-Munzen-der-Ptolemaeer-Ta-nomismata-toukratous-t%C5%8Dn-Ptolemai%C5%8Dn-von-J-N-Svoronos-Bd-IV-Deutsche-Ubersetzung-des-I-BandesErganzungen-I. 2. At http://www.coin.com//images/dr/svoronos_book2.html.

Preface

vii

coinage within a fascinating multicultural society, with a bias toward including events, trends, and conditions that may be relevant for interpreting the coinage. The most recent Ptolemaic history in English, Günther Hölbl’s A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, has a somewhat different focus. It narrates the political history of the Lagid state and lays great emphasis on its royal ideology and religious policy, but devotes relatively little attention to economic activity, social life, or the process of cultural adaptation at the individual level. In addition, the historical essays of the present work benefit from two decades of scholarship since the 1994 publication of Hölbl’s history in its original German. Those years witnessed the discovery and publication of the earliest Egyptian synodal decree, antedating the Canopus Decree by several years, and the republication and reinterpretation of other primary sources. The historical essays also take note of recent research into topics more closely related to coinage, for example fiscal policies, temple subsidies, and taxes. Thematic topics such as these are usually treated separately from historical narrative, with a corresponding chronological vagueness. A special effort was made here to provide precise dates compatible with the reign-by-reign organization of Ptolemaic history. The historical viewpoints offered here reject or rebalance some concepts of earlier scholarship. The imperialism of Ptolemy I, and that of his successors, is placed in the context of Egyptian history, pharaonic ideology, and even religious sanction, whereas many historians, following Polybius, have represented the creation of the Ptolemaic foreign empire as a defensive enterprise. The colonialist model of Ptolemaic Egypt, in which Greeks dominated and abused the native population, now appears crude and simplistic. A more realistic model must take into account the class structure of Egyptian society itself, the wide involvement of Egyptians at the lower levels of the Ptolemaic administration of Egypt, and the hellenization of such Egyptians. The participation of the second Ptolemy in local religious festivals is now well documented and suggests that he embraced his pharaonic role vis-à-vis the Egyptian gods. The superficial Egyptianization of the dynasty and the partial assimilation of the immigrant population, sometimes cited as symptoms of a long and terminal decline beginning under Ptolemy IV, are now known to be features of the apogee of Ptolemaic power under Ptolemy II and Ptolemy III. Coinage of the Ptolemaic Empire follows Hölbl’s lead in emphasizing the religious aspects of Ptolemaic rule, but with some differences. For several decades it was fashionable to credit the kings for the construction and restoration of Egyptian temples, and this patronage was understood as a strategy of legitimation on the part of the Macedonian rulers. Thanks to recent studies of priestly “autobiographies,” temple work is now seen as a collaborative effort in which the clergy played an important and sometimes leading role, motivated by piety. The institutional relationship between the king and Egyptian temples had both fiscal and administrative aspects. Like temple construction, royal subsidies are usually described as a necessity of state building, a means to secure the support of the Egyptian priestly class for the foreign rulers. But this interpretation overlooks the fact that subsidies also placed the clergy in a dependent position and increased royal control over the temples. The absence of equivalent arrangements in Cyprus or the province of Syria and Phoenicia further suggests that the Ptolemies had a special interest in Egyptian religion beyond merely controlling the temples, as attested by the creation of the cult of Sarapis and the international promotion of the cult of Isis. The relation of the rulers to Egyptian gods received important expression in temple decorations; these illuminate

viii

Preface

specific facets of royal ideology and foreign policy and almost certainly reflect the personal religious beliefs of most of the Ptolemies as well as the piety of the priesthood. Ruler cult, or more generally the divinization of the Ptolemies, developed in both the Greek and Egyptian milieux. The Ptolemies were worshipped both officially and privately, in Egypt, on Cyprus, in Greek-dominated external territories of the empire, and even abroad—but evidence for such worship is almost entirely lacking from Phoenicia and Coele Syria. The fairly thorough exposition of ruler worship offered here shows that the coin types were usually related only tangentially to actual cult, but they nevertheless can sustain complex interpretations under the more general rubric of divinization. The sections on numismatic iconography place particular emphasis on identifying Egyptian motifs or possible Egyptian interpretations. Although specifically Egyptian elements are quite scarce in the numismatic imagery, the double status of the Ptolemaic king as Greek basileus and Egyptian pharaoh makes it likely that the types were designed to support Egyptian as well as Greek interpretations. Ptolemaic monetary history contrasts with the apparent caution and conservatism of other aspects of Lagid administration. It is marked by aggressive reforms that often had unintended bad consequences. Ptolemy I began his satrapal rule in Egypt with a demonetization of the existing currency of Athenian owls and imitations, at least some of which were probably minted by Egyptian temples. This measure resulted in the loss of much coined silver in the form of the hoards of owls known to us today. Later Ptolemy reduced the weight of his tetradrachm and banned coinage of Attic weight, creating the famous closed economy and precipitating another huge loss of coined silver in the form of numerous hoards left in the ground. Ptolemy II created a distinctive bronze coinage intended, ultimately, to replace silver in most transactions. Ptolemy III pursued this policy goal by removing silver coinage from the Egyptian economy. This seems to have undermined confidence in the bronze coinage so that it began to be discounted or devalued in various ways. Toward the end of his reign Ptolemy IV demonetized most of the bronze coinage in circulation, once again resulting in the loss of much coinage in hoards. This was an aspect of the grand mutation, the introduction of the so-called bronze standard and of a new coinage valued accordingly, which will be treated in Part II of Coinage of the Ptolemaic Empire.

Acknowledgements Many people have contributed to Coinage of the Ptolemaic Empire, Part 1. The most extraordinary and heartfelt thanks are due to five close colleagues whose intellectual contributions and support were essential to the work as it now exists. Thomas Faucher introduced me to the new system of classifying Ptolemaic bronze coinage by series which he developed with Olivier Picard. Over the course of a decade Thomas recorded old bronze hoards he found in Egyptian storerooms and new hoards unearthed in excavations in Egypt, and he shared his records with me By inviting me to be a coeditor of Egyptian Hoards I, Thomas provided access to additional hoards recorded, reconstructed, or restudied by other numismatists. He also generously supplied the extensive set of photos he took of the Ptolemaic gold and silver coins in the Bibliothèque nationale de France. As Deputy Director of the American Numismatic Society, Andrew R. Meadows made available the numerous hoard records in the ANS archives. He kept me abreast of his progress in editing, collating, and interpreting many hoard reports deposited with the British Museum, most of which concerned silver hoards found in the Levant; these hoard reconstructions were recently published in Egyptian Hoards I. Andy encouraged students in the ANS Summer Seminar to select research topics in Ptolemaic numismatics and to communicate about their work with me. He also ordered photography of all coins of the first four Ptolemies in the ANS collection, personally photographed selected coins in the British Museum, and supplied illustrations from the hoard records he was studying. Daniel Wolf collaborated in demonstrating the operation of a Ptolemaic bronze mint on Sicily. Subsequently he published a massive metrological study of Ptolemaic bronze coinage through Series 5 which provided a robust foundation for defining denominational structures that had previously been inferred from weaker data. Over the years of our acquaintance Dan assiduously assembled photos of Ptolemaic bronze coins from the internet, obtained permissions from the copyright holders, and made them available for my use, along with photos of coins in his own collection. A substantial proportion of the previously unrecorded bronze issues in CPE are coins from Dan’s collection or coins which he identified elsewhere and brought to my attention. Julien Olivier collaborated in die studies of Ptolemaic gold coinage of the third century B.C. and helped to solve most of the outstanding problems. During his research for his PhD he kindly reported on the hoards he encountered and provided photos of coins of interest from relatively inaccessible collections. Héloïse Aumaître informed me of unpublished varieties from the Syro-Phoenician region and systematically reviewed the Syro-Phoenician sections of the catalogues for errors and inconsistencies. Eric Carlen located and identified many previously unknown provincial tetradrachms of Ptolemy III and IV, notably enriching the catalogues for these kings.

ix

x

Acknowledgements

To these six I am immensely grateful for their selfless sharing of their own research and work products, for stimulating discussions, for their constant encouragement, and for their friendship. Other numismatists have helped by allowing me to examine their collections; by drawing coins of interest to my attention, including Ptolemaic coins found in excavations or reposing in regional museums; by providing photographs; by providing unpublished documents or inaccessible literature; by sharing work in progress; and by discussing issues of mutual interest: I am indebted—in some cases very much indebted—to Donald Ariel, Richard Ashton, Michele Asolati, the late Dan Barag, Rachel Barkay, the late John Bergman, David Biedermann, Gabriela Bijovsky, Andreas Blasius, Brad Bowlin, Andrew Burnett, Kevin Butcher, Alessandro Cavagna, Ed Cohen, Henry Colburn, Stephanie Craven, Karsten Dahmen, Don Doswell, Niels Draskowski, Gunnar Dumke, Frédérique Duyrat, Victor England, Yoav Farhi, Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert, Jean-Philippe Fontanille, Dan Gal, Merrill Gibson, Haim Gitler, Wayne Hansen, Florian Haymann, Richard Hazzard, Walter Holt, Oliver Hoover, the late Silvia Hurter, Stephen Huston, Mato Ilkic, Panos Iossif, Piotr Jaworski, Paul Keen, Philip Kinns, Husain Koker, Koray Konuk, Frank L. Kovacs, Elke and Jochen Krengel, Ivan Ladynin, Thomas Peter Landvatter, the late Georges Le Rider, Constantin Marinescu, Katharina Martin, Eric McFadden, Ivan Mirnik, Barry Murphy, Brad Nelson, Evgeni Paunov, Pavlos Pavlou, Emmanuel Petac, Adam Philippidis, Olivier Picard, Arent Pol, Selene Psoma, Samuele Ranucci, Emilio Rosamilia, Ziad Sawaya, Ken Sheedy, Clive Stannard, Emmanouil Stefanakis, Danny Syon, Oren Tal, and Ahmet Tolga Tek. I owe special thanks to Rob Freeman, who made it possible for me to study and photograph coins from an important Ptolemaic gold hoard and from the collection of Larry Bonner. Harlan Berk, together with Rob Freeman, provided similar access to the collection of Don Doswell. The historical essays have benefited from communication with historians and papyrologists who have shared their work, their expertise, and their bibliographical resources. I am very grateful to Sheila Ager, Victor Alonso Troncoso, the late and deeply missed Chris Bennett, Corinne Bonnet, Fabienne Burkhalter, Stanley Burstein, Stefano Caneva, Willy Clarysse, Altay Coşkun, Christelle Fischer-Bovet, Sabine Fourrier, Jean-Louis Gatier, Gilles Gorre, Werner Huß, Renzo Lucherini, Joseph Manning, Alex McAuley, Andrew Monson, Jessica Nitschke, Olga Palagia, Mark Passehl, Stefan Pfeiffer, Dimitris Plantzos, Branko van Oppen, Dorothy Thompson, Katelijn Vandorpe, Sitta von Reden, and Pat Wheatley. Because this work was conceived as a new edition of Svoronos, a systematic examination of the major public collections was not deemed essential. Nevertheless I benefited from the study of several collections and I am indebted the curators and directors of the institutions I visited over the years, as well as those who responded to queries or supplied photos: Carmen Arnold-Biucchi, Leslie Elam, Elena Stolyarik, Peter van Alfen, and Ute Wartenberg-Kagan of the American Numismatic Society; Michel Amandry, Frédérique Duyrat, and Julien Olivier of the Bibliothèque nationale de France; Bernhard Weisser, Karsten Dahmen, and Angela Berthold of the Münzkabinett Berlin; Donald T. Ariel of the Israel Antiquities Authority in Jerusalem; Amelia Dowler of the British Museum; Donal Bateson and Sally-Anne Coupar of the Hunterian Museum; Paul Beliën of the Netherlands National Coin Collection; François de Callataÿ and Johannes van Heesch of the

Acknowledgements

xi

Royal Belgian Library; Helle Horsnaes of the Danish National Museum; Volker Heuchert of the Ashmolean Museum; and Anja Slawisch of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Istanbul. Finally, I warmly thank the American Numismatic Society and its Executive Director Ute Wartenberg-Kagan for bringing this work to publication. The contributions of four ANS staff members deserve special recognition. Andrew Meadows, former Director of Publications, and Andrew Reinhard, current Director of Publications, oversaw the project. Alan Roche provided the excellent photographs of coins in the Society’s collection. Oliver Hoover designed the book, typeset the text, laid out the plates, and collaborated with unfailing patience and good humor to correct errors and cope with late changes and additions. Catharine C. Lorber

Guide for Users Coinage of the Ptolemaic Empire aspires to provide an historical overview of the production of Ptolemaic coinage. The catalogues are organized first by reign, then by region, then by mint. The individual issues are listed in the order in which they were struck, to the extent that their sequence can be determined. While convenient for certain purposes, this presentation does not provide easy points of entry for a numismatist seeking to identify a coin in the hand, unless he or she is already fairly expert in the study of Ptolemaic coinage. Very few Ptolemaic coins declare explicitly which king authorized their emission, and even royal portraits can be deceiving, since they were sometimes posthumous. If a Svoronos reference is already known, the fastest way to find the corresponding entry in CPE is to consult the concordance from Svoronos to CPE in the end matter. The end matter also includes indices designed to aid in coin identification. For precious metal coins there are indices of remarkable types, remarkable denominations, remarkable inscriptions, and controls; the first three are subdivided by metal, the last into unmarked issues, symbols, and finally letters and monograms. For bronze coinage there are indices of remarkable types, remarkable inscriptions, and controls. The latter are subdivided into unmarked issues; symbols; combinations of symbols, monograms, and/or letters; and finally letters and monograms. It is a matter of judgement to choose which index is most likely to lead to the rapid identification of a coin being researched. In general, however, remarkable types, denominations, and inscriptions are relatively uncommon, so that for most coins the index of controls is the only practical aid. In many cases it has proved impossible to attribute coins to a specific mint city. Following a practice established in Seleucid Coins, groups of coins evidently issued by a single unidentified mint are listed together, and a number is assigned to the unknown mint. In Part I of Coinage of the Ptolemaic Empire, 42 such uncertain mints are enumerated, and in a few cases the mint numbers enable the association of precious metal and bronze coins that are catalogued separately in Volumes 1 and 2. The numbering of the uncertain mints should not be interpreted to mean that 42 distinct mints operated in different locations, in addition to the various mints whose locations are identified. The episodic nature of Ptolemaic coin production ensures that we often lack criteria for identifying coins that were minted in the same location at different times. Almost certainly some of the coins attributed to uncertain mints were struck at known mints, and it is equally likely that some uncertain mints with different numbers should be associated with one another. A very short section at the end of the precious metal catalogues is devoted to coins which could not be assigned by reign. It is followed by an equally short list of addenda which came to the author’s attention so late in the production process that they could not be integrated into the main catalogues without disrupting the layout and pagination of the volumes. xiii

Map 1. Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean.

Map 2. Ptolemaic Egypt.

Map 3. The Nile Delta.

Map 4. Cyprus, Cilicia, and the Levant.

Map 5. Greece, Macedonia, Thrace, Asia Minor, and Crete.

PTOLEMY I SOTER

Satrap, 323–305/4 B.C. King, late 305/early 304–282 B.C. I. History of the Reign Genealogy and Dynastic Chronology Ptolemy, son of Lagos, was born in Eordea, Macedonia in the 360s or early 350s and was descended from Macedonian royalty through his mother, Arsinoe.1 A prominent officer of Alexander the Great, he was appointed satrap of Egypt and Cyrenaica after the conqueror’s death in June of 323.2 He assumed the royal title in the summer or autumn of 306, according to the Greek literary tradition.3 This version of events is supported by a Greek papyrus from Egypt.4 But another group of documents, including demotic papyri, dates his kingship from late 305 to 304.5 As pharaoh of Egypt, Ptolemy was accorded the following titles, completing four of the five parts of the traditional Great Name:6 1. Arr. Anab. 6.28; Satyrus, FGrHist 631 F 2; P. Oxy. 25.2465. For the date of Ptolemy’s birth and for Arsinoe’s genealogy, see C. J. Bennett at www.tyndale.com/egypt/ptolemies/genealogy.htm. Ptolemy was later rumored an illegitimate son of Philip II (Curt. 9.8.22; Paus. 1.6.2). Collins (1997) concluded that he was indeed illegitimate but was adopted by Lagos. 2. The precise date of Alexander’s death has been calculated from Babylonian documents as 11 June by Depuydt (1997), pp. 117–135. This supercedes the earlier calculations of Skeat (1954), p. 9 (13 June) and Samuel (1962), p. 47 (10 June). 3. Diod. 22.53; Plut. Dem. 18.2; App. Syr. 54; Just. 15.2. See C. J. Bennett at www.tyndale.com/egypt/ptolemies/ genealogy.htm; Van Oppen (2015b), arguing that Porphyry (Eus. Chron. I [Schoene] 161) can be made to harmonize with other Greek literary sources. 4. P. Köln 6, 247, ll. 15–19; Maresch in Gronnewald et al. (1987), pp. 97–98 with n. 3; Lehmann (1988a). Herklotz (2005), p. 157, suggested that the discrepancy in the date of Ptolemy’s accession may indicate that it was problematic for the Egyptians to integrate a foreign ruler into the pharaonic system. This idea receives some support from the donation stela of Amenhotep, son of Khahor, dated to the fourth year of Ptolemy I, which shows a pharaoh making offerings to the Tanaite deities Amun, Mut, Khonsu, and Horus of Mesen, beneath empty cartouches, see Guermeur (2005), pp. 287‒288. 5. Canon Ptol. at Πτολεμαίου oῡ̔͂ Λάγου (year 1 = 7 November 305–6 November 304); Marmor Parium (FGrHist 239 F B 23), 124 (archonship of Euxenippos = July 305–July 304). The latest Egyptian documents to name Alexander IV are P. dem Louvre 2427 and 2440 (Hathyr year 13 = 6 January–3 February 304). For discussion of the complicated calculations, involving the Attic, Macedonian, Egyptian, and Julian calendars, and for assessment of the chronological hypotheses of various scholars, see C. J. Bennett at www.tyndale.com/egypt/ptolemies/genealogy.htm. Samuel (1962), pp. 4–11, identified 7 November 305–1 February 304 as the probable date range and hypothesized that the actual date of accession was 7 November 305, equivalent to 1 Thoth, New Year’s Day of the Egyptian calendar. Grzybek (1990), pp. 89–90, dated Ptolemy’s accession to 7 Hathyr (c. 12 January) 304 based on an interpretation of the Pithom stela. Bennett, following Gruen (1985, pp. 253, 258, 267 n.37), thought it likely that Ptolemy assumed his kingship after thwarting Demetrius at Rhodes and dated the accession to spring 304, perhaps to 29 Daisios (c. 4 June), the anniversary of Alexander’s death. Some Egyptologists have suggested that Ptolemy may have styled himself basileus in 306/5 but did not seek formal recognition as pharaoh until 305/4, but Bennett objected that the Marmor Parium, with its Greek orientation, would not have recorded Ptolemy’s pharaonic accession in preference to the beginning his basileia, if there had been a difference. 6. On pharaonic titulature, see Beckerath (1984); on the Ptolemaic adaptation of pharaonic titulature, see Tait (2003). Heinen (1978), p. 193 n.34, considered it likely that Ptolemy was crowned at Memphis according to Egyptian rites.

1

2

Ptolemy I Soter

Horus: wr pHtj nsw onj (powerful great one, mighty king) Two Ladies: jTj m sxm m HoA Tnr (who takes possession with power, capable ruler) Horus of Gold: — King of Upper and Lower Egypt: stp n Ra mrj Jmn (chosen of Ra, beloved Amun) Son of Ra: Ptwlmjs (Ptolemy)7 The last two of these titles are of particular importance. In Egyptian texts the throne name and birth name of any pharaoh often appear together without the rest of the titulature, and it is these two elements that are enclosed in cartouches. Ptolemy’s throne name was borrowed from the titulature of Alexander and Philip III and represented him as their legitimate heir. Ptolemy’s accession inaugurated a new system of dating according to his regnal years. In Greek sources these are reckoned retroactively from the death of Alexander the Great in 323.8 For Egyptians the count of Ptolemy’s regnal years began in 305/4.9 A polygamist in the tradition of the Macedonian nobility,10 Ptolemy married four wives and fathered many children. During Alexander’s eastern campaign he was accompanied by his mistress, the Athenian courtesan Thais, whom he married after Alexander’s death and who bore him two sons, Leontiskos and Lagos, and a daughter, Eirene.11 In April 324, at Susa, Alexander gave him a high-born Persian wife, Artacama, a daughter of Artabazus and granddaughter of Artaxerxes II;12 no children are known to have issued from this marriage. In 320/19 Ptolemy married Eurydice, daughter of the Macedonian regent Antipater, and their union produced three sons, Ptolemy (Ceraunus), Meleager, and one whose name has not survived, as well as two daughters, Lysandra and Ptolemais, and a possible fourth son, Argaeus.13 Not long after marrying Eurydice, Ptolemy made a love match with her cousin, a Macedonian widow named Berenice who had accompanied Eurydice to Egypt, and who already had three children.14 Berenice gave him three more children, Arsinoe (the future Arsinoe II Philadelphus), Ptolemy (the future Ptolemy II Philadelphus), and Philotera. In addition, Berenice’s children by her first marriage— Magas, Antigone, and Theoxena—were accepted as members of the royal family. The abundance of royal daughters and step-daughters allowed Ptolemy to create a nexus of marriage alliances with contemporary rulers.15 Eirene married the Cypriote city-king Eunostus of Soli, probably amid the upheavals of 311/0.16 Around 300 Ptolemy gave Theoxena to Agathocles of Syracuse and Arsinoe to Lysimachus.17 In 299/8 Pyrrhus 7. After Beckerath (1984), p. 118. 8. Samuel (1962), pp. 11–24. 9. Samuel (1962), pp. 10–11. 10. Plut. Comp. Demetr. Ant. 4.1; Ogden (1999), pp. ix–xix, 68–73. 11. Ath. 13.567e, and see C. J. Bennett at www.tyndale.com/egypt/ptolemies/genealogy.htm. Huß (2001), p. 305 with n.4, expressed skepticism that this was an official marriage. 12. Arr. Anab. 7.4.6. 13. C. J. Bennett at www.tyndale.com/egypt/ptolemies/genealogy.htm; Van Oppen (2015b). 14. Paus. 1.6.8. On this marriage, see most recently Van Oppen (2011). Tarn (1929), pp. 138–141, alleged that Ptolemy entered into a fifth marriage with an Egyptian princess of the Sebennytic line, but this claim was based on a misreading of a hieroglyphic text. 15. Seibert (1967), p. 72. 16. Ath. 13.576e; Seibert (1967), pp. 77–78. See C. J. Bennett at www.tyndale.com/egypt/ptolemies/genealogy.htm for a date c. 320, shortly after the accession of Eunostus, and also for the dates of other marriages mentioned in this paragraph. Orth (1993), p. 78, dated the marriage of Eirene to Eunostus c. 310/9; Seibert dated it after 295. 17. Just. 23.2; Paus. 1.10.3; Seibert (1967), pp. 73–74. On Arsinoe’s age at the time of her marriage, see van Oppen (2012a).

Introduction

3

successfully sued for the hand of Antigone.18 Around the same time Ptolemais was betrothed to Demetrius Poliorcetes, though the wedding was not celebrated until 287/6.19 Lysandra married Alexander V, the future king of Macedon, and after his death she became the wife of Agathocles, son and heir of Lysimachus (c. 292/1).20 The excess sons, in contrast, were problematic. Eurydice’s eldest son, Ptolemy, was not heir-apparent and left Egypt around 287/5, probably accompanied by his brother Meleager, seeking refuge first with Lysimachus and then with Seleucus.21 (It is not clear whether the departure of Eurydice’s son implies that she too had fallen from favor.22) In 285/4 Ptolemy fixed the succession by establishing a coregency with his son by Berenice, the future Ptolemy II.23 The old king died in the first half of 282, after forty years of rule, the only one of the Successors to expire in his own bed and apparently of natural causes.24 Ptolemy and his rivals: Formation of an empire According to Justin, Ptolemy was promoted from the ranks during Alexander’s campaigns.25 Ptolemy wrote firsthand accounts, cited by Arrian, of the assault on Thebes in Boeotia, the battle of Issus in Cilicia, and Alexander’s pilgrimage to the oasis of Ammon at Siwah. In the autumn of 330, after the execution of various officers suspected of conspiracy, Ptolemy became a somatophylax (Royal Bodyguard).26 His first significant assignment was to take custody of Bessus, the assassin and nominal successor of Darius III.27 Following Alexander’s death in June of 323, his Friends and Bodyguard met in council to determine the succession.28 In these discussions Ptolemy rejected the claim of Alexander’s half-brother Arrhidaeus on account of his alleged low birth and mental defects, and proposed elevating one of the satraps instead.29 The council decided to await 18. Plut. Pyrr. 4.4; Paus. 1.11.5 ; Seibert (1967), pp. 76–77. 19. Plut. Dem. 32.6, 46.6; Seibert (1967), pp. 31–32, 74–75. Huß (1994a) posited an earlier marriage of Ptolemais to a descendant of Nectanebo I, but this depends on his reading of a much-disputed hieroglyphic inscription and does not seem very likely given the pattern of Ptolemy’s other marriage alliances. 20. Por., FGrHist 695, 698; Paus. 1.9.6, 1.10.3; Seibert (1967), pp. 75–76. 21. App. Syr. 10.62; Paus. 1.16.2. On the probable neglect of the education of these princes and on the early grooming of the future Philadelphus, see Alonso Troncoso (2005), pp. 101–103. 22. See the discussion of Eurydice by C. J. Bennett at www.tyndale.com/egypt/ptolemies/genealogy.htm. 23. Samuel (1962), pp. 25–28, and see www.tyndale.com/egypt/ptolemies/genealogy.htm, where C.J. Bennett, after complicated calendrical calculations, arrived at a probable date of 25 Dystros year 39 = c. 28 March 284. Por., FGrHist 260 F 2.2, implies that Ptolemy I virtually abdicated in favor of his son, but documents continued to be dated solely by the regnal years of the senior monarch. 24. The latest documents to name the first Ptolemy are P. Eleph. 4 (Hyperberetaios year 41) and P. Eleph. 3 (Artemisios year 41), while the earliest mention of Ptolemy II is in SEG 28, 1224 (Dios year 4 = year 1). Samuel (1962), pp. 28– 30, fixed the date of Ptolemy’s death between 7 January and the beginning of summer, and specifically pinpointed 24 Dystros (7 January). Grzybek (1990), p. 91, argued for 30 Hathyr (13 January). Bennett (www.tyndale.com/egypt/ ptolemies/genealogy.htm) proposed Artemisios–Daisios of year 41 = c. April–June 282. 25. Just. 13.4.10. Ellis (1994), pp. 3–4, submitted that Ptolemy was a member of the Royal Pages and a close companion of Alexander from childhood. There is little support for this in the ancient sources, but see Ellis, p. 86 n.36. 26. Arr. Anab. 3.27.5. 27. Arr. Anab. 3.29.6–3.30.5. Ptolemy’s subsequent activities as an associate of Alexander include his attempt to save Cleitus (Curt. 8.1.45, 48; Arr. Anab. 4.8.8–9), his role in taking the Rock of Aornus (Arr. Anab. 4.28.1–2), a perhaps legendary wound cured thanks to a dream of Alexander (Curt. 9.8.17–28; Diod. 17.103), his charge to prepare the funeral pyre for the Indian sage Calanus (Arr. Anab. 7.3; Plut. Alex. 69.3–4), his marriage to the Persian noblewoman Artacama (Arr. Anab. 7.4.6), and his role in the campaign against the Cossaeans (Plut. Alex. 72.3; Arr. Indica 40.6–8). 28. Just. 13.2.4–14; Diod. 18.2.2. 29. Just. 13.2.11–12.

4

Ptolemy I Soter

the birth of Alexander’s child by his Bactrian wife Roxane, who was pregnant at the time.30 The Companion Cavalry agreed to this plan, but the infantry acclaimed Arrhidaeus king, giving him the name Philip, and mutinied on his behalf.31 Perdiccas brokered a compromise that recognized Philip III Arrhidaeus but also reserved rights for the unborn child, the future Alexander IV.32 Now titled regent of the kingdom, Perdiccas distributed the provinces of Alexander’s empire among the leading generals, who ostensibly would be serving as governors for the Argead kings.33 Ptolemy received Egypt, part of Africa, and Arabia (meaning the desert east of the Nile).34 The acting satrap of Egypt, Cleomenes of Naucratis, was assigned to be his second in command.35 Ptolemy took possession of Egypt without incident and, finding 8000 talents in the satrapal treasury, proceeded to form an army.36 Cleomenes, whose loyalty was suspect, was soon put to death.37 In 322 Ptolemy was invited by a group of exiled Cyrenean aristocrats to intervene in a civic dispute at Cyrene. After an armed intervention he visited Cyrene in person, probably toward the end of 321, and decreed a constitution which minutely defined the civic institutions and restored the exiled oligarchs, but which also reserved special prerogatives for Ptolemy himself, including a permanent role as one of the city’s six strategoi and jurisdiction over the affairs of Cyrenean exiles.38 Most significantly, he installed a garrison under his general Ophellas, who then garrisoned the other cities of Cyrenaica.39 This was the first time that one of Alexander’s Successors had added to the territories that Alexander had conquered, and it increased Ptolemy’s prestige among his peers.40 The intervention at Cyrene also epitomizes two aspects of Ptolemy’s rule, his selfpresentation as a protector or benefactor of Greek poleis—a pretension adopted by all the Successors—and his exercise of power through existing institutions. In 321, Ptolemy gained access to Cyprus by entering into alliance with four of the local city-kings, Nicocreon of Salamis, Pasicrates of Soli, Nicocles of Paphos, and Androcles of Amathus.41 He was motivated principally by his need for certain resources that were critical to the maintenance of military power but lacking in Egypt, especially timber for shipbuilding and copper, the main ingredient of bronze. These needs would inspire persistent attempts by Ptolemy to gain and retain control of Cyprus and Phoenicia. In this same year Ptolemy pulled off an especially daring coup.42 According to the agreement reached at Babylon in 323, Alexander was to be interred at the temple of 30. Just. 13.2.13–14. 31. Just. 13.3.1–6; Diod. 18.2.2. 32. Just. 13.4.1–4; Diod. 18.2.3–4. 33. Just. 13.4.9; Diod. 18.2.4. 34. Just. 13.4.10; Diod. 18.3.1. 35. Just. 13.4.11. 36. Diod. 18.14.1. 37. Paus. 1.6.3. 38. SEG IX 1, with Fraser (1958); Laronde (1972) on the chronology; Bagnall (1976a), pp. 28‒29; Laronde (1987), pp. 88‒120. 39. Diod. 18.21.6–9; Arr. FGrHist 156 F9 17–18; Marmor Parium, FGrHist 239 B 10–11. 40. Mehl (1980–81), p. 192. 41. Arr. FGrHist 156 F10.6. 42. The dates from 322 to 315 follow the chronology proposed by Boiy (2007). On the so-called high chronology promoted by Bosworth (1992), see also Wheatley (1995; 1998). Most recent historical surveys follow the low chronology advocated by Errington (1970; 1977), pp. 478–504. Examples include Green (1990); Hölbl (2001); and Huß (2001).

Introduction

5

Ammon at Siwah.43 His ornate funeral car required two years to complete, and when the funeral cortège finally undertook its procession through the cities of Asia, Ptolemy intercepted it at Damascus and escorted it to Egypt.44 Some sources indicate that Ptolemy buried Alexander’s embalmed body in the royal city of Memphis, at the south end of the Nile Delta, where he himself resided, and there it remained for many years.45 But Diodorus reports that Ptolemy constructed a monumental tomb in Alexandria and organized magnificent obsequies with heroic sacrifices and games.46 In any case the act of piety was significant, for both Greek law and Egyptian custom linked burial to the right of inheritance.47 The honors paid to Alexander helped to attract many soldiers into Ptolemy’s service despite the threat of an imminent attack by Perdiccas.48 Ptolemy’s action precipitated an open breach with the regent.49 Perdiccas attempted to invade Egypt in the spring of 320, with forces far exceeding those of Ptolemy, and with the two kings in his custody.50 In the first engagement, just outside Memphis, Ptolemy distinguished himself by putting out the eyes of the lead elephant with his spear and his troops repelled the attackers after a hard fight.51 After a failed attempt to cross the eastern branch of the Nile, Perdiccas was assassinated in his own camp by disaffected officers, including his cavalry commander, Seleucus.52 The following day the troops in assembly would have named Ptolemy as guardian of the kings, but he used his influence to have the regency conferred on two of the assassins.53 In late summer of 320, the surviving Successors met at Triparadisus in Syria to remake the government of the empire.54 The new regents resigned, and the elderly Antipater was elected in their place.55 He undertook a new distribution of the satrapies. Ptolemy was confirmed as satrap of Egypt on the ground that it was “like a spear-won possession” after his successful defense of Egypt against Perdiccas.56 Cyrenaica was also recognized as Ptolemy’s by right of conquest and he was granted license for further expansion in the west.57 Antipater at last conveyed the kings to Macedon, but his death in 319 and his appointment of Polyperchon as his successor sparked a new round of warfare among the Successors. Already, allegedly as a defensive measure, Ptolemy had annexed Coele Syria 43. Just. 13.4.6; Diod. 18.3.5. Perdiccas, however, may have intended to bury Alexander at Aegae, the traditional site of Argead royal tombs, see Paus. 1.6.3. As noted by Erskine (2002), p. 169, the ancient sources may not be reliable. 44. Diod. 18.26.1–28.3. 45. Marmor Parium (FGrHist 239 F B 111), under 322/1; Curt. 10.10.20; Paus. 1.6.3; Erskine (2002), pp. 167–179. 46. Diod. 18.28.3–4. On the sarcophagus, Strab. 17.1.8. 47. For Greek inheritance law, see the orations of Isaeus; for the religious duty of an Egyptian son, see Bonhême and Forgeau (1988), pp. 68–70. 48. Diod. 18.28.5. 49. On the motives of Perdiccas and Ptolemy, see Erskine (2002), pp. 169–173; Meeus (2009), especially p. 243. 50. For the date, which has been disputed in recent years, see Anson (2007), pp. 193–198. 51. Diod. 18.33–18.34.5. 52. Diod. 18.34.6–18.35, 18.36.1–5. 53. Diod. 18.36.6; Arr. FGrHist 156 F 9.28–29. 54. Diod. 18.39.1. 55. Diod. 18.39.1. 56. Diod. 18.39.5, 18.43.1; Mehl (1980–1981), p. 188, stressed the use of the words hoionei and hosanei, which exclude an actual claim of ownership by right of conquest, since the fiction of a unified empire would be maintained for nearly fifteen years. 57. Diod. 18.39.3–5; Arr. Succ. Fr. 1.34; Mehl (1980–1981), pp. 191–192.

6

Ptolemy I Soter

and Phoenicia and had garrisoned the major cities.58 After the death of Polyperchon Eumenes threatened Coele Syria and Phoenicia (318), and Ptolemy allied with Antigonus Monophthalmus against him. Related power struggles within Macedon led to the murder of Philip III in October 317, on the orders of Alexander’s mother, Olympias.59 The child Alexander IV remained the sole king; in Egypt he succeeded Philip as pharaoh, and a new count of regnal years began.60 Antigonus, who had been warring for years against Eumenes, finally prevailed in the winter of 317/16. He next sought to establish himself as the preeminent authority in the manner of Perdiccas. In the summer of 316, he descended on Babylon with his army and demanded an accounting from its satrap, Seleucus.61 Seleucus refused to open his books but ultimately fled for his life.62 He took refuge with Ptolemy and from the Egyptian court formed a coalition against Antigonus.63 The latter responded in 315 with a punitive invasion of Ptolemy’s territories, occupying Phoenicia, storming Ioppe and Gaza on the southern coast, and finally taking Tyre after a fifteen-month siege.64 Antigonus also tried to discomfit Ptolemy on Cyprus by forming alliances with the kings of Citium, Lapethus, Marium, and Keryneia.65 In 316 or 315, Ptolemy’s Cypriote allies, probably instigated by Nicocreon of Salamis, placed their forces under Ptolemy’s command for the purpose of repelling Antigonus from the island.66 Ptolemy’s brother Menelaus sailed to the island with an army and there joined forces with Seleucus, now commander of the Ptolemaic fleet, to compel the obedience of the dissident kings.67 In 313, Ptolemy arrived in person at the head of another army.68 He deposed the kings who had treated with Antigonus and gave their cities and revenues to Nicocreon of Salamis.69 Ptolemy followed up with naval raids on coastal Syria and captured the Cilician city of Mallus.70 In the summer of the same year, the Cyreneans revolted and besieged the Ptolemaic garrison in the citadel, but Ptolemy dispatched an army and a fleet to restore order.71 Memphis was not a convenient place from which to direct an active engagement in the world outside Egypt. At some point Ptolemy moved his court from Memphis to Alexandria.72 The Greek sources first begin to mention Alexandria in connection with 58. Diod. 18.43; App. Syr. 52; Marmor Parium, FGrHist 239 B 12; Wheatley (1995). 59. Diod. 19.11.1–6. 60. Samuel (1962), p. 3; Pestman (1967), pp. 12–13. 61. Diod. 19.55.1–3; App. Syr. 53. 62. Diod. 19.55.3; App. Syr. 53. 63. Diod. 19.55.5, 19.56.1–19.57.2; App. Syr. 53. 64. Diod. 19.58, 19.59.2–3, 19.61.5; App. Syr. 53. 65. Diod. 19.59.1. 66. Diod. 19.59.1. 67. Diod. 19.62.3–5. 68. Diod. 19.79.4. 69. Diod. 19.79.4–5. According to Diodorus, Ptolemy appointed Nicocreon as strategos of Cyprus, but Bagnall (1976a), pp. 38–42, argued that Diodorus used the term in its generic sense of military commander and that it did not designate an administrative office as in the second century. On Nicocreon and Macedonian favoritism toward the Teucrids, see Christodoulou (2009). 70. Duris of Samos, FGrHist 76 F 4. 71. Diod. 19.79.1–3. 72. On Alexander’s foundation of Alexandria, see Arr. 3.1.1; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 1–6; Cohen (2006), pp. 357– 358. On its civic institutions, see Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 93–101, and more recently Huß (2011), pp. 17–27. On its topography, see Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 7–37; on the configuration of its harbors, canals, and water supply, see Owens (2007).

Introduction

7

events around 313. The Satrap Stela of 311, lauding Ptolemy’s achievements, mentions his residence in the city by the great green sea of the Ionians, formerly called Rhakotis, before describing the muster of troops for a Syrian campaign.73 Almost certainly this alludes to the Syrian campaign of 312/11, and on this basis most scholars now date the relocation of the capital to 313 or 312.74 In the autumn of 312, Ptolemy and Seleucus defeated Antigonus’ son Demetrius in a battle near Gaza, in part by neutralizing Demetrius’ elephants through the use of spiked devices that could puncture their feet.75 Ptolemy reoccupied most of Coele Syria and Phoenicia, though Tyre typically refused to surrender.76 Seleucus left to recover his lost satrapy with a small force supplied by Ptolemy.77 About this time Ptolemy led or ordered a punitive raid into Nubia in response to some provocation on Egypt’s southern border.78 In the spring of 311, Antigonus marched out of Phrygia to confront Ptolemy in Coele Syria, and Ptolemy withdrew, razing Ake, Ioppe, Samaria, and Gaza before he departed.79 Nicocreon of Salamis died in 311/10.80 He was succeeded as king of Salamis by Ptolemy’s brother Menelaus, a development that illustrates Ptolemy’s preference for exercising power through existing institutions. Nicocles of Paphos, a longtime ally of Ptolemy, was accused of forming a secret alliance with Antigonus and was compelled to commit suicide, a fate his family chose to share as well.81 The surviving Macedonian king, Alexander IV, had been living with his mother under the “protection” of Cassander. As the young king entered adolescence he became a potential threat to his guardian, and in 310 or 309, Cassander ordered that the pair be quietly murdered.82 The secret may not have leaked out immediately, for in Egypt documents continued to be dated by the regnal years of Alexander IV.83 In 309, Ptolemy launched a naval campaign against southern Asia Minor, sailing with his pregnant wife Berenice.84 He took possession of Phaselis, Xanthus, Caunus, and perhaps Iasos.85 Over the winter he set up court on the island of Cos, where the physicians of the guild of Asclepius delivered Berenice of a son, the future Ptolemy II.86 In 308, sailing from Myndus, Ptolemy “liberated” the island of Andros from Antigonus.87 When he landed in Greece, he installed garrisons at Sicyon, Corinth, and Megara, though the last of these 73. Satrap Stela (Urk. II, no. 9), p. 14, ll. 12–16; R. K. Ritter in Simpson, Faulkner, and Wente (2003), pp. 392‒397. Another English translation is available on www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/lagides.htm. 74. A date before the first Syrian campaign is preferred by some authors, e.g. Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 7; Vol. IIa, pp. 11–12 n.28; Zervos (1974). pp. 263–267; von Reden (2007), p. 34. 75. Diod. 19.80–85.4; Just. 15.1.6–8. For the military operations and date of the battle, see Winnicki (1989), pp. 55–76. Further on the date, Wheatley (2003b). 76. Diod. 19.85.4–86.4. According to Ps.-Aristeas 12–13, Ptolemy took a hundred thousand Jewish prisoners at Jerusalem and resettled them in Egypt. 77. Diod. 19.86.5; Winnicki (1989), pp. 76–83, but see Burstein (2015) for Ptolemy’s activities in 311. 78. Satrap Stela (Urk. II, no. 9), ll. 5–6; Burstein (2008), p. 136; id. (2015). This raid is dated to 319/8 by Huß (1994b), pp. 93–94; id. (2001), p. 136; and by Eide, Hägg, Pierce, and Török (1996), p. 537. 79. Diod. 19.93; Winnicki (1989), pp. 83–89. 80. Marmor Parium, FGrHist 239 B 17. 81. Diod. 20.21.1–3. 82. Diod. 19.105.2–4; Just. 15.2.5. 83. Samuel (1962), pp. 3 and 7–8. 84. Diod. 20.27.1. 85. Diod. 20.27.2. For Iasos, see Bagnall (1976a), pp. 89–90. 86. Marmor Parium, FGrHist 239 B 19; Theoc. Id. 17.58–76. 87. Diod. 20.37.1.

8

Ptolemy I Soter

cities fell to Demetrius the following year.88 Ptolemy crowned his successes by presiding over the Isthmian games in the summer of 308.89 On that occasion he proclaimed the freedom of the Greek cities and revived the League of Corinth in his own name, an action intended to represent him as the legitimate successor of Philip II and Alexander.90 He also sought the hand of Alexander’s sister Cleopatra, resident under guard at Sardes, but she was prevented from joining him and was later killed.91 Meanwhile Ophellas, Ptolemy’s governor in Cyrenaica, attempted a campaign against Carthage in support of Agathocles of Syracuse.92 But when Ophellas finally met up with Agathocles in Punic territory in the autumn of 308, Agathocles suddenly attacked and killed him and took possession of his army.93 Ptolemy was nonetheless able to recover control of Cyrenaica after his return from Greece.94 In 307, Demetrius opened a campaign to deprive Ptolemy of Cyprus.95 He defeated Menelaus before Salamis and then besieged the city.96 Ptolemy sailed from Egypt with a large fleet but suffered the first defeat of his career in the naval battle of Salamis (306).97 He lost most of his warships, half his supply ships, thousands of troops, and the island of Cyprus itself.98 Most likely he also lost his possessions in southern Asia Minor in the aftermath.99 The catastrophic losses spurred Ptolemy to reduce the weight of his silver coinage (see below). Antigonus celebrated the victory by assuming the royal title and conferring it on Demetrius as well, setting an example for the other Successors.100 The Antigonids followed up in the winter by attempting to invade Egypt with a fleet and massive land forces, but were repelled.101 This success enabled Ptolemy, for a second time, to claim Egypt as doriktetos chora (spear-won land).102 Antigonus had summoned the Rhodians to participate in the attack on Ptolemaic Cyprus, but they claimed neutrality.103 In the summer of 305, Demetrius began a punitive siege of Rhodes, in which he employed spectacular engines of war.104 The failure of this siege in 304, after fifteen months, was due in part to provisions and reinforcements provided by Ptolemy and further eroded Antigonid prestige.105 It was perhaps during or just after the siege, in late 305 or early 304, that Ptolemy assumed the royal title.106 88. Diod. 20.37.1–2, 20.46.3; Diog. Laert.2.115; Hesych. Miles. 61 (= FGrHist 4.175). 89. Suda, s.v. Δημήτριος. 90. Dixon (2007), especially pp. 173–175. 91. Diod. 20.37.3–6. Cleopatra was wooed by most of the Successors, see Meeus (2009), pp. 245–246. 92. Diod. 20.40–20.42.2. 93. Diod. 20.42.3–5. 94. Suda, s.v. Δημήτριος. 95. Diod. 20.46.5–20.47.1. 96. Diod.20.47.2–4, 20.48. 97. Diod. 20.47.1–4, 7–8; 20.48.1–20.53.1. For a modern account of the battle, see Murray (2012), pp. 105–111. 98. Diod. 20.52.6–20.53.1. Van den Branden (1982) submitted that Ptolemy retained the loyalty of part of the island’s elite, but the claim that he appointed an official at Lapethus in 303 is hardly credible. 99. Meadows (2006), pp. 461–462. 100. Diod.20.53.2. 101. Diod. 20.73.3–20.76.6; Plut. Dem. 19.1–3; Paus. 1.6.6; on the naval aspects, Darnell (1992), pp. 70‒73. 102. Diod. 20.76.6; Mehl (1980–81), p. 189. 103. Diod. 20.46.6; 20.82.1–2; for the background and motives of the parties, see Hauben (1977). On p. 337, n.134, Hauben speculated that Ptolemy’s first weight reduction was motivated by a desire to adjust his currency to the weight standard of Rhodes, in order to facilitate trade with the island, and he dated the reform to 309/8 when Ptolemy’s naval campaign made him a sea power. For the refutation of this thesis, see Mørkholm (1991), p. 90; Le Rider (1998a), p. 785. 104. Diod. 20.82.3–88, 20.91–95; Murray (2012), pp. 112–117. 105. Diod. 20.96–100.1. 106. See notes 3–5 above.

Introduction

9

Shortly after Ptolemy began to style himself king, there was another revolt in Cyrene.107 Corinth was lost in 304 or early 303, and Sicyon in 303.108 The continuing menace posed by the Antigonids drove Ptolemy to enter into an alliance with Cassander, Lysimachus, and Seleucus.109 In 302, he occupied Coele Syria and Phoenicia for the third time and garrisoned the cities, then returned to Egypt.110 In the spring or early summer of 301, the Antigonids suffered a crushing defeat at Ipsus in Phrygia, and Antigonus perished in the battle.111 Ptolemy had been absent from the battlefield and his erstwhile allies judged him unworthy to share in the spoils of victory.112 Coele Syria and Phoenicia had been promised to Seleucus, but Ptolemy already held the region, except for the coastal cities of Tyre and Sidon which remained in the hands of Demetrius.113 For the sake of friendship Seleucus did not press his claim, yet he also did not renounce his rights.114 The dispute over this territory was the cause of repeated wars between their successors over the next two centuries. The Levantine entente freed Ptolemy to attend to the problem of Cyrenaica. He dispatched his stepson Magas, who conquered Cyrene and assumed the position of governor of Cyrenaica, probably in 300.115 Around this same time there was a short-lived rapprochement between Ptolemy and Demetrius, who provided a hostage in the person of his brother-in-law Pyrrhus, the deposed king of Epirus.116 During his residence at the Alexandrian court Pyrrhus cultivated the favor of Queen Berenice and won the hand of her daughter Antigone.117 In 297, he reclaimed his kingdom with financial and military support from Ptolemy.118 Ptolemy thus gained a reliable ally in any future machinations involving the Macedonian kingdom. Despite strained relations between Ptolemy and Seleucus, Demetrius was still the focus of animosity among the Successors. His involvements in Greece and his ambitions in Macedonia created opportunities for them to encroach on his possessions, and in 294 Ptolemy attacked Cyprus and once again annexed it to his kingdom.119 It was at this time, as well, that the garrison commanders of Sidon and Tyre surrendered to Ptolemy.120 In 288, a 107. The beginning of the revolt is usually dated to 305 in historical works. Numismatic evidence seems to indicate that Ptolemy was recognized as king in Cyrene before the revolt, see Newell (1938), pp. 13–14. This may favor a date of 306, rather than late 305–304, for Ptolemy’s assumption of the diadem, or it may indicate that the presumed date of the revolt should be lowered. 108. Diod. 20.102.2–20.103.1. For the date of the loss of Corinth, see Mørkholm (1980), p. 156; Lorber (2005), pp. 46–50. 109. Diod. 21.1.2. 110. Diod. 20.113.1–2. 111. Diod. 21.1.4b. 112. Polyb. 5.67.7–8. 113. Diod. 21.1.5. The northern boundary of the Ptolemaic province of Syria and Phoenicia was the River Eleutherus. Farther inland it ran through the Beqaa Valley, see Duyrat (2013). 114. Diod. 21.1.5. 115. Paus. 1.6.8; Chamoux (1956). 116. Plut. Dem. 32; Pyrrh. 4. 117. Paus. 1.11.5; Plut. Pyrrh. 4.4. 118. Paus. 1.6.8; Plut. Pyrrh. 5.1. Franke (1961), p. 260, suggested that Epirote bronze coinage of this period, which shows a strong Ptolemaic influence, was struck from a gift of bronze provided by Ptolemy for the pay of his troops. 119. Plut. Dem. 35.5. 120. This idea was advanced by German scholars of the nineteenth century (see Wheatley 2003a, p. 184 n. 6 for bibliography) and accepted in modern times by Bagnall (1980), p. 246; Orth (1993), pp. 96, 99; Hölbl (2001), p. 23; and Huß (2001), p. 204. Early in the twentieth century Tarn argued influentially for 287 or 286 and was followed by

10

Ptolemy I Soter

new alliance formed against Demetrius, this time joining the forces of Ptolemy, Seleucus, Lysimachus, and Pyrrhus.121 Demetrius’ power in Macedonia collapsed suddenly and in the view of some historians this allowed Ptolemy to take control of a pre-existing League of the Islanders, in effect establishing a protectorate over the Cyclades, and to organize provinces in Lycia and Pamphylia.122 Ptolemy’s northern possessions, from the Aegean to the eastern Mediterranean, were supervised by Philocles, King of Sidon, who had first entered Ptolemy’s service at Cos in 309 and participated in the Greek campaign of 308.123 In June of 287, Ptolemy dispatched troops under the command of Callias of Sphettos to support the Athenian revolt against Demetrius, then negotiated a peace that formally recognized Athenian independence, but left Antigonid garrisons in the Piraeus and other fortifications.124 Ptolemy remained Athens’ most important ally, providing both grain and monetary aid, and this tie of friendship was maintained by Ptolemy II.125 The events of Ptolemy’s reign, as recounted above, derive almost exclusively from the Greek sources. Not surprisingly, the focus is on his activities outside of Egypt—his relations with the other Successors, his formation of an external empire, and his attempts to cultivate a noble reputation among the Greeks. To the latter end he made public displays of religious piety through offerings and the erection of statues in the major sanctuaries of the oikoumene.126 Also conspicuous was his participation, and that of his family and philoi (friends), in the great panhellenic games.127 He himself became the object of cults outside Egypt. In 304, after the failure of Demetrius’ siege of Rhodes and on the instructions of the oracle of Ammon at Siwah, the Rhodians formally established a civic cult for Ptolemy with his own sacred precinct, the Ptolemaeion.128 The city of Miletus erected his statue Newell (1923b) and most numismatists. Wheatley (2003a) examined the numismatic evidence in an attempt to establish a reliable date for the surrender of Tyre; he was unable to narrow the date range definitively, but favored late 289 or early 288. Lorber (2012b) demonstrated that the Antigonid coinage of Tyre is compatible with the high rather than the low chronology. 121. Plut. Dem. 44; Plut. Pyrrh. 10–11. 122. Hölbl (2001), p. 24; Huß (2001), pp. 211–212; Wörrle (1977); Bagnall (1976), 111–113. The formation of the Ptolemaic thalassocracy, including the establishment of the Nesiotic League, is dated to the first year of Ptolemy II as sole ruler by Meadows (2006; 2008; 2012; 2013). 123. Hauben (1987; 2004). 124. SEG XXVIII, 60 = Shear (1978), ll. 12‒42; Osborne (1979); Habicht (1979), pp. 46–47, 62–67, (1997), pp. 96–97. 125. On the diplomatic exchanges with and benefactions to Athens, see the decree for Callias of Sphettus, SEG XXVIII, 60 = Shear (1978), ll. 43–55; Habicht (1994), pp. 141–143; id. (1997), pp. 127–128. The monetary gift has been traced in the Athenian tetradrachms of the style termed “quadridigité,” see Bingen (1973); Nicolet-Pierre and Kroll (1990); Noeske (2000b), pp. 224–227. 126. Ptolemy’s offerings at Delos included a gold cup dedicated to Aphrodite, apparently in 308 after his conquest of Corinth and Sicyon; a gold shield; and golden ivy wreaths and golden myrtle wreaths, one of the latter dedicated by or in the name of Berenice I. Ptolemy commemorated the liberation of Rhodes by consecrating the horns of twenty sacrificed bulls in the temple of Athena at Lindos. At Didyma he honored Apollo with a sculptural monument, known only from its dedicatory inscription. At Olympia he dedicated a statue of an unidentified friend (Paus. 6.3.1) and Ptolemy himself may have been depicted in several sculptures (Paus. 6.15.10, 6.16.3, 6.16.9). See Bruneau (1970), pp. 516–518, I–VI; Swinnen (1973), pp. 128 with nn.6–7, 129 with nn. 1–4; Bringmann and von Steuben (1995), nos. 57, 143–148, 204, 273; Schmidt-Dounas (1995), pp. 91, 133–134, 139–143; ead. (2004), pp. 99, 101. 127. Swinnen (1973), pp. 128–129 with nn.3–5, 8; Bennett (2005), pp. 91–93. Ptolemy won the race of the pair of foals on the introduction of this event at the 69th Pythian games in 314 (Paus. 10.7.8). He convoked the theoroi for the Isthmian games of 308. His son Lagos won an equestrian victory at the Arcadian Lycaea of 308/7 (SIG3, 314). Paus. 6.15.10 mentions a statue of Ptolemy with (unspecified) sons commemorating an Olympic victory, presumably in the boys’ events. Posidippus, Hippika AB 78 and 88 inform us of an undated Olympic chariot racing victory by Ptolemy I and another by Berenice I. 128. Diod. 20.100.3–4; Paus. 1.8.6; Segrè (1941), pp. 29–30, ll. 17–18; Kotsidu (2000), no. 153 E. Pausanias implies that this cult was the source of Ptolemy’s epithet Soter and the implication was accepted by Habicht (1970), p. 109,

Introduction

11

in the sanctuary of Apollo and worshipped Ptolemy as theos kai soter (god and savior), although this cult title was perhaps not used during his lifetime.129 The League of Islanders apparently worshipped him as king and savior even before voting him an official cult on Delos.130 A bilingual Greek and Phoenician inscription from Larnaca on Cyprus records the dedication of an altar to Athena Soteira Nike/Anat and to the king (no doubt Ptolemy) by the local aristocrat and high priest Praxidemos/Baalshalom, son of Sasmas/Sasmay; the occasion for this dedication was surely Ptolemy’s victory over Demetrius and his recovery of Cyprus.131 The only parallel, also believed to date from the reign of Ptolemy I, is a Greek dedication to King Ptolemy and Aphrodite Epekoos (attentive to prayers) offered by a Phoenician in the grotto of Astarte at Wasta, near Tyre.132 The precedence of the king over a deity is very unusual, but Ptolemy’s association with Aphrodite/Astarte falls in the tradition of Phoenician rites of royal investiture and implies his identification with Heracles/Melqart.133 A statue base found in Egypt, dedicated to Ptolemy and Berenice as Theoi Soteres, suggests that Greek immigrants to Egypt also offered divine honors to their rulers during their lifetimes.134 This particular form of ruler cult, addressed to a couple rather than to an individual, was to become a hallmark of the Ptolemaic dynasty. State building in Egypt Greek penetration of Egypt began centuries before the conquest of Alexander. While Upper Egypt was deeply traditional, a certain degree of Greek and Egyptian cultural assimilation had already taken place in the Delta as the result of policies of the Late Period pharaohs. Around 650, Psamtek I had authorized a colony of Greek merchants at Naucratis, and this colony eventually achieved the status of a polis, probably in the mid-fourth century.135 Memphis was home to communities of Egyptianized Carians and Ionians, descendants of mercenaries who were settled there by pharaoh Amasis.136 Assimilated Greeks from Naucratis and Memphis provided models for a Graeco-Egyptian identity, and conversely some elite Egyptians showed themselves open to aspects of Greek culture. By the early Ptolemaic period at least one elite citizen of Naucratis presented himself as Egyptian in an autobiographical monument: Haremheb of Pekha (in Upper Egypt), son of a Greek father and an Egyptian mother, erected a colossal statue of himself in purely Egyptian style in Hauben (1977), p. 339, and other modern scholars. This seemingly confuses a civic cult of an independent polis with a state cult within a kingdom (for a classification of cults, see Pfeiffer 2008b). Under the circumstances, it would have been quite natural for the Rhodians to offer divine honors to Ptolemy as a savior of their city, but the epiklesis Soter is not attested by Diodorus or by Rhodian documents, see Hazzard (1992), especially pp. 54–56, but also the rebuttal of Johnson (2000). 129. Miletus: I. Milet I.3, 139 ll. 24–25; Habicht (1970), pp. 114–115, proposed a date as early as 314/3 for the Milesian cult but ultimately placed its foundation in the period 294–288. Seibert (1971) concluded that the only plausible date for a treaty of friendship between Miletus and Ptolemy and the associated foundation of the cult was the period of Ptolemy’s Asia Minor campaigns, 309–308. Bagnall (1976), p. 173, n.46, and Hazzard (2000), p. 6 n.16, both argued that the cult name theos kai soter only reflected usage in the reign of Ptolemy II, and that it was not a part of the original divine honors. 130. Nicouria decree (IG XII.7, 506 = SIG3 I, 390), ll. 26–28. 131. CIS I 95 = LBW 2778; Keen (2012), Chapter 4; Fourrier (forthcoming). 132. Bonnet (2005). 133. Bonnet (2006–2007). 134. Johnson (2000), pp. 104–105. 135. On the status of Naucratis, see most recently Huß (2011), pp. 16–17; Agut-Labordère (2012). Redon (2012), pp. 57–68, traced its status under Ptolemaic rule. 136. Aristagoras of Miletus, FGrHist (Müller-Didot), Vol. 2, p. 198; Thompson (2012), pp. 87–90.

12

Ptolemy I Soter

an Egyptian temple, with texts that may allude to his services to a foreign pharaoh.137 An example of partial hellenization among the Egyptian elite is the celebrated tomb of Petosiris at Hermopolis (Ashmunein) in Middle Egypt, whose decoration fuses native and Hellenistic elements while its texts credit Petosiris with a leading role in restoring and building temples in his nome after a period of turmoil under the reign of a foreign ruler.138 Ptolemy initially established his court at the old Egyptian capital Memphis, which he had first visited with Alexander in 332, and which had subsequently served as the base for Cleomenes of Naucratis.139 Memphis was a great religious center dominated by the temples and priesthoods of Ptah and Apis, yet also a cosmopolitan city with immigrant communities of diverse origin, not only the Caromemphites and Hellenomemphites, but also Phoenicians, Jews, and other Semites.140 It was in this milieu that Ptolemy formed his earliest strategies of governance. Laying claim to Egypt Egypt held a special place in the imagination of Greek writers, as a fabulous land of great antiquity, the cradle of civilization and a reservoir of esoteric knowledge.141 Book Two of Herodotus, allegedly drawing on information from Egyptian priests, represented Egypt as the source of religion generally as well as of specific Greek cults; Dionysus (Osiris), the Orphic cults, Demeter (Isis) and her Thesmophoria were all transplanted to Greece from Egypt.142 Isocrates’ Busiris transmuted his subject into an idealized first pharaoh and lawgiver, whose enactments established the basis of civilized life and inspired other famous constitutions. Plato credited Egypt for the invention of writing and described a visit of Solon to learn from the priests of Sais.143 Pythagoras reportedly visited Egypt to study the ancient wisdom of the priests, which he then introduced into Greece as philosophy.144 Study in Egypt was also attributed to other figures significant for Greek culture, including Orpheus and Democritus.145 Of special importance to Alexander and to Ptolemy, the Macedonian royal house claimed a mythic origin in Egypt through Danaus, the Egyptian founder of Argos, and this allowed Alexander to represent his arrival in Egypt as a return to the land of his ancestors.146 During the years of Ptolemy’s satrapy, the historian Hecataeus of Abdera resided in Egypt and wrote an influential ethnographic treatise, partially preserved by Diodorus, 137. CCG 1230; Derchain (2000), pp. 20–21, 42–43; Baines (2004), pp. 49–50; Guermeur (2005), pp. 135–137; AgutLabordère (2012), pp. 369, 370‒371 . On the location of Pekha, see Klotz and Leblanc (2012), pp. 661–662. Haremheb achieved sainthood and had his own priesthood in the second century. 138. Lichtheim (1980), pp. 44–54; Derchain (2000), pp. 32–33, 54–57; Legras (2005), pp. 979–983; Baines (2004), pp. 45–47. 139. Thompson (2012), p. 99. 140. Thompson (2012), pp. 1–28, 76–143, 177–192; Ray (1994), pp. 54–59; Crawford (1980). This was the beginning of a close relationship between the Lagids and the high priests of Ptah and of a corresponding decline in the influence of the clergy of Thebes, even though the high priesthood of Amun at Thebes seems to have remained in the same family— possibly the family of a Ptolemaic appointee—from at least 320/19 to 101, see Gorre (2009b), pp. 502–507. 141. Hartog (2001), 41–64; id. (2002); Mastrocinque (1987), 295–306. Vasunia (2001) argued that this literary tradition facilitated Alexander’s conquest of Egypt. 142. Hdt. Book 2; on Dionysus/Osiris, 2.42.2, 2.47–49, 2.123, 2.144; Orphic cults, 2.123; Demeter/Isis, 2.59, 2.171.2–3. On Herodotus and the Egyptian priests, see most recently Moyer (2011a), pp. 42–83. 143. Phaedr. 274c–275d; Tim. 21e–24c. 144. Isoc. Bus. 22, 28. 145. Diod. 1.96. 146. Eur. Archelaos F228 and 228a; Caneva (2011), pp. 198‒201.

Introduction

13

that claimed to be based on Egyptian records.147 In this account the earliest Egyptians recognized Osiris and Isis as the primordial deities and Osiris travelled the world to establish civilization, teaching communal life and the art of agriculture, and abolishing cannibalism.148 The Egyptians planted many colonies, according to Hecataeus: Danaus founded Argos and there introduced the worship of Dionysus; Athens was a colony of Sais, its early rulers (including Erechtheus and Cecrops) natives of Egypt; and the Eumolpidae were Egyptian priests who brought the Eleusianian mysteries from their homeland to Attica.149 Hecataeus was one of the first intellectuals to benefit from Ptolemy’s patronage. Ptolemy’s enduring interest in Egyptology is attested by his later encouragement of the work of Manetho of Sebennytos, a priest of Heliopolis who wrote several books in Greek including an authoritative history of his country, drawing upon ancient hieroglyphic records and intended to instruct the new rulers in the history of the pharaohs.150 The papyrus P. Hibeh 27 documents a serious Greek interest in the Egyptian calendar around the turn of the third century.151 While the Greek fascination with Egypt certainly antedated the Hellenistic era, it served Ptolemy’s interests by advertising the attractions of Egypt and by providing elements for an ideology that would aid the integration of immigrants into a new society and contribute to the cohesion of the Ptolemaic state.152 Ptolemy and his successors consistently sought to blend or at least draw on both Greek and Egyptian civilization in their policies and self-representation.153 Egyptian royal ideology was fundamentally religious rather than nationalistic, and this made it possible for a foreign conqueror to legitimate his rule in Egypt. A central belief was that maintenance of the cosmic order depended on the performance of cult by a divinely approved pharaoh who was the unique mediator between mankind and the gods.154 Alexander established his kingship in Egypt by observing certain traditions of pharaonic accession, first visiting Heliopolis and then proceeding to Memphis, where he offered sacrifice to the Apis bull and other gods, a prerogative reserved to the pharaoh.155 The Theban clergy expressed its acceptance by inscribing Alexander into its most prestigious religious monuments.156 By January of 329, the Barque Shrine of Amenhotep III in the temple of Amun at Luxor was converted into a shrine for Alexander.157 In the temple of Amun at Karnak, a shrine to Horus, originally constructed by Thutmose III, was renovated in the name of Alexander.158 In both cases the texts and decorations 147. Murray (1970); Burstein (1992); Dillery (1998). 148. Diod. 1.10–12.2, 1.20. 149. Diod. 1.29; see also 1.27.4, 1.28.6. 150. On Manetho, see Murray (1970), pp. 167–168, positing the strong influence of Hecataeus; Mendels (1990); Huß (1994b), pp. 58–68; Dillery (1999); Legras (2005), pp. 974–977; Moyer (2011a), pp. 84–141, insisting on the Egyptian structure of Manetho’s Aegyptiaca. 151. Lane Fox (2011), p. 11. 152. D. Delia, in response to Samuel (1993); Manning (2010), p. 93. For an accounting of genuine parallels in Greek and Egyptian religious practice and differences in thought, see Bernand (1988). 153. See, e.g., Heinen (1978); Manning (2010). 154. Bonhême and Forgeau (1988), pp. 116‒118, 126‒130, 132‒135; Schneider (1998); Silverman (1991), pp. 64‒70. 155. Diod. 17.29.2; Curt. 4.7.1; Ps.-Callisthenes 1.34.1; Hölbl (2001), p. 9. Alexander’s behavior compared favorably with that of Cambyses, who was reputed to have killed an Apis bull, see Hdt. 3.27–30.1. On Cambyses’ regulation of Egyptian temples, which may have contributed to his poor reputation in Egypt, see Agut-Labordère (2005a, 2005b). For other aspects of Alexander’s legitimation as Egyptian pharaoh, see Menu (1999). 156. Lloyd (2011), p. 89. 157. Urk. II, nos. 4‒5, pp. 7‒9; Abd el-Raziq (1984); Schäfer (2007), pp. 58‒60; Lloyd (2011), p. 88. 158. Urk. II, nos. 2‒3, pp. 6‒7; Blyth (2006), p. 225; Schafer (2007), pp. 60‒63; Lloyd (2011), p. 88.

14

Ptolemy I Soter

depict Alexander as Egyptian pharaoh making offerings to the gods and receiving his kingship from Amun-Ra.159 At Luxor he receives traditional grants of dominion over foreigners that imply a divine mandate for his Persian expedition.160 The architectural settings emphasize that mandate by associating Alexander with Amenhotep III, a famous pharaoh of the Eighteenth Dynasty who presided over a large foreign empire, and with Thutmose III, the greatest conqueror of Egyptian history.161 During Ptolemy’s satrapy further renovations to the temple of Amun in Karnak were made in the name of Pharaoh Philip, most notably the construction of a new barque shrine in the sanctuary, replacing the original shrine built by Thutmose III with a faithful copy.162 The exterior decorations illustrate imaginary but ideologically essential events of Philip’s reign, his enthronement, his participation in the Beautiful Festival of the Valley, and his performance of foundation rituals.163 Later, as king, Ptolemy was associated with Thutmose III in the shrine of Min at Panopolis (Achmim).164 A subtext of these persistent associations of the Macedonian rulers with Thutmose III is a renewal of the divine mandate for Egyptian rule over Asia. Royal ideology also justified other aspects of Ptolemy’s imperialism, for Cyprus too was considered part of Greater Egypt by divine design. Manetho documented the historical antecedents for this imperialism in his Aegyptiaca.165 Even during his satrapy Ptolemy assumed the aura of a pharaoh. The Satrap Stela depicts him making offerings to the gods of Buto beneath the empty cartouches of the absent king Alexander IV.166 Its text credits Ptolemy—“a great prince in Egypt”—with campaigning abroad to avenge Egypt; with returning sacred images, temple furnishings, and holy books carried off to Asia by the Persians; and with bringing captives and gods from Nubia as well.167 The Satrap Stela achieves its real purpose when it records Ptolemy’s confirmation of an endowment of land to the gods of Buto which had been revoked by Egypt’s Persian rulers.168 This monument assimilates Ptolemy to the legitimate king in several ways. As noted above, making offerings to the gods was a prerogative of the pharaoh, believed to be essential for the gods’ survival and for the preservation of the cosmos itself.169 The description of Ptolemy’s qualities echoes formulae normally applied to Egyptian kings, and the traditional obligation of pharaoh to defend Egypt from its northern and southern enemies lies behind the pairing of Asian and Nubian campaigns.170 The return of sacred images from foreign lands—a pious deed which was to become a topos of Ptolemaic royal propaganda—had previously been undertaken and commemorated by the native pharaoh 159. Abd el-Raziq (1984); Stewart (1993), pp. 174–178 and figs. 53–54; Schäfer (2007), pp. 60–63 and figs. 2‒19. 160. Schäfer (2007), pp. 59–60; Abd el-Raziq (1984), p. 16 (E186, pl. 5a, “I have granted you victory over [all] foreigners”); p. 27 (E167, pl. 7c, “I have given you the strength of my scimitar”); p. 31 (E161, pl. 8c, “I have granted you all lands in dread before you”). Other references to victory over foreigners occur in scenes E193, E205, E153, and on pp. 14, 18, 49, 50, 52, 53, while references to strength and to happiness are even more pervasive. 161. Schafer (2007), pp. 59‒60; Lloyd (2011), p. 89. 162. Urk. II, nos. 7‒8, p. 9; Blyth (2006), pp. 225–227; Lloyd (2011), pp. 89–91. 163. Blyth (2006), p. 226. 164. Gorre (2009a), pp. 55–56. This shrine is also the source of Ptolemy’s alternate throne name, xpr kA Ra stp n Jmn (epiphany of the ka of Ra, chosen of Amun). 165. Mendels (1990), pp. 91‒102. 166. Urk. II, no. 9, A‒B, pp. 11–12. 167. Urk. II, no. 9, § 2‒6, pp. 11–15; Lloyd (2011), pp. 90–91; Grimm (1997), fig. 8. On the Nubian raid see n.78 above. 168. Urk. II, no. 9, § 7, pp. 16‒18. 169. As a practical matter, the king delegated his religious duties to the priesthood; see, e.g., Shafer (1997), pp. 9, 21‒25. 170. Burstein (2015).

Introduction

15

Nectanebo I.171 As a reward for Ptolemy’s benefactions, the priests of Buto pray that he be given victory and strength to his heart’s content, so that he may always be feared by foreigners—striking echoes of several grants of Amun to Pharaoh Alexander in his shrine at Luxor.172 As king, Ptolemy was represented as a successor to the pharaohs of the Thirtieth Dynasty, the last native rulers of Egypt. An alternate version of his throne name, xpr kA Ra stp n Jmn (epiphany of the ka of Ra, chosen of Amun), borrowed its first phrase from the throne name of Nectanebo I—but also from the throne name of the Dynasty XII pharaoh Senwosret I, like Thutmose III remembered as a great conqueror of Asia.173 Alexander too was involved in this implied line of succession, for his Egyptian titulature had affiliated him to Nectanebo II by repeating or echoing certain of his titles.174 Nectanebo II was one of the few Egyptian pharaohs to receive a posthumous cult. It enjoyed official support from the early Ptolemies and was associated with Ptolemaic royal and dynastic cult as it developed.175 The Sebennytic origin of Dynasty XXX may have contributed to the prominence of Manetho, and his advice may have helped to shape these expressions of continuity.176 Ptolemy followed Alexander’s example in showing reverence to the Apis bull. Early in his reign the Apis bull of the cow Taware died of old age; Ptolemy not only paid for the costly burial of the Apis but advanced 50 talents for additional expenses.177 The construction and restoration of temples, almost abandoned under the Persians, was revived under Macedonian rule.178 This should not be understood as an expression of Argead or Ptolemaic policy so much as a collaboration between the ruler and the Egyptian clergy: the initiative for most temple work must have come from the priesthood, but royal support was essential for any project requiring the quarrying of stone (a royal prerogative) and its transport.179 In the early Macedonian period funding sometimes came from local elites, even if the work was credited to the king as an act of loyalty.180 Ptolemy probably financed major projects, for example the renovation of the shrine of Thutmose III at Karnak and the construction of new temples. New temples dating from his satrapy include the temple of Amun-Ra at Toukh el-Garmous, begun in the fourth year of Alexander’s reign with the opening of a new quarry and dedicated in the name of Philip Arrhidaeus; the temple of Onuris-Shu at Sebennytos, dedicated in the name of Alexander IV; and the shrines of Osiris-Ibis and Osiris-Baboon at Hermopolis, also 171. Klotz (2009), p. 298 with n.124. 172. Urk. II, no. 9, § 8, pp. 18‒19. 173. Huß (1994a); Moyer (2011a), p. 88; Gorre (2009a), p. 55 with n.3. 174. Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 680–683; Huß (1994b), pp. 129–137; id. (2001), pp. 58–59; Hölbl (1997), pp. 23–24; id. (2001), pp. 78–79; Moyer (2011a), pp. 87–88. 175. Pfeiffer (2008b), p. 23; Gorre (2009a); Moyer (2011a), p. 88 with n.13. Quaegebeur (1989a), p. 111, pointed out that a prophet of Nectanebo II, the Theban priest Ahmes, son of Smendes, was responsible for the decoration of the Euergetes Gate at Karnak where some of the earliest examples of Ptolemaic ancestor cult are to be found. 176. Moyer (2011a), pp. 87, 88. 177. Diod. 1.84; Crawford (1980), p. 9; Thompson (2012), pp. 106–107. 178. Chauveau and Thiers (2006), pp. 282‒283. 179. Chauveau and Thiers (2006), pp. 396‒399; Thiers (2006), p. 235; Gorre (2009b), pp. 572‒573. 180. Chauveau and Thiers (2006), p. 399; Thiers (2006), p. 276; Gorre (2009b), pp. 489‒495, 499‒500, 510. Such private euergetism originated after the end of Dynasty XXX to compensate for the loss of royal donations under Persian rule. Examples under Ptolemy as satrap and king include Djed-Hor the Savior at Athribis, Petosiris at Hermopolis, and Hor at Dendera, see Thiers (2006), p. 279, nos. 3‒5.

16

Ptolemy I Soter

dedicated in the name of Alexander IV.181 As king, Ptolemy built (and probably founded) the Egyptian temple of Amun-Beded in the Greek polis of Naucratis.182 His cartouche is also associated with major new temples at Kom el-Ahmar, Oxyrrhynchus, and Terenuthis, as well as numerous if relatively minor temple restorations dispersed throughout the whole of Egypt.183 A typical restoration is the small chapel at Dendera consecrated to the cult of the sacred ibises of Thot, where relief scenes show Pharaoh Ptolemy making offerings to Thot, Horus, Harsomtus, Amun-Ra, and Khonsu and receiving in exchange the kingship of Ra, power, stability, life, health, and joy.184 His offer of the wadjet eye to Thot evokes major Egyptian myths relating to the mysteries of regeneration and thus guarantees the survival of Egypt.185 Reliefs surviving from other sites depict Pharaoh Ptolemy offering Maat, symbolizing his essential role in preserving the divine order, and making a water offering to Osiris that ensured a good inundation and implicated the king in the annual cycle of renewal of the land.186 As a practical matter, Ptolemy formed a strategic alliance with the Egyptian elite, which was largely indistinguishable from the upper Egyptian priesthood.187 The Satrap Stela portrays him as seeking information and guidance from the notables of Lower Egypt.188 A funerary statue in Vienna commemorates a Memphite priest and governor of the city (rpa HAtj-a) who boasts that the Greek king consulted him “for he loved my heart and knew the ideas I had given.”189 There is evidence also for the continuing involvement of Egyptians in government and in the military. At the highest levels, these Egyptians were rare and isolated and the dates of their activity are mostly uncertain.190 Securely dated to the reign of Philip III and thus to Ptolemy’s satrapy is a certain Nakhtsopdu who bore the title mr mSa (general).191 A great nephew of Nectanebo I, also called Nectanebo, was appointed strategos and nomarchos over three nomes in the eastern Delta, perhaps under Ptolemy I.192 181. Chauveau and Thiers (2006), p. 390, A1, p. 393, B1, p. 395, C1, p. 396, C4. 182. Muhs (1994); Guermeur (2005), p. 127. 183. Swinnen (1973), pp. 115–124; Crawford (1980), pp. 8–9; Cauville (1989), p. 45 with n.4; Hölbl (1997), pp. 22–27; id. (2001), pp. 83, 85–86; Huß (2001), p. 240; Gorre (2003), pp. 47–48; Manning (2010), pp. 95–96; Thiers (2010), p. 380. 184. Cauville (1989), especially pp. 43–45, 56–66. Thiers (2006), p. 279, no. 5, and Gorre (2009b), pp. 493‒494, cited this as an example of priestly initiative, as the chapel was actually constructed by the priest Hor of Dendera. 185. Cauville (1989), pp. 51–56, 60–61. 186. Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden (Egyptian Department), inv. F 1961/12.3 (from Oxyrrhynchus); Trier, Sammlung des Archäologischen Instituts, inv. OL 1991.49). For these and other examples, see Grimm (1997), p. 242 and figs. 9–14. 187. Thompson (1992), pp. 323–324; von Reden (2007), p. 23; Manning (2010), pp. 89–91, 97; Colin (2009), p. 59; Moyer (2011a), pp. 89–90. Gorre (2009b), pp. 471–512, argued from the evidence of private priestly monuments that the Macedonians did not rely on the clerical power structure in place at the time of their arrival. In his view, Ptolemy’s priestly advisors were opportunists who had only an informal and marginal position at the court and, with the possible exception of Manetho, did not belong to the great aristocratic families of Egypt or the highest ranks of the clergy. Ptolemy accepted their service because they offered expertise about those aspects of Egyptian civilization relevant to maintaining and expanding his power. 188. Satrap Stela (Urk. II, no. 9), ll. 32–54. 189. Vienna 20; Derchain (2000), pp. 18–19, 41; Gorre (2009b), no. 43; Moyer (2011a), p. 89. Thompson (1992), p. 324, identified this individual with the Memphite priest Wenenefer, known from a sarcophagus lid in Cairo. On Wenenefer, see Gorre (2009b), no. 58, pp. 281–284, where his political influence is tentatively dated to Dynasty XXX. 190. Peremans (1962), pp. 135–137. 191. Chevereau (1985), p. 187, doc. 286; Lloyd (2002), p. 120. 192. Murray (1970), p. 142; Lloyd (2002), p. 119; Manning (2010), p. 90; Moyer (2011a), p. 87. On Nectanebo, see Chevereau (2001), no. 230, pp. 156–157 and 354, where it is suggested that Nectanebo led the Egyptian troops at the battle of Gaza in 312; Gorre (2009b), no. 79, pp. 399–401, where Nectanebo’s military command is tentatively dated to Dynasty XXX and the Persian period, but possible official functions after the Macedonian conquest are deduced from

Introduction

17

Egyptians and Phoenicians dominated the Ptolemaic fleet and the Egyptian army was apparently maintained as a fighting force, though not used in Greek-style combat until the reign of Ptolemy IV.193 Existing administrative structures were retained intact in the chora, leaving Egyptian officials in place at the lower levels; in the third century, for example, the office of basilikos grammateus (royal scribe) was usually held by bilingual Egyptians.194 An increase in Egyptian elite burials throughout Egypt under the first three Ptolemies seems to imply a growing prosperity of this class.195 Greek immigration and the early institutions of the Ptolemaic state One of Ptolemy’s first acts as satrap of Egypt was to seize the huge treasure amassed by Cleomenes to hire an army. He was joined by a few friends who undoubtedly provided the officer corps.196 Over the years he occasionally acquired additional troops through capture and defections from invading armies.197 But as he was not in a position to call up citizen armies from Macedon, he was largely dependent on mercenaries and he was arguably the largest employer of misthophoroi in the diadochic period.198 In addition he maintained a large fleet; sea power was the basis of his empire, the so-called thalassocracy. These military assets were costly and he financed them through shrewd monetary measures (described below), including repeated reductions in the weight standard of his coinage and the creation of a separate monetary zone that closed off the important grainproducing regions of Egypt, Cyprus, and Coele Syria to ensure maximum profit from grain exports.199 These measures may be contrasted with the fiscal policies adopted by the native pharaohs of Dynasties XXVIII–XXX in order to finance their resistance to Persian reconquest, policies that threatened almost all forms of elite income and foreshadowed the tax regime of Ptolemy’s successors.200 Ptolemy shaped the social development of his kingdom by encouraging the largescale immigration of Macedonians, Greeks, and non-Egyptian “barbarians,” mainly to staff his military but also to fill the upper positions in the royal administration and to provide a pool of concessionaires to whom the government could contract tax farming and other functions.201 According to a recent estimate, about 32,000 immigrants had his priestly title. Other examples include the son of Nectanebo II, see Chevereau (2001), no. 229, pp. 155–156; Gorre (2009b), no. 74, pp. 378–380; and Djedhor the Lion, see Chevereau (2001), no. 270, p. 177; Gorre (2009b), no. 22, pp. 482–483. See also Lloyd (2002) and Moyer (2011a), pp. 89‒90, for further examples from the reigns of Ptolemy II–IV. 193. Darnell (1992), p. 77; Van ’t Dack (1992), pp. 327–328; Lloyd (2002), pp. 120–122 and passim. 194. Thompson (1994), pp. 74‒75; von Reden (2007), pp. 21–22; Manning (2010), pp. 87–88, 103, 127–128, 165– 201, covering the entire Ptolemaic period; Clarysse (2013), for the second half of the third century. On the basilikos grammateus, see Gorre (2009b), pp. 453‒454. See also Clarysse and Thompson (2006), pp. 28–30, on the key role of the humble village scribe in taking the census. 195. Schreiber (2011), pp. 109‒110. Cf. Gorre (2009b), pp. 495–512, positing a general decline in the wealth and influence of Egyptian aristocrats after the arrival of the Macedonians. 196. Diod. 18.14.1; Griffith (1935), p. 109. 197. Diod. 19.85.3; 20.75.1–3. 198. Griffith (1935), pp. 109–111, 114. 199. Hölbl (2001), pp. 28–29, and von Reden (2007), p. 43, credit Ptolemy with creating a unified monetary policy for Egypt, Cyrenaica, Cyprus, and Coele Syria, but the numismatic evidence indicates that standard Ptolemaic silver coinage did not circulate in Cyrenaica. 200. Agut-Labordère (2011a). 201. On the pervasive role of contractors (an institution imported from Greece), see Bingen (2007), pp. 157–188. Tax farming is usually considered a Greek institution, but the earliest evidence of tax farming in Egypt, dated to regnal year 14 of Ptolemy I (292/1), comes from an Egyptian milieu and implies the farming of temple taxes on burials and

18

Ptolemy I Soter

settled in Egypt by 319.202 Ptolemy drew on both Egyptian and Greek precedents when he established the system of cleruchy, land grants (varying in size according to the recipient’s rank) in exchange for military service, with the intention that cleruchs and their heirs would become an equivalent of the citizen armies of Macedonia and the Greek poleis.203 Egyptian soldiers as well as immigrants were enrolled in the national army.204 It is difficult to gain a clear picture of Egypt’s mixed society at this early stage, due to the paucity of primary sources dating from the time of the first Ptolemy. We know that the patterns of settlement were quite uneven. Cleruchs and civilian immigrants lived in mixed communities alongside native Egyptians in some parts of Egypt, especially in the Fayum, but such mixed communities were relatively rare in Upper Egypt.205 Typical Greek institutions, the gymnasium and the public bath, followed the introduction of military settlers: gymnasia were apparently common in villages and the culture of bathing spread rapidly to the indigenous population.206 On the other hand cleruchs usually leased out their lands, and this allowed them to concentrate in urban centers where their Hellenic cultural identity was reinforced and their interaction with native Egyptians was minimized.207 Greek immigrants of varied origin melded socially, interacting and intermarrying with one another.208 Marriage between Hellenes and Egyptians was legal, but despite the overrepresentation of males in the immigrant population it seems to have been uncommon in the early generations, even allowing for uncertainties of onomasty.209 probably also of revenues from the sale of burial plots, see Muhs (2005), pp. 7, 9, and especially 99; also Clarysse (1995), p. 9. Until the late twentieth century the predominant view was that only immigrants served as administrators and contractors in the early Ptolemaic period. This distortion arose because classicists studying Greek sources did not know that Egyptians commonly used Greek names in their interactions with Greek officialdom, see Clarysse (1985); Bagnall (1988); Quaegebeur (1992). Egyptians had engaged in commercial investment even before the Macedonian conquest, see Agut-Labordère (2011b). In the Ptolemaic period members of the Egyptian priesthood were affluent and often held administrative offices, contracted for royal monopolies, and farmed taxes, see Manning (1994); id. (2003), pp. 83–85, 91–92, 144. The lesonis priest of each temple, in collaboration with the praktor (a Ptolemaic official), was responsible for taxes due from the manufacturing activities of the temple and was personally liable for any shortfall, see Manning (2008), p. 109; Monson (2012), p. 224. 202. Fischer-Bovet (2011), p. 143. 203. Griffith (1935), pp. 114–116; Rostovtzeff (1941), Vol. I, pp. 284–287; Walbank (1992), pp. 108–109; von Reden (2007), p. 22. Samuel (1993) argued that a principal purpose of the system of cleruchy was to encourage the dispersion of immigrants throughout Egypt so that Greek speakers would be available in all parts of the country to serve as contractors and/or to work in administration, but the very uneven distribution of cleruchs indicates that this cannot have been a major goal. On the evolution of the cleruchic system over time, see Van ’t Dack (1992), pp. 331–333. 204. Rodriguez (2004). One category of Egyptian soldiers, the kalasiroi (hier. kra-Sr, dem. gl-Sr), may have functioned more as police than as soldiers, see Winnicki (1992). On the term machimoi and its relation to Egyptian soldiers, see Fischer-Bovet (2013). Earlier scholarship citing the lower pay and smaller kleroi of Egyptian soldiers confused them with the machimoi of the Ptolemaic army, who were not exclusively Egyptian, see Goudriaan (1988), pp. 121–125; Fischer-Bovet (2013), pp. 219–221. 205. Rowlandson (2003), p. 256; Manning (2010), pp. 89, 110–112; Fischer-Bovet (2011), pp. 145–149. 206. On gymnasia, see van Minnen (2000), pp. 446‒449, though most of the evidence dates from the late Ptolemaic period. On baths, see Redon (2009), pp. 409–410, 434–436. 207. Bingen (2007), pp. 104–121. 208. P. Eleph. 1 (311/10 B.C.) is a marriage contract between a groom of Temnian origin and a bride of Coan origin, with witnesses from Gela, Temnos, Cyrene, and Cos. For the Greek text with commentary, see Pestman (1990), no. 1. For English translations, see Melville Jones (1993), no. 483; Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 145. 209. Modrzejewski (2005), p. 350, claimed just two attested cases for the entire third century. The presumed scarcity of mixed marriages was challenged by Clarysse (1992), p. 52, who submitted that they can be identified only through the comparison of Greek and demotic documents. However tax data for the third-century Fayum provide a sample of 75 heads of household with Greek names whose wives’ names are also preserved; of these, only seven wives (9%) had Egyptian names, see Thompson (1998), p. 704 n.28; ead. (2010), p. 403. See also Fischer-Bovet (2011), pp. 152–153.

Introduction

19

Ethnicity was regulated by law in Ptolemaic Egypt. Egyptians, Graeco-Macedonians, Jews, and other immigrant groups operated under separate legal systems derived from their own traditions.210 Individuals were required to provide an identifying ethnikon when entering into contracts—a city or region of origin for immigrants, a native village for Egyptians—but these ethnika did not always reflect actual ethnicity and they could be changed.211 City foundation was a royal deed par excellence as well as a strategy for settling the immigrants and for expanding royal influence into new areas, notably Upper Egypt and the eastern desert between the Nile valley and the Red Sea (known as Arabia).212 The most important of Ptolemy’s city foundations was the royal city of Ptolemais, the new regional capital of the Thebaid, which traditionally had been a separate political unit.213 Ptolemais was designed to counterbalance the influence of Thebes in Upper Egypt, just as Alexandria balanced the influence of Memphis in Lower Egypt. A cult of Ptolemy as ktistes (city founder) was celebrated at Ptolemais, with an offshoot at Coptos, and his worship continued at both cities as late as A.D. 160.214 Ptolemy undoubtedly founded new communities in the Fayum, where he settled some 6,500 Macedonian soldiers, and perhaps also in the Heracleopolite and Oxyrrhynchite nomes, although the major credit for land reclamation goes to his successors.215 The transformation of Alexandria from a commercial emporium into the new Ptolemaic capital may also be considered under the rubric of city foundation.216 The transfer of the court c. 313 did not, however, represent a break in Ptolemy’s domestic politics or a reorientation away from Egypt in favor of hellenization.217 A taste for things Egyptian inspired Ptolemy (and his successors) to pillage Heliopolis and other Egyptian centers for obelisks, sphinxes, and other monuments to adorn the new capital city. This was a display of power and a symbolic appropriation of Egypt.218 The exotic decorations were surely intended to impress visitors to Alexandria. They also served as a constant reminder of the magnificence of pharaonic civilization and of the dual cultural traditions of the Ptolemaic kingdom. Ptolemy drew on the expertise of both native and Greek religious advisors, notably the Egyptian priest Manetho of Sebynnetos and Timotheus of Athens, a descendant of the Eumolpidae (the hereditary priests of Eleusis) and thus an expert on the Great Mysteries 210. Koenen (1993), pp. 35–36, 40–41; Modrzejewski (2005), pp. 344–346; Rupprecht (2005), with additional bibliography; Manning (2010), pp. 165‒201. 211. Goudriaan (1988); Clarysse (1992); Thompson (2001); Vandorpe (2008). 212. Manning (2010), pp. 68, 102, 107. The exploration of the Red Sea coast by Philo (Pliny NH 37.108) foreshadowed further voyages of exploration sponsored by Ptolemy II. 213. Manning (2003), p. 65; Cohen (2006), pp. 350–352; Manning (2010), pp. 106–113; id. (2011), pp. 5‒7. Ptolemais was one of the few actual poleis in Egypt. On its civic institutions, see Huß (2011), pp. 25–27. On the distinctiveness of the Thebaid, see Vandorpe (2000), pp. 171–173. 214. P. Fouad 1 inv. 211; Wace, Megaw, and Skeat (1959), p. 15. 215. Manning (2003), pp. 100–101 (on land reclamation in the Fayum before the Ptolemies), 108; id. (2010), pp. 68, 139. 216. Picard (2003), pp. 34–36. The transformation involved the construction of court and administrative buildings, and also facilities to enable Alexandria to serve as the base of Ptolemy’s war fleet and a part of his land army. 217. Huß (2001), p. 217. For a contrary opinion, see Gorre (2009b), pp. 485‒488, where the reliance on Egyptian advisors is considered a transitory phenomenon. 218. Thompson (2002), who suspected an effort to present Alexandria as “a sort of heritage center for pharaonic Egypt.”

20

Ptolemy I Soter

of Demeter.219 These two religious experts are credited with encouraging Ptolemy to found the cult of Sarapis at Alexandria. Most likely this occurred in connection with the transfer of his residence from Memphis to his new capital.220 The Alexandrian cult of Sarapis was an offshoot of the Memphite cult of Osiris-Apis (Osarapis).221 It may seem strange that of all Egyptian cults Ptolemy magnified that of the dead sacred bull Apis, rather than that of Amun, the god of kingship with whom both Alexander and Philip III had been affiliated, and who was already hellenized under the name Zeus-Ammon. Ptolemy’s choice was surely influenced by his years of residence in Memphis. It can also be understood in a framework of legitimation and assimilation. Alexander’s sacrifice to Apis took the place of an official enthronement, because Apis was closely associated with Egyptian kingship in ritual and ideology.222 The Apis bull had had Greek devotés as early as the fifth century and the Greeks identified him with Epaphus, whose myth cycle, attested by the Attic tragedians, created ancient ties of kinship between Greece, Egypt, and the Argead royal house.223 The Alexandrian Sarapis cult was intended to provide immigrants with a Graeco-Egyptian patron deity to replace the gods they had left behind: Sarapis combined aspects of the Greek gods Zeus, Pluton, Dionysus, and Asclepius and his cult probably absorbed significant elements from the Eleusianian mysteries.224 Yet Sarapis was also understood as the interpretatio graeca of Osiris, especially in Memphis.225 The sanctuary of Sarapis was built in Rhakotis, the Egyptian quarter of Alexandria.226 Excavations of the Alexandrian Sarapieion have yielded Egyptian-style sculptures from the early Ptolemaic period, which expressed the Egyptian aspect of the cult within a

219. Plut. De Iside et Osiride, 28; Tac. Hist. 4.83.1. On Manetho, see Helck (1956); Moyer (2011a), pp. 84‒141. 220. Fraser (1960), pp. 41–42, dated the foundation of the cult probably before 300, but the prayer of Nicocreon of Salamis assures a date before his death in 311/10, see Borgeaud and Volokhine (2000), pp. 55‒56. 221. Plut. De Iside et Osiride, 28; Wilcken (1927), pp. 77–89; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 246–259; Świderek (1975); Borgeaud and Volokhine (2000); Pfeiffer (2008a), especially pp. 389–391 on the relation of Sarapis and Osiris-Apis. On the alternate tradition ascribing the cult to Alexander, see Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 247–249; Świderek (1975). The accounts of Plutarch and Tacitus (Hist. 4.83.1), which trace the cult to Sinope, either misinterpret or embellish an Egyptian term, as suggested by Turcan (1996), p. 77, or reflect Alexandrian scholarship that deliberately disguised the Egyptian origin of Sarapis, as suggested by Borgeaud and Volokhine (2000), pp. 75–76. 222. For Egyptians, the Apis bull during his lifetime was the ba or living manifestation of the creator god Ptah, and after death he was identified with Osiris, god of the afterlife (Diod. 1.85.4; Strab. 17.1.31; Plut. De Iside et Osiride 20.29). The white cow that bore him was identified with Isis, implying the bull’s identification with her son Horus, the Egyptian god of kingship. Each new Apis bull was installed with ceremonies similar to a royal coronation, and Apis participated alongside the king in the Hb sd (sed festival), the occasional royal jubilee festival that renewed the royal power. The mummified Apis bulls in the Sarapieion of Memphis comprised a divine succession symbolizing eternal renewal, similar to the succession of pharaohs through whom the reigning pharaoh received the royal ka, the divine aspect of kingship that linked the ruler with the gods and with all his royal predecessors. On the significance of series of predecessors for legitimation, see Bell (1985); Bonhême and Forgeau (1988), p. 75; Pfeiffer (2008b), pp. 24–26. 223. Mastrocinque (1987), pp. 295–306; Borgeaud and Volokhine (2000), pp. 67‒71; Caneva (2011), especially pp. 200‒201. 224. Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 251–252; Stambaugh (1972); Borgeaud and Volokhine (2000), p. 76; Huß (2001), pp. 241–248; Bommas (2005), p. 31; Pfeiffer (2008a), pp. 392–398. Older scholarship assumed that the cult of Sarapis was intended to be a unifying force for Greeks and Egyptians and branded it as a failure because it never won acceptance among the Egyptians, as is vividly demonstrated by the absence of representations of the god in Egyptian temples and the lack of Egyptian theophoric names honoring Sarapis, see, e.g., Bingen (2007), pp. 249–250. The Egyptian lack of interest in the cult should not surprise us, since Egyptians worshipped Osiris-Apis in his original form and often considered Sarapis as the interpretatio graeca of Osiris, see Pfeiffer (2008a), pp. 391–392. 225. Borgeaud and Volokhine (2000), p. 72; Pfeiffer (2008a), 389–392. Cf. Devauchelle (2012). 226. Savvopoulos (2010), p. 79.

Introduction

21

Greek architectural context.227 An unusual feature of the early construction is a group of underground passages whose use is unknown, but whose only parallel can be found in the galleries of the deified Apis bulls and other sacred animals at Saqqara.228 The cult of Sarapis spread rapidly to Cyprus. Nicocreon of Salamis embraced it, proving that its creation antedated his death in 311/10.229 Sarapieia are attested at Salamis and at Soli in the early third century.230 The diffusion of Greco-Egyptian cults favored by the Ptolemies can thus be understood as an early phenomenon that gained momentum throughout the Hellenistic period. Ptolemy’s collaboration with Timotheus suggests that he was also the founder of the cult of Demeter Thesmophoros in the Alexandrian suburb of Eleusis.231 This foundation was surely inspired by Herodotus’ report that the Thesmophoria were introduced to Attica from Egypt by the daughters of Danaus.232 Yet, despite the claim of Hecataeus of Abdera that the Eleusinian mysteries also originated in Egypt, there is no evidence that mysteries were celebrated at the Alexandrian Eleusis.233 Instead, the annual festival involved traditional dramatic competitions probably drawing on the myths of Eleusis and perhaps also Egyptian or Egyptianizing elements.234 Demeter was one of the few Greek deities who subsequently penetrated the Egyptian countryside in her Hellenic form, appearing in demotic records as 6mtrA and served by both Greek and Egyptian priests.235 Among the likely reasons for her success are the parallels between her myth and that of Isis and the centrality of mysteries in her worship and in that of Osiris, similarities that might have provided common ground for immigrants and native Egyptians, especially when they intermarried.236 Another of Ptolemy’s close advisors was Demetrius of Phaleron, tyrant of Athens from 317 to 307 and a pupil of the philosopher Theophrastus, Aristotle’s successor as head of the Peripatetic school. The arrival of Demetrius in Alexandria, at Ptolemy’s invitation, has sometimes been taken as a turning point, after which the king abandoned his interest in Egyptian civilization and devoted himself to hellenizing his kingdom.237 Demetrius reportedly advised Ptolemy about lawmaking.238 He also collaborated in planning and founding the famous Mouseion and Library of Alexandria, laying the groundwork for Alexandria’s emergence as the great center of Hellenistic scholarship.239 The Mouseion, 227. Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 266; Stanwick (2002), pp. 17, 103‒104; Ashton (2004), pp. 20–25 (suggesting that the cult was originally Egyptian in character and only Hellenized under Ptolemy III); McKenzie, Gibson, and Reyes (2004), pp. 100‒101; Savvopoulos (2010), pp. 79–80. The buildings from the earliest phase of monumental construction remained in use after Ptolemy III constructed the famous temple of Sarapis and even into Roman times, implying that they served a related cult, perhaps that of Osiris, see McKenzie, Gibson, and Reyes (2004), pp. 83‒84, 89‒90, 96‒97. 228. McKenzie, Gibson, and Reyes (2004), pp. 96‒97; Pfeiffer (2008a), p. 393; Savvopoulos (2010), p. 79. 229. Macrob. Saturn. 1.20.16‒18. 230. Michaelidou-Nicolaou (1978), p. 797. 231. Tac. Hist. 4.83; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 200. 232. Hdt. 2.171. 233. Epictetus Encheir 3.21.11–14; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 201; Vol. IIa, p. 340, n. 91. 234. Satyrus, P. Oxy. 2465, fr. 3, col. ii, ll. 4–11; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 200–201; Vol. IIa, p. 338 n.85. 235. Thompson (1998), pp. 699–703. Although Hermoupolis boasted a Greek temple of Aphrodite, she was considered an hypostatis of the local Isis, see Barbantini (2005), p. 137. 236. Thompson (1998), pp. 703–707. 237. Murray (1970), pp. 141–142, 167 (“...a whole intellectual approach was forgotten, submerged in the excitement of the establishment of Alexandria—an attempt to turn all Egypt into the territory of one city-state.”). 238. Ael. VH 3.17 (fr. 65 Wehrli); Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 114. 239. Maehler (2004).

22

Ptolemy I Soter

located in the royal quarter, was a community of scholars organized around the worship of the Muses, modelled on the Mouseia of the Platonic and especially the Peripatetic philosophical schools of Athens.240 The Library, too, was inspired in part by the library formed by Aristotle.241 The example of Egyptian temples, each with its community of priest-scholars and its papyrus library or pr anx (house of life), was perhaps another source of inspiration for the Library.242 The policy of collecting as many “worthy” books as possible and the definition of canonical authors for each genre largely determined the body of Greek literature that has been transmitted to the modern world.243 Fairly late in his reign, c. 290 or c. 285, Ptolemy founded a state cult for the deified Alexander, led by an eponymous priest who was named in the dating formulae of official documents.244 This annual priesthood was always held by men of the highest social standing: the priest for 284, usually considered the first, was Ptolemy’s brother Menelaus.245 The cult of Alexander was entirely Greek in character and had its roots in Hellenic heroization and divinization.246 Its foundation cast Ptolemy as Alexander’s son and heir in the eyes of both Greeks and Egyptians, for in both cultures it was the principal religious duty of a son not only to bury his father’s remains but also to ensure the performance of his funerary cult. In terms of Egyptian royal ideology Ptolemy’s services to the deceased Alexander recalled the filial piety of Horus, the god of kingship, toward his divine father Osiris, the prototype of deceased kings.247 Ptolemy also emphasized his succession from Alexander through a panhellenic festival, the Basileia, celebrated in honor of Zeus Basileus on 12 Dystros, the supposed anniversary of Alexander’s enthronement at Memphis.248 Perhaps founded by Alexander himself, the Basileia commemorated the establishment of Greek monarchy in Egypt. The first attested celebration of the Basileia in Alexandria occurred around 310.249 II. Coinage Greek coinage began to enter Egypt in the early sixth century B.C. Initially it was treated as a form of bullion, but by the fourth century it functioned as money, serving as pay for Greek mercenaries in the service of native pharaohs, as a medium of exchange in transactions, 240. Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 312–318. 241. Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 320; see also pp. 322–325, which consider the role of the Librarians and the existence of two libraries, one in the royal quarters and the other in the Sarapieion. 242. Onians (1996), p 127. 243. Maehler (2004), pp. 7–14; see also Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 325–330, on the acquisition and organization of texts. 244. Marmor Parium, FGrHist 239 F B 11; Diod. 18.28.3–4; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 215–216; Clarysse and van der Veken (1983), p. 4; Minas (2000), pp. 84‒89; Pfeiffer (2008b), pp. 64–65. The practice of dating by the priest of Alexander began with Greek documents dating to the last years of Ptolemy I and was not extended to demotic Egyptian documents until 265, see Pestman (1967), pp. 18, 20, 22; Minas (2000), pp. 96‒97. Koenen (1993), p. 47, observed that the double dating by regnal years and by the eponymous priesthood not only added clarity but also implied a double aspect of the state, as kingdom and (largely fictively) as Greek polis, and symbolized the unity of the administrative and religious functions of kingship. 245. Clarysse and van der Veken (1983), no. 7. Clarysse (1998), pp. 6–10, demonstrated the ethnic diversity of the eponymous priests, who in the third century were mainly Macedonian aristocrats and Greeks of varied origin. Exceptions began to appear in the second half of the century with a descendant of the Persian dynasts of Lycia (247) and a Jew (223). 246. Heinen (1978), p. 187. 247. Bonhême and Forgeau (1988), pp. 68–70. 248. Koenen (1977), pp. 29–32, 55; Perpillou-Thomas (1993), pp. 152–153. 249. IG II 2, 1367.

Introduction

23

and as a store of wealth for Egyptian temples and elites. As in most of the ancient Near East the Athenian tetradrachm became the preferred currency. Imitative “owls” were produced in Egypt; some were signed by the last Persian satraps, but the majority were anonymous issues probably struck by the temples.250 This coinage abruptly disappeared after the conquest of Alexander, making way for his imperial coinage. The transition left a break in the hoards. Fourteen fifth- and fourth-century Egyptian hoards containing owls indicate that the main areas of circulation of this coinage were the Delta and the Memphis region, and to a much lesser extent the Fayum and Middle Egypt.251 Only one of these hoards, Tell el-Athrib, 1905 (IGCH 1663), contained an Alexander tetradrachm, and it is suspected to be intrusive. The next generation of hoards contains coins of Alexander III and Philip III, sometimes supplemented by satrapal issues of Ptolemy I, and the known findspots are even more limited than those of earlier hoards, all lying in the Delta except for one outlier at Kuft (ancient Coptos).252 None of these hoards include owls and their absence is strong evidence that they did not circulate alongside the Alexanders. Few scholars have attempted to understand this break in the hoards. Both owls and Alexanders adhered to the same weight standard and both maintained high standards of purity, so there was no basis for either of these coinages to drive the other out of circulation through normal mechanisms. The only plausible explanation is that a political decision made the imperial coinage of Alexander the Great the sole legal tender in Egypt. Such a policy could perhaps have been imposed by Cleomenes of Naucratis to advertise the authority of the absent Alexander. Cleomenes is represented in the ancient sources as extremely interested in finance, but unprincipled and even criminal in his rapacity.253 Three anecdotes describe schemes to extort money from Egyptian priests, first by threatening to hunt sacred crocodiles, then by threatening to move the port of Canopus, and finally by threatening to close temples and abolish priesthoods.254 The last stratagem was identical to one proposed earlier by the mercenary general Chabrias to the Dynasty XXX pharaoh Tachos as one of many measures to raise money to finance military campaigns.255 A recall of the money used by Egyptian elites might be consistent with Cleomenes’ exploitative posture vis-à-vis the Egyptian priesthood. But since the literary tradition was hostile to Cleomenes, we would expect that a demonetization would have been recorded alongside his notorious fiscal exactions.

250. Colburn (forthcoming), with extensive earlier bibliography; especially important is Meadows (2011). 251. Nicolet-Pierre (2005), pp. 10‒11; Duyrat (2005b), pp. 31‒32. The hoards include Naucratis, 1885 (IGCH 1648); Naucratis, 1885 (IGCH 1661); Gharbieh, 1896 (IGCH 1656); Tell el-Athrib, 1903 (IGCH 1663); Naucratis, 1905 (IGCH 1652); Semanood, 1907 (IGCH 1662); Tell el-Mashkouta, 1947 (IGCH 1649); Memphis, temenos of Ptah, 1916 (IGCH 1660); Mit Rahineh, 1986 (IGCH 1653); Karanis, 1934‒1935; Beni Hassan, 1903 (IGCH 1651); Egypt, 1952 (IGCH 1695); Egypt, before 1951 (CH VIII, 125); Egypt, before 1925 (CH VIII, 151). 252. Duyrat (2005b), p. 33. The hoards are Abusir, 1901 (IGCH 1672), also containing issues of Philip II; Kasr elDanar, before 1905 (IGCH 1674); Demanhur, 1905 (IGCH 1664); Egypt, 1893 (IGCH 1665); Egypt, 1912 (CH 1668); Mit Ya-Ish, 1954 (IGCH 1666); Egypt, 1974 (CH I, 41); Lower Egypt, 1894 (IGCH 1669); Abu Hommos, 1919 (IGCH 1667); Phacous, 1956 (IGCH 1678), Jar A; and Kuft, 1974/5 (IGCH 1670). See also P. Eleph. 1 (311/10 B.C.), ll. 11‒12 (Melville Jones 1983, no. 483; Pestman 1990, no. 1; Bagnall and Derow 2004, no. 145), which seems to attest to the early monetization of the southernmost garrison town of Egypt. 253. Ps.-Arist. Oec. 2.2.33a‒c; Arr. Anab. 7.23.6‒8. 254. Ps.-Arist. Oec. 2.2.33b‒c, 2.2.33f. 255. Ps.-Arist. Oec. 2.2.25a‒b.

24

Ptolemy I Soter

That leaves Ptolemy himself as the probable author of the demonetization.256 A dramatic reform of this kind would fit with Ptolemy’s aggressive transformation of the currency of Egypt in the course of his reign as satrap and king. He was the first of the Successors to create a numismatic portrait of Alexander, the first to abolish Alexander’s coin types, and the first to place his own portrait on his coinage. In addition, he was the only Successor to abandon the Attic weight standard, and the only one to invent new and unprecedented coin denominations. There are also suggestive parallels from Cyprus, where the coinages of the native city-kings disappeared after 310, and Phoenicia, where local coinages disappeared around the end of the fourth century. Nevertheless, it is difficult to believe that Ptolemy inaugurated his rule with an act of demonetization targeting the Egyptian elite, the main users of the owls, at the very time when he most needed to win the support and cooperation of that same elite. We must assume that he found a satisfactory method of compensation, and here again one of the stratagems of Chabrias could have provided a model. Tachos’ subjects were required to lend him all of their uncoined gold and silver, to be repaid via tax exemptions which no doubt exceeded the value of the original loans.257 If Ptolemy adopted this approach to the retirement of the owls of Egypt, it would have yielded a double benefit: the demonetized coins would have provided the bullion for the earliest coin issues of Hellenistic Egypt, and they would also have enlarged his cash assets even beyond the 8000 talents amassed by Cleomenes. Egyptian coinage of Ptolemy I In Egypt, production of gold staters and tetradrachms of Alexander type (Type I) began either before or shortly after Ptolemy’s arrival as satrap, but an absolute date remains elusive.258 The mint was almost certainly located at Memphis, the ancient Egyptian capital where Ptolemy originally established his residence.259 In the beginning the coinage was perhaps issued annually, according to the practice of some Levantine mints, with

256. Colburn (forthcoming). 257. Ps.-Arist. Oec. 2.2.25b; Agut-Labordère (2011a), pp. 635‒636, noting that this was perhaps the first instance of tax farming in Egypt. 258. Svoronos (1904–08), Vol. I, cols. μζ´–μη´; Vol. IV, cols. 3–4, dated the opening of the Egyptian mint c. 330. Newell (1923a) proposed a date of c. 326 on the basis of style. In a published article Zervos (1967) initially followed Newell, but later in his unpublished PhD dissertation (1974, pp. 292–303) he arrived at a lower date, between 324 and 322, and thought it likely that the coinage began under Ptolemy. Le Rider (2003), pp. 255–258; (2007), pp. 193–194, suggested a date near the end of Cleomenes’ tenure, late 324, while conceding the possibility that the coinage might have begun on Ptolemy’s orders. Lorber (2005b), pp. 47–48 and 51, adjusted the chronology of Zervos’ 1967 study, dated the beginning of Egypt’s Hellenistic coinage c. 323, and suggested that the initiative might have been Ptolemy’s. Correcting the list of issues to conform to Zervos’ 1974 die study while assuming an annual rhythm of production yields an inaugural date c. 327/6. However if all varieties with the rose symbol are treated as a single year’s emission, regardless of the controls letters, and if the Heracles/Zeus tetradrachm marked , treated as a separate issue by Zervos, is instead associated with the similarly marked Alexander/Zeus tetradrachm, the opening of the mint is lowered to c. 323. This solution brings the ram’s head symbol into the year of Ptolemy’s arrival in Egypt, making the chronology consistent with the attractive interpretation of this symbol proposed by Sheedy and Ockinga (2015), discussed below under numismatic iconography. 259. Zervos (1974) pp. 309–311, identified Memphis as the mint of early Egyptian Alexanders. This was also the attribution of Price (1991), p. 496. Le Rider (2003), pp. 262–265; (2007), pp. 197–199, argued that Alexandria was the mint of the early Egyptian Alexanders and that Ptolemy immediately established his residence at Alexandria, not Memphis. His analysis overlooks the evidence of the Satrap Stela of 311 (citations in n.73 above).

Introduction

25

each year’s emission marked by letters or a monogram, normally in combination with a symbol.260 About 319, Ptolemy introduced a new obverse type for his tetradrachms, a head of the deified Alexander with the horn of Ammon at his temple, wearing an elephant headdress that merged imperceptibly into the aegis tied around his neck.261 The new obverse type was paired with the standard reverse type of Alexander’s tetradrachms, an enthroned Zeus holding an eagle. Alexander/Zeus tetradrachms (Type II) were initially produced in parallel alongside tetradrachms of the regular Heracles/Zeus type (Type I), sometimes accompanied by Alexander-type gold staters. The period of overlap was brief—only four parallel issues are known262—and the production of Alexandrine tetradrachms (Type I) came to an end after c. 316, when a tetradrachm reverse die was transferred from the first to the second series. The end of the Type I tetradrachms coincided with the first and rather inconspicuous appearance of the mitra of Dionysus on Alexander’s forehead. The two Egyptian tetradrachm series differ in fabric and O. H. Zervos reported that the Alexander/Zeus tetradrachms (Type II) exhibit a slight tendency to loose dies. These are indications that the two series originated in different workshops. Zervos identified the second workshop as Alexandria and interpreted the parallel production at Memphis and Alexandria as a temporary, precautionary arrangement culminating in the final closure of the Memphis mint c. 317.263 For Zervos, this proved that the transfer of Ptolemy’s court from Memphis to Alexandria occurred in 320/19.264 As noted above, however, historical sources first begin to mention Alexandria in relation to events around 313 and this probably implies a similar date for the relocation of the capital. Important changes to the coinage in the issues of 313/12 and 312/11 were perhaps occasioned by this move. In the first of these years, the image of the deified Alexander was visibly altered. The head was enlarged but engraved in lower relief. The formerly variable facial features were idealized in a consistent style and the face was framed with elaborately curling locks of hair; the mitra was made more conspicuous; and scales were added to the aegis to emphasize its snaky quality. The figure of Zeus was retained on the reverse of the tetradrachms, but a new subsidiary symbol, an eagle perched on a thunderbolt, appeared in the field. The eagle on thunderbolt is plausibly interpreted as Ptolemy’s personal insigne, since it appeared as an adjunct on every subsequent silver emission of Alexandria and was ultimately chosen as the reverse type of Ptolemy’s royal coinage. The regular bronze coinage of Ptolemy’s satrapy shows several thematic links to the tetradrachm of 313/12 and was probably introduced in the same year.265 The earliest bronze coinage (Series 1) comprises two small denominations with identical types, issued 260. Zervos (1967) proposed an annual rhythm of emission, but in his dissertation (1974) he rejected annual issues in favor of a theory of average annual die use. For the arguments supporting the hypothesis of annual issues, see the section on rhythms of production below. 261. Zervos (1974), pp. 383–384, noted that Alexander might appear as ktistes if the mint was Alexandria, and he also suggested that the Egyptian tradition of ruler portraiture could have influenced the decision to represent Alexander on the coinage. Brown (1984), pp. 409‒410, cited precedents for ruler portraiture in other media and in the coinage of the Lycian dynasts, and also related Alexander’s portrait to the Greek civic tradition of portraying a ktistes on coinage. 262. Vol. 1, nos. 24–33, but see also nos. 34–35. 263. Zervos (1974), pp. 309–311; cf. also p. 383, where Zervos suggested that Alexander might be portrayed as ktistes if the mint was Alexandria. 264. Zervos (1974), p. 275. 265. Zervos (1974), p. 314 with n.1.

26

Ptolemy I Soter

in the name of Alexander. On the obverse they portray the deified conqueror with idealized features and short hair, furnished with the horn of Ammon and wearing the mitra; on the reverse they show an eagle with spread wings gripping a thunderbolt in its talons. Studies in the face values of Greek bronze coins suggest that these bronzes were denominated as hemiobols and chalkoi.266 The tetradrachm issue of 312/11 retained the restyled head of Alexander from the previous year’s tetradrachms, but introduced a new reverse type, an archaistic Athena Promachos brandishing a spear and shield. The Alexander/Athena tetradrachms (Type III) represent a decisive break with Alexander’s silver types, although the other Successors continued to use them until the first decade of the third century. An anomalous inscription may imply that Ptolemy briefly contemplated a more dramatic rupture. Up until this time he had always issued his coinage in the name of Alexander, but some tetradrachms of this initial Alexander/Athena emission bear the remarkable inscription ALEXANDRE IoN pToLEMAIoU (Ptolemy’s Alexander-coin), probably alluding to Alexander’s image on the obverse.267 Ptolemy thus became the first Successor to place his own name on his coinage, if only fleetingly. The appearance of ALEXANDRE IoN alone on a portion of a subsequent issue suggests that his motive was not so much a desire to identify himself as the author of the handsome new types as a need to guarantee the coinage to some particularly skeptical group of recipients, perhaps new mercenaries recruited for the Syrian campaign of 312/11. The coin emission of 312/11 is remarkable for yet a third reason: it included a set of small silver denominations—drachms, triobols, and diobols— never before minted in Hellenistic Egypt. These shared the types of the tetradrachms but were struck underweight, according to a common Hellenistic practice.268 Within the two years 313/12‒312/11 Ptolemy expanded his currency system from one based on just two denominations, the gold stater and the silver tetradrachm, to one furnished with a complement of smaller denominations in silver and bronze. The original system was particularly suited for the pay of mercenaries, whereas the expanded system could meet the needs of a Greek city population accustomed to the use of coinage in daily transactions. It must be admitted, however, that the silver fractions appear to have been mainly symbolic in purpose. Triobols and diobols were struck only in 312/11 and in small numbers, and production of silver drachms ceased a few years later. The real future of small change lay in the development of the bronze coinage.

266. Davesne (1998); Lorber (2005a), pp. 135–136 (both with old chronology). For supporting evidence from the Greek world generally, see also Picard (1998); Grandjean (1998). 267. Rubensohn (1907), p. 21, followed by Hazzard (1995), p. 73, concluded that the legend refers to coins issued in the name of Alexander, whereas Hunt and Edgar (1932), p. 5, related it to Alexander’s image on the coins and Rigsby (1988), p. 274, cited both the portrait and the legend. Zervos (1974), pp. 321–324, reasoned that the inscription on the tetradrachms served to identify their full Attic weight as opposed to the irregular, lower weight of the accompanying silver fractions. The inscription was also interpreted as a guarantor of the weight standard by Le Rider (1998a), p. 794; (2003), pp. 262–264; (2007), pp. 198–199. For the view that this legend names Alexandria as the mint of the coins, see Svoronos (1904–08), Vol. I, col. νη´; Vol. IV, col. 11; Mørkholm (1980a), p. 149; Price (1991), p. 496. For a fuller summary of the commentary, see Cohen (2006), pp. 374–375. The contemporary marriage contract P. Eleph. 1 (311/10 B.C.), ll. 11–12 (Melville Jones 1993, no. 483) uses the term argyriou Alexandreiou to specify the currency of a penalty to be paid by the husband in case of infidelity. 268. The low weight of the silver fractions has also been interpreted as anticipating the later reduction of the tetradrachm, see Poole (1883), p. xviii; Jenkins (1961), p. 36; von Reden (2007), p. 38.

Introduction

27

The most enigmatic coinage of this period is a special issue of uninscribed Attic-weight gold staters honoring Alexander as the divine patron of the Ptolemaic fleet.269 His head appears on the obverse, with the same attributes and in the same decorative style as on the tetradrachms of 313/12 and later; the reverse type is a ship’s prow. One of the few extant examples was acquired in Saida (ancient Sidon).270 Because Ptolemy controlled Sidon only briefly, in 312/11, the Saida provenance, in combination with the obverse style, establishes a probable date of 313 or 312 for the issue.271 In that case the staters might represent a donative after the naval campaign of 313, or after the capture of Sidon in autumn of 311, which was marked by a special tetradrachm issue of the Sidon mint. It is also noteworthy that the staters would be among the earliest coins struck at Alexandria, and the first gold coins struck there. Considering that Ptolemy did not commemorate military victories on his precious metal coinage, it is probable that the Alexander/prow staters celebrate the dedication of Alexandria as Ptolemy’s new capital by the sea and as the home base of his fleet. Shortly before Ptolemy assumed the diadem he reduced the weight of his tetradrachm by two obols or one twelfth (to c. 15.70 g), so that nine tetradrachms might be struck from the amount of silver previously required for eight.272 This reform has the appearance of an emergency measure, undertaken to expand the monetary supply after the disastrous losses in the battle of Salamis (306) in order to enable a rapid rebuilding of the Ptolemaic fleet.273 The weight reduction was effected, at least in the majority of cases, by removing c. 1.5 g of silver from existing Attic-weight tetradrachms and then overstriking them with the current Alexander/Athena types to create a reduced tetradrachm (Type IIIb) that was visually indistinguishable from its Attic-weight predecessor (Type IIIa).274 At the beginning of the reform three auxiliary workshops operated in addition to the Alexandria mint.275 Almost certainly they were located at Memphis, Naucratis, and Pelusium, the major ports of entry into Egypt apart from Alexandria itself. The extra workshops closed after a time—probably no longer than three years—but the recoining effort apparently continued at the main mint until after the turn of the third century. Alexander/Athena tetradrachms have been reported from Israel, meaning that they remained the official 269. Svoronos (1904–08), Vol. II, no. 25; here Vol. 1, no. 38. 270. It reportedly was included in a large hoard whose few remnants were recorded by Westermark (1979–1980). Another specimen was reported from excavations at al-Jbeibat (north of Gabala) by Badawi (2009). 271. Svoronos (1904–08) , Vol. I, cols. νε´–νς´; Vol. IV, cols. 9–10, dated the prow staters c. 311. Zervos (1974), pp. 226–227, 316–326, dated them c. 317–316 or 312/11, preferring the later date. 272. Emmons (1954), where the reform is dated late 306 or 305. It was dated c. 312/310 by Brett (1938), p. 26, Robinson (1941), p. 1636, and Jenkins (1960), pp. 32–35. A date of 310 is repeated in virtually all subsequent literature on Ptolemaic coinage. Those scholars who offered evidence for this chronology derived it from an assumed closing date of 311 for the Abu Hommos hoard (IGCH 1667). An unpublished manuscript of Newell in the ANS has sometimes been cited as the authority. In one such manuscript, entitled “The Egyptian Coinage of Ptolemy I,” Newell in fact dated the deposit of Abu Hommos shortly before c. 305, observing that the dated Phoenician coins of 312/11 and the other latest Alexanders were more worn than the closing Egyptian coins. Most scholarship after Svoronos treated the precious metal currency in isolation from the bronze coinage. Lorber (2005b) demonstrated that the bronze coinage requires a lowering of the date of the reform to shortly before Ptolemy claimed the royal title. 273. Emmons (1954), pp. 80–81, related the weight reduction instead to reduced revenues and to the expenses of repelling the invasion of Antigonus and supporting Rhodes during the siege of Demetrius. 274. Emmons (1954). 275. Lorber (2005b), pp. 52–60, following the analysis of Zervos (1976), pp. 47–48, except that Zervos identified the output of the subsidiary mints as special issues of Alexandria.

28

Ptolemy I Soter

currency of the Ptolemaic kingdom after 301.276 The production of gold staters was suspended throughout this period. Ptolemy struck a single issue of the reduced tetradrachms in his own name, marked only by a kerykeion symbol in the reverse field.277 The obverse is rendered in the first style of Zervos’ Artist C, who worked at one of the three auxiliary mints in Egypt.278 The mint in question was almost certainly Memphis and the artistic link allows us to attribute the kerykeion tetradrachm to Egypt’s second city in the early stages of the currency reform. The kerykeion, a type of sceptre carried principally by Hermes and by heralds, was also associated with victory, kingship, and legitimate succession.279 It probably marks this coin as a special emission struck on the occasion of Ptolemy’s assumption of the royal title. Its production at Memphis is tantalizing because of the city’s association with kingship. The tale of Alexander’s enthronement as pharaoh at Memphis may already have been current, and Memphis later became the site for the Egyptian enthronement rites of the Ptolemies, as first attested for Ptolemy V.280 After his assumption of the diadem Ptolemy began to issue bronze hemiobols with a modified obverse type, the head of the deified Alexander, horned and wearing the mitra, with long, wavy hair on his neck—a design that remained standard for the bronze hemiobol for the duration of the reign. The earliest coinage to name Ptolemy as king is a series of these hemiobols with a helmet symbol on the reverse beside the eagle (Series 2a). Associated with the helmet are additional symbols or control letters, and several of the combinations also appear on reduced tetradrachms of Type IIIb, providing strong evidence for dating these tetradrachms after 305/4.281 Other bronze hemiobols feature an aphlaston symbol on the reverse (Series 2b) or only letter or monogrammatic controls (Series 2c). The helmet and aphlaston symbols suggest that these bronzes were intended specifically for military use, presumably as sitonion (provision money).282 Many provenances from Israel indicate that these coins were in use in or after 302, when Ptolemy occupied Coele Syria and Phoenicia for the third and final time. The Helmet Series of bronze hemiobols (Series 2a) concludes with an issue bearing the letters KL above the helmet, sometimes overstruck on Cypriote bronze coins of Demetrius Poliorcetes.283 The overstrikes prove that production of the Helmet Series continued after Ptolemy’s reconquest of Cyprus in 294 and suggest that production may have been transferred from Alexandria to the island. About 299, Alexandria resumed production of gold staters, which had last been struck immediately before the reduction of the tetradrachm. Both the types of the stater and its weight standard were new. Its weight of 7.13 g conformed roughly to the Phoenician standard and foreshadowed the standard that would subsequently become the norm for 276. Mørkholm (1980), p. 157 n.54. 277. Vol. 1, no. 90. This issue was assigned to Soli on Cyprus by Brett (1936), pp. 26–27, followed by Mørkholm (1991), p. 65, and to an uncertain mint other than Alexandria by Zervos (1974), p. 240. 278. Zervos (1976), pl. viii, 1–4; Lorber (2005b), Table 2, pp. 52–53. 279. Hdt. 9.100; Il. 2.100–108; Siebert (1990), pp. 286–287; Halm-Tisserant and Siebert (1997), p. 729. 280. Ps.-Callisthenes 1.34.2; Burstein (1991). For the Memphite enthronement of later Ptolemies, see Thompson (2012), pp. 136–143. 281. Lorber (2005b), pp. 49–50. 282. On the modalities of military pay, see Griffith (1935), pp. 264–294, especially pp. 277–282 on Egypt; Launey (1949), pp. 724–778, especially pp. 764–778 on Egypt. Bronze coinages have been associated with military pay or specifically with ration money by Houghton and Lorber (2000–2002) and Psoma (2009). 283. Three specimens are known, one in the collection of the Bank of Cyprus, the second in a Cypriote private collection, the third in the collection of A.D. Philippidis.

Introduction

29

Ptolemaic silver coinage. The obverse type was a head of Ptolemy, the first of the Successors to place his own portrait on his coinage.284 He chose to be depicted with the aegis of Alexander tied around his neck and his diadem worn just below the hairline, creating affinities to the mitra still worn by Alexander on contemporary silver and bronze coins. The reverse of the stater portrayed the deified Alexander, wearing the aegis draped over his near shoulder and holding a thunderbolt, in a chariot drawn by a team of four elephants; above this elaborate scene is a legend naming Ptolemy the King. The associated Alexander/ Athena tetradrachms (Type IIIc) continued to be minted in the name of Alexander, while control-linked bronze hemiobols of Series 2c were issued in the name of Ptolemy without the royal title. The tetradrachms of this period, like earlier reduced tetradrachms, show traces of overstriking. Curiously, they are very rare and are barely represented in hoards. Some years after the introduction of his gold stater Ptolemy reformed his coinage for the final time, changing its types, weight standard, and denominational structure. The reform must be dated after Ptolemy’s reconquest of Cyprus in 294, because that victory resulted in the overstriking of Cypriote bronze coins of Demetrius Poliorcetes with the types of pre-reform Ptolemaic issues. A second chronological indicator is the return of Tyre to Ptolemaic rule: the Tyrian coinage struck for Demetrius Poliorcetes concludes with a tetradrachm in the name of Ptolemy, conforming to his reformed types and weight, but employing a mintmark carried over from the Demetrian coinage.285 The next issue at Tyre, as well as a contemporary issue at Sidon, features an Alexandrian control also used on Cyprus. The evidence indicates that the Alexandrian reform was initiated in 294, either between the recovery of Cyprus and the surrender of Tyre and Sidon to Ptolemy, or shortly after the surrender of the two Phoenician cities.286 The tight chronology also suggests that the reform was linked in some way to these territorial gains,287 although other evidence seems to indicate that it was planned well in advance (see below under “Rhythms of production and currency reforms”). The currency reform of 294 standardized the reverse legend for coins in all metals, which now invariably named Ptolemy the King. The precious metal coinage received new types: Ptolemy’s portrait on the obverse, and on the reverse the eagle on thunderbolt, its wings closed or spread depending on the denomination. Another important aspect of this reform was a new reduction in the weights of gold and silver coinage, which enabled Ptolemy once again to expand his monetary supply by recoining the currency circulating in his kingdom. The weight of the tetradrachm was reduced by nearly a tenth, to 14.26 g, approximating the Phoenician standard. This weight standard was perhaps arrived at by defining the drachm of 3.60 g as one fifth of the demotic shekel of 18.19 g.288 However it also conforms to a Macedonian weight standard that had been used to strike posthumous 284. A possible rival for the earliest portrait of a Successor is the Susian coinage of Seleucus I portraying a horned, helmeted bust with Dionysian attributes (Houghton and Lorber 2002, nos. 173–176). Although the type is ambiguous, Hoover (2002) and Iossif (2004) saw a portrayal of Seleucus in the guise of Alexander and Dionysus, and Iossif placed the introduction of the type immediately after the battle of Ipsus. In any case, this type was limited geographically and temporally and did not become the standard currency of the Seleucid kingdom. 285. Newell (1923b), pl. iii, 9. 286. Lorber (2012c). For earlier views on the date of the surrender of Sidon and Tyre, see n.120 above. 287. Davesne (Davesne and Le Rider 1989), p. 273, suggested that the conquest of Cyprus inspired the decision to introduce a new coinage with Ptolemy’s portrait. 288. van Driessche (1988), p. 67.

30

Ptolemy I Soter

tetradrachms of Philip II at Amphipolis since c. 315.289 The Amphipolitan tetradrachms of 14.26 g were used especially for the pay of Thracian mercenaries, and Ptolemy perhaps adjusted his standard to match the practice of his Macedonian rivals so that he could compete for these coveted soldiers. Ptolemy’s new tetradrachms of 14.26 g (called staters in Egyptian documents) were complemented by somewhat heavier tetradrachms of 14.90 g, which probably represent staters of 25 obols, with a built-in allage (exchange commission) of about 4% to facilitate exchange with gold.290 In many works treating Ptolemaic coinage the heavy tetradrachms are represented as the first stage of a two-part reform, culminating in the introduction of the standard tetradrachm (Type IV).291 Tetradrachms of both weights apparently circulated together, as they occur in the same hoards.292 There is no evidence of preferential hoarding of the heavy tetradrachms, which would be expected if the standard tetradrachm represented a new weight reduction. On the other hand, heavy tetradrachms with a single control are visually distinct, having exceedingly broad flans, portraits with affinities to the portraits of the gold staters, and eagles with splayed legs. Many of these heavy tetradrachms are control linked to the standard tetradrachms of the R series, where the shared control appears below the series marker R.293 Two additional series of heavy tetradrachms, bearing series markers that had formerly appeared on the gold staters (F and Ù), resemble the standard tetradrachms in flan size, portrait style, and eagle style (the eagles have parallel legs). These visual features may be significant for chronology or they may reflect the practices of different mints or workshops.294 The picture is complicated by a yet larger denomination, the octadrachm or double stater, which was struck in small numbers and employed only four controls. In style and fabric the octadrachms resemble the heavy tetradrachms with a single control, but the two denominations are unrelated metrologically, making it unlikely that these two groups together represent a separate, early phase of the portrait coinage. A more plausible explanation for the observed differences in appearance may be the simultaneous operation 289. This standard was also used earlier in fourth-century Macedonia, in two versions. Tetradrachms of the cities of Acanthus and Amphipolis averaged c. 14.25 g, while the Chalcidian League and Philip II employed a slightly heavier version of the standard, with a tetradrachm weighing c. 14.40 g for the Chalcidian League and c. 14.45 g for Philip II, falling to 14.26 g and below for the posthumous coinage of Amphipolis Group IV (c. 315/4–295/4), see Lorber (1990), pp. 31–34; Le Rider (1977), pp. 343–354. 290. P. Cair. Zen. 59022 attests to an allage of 4% on the exchange of gold for silver in the early 250s. In the opinion of Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), p. 144, the practice of assessing allage probably began around the turn of the third century. The concept offered here of a silver stater designed specifically for exchange with gold raises an obvious question: what was its purpose in state payments? It is difficult to imagine a compelling need in state expenditures for two denominations so close in value and indeed using both in state payments might have created unnecessary complications. Because of its closed currency system, however, the Ptolemaic state was required to strike coinage not only to make state payments but also to ensure an adequate supply of legal tender to support its crucial export trade. Most likely tetradrachms of 25 obols were put into circulation only through exchange, at points of entry into Egypt and by banks. Von Reden (2007), p. 253 n.6, suggested that monopoly banks—those specializing in monetary exchange—may have been established in Alexandria at the time of the closing of the currency market, i.e., c. 305. 291. Robinson (1941), p. 1636; Emmons (1954), p. 73; Mørkholm (1991), p. 66; Hazzard (1995), p. 75; Le Rider (1998a), p. 787; Callataÿ (2005b), p. 118; von Reden (2007), p. 40; and (tentatively) Cavagna (2010), p. 86. 292. E.g., Phacous (IGCH 1678), Rüppell (Noeske 2006, p. 41); Hebron area, 1977 (CH IV, 40); Madaba, c. 1919 (IGCH 1592); Meydancıkkale, 1980 (CH VII, 80 = CH VIII, 308 = CH X, 269); Sunium (CH IV, 32). 293. Davesne noted these links and cited them as proof of contemporaneity, see Davesne and Le Rider (1989), pp. 271–272. 294. Davesne (1994a), p. 15, tentatively suggested that the three series of heavy tetradrachms might be products of the three Cypriote mints. Nevertheless, their predominantly Egyptian provenances argue for their retention at Alexandria.

Introduction

31

of multiple workshops. The occasional emissions of octadrachms clearly did not warrant a workshop of their own and very likely they were produced by the same facility as the heavy tetradrachms with a single control. Table 1.1 (below) provides a synopsis of the denominations and controls of the precious metal denominations of Ptolemy’s royal coinage. Table 1.1. Heavy tetradrachms and other precious metal denominations of the reform of 294. Tetradrachm 14.90 g 1 control

Tetradrachm 14.90 g Primary Ù

Tetradrachm 14.90 g Primary F

Trichryson

Tetarte

Octadrachm

Tetradrachm

— ›  

D

D

⁄ L

L













A

A

A

A

A

A







, 







4, 

F

F

,  4, 

 

F , 









F 

 ‡ 

S, ‚, SE z

z

  





‹

‹





 R disappears   above  Ô above 

Grain ear above Ô

32

Ptolemy I Soter

The gold stater was replaced by two new gold denominations weighing 17.85 g and 1.78 g, respectively. The larger piece was termed a pentadrachm by Svoronos, but Egyptian documents reveal that it was called a trichryson (triple stater), indicating that it was equivalent to three of the old gold staters or to 60 silver drachms.295 The smaller piece, the so-called gold triobol or hemidrachm, represented one tenth of the trichryson or six silver drachms. This small gold denomination was probably called a tetarte.296 Extensive die linkage among standard tetradrachms of the R series bearing eight different secondary controls—, A, /, /4, F, , ‡, and —indicates that the currency reform of 294 entailed a period of intense minting, estimated at less than two years’ duration and accounting for a significant proportion of the total volume of these tetradrachms.297 The gold tetarte and the silver stater of 25 obols fell out of production by the end of the reign, while the trichryson was replaced by other gold denominations after 273. But the regular silver stater remained the standard coin of Ptolemy’s successors, with only occasional deviations from his types, until the end of the dynasty. The currency reform of 294 also involved an expansion of the bronze currency to six denominations, ranging from the chalkous to the obol, diobol, and an enigmatic larger denomination, with the two extremes produced only exceptionally.298 The addition of larger denominations entailed a change in minting technique: whereas the flans of chalkoi and hemiobols had been cut from bronze bars, the broader flans of the new larger denominations were now cast in chapelet moulds.299 The reformed bronzes (Series 2d) all retained the reverse type of earlier bronze coins, an eagle with spread wings gripping a thunderbolt in its talons, but the new denominations received new obverse types. The second largest denomination, the diobol, about 28 mm in diameter and featuring a laureate head of Zeus on the obverse, emerged as the principal bronze coin of its day. The second most important denomination was the obol, identified by the head of Alexander in his elephant headdress. The reformed bronze coinage was issued in three subseries, one with single controls, the others, comprising diobols only, with two controls including one of two invariant primary controls or series markers, either A or {. Many Series 2d bronzes are control linked to the precious metal coinage, but an important number are not so linked. The range of bronze denominations and the large size of the top denomination set the pattern for some salient features of future Ptolemaic currency. 295. P. Cair. Zen. 59021 (258 B.C.), col. 1, l. 13; P. Cair. Zen. 59022, ll. 6, 8, 16f., and 21. 296. By its weight, the gold triobol is one fourth (tetarte) of Ptolemy’s earlier gold stater. The tetarte is normally thought of as a unit of reckoning rather than an actual coin: it was the preferred unit for evaluating gold objects in GraecoRoman Egypt. In the late metrological text P. Oxy. XLIX 3455 (third–fourth century A.D.), ll. 28–29, it is defined as one sixteenth of the mnaieion, implying a weight of 1.74 g in gold, which closely matches the weight of the gold triobol. If we reckon in terms of silver equivalents, the mnaieion was worth 100 drachms, and one sixteenth of that amount is 6.25 drachms, close (but not identical) to the silver value of the gold triobol. The earliest mention of the tetarte is found in P. Tebt. III, 2, 890 (second century B.C.), l. 89. It is well attested in documents from Roman Egypt and there are perhaps allusions to it in Gurob Papyrus 10 (third century B.C.), l. 4, and P. Tebt. III I, 809 (156 B.C.), l. 3, see Maresch (1996), p. 105 with n.24; Cuvigny (2003), p. 117. Maresch offers a second definition of the tetarte as “ein halbe Gewichtdrachme Gold,” i.e., a gold hemidrachm or triobol. Le Rider (1998a), p. 788, suggested that Ptolemy’s small gold denomination was called a hexadrachmon, reflecting its value in terms of silver. 297. Callataÿ (2005b), pp. 119–125, 130–131. 298. The face values of most of these bronzes can be deduced from the fact that they circulated alongside the earlier bronze varieties, see Davesne and Lemaire (1996); Davesne (1998), p. 55; Lorber (2005a), p. 137. The metrological analysis of Wolf (2013) suggests a face value of 2.5 obols for the largest denomination, though the sample is too small for certainty. This unusual denomination, probably created to facilitate the payment of allage at the rate of 2.5 obols per stater, was revived under Ptolemy III and minted in large numbers. 299. Farhi and Lorber (2012), pp. 46–47..

Introduction

33

Coinage of Ptolemy I in the provinces During his satrapy Ptolemy did not leave much of a mark on the coinage of his provinces. Most of his possessions either had their own currency traditions or had joined the network of mints producing coinage of Alexander type. Precious metal coins of Ptolemaic type, or otherwise alluding to Ptolemy, are mostly rare and present the aspect of special emissions. Ptolemy’s brief occupation of Phoenica and Palestine in 312/11 yielded at least two commemorative issues employing his Alexander/Athena types, a dated tetradrachm struck at Sidon and an obol produced somewhere in Palestine.300 Rare anepigraphic hemiobols with the same obverse type but an eagle reverse may also have originated in Palestine at this juncture.301 A small group of Ptolemaic types appeared in Cyrene c. 311, probably celebrating the suppression of the recent revolt. These include a series of gold staters and hemistaters bearing the remarkable legend KURAN IoN pToLEMAIW (Cyrenean coin for Ptolemy) and a silver didrachm with an Athena Promachos reverse.302 On Cyprus, c. 311–310, King Eunostus of Soli struck a single issue of tetradrachms employing Ptolemy’s Alexander/Athena Promachos types, while Ptolemy’s brother Menelaus celebrated his accession as king of Salamis in 310 with a small issue of gold coins of Salaminian type.303 Corinth, garrisoned by Ptolemy from 308 to c. 304/3, issued a few drachms of the Alexander/Athena type, control linked to the last Corinthian pegasi.304 The Ptolemaic drachms of Corinth were struck from loose dies and this technical feature, along with stylistic anomalies, may serve to identify other Ptolemaic issues minted in Greece. A second group of drachms of provincial style may represent a coinage struck in occupied Sicyon.305 A third series comprising gold staters and tetradrachms, again of provincial style and struck from loose dies, perhaps represents a benefaction by Ptolemy when he supervised the Isthmian games of 308.306 Bronzes of Ptolemy’s satrapal types cannot be attributed to any of his external territories, though it is possible that some provincial issues lie unrecognized among the hemiobols and chalkoi that are not control linked to Alexandria’s precious metal coinage. Very rare chalkoi showing the head of Alexander in the elephant headdress307 do not fit into the output of Alexandria, but cannot be assigned elsewhere with confidence. In his early years as king Ptolemy was largely bereft of foreign possessions. A unique crab/jerboa bronze of Cyrene with the reverse legend BASIL proves that he retained control of Cyrenaica at the time he claimed royal status, but the province revolted shortly thereafter.308 The annexation of Syria and Phoenicia in 302–301 brought the mint of Jerusalem into Ptolemy’s kingdom. The change of allegiance probably inspired the adoption of the Ptolemaic eagle on the reverse of small silver fractions with Hebrew or Aramaic legends 300. Vol. 1, nos. 240 and 246; Brett (1938), pl. iv, 7; Wheatley (2003b); Gitler and Lorber (2002), p. 35, nos. 3–4, pl. 7–8, and pp. 37–39. 301. Vol. 1, nos. 208–209. 302. Vol. 1, nos. 257–259, 263; Mørkholm (1980a), pp. 148–149. Mørkholm proposed dates of c. 314 and c. 315, respectively; for the corrected dates, see Lorber (2005b), p. 64. 303. Vol. 1, nos. 214–216. 304. Vol. 1, nos. 194–196. 305. Vol. 1, nos. 197–200. 306. Vol. 1, nos. 201–206. 307. Vol. 2, B107. 308. Vol. 2, B137; Newell (1938), pp. 13–14; Buttrey (1997), p. 37.

34

Ptolemy I Soter

naming Yehud (Judah) as their issuing authority.309 After the final currency reform in Egypt in 294 Jerusalem continued to produce its silver fractions in the name of Judah, but they now bore Ptolemy’s portrait on the obverse, mirroring the types (but not the style or denominations) of contemporary Egyptian coinage.310 Cyrenaica was recovered by Magas in c. 300 and remained a Ptolemaic possession until Ptolemy’s death in 282.311 A series of Alexandrine gold staters and tetradrachms may represent the earliest coinage of this period.312 Control linked to these coins are silver didrachms of traditional Cyrenean type, with weights of c. 6.80 g, and a set of bronze denominations issued in Ptolemy’s name, with his eagle signet on the reverse, including hemiobols portraying Apollo Myrtous, patron god of Cyrenaica, and dichalka and chalkoi with the horned head of Alexander.313 At a slightly later stage the mints of Cyrene and Euesperides produced a small number of gold staters matching the types and weight of contemporary Egyptian staters, supplemented at Cyrene by a gold tetrobol with Ptolemy’s portrait on the obverse and a Nike reverse borrowed from Alexander’s gold staters.314 Control-linked bronze hemiobols pair Ptolemy’s portrait with the eagle reverse;315 like the earlier Apollo/eagle and Alexander/eagle bronzes, these were issued in Ptolemy’s name but without the royal title. The mint at Euesperides emitted bronze hemiobols depicting its patron Heracles and his attributes, inscribed with the royal title but without Ptolemy’s name.316 Apparently anepigraphic bronze hemiobols with a diademed portrait of Ptolemy and a prow reverse are attributable to Cyprus after Ptolemy’s recovery of the island in 294.317 At least one and perhaps both of the known examples were overstruck on Salaminian bronze coins of Demetrius Poliorcetes, pointing to a hasty issue, probably intended for military pay, in the immediate aftermath of the victory.318 Ptolemy’s currency reform of 294 involved a partial standardization of the royal coinage in the provinces. This is reflected particularly on Cyprus, where two mints struck coinage patterned after that of Alexandria, except that the denominational system was limited to gold trichrysa, tetradrachms, and bronze obols.319 The early emissions of the two Cypriote mints show control links to each other and to the densely die-linked group of Alexandrian portrait issues belonging to the first phase of the currency reform. The control links imply not only that the first Cypriote issues were contemporary with the reform in Egypt, but also that the Cypriote mints were opened under supervision from Alexandria and 309. Gitler and Lorber (2006), pp. 8–9 (Group 2). 310. Gitler and Lorber (2006), p. 10 (Groups 4 and 5). 311. Chamoux (1956); Buttrey (1997), p. 37. 312. Vol. 1, nos. 264–270. 313. Vol. 2, B138‒B144; Mørkholm (1980a), pp. 154, 158; Buttrey (1997), p. 37. Mørkholm believed the didrachms were struck on Ptolemy’s final weight standard (the Phoenician), only underweight; Buttrey used the term “Rhodian” to refer to the standard of the didrachms. 314. Vol. 1, nos. 271–275. 315. Vol. 2, B145–B147. 316. Vol. 2, B148. Some specimens were overstruck on Cyrenean bronzes of the Apollo/eagle type, see Buttrey (1997), p. 56. 317. Vol. 2, B108. 318. Destrooper-Georgiades (1998). 319. The mints were identified as Salamis and Citium by Davesne (Davesne and Le Rider, 1989), pp. 281–283. Svoronos assigned part of this coinage to Ptolemy I and part to Ptolemy II, while Davesne (p. 284) used a metrological theory to date the majority of it after 285. Issues attributable to Ptolemy I include those represented in the Phacous hoard (Jenkins 1960, pp. 36–37) and, perhaps, others associated by die linkage.

Introduction

35

remained administratively dependent on Egypt during their early operations. These early Cypriote issues were numerous and mostly quite substantial, suggesting more-or-less continuous mint activity. It is a near certainty that one of the two Cypriote mints was located at Salamis, the administrative center of Ptolemaic Cyprus through most of the third century. P. Keen has suggested that the mint locations were chosen for their ability to “capture” foreign coinage,320 and this would point to Citium, an important trade center, as the likely second mint. But the Cypriote mints did not employ mintmarks at this early date, so there is no way to determine which coin series should be assigned to Salamis and which to Citium. Cyprus also produced a bronze coinage in three denominations, featuring the island’s patron goddess Aphrodite on the obverse and the Ptolemaic eagle on the reverse.321 These bronzes bear Ptolemy’s name but not his royal title. Svoronos, followed by Cox and Bagnall, dated them to the years after 311 when Ptolemy’s brother, Menelaus, governed the island for him.322 But the denominational system of the Aphrodite/eagle bronzes is more consistent with a date after the currency reform of 294, and examples from both Alexandria and Cyrene show that bronze coins issued during Ptolemy’s reign as king did not always carry his royal title. Because Paphos was home to a famous cult of Aphrodite, it is a candidate for the mint of these bronzes. Following its surrender to Ptolemy in 294, Tyre minted a tetradrachm variety that conformed in its types and weight standard to the royal coinage recently introduced in Egypt, while retaining the dolphin mintmark of the final tetradrachm emission of Demetrius Poliorcetes.323 This first Tyrian tetradrachm of Ptolemaic type was accompanied by a bronze dichalkon, also employing Ptolemaic types and also marked with a horizontal dolphin.324 Tyre and Sidon subsequently produced a coordinated issue of gold trichrysa, silver tetradrachms, and bronze (the latter at Tyre only) with their civic mintmarks and the shared monogram .325 This monogram derived from the Alexandrian repertory of controls and also appeared on Cypriote coinage; in addition Tyre struck a few bronze hemiobols with further control links to Alexandria and/or Cyprus.326 It thus appears that the mints of Tyre and Sidon, like those of Cyprus, were initially considered as branch mints of Alexandria. But the similarity between Phoenicia and Cyprus ends there, for after this one burst of activity Tyre and Sidon fell silent until the outbreak of the First Syrian War. The reasons for this difference in policy are not obvious. Elsewhere in the Syro-Phoenician province, an unidentified mint adopted Ptolemy’s royal types for a one-time special emission of silver diobols, a denomination supplied in bronze at Alexandria.327 This issue, too, shares a control from the early stages of the currency reform at Alexandria, fixing its date around 294. The production of a small denomination fits the monetary traditions of Samaria and Judaea. Of these two, Samaria is the more likely candidate for the mint since Judaea had its own provincial coinage, issued from Jerusalem and identified by inscriptions naming Judah in palaeo-Hebrew or Aramaic. 320. Keen (2012), Chapter 2. 321. Vol. 2, B118‒B130. 322. Cox (1959), p. 94; Bagnall (1976a), p. 189. 323. Vol. 1, no. 243; Newell (1923b), p. 22, pl. iii, 9. 324. Vol. 2, B131. 325. Vol. 1, nos. 241–242, 244‒245; Vol. 2, B132. 326. Vol. 2, B133‒B135. 327. Vol. 1, no. 255; Gitler and Lorber (2002), p, 35, 2, pl. 6.

36

Ptolemy I Soter

Cryptic controls In addition to the conventional controls that appear on the reverses of nearly all coins of Ptolemy I, there are cryptic controls on many obverses, usually a tiny letter D. Introduced at Alexandria in the issue of 312/11, at the same time as the Athena Promachos reverse type, the obverse control was camouflaged among the scales of Alexander’s aegis on a minority of the fourteen tetradrachm obverse dies, three of which bore a tiny D, two a tiny letter K. A tiny D also appears below Athena’s arm on a few early reverse dies. It is present on many but not all obverse dies of subsequent Alexandrian tetradrachm issues, and also occurs on some of the products of the auxiliary mints that operated briefly after the weight reduction of c. 306. The same tiny D was concealed behind Ptolemy’s ear in his Alexandrian portrait coinage, beginning with the gold staters and continuing on all the precious metal denominations introduced in the final reform of 294. It is a consistent feature of the early issues of the Ptolemy/eagle type, but is lacking from some dies of the later issues, making its last appearance on tetradrachms with the sign Ï, attributable to Ptolemy II and datable before c. 275.328 Tetradrachm dies signed D also occur in the coinage of the Cypriote mints, where D is only one of several marks that can appear behind Ptolemy’s ear; the others are A, H, R, W, a dart, and a thunderbolt. The D survived longer on Cyprus than in Egypt. It is found on tetradrachms with an oval shield as a subsidiary symbol on the reverse, datable after c. 275. These tetradrachms may have remained in production until the currency reform of 261/0, after which the D disappeared for good from Cypriote coinage. Early dies of Sidon and Tyre, as well, sometimes bear the letter D behind Ptolemy’s ear, but as with the Cypriote coinage there are alternate markings, including K, a dart, or three pellets. In Phoenicia these markings disappeared with the advent of dated coinage, i.e., in 266/5 at Tyre. The letter D has often been interpreted as an artist’s signature, specifically as the mark of the principal engraver of the Alexandria mint, called Artist A by Zervos.329 B. R. Brown traced his artistic evolution over the course of his career: he worked first in the neoclassical style, then revived the style of Scopas for Ptolemy’s gold staters, and finally developed “a mannered exaggeration of the fourth-century dramatic style,” with “a new, exaggerated degree of formal complexity and heightened drama, with a new kind of broken rhythm held in tension.”330 Against such claims we note that the letter D has also been observed on dies of a second engraver, Zervos’ Artist B.331 The artistic development claimed for D is quite extraordinary, even ludicrous, especially considering the huge numbers of dies that must have been required at certain critical periods.332 F. de Callataÿ estimated a total of 232.2 obverse dies (± 10.8) for the standard tetradrachms of the portrait coinage of Ptolemy I (Type IV).333 A large proportion of these dies must have been used in the intense initial phase of the reform, which Callataÿ believed could not have lasted more 328. Vol. 1, no. 277; Svoronos (1904–08), Vol. II, no. 548. 329. Svoronos (1904–08), Vol. I, col. ρξζʹ; Vol. IV, cols. 63‒64; Kyrieleis (1975), pp. 4–6; Zervos (1974), p. 82; (1976), p. 46; Brown (1984); Davesne (Davesne and Le Rider 1989), p. 275; Hazzard (1995), pp. 23–27. 330. Brown (1984), pp. 413–417. 331. Lorber (2005b), p. 56. 332. In an unpublished manuscript at the American Numismatic Society (see n.273 above), Newell commented on the prevalent interpretation of the D as an artist’s signature: “…this artist must have been a man of extraordinary versatility of workmanship, and of truly unbelievable energy and endurance.” (p. 8). 333. Callataÿ (2005b), p. 122.

Introduction

37

than two years.334 Callataÿ’s figure does not include the dies required for the rest of the precious metal coinage, the trichrysa, tetartai, silver octadrachms, and tetradrachms of 25 obols. The long floruit of D (from c. 311 to c. 266/5 or even 261/0, according to the chronology adopted here) has also inspired skepticism.335 It is more plausible that the letter D and other similar cryptic marks served some internal control function. They could, for example, designate die engraving workshops within the mint, or private contractors who provided dies to the mint, or the approval of an administrator. Whatever the significance of the letter D, its presence on dies employed on Cyprus and in Phoenicia may imply that the provincial mints received dies from Alexandria for several decades after they opened. Against this hypothesis, however, we must weigh the use of additional cryptic controls at the provincial mints and the disappearance of the letter D from Alexandrian coinage while it lingered on for at least a decade on the coinage of Cyprus and Phoenicia. Rhythms of production and currency reforms C. Carcasonne and A. Davesne proposed a model for understanding early Lagid coinage, based on study of the Meydancıkkale hoard: Ptolemy I coined voluminously in order to monetize the Egyptian economy, after which Ptolemy II minted more modestly in order to maintain the currency supply established by his father.336 This model was based on a faulty die count and has been criticized on theoretical grounds as well.337 It is doubtful that monetization was a fundamental goal of the first Ptolemy. His monetary policies were intended primarily to cover his expenses and, eventually, also to supply the money changers who exchanged currency for foreign merchants.338 His two weight reductions in theory enabled him to expand the volume of his currency. But these reforms, particularly the reform of c. 306, entailed a significant loss of older coinage in hoards, making it difficult to gauge the net effect of the reforms on monetary supply. The reform of 294 served ideological as well as fiscal motives: it transformed virtually the entire stock of currency circulating in Egypt, so that by the end of Ptolemy’s reign almost all available money featured his personal types.339 The timing of this reform, immediately after an expansion of Ptolemy’s overseas empire, suggests that the goal was not to monetize the Egyptian economy, but rather to flood the Cypriote and Syro-Phoenician economies with the new, ideologically charged coinage. Coin hoards deposited in Egypt after this reform do not indicate that the monetized economy spread south of Memphis, and they provide no clear evidence for an increase in the currency supply.340 334. Callataÿ (2005b), p. 124. 335. Ashton (1997), p. 226; Cavagna (2008a), pp. 170–172 with n.23. 336. Carcasonne and Davesne (1987). 337. Callataÿ (1993), pp. 27–30; id. (2005b); Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), pp. 209–230. 338. Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), pp. 141–144. 339. Cavagna (2010), pp. 105–107. The Phacous hoard (IGCH 1678) apparently shows that there were still reserves of older Attic weight coinage by the end of the reign. The Delta, 1856 hoard (IGCH 1684) might seem to attest to the survival of Attic weight coinage even later, but the date proposed in IGCH is based on the alleged presence of a mnaieion of Arsinoe II that was surely intrusive. Based on its other contents, this hoard is to be dated very shortly after the reform of 294 and it illustrates another reserve of Attic weight coinage at that date. 340. Hoards deposited in or after 294 include: Toukh el Garmous, 1905 (IGCH 1679); Delta, 1856 (IGCH 1684); Egypt, uncertain date (CH V, 33), with 93 tetradrachms; Phacous, 1956 (IGCH 1678), Pot B, with 363 tetradrachms; Egypt, before 1908 (IGCH 1677), with 491 tetradrachms; Mit Rahineh (CH X, 447), with 101 tetradrachms.

38

Ptolemy I Soter

It is now possible to offer a nuanced interpretation of the behavior of Ptolemy I with respect to monetary production. We are fortunate to possess a superb die study by O. H. Zervos treating the precious metal coinage of Ptolemy I down to the reform of 294.341 The portrait tetradrachms of Type IV, as represented in the Meydancıkkale hoard (CH VIII, 308), have also been examined for die links.342 The patterns of die linkage indicate that Egyptian coinage of Attic weight, from the original Alexander tetradrachms (Type I) through the Athena Promachos series (Type IIIa), was minted as a series of successive emissions, each marked with its own controls. This pattern is consistent with an annual rhythm of coin production, though the notion of annual emissions remains unproven and was ultimately rejected by Zervos, who first proposed it.343 There are two main arguments in its favor: (1) Greek governmental functions, including accounting, were organized on an annual basis.344 (2) Throughout the history of the Lagid dynasty a large part of the silver coinage was issued on an annual basis, as attested by the regnal years on Syro-Phoenician tetradrachms from 261/0 to 242/1, on the silver of the Cypriote mints from the late 190s until the closure of these mints, and on the silver of Alexandria from 155/4 until the fall of the dynasty, and also by the numerals on the era coinage struck by Ptolemies IV– VI. It must be conceded, however, that the practice of placing dates on annual issues of coinage was originally a special tradition of Phoenician mints and the practice came very late to Alexandria. Supposed annual dating systems attributed to the Alexandrian coinage of Ptolemy II by Svoronos did not survive the scrutiny of later scholars.345 A pattern of discrete emissions persisted at Alexandria after the first weight reduction of c. 306. This is somewhat surprising, since the purpose of the weight reduction was apparently to accelerate royal expenditures under exigent circumstances. B. Emmon’s discussion of this reform implies that it was an efficient transformation, involving the recall of all circulating tetradrachms and their hasty reissue at the new weight.346 Production was indeed accelerated by the addition of auxiliary mints in the early stages of the recoining. But closer analysis, taking account of the evidence of die links and overstrikes, points to a protracted process that gradually diluted the circulating currency with tetradrachms of reduced weight (Type IIIb), virtually indistinguishable in type from their Attic-weight predecessors (Type IIIa).347 Evidently it was not Ptolemy’s intention to replace the entire tetradrachm coinage at a stroke. This first reduction of the Egyptian tetradrachm gives the impression of an improvised reform that did not require elaborate advance planning or an ability to estimate the volume of coinage in circulation. 341. Zervos (1974). 342. Carcasonne and Davesne (1987); Davesne (Davesne and Le Rider, 1989); Callataÿ in Callataÿ, Depeyrot, and Villaronga (1993), pp. 27–30; Callataÿ (2005b). 343. Zervos (1974), pp. 301–303; id. (1967). 344. The Ptolemaic state itself did not have annual magistracies; its officials, probably including mint officials, served at the ruler’s pleasure. There is, however, ample evidence beginning in the third century that the taxation regime had an annual basis; see, e.g., P. Cair. Zen. 59236 (254/3 B.C.) = Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 92; P. Tebt. III, 772 (236 B.C.) = Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 101; P. Eleph. 14 (c. 223 B.C.) = Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 87; P. Tebt. I 40 (117 B.C.) = Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 97. There are no relevant documents from the satrapy of Ptolemy I. 345. See Troxell (1983); Davesne in Davesne and Le Rider (1989), pp. 275–276. 346. Emmons (1954), pp. 82–83, followed by Mørkholm (1991), pp. 64–65. 347. Lorber (2005b), pp. 51–60; Zervos (1974), pp. 162 and 181 for the die links. The contemporary circulation of both types of tetradrachms is confirmed by the contents of a number of Egyptian hoards: Abu Hommos, 1919 (IGCH 1667); Kuft, 1874/5 (IGCH 1670 = CH II, 55); Egypt? before 1936 (IGCH 1676); Phacous, 1956 (IGCH 1678), Pot A; Delta, 1856 (IGCH 1684).

Introduction

39

The Alexandrian control system changed when Ptolemy introduced his gold staters. The staters and their associated tetradrachms (Type IIIc) bear diverse combinations of some twenty monograms and letters in patterns that no longer lend themselves to an annual interpretation.348 Intense die linkage among the staters reveals the simultaneous employment of perhaps as many as ten controls and the use of two anvils for part of the series, pointing to a heightened pace of production. The contemporary tetradrachms, in contrast, exhibit minimal die linkage and many recut reverse dies, implying a small output per issue that may account for the rarity of these tetradrachms today. Traces of overstriking prove that older and/or imported tetradrachms continued to provide the metal for Ptolemy’s Type IIIc silver currency. Both staters and tetradrachms are of homogenous style consistent with a short period of production.349 Assuming an average annual use of 50 obverse dies per year for the reduced (Type III) tetradrachms, Zervos calculated that this phase of coinage required only a year and a half to produce.350 But he made a methodological error: he combined stater and tetradrachm dies in a single calculation, counting each stater die as equivalent to five tetradrachm dies. The actual count of 26 obverse dies for the Type IIIc tetradrachms yields a corrected (minimum) estimate of about half a year. The very different patterns of production for the gold staters and their associated tetradrachms become comprehensible if we assume that the reintroduction of gold coinage was planned in advance. The first step in the plan was the temporary suspension of the minting of gold staters, imposed at the time of the reduction of the tetradrachm c. 306. This implies an alteration in the cycle of government revenues and payments: for several years, the part of the revenues in gold from taxes, port duties, and foreign exchange that would have been sent to the mint for coining was instead sequestered in the treasury. Probably a calculation was made of the volume of gold coinage that would ultimately be required to meet state payments and to support the needs of visiting merchants. The latter calculation could have been based on information collected at the points of entry into Egypt.351 When the government had accumulated the necessary bullion in the treasury, dies were prepared and the intended volume of gold coinage was minted with all due speed and released rapidly into the economy. The process can explain why the introduction of Ptolemy’s gold staters, around 299, is not obviously correlated with any historic occasion or special fiscal need, despite the ideological significance of their types. Having identified distinct patterns associated with the introduction of the Ptolemaic gold stater, namely the suppression of stater production in the years preceding and dense die and control linkage in the earliest emissions, we can recognize very similar patterns in connection with Ptolemy’s final currency reform of 294. The scarcity of the last series of Alexander/Athena tetradrachms (Type IIIc) seems to reflect a sharply reduced output of silver in association with the new gold staters. There probably followed a hiatus in mint operations to allow for the accumulation of bullion in the treasury in advance of 348. Zervos (1974), pp. 141–142 and 341, inferred a reorganization of the mint. 349. Zervos (1974), pp. 140, 337–339. 350. Zervos (1974), pp. 335, 337–339. Zervos’ estimate that each die was employed for about a week is consistent with more recent scholarship; see, e.g., Callataÿ (2005a), p. 552. Even shorter lifetimes may be implied by Faucher, Tereygeol, Brousseau, and Arles (2009). 351. See Cavagna (2010), p. 106 for other methods by which the state might have estimated monetary circulation and requirements.

40

Ptolemy I Soter

a massive issue of new coinage. There is a corresponding break in the controls: none of the controls of the gold staters and Type IIIc tetradrachms was used in the main series of Ptolemy’s portrait coinage. Callataÿ demonstrated that the introduction of the standard portrait tetradrachm of 14.26 g (Type IV) involved an initial phase of intense minting in which eight controls were employed simultaneously, and he estimated a minimum of four anvils in use concurrently for the production of these tetradrachms, over a period of less than two years.352 Even more than in the case of the gold stater, it was necessary to strike a large volume of tetradrachms in advance of their release, since the tetradrachm was the principal monetary unit of the currency system.353 All these indications point to a reform that was planned in advance and cannot, therefore, be associated with any particular fiscal strain, even though its effect was probably to increase the nominal value of the total volume of coinage in circulation. The currency reform of 294 was far more complex than the reintroduction of gold staters, for it involved the introduction of five new precious metal denominations, three of which, the trichryson, the tetarte, and the silver octadrachm, had no antecedents in earlier Egyptian coinage. Normal records—of government expenditures, tax receipts, and money exchanged at the points of entry—could help with estimating the overall volume of coinage that would be needed and the relative proportions of silver and gold.354 The silver stater of 25 obols was a special denomination designed to facilitate the exchange of gold and silver coinage, so its production was probably proportional to the production of trichrysa. The same may be true of the tetarte. The silver octadrachm can perhaps be excluded from consideration; only four issues are known and the rarity of surviving examples does not suggest that the octadrachms were an important component of the reformed coinage. Subsequent monetary production at Alexandria featured episodes of intense output separated by periods of reduced mint activity. The initial burst of the currency reform of 294 was followed by a series of smaller issues, some involving tetradrachms only. Then came an exceedingly large issue marked with the monogram  that contributed dies to two subsequent emissions. The pattern of episodic production continued under Ptolemy II down until the time of his currency reform of 261/0. A major emission marked Ï was followed at some interval by a very intense emission with Ï above an oval shield and much die linkage between the subsidiary control letters. The latter of these emissions has been associated with the First Syrian War (274–271)—it may have been complete as early as 274—and afterward helped to finance the Chremonidian War (268?–262).355 Assuming that other periods of intense monetary production also reflect major military expenditures, the other two pulses can be associated with the last coalition against Demetrius Poliorcetes in 288/7 (the  issue and die-linked emissions) and the naval operations along the coast of Asia Minor after the accession of Ptolemy II (the Ï emission).

352. Callataÿ (2005b), pp. 123–124 with n.29. Assuming four anvils in operation throughout and a one-week average lifetime per obverse die, this phase of the coinage could have been minted in about sixty weeks, a little over a year. 353. Cavagna (2008a), pp. 169–170, related this intense production to the need to replace the retired Alexander/ Athena tetradrachms of reduced weight. 354. Cf. Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), pp. 141–143; Cavagna (2010), pp. 105–107. 355. Davesne (Davense and Le Rider 1989), pp. 276‒277. On finds in Attica of the tetradrachms and associated bronze coins, see most recently Chryssanthaki 2005 (with earlier bibliography).

Introduction

41

Ptolemy II has been credited with opening new mints on Cyprus and in Phoenicia and thus with reorganizing coin production to meet regional currency needs.356 But as we saw above, control links between Alexandria and the mints of Cyprus and Phoenicia indicate that these provincial mints opened in the reign of Ptolemy I, very close to the time of his final currency reform of 294. The logic of the reform and of the closed economy would seem to require the existence of regional facilities that could convert the circulating Atticweight coinage into official Ptolemaic money. Otherwise, it would have been impossible to reap the benefits of currency exchange at the flourishing ports of Phoenicia and Cyprus, and coinage from Egypt would have been disadvantaged if carried into these regions of Ptolemy’s empire. There is every reason to believe that the currency reform of 294 was implemented on Cyprus very shortly after Ptolemy recovered the island. Several extremely large issues at each of the two Cypriote mints indicate that they, like Alexandria, were involved in a concerted effort to recoin the entire precious metal currency of the island in conformity with the new types and weight standard of the king. These large emissions persisted after the disappearance of control links to Alexandria, implying that the recoining continued longer than in Egypt. The process was particularly profitable because the difference between the Attic and the Ptolemaic tetradrachm was quite significant, nearly 3 g or five Lagid obols. Consequently five Attic-weight tetradrachms would yield six tetradrachms of Ptolemaic weight. Unsurprisingly, the currency reform on Cyprus is marked by a break in the hoards: in IGCH the latest hoards of Alexander-type coinage have estimated burial dates of c. 300, although in reality such coins must have continued to circulate on Cyprus at least until Ptolemy recovered the island in 294.357 Curiously, the hoard record for Cyprus includes only one hoard of Ptolemaic tetradrachms for the entire third century, deposited in the reign of Ptolemy IV.358 The rarity of hoard loss in third-century Ptolemaic Cyprus may reflect very secure conditions or, alternatively, a scarcity of coinage relative to need, so that it was difficult to accumulate savings in silver. The currency of Ptolemaic Syro-Phoenicia developed somewhat differently. There is a similar break in the hoards, with Alexander hoards deposited around the turn of the third century and subsequent hoards containing Ptolemaic tetradrachms of Type IV.359 As on Cyprus there is a chronological gap between the Alexander and Ptolemaic hoards, but it is not nearly so extreme: the two earliest Ptolemaic hoards date from c. 280‒270 and probably 274, respectively.360 From this break in the hoards we can infer that at some point Ptolemy closed the monetary economy of the province. We have no evidence relating to the disposition of Alexander/Athena tetradrachms (Type III) in Syria and Phoenicia. The patterns of coin production in the region suggest that transformation of the currency 356. Davesne (Davesne and Le Rider, 1989), pp. 272–273; Mørkholm (1991), p. 101; Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), pp. 61–62; Cavagna (2010), p. 90 nn.29, 31. 357. Kannaviou, 1936 (IGCH 1468), closure c. 310; Paphos, 1945 (IGCH 1469), closure c. 310; Aghios Ioannis, 1949 (IGCH 1470), closure c. 305; Kato Paphos, 1965 (IGCH 1471), closure c. 305; Larnaca, 1870 (IGCH 1472), closure c. 300. 358. Ora, c. 20 km N of ancient Amathus, 1947 (IGCH 1473), closure c. 210. 359. See IGCH 1517–1521, all with closure c. 300, and IGCH 1584–1589. A partial exception is the Hebron area hoard of 1999 (CH IX, 484), which contained one Ptolemaic stater of 25 obols together with Yehud coinage. There is no break in the hoards of Yehud coins. 360. Hebron area, 1999 (CH IX, 484); Hüseyinli, 1986 (CH IX, 489), with commentary on the date in the appendix of precious metal hoards.

42

Ptolemy I Soter

proceeded without much urgency. For the first few years the only locally produced coins were the silver minimae of Jerusalem, briefly supplemented by the isolated tetradrachm issues of Tyre and Sidon in 294. This certainly raises questions about the assumption that provincial mints were sited with an eye to their ability to “capture” foreign coinage. Under these circumstances, Ptolemaic troops and officials in the province must have been paid directly from Alexandria, and this is confirmed by the ample representation of Egyptian coinage of Ptolemy I and II in Syro-Phoenician hoards and archaeological sites. Sidon and Tyre struck their first major issues of coinage c. 274 in connection with the First Syrian War (c. 274–271), representing a local contribution to the war finances.361 Probably before the Ptolemaic retreat from Seleucid Syria in 274 or 273, the two Phoenician mints each produced an enormous issue that must reflect a final recall and recoining of Attic-weight currency.362 Practical operations in an evolving currency system The parallel production of two different types of Attic-weight tetradrachms from c. 319 to c. 315 and the continuing circulation of three types until c. 306 was probably intended to serve different markets. The familiar Alexander coinage (Type I) was suitable for foreign transactions, whereas the Alexander/Zeus and Alexander/Athena tetradrachms (Types II and IIIa) were both epichoric coinages, that is, local currencies that could not easily circulate outside of Egypt.363 Similar systems of parallel coinages also existed in Babylonia, where double darics and lion staters were issued for use by the native population alongside the regular Alexandrine coinage, and in the Macedonian kingdom, which revived gold and silver coinage in the name of Philip II to pay Thracian and northern mercenaries while continuing the production of Alexanders for exchange with the Greek oikoumene.364 What distinguishes Ptolemy’s strategy is his use of mere typological innovation to discourage the external circulation of these tetradrachms, whereas the Babylonian and Macedonian examples involved the use of indigenous (and lower) weight standards. Apparently Ptolemy’s goal was not merely to keep his silver at home, but also to create a visually distinct coinage that would be recognizably his own, following the model of Philip II and Alexander III, even if the coinage did not bear his name. The use of the Alexander/Athena types for small coin issues on Cyprus, in Phoenicia and Palestine, and in the Peloponnese can be linked to military pay and is unlikely to represent an early attempt to incorporate these regions into a separate monetary zone centered on Egypt. The weight reduction of c. 306 created a more formidable obstacle to the export of tetradrachms, even as it allowed Ptolemy to increase the value of his currency in circulation without acquiring additional silver. The reform appears stealthy because of the retention of the existing tetradrachm types. It is clear that the public reacted. The Egypt, 1894 and Commerce, early 1986 hoards closed with the last issue of Attic-weight tetradrachms (Type IIIa), while Abu Hommos (IGCH 1667) and Phacous (IGCH 1678), Jar A, each included 361. Lorber (2012c); cf. Davesne (Davesne and Le Rider 1989), p. 267. 362. The date proposed by Lorber (2012c), p. 41, should be reconsided in light of commentary on the Hüseyinli hoard, see n.361 above. 363. Le Rider (1998a), pp. 784–785; Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), pp. 132–133. On epichoric coinages and exchange more generally, see Le Rider (1986), pp. 39–40; id. (1989), pp. 159–167. 364. Le Rider (1998a), p. 789; Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), p. 133.

Introduction

43

only a small sample of the earliest reduced tetradrachms (Type IIIb), suggesting that the hoarders were initially deceived but soon learned to reject the underweight coins.365 The relation of the reduced tetradrachm of 15.70 g (Type IIIb) to the Attic-weight gold stater is a topos of Ptolemaic numismatics.366 It was first perceived as a problem of international exchange but was later recognized to have implications for internal exchange as well, once G. K. Jenkins established that there was a significant lapse of time between the weight reduction and the introduction of the Ptolemaic gold stater. In the currency system developed by Alexander, employed in Egypt until the reduction of the tetradrachm and still maintained by the other Successors, the gold stater exchanged for five silver tetradrachms and their respective weights of 8.60 g and 17.20 g imply a gold : silver ratio of 10 : 1. An exchange of five of Ptolemy’s reduced tetradrachms, totaling 78.50 g of silver, for an Attic-weight gold stater of 8.60 g would imply that the value of gold had fallen to 9.3 : 1 against silver. This is contrary to the general trend of the Ptolemaic currency system in the third century, when gold repeatedly rose in value against silver. The anomaly led T. Reinach and E. S. G. Robinson to speculate that in Egypt the Atticweight gold stater exchanged for six reduced tetradrachms of 15.70 g, totaling 94.2 g, in which case the relative value of gold would have risen to 11 : 1, identical to the ratio that eventually obtained between the reduced tetradrachm and the Ptolemaic gold stater of 7.13 g.367 This radical proposal met with skepticism from other numismatists. B. Emmons supposed that such a departure from established practice could cause popular confusion or even panic.368 Emphasizing that silver was the standard of value, G. Le Rider suggested that Ptolemy was temporarily preoccupied with his silver coinage and deferred making a decision about gold.369 This solution is unsatisfying, for the question of the exchange rate must surely have arisen in actual transactions. J. Olivier endorsed the notion that the Attic-weight gold stater exchanged for six reduced tetradrachms, implying that the stater was valued at 24 rather than 20 silver drachms, and he went on to demonstrate that this concept could apply to other transitions in the Ptolemaic currency system.370 It is assumed that the reduced Alexander/Athena tetradrachm (Type IIIb–c) was legally equivalent to the Attic-weight tetradrachm, not only in exchange upon entering Egypt but also in internal transactions.371 This equivalence implies an overvaluation of the reduced tetradrachm by c. 8.5%. The hypothesis of equivalence is supported first of all by the identical types of Type IIIa and IIIb tetradrachms, which can be distinguished visually only by stylistic nuances. It is further supported by the behavior of hoarders, cited above, some of whom added a few Type IIIb tetradrachms to their savings before they learned to recognize the lighter coins and rejected them in favor of Attic-weight tetradrachms.372 The hypothesis of equivalence may also be supported by an edict of the 365. Lorber (2012d), p. 39; the Commerce 1986 hoard is published on pp. 43‒45. 366. Reinach (1928), p. 132; Robinson (1941); Emmons (1954), pp. 81–82; Jenkins (1960), p. 37; id. (1967), p. 61; Le Rider (1998a), p. 786; Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), p. 137. 367. Reinach (1928), p. 132; Robinson (1941). 368. Emmons (1954), p. 82. 369. Le Rider (1986), p. 45; id. (1998a), p. 786; Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), p. 137. Cavagna (2008b), pp. 581–582, referred to a progressive systematization that need not have involved well-defined stages. 370. Olivier (2006), p. 103. 371. Jenkins (1960), p. 37; id. (1967), p. 61; Le Rider (1998a), p. 790; Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), pp. 134–135, 143. 372. Jenkins (1960), pp. 36–37, noted that the Phacous hoarder excluded the reduced tetradrachms from his savings but questioned whether his behavior could be attributed to the workings of Gresham’s law. Von Reden (2007), pp. 43–

44

Ptolemy I Soter

year 304 which imposes a fine of ʾΑλεξαν[δρείας (δραχμάς) χ] for the sale of temples or sacred precincts.373 This official document, issued at a time when different currencies were apparently in circulation, defines the currency by its portrait type and/or legend, without distinguishing between old and new coinage. What is even more noteworthy is that this document specifies a coinage to be paid to the government, seemingly contradicting our impression that the Ptolemaic state unfailingly managed the currency to its own advantage and to the disadvantage of its subjects and trading partners. Egyptian hoards indicate that coinage of Attic weight ceased to enter the country c. 305, around the time of the reduction of the Egyptian tetradrachm. Evidently Ptolemy enacted an official ban on the importation of foreign currency, thus separating Egypt monetarily from the rest of Alexander’s former empire and creating a closed circulation area in which his coinage would eventually enjoy a monopoly.374 This policy was not a complete novelty, but rather adapted a known practice of Greek cities.375 Assuming that visitors were required to exchange their foreign currency for epichoric coinage at the limited points of entry into Egypt, the regime would have profited by slightly more than 2 obols on the exchange of Attic for reduced (Type IIIb‒c) tetradrachms. In addition, the closing of the currency market opened up possibilities for future manipulation of the currency to achieve various policy goals.376 The introduction of Ptolemy’s gold stater a few years later created further opportunities for profit. At the points of entry into Egypt, the exchange of Attic for epichoric gold staters weighing 7.13 g would have yielded a profit to the state of 6.7%. Internally, the weight of the Ptolemaic gold stater created a gold : silver ratio of 11 : 1 vis-à-vis the reduced tetradrachms of 15.70 g (Type IIIb–c), an increase in the value of gold as compared with 10 : 1 ratio current in the rest of the Hellenistic world.377 To ensure acceptance of these underweight gold coins, it must have been necessary to recall any remaining Attic-weight staters from circulation. Although we lack direct evidence for such practices by Ptolemy I,

48, argued that it was in fact the operation of Gresham’s law that compelled the eventual demonetization of Attic-weight currency. This proposition is not implausible in the framework of the high chronology proposed by Jenkins, but it is less persuasive with the low chronology adopted here. Elsewhere (pp. 38–39) von Reden adopted a different perspective and emphasized a growing confidence in Ptolemy’s coin types as a guarantee of value. Cf. Cavagna (2010), p. 99, suggesting that Gresham’s law could have compelled the retirement of the trichryson some time after introduction of the mnaieion. 373. Rigsby (1988), who concluded that the edict refers to Alexander tetradrachms and shows that they were still legal tender in 304. 374. Zervos (1976), p. 56; 1978, pp. 53–54, suggested that the ban on foreign silver was synchronized with the reintroduction of gold coinage, but dated both c. 305. Jenkins (1967), p. 59, dated the ban c. 300 on the basis of hoard evidence, but according to his chronology the ban coincided with Ptolemy’s final currency reform; this is also the position of Le Rider (1986), pp. 43, 46–48; (1998a), p. 788, and Callataÿ (2005b), p. 118; see also Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), pp. 101–103, 135. In contrast, von Reden (2007), p. 43, attributed the disappearance of Attic-weight coinage to the working of Gresham’s law. 375. Le Rider (1986), pp. 39–40; id. (1998a), p. 789; Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), pp. 108–111, 112–114. For other examples of closed monetary systems, see Callataÿ (2005b), p. 118. 376. Jenkins (1967), pp. 58–60; Le Rider (1998a), pp. 784–792; Picard (2003), pp. 26–34; Callataÿ (2005b), pp. 117– 125; Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), pp. 112–114, 131–166. 377. Jenkins (1967), p. 61.

Introduction

45

they are attested under the reign of his successor by the famous papyrus P. Cair. Zen. I, 59021.378 After Ptolemy’s final currency reform in 294, the new standard tetradrachm of 14.26 g (Type IV) conformed to the weight standard of the old gold stater of 7.13 g. At the normal equivalence of one gold stater for 20 silver drachms, these two denominations would have exchanged at a ratio of 10 : 1, implying a decline in the value of gold from the preceding ratio of 11 : 1. But this same currency reform introduced the trichryson (triple stater) to supersede the gold stater. As implied by Svoronos’ term pentadrachm, the trichryson, at 17.85 g, fell short of the expected weight of a triple stater (21.36 g) by one full drachm, or 16.667%.379 But the name trichryson implies that the new gold piece was equivalent to 60 silver drachms or 15 tetradrachms, reflecting another increase in the value of gold, which now exchanged for silver at a theoretical ratio of approximately 12 : 1 within the reformed currency system.380 (These exchange rates are qualified as theoretical because the existence of the heavy tetradrachm of 25 obols suggests the imposition of allage on gold : silver exchanges and implies an actual ratio of about 12.5 : 1 in exchange against the trichryson.) As for the old gold stater of 7.13 g, J. Olivier suggested that it was once again retariffed at 24 silver drachms instead of 20, so that it exchanged for six tetradrachms of 14.26 g, i.e., for 85.56 g of silver, yielding a gold : silver ratio of 12 : 1, exactly as for the trichryson.381 With allage the gold stater might have exchanged for 25 drachms, which could only be paid using six of the heavy tetradrachms of 25 obols. The rather puzzling existence of the gold tetarte may also be related to the survival of the gold stater: two Ptolemaic gold staters plus two tetartai would match the weight of the trichryson, allowing for exchange against 15 tetradrachms at the current ratio of 12 : 1 or 12.5 : 1. Table II. Gold : silver exchange possibilities after the currency reform of 294. Gold denomination Trichryson 17.85 g Stater 7.13 g

Silver equivalent

Standard tetradrachms

Ratio

4% allage

60 dr. = 360 ob. 15 tetradr. = 360 ob. 213.90 g 213.90 g

12 : 1

8.56 g Total 222.46 g

15 tetradr. = 375 ob. 12.5 : 1 223.50 g

24 dr. = 144 ob. 85.56 g

12 : 1

3.82 g Total 89.38 g

6 tetradr. = 150 ob. 89.40 g

6 tetradr. = 144 ob. 85.56 g

Heavy tetradrachms

Ratio

12.5 :1

Despite our expectation that introduction of the new currency system entailed a recall of the older coinage, several hoards indicate that reduced Alexander/Athena tetradrachms of Type IIIb–c were still available.382 The trichryson would have exchanged for 15 of the 378. Callataÿ (2005b), p. 118; Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), pp. 142–143. According to the interpretation of Cavagna (2010), pp. 98–100, the nearly contemporary P. Cair. Zen. 59022 reveals another measure that could be used during a time of monetary transition, the imposition of a disadvantageous allage on the coinage that was being retired. 379. Le Rider (1998a), p. 787. The shortfall between the trichryson and three Attic staters was even greater, 31%, see Le Rider (1998a), p. 790. 380. Jenkins (1967), p. 62; Le Rider (1986), p. 41; id. (1998a), p. 787; id. (1998b), p. 404. The ratio of the trichryson against Attic-weight silver is even higher, 1 : 14.3, see Le Rider (1986), p. 46. Von Reden (2007), p. 42, noted that other Hellenistic monarchs stopped coining gold while the Ptolemies reduced the theoretical weight of the stater with each successive new denomination and she suggested that the motive was to increase output because of “an apparently extravagant demand for coined money” and the importance of gold in the Egyptian and Ptolemaic reward system. 381. Olivier (2006), pp. 103–104. 382. Phacous, 1956 (IGCH 1678); Toukh el Garmous, 1905 (IGCH 1679); Delta, 1956 (IGCH 1684). On the other hand, neither Attic-weight nor Ptolemaic gold staters are represented in known Egyptian hoards.

46

Ptolemy I Soter

old tetradrachms of 15.70 g, at a ratio of 13.2 : 1. Such a disadvantageous rate would probably have discouraged the use of the old tetradrachms to purchase gold. The situation at the points of entry offered fewer possibilities. Under the requirement that foreign visitors change their money for Ptolemaic currency upon entering the country, the regime would gain 17% on the exchange of an Attic-weight tetradrachm for a Ptolemaic tetradrachm of 14.26 g (Type IV), and 31% on the exchange of three Attic-weight gold staters for a Ptolemaic trichryson.383 These profits far exceeded those of the preceding period, when the overvaluation of the reduced Alexander/ Athena tetradrachm (Type IIIb–c) and of the Ptolemaic gold stater, by 8.5% and 6.7% respectively, was not far out of line with the exchange commission of c. 6% that obtained in Greece in the mid-fourth century.384 The success of the Ptolemaic closed currency system probably depended on maintaining the prices of grain and other export products at levels that would allow foreign merchants to make a profit despite the disadvantageous exchange rates.385 Numismatic Iconography386 The earliest subsidiary symbol to appear on the Alexandrine coinage of Egypt was the head of a ram wearing an Egyptian crown composed of a solar disk, corkscrew ram’s horns, and two vertical feathers (Fig. 1.1b). This is usually described in numismatic literature as the head of Khnum, the creator god of Elephantine and Esna, but recent scholarship has seen it from a different perspective. For M. Weber, the crowned ram’s head represents the originally Libyan oracular god Ammon of Siwah. This god was hellenized as Zeus-Ammon but was also compared with the Egyptian Amun-Ra of Thebes, who was worshipped at Siwah in a separate temple under the title “Amun of Siwah, Lord of Oracle Giving.”387 The juxtaposition of the crowned ram’s head of Ammon/Amun with the Greek Zeus evokes Zeus-Ammon and recalls that his priests greeted the visiting Alexander as “son of Ammon.” Their recognition of Alexander’s divine descent echoed Egyptian ideology concerning the divine parentage of pharaohs and was expressed explicitly in Alexander’s Egyptian throne name, stp n Ra mrj Jmn (chosen by Ra, beloved of Amun). It was also in harmony with the Argead claim of descent from Heracles, a son of Zeus.388 K. Sheedy and B. Ockinga identified the crowned ram’s head as an image of Amun-Ra, the source of Egyptian kingship and the god who, in his hellenized form as Zeus-Ammon, conferred the kingship on Alexander at Siwah oasis.389 In their view, the symbol was 383. Le Rider (1998a), p. 790; Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), pp. 143–144. 384. Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), p. 117. 385. For Le Rider (1986, pp. 47–48; 1998a, pp. 790–792) the fundamental motive for the system was that it allowed the administration to control against price inflation by limiting the currency supply. See also Cadell and Le Rider (1997), pp. 59–64; Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), pp. 146–148. For earlier views on royal control of the price of grain, see Préaux (1939), pp. 139–142 (the king influenced prices by virtue of his huge presence in the market and established a guaranteed minimum price); Rostovtzeff (1941), pp. 315–316 (prices were probably fixed by the government in the case of requisitions). 386. For an aesthetic evaluation of Ptolemy’s coinage, see Brown (1984). She placed the style of the coins in the orbit of major sculptors—Scopas, Praxiteles—as well as under the more general rubrics of neo-classicism and neo-archaism. 387. On the relation of Amun of Thebes, Ammon of Siwah, and Zeus of Dodona and their role in legitimating Alexander, see also Caneva (2011). 388. Weber (2008), pp. 243–245. Weber also noted that Ammon of Siwah assimilated other Egyptian ram gods as Amun/Khnum and Amun-Herishef, but these gods had no particular connection with Alexander. 389. Sheedy and Ockinga (2015).

Introduction

47

Figure 1.1. Type I tetradrachm with symbol of Amun-Ra. Enlarged.

chosen very deliberately by Ptolemy and his advisors to communicate to the Egyptians a respect for their traditions and to express the legitimacy of the Macedonian dynasty by associating a recognizable depiction of Amun-Ra with Zeus, the Greek god of kingship. The ram’s head also recalled Alexander’s service to Amun-Ra through temple renovations carried out in his name at Luxor and Karnak and it anticipated further restorations at Karnak in the name of Philip.390 Apart from this one evocative symbol, the coinage of Hellenistic Egypt is purely Greek in style and execution. Still, the early allusion to Amun-Ra is a hint that Ptolemy’s imagery should be interpreted from both Greek and Egyptian perspectives. He was unique among his contemporaries in devising more or less elaborate images combining the attributes of different gods, a practice without precedents in Greek art but anticipated in pharaonic traditions of royal portraiture.391 His heavy emphasis on iconic portraits of Alexander appealed to Macedonian pride, but was also consistent with both Greek and Egyptian ideas about funerary cult and legitimate succession.392 His principal coin types included two motifs, the ram’s horn and snakes, that were significant in both cultures. The various congruencies lead to the conclusion that Ptolemy’s coin imagery was designed with subtlety to support Egyptian as well as Greek interpretations, in both cases centering on the theme of his succession from Alexander as ruler of Egypt. Arguably this ambivalent iconography was targeted particularly at Macedonian and Greek immigrants. But Egyptian response was also critical because Ptolemy relied on the support of the Egyptian elite, which was already partially hellenized, thus able to appreciate the coin types, and accustomed to the use of coinage.393 The appearance of Alexander’s portrait on Egyptian tetradrachms soon after his corpse was interred at Memphis establishes a semantic link between the coin type and 390. See nn. 157–163 above. 391. Grimm (1978), pp. 103, 108; Stewart (1993), p. 233. 392. On Egyptian strategies of legitimation, see Goyon (1972); Wildung (1973); Bell (1985); Bonhême and Forgeau (1988); Gundlach (1997); Schneider (1998); Myśliwiec (2004), pp. 81–104; Sourouzian (2005). On the legitimation of Alexander the Great: Grimm (1978); Abd el-Raziq (1984); Menu (1999); Schäfer (2007), pp. 54–74. On Ptolemy’s concern with legitimation: Swinnen (1973); Hölbl (1997); Manning (2010), pp. 29–36, 73–116. 393. Swinnen (1973); Baines (2004); Manning (2010), especially Ch. 4; Colin (2009), p. 59. Colburn (forthcoming) makes the case that in the fourth century, before Ptolemy’s satrapy, Egyptian temples were the principal users of silver coinage and minted most or all of the anonymous Egyptian imitations of Athenian owls.

48

Ptolemy I Soter

Figure 1.2. Type II tetradrachm with image of deified Alexander. Enlarged.

Ptolemy’s care for his mortal remains.394 Alexander’s presence on the obverse of the coins—a position traditionally reserved for a god395—announced his apotheosis years before Ptolemy founded his official cult. His panoply of divine attributes suggests the nature of his divinity (Fig. 1.2). These include the elephant headdress, whose lower part is articulated as an aegis tied around the neck, and a curling ram’s horn growing from his temple. According to conventional interpretation, the elephant headdress is a symbol of Alexander’s conquest of India, an association later reinforced by the addition of the mitra (headband) of Dionysus, the mythical first conqueror of India, or at least of the Orient.396 Indeed, some scholars have held that the elephant headdress itself is a Dionysian attribute and that the coin type depicts the apotheosis of Alexander as Dionysus.397 The ram’s horn is the horn of Ammon, recalling Alexander’s visit to the oracle of Zeus-Ammon at Siwah, where he was first recognized as a son of the god, and where his conquest of the world was predicted.398 The aegis is usually described as a sign of Zeus’ protection for his son.399 All of these interpretations require elaboration. At the time of its introduction, the elephant headdress had to be perceived as a counterpart of the lion headdress of Heracles, whose image was widely disseminated on Alexander’s tetradrachms. The parallel implies that the elephant headdress too is a crown of indomitable courage, victory, and power, an emblem of world dominion and/ or earned divinity.400 The juxtaposition of the two heroes represented Alexander as the 394. The coin type is related to the events of 321 (and sometimes also to the cult of Alexander) by Zervos (1974), pp. 383–384; Mørkholm (1991), pp. 63–64; von Reden (2007), pp. 34–35; Cavagna (2010), p. 84. 395. Kroll (2007), pp. 113–114. 396. Schreiber (1903), p. 168; Kuschel (1961), pp. 15–16; Brown (1984), pp. 408–409; Maritz (2004), p. 41. Dionysus’ conquest of Asia as far as Bactria is attested by Eur. Bacch. ll. 13–25. Scholars who rely on literary sources deny an early identification of Alexander with Dionysus, e.g., Nock (1928), pp. 21–30. Goukowsky (1981) argued influentially that Alexander did not identify himself with Dionysus during his eastern campaign, and that the association was promoted by Ptolemy but only achieved widespread recognition after the Grand Procession of Ptolemy II, which he dated c. 270. On the mitra of Dionysus as a possible source of the royal diadem, see Meyer (2012), with earlier literature. 397. Neuffer (1929), pp. 45–46, followed by L’Orange (1947), p. 28, and a few others. 398. Strab. 17.813–814 (= FGrHist 124 F 14); Bosworth (1977); Kienast (1987), who argued that Alexander advertised the paternity of Zeus but regarded Ammon as an oracular god rather than as a divine father. Ephippus, FGrHist 126 F5 reports that during his lifetime Alexander occasionally donned the horns of Ammon, as well as attributes of other deities and heroes including Artemis, Hermes, and Heracles (Zeus is notably absent from the passage). 399. Grimm (1978), p. 103; Stewart (1993), p. 233. 400. Hadley (1964), pp. 15–18; Zervos (1974), pp. 388–392; Brown (1984), pp. 407–408; Stewart (1993), pp. 235–236; Bosworth (2007), pp. 19‒20. Zervos (1974), pp. 389‒390, and Brown (1980), pp. 410‒11, both drew attention to the

Introduction

49

true heir of Heracles or even a new Heracles, conqueror of the Orient.401 For B. Bosworth the juxtaposition compared the two heroes as founders, Heracles of the Argead line in Macedonia and Alexander of a new world empire, while Ptolemy’s use of Alexander’s image expressed an early claim to his empire.402 B. Kuschel and A. Stewart rejected the association of the elephant headdress with Dionysus or with Alexander’s Indian expedition on the grounds that the testimonia are all later than the reign of Ptolemy I.403 In addition, Stewart raised the objection that Ptolemy had no interest in the Far East, which was rather a concern of Seleucus.404 But P. Schneider argued that even before Alexander’s campaign the writings of Ctesias presented elephants as symbols of the power and invincibility of India.405 Alexander manipulated this symbolism to his own advantage: in his harangues to his troops he emphasized his unique ability to defeat elephants, and he added an agema of elephants to the thousand Macedonians and ten thousand Persians who guarded his royal tent.406 Thus Alexander himself used elephants to express his own invincibility and to symbolize his conquest of the Orient. The association of elephants with Alexander was more widely advertised by the depiction of war elephants on his funeral car.407 Their association with Dionysus is less overwhelmingly attested, but the mythic conqueror of India was also the patron god of war elephants in Hellenistic armies.408 The elephant of Alexander’s headdress is clearly a war elephant, represented with its trunk raised in the act of trumpeting, evoking the fury of battle. Apart from their military role, elephants were emblematic of kingship in Indian society, so that the gifts of elephants to Alexander from Indian rulers essentially recognized his royal status.409 Alexander’s elephant headdress symbolically integrates all of these themes: his kingship, his indomitable courage, his invincibility, his conquest of the India, and his replication of the triumphs of Dionysus and Heracles.410 Elephants were also associated with the conquest of Asia by Egyptian pharaohs of Dynasty XVIII. After inflicting a defeat on Naharin (the kingdom of Mitanni), Thutmose I hunted Syrian wild elephants at Niya in the Orontes Valley.411 His exploit was commemorated in a now-fragmentary inscription in the middle colonnade of the identical features of Heracles and Alexander on the parallel Egyptian issues, an indication that the purpose of Alexander’s image was heroization rather than individual portraiture. 401. Goukowsky (1978), pp. 206‒207; Stewart (1993), p. 236; Schneider (2009), p. 321 (quoting Goukowsky). 402. Bosworth (2007), p. 20. 403. Kuschel (1961), p. 16; Stewart (1993), pp. 234–235. 404. Stewart (1993), p. 234. 405. Schneider (2009), pp. 310‒313. 406. Schneider (2009), pp. 314‒315. 407. Diod. 18.27.1; noted by Zervos (1974), p. 386. 408. Iossif and Lorber (2010); Epplett (2007), pp. 218–219, 223. The earliest attestation for Dionysus as the patron of elephants is a Seleucid bronze coin datable c. 300–281, but there is no reason to assume that this association developed only in the third century. 409. Epplett (2007), p. 216; Bosworth (2007), p. 18; Iossif and Lorber (2009). 410. An interpretation to be rejected is that the elephant headdress symbolized Ptolemy’s defeat of Perdiccas and his personal disabling of Perdiccas’ lead elephant, as proposed by Kuschel (1961), p. 17. See also Bosworth (2007), pp. 20–22, where it is claimed that Ptolemy used elephants as a symbol of his own ability to defeat them. If that were the intended significance, we should expect to see Ptolemy wearing the elephant headdress, not Alexander. 411. Redford (1992), p. 154; Wilkinson (2010), pp. 207–208. Redford (2003), p. 108 n.24, suggested that Niya was the site of the future Seleucid foundation Apamea on the Orontes, where the Seleucids maintained their war elephants. The native Syrian elephant (Elephas maximus asurus) is also attested by skeletal remains, e.g., the skeleton found at Kahramanmaraş in Turkey.

50

Ptolemy I Soter

temple of his daughter Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahri.412 The pharaoh Thutmose III, the greatest conqueror in Egyptian history, claimed a mandate from the god Amun-Ra for his numerous campaigns in western Asia.413 At the end of his eighth campaign he crowned his victory over Mitanni by killing 120 wild elephants at Niya, a feat advertised on the stela he erected at Napata (Gebel Barkal) in Nubia, on the Armant stela, and in the autobiography (tomb inscription) of his general Amenemhab; while Syrian tribute bearers delivering an elephant are depicted in the decoration of the tomb of his vizier Rekhmira on the west bank of the Nile at Luxor.414 Alexander was associated with both Thutmose III and Amun-Ra in his shrine in the Akhmenu, the festival hall of Thutmose III in the temple complex of Amun-Ra at Karnak.415 This association situated Alexander’s Persian campaign in the tradition of the Asian campaigns of the New Kingdom pharaohs, implying that Alexander was fighting on behalf of Egypt and with the blessing of AmunRa.416 The mandate of Amun-Ra for Alexander’s Asian conquests is also a prominent theme of the Alexander shrine in the Opet temple at Luxor.417 The multiple records linking elephant hunts with the Thutmosid victories in Syria and Mesopotamia make it likely that the memory survived into the Late Period, especially since the events of the campaigns of Thutmose III were recorded daily on leather rolls which were deposited in the temple of Amun-Ra at Karnak.418 It is also striking that the barque shrine at Karnak renovated in the name of Philip III was located within the walls where Thutmose III inscribed the annals of his campaigns.419 These considerations argue that for the educated Egyptian the elephant headdress of Alexander’s coin portrait could have symbolized his succession 412. Breasted (1906), p. 51, no. 125 (where the inscription is attributed to Thutmose II and the elephants are interpreted as tribute from vassal kings). For the association of this text with Thutmose I, see Gardiner (1947), Vol. 1, p. 158*; id. (1964), p. 179. 413. Redford (2003), p. 103, no. 2, pp. 107–113, nos. 8–14 (from the Gebel Barkal stela); Hart (2005), pp. 17–18 (citing a stela in Cairo). 414. Breasted (1906), p. 233, no. 588 (elephant hunt as recounted by Amenenhab), pp. 294–295, nos. 760–761 (texts from tomb of Rekhmira). Redford (2003), pp. 108 (elephant hunt as recounted by Gebel Barkal stela), 155 (elephant hunt cited on Armant stela), 169 (elephant hunt as recounted by Amenenhab). For full translation of the Napata (Gebel Barkal) stela, see Redford (2003), pp. 103–119; Cummings (1982), pp. 1–7, or www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/ napata_stela.htm. For full translation of the Armant stela and commentary, see Redford (2003), pp. 153–159. For an illustration of the Syrian elephant in the tomb of Rekhmira, see http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2011/01/ ancient_egyptian_pygmy_mammoth.php (where the pachyderm is misidentified). 415. Schäfer (2007), pp. 60–63. 416. Schäfer (2007), pp. 68–69. Alexander’s other Egyptian shrine in the Barque Shrine of Amenhotep III in Luxor temple associated him with a pharaoh who maintained an extensive Asian empire. 417. Abd el-Raziq (1984), pp. 11 (E193, pl. 4a) and 44–46 (E205, pl. 14a), both scenes where Ammon says: “I have granted you the Nine Bows People under your soles”; p. 33 (E153, pl. 9b, “I have granted you all foreigners under your soles”); p. 16 (E186, pl. 5a, “I have granted you victory over [all] foreigners”); p. 27 (E167, pl. 7c, “I have given you the strength of my scimitar”); p. 31 (E161, pl. 8c, “I have granted you all lands in dread before you”). See also the separating inscriptions on pp. 14, 18; and the prayers of the Nomes: p. 49 (First Upper Egyptian Nome, pl. 13b), p. 50 (Eighth Upper Egyptian Nome, pl. 13a), p. 52 (Second Lower Egyptian Nome, pl. 14b), p. 53 (Eighth Lower Egyptian Nome, pl. 15a). 418. Breasted (1906) pp. 163–164, with no. 392 (on the archives). Redford (2003), pp. 117–119 with n.39, suggested that the text of the Napata stela reflects an oration given by the king at a formal Hmst-nsw (royal seance) or xcy-nsw (royal appearance) at Thebes that was subsequently copied with editorial changes suitable to the different places where it would be inscribed. The Bakhtan stela provides further evidence that the Asian empire of New Kingdom Egypt was not forgotten in the Late Period. It is a work of the Persian or Ptolemaic period, found in a Ptolemaic shrine at Karnak, with an inscription describing the relations of Ramesses II with Bactria, see Lichtheim (1980), p. 90. 419. Breasted (1906), pp. 163 note a and pp. 164–166 with note a on archival records as the source of the inscription and on various extracts from it; pp. 201–205 on the eighth campaign, especially p. 203, no. 481 on the arrival at Niya and note d on the lacuna where the elephant hunt should have been mentioned.

Introduction

51

Figure 1.3. Type III tetradrachm depicting the deified Alexander and Athena Promachos. Enlarged.

from Thutmose III as a conqueror chosen by Amun-Ra and a great victor over the vile Asiatics, and—since both the Asiatics and wild animals were agents of chaos—preserver of Maat (the divine order).420 All of these were aspects of Alexander’s role as Horus-King recalling the first of his pharaonic titles, 1r mk Kmt (Horus who defends Egypt).421 The allusions to empire in western Asia would have been especially vivid because Ptolemy’s first occupation of Syria and Phoenicia in 320 was practically contemporary with his introduction of Alexander’s coin portrait. The oft-noted parallel with Heracles’ lion headdress on Alexander’s tetradrachms is also relevant here: the lion headdress was a hunting trophy, so the elephant headdress should also be a hunting trophy, but Alexander’s only connection with elephant hunting was through his association with Thutmose III. The curves of the elephant’s disproportionately small trunk perhaps deliberately recall an important Egyptian motif, the uraeus, protector of pharaoh, which typically appeared above the ruler’s forehead.422 The image of the elephant with its elevated trunk also conforms to later literary accounts of elephants raising their trunks in prayer to the rising sun before the battle of Raphia.423 This legend probably reflects older beliefs associating elephants with light and with the sun.424 For Egyptians the sun was Ra, divine father of the pharaoh and source of his kingship. If the elephant headdress indeed illustrates an act of prayer to Ra, it parallels the representations of pharaoh Alexander in his shrines at Luxor and Karnak, where he offers worship to Amun-Ra and Amun-Ra-Kamutef and receives the divine kingship as stp n Ra (chosen of Ra) and mrj Jmn (beloved of Amun).425 The mitra of Dionysus was not originally a part of Alexander’s iconography. It first appeared on the latest of the Alexander/Zeus tetradrachms and became truly conspicuous only when the portrait was redesigned c. 312 (Fig. 1.3).426 The first indisputable evidence for the identification of Alexander with Dionysus, the mitra can be counted as a second element symbolizing Alexander’s eastern campaign in fulfillment of Zeus-Ammon’s 420. Lorber (2012b). 421. Beckerath (1984), p. 117; Hölbl (1997), pp. 23‒24. 422. Koenen (1993), p. 45 n.50, made this observation about a statuette of Ptolemy II in an elephant headdress, but it seems applicable to the coin types as well. 423. Ael. De nat. animal. 7.44; Plut. Soll. Anim. 17.972. 424. Matz (1952), pp. 744–746. For Matz, these associations apply to Indian elephants only and African elephants should be associated with Alexander’s apotheosis as Ammon. 425. Abd el-Raziq (1984); Schäfer (2007), pp. 60–63. 426. Dahmen (2012), pp. 286‒287.

52

Ptolemy I Soter

prophecy of world conquest.427 Theocritus (Id. 17, ll. 18–19) later called Alexander Persaisi barus theos aiolomitras (god of the gleaming mitra, harsh to the Persians). The ideological importance of Alexander’s association with Dionysus and ZeusAmmon, symbolized by the juxtaposition of the mitra and the ram’s horn on Ptolemy’s tetradrachms and in other coin types that remained current into the reign of his son, inspired fantastic new myths that brought the two gods into relation with one another.428 Numerous mythographers of the Roman period named Dionysus as the founder of the oracle at Siwah: Dionysus, king of Egypt, became lost in the Libyan desert and nearly perished of thirst until a ram miraculously appeared and led him to a spring; in gratitude, Dionysus founded a sanctuary dedicated to the ram at the site of the spring and endowed the cult statue of Zeus-Ammon with ram’s horns in commemoration of his salvation.429 For authors writing in Egypt, it was natural to interpret Dionysus, the son of Zeus, as a son of Ammon.430 According to Diodorus, Dionysus was the son of Ammon, king of Libya, and founded the sanctuary at Siwah in honor of his father after his victory over the Titans.431 This seems to be a North-Africanized allusion to the myth of Dionysus-Zagreus, son of Zeus and Kore. The divine child was murdered and dismembered by the Titans. After blasting the Titans with a thunderbolt, Zeus used the heart of Zagreus to give birth to a new Dionysus, son of Semele.432 The myth of Dionysus’ dismemberment and rebirth, his role as god of the afterlife, and the importance of phallic symbolism in his cult inspired his identification with Osiris, Egyptian god of the underworld, who was worshipped by Egyptians but also by Greeks, especially in his Memphite aspect as Osorapis.433 Osiris was the father of Horus, of whom each successive king was the earthly incarnation; thus Osiris, like Amun, was considered the divine father of the king.434 On his death each king became Osiris. In this perspective, the mitra of Alexander’s coin portraits may render funerary honor to the dead king as Osiris-Alexander.435 The ram was the sacred animal of the Egyptian god Amun, who was often depicted as ram-headed, with a pair of splayed, horizontal horns, or with curling horns; the curling ram’s horn was the special attribute of his hellenized form Zeus-Ammon.436 There were important Egyptian precedents for the portrayal of Alexander with this divine attribute: the great New Kingdom pharaohs Amenhotep III and Ramesses II, both associated with Egyptian imperialism, were depicted in Upper Egyptian and Nubian temples with ram’s 427. Stewart (1993), pp. 236–238. Von Reden (2007, p. 37), who called it a tainia, pointed out that it was also a Greek symbol of victory. 428. Caneva (2011), pp. 208–209. 429. Hermippus, ap. Hyg. Astron. 2.20; Leclant and Clerc (1981), pp. 667–668. See also the various myths of Leon of Pella ap. Hyg. loc. cit., and Dionysius Scytobrachion. 430. Dionysius Scytobrachion; Nock (1928), pp. 27–29. 431. Diod. 3.68–74. 432. West (1983), p. 140–173; Linder (1997). 433. Dionysus was already identified with Osiris in the fifth century B.C., see Hdt. 2.29, 2.42, 2.49, 2.144, 2.156. On the early Greco-Egyptian character of the dromos of the Sarapieion at Memphis, see Hölbl (2001), p. 281. Grave stelae of foreigners resident in Memphis employed composite Greek and Egyptian imagery, probably as early as the fifth century B.C., see Colin (2009), pp. 56–57. 434. Bonhême and Forgeau (1988), pp. 63–74. 435. For a possible specific association of the diadem with Alexander’s corpse, see Haake (2012), pp. 298‒299. 436. Sheedy and Ockinga (2015); Leclant and Clerc (1981), p. 666, who noted that Zeus-Ammon was genuinely considered a Greek god. Picard (1998a), pp. 410–411, insisted on the purely Hellenic character of his iconography and cited the cult centers of Zeus-Ammon in Greece, especially the oracle at Aphytis in Macedonia. The period of greatest influence of the oracle at Aphytis probably followed Alexander’s pilgrimage to Siwah, see Caneva (2011), p 197.

Introduction

53

horns curling about their ears.437 The ram’s horn thus compared Alexander to some of the most brilliant of his predecessors and placed him “in a tradition of pharaonic representations…which expressed the ritual unification of the Egyptian king with the sun-god Amun-Re.”438 Little wonder, then, that the coin portrait has been interpreted as symbolizing the apotheosis of Alexander as Amun.439 Amun was the principal divine source of kingship: in his aspect as the ithyphallic Amun-Ra-Min (or Amun-Ra-Kamutef) he physically impregnated each pharaoh with the royal ka, the divine essence of kingship that linked the king with all of his predecessors and ultimately with the gods.440 The ram’s horn is a sign guaranteeing Alexander’s possession of the royal ka and a symbol of his legitimacy as Egyptian pharaoh. The shrines dedicated to Alexander in the temples of Amun at Luxor and Karnak, both implicated in the cult of the royal ka, further attest to the important association of pharaoh Alexander and Amun.441 We have already seen that for Greeks, the association of the horn of Ammon and the mitra of Dionysus could recall the legendary foundation of the oracle of Zeus-Ammon at Siwah and the myth of Dionysus’ dismemberment and resurrection. Similarly, Egyptians would have found nothing puzzling in the juxtaposition of attributes of Amun-Ra and Osiris. Both were considered divine fathers to the king, who occupied the throne of Horus. The two major myth cycles concerning the descent of Horus, one representing Haroeris (Horus the Elder) as the son of Ra, the other representing Harsiese (Horus, son of Isis) as the son of Osiris, were later coordinated at Edfu, and Horus was explicitly represented as the son of two fathers, Ra and Osiris.442 These two gods were closely associated in Egyptian cosmology. During his nightly journey below the earth, an enfeebled Ra merged his body with that of Osiris, a union that both resurrected the corpse of Osiris and rejuvenated Ra so that he could rise as the bright morning sun Harakhty, whose beams restored life to a dormant world and in effect recreated the cosmos.443 The nightly union of Ra and Osiris was one of the central mysteries of Egyptian religion and a model for resurrection and regeneration in all of its forms.444 It was the cultic duty of the Egyptian king to see to the performance of rituals that ensured the perpetuation of the cosmic cycles of renewal.445 After his death he participated personally in the cycle of solar regeneration, riding in the barque of Ra by day and at night returning to his royal crypt to unite with Osiris in the 437. Amenhotep III is depicted with ram’s horns in the Hall of Appearance at the temple at Luxor and in the Shrine of the Lord of Nubia in the temple of Amun-Ra and Amenhotop III at Soleb, Nubia. Ramesses II is depicted with ram’s horns in the Harper Sanctuary of his temple at Abydus and in a relief in the temple at Abu Simbel, where his human persona is shown worshipping his divine form under the name Ramesses-mery-Amun. See Török (2002), p. 43 n.35; te Velde (1982), p. 136; Schultz and Seidel (1998), pp. 177, fig. 59, and 211, fig. 121. 438. Hölbl (1991), p. 93. 439. Grimm (1978), who also included Zeus, Dionysus/Osiris, and Helios in the syncretism. 440. Bell (1985), pp. 256, 258–9; Bonhême and Forgeau (1988), p. 75. 441. Abd el-Raziq (1984); Schäfer (2007). The temple of Amun at Luxor was of a special type called a House of a Millon Years, dedicated to the cult of the royal ka, see Bell (1985), pp. 251–252; Ullmann (2002); Pfeiffer (2008b), pp. 24–28. The temple of Amun at Karnak was the starting point for the Opet festival, which processed to Luxor and back and which originally conferred the royal ka and thereafter renewed it annually by associating the king with his royal predecessors, see Bell (1997), pp. 158–176, 179–180; Schäfer (2007), pp. 66–67; Pfeiffer (2008b), pp. 24–25. 442. Cauville (1987), pp. 33, 35–6. 443. Quirke (2001), pp. 41–52. 444. Cauville (1987), pp. 69–71; Bonhême and Forgeau (1988), p. 74; Luft (1998), pp. 423, 425–426. 445. Quirke (2001), pp. 52–64. For an alternate interpretation, that the liturgical texts relating to the sun’s regeneration were to be used by the king after his death, see Haeny (1997), p. 104

54

Ptolemy I Soter

Figure 1.4. Series 2 bronze with image of deified Alexander. Enlarged.

form of his own mummy.446 Ptolemy’s bronze coins, showing Alexander with only two divine attributes, the horn of Ammon and the mitra of Dionysus, brought this cosmically important association to the foreground and so emphasized Alexander’s legitimacy as pharaoh of Egypt while also implying his immortality in Egyptian terms. On silver coinage the aegis is portrayed as a part of the elephant headdress, so that the two comprise a single attribute that must combine the significance of both elements. The change of the tetradrachm reverse type c. 311, from Zeus to Athena, seems to undermine the reading of the aegis as an emblem of Jovian protection. Arguably it places Alexander under the protection of Athena, but it may be more valid to emphasize another aspect: the aegis marks Alexander himself as a protective deity.447 The snakes of the aegis could evoke the protective associations of cobras and snakes generally in Egyptian as well as in Greek religion.448 Many dies show a pair of serpents rising from the knot under Alexander’s chin. These may recall the two serpents that, according to Ptolemy’s own history, led Alexander’s army to Siwah after the human guides lost their way in the desert.449 The representation of Alexander as a victorious king and a divinely protected protector implies his identification with Horus, the Egyptian god of kingship and the model of the savior king.450 As noted earlier, the first element of Alexander’s Egyptian titulature, his Horus name, was 1r mk Kmt (Horus who defends Egypt), and in another version it was 1r HoA onj tkn xAswt (Horus, valorous ruler who drives out the foreigners), borrowing a phrase from the titulature of Nectanebo II.451 The two snakes rising in a lyre shape from the knot below his chin recall a very common image from Egyptian art, the sun disk flanked by two uraei; this protective motif, called Behedeti, represents Horus in one of his solar aspects.452 Alexander’s image on the bronze coins was altered slightly after Ptolemy assumed the kingship. His original short coiffure was replaced by long, flowing locks borrowed 446. Arnold (1997), pp. 70–71. On the royal ka as a spark from the sun god that was reunited with Ra after the king’s death, see Bell (1997), p. 144. 447. Stewart (1993), p. 233, who noted that Alexander’s name literally meant “repeller of men” and thus had its own protective implications. Hadley (1964), pp. 6–29, also implicated the elephant headdress in the symbology of Alexander as the patron and protective god of Egypt. 448. The close relation between Egyptian kingship and cobras is reflected in the demotic version of the five-part royal titulature, whose second fixed element was Lord of Uraei (nb jarwt or nb nA jarwt), see Thissen (1966), p. 31; Simpson (1996), pp. 242–243 and 258–259. 449. Arr. 3.3.5–6. 450. Bonhême and Forgeau (1988), pp. 63–74. 451. Hölbl (1997), pp. 23–24; id. (2001), p. 79. 452. Serpents were also among the protectors of Horus depicted on the exterior walls of his temple at Edfu, see Goyon (1985), pp. 45–110, especially 79–91.

Introduction

55

Figure 1.5. Gold stater depicting Ptolemy and the deified Alexander in elephant chariot. Enlarged.

from the iconography of the young Dionysus, emphasizing Alexander’s assimilation to the god (Fig. 1.4). This portrait type also resembles one of the standard images of Apollo.453 The representation of Alexander as the youthful god par excellence reinforces his identification with Horus, the Egyptian counterpart of Apollo. Alexander is portrayed quite differently on the reverse of Ptolemy’s gold staters (Fig. 1.5). He stands, superhuman in scale, in a chariot drawn by elephants, dominating the massive beasts without the aid of mahouts. The elephants symbolize his kingship, his godlike power, and his conquest of India.454 In his right hand Alexander holds a thunderbolt, as on the so-called Porus decadrachms of c. 325 B.C. (Fig. 1.6, below) and in the painting by Apelles in the Artemision at Ephesus.455 The aegis is draped over his near shoulder, identifiable from its snaky fringe and further supporting his association with Zeus. Because of the scale of the type, neither the thunderbolt nor the snaky fringe of the aegis is conspicuous, and on many staters neither attribute can be recognized clearly. It follows that the primary intent of the image cannot have been to identify Alexander with Zeus. The reverse design as a whole represents a triumphal procession, recalling Alexander’s triumphal entry into Babylon after his Indian campaign, perhaps with overtones of the triumphal procession as a symbol for the Dionysian victory over death.456 The scene could also allude to Alexander’s victorious arrival in Egypt in 332, marking the foundation of the Macedonian dynasty, his return more than ten years later as an Osiris-Alexander, or even the transfer of his remains to the city that bore his name. Scholars have speculated that the coin type may reflect an actual historical procession held in Alexandria or a statue group standing in the city.457 Although this image circulated for only a few years on the gold staters, it was evidently quite important for Ptolemaic ideology, for it was recreated in one of the central tableaux of the Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus, when a colossal gold statue of Alexander appeared in a chariot drawn by live elephants, flanked by 453. Hölscher (1971), pp. 27–28; Smith (1988), p. 47 (on long hair as a sign of godlike status); Stewart (1993), p. 106; Fleischer (1996), 29. In fact, the understated horn of Ammon is easily misread as a lock of hair, so that this coin type has sometimes been described as a head of Apollo, see Brunelle (1976), p. 11; Kromann and Mørkholm (1977), nos. 479–481. 454. Bosworth (2007), p. 18. 455. On the decadrachm: Dürr (1974); Price (1982); Stewart (1993), pp. 201–206; Holt (2003). On the painting: Plin. NH 35.92; Plut. Mor. 335A; Alex. 4.1; Stewart (1993), pp. 191–201. 456. Curtius Rufus 5.1.23; Plin. NH 35.27, 35.93. On the significance of the Dionysiac procession, see Matz (1952). Both Pompey and Caesar represented themselves as New Alexanders and New Dionysoi by including elephants in their Roman triumphs, see Plin. HN 8.4; Dio 43.19–24; Hölbl (2001), pp. 289–290. Schollmeyer (2004) discussed Egyptian precedents for the depiction of triumphal processions; these precedents involved horses rather than elephants but may have influenced depictions in Alexandria. 457. Contemporary procession: Erskine (2002), p. 175. Monument: Goukowksy (1978), p. 132; Dahmen (2007), p. 12.

56

Ptolemy I Soter

Figure 1.6. Alexander the Great helmeted and armed, holding thunderbolt, on so-called Porus decadrachm. Enlarged.

figures of Athena and Nike.458 Tellingly, the legend of the gold stater is the first that does not name Alexander, but instead claims the coin and its type for Ptolemy the King. Ptolemy’s portrait was first introduced on the obverse of these same gold staters (Fig. 1.5, above). His diadem is worn below the hairline as if to conflate it with the mitra of Dionysus.459 This is early evidence for the assimilation of Ptolemy to Dionysus, which is clearly attested in other art objects.460 Ptolemy affirmed his attachment to Dionysus by dedicating golden ivy wreaths in the temples of Apollo and Artemis on Delos.461 Ptolemy and Alexander were both associated with Dionysus in the Grand Procession of Ptolemy II, when statues of the two divine monarchs appeared together in the procession of Dionysus, each crowned with a golden ivy wreath.462 They were accompanied by a personification of the city of Corinth, and their cart was followed by personifications of all the Greek cities that had been liberated from Persian rule. The presence of the cities in this display, intended for an international Greek audience, characterized Alexander and Ptolemy as savior kings and the theme of soteria can explain their association with the savior god Dionysus.463 The aegis of Ptolemy’s stater portraits has the same scaly texture and the same form as the aegis worn by Alexander on contemporary tetradrachms, so that it appears to have 458. Callixenus of Rhodes = Ath. 5.202a, FGrHist 627 F2. The correspondence between the stater type and Callixenus’ description has been noted by various scholars, including Stewart (1993), p. 260; Erskine (2002), p. 175; Bosworth (2007), pp. 17–18; von Reden (2007), p. 39; and Dahmen (2007), p. 12. 459. Svenson (1995), p. 30; Lorber (2012a), p. 213; Meyer (2012), p. 220; Salzmann (2012), p. 339 with n.9. 460. Other representations of Ptolemy I wearing the mitra of Dionysus include two ancient plaster casts from Memphis, now in Hildesheim, one of a medallion (Kyrieleis, 1975, p. 8, n. 23; Svenson, 1995, p. 277, no. 262, with additional bibliography), the other of a metal relief (Kyrieleis, 1975, pl. 7, 3; Grimm, 1978, p. 109, fig. 85; Svenson, 1995, p. 277, no. 263, with additional bibliography). Ptolemy is also portrayed as Dionysus, crowned with vine leaves, in a bust from the former Dattari collection, now in Baltimore (Segall, 1946; Tondriau, 1950a, p. 283; 1952, p. 457; Kyrieleis, 1975, pl. 7, 1–2; Grimm, 1978, p. 109, fig. 86; Svenson, 1995, p. 295, no. 307, with additional bibliography). 461. IG 161; I. Delos 313; Bruneau (1970), pp. 517–518, II and V. Only the first of these dedications is explicitly attributed to Ptolemy I; the second could conceivably be an offering by Ptolemy II. 462. Callixenus of Rhodes = Ath. 4.210d, FGrHist 627 F2. 463. Marquaille (2008), pp. 56–58.

Introduction

57

Figure 1.7. Type IV tetradrachm of Ptolemy I. Enlarged.

been transferred directly from the deified Alexander to his protégé in token of a legitimate succession.464 The pairing of attributes of Dionysus and Zeus in Ptolemy’s portrait heightens his aura as a protector and savior and at the same time recalls his claim of descent from Dionysus, son of Zeus. If the attributes are interpreted as alluding to Osiris and Horus, as in Alexander’s portrait, their pairing presents Ptolemy as a king in harmony with Egyptian royal ideology. For it was not only deceased kings who were identified with Osiris, but also living kings, who had both a Horian and an Osirian aspect, the former representing the heritage of the creative demiurge, the latter the promise of eternity.465 It is somewhat incongruous to find divine attributes with deep religious significance adorning the visage of an unattractive man well past his prime (Fig. 1.7). Ptolemy was famous for his lack of pretension, and this aspect of his character may account for the contrast between the idealized images of Alexander on his coinage and a naturalistic portrait style for Ptolemy himself. R. Fleischer, however, has argued that Ptolemy’s portrait is also an artifice, with exaggerated features shared by other Diadochic portraits.466 This distinctive style, influenced by representations of Heracles, was intended to legitimize the middleaged heirs of Alexander by projecting their energy, physical strength, and leadership qualities. Ptolemy’s final reform of the currency in 294 established a consistent reverse theme for his coinage in all metals, an eagle perched on a thunderbolt (Figs. 1.7, 1.8, below). The eagle was a link to the royal Macedonian coinage, having served as the reverse type of silver fractions of Archelaus and Amyntas III and, with the addition of the thunderbolt, as the reverse type of silver and bronze coins struck in Macedon during Alexander’s lifetime. The eagle on thunderbolt was introduced to Ptolemy’s coinage c. 312, shortly after he transferred his residence to Alexandria and in connection with the associated currency reform. On his silver coinage it was a subsidiary symbol, making its first appearance on the transitional tetradrachm issue of c. 312 and remaining a regular feature of the Type III silver with the Athena Promachos reverse. Ptolemy also struck his first bronze coinage c. 312, in connection with the transitional tetradrachm issue, adopting a variant form of the eagle on thunderbolt with open wings as the standard reverse type for bronze (fig. 1.4, 464. Herklotz (2000), p. 44; Lorber (2011), pp. 306‒307. 465. Bonhême and Forgeau (1988), pp. 68–72. 466. Fleischer (1996), pp. 30–31 and 38.

58

Ptolemy I Soter

Figure 1.8. Bronze diobol depicting Zeus with features of Ptolemy I. Enlarged.

above). The pairing of the eagle with Alexander’s portrait on the bronze coinage may recall the eagle that flew above Alexander’s head before the battle of Gaugamela as an omen of his coming victory; the eagle and thunderbolt later appear in an epigram of Posidippus as symbols of divinely willed victory.467 The juxtaposition of Ptolemy’s portrait with the eagle reverse strongly implies that Ptolemy enjoyed the special favor and protection of Zeus.468 This relationship was elaborated in a myth preserved in the Suda, according to which Ptolemy was an illegitimate son of Philip of Macedon by his mistress Arsinoe, thus half-brother of Alexander and a descendant of Heracles and ultimately of Zeus.469 The pregnant Arsinoe was given in marriage to Lagos. When he discovered his wife’s deception, Lagos exposed the infant Ptolemy on a shield. Zeus sent an eagle to preserve the babe: it sheltered him from the elements with its spread wings and fed him with its own blood in place of milk. This myth had a parallel in Egyptian royal ideology, the belief that pharaoh was the actual son of Amun-Ra.470 In written accounts, Ra assumes the form of a human husband in order to impregnate the mother of a future king; New Kingdom temple reliefs show Amun(-Ra) wooing the Egyptian queen, gods assisting at the birth of the divine child, and goddesses suckling him.471 The equivalence of Amun and Zeus is attested by the Greek syncretism of Zeus-Ammon, dating back to the fifth century B.C.472 References to Amun in the Egyptian titulature of the Ptolemaic kings became references to Zeus in the Greek translation of these “Great Names.”473 The emphasis on Zeus was further reflected in a new bronze type: the laureate head of Zeus appeared on the bronze diobol (Fig. 1.8), which was minted in huge numbers. On many of these coins the features of Zeus bear a distinct resemblance to those of the 467. Plut. Alex. 33.1–2; Pos. Ep. 31 A–B; Müller (2009), p. 185. 468. On the association or identification of Ptolemy I with Zeus, see Tondriau (1948c), pp. 128–129, especially 1d; also Mowat (1893), pp. 30–31. 469. Ael. Fr. 285; Suda s.v Λάγος. Cited by Koenen (1993), pp. 44–45; Mastrocinque (2002), pp. 370–371; Müller (2009), pp. 182–185; van Oppen (2012b). Mowat (1893), pp. 30–31, linked Zeus to the Dionysian imagery. Collins (1997) argued that the myth did not originate or circulate in Alexandria, but rather in Macedonia where it justified the elevation of Ptolemy Ceraunus. 470. Koenen (1993), pp. 45–46, noting also the conceptual correspondence between the sheltering eagle of Zeus and Egyptian depictions showing the Horus falcon spreading his wings in a protective gesture on the neck or above the head of a pharaoh. 471. Myśliwiec (2004), pp. 81–93. 472. Leclant and Clerc (1981), p. 666; Koenen (1993), p. 70. 473. Koenen (1993), p. 70.

Introduction

59

king,474 lending credibility to the claim of divine descent and reinforcing the implication of the aegis in Ptolemy’s own portraits, which suggest his assimilation to the Greek god of kingship. All of the other regularly produced bronze denominations bore the image of the deified Alexander in two variants, one a reduction of the former tetradrachm type with the elephant headdress, the other continuing the established bronze type with the horn of Ammon and the mitra of Dionysus. The preceding discussion has omitted the figure of Athena Promachos that served as the reverse type of Ptolemaic silver coins from c. 311 until the introduction of the Ptolemy/eagle typology in 294 (Fig. 1.3). The Athena Promachos type, perhaps inspired by Ptolemy’s military achievements of 313 and 312, marked a final break with Alexander’s tetradrachms, even as it elaborated on the theme of his gold staters. The archaistic figure of Athena has been described as reproducing the Pellan cult statue of the Macedonian national goddess, Athena Alkidemos.475 This interpretation is unsupported, because we lack a written description of the Macedonian cult statue.476 The Ptolemaic Athena differs slightly from the similar figures that appear later on the tetradrachms of the Macedonian kings Antigonus II Gonatas and Philip V.477 These latter coins portray the goddess brandishing a thunderbolt, in what is more likely to be a faithful reproduction of the cult statue at Pella. The Ptolemaic version, which shows a spear instead of the thunderbolt, arguably represents a more universal Athena, the patroness of Alexander’s panhellenic campaign against the Persians.478 The type was probably also influenced by the iconography of Athena’s Egyptian counterpart, the Saite goddess Neith.479 (There is some evidence that Ptolemy took an interest in promoting Neith/Athena and Onuris/ Ares of Sebennytos as a couple, under the influence of his religious advisors Manetho and Timotheus.480) The characteristic symbols of Neith were an undecorated oval shield and crossed arrows. She was also known to wield a harpoon, no different in appearance from Athena’s spear. The role of Neith as a guardian of the throne is consistent with the protective gesture of the goddess in the coin type, extending her shield over the eagle on thunderbolt, Ptolemy’s personal emblem.481 Athena/Neith’s disappearance from the silver coinage coincides with a shift of emphasis in numismatic iconography, from Alexander to Ptolemy. In later reigns she made very rare appearances on bronze coins, but there is only scanty evidence for a cult of Athena in Egypt until the Roman period.482

474. Fleischer (1996), p. 38. 475. Brett (1950). 476. Noted by Kuschel (1961), p. 11; Brown (1984), p. 413. 477. See, e.g., Kremydi-Sicilianou (2000), 983–989, 1050, 1071–1083. 478. Kuschel (1961), pp. 11–12 and 17–18, compared the Ptolemaic coin type to the figures of Athena portrayed on late Panathenaic prize amphorae and suggested that the coins were an allusion to Ptolemy’s proclamation of freedom for the cities of Greece in 315/14. This interpretation was offered in the framework of a high chronology and is less relevant if the Athena type was introduced c. 311, as proposed here. 479. Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 195; Lesko (1999), 50. 480. Weber (1914), Text, pp. 112–113. 481. Lesko (1999, 51), citing Pyramid Text 555. 482. Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 35, 195. On the other hand, Athena was the Greek deity most frequently represented on the Edfu sealings of the second and first centuries, see Milne (1916), p. 96.

PTOLEMY II PHILADELPHUS 282–246 B.C.

I. History of the Reign Genealogy and Dynastic Chronology Son of Ptolemy I by Berenice I, Ptolemy II was born on Cos in 309/8 B.C.1 He was elevated to the coregency in 285/42 and inherited the Ptolemaic kingdom upon his father’s death in the first half of 282.3 Some scholars believe he was formally crowned as Egyptian pharaoh at Memphis.4 In Egyptian he was known as King of Upper and Lower Egypt: User-Ka-Ra Meri-Amun Son of Ra: Ptulmis5 Ptolemy II faced threats potential and real from his half-brothers, especially those of the line of Eurydice. Demetrius of Phaleron, a leading advisor of Ptolemy Soter, had in fact favored the succession of the eldest of Eurydice’s sons.6 The prince in question, Ptolemy Ceraunus, left Alexandria after being passed over, in order to seek his fortune elsewhere.7 He first joined the court of Lysimachus, where his full sister Lysandra was the wife of 1. Paus. 1.6.8; Marmor Parium, FGrHist 239 B 19. 2. The simultaneous loss of three hoards around this time suggests the possibility that his elevation was accompanied by some form of violence, such as public disorders, military mutiny, or political purges. The three hoards all close at essentially the same point, near the end of the tetradrachm series marked with R above a secondary control. They are: Phacous, 1956 (IGCH 1678), Pot B, containing more than 350 silver coins; Egypt, before 1908 (IGCH 1677), containing 491 tetradrachms; and Egypt (CH V, 33), containing 93 tetradrachms. Lorber (2012c), pp. 38‒39, associated the latest coin varieties in these hoards with the final campaign against Demetrius in 288‒287. The slight discrepancy between the date of the closing coins and the proposed occasion of hoard loss may be explained by the very small size of coin issues datable between 287 and c. 282. 3. Just. 16.2.7–9 states, implausibly, that the elder Ptolemy abdicated and then served in his son’s bodyguard. Hölbl (1992), pp. 119–120, dated the sole reign of Ptolemy II from 7 January 282, based on an interpretation of the Pithom stela (Kamal (1904‒1905), no. 22183 = Urk. II, no. 20 = Thiers (2007b)). For broader discussion of the relevant documents and the dates, see Samuel (1962), pp. 25–30; Koenen (1977), pp. 39–43; Grzybek (1990), pp. 81–86. Ptolemy II originally counted his regnal years from his accession as sole monarch, but anomalies in the dated documents suggest that at some point he introduced a retroactive dating based on the beginning of his coregency in 285. The point of transition is a matter of debate and consequently the dates of some events remain unsettled; see Bingen (1943); Samuel (1962), pp. 28, 66; Pestman (1967), p. 18; Koenen (1977), pp. 43–45, 51–53; Hazzard (1987); Koenen (1993), pp. 47, 51–52 n.61; Muhs (1998). On the possibility of a calendrical reform under Ptolemy II, see Bennett (2011). 4. Koenen (1977), pp. 58–63; Heinen (1978), p. 193. 5. After Pithom stela, Urk. II, no. 20, l. 1 = Thiers (2007b), § 2.2, p. 19. Cf. Mendes stela, Kamal (1904–1905), no. 22181, l. 1 = Urk. II, no. 13, § 1, p. 33 = Schäfer (2011), pp. 246‒247, l. 1. For his full five part pharaonic titulature with translation, see below, p. 104. 6. Diog. Laert. 5.79; Demetr. Phal. fr. 69 (Wehrli). At some point in Philadelphus’ reign Demetrius of Phaleron was detained in the chora pending a decision by the king but died of a snake bite before his fate was determined. In Diogenes Laertius this immediately follows the information that he had favored a different heir, and historians have often assumed that this was the cause of his detention. 7. On the career of Ptolemy Ceraunus, see Heinen (1972), pp. 3–94.

61

62

Introduction

the crown prince Agathocles and his half-sister Arsinoe was the queen of Lysimachus.8 After the downfall of Agathocles, Ceraunus and Lysandra fled to the court of Seleucus I to seek revenge against Lysimachus and also, perhaps, backing for Ceraunus’ claim to the Egyptian throne.9 Ceraunus accompanied Seleucus in his Asia Minor campaign against Lysimachus, but just months after the victory at Corupedium he assassinated the old king at Lysimachia (September 281).10 He then took command of the Seleucid army and marched west to claim the vacant throne of Macedon.11 In need of allies, the new king sought a rapprochement with Ptolemy II, renouncing his claim to their father’s kingdom while boasting that he had won a “more honorable” kingdom from an enemy of their father.12 Ceraunus attempted to exploit the memory of his famous father and to win legitimation through the prestige of a Diadochic widow when he proposed marriage to his half-sister Arsinoe (the widow of Lysimachus and full sister of Ptolemy II), who held the fortified city of Cassandrea.13 But the marriage is also represented as a cruel ruse that enabled Ceraunus to murder the two younger sons of Lysimachus and to drive Arsinoe into exile on Samothrace.14 After a reign of little more than a year, Ceraunus became the first Hellenistic king to lose a battle to the migrating Galatians, opening Macedon and Greece to their invasion.15 When his war elephant stumbled in the battle, Ceraunus was captured and beheaded.16 He was briefly succeeded as king of Macedon by his full brother, Meleager, who reigned for a few weeks in early 279 until he was deposed by a nephew of Cassander.17 Meleager was probably the unnamed half-brother of Ptolemy II who was put to death for inciting secession on Cyprus, and Ptolemy executed another of Eurydice’s sons, Argaeus, for plotting against him.18 Magas, a son of Berenice by her first husband, had been governor of Cyrenaica under the first Ptolemy since c. 300. At some point, probably upon the death of his stepfather, he claimed the title of king although he continued to describe his province as an eparchy.19 The first wife of Ptolemy II, Arsinoe I, was a daughter of Lysimachus by his first wife Nicaea.20 She bore him three children—Ptolemy (the future Ptolemy III), Lysimachus, and Berenice. In or before 274 the queen was accused of plotting against the life of the king with the court physician Chrysippus of Cnidus and was exiled to Coptos.21 8. Heinen (1972), pp. 3–4. 9. App. Syr. 10.62; Heinen (1972), pp. 4–5. 10. Just. 17.2.2–5; App. Syr. 10.62; Memnon, FGrHist 434 F8, 226a–b; Paus. 1.16.1; Sachs and Wiseman (1954), p. 202 (citing BM 35603 for the date of Seleucus’ death). 11. Just. 24.1.8. 12. Just. 17.2.9–10. 13. Just. 17.2.6–8; Müller (2009), pp. 67–75. 14. Just. 24.2–24.3.9. 15. Strootman (2005), pp. 5–7. 16. Just. 24.3.10, 24.4.8–24.5.7. 17. Por. FGrHist 260 F 3 10, 31, 2. 18. Paus. 1.7.1; Hazzard (1987), pp. 149–150; Młynarczyk (1990), p. 107. Młynarczyk suggested that the half-brother executed on Cyprus had been strategos of Cyprus just as Menelaus, brother of Ptolemy I, had earlier been strategos of the island. Even if the title strategos is an anachronism, as submitted by Bagnall (1976a), pp. 38‒45, Młynarczyk argued that Cyprus was too important strategically and economically to be left without a high official in overall command. Not explicitly discussed is the fact that Menelaus had been king of Salamis, and the comparison might have encouraged another member of the royal family to aspire to a kingship of his own. 19. I. Cret. II 17.1.10; Chamoux (1956), pp. 20–24; Bagnall (1976a), p. 33; Hölbl (2001), p. 36; Huß (2001), p. 202. 20. Paus. 1.7.3; Schol. Theoc. 17.128; Seibert (1967), pp. 78–79. The exact date of the marriage is unknown but it is placed in the second half of the 280s. On Arsinoe I, see most recently Van Oppen (2014). 21. Schol. Theoc. 17.128 and Kamal (1904–1905), no. 70031; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 347, 369.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

63

Ptolemy then married his older sister Arsinoe II, who had rejoined the court at Alexandria around 279.22 Presumably his decision was motivated in part by dynastic considerations, by a desire to define the legitimate line of descent from Ptolemy Soter, both to exclude rival claimants to his own throne and to assure the succession of his heirs.23 Ideologically and practically, the marriage was isolating, implying the unique superiority of the royal blood of the Soteres while avoiding the ambiguities of a marriage alliance with a rival ruler.24 Greek authors legitimized sibling marriage as an ancient Egyptian custom, and there were indeed a few pharaonic precedents, at least one of which was recorded by Manetho and thus known to Ptolemy.25 Arsinoe II died prematurely in 270 or 268, probably in the month of July.26 She had borne no children to her brother, but posthumously she was declared the adoptive mother of his offspring by Arsinoe I.27 The king launched a religious program to assure her place in the succession of the divine rulers of Egypt. In 267, a son of Ptolemy II—perhaps an adoptive son—was associated in his father’s rule.28 Ptolemy the Son presided over the inauguration of the restored temple of the Ram of Mendes in 264/3.29 He was present in Miletus on a diplomatic mission about 262, together with Callicrates of Samos, the admiral of the Ptolemaic fleet.30 In 259, Ptolemy the Son revolted against his father in Asia Minor, causing the collapse of Lagid authority 22. Seibert (1967), pp. 81–84. Arsinoe II is named as queen in the Pithom stela (Urk. II, no. 20), ll. 15‒16 = Thiers (2007b), § 2.9, p. 50) in an entry dated to regnal year 12, equivalent to 274/3, see Herklotz (2005), p. 161 n.50; van Oppen (2010), p. 144. For bibliography on the date of the marriage through 1997, see Huß (2001), p. 307 n.22. Bresciani, Giannotti, Gorini, Grassi, Menchetti, and Rogoznica (2002), p. 37, proposed a date in March 278 on the basis of a new reading of the dipinto from the Satis temple in Elephantine. The marriage is explicitly reported in the Mendes stela, Urk. II, no. 13, § 7, pp. 39‒40 = Meulenaere (1976), pp. 174–175, ll. 10‒11 = Schäfer (2011), p. 248, ll. 10‒11. Quack (2008), pp. 276–277, commented that such commemoration of a marriage is highly unusual when considered against Egyptian norms. 23. Heinen (1978), p. 186; Burstein (1982), pp. 211–212; Carney (1987), p. 434. 24. Carney (1987), p. 434; Ager (2005), pp. 18–19. 25. Diod. 1.27.1; Paus. 1.7.1; Memnon, FGrHist 434 F1 8. On the actual occurrence of sibling marriage in pharaonic Egypt, see Černý (1954); Middleton (1962), pp. 603–606. Pharaonic precedents were emphasized by Carney (1987), pp. 421–423, 431–435, and Buraselis (2008), pp. 293–297. Carney also related the practice of sibling marriage to the high status of women in Egyptian society and to the increasing Egyptianization of the Ptolemaic dynasty over time (pp. 436–439). Criscuolo (1990), pp. 92–94, argued against pharaonic influence, noting that Arsinoe contracted her first incestuous marriage in Macedonia, although Memnon attributed even this marriage to Egyptian custom. 26. The Mendes stela (Urk. II, no. 13, § 8, pp. 40‒41 = Meulenaere (1976), p. 175, ll. 11‒12 = Schäfer (2011), p. 249, ll. 11‒12) reports her death in the first month of summer of regnal year 15 (270). Grzybek (1990), pp. 103–112, advanced arguments for placing Arsinoe’s death in July 268, based on the Pithom stela (Urk. II, no. 20), l. 23 = Thiers (2007b), § 2.13, p. 67), where she is apparently still alive in year 16. Grzybek’s dating has been endorsed by Hauben (1992), p. 160; Koenen (1993), pp. 51–52 n. 61; and van Oppen (2010). The traditional date of 270 has been defended by Criscuolo (1991), pp. 286–288; Hölbl (1992), pp. 120–121; Minas (1994), pp. 207–209; Cadell (1998); Huß (2001), pp. 310–311 n.41; Kosmetatou (2004), p. 34. The various issues are discussed in great detail by C. J. Bennett at www.tyndalehouse. com/egypt/ptolemies/genealogy.htm, q.v. Arsinoe II, n.17, where Grzybek’s solutions are favored. The most recent discussion, that of Schäfer (2011), pp. 264‒267, concluded that the Pithom stela referred in these passages to the deified (dead) Arsinoe and that the date of her death given in the Mendes stela can be accepted as correct. 27. Schol. Theoc. 17.128. 28. Ptolemy the Son is first mentioned in P. Sorb. III, 71 (Audnaios year 18 = c. November 267), see Cadell (1998), p. 3. For prosopography, see Huß (1998). The parentage of Ptolemy the Son is unknown and controversial; see Welles (1934), pp. 75–76; Volkmann (1959), p. 1666–1667; Burstein (1982), pp. 204–206; Huß (1998, 2004); Ogden (1999), pp. 79–80; Gygax (2000, 2004); Hazzard (2000), p. 16; Tunney (2000); van Oppen (2010), pp. 147–148; www.tyndalehouse.com/ egypt/ptolemies/genealogy.htm 2.b.a.1 n.6. For Welles, Huß, Bennett, and van Oppen, Ptolemy the Son was the eldest son of Arsinoe II and Lysimachus, adopted by Ptolemy II. 29. Quack (2008), p. 279. 30. I. Milet. III 139, ll. 8–10, 42–47; Welles (1934), no. 14, pp. 71–77. For the career of Callicrates, see Hauben (1970).

64

Introduction

in Ionia.31 His name was removed from Egyptian dating formularies in the last third of 259.32 His subsequent fate is uncertain, due to the very fragmentary nature of the sources. He may have been lynched at Ephesus by his own mercenaries,33 or he may have survived as a semi-independent dynast at Telmessus.34 A son of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe I, the future Ptolemy III, inherited the kingdom upon the death of Ptolemy II c. 28 January 246.35 Foreign Affairs At the accession of Ptolemy II, Egypt was already a major sea power possessing the important island of Cyprus and commanding the naval assets of the Phoenician cities. According to current scholarly consensus, Philadelphus also inherited provinces in Lycia and Pamphylia and a protectorate over the Cycladic islands.36 But it may rather be the case that the celebrated thalassocracy took shape in his first year as sole ruler, when dynastic disputes destroyed the family of Lysimachus and caused turmoil in his kingdom, culminating in the invasion of Seleucus and the death of Lysimachus at Corupedium.37 With Lysimachus distracted and his subjects disaffected, the Ptolemaic fleet could deploy unchallenged and could accept the negotiated surrenders of coastal cities in Pamphylia, Lycia, Caria, and southern Ionia.38 The formation of the League of the Islanders probably dates to the same pre-Corupedium context, meaning that it was organized under Lagid patronage.39 Philadelphus is known to have visited Cyprus soon after his accession and to have met there with an envoy from Athens, Callias of Sphettos.40 The purpose of this unusual royal visit to Cyprus was perhaps to organize the naval activities along the coast of southern Asia Minor and to set in motion the formation of the League of the Islanders. To maintain his maritime empire and to project his power beyond it, Ptolemy relied on a fleet that at its height numbered more than four thousand ships.41 He also cultivated 31. P. Trogus Prol. 26; Fron. Str. 3.2.11. Some scholars, including Welles (1934), p. 75, and Hazzard (2000), pp. 55–56, have assumed the revolt took place at Ephesus. The passage of Frontinus seems to indicate that Samos was also involved. 32. Ptolemy the Son is last mentioned in O.dem.Stras. 283 (21 July–11 August 259), P.dem. Phil. 15, l. 1 (24 July–22 August 259) and Graff. dem. Med. Habu 257, ll. 1–3 (24 August 259); his name was erased from P. Rev. col. 1, ll. 1–3 and P. Rev. col. 24, l. 1f. (259/8?), see Huß (1998), pp. 233–234, 236; id. (2011b). 33. Athen. 13.593a–b; Welles (1934), p. 75; Oikonomides (1984); Hazzard (2000), p. 56. In Athen. 13.593a the victim of this lynching is described as τήν ἔν ’Εφέσῳ διέπων φρουράν (supervising the garrison in Ephesus) and this is an unlikely designation for either a crown prince or a self-appointed dynast or king. 34. OGIS I, 55, ll. 2–9; Segrè (1938), p. 183, ll. 2–11; Robert (1966a), p. 55, ll. 2‒11; Huß (1998), pp. 245–247; www. tyndalehouse.com/Egypt/ptolemies/genealogy.htm 2.b.a.1 note 6(h). 35. For the date, see Samuel (1962), pp. 91–95 (7 Choiak = 28 January) and 106 (25 Dios = 29 January); Pestman (1967), p. 16 (7 Choiak = 28 January); Huß (2001), p. 331 (25 Dios = 6 Choiak = 27 January). 36. Marquaille (2008), pp. 42–43 with n.13; Hölbl (2001), p. 24; Huß (2001), pp. 211–212; Buraselis (1982), pp. 180– 188; Wörrle (1977); id. (1978); Bagnall (1976a), pp. 105–114, 136–158; Merker (1970). 37. Just. 17.1.4–17.2.5; Strab. 13.4.1; App. Syr. 64; Memnon of Heracleia, FGrHist 434 F 4, 6‒7; Paus. 1.10.3; Por. FGrHist 260 F 3.8. On distortions in the ancient accounts, see Caneva (2013b), pp. 135‒138. 38. Meadows (2006), where the territorial expansion is dated after the battle of Corupedium; id. (2008); id. (2012). For the customs surrounding the negotiated surrender of cities to Hellenistic kings, see Piejko (1990), pp. 21–26. 39. Meadows (2013a). 40. SEG XXVIII, 60 = Shear (1978), ll. 43‒54. 41. Athen. 203d. Thiers (2007b), pp. 91–92, pointed out that both the poet Theocritus (Id. 17.85–92) and the stelae erected by the Egyptian priests praise Ptolemy’s naval and military strength. The Egyptian sources, following tradition, credit him with personal combat in the defense of Egypt, see Pithom stela, Urk. II, no. 20, ll. 4–6 = Thiers (2007b), § 2.4, p. 24; Mendes stela, Urk. II, no. 13, § 3, pp. 34–36 = Meulenaere (1976), p, 174, ll. 4‒6 = Schäfer (2011), p. 247, ll. 4‒6, with commentary pp. 256‒257; Sais stela = Thiers (1999), cols. 4, 5, and 11.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

65

the good will of autonomous Greek cities through benefactions. These included 50 talents of silver and 20,000 medimnoi of wheat sent to Athens in 282, a plot of land donated to Miletus in 279/8, and gifts of silver to several cities—to the Black Sea cities of Sinope and Heraclea Pontica when they were threatened by the Galatians, and to Byzantium to help it pay the tribute demanded by the new Celtic kingdom based at Tylis.42 Ptolemy II inherited his father’s friendship for Pyrrhus, the swashbuckling king of Epirus.43 In 280, he dispatched a force to Epirus to protect the kingdom for a term of two years while Pyrrhus campaigned in Italy at the request of the Greek cities there.44 The end of the two years coincided with Pyrrhus’ decision to leave Italy for Sicily. Although we have no record of any further aid from Ptolemy to Pyrrhus, a bronze coinage of Ptolemaic type, datable to the early years of Hieron of Syracuse, marks the beginning of the famous friendship between Hieron and Alexandria.45 The basis for this aid was probably a mutual desire to protect the Greek cities of Sicily from the Mamertines; Ptolemy expressed the same euergetic motive when he enabled Pyrrhus’ Italian campaign and when he defended the freedoms of the cities of Greece against Antigonus Gonatas (see below). A strategic interest in the west is attested by Ptolemy’s friendly relations with Carthage,46 by his initiative in negotiating a treaty of friendship with Rome in 273,47 and by the approximately contemporary exploration of West Mediterranean coasts and harbors as far west as the Atlantic, undertaken by a Ptolemaic fleet under the command of Timosthenes of Rhodes.48 Ptolemy’s western ties were probably motivated in part by a desire to contain his halfbrother Magas of Cyrene. By marrying Apame, a daughter of Antiochus I, Magas not only secured recognition of his royal status but also formed an alliance with another antagonist of Ptolemy.49 About 275, Magas attempted an incursion into Egypt, but real engagement was precluded by a revolt of the Libyans in Magas’ rear and a simultaneous revolt of four thousand Gallic mercenaries in Egypt.50 The chronology is not precise, and we do not know whether these events were a cause of the First Syrian War (274–271), or whether they reflect the opening of a second front in that war.51 The events in Syro-Phoenicia are very poorly documented. Ptolemy initiated the conflict by dispatching an army to northern Syria.52 Antiochus called up troops and elephants from Babylonia to repel the invasion 42. Athens: SEG XXVIII, 60 = Shear (1978), ll. 43‒54; Habicht (1997), p. 128. Miletus: Welles (1934), no. 14, ll. 1–3. Heraclea Pontica: Memnon, FGrHist 434 F 17; Bringmann and von Steuben (1995), no. 243; Schmidt-Dounas (2004), p. 101. The gift to Byzantium seems to be reflected in the Byzantine countermarks that appear on Ptolemaic tetradrachms, see Noeske (2000), pp. 232–235. 43. Adams (2008). 44. Just. 17.2.14–15; Hammond (1988), pp. 405–413, argued persuasively that Justin’s confused account must refer to Ptolemy Philadelphus. 45. Wolf and Lorber (2011). 46. Rostovtzeff (1941), Vol. I, pp. 395–397; Huß (1979), pp. 128–129. 47. Livy Per. 14. 48. Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 152, 522; Prontera (2013). 49. Paus. 1.7.3. 50. Polyaen. 2.28.2; Paus. 1.7.2; Callim. Hymn. 4.185–187. 51. Hölbl (2001), pp. 39–40; Huß (2001), pp. 266–267. On the First Syrian War generally, see Grainger (2010), pp. 81–82, 84–87. 52. Paus. 1.7.3; Pithom stela, Urk. II, no. 20, ll. 10–12 = Thiers (2007b), § 2.7, p. 39, and for English translation Mueller (2006), pp. 194‒195; Winnicki (1990); Lorton (1971). The Pithom stela mentions only an advance into Palestine (PArstt) and the recovery of sacred images there, implying the involvement of Egyptian troops, see Van ’t Dack (1992), p. 328. Bernard (1990), pp. 535–536, expressed skepticism that this expedition was an event of the First Syrian War. Otherwise, the only written source is a cuneiform tablet, Sachs and Hunger (1988), Vol. I, no. 273B, rev. ll. 29–30; Bernard (1990), p 532.

66

Introduction

and the Lagid army withdrew without a fight.53 Concern about a counterattack can be inferred from the Pithom stela, which places Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II in the Harpoon nome (eastern Delta) in summer of 273, planning for the defense of Egypt.54 A cuneiform document of year 41 of the Seleucid era (271/0) indicates that Antiochus was still in the field with his army.55 The war probably ended in the course of that year, perhaps leaving Ptolemy with territorial gains in Cilicia Trachea, Pamphylia, and Ionia.56 The peace treaty probably bound the two kings in friendship for life, meaning that it would expire upon the death of either.57 In the latter 270s Ptolemy supported the Hellenic League of central Greece in its opposition to the domination of Antigonus Gonatas.58 Subsequently he joined the anti-Macedonian alliance of Athens and Sparta organized by the Athenian statesman Chremonides, who perhaps acted at Ptolemy’s instigation.59 In the decree announcing the alliance Chremonides praised Ptolemy’s concern for the freedom of the Greeks and asserted that the king was following the policies of his ancestors and his sister.60 The decree, datable sometime between 268/7 and 265/4, marks the beginning of the so-called Chremonidean War, an unsuccessful attempt to throw off Macedonian rule in Greece.61 Ptolemy dispatched his fleet under the command of his admiral Patroclus, who secured his rear with garrisons at Itanus on Crete and on the islands of Thera and Keos, established bases at various sites around the Saronic Gulf, and founded the new city of Arsinoe in the Peloponnesus (the future Methana).62 Patroclus carried Egyptian infantry troops aboard his ships but lacked a land army, and his naval campaign proved insufficient against the blockade of Athens by the Macedonian king.63 The death in battle of the Spartan king Areus in 265/4 was a serious blow to the alliance.64 Ptolemy’s ally Alexander II of Epirus threatened Antigonus’ rear by invading Macedon, only to be expelled from his own kingdom.65 Athens eventually surrendered, probably in early summer of 262, and this put 53. Sachs and Hunger (1988), Vol. I, no. 273B, rev. ll. 29–30; Bernard (1990), pp. 532–534. 54. Urk. II, no. 20, ll. 15–16 = Thiers (2007b), § 2.9, p. 50. For English translation, see Mueller (2006), p. 195. 55. Sachs and Hunger (1988), Vol. I, no. 270B, rev. l. 18; Bernard (1990), p. 535. 56. Huß (2001), pp. 270–271. An inscription shows that citizens of Nagidus participated in the foundation of an Antioch, presumably reflecting the sovereignty of Antiochus I, while the earliest evidence for a Ptolemaic presence in Cilicia is another inscription recording the foundation of Arsinoe, datable to the 260s, see Jones and Habicht (1989), pp. 336–337; Ma (1999), p. 39 with n.49. 57. Grainger (2010), pp. 89–90. 58. Etienne and Pierart (1975); Lehmann (1988b). 59. Just. 26.2.1. 60. Syll.3 434–435; IG II2 687; Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 19; Austin (2006), no. 61. This famous assertion linking Arsinoe Philadelphus to the affairs of Greece has inspired scholarly controversy over the degree of her power. Tarn (1913), pp. 290–310, followed by O’Neil (2008), pp. 66–67, suggested that Arsinoe planned the war to place Ptolemy, her son by Lysimachus, on the throne of Macedon. Most modern scholarship has interpreted this passage in the context of Arsinoe’s growing importance in Lagid royal ideology after her death, see Burstein (1982); Hauben (1983); Hazzard (2000), pp. 81–100; Caneva (2013a). 61. For the ancient sources on the Chremonidean War, see McCredie (1966), pp. 107–115; for the dates of the war, pp. 112–113, and more recently O’Neil (2008), pp. 68–71. For the events of the war, see Heinen (1972), pp. 95–213; O’Neil (2008), pp. 71–86. 62. Paus. 1.1.1, 2.34.1–3; Str. 9.1.21; IG XII, 3.466; SEG XXIV, 154; Vanderpool, McCredie, and Steinberg (1962 and 1964); Heinen (1972), pp. 152–159; Bagnall (1976a), pp. 120–136; Habicht (1994), pp. 160–163; Cohen (1995), pp. 124–126; Gill (2007). Viviers (2011), pp. 37–43, argued that the Ptolemaic garrison at Itanus was not installed in the context of the Chremonidean War. 63. Just. 26.2.8; Paus. 3.6.4–6; Hauben (1978), pp. 87–89. 64. Plut. Agis. 3. 65. Just. 26.2.9–11.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

67

an end to Athenian contacts with Alexandria for the next thirty years.66 Chremonides and his brother Glaucon fled to Egypt where they pursued brilliant careers: Chremonides later became commander of the Egyptian fleet and Glaucon held the eponymous priesthood of Alexander and the Sibling Gods for the year 255/4.67 Despite the failure of the Lagid intervention on behalf of Athens, the Chremonidean War resulted in small but strategic territorial gains that protected the sea route from the Ptolemaic kingdom to Attica and the northern Peloponnesus.68 Philadelphus retained the most important of the bases established by Patroclus. Arsinoe in the Peloponnesus (Methana), Thera, and Itanus became permanent Ptolemaic foreign possessions, held until the death of Ptolemy VI more than a century later.69 In addition the coregent, Ptolemy the Son, won new territories (Ephesus and perhaps the island of Lesbos) in the Ionian theatre of war.70 The death of Antiochus I in 261 freed Ptolemy II to make a new assault on the Seleucid kingdom, inaugurating the Second Syrian War (261/0–253).71 Numismatic evidence shows that he gained possession of Cilicia Pedias at the outset of the war.72 But the revolt of Ptolemy the Son in Asia Minor in 259 opened the way for a Seleucid resurgence in which Antiochus II occupied Cilicia, Pamphylia, much of Ptolemaic Caria, and Ephesus; and for the first time established a Seleucid claim to Miletus and Samos.73 The Ptolemaic fleet suffered major defeats off Ephesus and Cos, probably ending the Lagid protectorate over the Cyclades about 255.74 In that same year Antiochus II campaigned in Thrace and formed alliances with cities and dynasts on the west coast of the Black Sea.75 His attempt to capture Byzantium was thwarted by an intervention of the Ptolemaic fleet in 254, followed by further naval operations in the Black Sea.76 These operations apparently included diplomatic contact with Parisades of the Cimmerian Bosporus, commemorated by a fresco depicting Ptolemaic ships in a chapel of Aphrodite at Nymphaeum near Panticapaeum.77 66. Apollodorus, FGrHist F 44; Paus. 3.66; Habicht (1994), p. 145. 67. Peremans, Van ’t Dack, Mooren, and Swinnen (1968), nos. 14636 and 14596. 68. Winter (2011). 69. Bagnall (1976a), pp. 122, 134; Habicht (1994), p. 163; Hölbl (2001), p. 195; Huß (2001), pp. 603‒604. 70. Brun (1991). Seleucid control of Ephesus in the 260s is proved by OGIS I, 222, see Piejko (1991). 71. On the Second Syrian War, see Grainger (2010), pp. 117–136. 72. A Ptolemaic occupation of Cilicia Pedias is attested by a portrait coinage struck for Ptolemy II at Tarsus, see Davesne (1999), pp. 129–131; the Lagid presence in Cilicia Trachea is attested by a Ptolemaic gold hoard found at Aydıncık near Celenderis, see Davesne (1994b). Davesne cited this hoard as evidence that Ptolemy II acquired Cilicia Trachea during the Second Syrian War, but admitted the possibility of an occupation beginning during the First Syrian War. The presence of a Ptolemaic army very close to Antioch is attested by another Ptolemaic gold hoard, Hüseyinli, 1986 (CH IX, 489), see Davesne and Yenisoganci (1992); Davesne (1999), p. 126. In this case the hoard probably dates from the First Syrian War, as proposed in discussion in the appendix of hoards. Egyptologists have claimed textual evidence for a Ptolemaic advance to the outskirts of Antioch in 258, but the evidence is dubious. A demotic ostracon from Karnak, O. dem. L.S. 462.4 (1 Thoth 258/7), ll. 2–4, was interpreted as reporting the king’s victorious return from Syria shortly before the beginning of his 28th regnal year, see Bresciani (1978), pp. 34‒35; ead. (1983), pp. 15‒16, 21‒23; Winnicki (1991b), especially pp. 89–93. According to Chauveau (2011), this ostracon, though Ptolemaic in date, preserves a Saite text and the campaigning king is Psamtek I rather than Ptolemy. But see now Thomas and Ray (2008), pp. 331–344, who identify the king as Ptolemy II.. 73. App. Syr. 65; Orth (1977), pp. 131–132 and 153–156; Ma (1999), pp. 41–42 with nn. 56–57. The emergency evacuation of Cilicia Trachea during the Second Syrian War is implied by the abandonment of the Aydıncık hoard, see Davesne (1994b). 74. Athen. 5.209e, 8.334a; Plut. Mor. 545B; Seibert (1976); Hölbl (2001), p. 44. 75. Avram (2003), pp. 1190–1201. 76. Avram (2003), p. 1211. 77. Bricault (2006), pp. 22‒25.

68

Introduction

Lagid forces also intervened in Bithynia against Zaielas.78 The Second Syrian War ended before July 253, when Ptolemy paid a state visit to Memphis, and its formal conclusion was negotiated at the end of 253. The terms of the treaty required Antiochus to repudiate his wife Laodice in order to marry Ptolemy’s daughter Berenice.79 In spring of 252 the princess and her rich dowry were escorted as far as Pelusium by the king, and on to the Syrian border by the dioiketes Apollonios.80 At an uncertain date, probably in the 260s, Ptolemy reconciled with Magas of Cyrene.81 The half-brothers sealed their reconciliation with a marriage alliance, formally betrothing Ptolemy’s son to Magas’ daughter Berenice.82 It was agreed that Magas would retain his authority in Cyrenaica to the end of his life, but that the region would revert to Ptolemy upon his death. The date of Magas’ death is disputed—Porphyry seems to indicate a date before 259/8, but Athenaeus attributes a fifty-year reign to Magas, from which modern historians have deduced that he died around 250/248.83 Magas’ Syrian widow Apame was unwilling to see her realm absorbed into the Ptolemaic kingdom and arranged an alternate match for Berenice with an Antigonid prince, Demetrius the Fair, son of Demetrius Poliorcetes and Ptolemais and thus a grandson of Ptolemy I and Eurydice.84 Demetrius came to Cyrene and reigned for a time as king.85 This outcome was unacceptable to several concerned parties. Berenice herself ordered Demetrius’ assassination, allegedly because she discovered him making love to her mother.86 The republican revolt of the cities of Cyrenaica under the Platonic philosophers Ecdelus and Demophanes probably belongs to this period.87 Ptolemy II, who could hardly be expected to renounce his claim to Cyrenaica, must have sent a force to assert his rights.88 After this armed intervention Berenice married the future Ptolemy III. Perhaps at this point the cities of Barce, Euesperides, and Taucheira were refounded as Ptolemais, Berenice, and Arsinoe, respectively.89 Toward the end of his reign Philadelphus took steps to reverse the setbacks he had suffered in Greece. Aratus of Sicyon visited Alexandria in winter of 250/49 on behalf of the Achaean League and negotiated a subsidy that would allow him to resist Macedonian hegemony.90 The fruits of this policy were realized under Ptolemy III. 78. Avram (2003), p. 1212. 79. Jerome, In Dan. 11.6; App. Syr. 65; P.Cair.Zen. II 59251; Seibert (1967), pp. 79–80. 80. Por. FGrHist 260F 43; P.Cair.Zen. II 59242 and 59251 = SP I, no. 93 = Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 24. 81. For the difficulties in establishing reliable dates for the events in Cyrenaica at this period, see the discussions of Buttrey (1997), pp. 37–41; Van Oppen (2015a), pp. 7–22. 82. Just. 26.3.2; Seibert (1967), pp. 80–81, 84. It is likely that the original betrothal involved the Egyptian Crown Prince, Ptolemy the Son, in which case it was nullified by his rebellion and removal from the line of succession. The sources do not indicate whether or when the agreement was renegotiated in favor of the future Ptolemy III. 83. Por. ap Eus. Chron. 1.237; Athen. 12.550 B, citing Agatharchides of Cnidus; Chamoux (1956); Huß (2001), p. 333 with n.6. 84. Just. 26.3.3, where the widowed queen is called Arsinoe rather than Apame, apparently in error. 85. Just. 26.3.4. 86. Just. 26.3.5–8. 87. Polyb. 10.22.3. 88. The Adulis inscription, OGIS I, 54 (= Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 26 = Austin (2006), no. 268), ll. 6‒7 lists Libya among the territories inherited by Ptolemy Euergetes from his father, meaning that it was recovered during Philadelphus’ lifetime; see Laronde (1987), pp. 282‒283. 89. Laronde (1987), pp. 383‒401; Cohen (2006), pp. 387‒396. 90. Plut. Arat. 9–15.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

69

Throughout his reign Ptolemy II cultivated the good opinion of the Greeks by making conspicuous displays of his piety toward the gods. In 280 he endowed an annual festival on the island of Delos, called Ptolemaieia (I); the dedicatory text is lost but probably it honored the divine triad of the island, Apollo, Artemis, and Leto.91 Delos received several offerings from Ptolemy and his court, including a silver tripod dedicated in the temple of Apollo by Arsinoe II in 274.92 In 249, Ptolemy enriched the cultic life of Delos by endowing an additional festival, also called Ptolemaieia (II), for the gods of the island.93 Apparently this heightened his prestige to such a degree that his successor could claim to have inherited the Cyclades from his father.94 It is more accurate to envision Philadelphus at this late stage as competing with other monarchs for the good opinion of the islanders.95 To a striking degree Ptolemy’s displays of piety were not disinterested benefactions but served to advertise his personal history and royal ideology.96 Delos was an international center of Lagid ruler worship (see below). The poet Callimachus wrote a hymn in praise of Delos, the island birthplace of Apollo and Artemis, in which the unborn Apollo declined to be born on Cos because it was destined to be the birthplace of another god, the second Ptolemy.97 To honor his own birthplace Ptolemy sponsored the construction of Temple B in the Asklepieion of Cos.98 The island of Samothrace deserved special gratitude as the refuge of Arsinoe II after the treachery of Ptolemy Ceraunus: thus Philadelphus built a propylon for the temple of the Great Gods, and some scholars also credit him with the celebrated rotunda (Arsinoeion) of Samothrace, dedicated in the name of Arsinoe.99 At Helicon he erected a bronze statue of Arsinoe riding an ostrich as a dedication to Zeus and the Muses.100 A commentary on a poem about Helicon, known from an Oxyrhynchite papyrus, informs us that Arsinoe was considered the Tenth Muse and received honors with the other nine in the Mouseion.101 The royal family continued to court international admiration by sending teams to compete in the chariot races at the panhellenic games, and they were a dominating presence at the Olympics.102 Ptolemy boasted that he and his parents were the first three sovereigns to win Olympic quadriga racing victories.103 Arsinoe II won all three quadriga 91. Bruneau (1970), pp. 519–523. Because this festival was founded contemporaneously with two other festivals honoring Ptolemy Soter, the Alexandrian Ptolemaieia and the Ptolemaieia of the Islanders (also celebrated on Delos), it is often assumed that it too was a manifestation of ruler cult. 92. Bruneau (1970), p. 518, VII; Bringmann and von Steuben (1995), nos. 149–151; Schmidt-Dounas (1995), pp. 154, 156; ead. (2004), p. 99. 93. Bruneau (1970), pp. 519–520, 523. 94. Adulis inscription, OGIS I, 54 (= Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 26 = Austin (2006), no. 268), l. 8. 95. Bagnall (1976a), pp. 155–156. 96. A possible exception is his sponsorship of a temple to Heracles on the acropolis of Heraclea Pontica, see Memnon, FGrHist 434 F 17; Bringmann and von Steuben (1995), no. 243; Schmidt-Dounas (1995), pp. 8–9; ead. (2004), p. 101. Even this may be related to his claim of descent from Heracles and/or to the fact that Heraclea Pontica had been gifted by Lysimachus to Arsinoe II. 97. Callim. Hymn. 4.153–170. 98. IG XI.4.1038.17; IG XI.4.1043.14; Bruneau (1970), pp. 531–532; Hoepfner (1984), p. 361. 99. McCredie, Roux, Shaw, and Kurtich (1992); cf. Frazer (1990); Lehmann and Lehmann (1992); Bringmann and von Steuben (1995), nos. 236–237; Schmidt-Dounas (2004), pp. 101–104; Müller (2009), pp. 58–67. 100. Paus. 9.31.1. Schachter (1961), p. 69, sought to connect this dedication with Arsinoe III. 101. P.Oxy. XX, 2262, fr. 2a, col. I, 5–15, cited by Schachter (1961), p. 69. If the subject is indeed one of Callimachus’ Aitia, the Arsinoe mentioned can only be Arsinoe II. 102. Remijsen (2009), pp. 250‒253. 103. Pos. Hippika AB 88, and see also AB 78; Kosmetatou (2004), pp. 26–27.

70

Introduction

events at one Olympic festival, probably the 127th celebrated in 272.104 Ptolemy’s daughter, Berenice, was victorious at the Isthmian games in the presence of her father and gained two victories at the Nemean games, probably in 263 or 261, winning all the chariot races on one of these occasions; and she won the quadriga of horses at Olympia, probably in 256.105 These victories were important acts of royal self-representation, displays of wealth and power that implied the favor of the gods and elevated the Ptolemies above the other less agonistically inclined ruling houses.106 The court poet Posidippus claimed the family’s notable success at Olympia as evidence for the divinity of the Lagid line.107 In view of the ideological significance attached to these victories, it is noteworthy that the king’s official mistress Bilistiche also entered the lists, winning the biga of colts when the event was introduced in the 129th Olympics in 264.108 She was perhaps victorious in the 128th Olympics as well.109 Monumental dedications ensured a permanent Lagid presence at the principal panhellenic sanctuaries. Two statues of Ptolemy II stood at Olympia, and the Ptolemaic admiral Callicrates of Samos also erected a monument with columns and over-lifesize bronze statues of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, facing the temples of Zeus and Hera, the divine models for their sibling marriage.110 Callicrates dedicated another pair of bronze statues of the Ptolemaic couple at Delphi after winning a racing victory in the Pythian games.111 The two rulers were also associated with their parents in a dynastic monument at Delphi.112 The Ptolemies used similar dedications to make conspicuous display of their appreciation toward faithful servants and allies. Only a few examples are known, but they are probably typical of a larger number that have not survived. Ptolemy II erected a statue of his naval architect Pyrgoteles at Old Paphos on Cyprus.113 He honored the Spartan king Areus III, his ally in the Chremonidean War, with a monument dedicated at Olympia.114 Another of his allies in that war, Glaucon, the brother of Chremonides, also received a statue and an honorary inscription at Olympia.115 Mediterranean Empire It is likely, as noted above, that the Ptolemaic kingdom experienced a rapid expansion at the beginning of the sole reign of Ptolemy II. External possessions first attested in this period, 104. Pos. Hippika AB 78; Kosmetatou (2004), pp. 26–27; Bennett (2005), p. 94; Remijsen (2009), p. 251. 105. Pos. Hippika AB 81, AB 78; Bennett (2005), pp. 94–95; Thompson (2005), pp. 273–279; Remijsen (2009), p. 245. For other views on the identity of this Berenice, see Huß (2008b); Müller (2009), pp. 233–236. 106. Bennett (2005), p. 93; Remijsen (2009), pp. 246, 250, 256 (noting that Alexandria was the only new foundation of the Hellenistic period to produce Olympic victors). 107. Pos. Hippika AB 78. 108. Paus. 5.8.11; AP 5.202, 5.203; Cameron (1990), pp. 295–301; Kosmetatou (2004), pp. 30–32; Bennett (2005). 109. Kosmetatou (2004), pp. 19–22. 110. Paus. 6.16.9, 6.17.3; OGIS I, 26–27; I.Olympia 306‒307; Hoepfner (1971), pp. 12–15; Hintzen-Bohlen (1992), pp. 77–80; Kosmetatou (2004), p. 24; Müller (2009), pp. 265–266; Ma (2010), p. 157. 111. Pos. 74 A–B, l. 12. 112. Plut. Mor. 753 E; Kosmetatou (2002), p. 109. 113. OGIS 39; Hauben (1987a), p. 221. 114. Bringmann and von Steuben (1995), no. 58; Schmidt-Dounas (1995), pp. 121–124; ead. (2004), pp. 99–100. 115. Paus. 6.16.9; I.Olympia 296 = SEG XXXII, 415; Hintzen-Bohlen (1992), no. 19; Schmidt-Dounas (2004), p. 100. The dedication is usually attributed to Ptolemy III, but was recently reattributed to Ptolemy II around the time of the Chremonidean War, see Criscuolo (2003), pp. 320‒322, 333; Remijsen (2009), p. 261; Caneva (2013a), p. 12.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

71

or at least under Philadelphus, include Samos in Ionia; Mylasa, Stratonicaea, Amyzon, Myndus, Halicarnassus, Calynda, and Calymna in Caria; Lissa, Telmessus, Xanthus, Patara, and Limyra in Lycia; and Termessus in Pamphylia.116 Theocritus also names Cilicia (probably meaning Cilicia Trachea) among the possessions of Ptolemy II in the late 270s and, as we saw above, the Lagid army occupied Cilicia Pedias at the start of the Second Syrian War.117 One of the Zenon papyri sheds light on the Ptolemaic administration in Caria, which had both military and fiscal functions, interacted with officials of the Carian cities, and closely supervised the municipal finances.118 An inscription from Pisidian Termessus, dated to the fifth year of Ptolemy Philadelphus, names either a strategos or an oikonomos with authority over Pamphylia, and a provincial governor is also attested for Cilicia somewhat later in the reign.119 Colonization was an important tool of domination, and new or refounded cities with dynastic names reflect an attempt to create a unifying Ptolemaic identity, to urbanize the less developed new possessions, and to create bases for the exploitation of their natural resources.120 In southern Asia Minor such new settlements were located mainly in Lycia, Pamphylia, and Cilicia, and probably all were built at coastal sites with harbors. Patara, an important naval base and way station for coastal travelers, was refounded as Arsinoe in Lycia, and there was also a Philotera somewhere in Lycia.121 An Arsinoe was founded in Pamphylia east of Coracesium, near a region rich in timber for ship building, and a Pamphylian Ptolemais lay between Cibyra and Augae.122 In Cilicia Trachea we know of a third Arsinoe, a coastal polis founded on land donated by the neighboring city of Nagidus, and of a Berenice located near Celenderis.123 Arsinoe was the only dynastic name used for new settlements in the central Aegean and on Cyprus.124 The new foundations in the islands were invariably located at sites with good harbors, all of which became cult centers for the Thea Philadelphus, illustrating the nexus between the thalassocracy, the Ptolemaic fleet, and its patron goddess ArsinoeAphrodite Euploia.125 During the Chremonidean War the city of Koresia on Keos, refounded under the name Arsinoe, became a naval base and the seat of a Ptolemaic governor for the island.126 The island of Cyprus boasted three ports named Arsinoe, probably founded under Ptolemy II.127 One was established on the site of the ancient 116. Bagnall (1976a), pp. 80, 92–98, 99–101, 104–106, 108, 111. The epigraphic evidence for Ptolemy’s acquisitions in Asia Minor is also surveyed and briefly discussed by Hölbl (2001), p. 38. On Limyra, Borchhardt (1991); Stanzl (2003). 117. Theoc. Id. 17.88–89; cf. Hunter (2003), pp. 3–4, dating the encomium to the years of Ptolemy’s marriage to Arsinoe II. 118. Robert (1966a), pp. 53–58; P.Cair.Zen. III 59341; Bagnall (1976a), pp. 101–102. 119. Pamphylia: Robert (1966a), pp. 53–58, proposing the title of Pamphyliarch as a reconstruction, but see now Meadows and Thonemann (2013). Cilicia: Jones and Habicht (1989). 120. Mueller (2006), pp. 45, 84. On the purpose of Hellenistic colonies generally, see Cohen (1995), pp. 63–71. 121. Bagnall (1976a), p. 108; Cohen (1995), pp. 329–330, 331. 122. Bagnall (1976a), pp. 113–114, 115; Cohen (1995), pp. 335–337, 339. 123. Bagnall (1976a), p. 115; Jones and Habicht (1989) = Austin (2006), no. 272; Cohen (1995), pp. 363–365. 124. Mueller (2006), p. 158. The two Arsinoes on Crete probably date from the reign of Ptolemy IV. 125. Hauben (1983), pp. 111–114, 124–127; id. (1987a), p. 217; Mueller (2006), pp. 157–158; Barbantini (2005), pp. 146–147. On the cult of Arsinoe-Aphrodite Euploia, see below under “Ruler Worship and Divine Kingship.” 126. IG XII 5, 1061, ll. 2–4; Robert (1960); Bagnall (1976a), pp. 141–145; Cohen (1995), pp. 137–139. Lefebvre (2012), pp. 11‒14, pointed out that this city failed to hold the interest of successive Ptolemies and reverted to its original name after the reign of Ptolemy IV. 127. Mueller (2006), pp. 158–159.

72

Introduction

city of Marium, which had been destroyed in 312 on the orders of Ptolemy I.128 Another, near Old Paphos, may have played a role in the shipbuilding centered at Old Paphos in the time of Philadelphus.129 The third Arsinoe, near Salamis, probably compensated for the deficiencies of the harbors of Salamis and Citium and provided swift access to the Phoenician coast.130 Arsinoe-Marium and the other Cypriote Arsinoes presumably had the status of Greek poleis from the time of their foundations, and a boule is attested at Curium in the reign of Ptolemy II.131 However there is evidence for civic institutions at Idalium, Curium, and probably Amathus even before the Macedonian conquest.132 Citium and Lapethus reckoned dates according to civic eras beginning in 312/11 and 307/6, respectively, and these eras have been interpreted as commemorating constitutional changes introduced by Ptolemy I.133 The civic institutions of these particular cities must have been Phoenician rather than Greek. Priesthoods held by Phoenician-speaking Cypriotes in local cults honoring the Ptolemies imply the existence of a native elite that dominated municipal or regional government while serving the interests of the crown.134 At Idalium and Larnaca, where the evidence is most complete, the same elite families can be traced back to the administrations of the kings of Citium and Lapethus.135 In the third century the Cypriote cities remained fundamental administrative units, each controlling the economic life its chora, in contrast to the situation in Egypt where the chora was administered by royal bureaucrats.136 Civic control may even have extended to royal copper mines, royal land, and large royal land grants (doreai) within the territory of each city.137 Nevertheless there were probably some royal functionaries providing supervision: a financial officer (oikonomos) was active on Cyprus in the time of Philadelphus.138 The possibility of more coercive control was implied by Ptolemaic garrisons stationed in or near most of the major cities of Cyprus and their commanders may have exercised some influence over local affairs.139 These commanders were elite foreigners in service to the Ptolemies and the soldiers in the garrisons were mercenaries of foreign origin, accompanied by their families.140 Evidence has been claimed for a system of military settlement similar to the cleruchy of Egypt, but it is weak and ambiguous insofar as it pertains to the early Ptolemaic period.141 New settlements in Syria and Phoenicia formed a chain of fortresses guarding the inland borders of the Ptolemaic province from Orthosia to Damascus to Philadelphia128. Cohen (1995), pp. 134–136. 129. Strab. 14.6.3; Cohen (1995), p. 136. 130. Strab. 14.6.3; Cohen (1995), pp. 136–137. On the harbors of Salamis and Citium, see Flemming (1974); Raban (1995), pp. 162–163; Yon (1995). 131. I.Kourion 32; Bagnall (1976a), pp. 63‒64. 132. Stylianou (1989), p. 405; Hatzopoulos (2009). 133. Honeyman (1940), pp. 61, 66 with n.29; Mitford (1950), pp. 99–101; Masson (1968), p. 400; Keen (2012), Chapter 5. Huß (1977b), pp. 135–136, dated the era of Lapethus from c. 255. 134. Volkmann (1956); van den Branden (1964); Parmentier (1987); Hölbl (2001), p. 59. 135. Fourrier (forthcoming). 136. Mitford (1953), pp. 80‒86; Bagnall (1976a), p. 79; Młynarczyk (1990), pp. 109‒110. 137. Mitford (1953), pp. 84‒86; Młynarczyk (1990), pp. 109‒110. 138. P.Lond. VII 1951 = PSI V, 505, ll. 5–6; Pouilloux (1971), pp. 567–569; Bagnall (1976a), pp. 73–74; Młynarczyk (1990), pp. 107‒108. 139. Bagnall (1976a), pp. 49–57. 140. Bagnall (1976a), pp. 56–57, 263–264; Młynarczyk (1990), pp. 110, 111. 141. Mitford (1961), pp. 134–135, 142; Bagnall (1976a), p. 57.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

73

Amman.142 Some but not all of these colonies bore dynastic names: an Arsinoe perhaps in the vicinity of Damascus, or a refoundation of Damascus; Philoteria on the Sea of Galilee; Scythopolis on the west bank of the River Jordan; Berenice-Pella on the east bank of the Jordan; and Philadephia-Amman in the southern Transjordan.143 On the coast, the ancient city of Akko, destroyed in the early Hellenistic period, was restored under the name Ptolemais.144 Strato’s Tower, a probable foundation of Ptolemy II, conforms to the pattern of harbor development seen in the islands, on Cyprus, and along the southern coast of Asia Minor.145 The traditional cities of Phoenicia also hellenized in varying degrees, in the case of Sidon continuing a process dating back to the fifth century. Their elites competed in the panhellenic games and imitated the Greek practice of voting honorific decrees and erecting commemorative inscriptions.146 A new civic era began at Tyre c. 275.147 The date corresponds approximately to the beginning of the First Syrian War, when the Tyre mint was activated to produce precious metal coinage (see below). The correlations suggest the possibility of some royal intervention. By analogy with the eras of Citium and Lapethus, this was probably a grant of self-government, whose institutions are attested at Tyre by the mid-third century.148 A decree of the Sidonians resident in the Athenian Piraeus is dated to year 14 of a Sidonian era and may perhaps reflect similar developments at Sidon.149 The major Syro-Phoenician cities, like those of Cyprus, were garrisoned by foreign mercenaries, and other military men were settled in the countryside as cleruchs.150 The economic and civil administration of the province were similar to those of Egypt (see below). About 260 Ptolemy promulgated rules for the farming of taxes at the village level, and tax farmers concerned with export duties are attested at the ports of Gaza and Tyre as early as 258 and 257.151 The Domestic Realm The court of Ptolemy II at Alexandria is memorable for its ostentatious luxury and for the high achievements of the poets and scholars he patronized. Equally noteworthy are developments outside of Alexandria: an energetic policy of territorial expansion and consolidation on Egypt’s southern and eastern borders; land reclamation within Egypt, 142. Mueller (2006), p. 50. Cf. Rostovtzeff (1941), pp. 346–347, also hypothesizing a military line around Judaea. 143. Cohen (2006), pp. 102–104, 237, 265–274, 290–299. 144. Cohen (2006), pp. 213–221. Mueller (2006), p. 52, noted the parallel with Arsinoe-Marium. 145. Cohen (2006), pp. 299–302. 146. Bagnall (1976a), p. 22. 147. KAI 19; Huß (1976), p. 133. Lipiński (2004), pp. 171–172, proposed an earlier Tyrian era beginning in 308/7, but this is problematic, as it reassigns the year 8–11 tetradrachms given to Ake by Newell (1916) to Tyre in the years 301/0–298/7 without taking account of the Antigonid coinage attributed to Tyre at this same period (Newell 1923b: Wheatley 2003a). 148. Rép. épigr. sém. III, 1204; Bagnall (1976a), p. 22. 149. Rép. épigr. sém. III, 1215, l. 3; Bagnall (1976a), p. 22, suggested that the era might commemorate a new constitution adopted after the death of King Philocles, which must have occurred in the reign of Ptolemy II. Hauben (2004), pp. 35‒44, demonstrated that Philocles’ career ended early in Philadelphus’ reign. Lipiński (2004), pp. 171–172, dated the inauguration of the new Sidonian era to the late fourth century, after the death of King Abdalonymus. Apicella and Chatonnet (forthcoming) dated the Sidonian era to Alexander’s conquest and concluded that the Sidonian kings did not enjoy plenary power after 332. 150. Bagnall (1976a), pp. 14–17. 151. P.Cair.Zen. I 59003 = C.Ord.Ptol. 21–22 = Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 64; P.Cair.Zen. 59804, 59093; Rostovtzeff (1941), Vol. I, pp. 344–351; Bagnall (1976a), pp. 18–21; Grabbe (2011), pp. 78–81.

74

Introduction

linked to the ongoing absorption of new immigrants; and a notable intensification of economic activity in the countryside which supported Ptolemy’s foreign wars, court life, and benefactions at home and abroad. Court Life A fragment of Callixenus of Rhodes gives a vivid impression of the extravagance of Lagid entertainments and of the role of such spectacles in expressing Ptolemaic power, religious sentiment, and royal ideology.152 The passage describes the celebration of a panhellenic festival with implications for dynastic and royal cult, called the Pentaeteris and most likely identical with the Ptolemaieia (see p. 93 below).153 The king hosted his banquet guests in a pavilion supported by columns in the shape of palm trees and thyrsoi, richly ornamented with sculptures and paintings by artists of renown, representations of famous symposia from literature, Delphic tripods of gold, oval shields of gold and silver, oversize military costumes decorated with royal portraits or mythical subjects, and gigantic gold eagles.154 Among these decorations we can recognize symbols of Zeus, the protector of Ptolemy I, who ordained Lagid military victories and territorial expansion; Apollo, divine counterpart of Ptolemy II as patron of the Muses and victor over the Galatians; and Dionysus, god of wine, patron of theater, and the source of tryphe.155 The pavilion accommodated a hundred gold couches, each furnished with two gold tables and a silver basin and jug for hand washing.156 On a central couch were displayed the serving vessels, goblets and cups of gold studded with gems, estimated at a value of 10,000 silver talents.157 The festival procession, which passed through the stadium of Alexandria, required at least a full day and perhaps several days.158 It involved well over a hundred thousand participants—the Artists of Dionysus, troupes of musicians, allegorical personifications and throngs of minor deities, priests and sacred associations, costumed citizens grouped by age and gender, hundreds of men pulling the exhibits, and a parade of the Ptolemaic land army comprising nearly 90,000 infantry and cavalry.159 The procession commenced with a division dedicated to the Morning Star at the time of its appearance, and continued with divisions dedicated to the parents of the rulers and to all the gods, closing with the 152.Callixenus of Rhodes FGrHist 627 F2 (= Athen. 5.196–203). For commentary, see Walbank (1966), pp. 121–125; Dunand (1981); Rice (1983); Hazzard (2000), pp. 66–75; Thompson (2000); Müller (2009), pp. 178–205. On tryphe, see Tondriau (1948f); Heinen (1978), pp. 188–192; Hölbl (2001), p. 92. 153. The pompe described by Callixenus is generally dated relatively early in Philadelphus’ reign; for bibliography through 2000, see Huß (2001), p. 320 n.123. Burstein (2008), p. 140 n.28, has argued that the presence of Ethiopians carrying tribute implies a date after Ptolemy’s expedition into Lower Nubia c. 275 or a bit later. Hazzard has built an elaborate (but not generally accepted) case for dating the pompe to the Ptolemaieia of 262, see Hazzard and Fitzgerald (1991); Hazzard (2000), pp. 25–79. Other scholars have also associated the pompe with the Ptolemaieia, but the identity of the Pentaeteris and the Ptolemaieia has been disputed by Fraser (1972), Vol. II, pp. 379–380 n.321; Rice (1983), pp. 185–186; and Remijsen (2009), p. 259. Their arguments were addressed by Bennett (2011), pp. 111–114. 154. Athen. 5.196a–197a. 155. Rice (1983), pp. 32, 51–58; Müller (2009), pp. 181–189. Müller (p. 181), following Perpillou-Thomas (1991), p. 188, suggested that the palms could also be symbols of Osiris, representing his victory over death and eternal life. 156. Athen. 5.197b. 157. Athen. 5.197c. 158. Rice (1983), pp. 35–36. 159. Rice (1983), pp. 55–56, suggested that the institution of the Artists of Dionysus may have originated in Egypt under Ptolemaic patronage, rather than in Greece, and that Philikos, the priest of Dionysus, was the tragedian of the same name. On the military parade, see Athen. 5.203a; Rice (1983), pp. 123–126.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

75

division of the Evening Star, again at the time of its appearance.160 The surviving fragment of Callixenus deals mainly with the division of the procession dedicated to Dionysus, of which we shall mention only a few highlights. One float featured a 12-foot tall mechanized statue of Nysa, the god’s nurse or perhaps rather a personification of his natal city in India, discovered by Alexander the Great during his eastern campaign; this automaton stood up, poured a libation of milk from a golden saucer, and then sat again.161 The gifts of Dionysus to mankind were represented by a float drawn by 300 men bearing a wine press trod by 60 satyrs, which dribbled grape juice in its wake, and another float drawn by 600 men containing a wine skin made of panther pelts, with a capacity of 30,000 gallons, dribbling wine in its wake.162 Other displays illustrated scenes from the mythical life of Dionysus: a tableau depicting the bridal chamber of Semele, recalling her hieros gamos; a float drawn by 500 men bearing a model of the Cave of the Nymphs where the infant god was reared, represented as an ivy-covered grotto, full of live doves, with two fountains, one of milk and the other of wine; a float bearing a figure of Dionysus at the altar of Rhea, where he sought absolution after being afflicted with madness by Hera.163 The triumphal return of Dionysus from India was depicted as a procession within a procession. An 18foot image of the god reclining on the back of an elephant, guided by a satyr waving a golden goat’s horn (recalling Alexander’s horn of Ammon?), was followed by 500 young girls, troops of satyrs and silenoi, captive Indian women, camels bearing aromatics and spices, and several thousand Dionysian or exotic animals, undoubtedly borrowed from the king’s private zoo.164 Statues of Alexander and the first Ptolemy, crowned with golden ivy wreaths, rode together with Priapus in the division of Dionysus, Ptolemy accompanied by personifications of Arete and Corinth, and this group was followed by personifications of the Greek cities liberated from Persian rule by Alexander.165 The division of Alexander featured a gold statue of the conqueror flanked by figures of Athena and Nike in a chariot drawn by live elephants.166 The Ptolemaic dynasty was represented by chryselephantine thrones bearing royal emblems, of which the most noteworthy was a gold crown of 10,000 chrysoi on the throne of Ptolemy Soter; empty thrones were a Macedonian symbol for a deceased king.167 A gold aegis and gilded eagles 30 feet high alluded to the first Ptolemy’s descent from Zeus.168 In all, 2300 gold crowns were displayed in the procession and one of them, 120 feet in circumference and set with precious stones, was hung on the door of the temple of Berenice, mother of the sovereigns.169 The king’s qualities of military prowess and euergetism were symbolized in dazzling fashion, by over-lifesize parade armor in 160. Athen. 5.197d. Müller (2009), pp. 204–205, suggested that the stars might be symbols of Arsinoe II or Berenice, especially the Morning Star which was associated with Aphrodite, with whom both queens were identified in cult. 161. Athen. 5.198f; Rice (1983), pp. 62–68; Müller (2009), p. 193. Thompson (2000), p. 376, noted the use of robots in earlier Hellenistic processions. 162. Athen. 5.199a–b. 163. Athen. 5.200b–c, 201c–d; Rice (1983), pp. 78–82, 99–102. Müller (2009), pp. 192–193, observed that the bridal chamber of Semele could have alluded to the hieros gamos of Ptolemy II and his sister and that the grotto recalled a passage in Euripides’ Bacchae (699–713). 164. Athen. 5.200d–f; Rice (1983), pp. 82–99; Müller (2009), p. 193. 165. Athen. 5.201d–e; Rice (1983), pp. 102–110. The grouping implied that Ptolemy had inherited the mantle of Alexander as protector of the liberties of the Greeks. 166. Athen. 5.202a. 167. Athen. 5.202b; Thompson (2000), p. 379. 168. Athen. 5.202d. 169. Athen. 5.202d; Rice (1983), pp. 120–122.

76

Introduction

gold and silver, and by a solid gold horn of plenty 45 feet long.170 Dedications to the gods appeared abundantly throughout the procession, in the form of precious vessels, ritual objects, and divine attributes of colossal size: a gold phallus 180 feet long, painted in different colors and bound with golden fillets, with a gold star 9 feet in diameter at its tip; a gold thyrsus 135 feet long; a gilded kerykeion 67.5 feet long; a gilded thunderbolt 60 feet long; a gilded temple 60 feet in circumference.171 Two thousand sacrificial bulls walked in the procession, their horns gilded, wearing gold stars on their foreheads and gold necklaces and aegides on their breasts.172 During the games that followed Ptolemy II was presented with many gifts from his subjects and allies. Among them were two gold portrait statues of himself in gold chariots, crowns for his parents the Soteres, three portrait statues of the Soteres in gold chariots, and the endowment of sacred precincts for the Soteres at Dodona by Pyrrhus of Epirus.173 The total expense for crowns, according to Callixenus, was 2,239 talents and 50 minae.174 It has been estimated that sum could have supported an army of 50,000 men for a year, and yet it may only represent the cost of the prizes awarded in the games or the value of the crowns presented to the king.175 Among the artists and scholars drawn to the court of Philadelphus were several poets of the first rank. Callimachus of Cyrene enjoyed enormous popularity in the Hellenistic world and was quoted more often than any other poet except Homer. Theocritus of Syracuse and Callimachus each wrote works honoring members of the royal family, associating them with the gods and heroes of Greek myth and enveloping the Lagids in an aura of intimacy, sentimentality, and domestic affection—qualities that were favored in Hellenistic art generally, and that particularly characterized the self-representation of Hellenistic monarchs.176 The second Ptolemy was compared especially with Apollo, creating a double filiation since his father was closely associated with Zeus.177 Philadelphus’ kingly qualities and fabulous wealth in gold were other important themes.178 A third court poet, Posidippus of Pella, promoted the deification of Arsinoe in his epigrams and advertised the Macedonian roots of the Lagid family, while the epic poet Apollonius of Rhodes served for a time as tutor of the royal children and director of the Library of Alexandria.179 170. Athen. 5.202d–f. A double cornucopiae 12 feet high (Athen. 5.202c) may have honored Arsinoe II, although our sources do not associate this symbol with her until after her death, whereas most scholars date the procession to the 270s. Rice (1983), pp. 202–208, argued that the double cornucopiae antedated the death of Arsinoe, that it symbolized the union of Sarapis and Isis, and that its transfer to the late queen served to identify the Theoi Adelphoi with Sarapis and Isis. Cf. Müller (2009), pp. 203–204, who also saw a possible allusion to Arsinoe II in the statue of Hera wearing a gold stephane (Athen. 5.201c–d). 171. Athen. 5.201e, 202c. 172. Athen. 5.202a. Thompson (2000), p. 369, suggested that the decoration of the bulls might perhaps have been of Egyptian style. 173. Athen.5.203a–b. 174. Athen. 5.203b. 175. Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), p. 177; Rice (1983), pp. 131–133; Thompson (2000), p. 379. The military pay implied by this estimate may be a bit low. Fischer-Bovet (2008), p. 146, assumed average pay of one drachm per day for infantry, two for cavalry, and ten for officers. At these rates, the crowns were roughly equivalent to the annual pay of 40,000 infantry or an army of 30,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry. 176. See, e.g., Theoc. Id. 15.106–111; Id. 17. 177. Theoc. Id. 17.58–72; Callim. Hymn. 4.153–195. 178. Theoc. Id. 14.57–65; 17.95–120. 179. On Posidippus: Clarysse (1998), pp. 12–13; Bingen (2002), especially pp. 53–55. On Apollonius: P.Oxy. X1241; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 330–332; Alonso Troncoso (2005), pp. 103–104.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

77

The Library and Mouseion of Alexandria grew in renown as international centers of scientific investigation and literary studies, attracting scholars from throughout the Greek world.180 Still recognized today are the names of Euclid, the inventor of plane geometry, and Aristarchus of Samos, the astronomer who developed the heliocentric theory of the universe. The engineer Ctesibius invented gearing, the force pump for lifting water (known as machina ctesibica), and the water organ, and these discoveries led to the water wheel which had great practical application in Egyptian rural irrigation.181 Even more important than the new creative work was the collection and preservation of the entire Greek literary corpus. Royal agents purchased large quantities of books in Athens and Rhodes, most notably the bulk of the library formed by Aristotle and Theophrastus for the Peripatetic school at Athens.182 The process of opening the world’s intellectual heritage to Greek readers continued under Ptolemy Philadelphus, naturally with a special emphasis on Egypt.183 Manetho of Sebynnetos survived into the mid-third century, and in addition to his pharaonic history he wrote works on Egyptian religious topics and physical doctrines.184 Ptolemy may have had practical motives when he sponsored a Greek translation of the Egyptian legal code preserved in priestly libraries.185 He has also been credited with commissioning a Greek translation of the Jewish Pentateuch which became the legal code of the Jews, but at least parts of the tradition are unreliable.186 Ptolemy’s court circle included a few elite Egyptians besides Manetho.187 Aristocratic young Egyptians served in the king’s bodyguard and linked him with native officials throughout the country. According to the Mendes stela, he established this institution in his fifteenth regnal year (270): “His Majesty assembled his bodyguard of good youths from among the children of the soldiers of Egypt, and their officers from the sons of Egypt. They were his bodyguard, because he loved Egypt more than any other area he controlled, because he recognized how useful they were for him.”188 The practice of collecting the 180. Another institution under royal patronage, although quite obscure today, was the Great Theatre of Alexandria, located in the palace district and probably constructed by Ptolemy Philadelphus; see Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 23; Vol. IIa, pp. 63‒66 nn. 148‒152; Delcroix and Giannattasio Andria (1997), pp. 129‒134. Athen. 14.620d mentions a recitation of Herodotus and Homer in this theatre. 181. Vitruv. De Arch 10.7.1, 10.7.4; Drachmann (1948), pp. 1–41, 200–205; Owens (2007), p. 295; Wilson (2008), pp. 340–341, 360; Greene (2008), p. 807. 182. Athen. 1.3B; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 325, Vol. IIa, p. 480, n.148; Habicht (1994), p. 149. 183. Thompson (2002). 184. Moyer (2011), pp. 86‒87, 91. The precise number of these works is uncertain, and of course it is impossible to date any of them specifically to the reign of Ptolemy II as opposed to that of Ptolemy I. 185. Modrzejewski (2005), pp. 344–345. 186. The Letter of Aristeas, a second-century forgery, places the translation of the Septuagint in the reign of Ptolemy II. Crediting Philadelphus with the initiative: Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 689–693; Modrzejewski (2005), p. 345. There is a large body of scholarship critical of the tradition, or rejecting it: see Bar-Kochva (1996), especially pp. 271–288, and McKechnie (2008), both with bibliography. 187. An Egyptian named Harchebi (Archibius) is known to have held the office of dioiketes, but the date is disputed. See Klotz (2009), especially pp. 300–305 (perhaps under Ptolemy II); Gorre (2009b), no. 77, pp. 390‒392 (under Ptolemy VIII); Huß (2013), especially p. 362 (first Egyptian dioiketes under Ptolemy VI). On the office of dioiketes, see Huß (2011a), pp. 30–37. 188. Mendes stela, Urk. II, no. 13, § 10, p. 42 = Schäfer (2011), p. 249, ll. 14‒15, and commentary pp. 267‒269; cf. the translation of Klotz (2009), p. 302. See also Winnicki (1985), p. 49 with n.41; Van ’t Dack (1992), p. 329; and the dissent of Derchain (1986), who argued that the text referred to sons of Macedonian soldiers born in Egypt and thus proved the preference of the early Ptolemies for Macedonians. As pointed out by both Klotz and Schäfer, it is unlikely that the priests of Mendes would have mentioned this matter if it had not concerned Egyptians.

78

Introduction

children of the nobility at a royal court is attested for many states throughout history and it served multiple purposes: it honored the families involved even as it made the sons hostages for their fathers’ good behavior; it inculcated loyalty in the next generation; and it provided an opportunity to teach other values that could be carried back to the hinterland when the sons assumed the posts of their fathers.189 Exploration and territorial expansion About 275 or shortly afterward, in response to a Nubian attack on Elephantine,190 Philadelphus sent a military expedition to Lower Nubia and annexed the Dodekaschoinos (Twelve-Mile District), the region extending south from the first cataract of the Nile.191 The expedition advanced as far as Mirgissa near the second cataract, where the troops left a hoard of Ptolemaic bronze coins and perhaps also Greek graffiti.192 As a result of this incursion, the land of Kush became a tributary state whose “gifts” were displayed in the Grand Procession—six hundred elephant tusks, two thousand logs of ebony, and sixty kraters full of gold and silver.193 The Dodekaschoinos was of strategic importance, having served in pharaonic times as a staging area both for Egyptian conquests of Nubia and for Nubian conquests of Egypt.194 It also provided access to the fabled gold mines of the Wadi el-Allaqi, where a city was founded, perhaps named Berenice Panchrysus (AllGold Berenice).195 In expanding his authority southward, Ptolemy fulfilled a requirement of Egyptian kingship, for Egyptian dominion over Nubia was a traditional grant of the gods since the New Kingdom, conceived as part of the right order (Maat) of the world.196 His honors to the Nubian god Arensnuphis, Lord of Abaton, further developed the ideological basis for his rule in Lower Nubia.197 To anchor his new southern boundary Ptolemy founded a new temple of Isis at Philae and endowed it with the taxes of the Dodekaschoinos, amounting to one tenth of all the produce of the district.198 The temple decorations show Ptolemy offering the gifts of the nomes of both Upper and Lower Nubia to Isis, implying that he had established an administration throughout the land of Kush; the goddess responds by granting him “a southern land… subordinated to you forever.”199 The Dodekaschoinos and its revenues had traditionally belonged to Khnum of Elephantine, 189. Strootman (2013), p. 46. 190. SB I, 5111 = SB III, 6134 = Eide, Hägg, Pierce, and Török (1996), no. 97, and pp. 536‒538. 191. Diod. 1.37.5; 3.36; Theoc. Id. 17.86–87; Agatharchides frg. 20. Török (2009), p. 384, asserted that Ptolemy annexed the Triakontaschoinos, the entire region between the First and Second Cataracts. 192. Le Rider (1969b), hoard 1; SB I, 302 = Eide, Hägg, Pierce, and Török (1996), nos. 98–99, pp. 538–541 (where an association of the graffiti with the expedition of Ptolemy II is considered only a possibility); Burstein (2008), p. 139. 193. Athen. 5.201A; Burstein (2008), pp. 139–140. 194. Dietze (1994), pp. 94, 97–98. 195. Diod. 3.12; Pliny NH 6.29.170; Dietze (1994), p. 97; Hölbl (2001), p. 55; Burstein (2008), p. 139; Török (2009), p. 385. Remains of a sizable settlement have been found in the Wadi el-Allaqi, see Castiglioni, Castiglioni, and Negro (1991). On Berenice Panchrysus, see Pliny NH 6.29.170; Cohen (2006), pp. 318–320. The founder of Berenice Panchrysus is unknown, but a coin of Ptolemy I found at the site of the Wadi el-Allaqi settlement suggests that the Ptolemaicperiod mining town could have been founded under Ptolemy II. 196. Breasted (2001), nos. 267‒268, 285‒286, 294, 646, 656‒662, 797, 844‒845, 853. 197. Török (2009), p. 388. 198. Urk. II, no. 23, § 5‒6, pp. 115–116; Haeny (1985), p. 207. Apparently Ptolemy I, during his satrapy, had made an earlier donation of land to Isis of Philae in the name of Alexander IV, see Locher (1999), p. 133 with n.63. 199. Urk. II, no. 27, p. 120; Eide, Hägg, Pierce, and Török (1996), no. 112, pp. 564‒566; see also Török (1980), p. 78; Burstein (2008), p. 139; Török (2009), pp. 386–387.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

79

having been granted to him by the Dynasty III pharaoh Djoser,200 and its diversion to Isis of Philae, like the construction of her temple, was not only religiously motivated but also bound up with a strategic relocation of the main defensive installation of Egypt’s southern border from the northern to the southern end of the first cataract.201 Both commercial and military considerations inspired Ptolemy to explore the eastern desert and the Red Sea coastline.202 In 270/69, after the end of the First Syrian War, he ordered the construction of a great defensive wall in the eastern desert and the completion of the Canal of the Pharaohs, a project begun by Necho II and continued by Darius I, to link the Pelusiac branch of the Nile north of Heliopolis with the Lake of Scorpions and ultimately with the Red Sea.203 Ptolemy founded a new port city, Arsinoe, at the mouth of the canal, near modern Suez.204 A small royal fleet under the command of the admiral Eumedes, dispatched through the new canal, reached the borders of Nubia, founded the hunting station Ptolemais Theron (Ptolemais of the Hunts), captured numerous elephants, and brought back other exotic animals and luxury items for the pleasure of the king and his sister.205 More cities were founded to protect and support trade with Arabia and India: the military colony Ampelone, a joint foundation with Miletus, on the west Arabian coast; Klysma on the Heroonopolitan Gulf (the modern Suez Lagoon); Arsinoe Trogloditica on the Red Sea coast; and Myos Hormos farther south on the Red Sea coast, at the site of modern Quseir al-Qadim.206 Elephant hunting was a source of prestige for Ptolemy Philadelphus, as it not only gave him mastery of this ideologically significant animal but allowed him to represent himself as an innovator, the first Hellenistic king to organize elephant hunts and the first to demonstrate that Greeks as well as Indians could handle elephants.207 The practical motive for elephant hunting was Ptolemy’s desire to obtain African elephants to oppose the formidable Seleucid elephant corps.208 The beasts were hunted and captured both in 200. According to the so-called famine stela, a stela on the island of Sehel, dating to Ptolemaic times. See Goedecke (1994). 201. Török (1980), p. 76; Dietze (1994), pp. 64–67, 73, 90–98. 202. The eastern desert was rich in quarries and mines, see, e.g., Harrell, Sidebotham, Bagnall, Marchand, Gates, and Rivard (2006). Egyptian precedents for exploration of the Red Sea were cited by Thiers (2001), pp. 3‒4. 203. Diod. 1.33.8–12; Strab. 17.1.25‒26; Pithom stela, Urk. II, no. 20, l. 16 = Thiers (2007b), § 2.10, p. 52, and see commentary pp. 52–53, 107–117; commentary also in Schäfer (2011), pp. 236‒238; for English translation, Mueller (2006), pp. 195‒196. The canal is also mentioned in the Mendes stela, Urk. II, no. 13, § 14, p. 45 = Meulenaere (1976), pp. 175–176, ll. 18‒19 = Schäfer (2011), p. 251, ll. 18‒19, with commentary pp. 272‒273. 204. Pithom stela, Urk. II, no. 20, ll. 20–21 = Thiers (2007b), § 2.12, p. 65, and for English translation, Mueller (2006), p. 197; Diod. 1.33.11–12; Plin. NH 6.29.165–167; Cohen (2006), pp. 308–309. Arsinoe was probably renamed Cleopatris in the second or first century B.C. 205. Strab. 16.4.7; Pithom stela, Urk. II, no. 20, ll. 21–25 = Thiers (2007b), § 2.13, § 2.14, pp. 67, 70, with commentary pp. 127–159; commentary also in Schäfer (2011), pp. 229‒232; for English translation, Mueller (2006), p. 198. On Ptolemais Theron, see Thiers (2001), p. 7; Cohen (2006), pp. 341–343. 206.Cohen (2006), pp. 307, 327–329, 310–313, 332–338. Berenice Ezion Gezer, a refoundation of Ailane (Elath) at the tip of the Gulf of Aqaba, is attributed, more or less tentatively, to the reign of Ptolemy III (pp. 314–315). 207. Schneider (2009), pp. 325‒329. 208.Agatharchides frg. 85; Diod. 3.36.3. Scullard (1974), pp. 60–63, proposed that the species hunted by the Ptolemies was the forest elephant Loxodonta africana, a breed smaller and less aggressive than the African plains elephant. However recent genetic testing of present-day elephant populations in Eritrea revealed that they are not forest elephants, but regular African savannah elephants, see Brandt et al. (2013); Brandt and Roca (2014). Elephants were also hunted for their ivory and this apparently created a competition between Ethiopian hunters, who killed the elephants, and Ptolemaic hunters who took them alive, see Thiers (2001), pp. 8‒9. According to Agatharchides, Ptolemy Philadelphus offered inducements to the Ethiopians to persuade them not to kill the elephants.

80

Introduction

Nubia and along the eastern coast of Africa.209 These efforts, especially the coastal hunting, required elaborate preparation, including the hiring of elephant trainers from India; the invention of a new type of ship, the elephantegos, for transporting elephants by sea; much new infrastructure along the coast; and the construction of a new road from the Red Sea to the Nile.210 Besides Ptolemais Theron, the cities founded to support elephant hunting were Philotera and Berenice Troglodytica, both to its north; Berenice was on the connecting road to Edfu and Coptos and consequently became the main port for the importation of elephants, which were then marched across the eastern desert by night and shipped down the Nile to Memphis for training.211 Elephant hunts were organized as military operations and the rank and file elephant hunters were bilingual Egyptian members of the military.212 Land tenure, royal economy, administration, and society In the Ptolemaic kingdom, as in pharaonic Egypt, the entire land was—in a religious or ideological sense—the property of the king.213 However the view of earlier scholars that most land suitable for wheat cultivation was legally basilike ge (royal land) and was leased to tenants appears to be a misinterpretation; royal land was a fiscal concept implying the king’s right to receive taxes or rent but it did not define the tenure rights of the farmers.214 The practice of ritually renewing the land endowments of Egyptian temples at the beginning of each reign and the use of temple bureaucracies to administer Ptolemaic land policies both imply that the king was the ultimate source of temple land.215 Inherent in this ideology was the king’s power to hold a Thot-like detailed knowledge of all land in Egypt, achieved through periodic surveys, and to tax the land and its products.216 It was Ptolemaic practice to recognize existing structures and institutions and to work through them. The most important of these were the Egyptian temples, which were centers of the traditional economy functioning as redistributive systems that conferred their benefits on the priests and their families.217 The temples owned and administered large estates, but much of this sacred land was leased out or allotted to temple servants for their support and was treated in practice as freely conveyable private property.218 In Upper Egypt (and probably elsewhere) such policies created a patchwork of numerous 209. Thiers (2001), pp. 7, 9; (2007b), p. 151. The inland route is attested by graffiti of elephant hunters at Abu Simbel, see Bernand and Masson (1957), nos. 20 and 27. 210. Casson (1993); Burstein (2008), pp. 140–147. These authors, as well as Strabo 17.1.45 and Pliny NH 6.102–103, 168, all discuss the route from Berenice to Coptos, but it appears that the route used in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus ran from Berenice to Edfu, see Cohen (2006), pp. 320–321. 211. Casson (1993), pp. 238–249; Thiers (2001), p. 9; Cohen (2006), pp. 339–341, 320–325; Burstein (2008), pp. 142–143. Berenice Troglodytica may be mentioned in the Pithom stela, Urk. II, no. 20, l. 24, in which case its foundation must have been earlier than 264, see Thiers (2007b), pp. 156–159; Schäfer (2011), p. 231 n.93. 212. W.Chr. 452 = P.Petr. II, 40 a; Casson (1993), p. 252; Thiers (2001), p. 8. The evidence dates from later reigns but probably reflects precedents established by Ptolemy II. 213. Modrzejewski (1979), pp. 163–170; Anagnostou-Canas (1990), pp. 355–356, 363; Manning (2003), pp. 157–160. Cf. Préaux (1939), pp. 459–463. 214. Monson (2007), pp. 381–382; id. (2012a), pp. 12–13, 19; id. (2012b), pp. 144‒146, 164–171. For older views, see Rostovtzeff (1941), Vol. I, pp. 276–280; Anagnostou-Canas (1990), pp. 356–357; Manning (2003), pp. 54–56. 215. Manning (2003), pp. 76–77, 148–149. 216. Manning (2003), pp. 146–148. 217. Quaegebeur (1979); Rowlandson (1995), p. 309. 218. Rostovtzeff (1941), Vol. I, pp. 280–284; Anagnostou-Canas (1990), pp. 357–358; Manning (2003), pp. 89–90. According to Diodorus (1.21.7, 1.73.2) sacred land (hiera ge) comprised a third of the land of Egypt.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

81

small private holdings, worked by individual families.219 The Egyptian elite apparently derived the greater part of its income not from land but from priestly offices.220 Each temple had an associated necropolis that paid taxes to the temple and provided work for the lesser priests who specialized in funerals and mortuary cult.221 The scribal profession was rooted in priestly education and various crafts were practiced in temples, notably the manufacture of papyrus and of byssus (fine linen).222 The traditional society and economy began to change under the first Ptolemy but the processes are far better documented under the second. In this reign heavy immigration, mainly of civilian entrepreneurs, brought the population of Hellenes in Egypt to its maximum, recently estimated at 184,000 souls or 4.6% of the total population.223 A new nome, the Arsinoites, was created in the Fayum on reclaimed land irrigated from an artificial reservoir.224 The Arsinoite nome became a center of immigrant settlement, and by the mid-third century Hellenes comprised more than 30% of the population.225 New cities with dynastic names, Philadelphia and Theadelphia, provided urban centers for the Greek residents of the Arsinoites.226 The native population of the Fayum was bolstered by Egyptians from the densely populated Nile Valley who were drawn by the availability of cultivable land; some of these settlers officially leased royal land for cultivation and others farmed it under the supervision of village elders, replicating a customary form of land tenure in which land could be transferred (without payment or legal contract) from one member of the community to another, or between individual farmers and the village as a corporate entity.227 The increase in arable land made it easier to grant large estates (doreai) to high officials, including Egyptians, for the duration of their service, after which the land reverted to the crown.228 The revocable nature of these grants prevented the emergence of an hereditary aristocracy among the Graeco-Macedonian elite, who retained property and personal power bases in their cities and regions of origin and used their influence to promote 219. Manning (2003), pp. 65–98; ; Monson (2007), p. 381; id. (2012a), pp. 15–16. 220. Johnson (1986), pp. 75–81. 221. Quaegebeur (1979), pp. 725‒726; Muhs (2005), pp. 88‒95 on the burial tax in Thebes, and pp. 95‒98 on temple income from the sale of burial plots. 222. Quaegebeur (1979), pp. 724‒725. 223. Rowlandson (1995), p. 305, on the character of the immigrants; Fischer-Bovet (2011) on the proportion of Hellenes in the population. Rathbone (1990) calculated an immigrant population of 400,000, representing 10% of the total population of Egypt, but his methodology was rejected as flawed by Fischer-Bovet. 224. Garbrecht and Jaritz (1990). The land reclamation work went on for many years. The chief hydraulic engineer overseeing the work drew a salary of 300 drachms per month, see Monson (2012b), pp. 228‒229. 225. Thompson (2009), p. 401, noting that this figure is based on tax status rather than actual ethnicity. 226. On Philadelphia, see Rostovtzeff (1941), Vol. I, pp. 420–422; on Egyptian immigration to Philadelphia, see Clarysse (1980b), pp. 106–122. 227. Clarysse (1980b), pp. 106–122; Bagnall (2000), p. 27; Monson (2007), p. 386; id. (2012a), pp. 7, 13–14 (citing P.Lond. VI, 1954–5, which records an offer of land from the estate of the dioiketes Apollonius to a group of peasants from the Heracleopolite nome). On communal land management, see Monson (2007), pp. 372–375; id. (2012a), pp. 13–14, 16–18; id. (2012b), pp. 142–148. Women are not mentioned in the records concerning royal or communal land, whereas they enjoyed property rights in Upper Egypt, see Monson (2012b), p. 149. 228. Rostovtzeff (1941), Vol. I, p. 289; Anagnostou-Canas (1990), pp. 358–360. Johnson (1986), pp. 75–77, pointed out that of five myriarouroi (owners of 10,000 arouras) named in Greek documents, three have Egyptian names and all three seem to have held lands in the Fayum. Monson (2012b), pp. 78, 86–87, suggested that this category of land grant was probably only a temporary measure to facilitate the early development of the Fayum by engaging the recipients as collaborators in the land reclamation program.

82

Introduction

Lagid royal interests in these areas.229 High officials of the early Ptolemaic period often performed part or all of their service away from the royal court, as military commanders or as administrators in the provinces.230 They rarely settled permanently in Egypt, although they might become citizens of Alexandria.231 More important for the development of Egyptian society was the expansion of the institution of cleruchy, the provision of small land allotments (kleroi) in exchange for military service.232 This expansion was driven by a need to settle the veterans of the Syrian wars; in 253, at the end of the Second Syrian War, the king visited Memphis, apparently to make the formal announcement of cleruchic grants in the villages of the Fayum.233 Such large-scale grants were perhaps celebrated in the manner of city foundations, with an oath of allegiance to the king, sacrifices, a military parade, and games.234 This system of landholding spread to the external provinces as well; kleroi and doreai multiplied especially in Phoenicia and Syria. In regions dominated by the Egyptian temple economy it was far more difficult to accommodate new Greek settlers. Ptolemy I had introduced them into Upper Egypt on a large scale by means of his city foundation at Ptolemais. Ptolemy II repeated the process on a much smaller scale at Arsinoe by Apollonopolis, a military colony at the Horian cult center Edfu.235 As there was no state-sponsored program of land reclamation in the south, cleruchs apparently had to purchase or lease land.236 The reign of Ptolemy II was a time of economic intensification, as evidenced by the heavy immigration, the numerous city foundations, land reclamation, limited experiments in scientific farming,237 and especially new legislation. In 264, between his twenty-first and twenty-second regnal years, Philadelphus reformed the regulation of the Egyptian economy on a somewhat experimental basis, creating royal monopolies, replacing some traditional taxes with new levies, and introducing a variety of new taxes.238 The specific management practices introduced at this time reflect three basic aims: (1) to enhance productivity and revenue; (2) to ensure a stable, predictable stream of revenue while shifting the risk of shortfall to contractors and economic producers; and (3) to control the supply of various products, partly in the service of predictability, but also to support (or more likely increase) commodity prices.239 Contracts for the various royal monopolies were sold at auction and the winning bidders were required to post sureties that would be forfeit if their concessions failed 229. Rowlandson (2007), pp. 29‒40. 230. Rowlandson (2007), p. 32. Examples include Callicrates of Samos and Aetos of Aspendus. 231. Rowlandson (2007), pp. 34‒35. 232. Rostovtzeff (1941), Vol. I, pp. 284–287; Clarysse (1980a), pp. 87–88; Anagnostou-Canas (1990), pp. 360–361. On the predominance of cavalry among cleruchs before 217, see Clarysse and Thompson (2006), pp. 148–153. 233. Clarysse (1980a), pp. 85, 88–89. 234. Clarysse (1980a), p. 89 with nn.5–6. 235. For Arsinoe by Apollonopolis: P.Hal. 1 = SP II, no. 207 = C.Ord.Ptol. no. 24 (mid-third century); Rice (1983), p. 54; Manning (2003), p. 96 n.166. Vandorpe (2005), p. 168, characterized this early settlement as a temporary quartering. 236. Manning (2003), pp. 67, 73, 87–88. 237. P.Cair.Zen. 59155; Johannsen (1925). The estate of Apollonius attempted to improve agricultural productivity through experiments with different varieties of wheat and irrigation techniques. 238. Muhs (2005), pp. 8–9. Most other scholars prefer a date of 263 for these reforms. On the experimental aspect of the reforms, see Bingen (1978); Manning (2010), p. 153 with n.141; Agut-Labordère (forthcoming). 239. Manning (2003), pp. 140–141, 142, 144; Muhs (2005), p. 9.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

83

to generate an income adequate to cover the bid.240 Receipts from the monopolies were deposited in royal banks (basilikai trapezai) which were part of the fiscal administration of the dioiketes, organized in a hierarchy that extended from Alexandria to the nome capitals to villages. First attested c. 265, royal banks stored all contracts related to the royal revenues, received payments due to the king, and disbursed funds for administrative salaries and various public expenditures, in effect serving as local or regional branches of the state treasury.241 A second category of bank, operated by royal concession, held a monopoly on changing money and collecting exchange fees.242 Many other economic activities were also organized as royal concessions, including hunting, fishing, mining, quarrying, weaving, and brewing.243 Much of our information about government contracting, the regulation of agriculture, and the major taxes stems from a single papyrus, the so-called Revenue Laws of 259, which preserves several royal enactments of the later 260s.244 At planting time, seed of all kinds was withdrawn from royal warehouses and given to farmers as a loan, to be repaid with interest after the harvest; in the case of grain, farmers made payments in kind to the royal granaries, in installments, to settle these debts and pay off their taxes.245 Other crops that were consumed locally were minutely regulated and heavily taxed. A royal monopoly called elaike governed the oil-producing plants sesame and castor.246 It restricted planting of these crops in each nome and prohibited imports from other nomes, in order to ensure accurate estimates of production and the posting of guarantees by the royal concessionaire for the nome. The harvested seeds, by law, must be delivered in full to the concessionaire, who purchased 75% and received the other 25% as tax. The oil was extracted from the seeds by presses and workers controlled by the concessionaire in the name of the state. Royal officials then held monthly auctions in which merchantconcessionaires paid in bronze currency for the franchise to market specific quantities of oil in particular villages at prices fixed by the king. This system maintained the price of oil in Egypt at levels much higher than the price of the finest olive oil of Greece; in the Thebaid, oil was about eight times more costly than wine.247 The price was protected by a ban on foreign imports except for personal use, with a 50% tariff on imported olive oil. Other Egyptian agricultural products and industries were also protected by stiff tariffs of 20–50%, even on imports from other parts of the Ptolemaic kingdom.248 These rates were generally the same as the taxes paid by producers in Egypt. The abnormally high prices of commodities in Egypt naturally encouraged attempts at evasion. In the case of sesame, which could be grown easily on marginal lands and did 240. von Reden (2007), pp. 268–278, 292 n.64, 297. 241. Préaux (1939), pp. 280–297; Rostovtzeff (1941), Vol. I, pp. 404–406; Bogaert (1983), pp. 19–20; id. (1998–99); Muhs (2005), pp. 21–22; von Reden (2007), pp. 257–279. 242. Bogaert (1983), pp. 26–29; id. (1992), p. 33; von Reden (2007), pp. 253–254. 243. P.Rev.; Préaux (1939), pp. 93–116, 152–158, 197–207, 243–267; Rostovtzeff (1941), Vol. I, pp. 296–298, 305–309 ; Huß (2012), pp. 1–17. 244. P.Rev.; Grenfell (1896). The preferred edition is that of Bingen (1952). For English translation, see Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 114; for commentary, see Bingen (1978). 245. On installment payments, see Monson (2012b), p. 170. The rate of interest, at least in some localities of the Arsinoite nome, varied annually according to conditions, see Vandorpe (1998). 246. P.Rev., cols. 38–72 = SP II, no. 203; Austin (2006), no. 297. For discussion, see Préaux (1939), pp. 65–93; Rostovtzeff (1941), Vol. I, pp. 302–305; Bingen (1946); Muhs (2005), pp. 73‒79. 247. Muhs (2005), p. 79. 248. Préaux (1939), pp. 371–379.

84

Introduction

not require the use of presses, there was apparently a black market in cheap, unofficial oil. Demotic receipts for the purchase of sesame oil, from Thebes and Elephantine, indicate that as early as 258 households were required to make small monthly purchases of the official oil.249 This requirement represents an attempt by the state to protect the merchantconcessionaires on whom the royal revenues depended. Its early date implies an equally early recognition of the problematic nature, even fragility, of the monopoly regime established by the Revenue Laws. The latest demotic receipt for sesame oil dates from 222, possibly because the system was allowed to lapse thereafter. Orchards and vineyards were subject to a tax based on a percentage of the harvest.250 Originally it was levied by the Egyptian temples on their own sacred lands, at the rate of one sixth of the harvest (hekte). In 263 the hekte was extended to royal lands (including kleroi and doreai) and dedicated to supporting the cult of Arsinoe Philadelphus in the Egyptian temples.251 At the same time its collection was transferred from the temples to tax farmers.252 In 259 the tax was renamed apomoira and a new lower rate of one tenth (dekate) was authorized for cleruchs on active duty and for artificially irrigated vineyards in Upper Egypt, probably to encourage new planting.253 The apomoira on orchards was levied in cash; that on vineyards was payable in wine but it was commuted to cash before being distributed to the temples.254 Receipts from the Thebaid reveal a marked preference for paying the apomoira in cash.255 As a basis for taxation, royal officials conducted annual land surveys after the Nile flood receded, to reestablish the boundaries of the fields, determine the quality and condition of the land, and reflect land transfers.256 Tax farming enabled the state to predict its revenues while transferring the risk of shortfalls to the tax farmers (telonai).257 In the Ptolemaic system the essential function of tax farmers was to underwrite and assess the various taxes, but not to collect them.258 The oikonomos, the chief financial officer of the nome, held auctions to sell contracts for each type of tax in each tax collection district; royal officials were prohibited from bidding.259 The high bidder on each contract—usually a group rather than an individual—was required to deposit a surety with the oikonomos in the amount of the bid, to ensure that the state would receive the promised sum, even if the 249. Agut-Labordère (forthcoming). 250. The current standard treatment of the apomoira is Clarysse and Vandorpe (1998). See also Préaux (1939), pp. 165–186; Rostovtzeff (1941), Vol. I, p. 283; Koenen (1993), pp. 66–69; Monson (2012b), pp. 162–163. 251. P. Rev. col. 36, ll. 18–19; Lanciers (1991), pp. 139–140; Clarysse and Vandorpe (1998), pp. 10–14. 252. Von Reden (2007), pp. 95–97; Thompson (2008), pp. 32–33; Bussi (2013), p. 157. Koenen (1993), pp. 67–69, believed that temples continued to collect the traditional tax on sacred land, whereas Thompson asserted that the reform transferred collection of the entire hekte from temples to tax farmers. 253. P.Köln VII, 314; Clarysse and Vandorpe (1998), pp. 18–26; von Reden (2007), p. 97; Thompson (2008), p. 33. 254. Von Reden (2007), pp. 95–96. 255. Muhs (2005), p. 64. 256. Muhs (2005), pp. 17–18; Thompson (2008), pp. 34–37; Monson (2012b), pp. 167–168; id. (2007), pp. 372–375, and (2012a), pp. 16–18, on the prevalence of land transfers. The order for such a survey in 258 (Bresciani 1978, 1983) has sometimes been misinterpreted as a unique event, see, e.g., Hölbl (2001), p. 62. The Persian administration of the fourth century had also conducted land surveys, see Thompson (2009), p. 399. 257. Harper (1934), p. 62; Muhs (2005) pp. 7, 9; Manning (2010), pp. 155–156. Muhs (p. 14) suggested that the collection of taxes in kind was probably not farmed out, but evidence for the early Ptolemaic period is scanty. According to Monson (2012b), p. 234, tax farming was probably a Babylonian institution introduced to Egypt by the Achaemenids. 258. Harper (1934), p. 49. 259. Harper (1934), pp. 50–52.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

85

taxes actually collected fell short of the estimate.260 The Revenue Laws inform us that for certain taxes, the oikonomos, with the agreement of the concessionaire, appointed a team of tax collectors (logeutai) to do the actual work of collecting the levy, providing receipts, and keeping the accounts for the duration of the contract.261 The tax contractor, for his part, probably assessed the amount of the tax for each individual or household, and he definitely supervised the activities and accounts of the tax collecting team, determined whether the contract was profitable or not, and received the profit (or absorbed the loss).262 For some taxes, notably the apomoira, there was no team of tax collectors. Rather, the tax contractor and the cultivator agreed on the assessment, and the cultivator delivered his tax directly to state officials.263 The tax contractor for the apomoira nevertheless had many responsibilities: to seal the wine presses to prevent illicit wine making; to inspect vineyards and wine presses at the time of harvest; to supervise the pressing of grapes, together with the oikonomos and his staff; to guarantee by oath the accuracy of the cultivator’s and his own accounts; to seize a fruit crop in case of dispute and to sell it, paying the appropriate shares to the cultivator and to the state; and to participate with the oikonomos in the sale of wine received as taxes.264 Royal officials, in addition to the duties noted above, enforced regulations; tested and approved vessels for the transport of commodities paid as tax; provided for the processing of some products; verified the accounts of the tax contractors; and sometimes made adjustments to insure that the contracts were profitable.265 The virtues of this complex system were that it guaranteed royal revenues and tended to stabilize them from year to year; and in theory, at least, the built-in checks and balances deterred abuse and protected taxpayers from illegal exactions, allowing the sovereign to maintain a stance of benevolence.266 River transport was heavily taxed, at up to 50% of the transportation charges, and duties were also levied on the transport of goods from one nome to another.267 In addition to these taxes and those on agriculture the king also taxed his subjects directly. The annual salt tax (halike, demotic HD hmA) replaced the yoke tax in 264/3.268 This was not actually a levy on salt, which was taxed separately when purchased from licensed merchants.269 Instead the salt tax was a capitation tax, originally set at one drachm, three obols for adult males and one drachm for adult females; in 254/3 it was reduced to one drachm for adult males and three obols for adult females.270 The salt tax was payable in coin but 260. Harper (1934), p. 49; Muhs (2005), p. 22. 261. Harper (1934), pp. 52–53; Muhs (2005), pp. 22–23. The logeutai were paid from the account of the tax farmer at the monthly rate of 100 drachms for the supervisor, 30 drachms for the tax collectors, 20 drachms for their subordinates, and 15 drachms for the keepers of the receipts. 262. Harper (1934), pp. 54–55. 263. Harper (1934), pp. 56–61. 264. Harper (1934), pp. 56–61. 265. Harper (1934), pp. 57, 59; Bingen (2007), pp. 157–188. 266. Harper (1934), pp. 62–64; Monson (2013b), p. 233. In contrast to Harper and Muhs, Bingen (2007) characterized this system as a makeshift adaptation to a shortage of immigrant manpower, its specific features shaped by the inadequacy of the Greek institution of tax farming to the large scale of Egyptian agriculture. 267. Préaux (1930), pp. 344–353. 268. Muhs (2005), pp. 6, 8; Thompson (2008), p. 31–32. 269. Rostovtzeff (1941), Vol. I, p. 309; Cadell (1966). 270. Clarysse and Thompson (1995); Thompson (1997), pp. 245–247, 249; Clarysse and Thompson (2006), pp. 36–89; von Reden (2007), pp. 65–67; Thompson (2008), p. 37.

86

Introduction

could sometimes be discharged in part through compulsory labor.271 Compulsory labor itself, in the form of an obligation to move a fixed quantity of earth, was treated as a form of taxation that could be discharged by payment of a monetary tax of two drachms (leitourgikon, demotic otm).272 Domestic animals and most occupations were subject to specific capitation taxes.273 This system of taxation was dependent upon census records, which imply a bureaucracy to collect the information at the village level, report the figures upward, and collect the taxes.274 In some respects the tax regime appears to have differed by region, but the seeming inconsistencies may be artifacts of different types of records in different languages.275 In the Fayum, where Greek settlers were concentrated, the salt tax was supplemented by an annual obol tax levied on adult males, but in practice only Egyptian men were subject to this small, symbolic payment because of the exemption of those classified as Hellenes for tax purposes—a group that included certain Egyptians as well as immigrants of various ethnicities.276 Cleruchs in the Fayum were perhaps exempt from compulsory labor on the irrigation system, but they paid a dike tax (chomatikon) of one obol per aroura.277 In the Thebaid the salt tax was supplemented by various special taxes that apparently affected only the more privileged members of society, many of whom were Egyptian. Most commonly attested are the wool tax (jnSn, Greek erea) of three and three quarters obols, paid by about one third of women, and the “income of a server” tax (ao rmt jw.f Sms), levied on temple personnel or perhaps specifically on mortuary priests.278 About one fifth of Theban males (perhaps priests) were exempt from compulsory labor, but other Thebans generally performed corvée rather than pay the tax; at Elephantine, in contrast, the tax itself may have been obligatory because there was little agricultural land nearby.279 Alongside all the new taxes of Ptolemy II there survived from pharaonic times two forms of sales tax on the sale of real estate, called the “tenth of scribes” and the “2½ kite of the house,” both collected in connection with the registration of legal contracts.280 The former was a ten percent tax, administered by and probably payable to the temple whose scribe wrote the contract, and the latter a fixed sum paid to state officials.281 Under the Ptolemies these taxes were extended to a broader range of transactions, including donations and the sale of a cow.282 The management of these complex institutions required a large bureaucracy and the collaboration of both Greek and Egyptian administrators, including bilingual Egyptians at 271. Clarysse and Thompson (2006), pp. 42–43. 272. Muhs (2005), pp. 9, 57‒60; von Reden (2007), p. 136. 273. Muhs (2005), pp. 8‒9; Préaux (1939), pp. 214–217; Rostovtzeff (1941), Vol. I, pp. 292–296. 274. Clarysse and Thompson (2006), Vol. II, pp. 10–35, 74–86; Thompson (1997); ead. (2008), p. 29. Thompson (2009), p. 399, noted that household and land surveys by the Persian administration of the fourth century imply an equally intrusive bureaucracy. 275. Monson (2012b), pp. 164–171, argued for a consistent tax regime throughout Egypt. 276. Clarysse (1992), p. 52; Clarysse and Thompson (1995), p. 223; Thompson (1997), p. 246; ead. (2001), pp. 306– 307, 309–311. The obol tax was subsumed in the salt tax early in the reign of Ptolemy III. 277. Muhs (2005), p. 59. 278. Muhs (2005), pp. 8, 51‒56. The rate of the wool tax was 3¾ obols. 279. Muhs (2005), p. 58–59. 280. Vleeming (1992); Muhs (2005), pp. 10, 68–71. 281. Vleeming (1992), pp. 348–350; Muhs (2005), pp. 10, 68–71. 282. Vleeming (1992), pp. 344, 346.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

87

the lowest levels of the administration.283 In order to expand the pool of potential officials literate in Greek, Ptolemy II exempted teachers of letters from the salt tax, along with teachers of physical education, performing artists belonging to the guild of Dionysus, and the victors in certain national games.284 (Another socially useful group, the police, was not officially exempt from the salt tax but its liability was handled as a bookkeeping credit.)285 By the early reign of Ptolemy III elementary level teachers were active in most villages of the Fayum.286 Surviving textbooks reveal a curriculum of basic literacy and arithmetic, followed by instruction in the Greek classics and the Alexandrian poets, and culminating in the study of rhetoric.287 The effect of this literary education even on Egyptians can be seen in a hieroglyphic allusion to Homer’s Iliad (Book 22) in the temple of Horus at Edfu.288 Administrators must have received special instruction in the technical vocabulary and tortured syntax of bureaucratic language.289 As a result of their Greek education some Egyptians made careers in the administration in positions that were felt to be “Greek” in character; concomitantly they adopted Greek names and entered the privileged class of Hellenes exempt from the obol tax.290 Only a few examples have been detected in the papyrological record because the bearers of dual names used them in different contexts, but the historical circumstances in fact suggest a broad integration of the Egyptian elite into the Greek administration.291 An interesting monument reflecting this blending is a stela erected in Philadelphia by an Egyptian priest honoring the dioiketes Apollonios and his agent Zenon for their benefactions to the Anubieion; it features an Egyptian-style relief, a few hieroglyphs, and a dedicatory inscription in Greek.292 Other Egyptians in government service, notably policemen, also adopted Greek names and enjoyed the status of “tax Hellenes.”293 Hellenized Egyptians even became members of that quintessentially Greek institution, the gymnasium.294 It is revealing that the Ptolemies privileged Greek culture in their tax laws, yet did not found or subsidize gymnasia. Private euergetism was responsible for the establishment and maintenance of gymnasia, and these were apparently quite common even in villages.295 283. Falivene (1991), pp. 216–217, 222–224; Clarysse (1993); id. (2013) on demotic documents, which remain largely unstudied so that earlier scholarship underestimated the role of Egyptians in the bureaucracy. Cf. Huß (2013), pp. 362–363, asserting the power of Greek administrators even at the village level. 284. P.Hal. 1.260–264; Thompson (1992), p. 325; ead. (2001), p. 307; Clarysse and Thompson (2006), pp. 52‒53. 285. Clarysse and Thompson (2006), p. 54. 286. Thompson (1992), p. 325; ead. (1994), pp. 75‒76. 287. Cribiore (1996); ead. (2009). 288. Derchain (1974), pp. 15‒19; Thompson (2002). Another innovation at Edfu reflecting Greek influence, noted by Derchain and Thompson, is a praise of writing that includes not only its traditional virtues but also the benefits of correspondence between distant friends. 289. Thompson (1994), p. 77. 290. Thompson (1992), p. 326. On “Greek” and “Egyptian” positions and their effect on onomasty, see Clarysse (1985); Falivene (1991), pp. 203–204, 214–219, 220, 221, 222–224. Bilingual Egyptian bureaucrats can often be detected from their use of Egyptian writing implements (a frayed rush instead of the Greek sharpened reed, and a different ink) and by Egyptian linguistic influences on their Greek, see Thompson (2009), pp. 407‒408. 291. The extent of integration is one of the major problems of Ptolemaic history, see, e.g., Huß (1994b), pp. 73–93; Clarysse (1999), pp. 54–56; Huß (2013), pp. 362–363. 292. Clarysse (1999), p. 55, fig. 2. 293. Clarysse and Thompson (2006), Vol. II, pp. 54‒55; Thompson (2009), p. 402. 294. Thompson (1994), p. 75. 295. van Minnen (2000), pp. 445‒449; see also Rathbone (1990), p. 121; Thompson (2001), p. 312.

88

Introduction

Officials and cleruchs were not normally in a position to manage their lands directly, either because of their duties toward the state or because of a lack of capital. Usually they leased out their land to petty capitalists who might then sublet it; thus at least one layer of profit, and often more, was extracted from the labor of the Egyptian peasant finally engaged to cultivate the land.296 Some scholars have emphasized the vulnerability of this peasant, confronted with the demands of aggressive Greek management techniques and institutions that created business opportunities in the space between the government and producers, opportunities that were exploited by tax farmers, bankers, the lessees of cleruchic land, and other entrepreneurs.297 This view overemphasizes the ethnic aspect of economic exploitation, for prosperous Egyptians also leased royal land and hired farm laborers.298 Agricultural workers and native artisans were not infrequently imprisoned for their inability to meet the demands on them, especially for falling into debt.299 Sureties against future payments proliferated, yet the state itself was often in arrears on salary and wage payments or converted them into kind; this, and the fact that several persons typically had to join forces to put together even modest sureties, is evidence of an insufficiency of cash in circulation.300 The lives of civilian immigrants could also be unstable; they tended to change their economic activities frequently in pursuit of riches, serving brief periods alternately as landholders, royal officials, government contractors, and independent businessmen.301 The generally privileged status of the immigrant population is nevertheless reflected in third-century salt tax records from Middle Egypt. Analyses of these records indicate that Greek households were on average larger than Egyptian households, with the largest households being those of the cavalry cleruchs, who held kleroi of 100 arouras.302 Slaveholding was rare in Egyptian households, but was a distinguishing feature of the Greek community, and specifically of Greek military households; the slaves were predominantly female and helped to compensate for the shortage of immigrant women.303 Daughters, on the other hand, are underrepresented in Greek households and this may be evidence that the Greek population practiced selective exposure of female infants.304 Royal support for Egyptian religion Ptolemy II supported the cults of the traditional Egyptian deities in order to retain the allegiance of the native clergy, to lay claim to the pharaonic ideology of kingship, and probably also to secure the favor of the gods for himself. His travels in the Delta in connection with the military organization of the First and Second Syrian Wars involved 296. Rowlandson (1995), p. 310; Bingen (2007), pp. 206–212. 297. Anagnostou-Canas (1990), pp. 368–369; Bingen (2007), pp. 215–228. 298. Koenen (1993), pp. 33–34. 299. Bingen (2007), pp. 222–224. 300. Cenival (1973); Bingen (2007), pp. 224‒227; von Reden (2007), pp. 142, 143, 214‒217, 225‒226. 301. Bingen (2007), pp. 189–205, where the instability is related to the reliance on revocable land grants as a basis of remuneration. Samuel (1993) suggested that the growth of the Ptolemaic bureaucracy was driven from the bottom by immigrants seeking a livelihood, with the result that its growth was haphazard. 302. Clarysse and Thompson (2006), Vol. II, pp. 241‒246; Thompson (2009), p. 403. 303. Clarysse and Thompson (2006), Vol. II, pp. 262‒267; Thompson (2009), p. 403. 304. Clarysse and Thompson (2006), Vol. II, pp. 307‒314, 316‒317; Thompson (2009), p. 403. Another explanation advanced for skewed sex ratios is the preferential treatment of males in terms of nourishment and other care. The comments of Diod. 1.80.43 and Strab. 17.2.5 on the Egyptian custom of rearing every child born tend to support the conclusion that the Greeks still practiced infant exposure in the first century B.C.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

89

ceremonial visits to Egyptian temples and participation in local religious festivals.305 It was in the context of the First Syrian War that he visited the Ram of Mendes and ordered the repair of its temple, which had been damaged by the Persians in the fourth century.306 We have already mentioned his foundation of the temple of Isis at Philae and his grant to Isis of the revenues of the Dodekaschoinos. The Mendes and Pithom stelae report similar diversions of major revenue streams to other religious institutions: the king assigned the navigation tax (up to 50% of the value of the cargo) for the entire Mendesian nome to the cult of Harpocrates at Mendes and he assigned the customs revenues from the mouth of the Nile’s Pelusiac branch to the temple of Atum at Pithom, later adding one quarter of the revenues from new territories explored in the Red Sea region, which were placed under the patronage of Atum.307 Since the Persian period the Egyptian temples had suffered a reduction in their annual subsidies from the crown, but this was perhaps addressed by one of the reforms of the mid-260s. The Pithom stela reports that before that date the annual royal subsidy to the temples of Egypt totalled 150,000 silver deben (500 talents), but in 265/4 it was quintupled to 750,000 silver deben (2,500 talents), of which 90,000 deben derived from property taxes and 660,000 deben from capitation taxes collected at the beginning of the year.308 This amounted to a little less than 10% of the king’s estimated annual revenues.309 Most scholars have interpreted this as a one-time benefaction, perhaps intended to encourage installation of the cult of Arsinoe Philadelphus in the Egyptian temples (see below).310 Royal generosity was far from unconditional, and the king began to extend his control into the temples. State nomination of lesonis (mr Sn) priests, who had authority over temple finances, followed a precedent of Darius I and was probably a consequence of the royal subsidies.311 At Thebes, Ptolemy elevated a priest of lower rank, first Harnouphis, then Smendes, to serve as his representative in supervising the temple finances.312 The high priest of Ptah at Memphis, Esisout (Nesisty) I Petobastis, was appointed First Prophet of All the Gods and Overseer of the Prophets of All the Gods and Goddesses of Upper and Lower Egypt, establishing a hereditary Memphite primacy over all of Egyptian religion that allowed successive Ptolemies to exercise influence through their close relations with a single priestly family.313 305. Huß (1999), pp. 120–121; Clarysse (2007); Schäfer (2011), pp. 284–287; cf. Guermeur and Thiers (2001), p. 214; Thiers (2007b), § 2.9, p. 50. 306. Mendes stela, Urk. II, no. 13, §4‒5, pp. 36‒38 = Meulenaere (1976), p. 174, ll. 6‒10; Schäfer (2011), pp. 247‒248, ll. 6‒10, with commentary p. 257 and p. 275 for the date. Other temple restorations of Ptolemy II included work on the Anubieion at Saqqara, expansion of the mammisi (birth house) at Dendera, and various modest projects at Karnak, see Jeffrey and Smith (1988), p. 50; Daumas (1958), pp. 83, 272; Thiers (2010), pp. 380‒384. 307. Mendes stela, Urk. II, no. 13, §11, pp. 42–43 = Meulenaere (1976), p. 175, l. 15, and p. 177 n.25 = Schäfer (2011), pp. 249‒250, l. 15; Pithom stela, Urk. II, no. 20, ll. 10, 25 = Thiers (2007b), § 2.6, § 2.14, pp. 34, 70, and commentary on pp. 94–96, 148; Thiers (1997) (where the tax revenues were attributed to the Red Sea canal). For English translation of the relevant passages of the Pithom stela, see Mueller (2006), pp. 194, 198. 308. Urk. II, no. 20, ll. 26–27 = Thiers (2007b), § 2.16, p. 79, and see commentary pp. 121–122; commentary also in Schäfer (2011), pp. 235‒236; for English translation (with different figures), see Mueller (2006), p. 199. Cf. Mendes stela,Urk. II, no. 13, § 13, pp. 44‒45 = Meulenaere (1976), p. 175, ll. 17‒18 (690,000?) = Schäfer (2011), p. 250, ll. 17‒18, with commentary on the missing sum pp. 271‒272. 309. Hier. In Dan. 11.5; Jos. AJ 12.175; Thiers (2007b), p. 122. 310. Schäfer (2011), pp. 235‒236. 311. Thiers (2009), p. 234. For the Persian precedent, Chauveau and Thiers (2006), p. 382. 312. Gorre (2010), nos. 16‒17, pp. 68‒71, 575‒577, 580‒582. 313. Quaegebeur (1980), pp. 54‒62; Crawford (1980), pp. 18‒42.

90

Introduction

Royal patronage of Egyptian religion was noted and imitated by leading courtiers, but in fact it limited the scope of their euergetism.314 Private benefactions centered on the Graeco-Egyptian cults of Sarapis, Isis, and their circle.315 Archagathos, epistates of Libya, dedicated a sanctuary of Sarapis and Isis in Alexandria on behalf of (ὑπέρ) the king.316 The nauarch Callicrates of Samos dedicated a temple to Isis and Anubis at Canopus, in the name of King Ptolemy and Queen Arsinoe.317 Greek devotés of Sarapis in Memphis apparently worshipped him in the Egyptian temple at Saqqara despite the lack of an official cult there,318 and one of them wrote to the dioiketes Apollonius urging him to build a Sarapieion in Memphis according to instructions he had received from Sarapis in numerous dreams.319 Apollonius’ response to this advice is unknown. But around this same time he ordered the construction of a Sarapieion at his recently founded city of Philadelphia in the Fayum, to be located near the existing Isieion and the temple of the Dioscuri; he allocated land from his estates for the support of Sarapis-Asclepius, Zeus of Labraunda, and a keeper of sacred ibises; and through his agent Zenon he directed benefactions to the Philadelphian Anubieion.320 The prominence of Isis in several of these foundations reflects her growing importance as a dynastic deity, which can hardly be separate from her association or identification with Arsinoe Philadelphus (see below).321 Indeed, Chairemon dedicated a temple in Halicarnassus to Sarapis, Isis, and Arsinoe Philadelphus (or to Sarapis and Isis-Arsinoe Philadelphus) on behalf of (ὑπέρ) the king.322 Ordinary immigrants too were susceptible to Egyptian religious influence, especially in the area of funerary beliefs which was essentially the realm of Sarapis. Already in the third century they began to seek mummification instead of burial.323 Ruler Worship and Divine Kingship Under the second Ptolemy there appeared distinctive forms of ruler worship that drew on both Greek and Egyptian traditions. The Greek precedents in civic religion included the 314. Blasius (2011), pp. 156‒159; Renberg and Bubelis (2011), p. 183. See also and van Minnen (2000). 315. An exception is the dedication somewhere in Egypt of a sanctuary and temple of the Anatolian goddess Agdistis by the priest Moschos, in honor of Ptolemy Philadelphus, see I.Louvre 8. 316. Bernand (2001), pp. 29–31, no. 5. Bagnall (1976b) argued that this Agatharchos was a son of Agathocles of Syracuse, thus a kinsman of Ptolemy Philadelphus. 317. SB I 429; Bernand (1970), p. 323, no. 2. On the omission of Sarapis from this temple, see Bricault (2006), pp. 30‒33 (with earlier literature). 318. Nachtergael (1999); Renberg and Bubelis (2011), p. 190. 319. P.Cair.Zen. I 59034. For the association of this letter with Memphis, see Rigsby (2001); Renberg and Bubelis (2011). 320. P.Cair.Zen. II 59168; P.Mich. I, 31; Cairo JE 44048 = I.Fayum I, 98, illustrated in Clarysse (1999), p. 55, fig. 2. Rigsby (2001), p. 124, suggested that the shrines of Zeus Labraundeus and Sarapis-Asclepius were in Memphis. For Renberg and Bubelis (2011), p. 185, the reference to Sarapis Asclepius does not designate an assimilated deity but merely resulted from the omission of the conjunction kai. The personal piety of the dioiketes Apollonius is also reflected in his dawn visit to the Sarapieion in Saqqara on the occasion of an Isis festival, see P.Corn. 1, ll. 30‒45, 79‒80; Renberg and Bubelis (2011), p. 186; Thompson (2012), pp. 107‒108. 321. Historically Isis had not played such a central role in Egyptian religion. Her transformation from local goddess to universal deity began with the last native pharaohs, whose dynasties originated in the Delta where her cult was centered (at Behbeit). The worship of Isis was introduced to Philae by Saite soldiers, see Haeny (1985), p. 202. In magnifying her cult, as in other matters, the Ptolemies represented themselves as the successors of the last native pharaohs; see Chauveau and Thiers (2006), p. 383. 322. OGIS I, 16; Chaniotis (2003), p. 442; Malaise (1994), pp. 359‒360 with n.44; Bricault (2006), p. 35 with n.169. 323. Colin (2009), pp. 56–57; Grimm (1997), pp. 244–245. See also Savvopoulos (2010), pp. 76‒78, for the influence of Egyptian structures and practices on Greek burials in Alexandria.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

91

very ancient institution of hero cults, i.e., the local worship of distinguished individuals after their deaths, and the more recent practice of offering of honors equal to those of the gods (timai isotheoi) to powerful rulers and to benefactors of non-royal status.324 (Ptolemy I had already received the cultic honors of a benefactor from Rhodes and Miletus.) The ontological status of the recipients of such honors is not clear; modern scholars often envision them on a continuum somewhere between ordinary humanity and divinity. The Egyptian pharaoh too occupied a position between gods and men, as the unique mediator. But the pharaoh was also explicitly identified with the god Horus, described as the son of various deities, accorded epithets proper to the gods, and depicted wearing divine attributes or as a sacred animal or as part of a divine triad.325 Some Egyptian pharaohs had received cults after their deaths and this was also true for a number of revered commoners.326 The Ptolemaic innovations growing out of these Greek and Egyptian traditions assumed distinct forms suitable to the two cultural spheres. Certain of the Greek forms of cult were reflected in the dating protocols of both Greek and demotic documents that name the eponymous priests of the deified Ptolemies. Philadelphus began the process by offering cultic honors to his parents. In so doing he displayed a preeminent royal virtue, eusebeia (piety), and laid the foundation for his own claim to divinity.327 Fairly early in his reign he established a cult to Ptolemy and Berenice, who were worshipped by the Greeks in Egypt as the Theoi Soteres (Savior Gods).328 He erected a temple for his deified parents in Alexandria, furnished it with chryselephantine statues, and provided abundant animal sacrifices and burnt offerings.329 Thereafter he was named in inscriptions as Ptolemy, son of the Soteres.330 Around 265 he adopted the ancient pharaonic practice of swearing oaths by the name of the king, but innovated by adding his parents: his subjects swore oaths by King Ptolemy, Arsinoe Philadelphus, and the Theoi Soteres along with the other oath gods, in both Greek and Egyptian proceedings.331 The Pharos of Alexandria was dedicated to the Theoi Soteres by its architect, Sostratos of Cnidus; the dedication seems to include the first Ptolemaic couple along with the traditional gods who protected seafarers, including Zeus Soter whose statue surmounted the lighthouse.332 The sincerity of belief in the saving power of the Soteres is attested by 324. On Greek heroization, see Antonaccio (1994); Boehringer (2001). On timai isotheoi, see Habicht (1970). 325. Wildung (1973); id. (1977), pp. 1‒30. 326. Wildung (1977). 327. Dunand (1981), pp. 22–23. 328. Callim. Del. 165–166; Theoc. Id. 17.121–127; Callixenus of Rhodes FGrHist 627 F2.27 (= Athen. 5.197d) and F2.35; Müller (2009), pp. 251–262. Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 217–218; Vol. IIa, pp. 367–368 n.229, confirmed the epiklesis Soteres but observed that the name Theoi Soteres (Savior Gods) was not used regularly in dedications during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus and concluded that this reflected a lingering vagueness about their status. Koenen (1993), p. 61, related the epiklesis Theoi Soteres to the Egyptian epithet nTrw nDw (protector of the gods), borne by Sesotris I and Neferhotep I. 329. Theoc. Id. 17.123–125. 330. SEG XVIII, 636 (Alexandria), 729 (Cyrene); SEG XXVII, 1114 = Koenen (1977), p. 3. 331. BGU VI, 1257 (between 270 and 258); P.dem. Testi Botti 7 (265/4); Koenen (1993), pp. 52, 98; Minas (2000), pp. 163–171; Herklotz (2005), p. 159; Pfeiffer (2008b), pp. 104–106. Some oaths name Ptolemy and Arsinoe individually and also the Theoi Adelphoi, and a small group of oaths from the Fayum, all dated to June/July 251, apparently name the Theoi Adelphoi a second time through the epithet the Living Gods. In subsequent reigns the list of oath gods was extended to include all of the reigning king’s Lagid predecessors. 332. Pos. AB 115, 1; Luc. Hist. 62; Fraser (1972), Vol. 1, pp. 18–19, 207; Bernand (2001), pp. 21–26, no. 3; cf. Thompson (1973), p. 67 n.1.

92

Introduction

a statue base that records the fulfilment of a vow by three men saved from danger.333 The divinity of the king’s parents achieved recognition outside his kingdom when Pyrrhus of Epirus expressed his devotion to his Lagid benefactors by creating a sacred precinct for Ptolemy and Berenice in the temple of Zeus at Dodona, the premier oracular site of Macedonia.334 The organization of a separate public cult for the first Ptolemy is implied by the creation of the quadrennial Ptolemaieia, a panhellenic festival in his honor equal in prestige to the Olympic Games and first celebrated at Alexandria in 282 as funeral games for the late king, or in 278 on the fourth anniversary of his death.335 Ptolemy and Berenice also had separate shrines in Alexandria and in her individual cult Berenice was associated with Aphrodite, who made her an immortal.336 The epiklesis Soter was not initially attached to either of these individual cults.337 Official references to Ptolemy Soter first occur on coins dated to Philadelphus’ twenty-fifth regnal year, 261/0, and begin to appear in the dating protocols of Egyptian documents in 259.338 From 257/6 demotic documents from the Thebaid call him Ptolemy the God (pA nTr), while those from Lower Egypt describe him as the God Who Banishes Sorrow (pA nTr ntj rk Hb) or the God Who Lives Eternally (pA nTr ‘nx Dt).339 Ptolemy Philadelphus encouraged the worship of his father by his overseas subjects and allies, both as an expression of loyalty to himself and as a means of creating a shared identity. Around 280 the League of the Islanders established a cult to Ptolemy Soter, voting him an altar on Delos and honors equal to those of the gods, in gratitude for his benefactions to the islands and to all Greeks, specifically for freeing them and restoring their ancestral laws.340 The Delian altar was the center of the quadrennial Ptolemaieia of the Islanders, a panegyris with tragic agones celebrated in honor of Ptolemy Soter.341 Naxos, a member of the league, had its own cult for Ptolemy Soter, and the island of Calymna also offered honors to a king probably to be identified with Ptolemy I or II.342 In 333. I.Varsovie 50. 334. Athen. 203a. Rice (1983), pp. 128–131, considered the precinct to be a Ptolemaic dedication made either as a show of support for Pyrrhus while he was absent from Epirus, campaigning in the west, or because of the mythical connection of Dodona with Ammon and/or Dionysus. Rice’s discussion assumes that the dedication involved a statue of Philadelphus as well as statues of his parents. 335. SIG I3, 390; SEG XXVIII, 60, ll. 55–64; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 228, 230–232; Bennett (2011), pp. 105–124. Remijsen (2009), p. 261, noted that the recognition of the isolympic status of the Ptolemaieia by Greek states was a first in history and thus a triumph of Ptolemaic diplomacy. The magnificent festival procession described by Callixenus of Rhodes FGrHist 627 F2 (= Athen. 5.196–203) almost certainly records some details of a celebration of the Ptolemaieia; for bibliography, see n. 152. 336. For the Ptolemaieion: P.Oxy. XXVII, 2465, fr. 2, col. 1, l. 6, with commentary of Fraser (1972), Vol. IIa, pp. 376– 377, n. 306. For the Berenikeion: Athen. 202d. For the association with Aphrodite: Theoc. Id. 15.106–108; 17.45–50. 337. Callixenus of Rhodes FGrHist 627 F2.35 refers simply to the first Ptolemy and to the king’s parents. KAI 43, the Phoenician inscription of Yatonbaal, dated 274, uses only the royal title “lord of kings,” see Teixidor (1988), pp. 188–189. 338. Hazzard (2000), pp. 3–24; see also pp. 28–36, 59–79. Hazzard suggested that such official use of the title Soter might reflect events at the Ptolemaieia of 262. The name of Ptolemy Soter was not included in the titles of the eponymous state priest at Alexandria until 215/4 and a priesthood of Ptolemy Soter was established at Ptolemais in the same year, see Minas (2000), pp. 112‒116. 339. Pestman (1967), pp. 14, 16 note a. 340. Nikouria Decree (IG XII, 7, 506); Bruneau (1970), pp. 531–532; Habicht (1970), pp. 111–112; Kotsidu (2000), no. 131. The foundation of the cult is usually dated to 287 when Ptolemy I is supposed to have freed the Nesiotic League from the control of Demetrius. An alternate version of events is presented here. 341. IG XI, 1038; IG XI, 1043, 13–14; Bruneau (1970), p. 533; Habicht (1970), pp. 111–112. 342. Habicht (1970), pp. 113–114.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

93

Miletus the first Ptolemy was worshipped as theos kai soter (god and savior) in a civic cult established during his lifetime and centered on his statue in the sanctuary of Apollo.343 A Phoenician dedication from Larnaca on Cyprus attests another civic cult perhaps dating from the lifetime of the first Ptolemy, in this case originating from a Phoenician cultural milieu; in 273/2 the priesthood of the “lord of kings” was held by a local aristocrat of Phoenician ethnicity, Abdashtart, son of Gerashtart.344 The sibling marriage of Ptolemy and Arsinoe had important implications for ruler worship. Brother-sister marriages were a prerogative of the gods and the royal emulation of the hieros gamos was an expression of power that set the sovereigns apart from ordinary mortals and placed them in the divine sphere.345 Greek apologists cited the marriage of Zeus and Hera.346 In Egyptian theology sacred marriage guaranteed the perpetuation of the state and of the cosmos. The union of Osiris and Isis, the gods of sibling love, completed the creation of the cosmos and was directly related to the institution of kingship: Isis (in Egyptian Ast, literally, throne) gave birth to Horus, the god of kingship, who was thereafter responsible for preserving the balance of the universe.347 Manetho’s history assigned Osiris and Isis a 35-year reign in the First Dynasty of the pharaonic succession, so that their union appeared as a divine precedent for pharaonic incest.348 Egyptian temple decorations at Behbeit al-Hagara in the Delta and at Philae identified Ptolemy II with Osiris and implied his sacred marriage to Isis.349 This harmonized with the assimilation of Arsinoe to Isis in other Egyptian monuments.350 The importance of this theme for Ptolemaic kingship is confirmed by the Lagid emphasis on the Isiac triad and by the creation of hellenized versions of these gods and their cult for export to the Greek world.351 By August of 272 the royal couple was officially deified as the Theoi Adelphoi (Sibling Gods) and associated with Alexander in the Alexandrian state cult, whose annual priest 343. I.Milet. 139; Welles (1934) no. 14, pp. 71–77; Ma (2010), p. 156, noted that the correspondence of Ptolemy II was displayed next to this statue. 344. KAI 43; Honeyman (1940); Volkmann (1956), pp. 450–455; van den Branden (1964); Bagnall (1976a), pp. 71‒72. The inscription does not include an epithet equivalent to Soter and Volkmann identified the recipient of the cult as Ptolemy II. 345. Ager (2005), pp. 17–18, 20; Müller (2009), pp. 134–138. 346. Theoc. Id. 17.131–136; Plut. Mor. 736F; Heinen (1978), p. 186; Hazzard (2000), pp. 85–90; Huß (2001), pp. 308–309. 347. Koenen (1983), p. 53; id. (1993), pp. 61–62; Ager (2005), pp. 21–22, 24–25; Herklotz (2005), p. 161; O’Connor (2009), pp. 38–39. 348. Buraselis (2008), pp. 297–298. 349. At the temple of Isis at Behbeit al-Hagara, the cartouches of Ptolemy II alternate with cartouches containing the name of the goddess, see Sambin and Carlotti (1995), p. 415. On Philae, see Ryhiner (1995), especially pp. 4, 18–19, 36. Ptolemy II is shown presenting the hieroglyphic sign for textile to Isis, who is followed by Harpocrates, while behind the king two priests carry a coffer of textiles. The scene is a simplified version of procession scenes previously carved under Amenhotep III at Luxor and under Ramesses II at Abydus, both celebrating sacred marriages that blurred the human and divine natures of the participants (the marriage of Amenhotep to Tiy, the union of Ramesses with Hathor). The revival of this motif at Philae after some nine hundred years vividly illustrates both the antiquarian tendency of Egyptian religion under the Ptolemies and the excellent state of the priestly records. The precedents suggest that the offering scene celebrates the marriage of Ptolemy to Isis, the divine counterpart of Arsinoe. Because the procession is directed toward the Court of the New Year, it probably reflects the actual processions of priests of Hathor carrying fabrics to present to Hathor-Isis on New Year’s Day at religious centers throughout Upper Egypt. The principal event of the New Year was Hathor’s union with the solar demiurge, an act that regenerated the gods and guaranteed the stability of the world and the perpetuation of celestial and earthly kingship. Thiers (2007a) found another probable comparison of the sibling marriage of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II to that of Osiris and Isis in the Mendes stela. 350. Buraselis (2008), p. 298. 351. Bommas (2005). On the evolution of the Egyptian Isis in the Ptolemaic period, see Coulon (2010).

94

Introduction

gave his name to the year in the Lagid calendar.352 This meant that henceforward the Theoi Adelphoi were named in the dating protocols of all official documents and legal contracts. The Theoi Adelphoi were also synnaoi (temple associates) of Isis at Alexandria, perhaps in the temple of Isis Pharia.353 In addition they had their own sacred precinct in Alexandria where they received a Greek-style public cult independent of other gods.354 The cult title Theoi Adelphoi, initially created for the living royal couple, later referred to the living king and his deceased and deified sister; indeed the cult of the Theoi Adelphoi may have received new emphasis after Arsinoe’s death, when she could no longer appear as Ptolemy’s royal consort and was reinterpreted as a divine protectress of his person and policies.355 Thus the panegyris (festival) of the Theoi Adelphoi, presumably established at the time of their deification, is first mentioned in 253 at the earliest.356 Known as the Theadelpheia from the reign of Ptolemy III, this festival involved competitions and sacrifices and is attested as late as the mid-second century.357 Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II were also worshipped as King Ptolemy and Arsinoe Philadelphus, without the cult title Theoi Adelphoi. It is not clear whether this formula can imply a date during Arsinoe’s lifetime; more likely it was meant to accentuate Arsinoe’s posthumous role as divine protectress of her brother.358 A small horned altar inscribed for King Ptolemy and Arsinoe Philadelphus, children of the Theoi Soteres, was found near the Alexandrian temple of Sarapis and implies that they received official worship there.359 This provided a model for the addition of their successors as synnaoi theoi in the Alexandrian Sarapieion, and for the close association between Sarapis and the ruler cult elsewhere.360 The centrally organized, kingdom-wide state cults were not the only format for Greek worship of the king and his sister. The Egyptian branch of the Artists of Dionysus, a professional guild of poets and performing artists who composed occasional pieces and participated in local festivals, were called the Technitai of Dionysus and the Theoi Adelphoi, indicating that the koinon offered its devotions to the royal pair in association with its patron Dionysus.361 Civic cults honoring Ptolemy and Arsinoe were far flung 352. P.Hib. I, 110, analyzed below in the section on coinage. The date usually cited is 272/1, based on P.Hib. II, 199, ll. 11–17; see Heinen (1978), p. 182; Minas (2000), pp. 90–93; Hölbl (2001), pp. 94–95; Müller (2009), pp. 262–266; Nilsson (2010), pp. 51‒53. The first priest of Alexander and the Theoi Adelphoi was the Ptolemaic admiral Callicrates of Samos, see Ijsewijn (1961), pp. 64–65. 353. This temple was the site of the first priestly synod in 243, see El-Masry, Altenmüller, and Thissen (2012), § 2.19 and pp. 81‒82, and also of the priestly synod of 186, see Eldamaty (2005), 3.1 (p. 18) and pp. 76‒77. 354. Herodas 1.30; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 228; Bernand (2001), p. 37, no. 9. 355. Caneva (2013a), especially pp. 14‒24. 356. P.Cair.Zen. V, 59820; Perpillou-Thomas (1993), p. 154. Remijsen (2009), p. 259, assumed that the Theadelpheia were founded only late in the reign. 357. SEG XXXVI, 1218; PSI IV, 431; IOlympia 188; Perpillou-Thomas (1993), p. 155. 358. For presumed use of the epithet Philadelphus during Arsinoe’s lifetime, see Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 217, and Vol. IIa, p. 367 n.228; van Oppen (2010). For Caneva (2013a), pp. 16‒19, the question remained open. 359. OGIS I, 725; Bernand (2001), pp. 34‒36, no. 8; Grimm (1983); Pfeiffer (2008a), pp. 400‒401, arguing for worship during Arsinoe’s lifetime; Caneva (2013a), pp. 16‒19, suggesting the possibility that the association remained valid after Arsinoe’s death. Another horned altar, inscribed for King Ptolemy, son of Ptolemy, and Arsinoe Philadelphus was excavated in the port area of Alexandria, see Bernand (2001), pp. 33‒34, no. 7; Caneva (2013a), p. 16. 360. Pfeiffer (2008a), pp. 401–407. Pfeiffer (2008b), pp. 56–58, considered this the only securely attested case of temple sharing in the Greek sphere in Egypt. 361. OGIS I, 50–51; Nock (1930), p. 17 (disputing a cultic association); Rice (1983), pp. 53–54; Pfeiffer (2008b), pp. 73–74. This was not a permanent affiliation; with each new reign the Artists of Dionysus replaced the name of the former ruling couple with the name of the current royal pair, without retaining the names of their former patrons, see OGIS I, 164, 166.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

95

and varied. At Philadelphia in the Fayum there was at least a statue group and probably a temple of the king and the Philadelphus.362 An altar of the Theoi Adelphoi was unearthed at Tyre and the new foundation of Arsinoe in Cilicia had a cult of the Sibling Gods.363 At Ephesus the royal couple was associated with Sarapis.364 In Greece the people of Arsinoe in the Peloponnesus (the future Methana) installed Ptolemy and Arsinoe Philadelphus as synnaoi theoi of Poseidon in his sanctuary at Calauria.365 Private dedications also played a role: of these, the most interesting dates from the reign of Ptolemy III, when two Alexandrian priests of Zeus dedicated altars, chapels, and land to the Theoi Adelphoi and to Zeus Olympios and Zeus Synomosios (Zeus of Oaths), associating the Sibling Gods with the greatest of the traditional gods of Greece.366 Just as elites disseminated ruler worship in the Greek sphere, so royal favorites among the Egyptian clergy supervised the establishment of the royal couple as associated deities in Egyptian temples.367 Senu, a Coptite priest and the son of a Greek father, left a funerary inscription describing his installation of multiple cult statues of the king and queen in the temple of Isis “The Hunt” of Coptos, according to the wish of the goddess.368 In practical terms, this kind of association meant that the images of the deified rulers would share in the daily cult of the temple, receiving the offerings of incense, bread, beer, and wine that were customary for the traditional gods.369 After Arsinoe’s death, her funerary and deification rites were performed according to Egyptian custom by the priests of the Ram of Mendes.370 Ptolemy, acting in his pharaonic capacity as high priest of all the gods of Egypt, decreed that her statue should be installed in the holiest sanctuary of every Egyptian temple alongside the principal deity, as an associated goddess, with the cult name Beloved of the Ram, the Goddess Who Loves Her Brother, Arsinoe.371 The epithet Beloved of the Ram was significant in royal ideology, implying a sexual relation in which the Ram, as avatar of the creator, impregnated the 362. P.Cair.Zen. II 59169. 363. SEG LVI, 1881 = Rey-Coquais (2006), no. 1, pp. 99‒101; SEG XXXIX, 1426 = Jones and Habicht (1989), l. 39. 364. SEG XXXIX, 1232, 1–3; Kotsidu (2000), no. *358. 365. Wallensten and Pakkaren (2010). 366. Bernand (2001), pp. 44–47, no. 14; see also Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 194. 367. One relic of such association is an Egyptian-style statue base from Alexandria or Canopus which depicts the royal couple flanking an Egyptian deity, probably Amun Gereb, see Sauneron (1960); Stanwick (2002), A10; Guermeur (2005), pp. 145‒146. 368. CGC 70031; BM 1668; Derchain (2000), pp. 23–24, 44–53 (where the name is read as Senoucheri); Lloyd (2002), pp. 123‒125 (where the name is read as Senenshepsu); Legras (2005), pp. 983‒985; Guermeur (2006), pp. 105–110 (where the name is read as Esnou or Senou); Gorre (2009b), no. 27, pp. 103–118; Moyer (2011), p. 90. As a GraecoEgyptian, Senu may also have used the Greek name Zenon. Considerable confusion has been caused by one of Senu’s titles, mr jpAt nsw n Hmt nsw n nsw bjtj nb 6Awj ArsjnfAwj (overseer of the royal household of the royal wife of the king lord of the Two Lands Arsinoe). The institution in question was interpreted in earlier scholarship as the household of Arsinoe I during her exile in Coptos; see, e.g., Bevan (1927), p. 59, who noted the absence of a cartouche around Arsinoe’s name. Derchain inferred that Senu had supervised the household of Arsinoe II in Alexandria before returning to Coptos to establish the royal cult in the Coptite temples. Gorre argued that this title referred to the chapels of the deified Arsinoe Philadelphus at Coptos. 369. Lanciers (1991), p. 141. 370. Mendes stela, Urk. II, no. 13, § 8, pp. 40–41 = Meulenaere (1976), p. 175, ll. 12‒13 = Schäfer (2011), p. 249, ll. 12‒13, with commentary pp. 262‒263. 371. Mendes stela, Urk. II, no. 13, § 9, pp. 41–42 = Meulenaere (1976), p. 175, ll. 13‒14 = Schäfer (2011), p. 249, ll. 13‒14, with commentary pp. 263‒264. See also Quaegebeur (1971b), especially the appendix, pp. 209–217; Quack (2008), pp. 277–278; Collombert (2008); Nilsson (2010), pp. 56‒57..

96

Introduction

queen with the future pharaoh.372 It thus elevated Arsinoe to the divine sphere, represented her as the true mother of the royal heir, and ensured the latter’s divine origin. An Egyptian temple of Arsinoe was erected in the royal palace at Memphis, and the high priest of Ptah, Esisout (Nesisty) I Petobastis, assumed her priesthood as Prophet of Arsinoe, Brother-Loving Goddess, Isis Mother of Apis.373 The last epithet integrated the late queen in a Memphite cult that revered the bovine mother of the Apis bull as an avatar of Isis. The Isis cow, the Mother of Apis, was both a cosmic mother goddess and an earthly participant in the eternal cycle of birth and rebirth. In royal festivals, including the New Year and sed festivals, the sacred cow took part alongside the Apis bull in rites that renewed the kingship and achieved the solar apotheosis of the king. Specifically she ran a ritual race wearing a menat (necklace) symbolizing procreation and rejuvenation in a royal hieros gamos. The goddess Arsinoe, as Isis Mother of Apis, thus became the source of the eternal renewal of the Ptolemaic kingship. Ptolemy Philadelphus traveled frequently to the cities of the Delta in his twenty-first through twenty-third regnal years (265–263) promoting the worship of his sister.374 At his behest the priests of Atum of Pithom dedicated an Egyptian temple to her at the new city of Arsinoe (on the Gulf of Suez), although the cult statues installed there were of the Sibling Gods (nTrw snwy).375 Another Egyptian temple of Arsinoe was located at Coptos, where Senu, the Coptite priest, organized offerings for the cult of the “daughter of the king.”376 More than twenty-five Egyptian cult sites of the deified Arsinoe are known and at least three of her cult statues have survived, one from Pithom, another probably from the temple of Amun-Ra at Karnak, and a third perhaps from Heliopolis.377 Hieroglyphic inscriptions attest many Egyptian titles and cult epithets for Arsinoe, of which only a sampling will be mentioned here. The Pithom stela records an Egyptian throne name for her: Xnm(t) jb n 5w mr nTrw (joined to the heart of Shu, beloved of the gods).378 In several inscriptions from Lower Egypt she was accorded the pharaonic title nsw bjtj (King of Upper and Lower Egypt), making her (perhaps retroactively) a pharaoh of Egypt in her own right and placing her in the tradition of the female pharaohs Hatshepsut and Tauseret.379 Of titles pertaining to her rank, the most frequently occurring is sAt nsw snt nsw Hmt nsw (king’s daughter, king’s sister, king’s wife), emphasizing her 372. Redford (2010), p. 133. 373. Quaegebeur (1971a); Crawford (1980), pp. 23–27 ; Gorre (2009b), no. 59, pp. 285‒296. For the close and lasting bond created between the Lagid dynasty and the high priests of Ptah, see Crawford (1980), pp. 18–23. On the cult of Isis Mother of Apis, see Kessler (1989), pp. 97‒101. 374. Thiers (2007b), pp. 86–87. 375. Pithom stela, Urk. II, no. 20, ll. 20–21 = Thiers (2007b), § 2.12, p. 65, with commentary pp. 123–126; Schäfer (2011), p. 230. For English translation, see Mueller (2006), pp. 197‒198. 376. BM 1668; CGC 70031; Lloyd (2002), pp. 124–125; Gorre (2009), no. 27, pp. 103–118, especially pp. 109–118. Troy (1986), pp. 178, 182, 183, 184, 185, cited a fragmentary Coptite statue as a source for epithets of Arsinoe I, but they correctly pertain to Arsinoe II. These titles, advertising the love between the king and the queen, include the traditional epithet bnrt mrwt (sweet of love); ant xaw (pleasing of appearance/crowns), unique to Coptos; mHt aH m nfrw.s (who fills the palace with her beauty); sHtpt jb n nsw bjtj nb 6Awj (who pacifies the heart of the king, Lord of the Two Lands). 377. Hölbl (2001), pp. 103–104; Stanwick (2002), A4, A13, A14. 378. Urk. II, no. 20 = Thiers (2007b), C20, C38, pp. 14‒15, 16. Beckerath (1984), p. 118, gave the reading “United in the heart of Maat.” 379. Quaegebeur (1971b), pp. 202–206; id. (1978), p. 258; Nilsson (2010), pp. 400‒404. On the possibility that Arsinoe bore this title during her lifetime, see Quaegebeur (1978), p. 262; id. (1985); Nilsson (2010), pp. 396, 429‒430. Contra: Albersmeier and Minas (1998), p. 7.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

97

royalty and legitimate descent.380 Arsinoe’s Egyptian cult epithets are for the most part attested in particular regions and imply her association with local deities.381 But overall they relate to major themes of royal ideology. Some affiliated her with the greatest of the gods—bA anx n Gb (living soul of Geb, from Mendes), sAt Ra (daughter of Ra, from Tanis), sAt Jmn (daughter of Amun, widespread).382 The first two of these epithets were traditional and elevated Arsinoe to the same plane as earlier queens and all the pharaohs who were regarded as sons of Ra. The last, unique to Arsinoe, implied a sibling kinship with Alexander the Great, who had mounted the throne of Egypt as the son of Amun. The epithets recall ancient Egyptian literary accounts and temple decorations depicting the divine births of various pharaohs who were fathered by Ra or Amun on mortal women; such claims of divine birth were especially important for legitimizing the first rulers of a new dynasty.383 The same temple decorations imply that Hathor was a second mother to the king, so that Arsinoe’s titles mwt nTr (divine mother, widespread), Hmt nTr (divine wife, from Thebes?) and Hnwt Sn nb(t) n Jtn (mistress of eternity, lady of the solar disk, from Karnak) implied both her role as the mother of a divinely engendered king and her assimilation to Hathor.384 The epithet sAt Gb (daughter of Geb, from Heliopolis) identified Arsinoe with Isis; indeed, in some inscriptions the name of Isis precedes that of the queen, either inside or outside the cartouche, expressing the assimilation of Arsinoe to Isis in the Egyptian sphere.385 Consistent with Arsinoe’s identification with the divine paragon of wifely devotion, some of her epithets celebrate the love between her and her brother-husband, e.g. Xnm(t) jb nsw (joined to the heart of the king) or sHtpt jb n 1r (who pacifies the heart of Horus, from Coptos).386 These epithets imply a Hathoric role as consort of Horus, reinforcing the idea of a hieros gamos.387 Overall the epithets demonstrate how Egyptian tradition contributed to the emergence of love—between gods and the rulers, between royal spouses, and 380. Nilsson (2010), pp. 396‒399. 381. Sauneron (1960), pp. 102–104. 382. Sauneron (1960), pp. 102–104; Quaegebeur (1971b), pp. 202, 207; id. (1978), p. 250 with n.29; Troy (1986), pp. 178, 181; Nilsson (2010), pp. 407‒409 on sAt Jmn (daughter of Amun). 383. Myśliwiec (2004), pp. 81–89. 384. Troy (1986), pp. 66–67, 70; Nilsson (2010), pp. 437‒441, 445‒448. Quaegebeur (1971b), pp. 207–209, associated these epithets with nsw bitj and sAt Jmn and observed that all had been borne previously by royal women who were titled Divine Wife of Amun; see also Nilsson (2010), pp. 409‒411. On the institution of the Divine Wife of Amun, see Myśliwiec (2004), pp. 93–100. 385. Quaegebeur (1971b), p. 202; Troy (1986), pp. 178, 181. A stela of Sais records Ptolemy’s instruction for the installation of a statue of Isis-Arsinoe in Sais, see Thiers (1999), pp. 426 (Col. 8, A, tr. p. 429), 427 (Col. 10, C, tr. p. 430), 438, 440; Quack (2008), pp. 284–285. On the Pithom stela (Urk. II, no. 20) the deified Arsinoe is costumed as Isis and the hieroglyphic inscription calls her the “Isis the venerable, Hathor the great,” see Thiers (2007b), C20–C23, C38–C40, p. 14–16. On the identification of Arsinoe II with Isis in other artistic media, see Thompson (1973), p. 59; Plantzos (1991/92), pp. 120‒123; id. (2011), pp. 392‒394. 386. Quaegebeur (1971b), p. 202; Troy (1986), pp. 178, 185. Koenen (1993), p. 62, cited the Greek belief that the love of a wife for her husband made her children similar to him, with the implication that in the royal context love guaranteed the birth of a legitimate heir; cf. Theoc. Id. 17.40–44. 387. Nilsson (2010), pp. 413, 443‒445. In the Pithom stela (Urk. II, no. 20, l. 15; Thiers (2007b), p. 50) Arsinoe’s full title is Princess, Great of Favors, Gentle in Character, Sweet in Love, Royal Wife, Mistress of the Two Lands Arsinoe, Royal Daughter of the Lord of the Two Lands Ptolemy, the Goddess Who Loves Her Brother. Van Oppen (2010), p 145, drew attention to the similar titles given to Arsinoe on the occasion of her marriage in the Mendes stela (Urk. II, no. 13, § 7, pp. 39‒40 = Meulenaere (1976), pp. 174–175, l. 11 = Schäfer (2011), p. 248, l. 11): Mistress, Magnanimous, Sovereign of Grace, Sweet of Love, Beautiful of Appearance, Who Has Received the Two Uraei, Who Fills the Palace with Her Beauty, Beloved of the Ram, Oudja-ba Priestess, Sister of the King, Great Wife of the King Who Loves Her, Ruler of the Two Lands Arsinoe.

98

Introduction

between different generations of the Lagid family—as a prominent theme of Ptolemaic royal ideology.388 The same ideas were advertised by the court poets to a Greek audience. None of Arsinoe’s immediate successors received such a variety of Egyptian cult epithets. Within two generations Arsinoe, the Goddess Who Loves Her Brother (tA mr sn) came to be regarded in the Egyptian sphere as the founding queen of the Ptolemaic dynasty.389 In or before 268/7 Ptolemy established an individual cult for Arsinoe in the framework of the state dynastic cult, as Thea Philadelphus (Brother-Loving Goddess).390 Her priestess received a traditional Greek title, Kanephoros (Bearer of the Offering Basket), intended to evoke memories of poliad religion.391 Like the priest of Alexander and the Theoi Adelphoi, the Kanephoros was eponymous and was named in official dating protocols.392 The center of the new cult, the Arsinoeion, was founded near Alexandria’s commercial district.393 The plans allegedly featured a magnetic roof capable of levitating an iron image of Arsinoe, so that it would appear to hover in the air, but according to another source an over-lifesize cult statue of the deified queen was carved from an enormous topaz originally presented to Berenice I.394 The Arsinoeion was adorned with a pharaonic obelisk that had been transported by canal from Heliopolis, a hint that the cult of Arsinoe Thea Philadelphus was perhaps Graeco-Egyptian rather than purely Greek.395 Arsinoe Philadelphus was worshipped with libations and offerings of unguents, and in Alexandria her annual festival, the Arsinoeia, involved a procession led by the Kanephoros that culminated in public sacrifices.396 The sacred law regulating the cult excluded most Alexandrians from participating in the procession but encouraged them to offer private sacrifices along the procession route and on private altars erected by the doors of houses, while requiring that the altars be either temporary altars made of sand or permanent brick altars sprinkled with sand; in addition the sacred law prescribed the proper offerings for the occasion, e.g., ospria, a type of legume.397 The Arsinoeia were also celebrated in the countryside 388. Koenen (1993), pp. 62–63, 113. 389. Nilsson (2010), pp. 321‒328. 390. Minas (2000), pp. 93‒96; Müller (2009), pp. 280–300; Nilsson (2010), pp. 53‒55. For the date, see n.391 below. (In contrast, the epiklesis Philadelphus is not attested for Ptolemy II until 165/4, when a priesthood was established for his worship at Ptolemais in Upper Egypt as Sister-Loving [God] (pA mr snt), see Pestman (1967), p. 16 with note f; Clarysse and van Veken (1983), p. 46 n.126bis; Minas (2000), pp. 139‒141). The epithet Philadelphus did not imply sexual love. Criscuolo (1990), pp. 92–96, discussed its high moral connotations of fraternal loyalty and affection and its frequent use by Hellenistic dynasties in situations not involving matrimony. For a catalogue of Greek dedications to Arsinoe Philadelphus from Egypt, see Caneva (2014), Appendix, nos. 1‒17. 391. Minas (1998), pp. 44‒45; ead. (2000), pp. 95‒96. The demotic title of this priestess, fAj tn nb m-bAH ArsnA mr sn (who bears the golden basket before Arsinoe Who Loves Her Brother), informs us that the offering basket was made of gold. 392. Minas (1998), pp. 53–55; ead. (2000), pp. 94–95. The Kanephoros is first attested in the Greek papyrus P.Sorb. 4440 (268/7) and appears for the first time in a demotic document in P.dem.Schreibertrad. 11 (December 267/January 266). The priest of Alexander is not named in demotic documents until two years later, reflecting the fact that the cult of Arsinoe was more important in the Egyptian sphere than that of Alexander and the Theoi Adelphoi. 393. Callim. Fr. 288; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 229. 394. Callim. fr. 228 Dieg.; Pliny NH 34.148 (hanging statue), 37.108 (topaz statue). Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 25; Vol. IIa, pp. 72–75, nn. 166–168, 170, 172–173. 395. Plin. NH 36.14.5, 36.67–69. 396. P.Oxy. XXVIII, 2465, 10–11; Robert (1966b), pp. 192–193; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 229–230; Vol. IIa, p. 378 n.315; Minas (1998), pp. 48–60; ead. (2000), pp. 93–96; Schorn (2001), pp. 199‒204; Caneva (2014) , pp. 93‒103. P.Oxy. XXVIII, 2465 dates from the reign of Ptolemy VI but probably reflects earlier practice in most or all of its provisions. It demonstrates the vitality of the cult of Arsinoe Philadelphus a century after its foundation. 397. P.Oxy. XXVII, 2465, 11–23 = Austin (2006), no. 295; Robert (1966b), pp. 193–202; Koenen (1993), p. 110; Schorn

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

99

with sacrifices and banquets.398 An unusual feature of the rites was the sacrifice of pigs, especially at Alexandria; they were generally considered unsuitable for sacrifice except to Osiris and Isis and the prominence of pigs in the Arsinoeia followed from Arsinoe’s assimilation to Isis.399 In the countryside the other sacrificial animal of the Arsinoeia was the goat, typically offered to Aphrodite with whom Arsinoe was also assimilated.400 The sacrifice of goats was prohibited in the Alexandrian Arsinoeia, however, apparently to preclude Arsinoe’s identification with Aphrodite Pandemos, an aspect of Aphrodite associated with unbridled eroticism.401 The sacrifice of goats was also prohibited in Mendes, probably because of their kinship to the Ram of Mendes, and this suggests that the Alexandrian interdiction reflected Arsinoe’s close association with the Ram.402 Civic cults of Arsinoe Philadelphus took root in most Ptolemaic possessions, especially Cyprus, and in other places under Lagid influence.403 Some Cypriote cities replicated the distinctive institutions of the Alexandrian cult. Arsinoe-Marium naturally had an Arsinoeion, and a Kanephoros is attested there from 267/6.404 At Idalium, the goddess Philadelphus was associated with the Phoenician deity Resheph-Mikal (Apollo Amyklaios) and Phoenician-speaking Cypriote elites directed her cult: Amatosir, daughter of M[...] son of Absas son of Gidath, was Kanephoros of Arsinoe in 255/4, her Greek title transliterated into Phoenician as KNPRS.405 One of the few new Cypriote temples of the Ptolemaic period was built at Cholades, a suburb of Soli, and there Arsinoe was assimilated to Aphrodite and associated with Alexander, chief god of the Alexandrian dynastic cult.406 Alexander and Arsinoe Philadelphus were probably also associated at Amathus, in the neighborhood of a sanctuary of the Egyptian god Bes.407 At the Hellenistic community of Nicosia Arsinoe was installed in an existing sanctuary of Aphrodite that was apparently shared with a ram god, possibly to be identified with Ammon.408 Separate sanctuaries of Arsinoe and Aphrodite are attested at Arsinoe in Cilicia.409 The Carian island of Cos, (2001), pp. 205‒210; Caneva (2014), pp. 93‒96. The requirement for sand altars perhaps reflected Arsinoe’s association with the sea, although this aspect of her divinity is not otherwise attested in connection with the state cult. Schorn (2001), pp. 215‒217, noted that sand could have chthonic associations and also symbolized purity in Egyptian religion; he suggested the use may also have been motivated by practical considerations such as ease of constructing the altars and fire prevention. 398. P.Col. III, 56; P.Cair.Zen. III, 59312, 26; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 229–230; Perpillou-Thomas (1993), pp. 155–157. 399. Perpillou-Thomas (1993), p. 157. 400. P.Wisc. II, 78, 28; P. Lond. VII, 2000, 24; Perpillou-Thomas (1993), p. 158. 401. P.Oxy. XXVII, 2465 II, col. 7, 17–18; Robert (1966b), pp. 197–198; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 229; Perpillou-Thomas (1993), p. 158 n.34; Caneva (2014), pp. 97‒101. On the contrast between Aphrodite Pandemos and Ourania, see Pirenne-Delforge (1988). Schorn (2001), pp. 207‒214 and 218‒220, argued that the prohibition was against the sacrific of sheep rather than goats and that this indicated the worship of Arsinoe-Isis rather than Arsinoe Euploia. 402. Strabo 17.1.40; P. Carlsberg 2 p. 222-258 no. 2 Ro = Copenhagen, Carlsberg Papyrus Collection P. 182 Ro + Florence, Istituto Papirologico ’G. Vitelli’ PSI inv. I 77 Ro. 403. For Cypriote influence on Ptolemaic royal ideology, see Fulińska (2012a; 2012b). An exception to the diffusion of the cult of Arsinoe is Syria and Phoenicia where there is little evidence for Ptolemaic royal cult of any kind. For a catalogue of Greek dedications to Arsinoe from outside of Egypt, see Caneva (2014), Appendix, nos. 18‒54. 404. Barbantini (2005), p. 156. 405. KAI 40 = CIS I 93; Volkmann (1956), pp 449–450; Keen (2012), Chapter 4; Fourrier (forthcoming). The Arsinoeion of Idalium was apparently a small chapel in the great ancient sanctuary of Reseph-Mikal, see Masson (1968), pp. 400– 402; Fourrier (forthcoming). There was probably another Arsinoeion at Citium, located in the old royal sanctuary of Bamboula. 406. Papantoniou (2009), pp. 278, 281‒282, 284. 407. Florentzos (2007); id. (2008); Aupert (2009), pp. 30‒31, 37. 408. Pilides (2009), pp. 55‒58. 409. Jones and Habicht (1989), ll. 53–54.

100

Introduction

autonomous but closely allied with Alexandria, consulted an oracle about establishing a civic cult to Arsinoe Philadelphus.410 Ptolemaic courtiers took the lead in propagating the private worship of Arsinoe Philadelphus. In 268 the Ptolemaic nesiarch Hermias endowed a festival on Delos called Philadelpheia, in which Arsinoe was associated with Apollo, Artemis, and Leto.411 Her surviving son by Lysimachus, Ptolemy, made many offerings on Delos, including a bronze statue of his mother.412 The most influential of all private dedications was that of the admiral Callicrates of Samos, who constructed a temple of Arsinoe Cypris on Cape Zephyrium near Alexandria where the queen was identified with the Cypriote Aphrodite and worshipped as Euploia, that is, as a marine goddess, protectress of seafarers and patroness of the Lagid fleet and thalassocracy.413 The new temple and its goddess were celebrated by the Alexandrian poets Callimachus, Hedylus, and Posidippus.414 The cult of Arsinoe-Aphrodite Euploia Zephyritis proved especially attractive and spread through the Ptolemaic sea empire, providing an element of religious cohesion.415 It was even installed at Panticapaeum, in the kingdom of the Cimmerian Bosporus, in connection with a diplomatic mission in 254.416 The worship of Arsinoe Philadelphus is attested during the entire Ptolemaic period, even outlasting the dynastic cult.417 Private worship of Arsinoe assumed varied forms and on occasion involved surprising 410. Segre (1936–37); Fraser (1972), Vol. IIa, p. 383 n.351. It was common practice to seek an oracle to authorize the establishment of a new cult to a traditional god, but oracles are rarely attested in connection with the foundation of royal cults. 411. Bruneau (1970), pp. 528–530, 543–545. In the case of the Philadelpheia, we know the monetary value of the endowment: Hermias deposited 3,300 drachms which were lent out at interest by the Delian officials at a rate of 10% annually and, as usual on Delos, the annual interest financed the celebration of the festival. One inscription (I.Délos 298) associates Ptolemy II in the festival, in fifth rank after the other four gods. The cult monuments included an altar of Arsinoe (IG XI.4, 1303) and an Arsinoeion, see Bruneau (1970), pp. 533–534, 543–545. 412. Bruneau (1970), pp. 533–534. 413. Pos. Hippikos AB 39, l. 2; AB 116, ll. 6–7; AB 119, l. 2; Athen. 7.318D; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 239–240, 568–569, 571, 612, 668; Hauben (1983), pp. 111–114, 124–127; Młynarczyk (1990), pp. 115‒120, arguing for a Cypriote influence on Callicrates and the cult he founded; Müller (2009), pp. 266–280; Nilsson (2010), pp. 55‒56. Aphrodite was also worshipped as a protectress of seafarers at Naucratis in the Ptolemaic period, see Bricault (2006), p. 21. For a surviving Hellenistic hymn to Arsinoe-Aphrodite, perhaps composed for the dedication of the temple of Arsinoe-Aphrodite Zephyritis or for performance at one of the Cypriote cities named Arsinoe, see Barbantini (2005). The hymn emphasizes both her aspect as goddess of love and marital happiness and her aspect as mistress of the sea. 414. Callim. Ep. 5 Pfeiffer; Athen. 11.497d–e; Pos. 36 A–B, 37, 38 A–B, 39 A–B, 116 A–B, 119 A–B; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 239‒240; Barbantini (2005), pp. 148–149 (with further bibliography). According to Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 239‒240, Posidippus’ use of the title basilissa places the foundation in Arsinoe’s lifetime, but his reasoning was rejected by Hauben (1970), p. 45 n.2; see also the critique of Bricault (2006), pp. 26‒27 with n.113. Schäfer (2011), pp. 264‒265, and Caneva (2013a) both identified instances in which references to an apparently living Arsinoe were more likely references to the immortal goddess. 415. Mitford (1938), pp. 30–31; Robert (1966a), pp. 99–113; Meadows (2013a), pp. 29–31. Altar plaques have been found at Methymna, Delos, Paros, Ios, Amorgos, Thera, Miletus, Samos, and Caunus, see Robert (1966b), pp. 202–206; Caneva (2014), Appendix nos. 42‒53. They are associated with the same kind of private altars as those authorized by the sacred law regulating the observance of the Arsinoeia at Alexandria. More than twenty altars for the private worship of Arsinoe Philadelphus have been found on Cyprus, many of them at important cult sites of Aphrodite, see Młynarczyk (1990), pp. 115‒120; Anastassiades (1998), pp. 129‒140; Caneva (2012), Appendix nos. 18‒38 (including plaques). The only such plaque found in Egypt came from Athribis, a point of departure for sea voyages since the Middle Kingdom, see Bricault (2006), p. 29 n.131. 416. Bricault (2006), p. 34. 417. For a Greek dedication to Aphrodite Akraia Arsinoe, dating from the second to first century B.C., see SEG 8, 361 = SB 5, 7786; for the numerous Egyptian sources, see Quaegebeur (1998), p. 83, and catalogue nos. 4, 16–23, 38–39, 46–51, 53–54, 56–63. Wace, Megaw, and Skeat (1959), p. 13, noted that the temple of Arsinoe Zephyritis was visited by Strabo in 24 B.C. but the Arsinoeion of Alexandria was probably demolished between 24 and 20.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

101

practices. In Crocodilonpolis in the Fayum a Libyan immigrant of the epigone (second generation) wrote a will in which he bequeathed to an Alexandrian lady his temple of Isis Mother of the Gods-Berenice and Aphrodite-Arsinoe.418 One of the few new religious centers on Cyprus was the grotto of the Nymph at Kafizin (between Nicosia and Idalium), whose epithets Adelphe and Philadelphus associated her with the deified Arsinoe.419 Used as a cult center for only seven years, from 225 to 218, the grotto was a private place of worship for a company of tax farmers which also had an interest in pottery manufacture.420 The company apparently devoted a portion of its profits to support the cult of the Nymph, recalling the Egyptian apomoira which supported the cult of Arsinoe Philadelphus.421 The rites observed at Kafizin included an annual festival with games in honor of the Nymph, and hair offerings made with the help of Onesagoras, the leading figure in the cult, who served as the cult’s sacred barber and earned extra income in this capacity.422 In private dedications, on the elaborate faience oinochaoi used in private worship of the Ptolemies, and in Alexandrian street names Arsinoe acquired a wide range of divine epithets and aspects but was identified particularly with Aphrodite, Isis, Agathe Tyche, and Demeter.423 The other full sister of Ptolemy II, Philotera, predeceased Arsinoe. She shared in Greek cultic honors with Arsinoe and also received an Egyptian cult at Memphis, where her priesthood, like that of Arsinoe, was added to the titles of the high priest of Ptah and remained in his family for several generations.424 Because of the identification of Arsinoe with Isis, in the Egyptian milieu Philotera was compared with Nephthys, the divine sister of Isis.425 Ptolemy’s acts of deification were not limited to members of his family; he also elevated two of his many mistresses to the divine sphere.426 Statues of his cupbearer Cleino appeared in several Alexandrian temples, probably implying her divinity.427 The most celebrated of Ptolemy’s lovers, Bilistiche, seems to have approached the status of a Lagid family member.428 Her statue was added to the Ptolemaic family monument at Delphi.429 The 418. P.Petrie III 1,2 = P.Petrie2 1,1 = Clarysse (1991), pp. 57‒82, see especially ll. 42–43. Scholars have disagreed about which Berenice was worshipped in this temple. For Berenice I, see Colin (1994), p. 273, arguing that the epithet Mother of the Gods assimilated Berenice to Isis; Pfeiffer (2008b), p. 59. For Berenice II, see Tondriau (1948b), p. 22, no. 6, also citing the comparison with Isis; Rübsam (1974), p. 134; Clarysse (1991), pp. 70‒71, with history of scholarship. 419. Mitford (1980); Pilides (2009), pp. 60‒61. 420. Mitford (1980), pp. 256‒261. 421. Pilides (2004); id. (2009), pp. 60‒61; Lejeune (2009), pp. 309‒310. 422. Mitford (1980), pp. 256, 261‒262, where the temple barber is identified as a Phoenician institution; Lejeune (2009), especially pp. 319‒323. 423. Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 237–239, 240‒243; Minas (1998), pp. 45–53 (on the association of Arsinoe with Demeter in official sources); and see Tondriau (1948b), pp. 16–20. For private dedications from Alexandria, see Bernand (2001), pp. 38–41, nos. 10–12. For the name Arsinoe Philadelphos Isios on Ptolemaic cult oinochoai, see Thompson (1973), pp. 57–59 and nos. 142, 144, 146. 424. Callim. fr. 1, ll. 41–45; Pfeiffer (1922), pp. 14–37; FGrHist 570 F16, 613 F5; Crawford (1980), pp. 26‒27; Reymond (1981), pp. 62, 68; Thompson (2012), pp. 119‒122. After the death of Esisout (Nesisty) II the priesthood of Philotera passed to another priestly family and disappeared from the records after a single generation. 425. Müller (2009), pp. 298–299. 426. On Ptolemy’s mistresses, see Athen. 576e–f; Kosmetatou (2004), pp. 18–19; Ogden (2008), pp. 356–382. 427. Polyb. 14.11.2. 428. Kosmetatou (2004). A Bilistiche was Kanephoros of Arsinoe Philadelphus in 251/0; some scholars have identified her with the royal mistress, but others argue that the Kanephoros must have been a younger woman of the same name, see Kosmetatou (2004), p. 20 with nn.11–12, pp. 22–23. 429. Plut. Mor. 753 E.

102

Introduction

king established a cult to her under the name Aphrodite-Bilistiche and dedicated temples to her.430 After her death he buried her in the Alexandrian Sarapieion, thus associating her with one of the patron deities of the royal family and with an early site of ruler cult.431 Alexandrian literature proposed the divinity of Philadelphus himself. Theocritus’ epic poem Herakliskos, perhaps written for his accession in 285, hinted at his assimilation to the infant Heracles, his reputed ancestor.432 In his hymn To Zeus Callimachus wrote that kings come from Zeus and nothing is more divine than the kings of Zeus.433 In his hymn To Apollo he wrote, “Whoever would battle my king would battle Apollo also.”434 In Callimachus’ hymn To Delos Apollo speaks from his mother’s womb, refusing to be born on the island of Cos because it was to be the birthplace of another god, descended from the Soteres.435 Apollo’s prophecies for the unborn Ptolemy also draw a parallel between them as victorious saviors (discussed in detail in the section on numismatic iconography). Callimachus’ oracular conceit echoes the Egyptian theme of divine predestination as expressed in hieroglyphic sources. Ptolemy was explicitly recognized as a divine ruler in the Egyptian sphere. His full five-part Egyptian titulature was: Horus: Hwn onj (victorious youth) Two Ladies: wr pHtj (powerful great one) Horus of Gold: sxaj sw jt.f (his father caused him to appear/to be crowned) King of Upper and Lower Egypt: wsr kA Ra mrj Jmn (powerful ka of Ra, beloved of Amun) Son of Ra: Ptwlmjs (Ptolemy)436 The Horus name victorious youth identified Ptolemy with Horus in his most important aspect. The Horus of Gold name is a significant innovation in Egyptian royal titulature, as the wording is ambiguous and could be construed as an allusion to a god (Ra or Osiris) or to Ptolemy I.437 Variants in the titulature of later Ptolemies clearly refer to their dynastic parents. Following traditional practice, each Egyptian priesthood affiliated the king with its local deity. The Pithom stela lauds him as perfect god, the son of Atum, living image of Atum, engendered by the god and destined to be king for eternity.438 The Mendes stela carries similar formulae, only describing him as son of the Ram, already king in his mother’s womb and beginning his reign when he first took her breast.439 The Xois 430. Plut. Mor. 753 F. 431. Athenodorus ap. Clem. Al. 4.48. 432. Koenen (1977), pp. 79–86; id. (1993), p. 44; Cameron (1995), pp. 53–55. 433. Callim. Hymn I, ll. 78‒79. 434. Callim. Hymn II, l. 27. The allusion was to Ptolemy III, according to a scholion. 435. Callim. Hymn IV, ll. 160‒166. 436. Pithom stela, Urk. II, no. 20, l. 1 = Thiers (2007b), § 2.2, p. 19; Mendes stela, Urk. II, no. 13, § 1, pp. 32‒33 = Meulenaere (1976), p. 174, l. 1 = Schäfer (2011), pp. 246‒247, l. 1. 437. Tait (2003), p. 6. 438. Urk. II, no. 20, ll. 2‒3 = Thiers (2007b), § 2.3, p. 20, with commentary on pp. 83–85; for English translation, Mueller (2006), pp. 192‒193. Grzybek (1990), pp. 75–77, submitted that these were references to Ptolemy Soter assimilated to Atum but this notion was firmly refuted by Minas (1994). 439. Urk. II, 13, § 2, pp. 33‒34 = Meulenaere (1976), p. 174, ll. 2‒4 = Schäfer (2011), p. 247, ll. 2‒4, with commentary p. 256.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

103

stela makes Ptolemy the divine seed of Amun-Ra, Lord of Xois, nursed by Mut and assimilated to Khonsu-Ra-Harakhty-the-infant, the local version of the solar child (the young Horus).440 The fragmentary Sais stela seems to refer to his royal predestination, but affiliates him with Neith.441 Egyptian-style cult figures of Ptolemy II have been found in the temple treasure of Toukh el-Garmous, in Bubastis, probably in Coptos, and perhaps in Heliopolis.442 A gate in the temple precincts of Montu at Medamud depicts Ptolemy II celebrating a sed festival.443 This Egyptian rite of renewal involved a shared apotheosis with Apis and culminated in a solar epiphany of the rejuvenated king as Horus resurgens on the Throne of the Living.444 The gate at Medamud commemorates a sed festival that was celebrated after the death of Arsinoe II, before the thirtieth year of the reign, the traditional (but not invariant) occasion for a first sed festival; apparently the death of Ptolemy’s divine consort so threatened the cosmic order that it was necessary to renew his kingship.445 The decorations place special emphasis on the Osirian aspect of the rite, the role of Isis in proclaiming the succession of Horus, and the roles of Osiris and Isis in astral religion.446 An ostracon from Karnak may allude to another celebration of the sed festival in Ptolemy’s thirtieth year.447 Greek festivals honoring the king included the Genethlia, a celebration of his birthday and of his accession as coregent; the two were associated because Egyptians considered royal accession as a kind of birth.448 The Genethlia were harmonized with the Basileia, an older festival commemorating Alexander’s coronation, now transformed into a celebration of the reigning king.449 The Basileia were celebrated annually at Alexandria, with musical, athletic and hippic competitions.450 The Genethlia were celebrated throughout the chora, following the Egyptian tradition of observing pharaonic birthdays in the native temples. The king received gifts from his subjects, ultimately emanating from the land, and he reciprocated with benefactions and dispensations of justice; like offerings to the gods 440. Guermeur and Theirs (2001); Guermeur (2005), pp 153‒154. Ptolemy II also honored (Amun)-Ra, lord of Xois, along with Shu, Tefnut, Khonsu the Child-Ra-Harakhty, and the deified Arsinoe in a now-disappeared cliff inscription in the Maasara quarries, see Guermeur (2005), pp. 154‒155. 441. Thiers (1999), col. 2, pp. 425, 428, 430. 442. Stanwick (2004), A3, A5, A7, A11, A12. Like other Egyptian-style portraits of early Ptolemaic kings, these mimic the style of portraits of Dynasty XXX, including idealized features and a smiling visage that expressed affability and accessibility, virtues also valued in the ideology of Hellenistic kingship, as explicitly stated in the ithyphallic hymn to Demetrius Poliorcetes, see Chaniotis (2011), pp. 176–178. 443. Sambin and Carlotti (1995). 444. Aldred (1969); Kessler (1989), pp. 70–78; Sourouzian (2005). 445. Sambin and Carlotti (1995), pp. 412–415, dating the sed festival to the lifetime of Arsinoe I; Nilsson (2010), pp. 378‒381. 446. Sambin and Carlotti (1995), pp. 400–402, 416–438. 447. Thiers (2007b), p. 86. 448. Bergman (1968), pp. 70, 97; Perpillou-Thomas (1993), p. 159. 449. IG II/III(2), 3.1.3779; SEG XXVII, 1114; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 232; Vol. IIa, p. 382, nn. 342–343; Koenen (1977), pp. 29–32, 53–55; Perpillou-Thomas (1993), pp. 152–153. These scholars assumed that the Genethlia were celebrated annually, but the Canopus decree attests to monthly celebrations of the birthday and accession day of Ptolemy III in Egyptian temples and royal birthdays were celebrated monthly in the gymnasia. The Genethlia too may have been a monthly festival. 450. SEG XXVII, 1114. Koenen (1977), followed by Bingen (2007), pp. 86‒90, believed that this victor’s list was found in the chora and that it attested to local versions of the Alexandrian festival, in this case founded by a Thracian immigrant. Remijsen (2009), pp. 258, 259‒260, strongly doubted the existence of local versions of the Alexandrian games. Nevertheless, PSI IV, 364 (251) attests local agones of the Ptolemaieia at Hiera Nesos under Ptolemy II.

104

Introduction

from men, the gifts to the king represented symbolic bits of the largesse that he provided through his theological role as the source of all good things, a notion taken over from pharaonic ideology.451 Ptolemy II received divine honors in his external possessions and even beyond. Before 275/4 the League of Islanders associated him with his father in their Ptolemaieia and erected two statues of him on Delos, whose honorary inscriptions were restored around 100 B.C.452 Another statue of the second Ptolemy was dedicated in the temple of Apollo in Cyrene, perhaps confirming his rapprochement with Magas.453 In 254, after Ptolemy thwarted an attempt by Antiochus II to capture Byzantium and aided the city with gifts of land, grain, and money, the Byzantines expressed their gratitude by establishing a cult and temple in his honor.454

II. Coinage Egyptian coinage of Ptolemy II In the early years of his reign Ptolemy II retained the types and principal denominations introduced by his father in 294, including gold trichrysa, silver tetradrachms, and bronze diobols and obols. There are no self-evident criteria for distinguishing the coinage of the son from that of his father, but a chronology can be proposed based on rhythms of production. The latest emissions of tetradrachms marked with the letter R above a secondary control were large and die linked to one another.455 On the assumption that intense monetary production can be associated with elevated military expenditure, these issues have been dated to the final campaign against Demetrius Poliorcetes in 288/7.456 There followed several small issues that are not represented in Egyptian hoards.457 The next issue of significant size was marked with the sign Ï, which also appears above a shield on coins whose attribution to Ptolemy II is not in doubt. The issue with Ï alone has been associated with the naval campaign that followed Philadelphus’ accession as sole king in 282.458 After a period of apparent mint inactivity, Philadelphus began to mark his coinage with a Galatian shield.459 The appearance of this device as a supplementary symbol coincided with the revival of the silver drachm, a denomination not minted in Egypt since about 309, and with a change in the control system, which now typically included a letter between the eagle’s legs in addition to series identifiers in the left field. The tetradrachms marked with Ï above the shield have multiple die links among the major control letters, indicating that the control letters were used simultaneously and that the tetradrachms were produced in an intense episode of minting which can probably be associated with the First Syrian War (274–271), and perhaps anticipated the initial campaign.460 Trichrysa of the Ï above 451. Perpillou-Thomas (1993), pp. 161–162. 452. IG XI, 1038.17, 1043.14, 1123, 1124; Bruneau (1970), pp. 532–533; Habicht (1970), p. 112. 453. OGIS I, 22. 454. Steph. Byz. s.v. ’Αγκυρα; Habicht (1970), pp. 116–121 (proposing earlier dates); Avram (2003), pp. 1203–1204. 455. See nos. 168, 170, 173. 456. Lorber (2012c), p. 45. 457. Nos. 175‒177. 458. Lorber (2012c), pp. 45‒46. 459. Reinach (1911); Voegtli (1973); Ritter (1975); Davesne (in Davesne and Le Rider 1989), p. 177. 460. Davesne (1989), pp. 275–277; Lorber (2012c), p. 45.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

105

shield series were the last of this denomination ever minted in Egypt, and tetradrachms would not be struck again for at least a decade. A corresponding bronze coinage sharing the Ï above shield marking (Series 2F) is presumed to be contemporary with the precious metal; six specimens occurred in the Mirgissa hoard of 1968–1969 (IGCH 1685), which must have been left by the Nubian expedition of c. 275 or the latter 270s.461 A related group of bronzes (Series 2H), marked Ï above shield above _ and featuring a new, idealizing style of Zeus, was apparently complete before the end of the 260s. Numerous specimens have been excavated in sites around Attica, where they were introduced in the course of the Chremonidean War (268/7?–262).462 Most likely these bronze pieces represent the spending money (sitonion) of the Ptolemaic troops sent to support the Athenian cause.463 So important was the presence of Ptolemaic troops and coinage in Attica that the Athenian mint, to facilitate exchange, struck three emissions of an exceptional silver denomination, the Attic pentobol, which was equivalent to the Ptolemaic drachm.464 In the later 270s Ptolemy II ordered the last major reform of the Lagid gold coinage. Although the trichryson was already the largest gold coin of the Hellenistic world, he introduced a new denomination of greater value, the mnaieion (one-mina piece), so called because it was equivalent to 100 silver drachms, i.e., a mina of silver.465 The new gold coinage also included a half-mina coin, the pentekontadrachmon (50-drachm piece). Following Svoronos, modern numismatists often call these two denominations gold octadrachms and gold tetradrachms, but their weights of 27.87 g and 13.90 g fall short by 3.5% of eight drachms (28.67 g) and four drachms (14.40 g), respectively.466 These shortfalls indicate that the value of gold had risen once again vis-à-vis silver in the Ptolemaic currency system, to a ratio of 1 : 12.8.467 The addition of the 4% allage charged when silver was exchanged for gold raised the ratio to 1 : 13.33.468 The first documentary allusion to these coins has been identified in P.Hib. I, 110 (recto).469 This text collects extracts from accounts dated between 13 March 274 and 27 August 272, including a sale of grain transported from Hiera Nesos, in the Heracleopolite nome, to Alexandria. The proceeds of this sale were paid out on 27 August 272 in the form of 950 drachms in gold coinage and 448 drachms in silver. As the sum in gold is a multiple of 50, it could not have been paid in trichrysa and tetartai, but only in mnaieia 461. Le Rider (1969), pp. 28–33. 462. Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou (1941); ead. (1953–54); ead. (1965); Vanderpool, McCredie, and Steinberg (1962), pp. 26–61; Kroll (1973), p. 10; Noeske (2000), pp. 227–228; Chryssanthaki (2005), pp. 165–167 (with additional bibliography). 463. On the forms of military pay in Hellenistic Egypt, see Griffith (1935), pp. 277–282. 464. Kroll (1973), pp. 10–11; Noeske (2000), pp. 228–230; Chryssanthaki (2004), p. 167. 465. Cavagna (2008a), p. 162 with n.3. 466. Jenkins (1967), p. 63. 467. Jenkins (1967), p. 63; Le Rider (1998a), p. 795; Mørkholm (1991), p. 104; Le Rider and de Callataÿ (2006), p. 150; von Reden (2007), p. 41; Cavagna (2010), pp. 94, 100–101. 468. Jenkins (1967), p. 63; Le Rider and de Callataÿ (2006), p. 150. Le Rider (1986), p. 46, noted that the exchange of the mnaieion against Attic-weight silver would have been particularly disadvantageous to the latter, with an effective rate of 1 : 15.4. 469. Burkhalter (2007), pp. 71‒72. Earlier in the twentieth century, Newell (1927), p. 86, and (1941), p. 230, submitted that the Theoi Adelphoi coinage was introduced by Ptolemy III, and this view was endorsed by Brett (1952), pp. 6–7 and (1955), p. 302. Troxell (1983), pp. 61‒62, cited the Zenon papyri P.Cair.Zen. 59021 and 59022 to prove that the coinage was an innovation of Ptolemy Philadelphus.

106

Introduction

and pentekontadrachma. This allusion, although indirect, establishes that mnaieia and pentekontadrachma were in use by August of 272.470 By that time the Alexandria mint had almost certainly ended production of the Ï above shield trichrysa and the associated tetradrachms. The only gold coinage of Ptolemy II to include the half-mina denomination was the coinage in the name of the Theoi Adelphoi (Sibling Gods), advertising the apotheosis of the ruling couple.471 P. Hib. I, 110 actually pushes back the date of their inclusion in the cult of the deified Alexander (the terminus ante quem previously recognized was 272/1), and it establishes a very close link between the foundation of the dynastic cult and the first issue of this coinage.472 It becomes clear that the reform of the gold coinage was motivated to a significant degree by royal ideology: its purposes were to express tryphe (the kingly display of wealth), to advertise the developing dynastic cult, and to associate ruler worship with gold.473 Greek poets, including Ptolemaic court poets, often used gold in imagery describing the gods.474 In Egyptian tradition gold was strongly associated with divinity— the flesh of the gods was gold—and with the sun and its power of regeneration and cosmic renewal, so that the use of this metal was reserved to the pharaoh and the gods.475 Gold was favored for religious dedications in both traditions and had a tendency to accumulate in temple treasuries.476 The types of the Theoi Adelphoi coinage are two pairs of conjoined royal busts depicting the Theoi Adelphoi on one side and their parents on the other. A Galatian shield behind the head of Ptolemy Philadelphus provides an iconographic link with the preceding coinage of trichrysa, tetradrachms, and drachms marked with Ï above shield and also with shieldbearing bronzes which continued in production into the 260s. The gold coinage of the Theoi Adelphoi was issued in four denominations: mnaieia, pentekontadrachma, and very rare quarter minae and eighth minae.477 Mnaieia and especially pentekontadrachma of the Theoi Adelphoi were minted in great profusion and seem to have been hoarded very rapidly, as they occur in abundance in gold hoards deposited as late as the last quarter of the third century, mostly in very fresh condition.478 Metallurgical analyses reveal trace elements of lead and copper that match the metallic profile of earlier Ptolemaic staters 470. For the editio princeps and other commentary, see Grenfell and Hunt (1906), pp. 286‒287; Maresch (1996), p. 192; Cadell and Le Rider (1997), pp. 32‒33; Burkhalter (2007), pp. 39–44. Interestingly, this same papyrus also provides the first attested payment to a dokimastes (money assayer), see Bogaert (1983), pp. 15–16. 471. Brunelle (1976), p. 11. 472. Such a link was earlier proposed by Troxell (1983), pp. 60–62; von Reden (2007), p. 51; Cavagna (2008a), pp. 164–182, especially pp. 180–182; Cavagna (2010), p. 95. 473. Von Reden (2007), pp. 48–49; see also Davesne (1988), pp. 57–58. On tryphe, see Tondriau (1948f); Hölbl (2001), p. 92; Thompson (2000). 474. E.g., Theoc. Id. 15.101; Callim. Hymn. 2.32–35, 97–99. 475. Brunelle (1976), p. 11; Finnestad (1997), pp. 203–213. Since Dynasty IV 1r nbw (Horus of Gold) had been part of the king’s titulary and the Coffin Texts refer to 1r pr m nbw (Horus who came forth from gold), see Beckerath (1984), pp. 21–27; Troy (1986), p. 55, relating these epithets to Hathor. 476. Von Reden (2007), pp. 48–49. 477. Svoronos (1904–08), Vol. II, nos. 934, 603–606, 613–614, 616a, 618, 621. Svoronos’ list of varieties also includes two silver coins, but they seem out of place. Svoronos 608, a supposed silver didrachm, may be the silver core of a plated pentekontadrachmon; for a gold-plated stater of Alexander the Great with silver core, see Price (1991), no. 3779; and for examples of plated electrum coins with silver cores, see Spier (1998), p. 329, no. 12; Waggoner (1983), no. 271. Svoronos 609, a silver triobol, seems far too low in value to belong to this series, is of provincial style, and lacks the legend naming the Theoi Adelphoi. 478. E.g, the partially recorded Benha hoard(s) (IGCH 1694 and 1695); cf. the large quantities of Ptolemaic gold coins on the numismatic market since 2007, which may represent another hoard.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

107

and trichrysa, and also that of mnaieia in the name of Arsinoe Philadelphus (see below), while distinguishing their metal from the more fully refined gold of coins in the name of Berenice II and those with a posthumous portrait of Ptolemy III.479 It follows that the bulk or perhaps all of the Theoi Adelphoi coinage must be attributed to the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus.480 Most likely its production ended in the latter 260s, when the shield-bearing bronzes were superseded by a reformed bronze coinage (Series 3) and a new gold coinage was introduced for Arsinoe Philadelphus (see below). A few indications, especially the wear of hoard coins, suggest that the Theoi Adelphoi coinage may have remained in production alongside mnaieia of Arsinoe Philadelphus, perhaps until c. 253/2 when output of the latter surged dramatically. After Arsinoe’s death in 270 or 268, Ptolemy introduced a special coinage to promote her cult. A series of silver decadrachms, issued in the name of Arsinoe Philadelphus, presented the veiled image of the deified Arsinoe wearing a diademed stephane, with a ram’s horn curling around her ear and a lotus scepter over her shoulder. The decadrachm reverse advertised her cult emblem, a dikeras (double cornucopiae) bound with a royal diadem. The obverse dies bear identifying letters that Svoronos wrongly interpreted as dates.481 The decadrachm series lasted throughout the reign of Ptolemy II and its final issues may belong to the first years of his successor.482 Toward the end of the 260s Ptolemy added a series of gold mnaieia honoring Arsinoe Philadelphus, which circulated alongside her decadrachms and the gold coinage of the Theoi Adelphoi.483 The types of the Arsinoe Philadelphus mnaieia are identical to those of the decadrachms and the obverse dies also bear identifying letters, but subtle stylistic differences suggest that corresponding letters on the two series were not contemporary.484 The mnaieia of Arsinoe Philadelphus must have been introduced in or before 261/0, as this date is borne by the earliest Arsinoe mnaieion of a Syro-Phoenician mint, an issue of Ioppe.485 The Alexandria mint may have adopted an annual rhythm of emission for the mnaieia of Arsinoe Philadelphus.486 Initially it produced them at very low levels and this exiguous output is one reason for suspecting a parallel production of Theoi Adelphoi gold. The introduction of the Arsinoe mnaieia may correlate with a decision to retire the trichryson from circulation. The so-called Letter of Demetrius, P.Cair.Zen. I, 59021, dated 24 October 258, refers to an apparently recent prostagma (royal decree) requiring 479. Olivier and Lorber (2013), pp. 56–58. 480. Contrary to opinions expressed by many numismatists who have interpreted the hoards as evidence that production of the Theoi Adelphoi coinage began under Ptolemy III or continued over several reigns; see Newell (1927b), p. 86; id. (1941), p. 240; Brett (1952), pp. 6‒7; Mørkholm (1991), p. 106; Le Rider (1998a), p. 798; Lorber (2012a), p. 17. For the latest discussion of the chronology of this series, see Olivier in Olivier and Lorber (2013), pp. 52‒64. 481. Svoronos (1901); id. (1904–08), Vol. I, cols. ρνζʹ−ρξβʹ. As a general rule each obverse die has a unique marking, and the natural assumption is that the letters served for die identification. There are anomalies, however: the controls I and K are missing from the decadrachm series, and the letters B and G from the mnaieion series. Also, in the latter series the letter I is duplicated and was reengraved on one of the two dies to become a letter K. 482. Troxell (1983), pp. 54–56. Troxell tentatively proposed that the decadrachm series continued until c. 241, but she also emphasized the lack of objective and conclusive evidence for the chronology of the later stages of the series. Analysis of the Arsinoe mnaieia, which are associated by style, suggests a terminal date of 246/5, see Lorber in Olivier and Lorber (2013), pp. 83, 88. 483. Troxell (1983), p. 63. 484. Troxell (1983), pp. 35–49. 485. Troxell (1983), p. 53, 37, pl. 9, A. 486. See Lorber in Olivier and Lorber (2013), p. 83.

108

Introduction

that foreign coinage and trichrysa be exchanged for new gold coinage.487 Undated, but probably roughly contemporary, is P.Cair.Zen. I, 59022, an account of a bank transaction involving mnaieia, pentekontadrachma, and trichrysa, which reveals that the trichrysa were subject to a much higher allage of nearly 11%.488 This document sheds some light on the mechanisms of monetary transition under the Ptolemies, an issue already discussed in connection with the currency reforms of Ptolemy I. Scholars have offered various interpretations of the different rates of allage.489 Most persuasive is the hypothesis that introduction of the mnaieion caused the trichryson to be retariffed from 60 to 64 silver drachms, in conformity with the new gold : silver ratio, and in the tradition of revaluing older gold coinage in connection with currency reforms.490 J. Olivier demonstrated that the allage of 6 drachms, 4 obols per trichryson attested in P.Cair.Zen. I, 59022 could subsume this revaluation, with 4 drachms of the surcharge due to the revaluation and an actual exchange commission of only 2 drachms, 2 obols, equivalent to the standard allage of 4%.491 Measures to effect the recall of the trichryson were less than fully effective, since occasional examples survive in hoards deposited as late as the last quarter of the third century.492 Several scholars have drawn a connection between introduction of the mnaieia of Arsinoe Philadelphus and the diversion, in 263/2, of the orchard and vineyard tax (soon to be renamed the apomoira) to support her cult in the Egyptian temples.493 The pattern of circulation of the Arsinoe mnaieia, mainly within Egypt, is consistent with this assumption.494 Nevertheless the Revenue Laws designate the apomoira for the provision of sacrifices and libations and it is difficult to reconcile these fixed costs with the volatile production of Arsinoe mnaieia, as revealed by die studies showing extreme variations 487. Préaux (1939), pp. 271–275; Rostovtzeff (1941), Vol. I, p. 402, Vol. III, p. 1417; Le Rider (1998b); Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), pp. 142–143; von Reden (2007), pp. 46–48; Cavagna (2008a), pp. 165–167; Cavagna (2010), pp. 96–98 (with additional bibliography p. 96 n.49). Since its first publication the Letter of Demetrius was interpreted as a communication from the director of the Alexandria mint and was assumed to refer to the reminting of foreign coinage and trichrysa, but this reading was challenged by Burkhalter (2007), pp. 47–57, 62–71. Because this document and the contemporary P.Cair.Zen. I, 59022 are the first to allude to the reform of the gold currency and/or explicitly mention the new gold denominations, some scholars concluded that the reform took place only shortly before the 250s and that the gold coinages of the Theoi Adelphoi and of Arsinoe Philadelphus were introduced at the same time, around 260, see Morkholm (1991), pp. 103–104; Le Rider (1997–1998), pp. 795–798; Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), pp. 151–153; Olivier (2006), p. 61. 488. Orrieux (1983), pp. 33–34; Le Rider (1998a), p. 797; Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), p. 153; Cavagna (2010), p. 99. Cf. Mørkholm (1991), p. 104, and von Reden (2007), p. 42, both of whom quote high rates for the gold : silver allage that may derive from this special case. 489. Orrieux (1983), pp. 33–34, expressed the view that this extraordinary allage reflected a high demand for the older coinage; see also Foraboschi (1987), p. 150. Le Rider (1998a), p. 797, suggested that the high allage was intended compensate for the different gold : silver ratios implied by the trichryson and the mnaieion. Cavagna (2010), pp. 99– 100, inferred that the higher allage was imposed as a disincentive to the continued used of the trichryson, in order to encourage its retirement. 490. Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), p. 153; Olivier (2006), p. 104. For hypotheses that the gold stater was twice revalued from five to six tetradrachms in connection with the currency reforms of Ptolemy I, see pp. 45 and 47 in the present volume. 491. Olivier (2006), p. 105. 492. Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303), deposited c. 244; and Benha, 1936 (IGCH 1694), deposited after the battle of Raphia. 493. Troxell (1983), p. 55; Meadows (2005) (relating second-century mnaieia to the apomoira); Olivier (2006), pp. 62–63; von Reden (2007), p. 53; Duyrat and Olivier (2010), p. 78. On the apomoira, see Clarysse and Vandorpe (1998). 494. Olivier (2006), pp. 62–63.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

109

in the output of different obverse dies.495 The Letter of Demetrius (P.Cair.Zen. I, 59021) describes a crisis in which foreign traders and local merchants were unable to do business because they could not exchange their foreign and demonetized Ptolemaic gold for legal tender, and the clear implication is that high-value gold coinage was essential for the export trade and for large-scale domestic commerce. Intriguingly, the date of the papyrus corresponds to the early part of the series of Arsinoe mnaieia, when production was extremely scanty and even suffered an interruption: the letters B and G are missing from the alphabetic sequence of the mnaieia. Conceivably a shortage of new mnaieia was the reason for the instructions prohibiting Demetrius and the bankers from accepting foreign and older coinage for exchange. The function of the Arsinoe mnaieia probably changed with the truly enormous issue marked with the letter Q, dated c. 253/2 by H. A. Troxell on the basis of a stylistic link with dated mnaieia of the Syro-Phoenician mints.496 This dramatic spike in production, if correctly dated, corresponds to the end of the Second Syrian War, which was followed by large-scale demobilization and the settlement of many veterans as cleruchs, especially in the Fayum. Perhaps these troops also received cash bonuses. In pharaonic Egypt it was traditional for the king to reward the military exploits of his leading officers with “gold of honor,” a personal gift usually in the form of jewelry.497 In the Assyrian empire the army, including foreign allies, received its pay after a campaign in the form of personal gifts of precious metals or jewelry from the king.498 The gold staters of the last native Egyptian pharaoh, Nectanebo II, reflect the translation of the traditional “gold of honor” into coinage, probably received by both Greek and Egyptian soldiers as can be inferred from the occurrence of the staters in both mixed and unmixed hoards.499 In light of this tradition a donative in gold might be the most satisfying explanation for the exponential increase in production of mnaieia of Arsinoe around 253/2. The next issues, marked I, K, and L, were also large and the continuing high volume of the coinage may correlate with ongoing land reclamation and cleruchic settlement. We shall see below (in the section on numismatic iconography) that some of Arsinoe’s Egyptian epithets and some elements of the coin imagery presented her as a fierce protective figure, a suitable patroness of the military, as she was of the Ptolemaic fleet. The Arsinoe decadrachms probably had a different function, as their fluctuations are less extreme and do not correlate precisely with those of the mnaieia presumed contemporary in Troxell’s chronology. The Alexandrian mnaieia for Arsinoe Philadelphus were accompanied by two shortlived series of silver tetradrachms, one with the traditional portrait of the dynastic founder and the other depicting the late queen. The former are innovative in two respects: they are issued in the name of Ptolemy Soter, rather than Ptolemy the King, and the new epiklesis finds expression in a portrait of idealized beauty that contrasts with the homely, sometimes even ungainly image of Ptolemy I that had dominated earlier coinage for more than three decades. The Arsinoe tetradrachms were struck from the obverse dies of the mnaieia. The Soter tetradrachms also bear a sequence of letters on the obverse, and both tetradrachm 495. P. Rev. col. 36, ll. 18–19. Die studies: Troxell (1983), pp. 42–45; Lorber in Olivier and Lorber (2013), pp. 78–98. 496. Troxell (1983), pp. 53–55. 497. For just one example, the biography of Amenenhab, an officer of Thutmose III, mentions gifts of gold on four occasions: Breasted (1906), 584, 585, 587, 588. 498. Radner (2002), pp. 51–52. 499. Dumke (2011).

110

Introduction

series normally feature a letter C between the eagle’s legs. The obverse letters for Ptolemy stop at D and those for Arsinoe at z. With these issues, datable around 255, Alexandria’s production of this key silver denomination ceased for the duration of the reign, although the huge stock of older tetradrachms continued to circulate. This development followed shortly after an important increase in tetradrachm production in Phoenicia and Palestine (see below) and at a time of apparently steady output by the Cypriote mints. Evidently the changes represent a shift of military finance from the capital to the provinces. The currency reforms of the 260s included a transformation of the bronze coinage. The old bronze currency was apparently demonetized, as it does not occur in Egyptian hoards with the new coinage (Series 3).500 The weights of existing bronze denominations were increased by 50%, a surprising development that increased the state’s production costs by an equivalent amount.501 The motive was almost certainly to inspire confidence in the new coinage by bringing its face value closer to the intrinsic value of the bronze, opening the way for the bronze currency to play a more important role in the economy and ultimately to replace silver coinage.502 New denominations with higher face values were introduced, including a bronze coin equivalent to the silver drachm.503 This was a coin with a diameter of about 42 mm and a weight of about 69 g, with a head of ZeusAmmon on the obverse and a reverse type of two eagles perched side-by-side on two thunderbolts.504 The bronze drachm was minted in abundance and immediately assumed an important role in financial transactions within Egypt; the first papyrological references to bronze drachms date from the early 250s.505 The reformed bronze currency of Series 3 included one denomination even larger than the drachm, with a diameter of c. 45 mm and a weight of c. 9o g. Various scholars have connected this impressive coin with the Egyptian deben, which as a ponderal unit 500. Cavagna (2010), pp. 124‒125; Picard and Faucher (2012), p. 33. Von Reden (2007), p. 48 n.76, cited a Zenon papyrus, P.Cair.Zen. 59176, l.64, which indicates that bankers still had stocks of demonetized (adokimos) bronze coins in 255 and also informs us that they did not scrupulously separate it from the current, legitimate coinage. 501. Mørkholm (1991), pp. 105–106; Davesne (1998), pp. 56‒58, where the weight increase is described as a tripling; Lorber (2005), p. 138; von Reden (2007), p. 63; Picard and Faucher (2012), p. 37; Wolf (2013). 502. Davesne (1998), pp. 57‒58; Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), pp. 158–159. Earlier scholars believed that the face values were very close to the intrinsic value: see Milne (1938), pp. 203‒204, who argued additionally that the increase (which he overestimated) could not represent a change in the weight standard and that it must reflect the introduction of an independent bronze coinage, dissociated from the Greek system and from fluctuations in the value of silver; Préaux (1939), p. 276, who noted the equivalence of the largest denomination to the Egyptian deben and characterized the reform as an Egyptianizing policy; and Rostovtzeff (1941), Vol. I, p. 400, also interpreting the reform as a concession to Egyptian tradition. Picard and Faucher (2012), p. 37, suggested that the weight increase might be related to the introduction of an exchange commission (allage) in some transactions involving the use of bronze coinage, but they did not draw a clear connection. Some modern numismatists have emphasized the variable weights of individual coins and have insisted on the fiduciary character of the coinage, see Mørkholm (1991), p. 106; Picard (1998a), p. 414, 416; Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), p. 159. Scheidel (2010) collected extensive evidence from ancient China and Rome indicating that there was a close relation between metal content and the value of bronze coinage, and this is also the implication of the rigorous metrological control (at the batch level) of Ptolemaic bronze coins as revealed by Wolf (2013). The face values assumed here yield a metallic ratio of approximately 1 : 20. This is far out of line with the ratio of 1 : 120 at Lipara around the turn of the fourth century, which is believed to reflect intrinsic values, see Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), pp. 39, 158. Unless our assumptions are terribly wrong, Ptolemaic bronze coinage remained fiduciary even after the reform of Ptolemy II. 503. Mørkholm (1991), pp. 105–106; Hazzard (1995a), pp. 64–65; Picard (1998a), pp. 413–414; Burkhalter and Picard (2005), pp. 55–56; Lorber (2005), pp. 137–138; Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), pp. 38‒40; von Reden (2007), pp. 63–64; Cavagna (2010), pp. 119–125; Picard and Faucher 2012), pp. 33‒38. 504. Lorber (2000), pp. 73–79. 505. P. Rev., col. 60, 13–15 (259 B.C.); P.Cair.Zen. 59090 (20 December 258 B.C.); Cadell and Le Rider (1997), p. 20.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

111

weighed 91 g.506 In terms of Greek monetary units it must have had the face value of an octobol.507 Hoard contents suggest that this denomination was struck almost exclusively under Ptolemy III, although it lacks the cornucopiae symbol otherwise characteristic of his coinage.508 At least one variety bears a control that was not employed under the third Ptolemy and instead links it to the coinage of Ptolemy II.509 The face values of these and other coins of Series 3 have been deduced from their weight relationships (using average weights). These generally conform to the Attic divisional system, allowing for the principal denominations to be identified as drachms, tetrobols, diobols, and obols.510 Table 2.1. Denominations of Series 3 Denomination

Diameter

Weight

Obverse type

Reverse type

Octobol

45 mm

90 g

Zeus-Ammon

Eagle, wings spread, head reverted

Drachm

42 mm

69 g

Zeus-Ammon

Two eagles

Tetrobol

36 mm

45 g

Zeus-Ammon

Eagle, wings spread

Diobol

30 mm

22 g

Laureate Zeus

Eagle, wings closed

Obol

24 mm

11 g

Alexander in elephant headdress

Eagle, wings spread

Tritartemorion

20 mm

7g

Alexander in elephant headdress

Eagle, wings spread

Hemiobol

18 mm

5g

Zeus-Ammon

Eagle, wings spread

Dichalkon

16 mm

3g

Zeus-Ammon

Eagle, wings spread

The retention of two obverse types of the pre-reform coinage (Series 2D‒2H)— laureate Zeus on the diobol and Alexander in elephant headdress on the obol—provides an element of continuity that helps to confirm the face values.511 But there are anomalies at the low end of the scale. Svoronos identified two pairs of neighboring denominations with identical types, which appear in the table as the obol and tritartemorion and as the hemiobol and dichalkon. This aspect of Svoronos’ classification has been criticized by several eminent numismatists on the grounds that the types were denomination markers and that coins of very similar size with identical types would have been confusing to users of the coinage; therefore, it is alleged, these pairs must either reflect normal variations in the weights of the coins or a reduction of the standard in mid-issue.512 The first of these explanations, normal weight variation, can be excluded. Metrological studies consistently 506. Préaux (1939), p. 276; Hazzard (1995a), pp. 65, 70 n.23; Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), p. 159. The deben appears in demotic documents of the Ptolemaic period, but as a unit of account equivalent to 5 staters or 20 drachms. 507. Lorber (1995–1996); ead. (2000), pp. 76–77; ead. (2005a), p. 138; Cavagna (2010), p. 144. This denomination was identified as the bronze drachm by Milne (1929), pp. 150–153; id. (1938), pp. 203–204; Thompson (1951), p. 366; Hazzard (1995), p. 65; Picard (1995), pp. 101–102; Weiser (1995), p. 30; Cadell and Le Rider (1997), pp. 18–19 (with reservations); Le Rider (1998a), pp. 801–803; Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), pp. 39–40. 508. Newell (1935), pp. 58–59; Lorber (2000), p. 74; Cavagna (2010), p. 122 n.123. 509. Lorber (2005a), p. 138. 510. Lorber (2000), pp. 79–80; ead. (2005a), pp. 137–138. For other attempts to identify the face values, see Price (1988) p. 68; Davesne (1998), pp. 56–57; Hazzard (1995), p. 65; Weiser (1995); von Reden (2007), pp. 62–70; Cavagna (2010), pp. 138–147; Picard and Faucher (2012), p. 36. 511. Picard (2000), pp. 414–415; Lorber (2005a), p. 373; Picard and Faucher (2012), p. 34. 512. Le Rider (1997–1998), pp. 799–800; Picard (2000), pp. 413–414 n.26; id. (2005), p. 87; Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), pp. 56–57; Picard and Faucher (2012), pp. 34‒36; Faucher (2013), pp. 222‒223.

112

Introduction

show that the weights of these “twin” denominations form distinct modes.513 All four denominations share certain control letters (A, D, E, Q, and L), and other controls (none, I, o, and R) are shared by one pair of “twins.” Only the obol (and occasionally the hemiobol) have been recorded with later letters of the alphabet. If the control letters were employed in alphabetical order, these patterns would attest to a change at a certain point: either the system was simplified to correct confusion arising from the “twin” denominations, or production continued only for selected denominations that were needed in greater quantity in the economy. The latter of these interpretations seems the more probable, because the changes were gradual and point to a preference for larger and/or more fundamental units of the currency system: production of the dichalkon ceased earliest (last struck with the control letter L), followed by the tritartemorion (last struck with the control letter R), and then by the hemiobol (last struck in the control letter T). On the other hand, if all the control letters were employed concurrently, as has been demonstrated for the earlier tetradrachms of the Ï above shield issue, then the hypothesis of a weight reduction in mid-issue would be tenable, although a corollary would be needed to explain why only the two smallest denominations were affected. A weight reduction to compensate for fixed production costs is not very plausible in this instance, since the average weights of the four “twins” are already light with respect to the four larger denominations.514 Most denominations of Series 3 feature a new obverse type, the head of Zeus-Ammon (discussed below in the section on numismatic iconography). Zeus-Ammon was depicted as a rejuvenated god, following the stylistic concept introduced for the laureate Zeus in the earlier Ï above shield above _ diobols (Series 2H). Alexander’s portrait was also altered; the ear of his elephant headdress was replaced by an abstract pattern of chevrons, one above the other, with a pellet near the apex of the upper chevron. The reform of the bronze currency also introduced a change in fabric: a circular indentation appears near the center of the flan, usually on both sides of the coin.515 Metallographic studies have determined that these cavities were not a feature of the cast flans but were added before striking, so that the planchet could be turned on a lathe while its two faces were smoothed.516 This painstaking procedure was probably necessitated by the introduction of very large denominations, to ensure that the devices would be clear.517 Ancient moneyers obviously encountered difficulties in striking large flans and the process of striking affected the flan to only a few millimeters’ depth.518 513. Cavagna (2010), pp. 123–124; Faucher (2013), p. 222; Wolf (2013), pp. 65, 98‒99. 514. Wolf (2013), pp. 66‒67, also suggested that the lower weights of small denominations might result from a proportionately larger loss of metal in the production process, but again it is difficult to understand why these proportions might have changed markedly in the course of the emission. 515. For a review of the scholarship treating the phenomenon of central cavities on Ptolemaic and other bronze coinages, see Cavagna (2007). 516. Jungfleisch (1948), pp. 49–54; Guey (1966); Guey and Picon (1968). These brief reports were verified by further metallographic studies by Faucher (2013), pp. 242‒257. Faucher strongly rejected the interpretation of Bouyon, Depeyrot, and Desnier (2000), pp. 19–24 and 31, who submitted that the central cavities served no necessary technical purpose and were added to distinguish the reformed currency from older bronze coins, to facilitate the removal of the latter from circulation. 517. Faucher (2013), pp. 256‒257. 518. Faucher (2013), pp. 257, 268‒271. Faucher again dismissed the views of Bouyon, Depeyrot, and Desnier (2000), pp. 52–56. These authors calculated that large Ptolemaic bronzes required a force of as much as 80 tons to strike and that this was beyond the capacity of hand striking. They hypothesized that the requisite force might have been achieved by dropping a pylon hammer from a height, within a frame, and they speculated that the technology might have been researched by scholars at the Museion and held as a monopoly of the Alexandria mint.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

113

The introduction of Series 3 opened a new phase of Ptolemaic monetary history lasting almost to the end of the third century. Its salient features include a bronze metrology of remarkable stability, abundant production of large bronze denominations, and the formation of sizable hoards of such coins. The introduction of Series 3 correlates roughly with the suspension of tetradrachm production at the Alexandria mint, lending credence to the view that large bronze denominations were intended to replace silver coinage in the chora.519 The new bronze coinage has also been regarded as an instrument for compelling the monetization of the chora, since its use was stipulated in the payment of the salt and obol taxes, and in various other transactions with the government.520 Egyptian documents indicate that the bronze drachm was officially equivalent to the silver drachm, but the Revenue Laws prescribed an allage (exchange fee) of c. 10% (2.5 obols per stater) in certain transactions.521 The salt tax and payments relating to the royal monopolies were levied pros chalkon, meaning that bronze coinage would be accepted at face value.522 The apomoira and many other taxes were officially levied pros argyrion (in silver), so that payments rendered in bronze were encumbered with a surcharge.523 Payments emanating from the treasury were subject to a lower allage of 1.5 obols per stater.524 The papyrological sources often deviate from these general formulations and S. von Reden suggested that the imposition of allage and the rate were subject to the discretion of the bankers.525 Various scholars have linked the reform of the bronze coinage with the introduction of the salt tax in 266/5 and/or with the Revenue Laws enacted in subsequent years.526 The quintupling of the annual royal stipend to the Egyptian temples in 265/4 seems especially relevant, since the Pithom stela connects the increase to capitation taxes (including the salt tax and the obol tax) which were paid in bronze. Nevertheless, Philadelphus’ reform of his bronze currency is usually dated about 261/0, because reformed bronze coins have not come to light in archaeological excavations in Attica, from which it can be deduced that they were not in production before the end of the Chremonidean War.527 It seems a bit surprising that Philadelphus should have delayed the reform of his bronze currency for as much as half a decade after instituting policies that increased the demand for such coinage. It may in fact be possible to date the monetary reform as high as c. 265, in order to coordinate it with the Egyptian fiscal reforms, despite the apparently conflicting evidence from Attica. One possibility is that bronze Series 2H was minted intensely and in its entirety at the outset of the Chremonidean War, just as the entire Ï above shield 519. Rostovtzeff (1941), Vol. I, p. 400; Gara (1984), p. 115; Mørkholm (1991), pp. 105–106; von Reden (2007), pp. 60–61. 520. Von Reden (2001); ead. (2007), p. 60–61. 521. P. Rev. col. 76; Pierce (1965); Burkhalter and Picard (2005), pp. 56–59, 66–67; von Reden (2007), pp. 112–117. 522. Von Reden (2007), pp. 113–115. 523. Von Reden (2007), p. 115. 524. Burkhalter and Picard (2005), p. 57. 525. Von Reden (2007), pp. 112–113. 526. Clarysse and Thompson (1995); Picard (2003), pp. 30, 32; Burkhalter and Picard (2005), p. 55 (but proposing a date c. 261); von Reden (2007), pp. 60–61, 63–65; Picard and Faucher (2012), p. 37 (261); Gorre (2014) (associating the introduction of Series 3 with cultic as well as fiscal reforms). Davesne (1998), pp. 55–58, dated the currency reform to c. 265 without reference to the Revenue Laws. 527. Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou (1965); Mørkholm (1991), p. 105; Hazzard (1995), pp. 59–60; Le Rider (1997– 1998), pp. 800–801; Lorber (2005), p. 137 n.15; Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), pp. 155–156; Cavagna (2010), pp. 119– 120, n. 20 (with further bibliography); Picard and Faucher (2012), p. 37.

114

Introduction

emission of trichrysa and tetradrachms seems to belong to the initial stages of the First Syrian War. Another possibility is that two different bronze coinages, intended for different purposes, were produced concurrently; that is, Series 3 could have been introduced for use in Egypt even as the Alexandria mint continued to strike Series 2H bronzes for use in Attica. The rationale for retaining the old type of currency in the war zone would be one of expediency: the pre-reform coinage had already won a degree of acceptance in a foreign economy, and the Ptolemaic state could neither remove it from circulation there or dictate its value vis-à-vis the reformed coinage. A parallel production of Series 3 and Series 2H could account for the idealizing obverse style of the latter. A high chronology for the introduction of Series 3 nevertheless remains unproven and the most prudent approach is to date the reform less precisely, to the latter half of the 260s. The piecemeal nature of the monetary reforms of Ptolemy II makes it difficult to envision the evolution of the currency system as a whole, especially since the discussion of salient themes tends to obscure some overlaps. The following table shows the gold, silver, and bronze coinages produced simultaneously at various points in the reign. It should be interpreted in light of a transition in rhythms of production, from episodic mint activity in the first decade of the reign to more sustained production, at least of gold mnaieia, gold half-mnaieia, and silver decadrachms, beginning in the latter 270s. Older coins remained an important part of the money supply, although gold trichrysa and bronzes of Series 2 were eventually demonetized and gradually retired from circulation. Table 2.2. Patterns of monetary production in Egypt under Ptolemy II. Date

Gold coinage

Silver coinage

Bronze coinage

c. 282

Trichrysa

Tetradrachms

Series 2E

c. 275/4

Trichrysa

Tetradrachms Drachms

Series 2F

272

Theoi Adelphoi mnaieia Theoi Adelphoi pentekontadrachma

Soon after 270/268

Theoi Adelphoi mnaieia Theoi Adelphoi pentekontadrachma

Arsinoe decadrachms

Series 2H

c. 265‒c. 262

Theoi Adelphoi mnaieia Theoi Adelphoi pentekontadrachma Arsinoe mnaieia?

Arsinoe decadrachms

Series 3 Series 2H for export? Series 2 demonetized in Egypt

261/0

Arsinoe decadrachms Series 3 Theoi Adelphoi mnaieia Theoi Adelphoi pentekontadrachma? Arsinoe tetradrachms Ptolemy Soter tetradrachms Arsinoe mnaieia Trichrysa demonetized

254/3

Arsinoe mnaieia

Arsinoe decadrachms

Series 3

Coinage of Ptolemy II in the provinces Alexandrian coins circulated in all the external territories of the Ptolemaic empire apart from Cyrenaica, which had a separate monetary tradition reinforced by its secession under Magas. At the start of Philadelphus’ reign Alexandrian coins represented virtually the entire money supply of the kingdom, with the partial exception of Cyprus. Over the course of the reign the balance changed and provincial mints became the sole source of tetradrachms, which circulated widely, as well as producing bronze coins for local use.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

115

Philadelphus’ main provincial mints initially continued in the patterns established under Ptolemy I, issuing coinage more-or-less on the Alexandrian model. Three important series of tetradrachms, with occasional trichrysa or drachms, are provisionally attributed to Cyprus and are presumed to be the products of mints operating at Salamis, Citium, and Paphos. Two of these series manifestly continue the coinage of Uncertain Mints 9 and 10, while a third facility, Uncertain Mint 19, struck its inaugural tetradrachm issue from dies supplied by Uncertain Mint 9. A typical feature of these coins is the presence of three controls in the left field, although the products of Uncertain Mint 19 usually have only two. A Galatian shield appears in the right field of most of these early issues, corresponding to the Galatian shield in the left field of Alexandrian tetradrachms dated to the time of the First Syrian War. The shield probably made its first appearance on Cypriote coins in this same period. But the Cypriote tetradrachms do not seem to exhibit the same dense linkage as the Alexandrian shield tetradrachms and it seems likely that their production was more continuous than episodic. Sometime later, probably in 261/0, the Cypriote mints ceased employing the shield symbol, adopted an idealizing portrait style, and began to issue their tetradrachms in the name of Ptolemy Soter. Three principal series of tetradrachms can still be identified, linked to the tetradrachms of the preceding period by their controls. Drachms were no longer minted and gold coins were no longer integrated with the tetradrachms by shared controls. A few mnaieia of Arsinoe Philadelphus were struck bearing the civic mintmarks of Salamis, Citium, and Paphos. While these mintmarks tend to support the assumption that the tetradrachm mints were also located at these cities, the tetradrachms, unhappily for modern numismatists, do not bear mintmarks. The different marking of mnaieia and tetradrachms suggests that the former had some special link to civic administrations. The bronze currency reform of the 260s did not result in a new bronze coinage on Cyprus. Finds from the island imply the continued circulation of pre-reform bronze coins imported from Egypt. Many such coins are countermarked with a large trident punch mark which probably served to revalidate older coins after the reform. A. Davesne proposed that the trident punch was applied on Cyprus, but the wide dispersion of countermarked coins in southern Asia Minor and Syro-Phoenicia may implicate the Ptolemaic fleet as the countermarking authority rather than the civil administration of the island.528 In Phoenicia, Sidon and Tyre had not struck silver coinage since shortly after their surrender to Ptolemy I in 294, and their mints had probably been closed for a time. At or before the outbreak of the First Syrian War they emitted tetradrachms—supplemented at Tyre by trichrysa and bronzes in three denominations—bearing civic mintmarks and usually control letters, but not the Galatian shield symbol. The omission of the shield, Ptolemy’s personal emblem, taken together with the use of mintmarks, may be a clue that these cities enjoyed some special status vis-à-vis the king.529 Before the Ptolemaic retreat from Seleucid Syria in 274 or 273, Sidon and Tyre each produced a truly enormous emission of tetradrachms, with associated trichrysa, identified only by their mintmarks. These issues reflect a final decision to transform the Attic-weight coinage found in Phoenicia into royal Ptolemaic currency. Beginning in year 20 (266/5 B.C.) Tyre inaugurated a series of annual 528. Davesne (1987). Schulze (2001) reviewed the history of scholarship and associated the countermark with a presumed 25% devaluation of the bronze coinage in a second reform of Philadelphus. 529. For the significance of the shield, see the section on numismatic iconography.

116

Introduction

issues dated with monograms that resolve as the numbers of the king’s regnal years. Down to the currency reform of 261/0 these annual issues comprised tetradrachms only. In 261/0 new mints opened at the port cities of Ptolemais (Ake), Ioppe, and Gaza. Together with Tyre and Sidon they coined on an annual basis, producing tetradrachms in the name of Ptolemy Soter with occasional mnaieia of Arsinoe Philadelphus. Both denominations carried mintmarks, regnal dates, and from one to three additional controls which were often used to distinguish multiple emissions in the same year. (The large number of such emissions at Tyre marks its emergence as the premier mint of the SyroPhoenician province.) Nearly half of the controls were employed by more than one city, suggesting a degree of coordination in the supervision of the mints. Tyre and Ioppe even shared dies in regnal years 33 and 34 (253/2 and 252/1).530 The Syro-Phoenician series of dated tetradrachms and mnaieia lasted until 241, although Alexandria suspended the minting of tetradrachms around 255. The bronze currency reform of the 260s was implemented in Syria and Phoenicia as well as in Egypt. At least three regional mints issued bronze drachms and/or selected fractions conforming to the types, weights, and fabric of Egyptian Series 3, but with a double cornucopiae symbol in the field.531 Some of these coins bear the mintmarks of Tyre and Ptolemais (Ake).532 Local finds attest to the operation of at least one additional bronze mint that did not employ a mintmark to identify its products. Ptolemaic dynastic themes found special expression on a few provincial coinages. Somewhat surprisingly, these included the silver minimae produced at Jerusalem in the name of the province of Judah. A sizable issue of “Yehud” quarter obols portrays the parents of Ptolemy Philadelphus—Ptolemy I, diademed, on the obverse, and Berenice I, bare headed, on the reverse—and probably belongs to the first decade of the reign.533 Very rare anepigraphic triobols and a unique “Yehud” hemiobol bear jugate portraits on both sides, precisely mirroring the Theoi Adelphoi types of Alexandria.534 Ptolemy Soter and Berenice I were depicted separately on Cyrenaican didrachms and bronzes, Ptolemy at Cyrene and Berenice at Euesperides; these coinages probably signal the reconciliation of Magas and his half-brother Philadelphus.535 530. The two mints shared the obverse die of their mnaieia of year 33 and a reverse die of Ioppe, year 33, was recut for use at Tyre in year 34. The mnaieia of these two mints also shared stylistic features in the early years of Ptolemy III. 531. Correspondence with Series 3 is the basis for the attributions proposed by Lorber (2008a), which differ from those of Svoronos. 532. Bouyon, Depeyrot, and Desnier (2000), p. 14, suggested that these bronzes were struck at Alexandria for distribution at the receiving mints. Faucher (2013), pp. 139‒142, argued that it was more practical to send dies from Alexandria than to send struck coinage. 533. Gitler and Lorber (2006), pp. 10–12, proposing a date of c. 270. The alternative view adopted here follows Hazzard (1995a), p. 2, and (2000), pp. 3, 15, 43–44, etc., who dated coin types honoring Ptolemy I and Berenice I near the beginning of Philadelphus’ reign and related them to an assertion of legitimacy against the claims of the children of Eurydice. 534. For the triobols, Svoronos (1904–08), Vol. II, no. 609, wrongly associated with the Alexandrian gold coinage of the Theoi Adelphoi. For the hemiobol, Gitler and Lorber (2006), p. 12. Possibly the Jewish authorities recognized the cultic significance of the types and terminated the issue. 535. Robinson (1927), p. cliv; Naville (1951), pp. 83–84; Buttrey (1997), pp. 37–38. The identity of the Queen Berenice of this coinage is contested. She was identified as Berenice I by Svoronos (1904–08), Vol. I, cols ρλε´–ρλθ´; Kahrstedt (1910), pp. 261–263; Robinson (1927), pp. cxlix–cliii; Kondis (1978), pp. 44–46; Mørkholm (1991), p. 102; Gorini (2002), pp. 311–312; and Calabria and Finocchi (2003), pp. 184–185 (but see also p. 186, bottom, where the same coins are said to portray Berenice II). Other scholars identified Berenice II: Müller (1860), pp. 146–147; Poole (1883), pp. xxxi–xxxii; Tarn (1913), pp. 452–453; Naville (1951), p. 106, explaining the monogram as either that of her son Magas or of a magistrate; Thompson (1973), p. 85 n.1; Kyrieleis (1975), p. 94; Brunelle (1976), p. 30; Caltabiano (1995), p. 101 n.23; ead. (1996), pp. 188–189; Herklotz (2000), p. 55. The latter interpretation is refuted by the evidence of overstrikes

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

117

Subsequently in Cyrenaica—probably after 261—Magas introduced the distinctive provincial bronze coinage with the portrait of Ptolemy Soter on the obverse and a bust of Libya on the reverse. Early issues do not exhibit the central cavities that mark the Series 3 coinage of Egypt and the post-reform coinages of other Ptolemaic provinces; possibly the reformed fabric was not adopted until Cyrenaica was reunited with Egypt by the marriage of Ptolemy III and Berenice II.536 The metrology of Cyrenaican bronze coinage adheres to the original weight standard of Ptolemy I, which was retained until the accession of Ptolemy VIII as king of Cyrenaica in 163. Other provincial mints struck occasional coinage during this reign, but very few can be identified by name. During the early years of the Second Syrian War, Tarsus was detached from the Seleucid sphere and promptly commenced production of a brief series of tetradrachms and drachms with the portrait of Ptolemy II.537 The same portrait appears on a few isolated emissions which probably mark further conquests of Philadelphus in Cilicia or neighboring regions. The city of Caunus is issued a municipal coinage expressing its loyalty to the royal family. The coinage consists of bronze chalkoi portraying the civic founder on the obverse and the cult symbol of Arsinoe Philadelphus on the reverse. An unidentified mint, perhaps one of the many foundations named after Arsinoe II, produced a series of bronze coins consisting largely of hemiobols with the queen’s portrait. Although the fabric initially lacks central indentations, the cavities are present on the final issues. This technical change may have chronological significance, or it may merely indicate that this provincial mint initially employed its own technical practices and only later came under the influence of Alexandria. Two coinages can be associated with euergetic involvements of Ptolemy II outside his own kingdom. A significant series of bronze coins resembling the shield-bearing diobols of Series 2 was produced in Sicily during the early years of Hieron II.538 These coins are found exclusively in Sicily and Southern Italy.539 Various technical and stylistic features establish that they cannot be products of Alexandria or other known Ptolemaic mints: they conform to a heavier weight standard; many have linear borders on the reverse; and the later part of the series was struck from loose dies and exhibits distinctly West Greek style. This stylistic and technical evolution points to the operation of a short-lived Ptolemaic mint on Sicily and a subsequent production of imitative coinage by Hieron II. Considerations of historical probability suggest the phenomenon should be dated shortly before and after 264. In this chronological context it is very interesting that the Ptolemaic part of the series features the same idealizing style as the Series 2H (Ï above shield above _) bronzes found in Attica, an observation that may further support a high chronology collected by Robinson (1927), p. cli, and discussed by Buttrey (1997), pp. 37–38. The attribution of the Berenice bronzes to Euesperides is not supported by finds; only the companion bronzes of Ptolemy Soter have been found at the site, see Bond and Swales (1965), p. 101. 536. Buttrey (1997), pp. 37–41. 537. The mint was identified by Newell (1941), pp. 222–223. Newell regarded the portrait as that of Ptolemy III, but it was recognized as a likeness of the second Ptolemy by Davesne (1999), pp. 129–131, who deduced that Philadelphus had captured Tarsus early in the Second Syrian War. 538. Wolf and Lorber (2011). 539. Manganaro (1989), pp. 527–532. Augé (2000), pp. 62–64, reported finds of these coins in the excavations at Ras Ibn Hani on the coast of northern Syria, but it seems likely that he cited their Svoronos numbers in a non-specific fashion in order to give a general idea of the types of the excavation coins.

118

Introduction

Figure 2.1. Gold mnaieion with portraits of the first two Ptolemaic couples. Enlarged.

for the introduction of Series 3 in Egypt. The motive for striking coins of Ptolemaic type in Sicily is unknown, but the most plausible reconstruction of events is as follows: Ptolemy II supported Hieron’s efforts to protect the Greek cities of Sicily from Mamertine raiders by sending troops, a quantity of bronze, and mint workers to coin it. When Hieron ran afoul of Rome in 264, Ptolemy’s Roman alliance compelled him to withdraw his support and Sicilians took charge of the minting operation. Small bronzes with the veiled portrait of Arsinoe II have been reported from Hellespontine Thrace, together with chalkoi portraying Poseidon and Apollo, the latter paired with a reverse showing a cornucopiae bound with a royal diadem. M. Arslan and A. Özen, who first reported the provenance of this coinage, assigned it to Ptolemy Ceraunus and proposed Byzantium as the mint.540 S. Psoma pointed to the violent rupture between Ceraunus and Arsinoe almost as soon as they married, making it unlikely that he would have issued a coinage in his half-sister’s honor, and instead associated the Arsinoe dichalkia and the Poseidon and Apollo chalkoi with the Ptolemaic rescue of Byzantium in 254/3.541 Psoma attributed a different bronze coinage, the so-called “Paroreia” coinage, to Ceraunus.542 Numismatic Iconography The oval shield that appears on some gold, silver, and bronze coins of Ptolemy II had a dual significance. When positioned behind the head of Philadelphus on gold coins of the Theoi Adelphoi series (Fig. 2.1), it should be understood as his personal attribute. It commemorates his suppression of a dangerous mutiny by Galatian mercenaries serving in the Egyptian army, a revolt that threatened Egypt with the same ravages these Celts had inflicted on Greece and Asia Minor.543 Salvation from the Celtic barbarians became a topos of Hellenistic political propaganda, especially that of the kings.544 The court poet 540. Arslan and Özen (2000). 541. Psoma (2008a). Müller (2009), pp. 348–353, also rejected the attribution to Ptolemy Ceraunus. 542. Psoma (2008b). 543. Paus. 1.7.2. Reinach (1911); Voegtli (1973); Ritter (1975); Davesne in Davesne and Le Rider (1989), p. 277. For an account of the Galatian reign of terror in Asia Minor, with sources, see Mitchell (1993), pp. 13–20. Salzmann (1980) rejected the association of the shield with the Galatians, demonstrating that shields of the same shape were associated with Egyptian gods of the Graeco-Roman period. 544. Strootman (2005).

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

119

Figure 2.2. Silver tetradrachm with oval shield symbol. Enlarged.

Callimachus gave Ptolemy’s victory a cosmic significance in his Hymn to Delos, calling the Galatians “late-born Titans” and comparing Apollo’s defense of his sanctuary at Delphi to Ptolemy’s defense of Egypt through an allusion to a pile of shields beside the Nile.545 The theme of destroying rebels and restoring order from chaos was deeply significant in Egyptian royal ideology and Callimachus’ framing showed the king fulfilling his role as the earthly embodiment of the royal and solar god Horus, the Egyptian counterpart of Apollo.546 The victory and the association of Philadelphus with Apollo were advertised in various contexts. Galatian shields and Delphic tripods adorned the pavilion where Ptolemy II entertained his guests on the occasion of the Grand Procession.547 The sculptured head of a Galatian in the Egyptian Museum at Cairo, perhaps originally from Crocodilonpolis, is evidence that the victory was commemorated by a monument in the Egyptian chora, just as the defeat of the Galatians in Asia Minor later inspired the Great Altar of Pergamum.548 Gallic shields are also prominent in the architectural decoration of the Ptolemaion in Limyra, where they may allude to the defense of Ptolemaic Lycia against Galatian marauders, as well as to the suppression of the mutiny in Egypt.549 A pair of Celtic shields with gilded thunderbolts was dedicated at Delos, probably by Ptolemy II in thanks for his victory over the Galatian mutineers, although the temple inventory does not name the donor.550 The shield takes on a different significance when it appears on the reverse of gold, silver, and bronze coins next to the eagle on thunderbolt device (Fig. 2.2). The obverse type of the precious metal coins is the portrait of Ptolemy I. That of the most common bronze denomination is a laureate head of Zeus, often with the features of the late king, while Alexander is depicted on the remaining bronzes. In these contexts the association of the shield and the eagle evokes the court myth of the infant Ptolemy’s exposure on a 545. Call. Hymn. 4, In Delum 171–187, 188; Schol. In Hymn. 4 (ed. Pfeiffer), pp. 70‒71. 546. Koenen (1983), pp. 170–190; see also id. (1959), pp. 110–112; id. (1993), pp. 81–84, with the response of Walbank, pp. 122–123. 547. Athen. 5.196e–f. 548. On the significance of the Gallic head, Laubscher (1987); Strobel (1991), pp. 109–110 ; Maderna (2005), pp. 263–264. The Attalids also used the Gallic shield as a symbol of victory, as on the balustrade of the portico of the Pergamene Nikephorion. 549. Borchhardt (1991); Stanzl (2003), p. 6 and figs. 5, 10, 12–13. 550. Bringmann and von Steuben (1995), no. 149; Schmidt-Dounas (1995), pp. 90–93 300–301; ead. (2004), p. 99.

120

Introduction

Figure 2.3. Portrait of Ptolemy II on a silver tetradrachm of an uncertain provincial mint. Enlarged.

shield and his nurture by the eagle of Zeus, so that the coins express the Lagid claim of descent from the Macedonian royal house while reinforcing the theme of Zeus’ special favor and protection.551 The shield of the myth is the aspis (round shield), not the thyreos (oval shield)—but Callimachus also used the term aspidas to refer to the shields of the vanquished Galatians.552 It can hardly be coincidence that the oval shield disappeared from the reverse of the coinage when the legend of the precious metal coins changed from pToLEMAIoU BASILEWS, which could refer to either Ptolemy I or Ptolemy II, to pToLEMAIoU SWTHRoS, which explicitly names the dynastic founder. This seems to indicate that the oval shield, even when associated with the eagle, is still the personal emblem of Philadelphus. The pairing of shield and eagle implies that the son shares in his father’s special relationship to Zeus, a relationship also claimed for Philadelphus by the poet Theocritus when he described the eagle of Zeus hovering over the birth of the future king.553 The symbolism also works in the Egyptian context, implying a parallel claim of divine legitimation through the identification of Zeus with Amun, the source of Egyptian kingship. The portrait of Ptolemy II appears on a few rare silver coins, mainly tetradrachms, from Tarsus as well as several unidentified provincial mints probably located in southern Asia Minor (Fig. 2.3). Until fairly recently the Tarsian portraits were believed to represent Ptolemy III.554 A. Davesne proposed the corrected reading after meticulously dating the coins to the Second Syrian War and comparing the portrait with that of Ptolemy II on gold coins of the Theoi Adelphoi series (Fig. 2.1, above).555 The iconography of Ptolemy II includes several key features: smooth bangs all across the forehead, a bulging eye, a straight or barely aquiline nose, and a small, pointed chin with sagging flesh below. On most of the silver portrait coins Philadelphus is depicted with the aegis tied around his neck, in the manner of his father. The attribute represents the king as a protective figure while also placing him under the protection of Zeus, but perhaps more importantly it expresses the succession of the second Ptolemy from the first, and ultimately from the 551. Svoronos (1904–08), Vol. IV, cols. 100–101; Salzmann (1980); Koenen (1993), pp. 44–45; Mastrocinque (2002), pp. 370–371. For a fuller narrative of the myth, see under Ptolemy I, p. 60. 552. Fraser (1972), Vol. IIa, p. 285 n.275; Callim. Hymn. 4, In Delum, 183. 553. Theoc. Id. 17.71–76. 554. Newell (1941), pp. 221–223, followed by Kyrieleis (1975), pp. 26–27. 555. Davesne (1998), pp. 129–131, followed by Queyrel (2009), pp. 8‒10.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

121

Figure 2.4. Portrait of Berenice I on a silver didrachm of Euesperides. Enlarged.

deified Alexander, founder of Macedonian kingship in Egypt. The earliest Tarsian issue also combines two seemingly incongruous elements on the reverse, the oval shield of Ptolemy II and a legend naming Ptolemy Soter. Possibly this is an error by a new mint unacquainted with Ptolemaic practice, but similar anomalies in the portrait tetradrachms of Ptolemy III suggest the possibility that the juxtaposition could reflect a new civic savior cult for the second Ptolemy. His portrait tetradrachms mark the beginning of an iconographic tradition. Although the reigning Ptolemy was excluded from the regular tetradrachm coinage, he could be depicted on silver coins struck in newly acquired territory.556 Neither Macedonian nor Greek tradition was very receptive to the idea of rule by a woman or even an excessive prestige accorded to the female relatives of a ruler.557 Accordingly, it is no surprise that the first numismatic honors to female members of the Lagid dynasty are found in the more remote provinces of the kingdom. Berenice I, mother of Ptolemy II, was portrayed on the silver minimae of Judah, bare headed, her hair dressed in the melon coiffure with a low chignon, accompanied by an inscription naming the province as minting authority. Berenice was also portrayed by another of her sons, Magas of Cyrene, on silver didrachms and bronze coins struck at Euesperides (Fig. 2.4). On these coins she is shown with the melon coiffure, again with a low chignon, and she is diademed and identified on the reverse with the innovative title basilissa.558 The didrachms bear a youthful portrait that has often been identified as Berenice II, daughter of Magas. It should probably be regarded as a rejuvenated and idealized image of the first Berenice, both because there is a parallel coinage for Ptolemy Soter and because the bronzes depict a more mature woman with a jutting chin and large eyes, arguably a sign of divinity. The reverse type of the didrachms, a club in an apple wreath, alludes to the myth of Heracles in the garden of the Hesperides; the hero was patron god of Euesperides and had been honored on the city’s earlier bronze coinage. The subsidiary symbols that appear (individually) with the club include a silphium plant, cornucopiae, trident head, and wheel. The first of these is the well-known emblem of Cyrenaica and the second was an auspicious symbol of good fortune. The trident head would seem to allude to the foundation of the new harbor 556. Lorber (2014b), pp. 120‒130. 557 Fulińska (2010), p. 77. 558. For the scholarship identifying her variously as Berenice I or Berenice II, see n.534 above. According to Fulińska (2010), p. 85, this is the first appearance of the title basilissa on coinage; cf. Poole (1883), pl. xlv.

122

Introduction

city of Berenice, while the wheel—a symbol of travel, change, or chance—might allude to the transfer of the population of Euesperides to Berenice. The subsidiary symbols thus hint that Berenice (Euesperides) had been founded before the coinage was struck, and founded by Magas rather than by Ptolemy III as is usually assumed. If the royal act of city foundation is correctly attributed to Magas, it provides the occasion for this small and exceptional issue of coinage. The reverse type of the bronzes, again encircled by an apple wreath, is an elongated object usually identified as a folded sling.559 The jugate portraits of the Theoi Adelphoi gold coinage (Fig. 2.1, above) are an iconographic innovation, and this is a clue that their significance lies outside the GraecoMacedonian heritage.560 They follow the established Ptolemaic tradition of dynastic continuity and reverence toward predecessors, as expressed by the emphasis on Alexander in the numismatic iconography of Ptolemy I and by the retention of Soter’s portrait on the coinage of his son. They also introduce a new theme, the importance of couples in Ptolemaic royal ideology. As early as the Old Kingdom Egyptian king lists documented the transmission of the royal ka—the immortal, divine aspect of kingship—through the whole succession of pharaohs to the reigning king, linking him ultimately to the gods.561 The Ptolemies, however, traced their succession back only as far as Alexander and constructed a chain of divine royal couples rather than individual kings. It has been suggested that depictions of Ptolemaic couples reflect the ancient Egyptian institution of the Great Royal Wife, or more generally the importance of duality and the female factor in Egyptian royal imagery and theology.562 As noted earlier, in the Old Kingdom new dynasties were justified by a myth that the usurping king was fathered by Ra or Amun and born with the aid of Isis, Nephthys, Khnum, and other Egyptian divinities. The importance of divine birth as a source of legitimation resulted in great honors for the queen mother. The Ptolemies placed special emphasis on the theme of divine birth, which is depicted on the walls of many temples decorated under their auspices.563 The virtually identical portraits of the queens on the Theoi Adelphoi coinage—both are depicted diademed and veiled—also bring to mind Egyptian titles naming the queens as daughters, wives, and mothers of gods, interchangeable roles that were linked to the cycles of rebirth that sustained all creation.564 The division of the legend between the two faces of the coins emphasizes the symmetry of the obverse and reverse types and enhances the impression that these royal couples were essentially interchangeable.565 559. Robinson (1927), pp. clv–clvi; Buttrey (1997), Table III facing p. 56. 560. Fulińska (2010), p. 77. 561. Bell (1985), pp. 256, 258–259; Bonhême and Forgeau (1988), p. 75; Koenen (1993), p. 57; Herklotz (2005), p. 160; Schäfer (2007), pp. 66–67; Pfeiffer (2008b), pp. 24–25. 562. Calabria (2003), pp. 180–181; Fulińska (2010), p. 78. 563. Myśliwiec (2004), pp. 81–100. 564. Koenen (1993), p. 53; Herklotz (2000), pp. 52–54; ead. (2005), p. 161. 565. Fulińska (2010), p. 75. The standard configuration is that the word Theon appears above the heads of Ptolemy I and Berenice I, and the word Adelphon above the heads of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, except for a very small issue in which the full title appears above the heads of the latter couple (Svoronos 934). Under an interpretation that magnifies the importance of royal pairs, it is worth asking whether the coin legend refers only to the deification of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, the Theoi Adelphoi. As it was normal usage for Hellenistic kings and queens to refer to one another as “my sister” and “my brother,” the title Theoi Adelphoi could conceivably refer to both of the divine couples simultaneously. On the other hand, von Reden (2007), p. 51, suggested that this division of the legend was intended to avoid giving offense to a minority of Greeks who objected to ruler cult, in that it only attributed divinity to the deceased couple.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

123

Figure 2.5. Portraits of Ptolemy I and Berenice I on a Theoi Adelphoi mnaieon with detail of kerykeion symbol. Enlarged.

In contrast to the queens, the kings are individualized. The portrait of Ptolemy II is especially prominent, and it is important as the only more-or-less widely disseminated image of Philadelphus in the Greek style. He wears the diadem and the Macedonian military chlamys. The chlamys and the shield behind his head identify him as the commander of the army, or perhaps better as the military savior of his kingdom. Ptolemy I is depicted on a smaller scale, wearing his usual diadem-mitra but not the aegis. Instead his near shoulder is covered by a densely folded himation with no visible fastening. On some dies a chiton is also visible at the base of the neck. H. Kyrieleis observed that this is a garment rarely represented in Hellenistic royal portraits, and suggested that it was borrowed from the iconography of Sarapis.566 The chiton was also the garment of Dionysus, with whom Ptolemy I was already assimilated by the diadem-mitra. These associations were especially apt for a deceased king, because Dionysus, his Egyptian counterpart Osiris, and Sarapis (the interpretatio Graeca of Osiris) were gods of the Netherworld. In the Egyptian system of thought the dead king—like all deceased beings—was believed to merge with Osiris, so that the first Ptolemy deserved funerary cult as Osiris-Ptolemy.567 A few issues of the Theoi Adelphoi coinage feature divine symbols in the fields, a double cornucopiae under Arsinoe’s chin (to be discussed below) or, on a new mnaieion variety so far known in just two specimens, the kerykeion of Hermes behind the head of Ptolemy Soter (Fig. 2.5).568 The kerykeion had appeared previously on the only Alexander/Athena tetradrachm issued in Ptolemy’s name, datable around the time of his accession.569 There it probably functioned as a symbol of victory, kingship, and legitimate succession.570 Also relevant in the context of the mnaieion are Hermes’ aspects as god of abundance and benefaction and as Psychopompus, the guide of souls.571 Hermes was identified with the Egyptian god Thot, patron of scribes, whose epithets nb sS HoA mDAt (lord of writing, ruler 566. Kyrieleis (1975), p. 6. 567. Bell (1985), p. 256; Bonhême and Forgeau (1988), pp. 72–73. On the ancient connection between the king and the cult of Osiris, see O’Connor (2009). 568. Vol. 1, no. 318; Lorber (2014a). 569. Vol. 1, no. 90. 570. Hdt. 9.100; Il. 2.100–108; Siebert (1990), pp. 286–287; Halm-Tisserant and Siebert (1997), p. 729. 571. Hermes’ epithets included the titles Dodor Eaon (giver of good, as in Homeric Hymns 18.12; 29.8; Od. 8.335), Eriones or Erionios (giver of good fortune), and Charidotes (giver of joy); see Siebert (1990), p. 287.

124

Introduction

Figure 2.6. Portrait of Arsinoe II on a silver decadrachm. Enlarged.

of the book roll) could hardly fail to evoke the first Ptolemy’s benefactions to scholarship. Thot was also a multifaceted god of kingship. He was guarantor of the legitimate succession of Horus from Osiris.572 In temple decorations Thot reckons the lifetime of the king, allocating him years into the future extending into eternity.573 As the source of ritual and as lawgiver, Thot was the model and guarantor of the peaceful functions of kingship, just as Horus was the model for the militant protection of Egypt.574 The portrait of Arsinoe Philadelphus on her decadrachms, mnaieia, and tetradrachms (Fig. 2.6) belongs to the same iconographic tradition as the early portrait of Alexander: both are composites involving the attributes of different deities. In addition, Arsinoe’s portrait in this Greek medium combines masculine and feminine elements, as does her Egyptian crown; in both cases, seemingly, the intent is to express her authority as a king of Egypt while identifying her with the most important female deities. The stephane, an ornament associated especially with Hera and Aphrodite, also had royal significance and alludes to Arsinoe’s Argead heritage.575 The sceptre too was an ancient symbol of royalty.576 The combination of veil, stephane, and lotus sceptre likens Arsinoe to Hera, queen of the gods and patroness of marriage, advertising the divine precedent for Arsinoe’s hieros gamos with her brother.577 In Greek art the lotus sceptre is also an attribute of Aphrodite, with whom Arsinoe was identified in cult. In Ptolemaic art it is an attribute of Isis, whose marriage to her brother Osiris provided an Egyptian divine precedent for the marriage of the Theoi Adelphoi, and who was identified with Arsinoe in both Egyptian and Greek cultic contexts.578 In Egyptian tradition the lotus was the national symbol of Upper Egypt,579 and this perhaps balanced Arsinoe’s title bjtjt 6Awj (queen of Lower Egypt of the Two Lands). In addition it was a symbol of creation and rebirth,580 with important implications for the apotheosis of Arsinoe Philadelphus. Its appearance atop her head, almost as if it were a small crown, reinforces her identification 572. Derchain-Urtel (1981), pp. 1–13. 573. Derchain-Urtel (1981), pp. 39–49. 574. Derchain-Urtel (1981), pp. 51–62, 64–75, 95–106. 575. Plantzos (1991/92), pp. 126–127; Müller (2009), pp. 367–368; Fulińska (2012b), pp. 254–255. 576. Il. 2.100–108; Müller (2009), p. 370. 577. Plantzos (1999), p. 49; Müller (2009), pp. 366–367. For other testimonia, see Tondriau (1948b), p. 19, no. 8. 578. Brunelle (1976), pp. 16–17. See also nn.348 and 384 above. 579. Fulińska (2010), p. 80. 580. Anastasiades (2009), pp. 262‒263; Fulińska (2010), p. 80.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

125

with Isis581 and provides the grounding for her nature as a protective goddess ensuring the success of her widower-brother’s reign, especially by guaranteeing the annual renewal of the land through the Nile inundation. On certain obverse dies the shaft of Arsinoe’s lotus sceptre is ornamented with a spiral pattern, so that it resembles an old Egyptian motif, a staff entwined by a uraeus wearing one of several crowns reflecting its association with various goddesses.582 In Egyptian monuments the uraeus sceptre is an attribute of the Lower Egyptian cobra goddess Uto and her Upper Egyptian counterpart Nechbet, but it is also carried by other goddesses, including Hathor. Although the head of the uraeus and the nature of its crown are not very clear on Arsinoe’s coinage, the lotus finial is probably meant to approximate the solar disk flanked by horns, a crown most often associated with Hathor, the Egyptian counterpart of Aphrodite. The uraeus sceptre links theologically with Arsinoe’s Egyptian epithet sAt Ra (daughter of Ra), which identified her with Hathor and evoked various myths of the Daughter/Eye of Ra; as a lioness Hathor defended her father violently and then transformed into the uraeus, protectress of the kingship.583 Another epithet of Arsinoe, Xnmt jb 5w (united with the heart of Shu), associated her with Tefnut, another daughter of Ra, who was also depicted as a lioness and identified as the solar eye.584 In transforming herself into the uraeus, the Daughter of Ra acquired powers of regeneration that were expressed in her aspect as the scorpion goddess Bityt, queen of Lower Egypt, mistress of the uraei, and wife of the Horus King, recalled by Arsinoe’s title bjtjt 6Awj (queen of Lower Egypt of the Two Lands).585 Since the principal function of the uraeus was to protect the pharaoh, a uraeus sceptre often appears next to the cartouche of Ptolemy II, representing the protective function of the deified Arsinoe Philadelphus as attested by various inscriptions that characterize the goddess as her brother’s guardian. The ram’s horn of Arsinoe Philadelphus has been identified as the horn of Ammon/ Amun, already familiar as an attribute of the deified Alexander and of the New Kingdom pharaohs Amenhotep III and Ramesses II.586 These associations are significant because these kings were strongly associated with the Egyptian empire in western Asia and Lower Nubia; the ram’s horn thus implies Arsinoe’s concern for Egyptian dominion over the Near East and Africa. The ram’s horn marks her as having received the royal ka from Amun, a condition also implied by her title nsw bjtj (king of Upper and Lower Egypt).587 The ram’s horn further evokes the most widely attested of her Egyptian epithets, sAt Jmn (daughter of Amun) which, as we saw above, implied a divine birth that assured her legitimacy as a pharaoh while assimilating her to Hathor as the divine mother of the king.588 In her Egyptian cult, Arsinoe’s identifying attributes included a crown adorned with a 581. Anastasiades (2009), p. 263. 582. Cheshire (1982); Koenen (1993), pp. 28–29, pointing out that the Canopus decree prescribes the same sceptre for the deceased daughter of Ptolemy III. 583. Troy (1986), pp. 23–25, 66, 178, 181. 584. Troy (1986), pp. 66, 178, 182. 585. Troy (1986), pp. 68–70, 178, 196. 586. Quaegebeur (1978), p. 258, followed by Smith (1988), p. 40, and Hölbl (2001), p. 94. On the two forms of rams’ horns in Egyptian art and the special association of the curving horn with Amun, see Weber (2008), p. 244, and the more extended analysis of Sheedy and Ockinga (forthcoming). 587. Quaegebeur (1971b), pp. 202–203, 204–206. 588. Sauneron (1966), pp. 103–104; Quaegebeur (1971b), pp. 207–209; id. (1978), p. 258; Parente (2002), pp. 266–267, relating Arsinoe’s title to Alexander’s recognition as a son of Ammon by the oracle of Zeus-Ammon at Siwah.

126

Introduction

Figure 2.7. Double cornucopiae (dikeras) on an Arsinoe Philadelphus decadrachm. Enlarged.

pair (or sometimes two pairs) of ram’s horns.589 These horns rise from a central point and splay out horizontally, as in Egyptian depictions of rams and ram-headed gods, especially gods older than Amun. But like Arsinoe herself, the gods were often portrayed with horns of both types, so that the significance of the different forms was intentionally blurred. Thus both the splayed horns of Arsinoe’s Egyptian crown and the curving horn of her coin portrait can allude to her special relation to the Ram of Mendes, Banebdjed(et) (Ram, Lord of the Abiding Place).590 One of the most esteemed sacred animals of Egypt, the Ram of Mendes was an avatar of Osiris and in the Late Period also of Ra, Shu, and Geb; he was considered a father to the king and had a share in the king’s apotheosis.591 Among Arsinoe’s lifetime titles the Mendes stela lists mrj bA (Beloved of the Ram) and Oudja-ba priestess (an obscure title apparently indicating that she was a priestess of the Ram); the two titles together imply that Arsinoe was the divine consort of the Ram.592 As mentioned previously, her funerary rites, which transformed her into an Egyptian goddess, were performed by the priests of the Ram, and they approved the royal decree that gave her the cult title Beloved of the Ram, the Goddess Who Loves Her Brother, Arsinoe.593 The reverse of Arsinoe’s mnaieia and decadrachms advertised her cult emblem, a dikeras (double cornucopiae) bound with a royal diadem (Fig. 2.7). The device was conceived by Ptolemy II himself, who ordered that the goddess Arsinoe Philadelphus should be depicted with a horn on her left arm, richer than the horn of Amaltheia.594 This 589. Arsinoe’s Egyptian crown was essentially a masculine crown that had been worn previously by pharaohs and, to a lesser extent, by male gods, see Dils (1998). For Dils, the significance of the crown was multifaceted, but its more important meanings included designating Arsinoe as a queen who had shared in the royal power and who had fulfilled the cultic role of a king as a mediator between the land of Egypt and its gods. Nilsson (2010) offered an extended analysis of the crown and its development and concluded that it signified Arsinoe’s status as king of Lower Egypt, her cultic role as high priestess and by implication wife of all the gods of the land, and her deification as Thea Philadelphus. 590. The possible association was noted by Thompson (1973), p. 59, and by Winter (1978), p. 149 n. 4, both of whom ultimately related the horns with Amun; see also Müller (2009), p. 371, who noted that the primary audience for the coinage was Greek and presumed that Greeks were probably not too familiar with the cult of the Ram of Mendes. In fact, sacred animals were a source of fascination to the Greeks. 591. Kessler (1989), pp. 12, 155–156; Redford (2010), p. 35. 592. Mendes stela, Urk. II, no. 13, § 7, pp. 39‒40 = Meulenaere (1976), p. 175, l. 11 = Schäfer (2011), p. 248, l. 11. See also Nilsson (2010), pp. 412‒413. 593. Mendes stela, Urk. II, no. 13, § 8, pp. 40‒41 = Meulenaere (1976), p. 175, ll. 12‒14 = Schäfer (2011), p. 249, ll. 12‒14. See also Hölbl (2001), p. 101; Quack (2008), p, 277. 594. Athen. 11.497b–c. Rice (1983), pp. 202–208, argued that this passage does not refer to the double cornucopiae,

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

127

was an allusion to an etiological myth with many variants: the cornucopiae was the horn of the goat Amaltheia who nourished the infant Zeus when he was hidden in a Cretan cave; after her horn was broken off, she filled it with fruits of the earth and presented it to the divine child as a source of inexhaustible nourishment.595 At the most obvious level this myth explained the cornucopiae as a symbol of fertility and abundance. Amaltheia’s nurturing role also implies a parallel with Arsinoe: the late queen’s cornucopiae could allude to her fostering of the royal children and in particular to her (ideological) role as Isis as the divine mother. The cornucopiae was already an attribute of various deities, among them Tyche (Fortune).596 This goddess, in her aspect as Agathe Tyche (Good Fortune), was explicitly identified with the third-century Ptolemaic queens in inscriptions on cult oinochoai.597 Agathe Tyche was also identified with the great Egyptian mother goddess Isis, who in her own right was associated in the cult of Arsinoe Philadelphus.598 The assimilation of Arsinoe to Isis supports the suggestion that the cornucopiae’s multiple aspects included an allusion to Isis as the divine mother of Horus the royal heir. Contained within the two horns of Arsinoe’s double cornucopiae are sacrificial cakes and pomegranates, and bunches of grapes hang down from their rims. The pomegranate was an attribute of both Hera and Aphrodite and was strongly associated with marriage. For Egyptians, it was an attribute of Isis, the model of eternal spousal devotion, who saved her slain husband by gathering the parts of his dismembered body and effecting his resurrection. The pomegranate also recalled the Greek myth of Hades and Persephone and thus signified both death and eternal life in the underworld.599 The cornucopiae was a well-known attribute of Dionysus, a deity from whom the Lagids claimed descent.600 In an Egyptian version of the myth of Amaltheia, Dionysus was the child of Amaltheia by the Libyan Zeus-Ammon and the fertile place where they made love was renamed Amaltheias keras, the horn of Amaltheia.601 For the Ptolemies, Dionysus was the patron god of tryphe and the cornucopiae the quintessential symbol of this royal quality, as well as of fertililty.602 Gilded and gold cornuacopiae were conspicuous in the Grand Procession of Ptolemy II, including a double cornucopiae 12 feet high and a solid gold horn 45 feet long.603 The grapes are, of course, emblematic of Dionysus, and fruits of all kinds, as well which must have been a symbol of the joint rule of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II. Others have also interpreted the dikeras as a symbol of the royal marriage and joint reign, e.g., Thompson (1973), p. 33; Heinen (1978), p. 180 under fig. 4; Pfrommer (2002), p. 40; Ager (2005), p. 24; Müller (2009), pp. 373–377. See also Plantzos (1991/92), pp. 124–126. 595. Hyg. Astr. 2.3; Eratosth. 13; Ov. Fast. 5.115–128; see Bemmann (1995), pp. 16–19 for the literary history of the cornucopiae. Pfrommer (2002), p. 40, suggested an association with Io as a forerunner of the fugitive Arsinoe. 596. Bemmann (1995), pp. 55–62. 597. Thompson (1973), pp. 19–22; Plantzos (1991/92), pp. 120–121. 598. Plantzos (1991/92), pp. 122–123. In the Ptolemaic realm (as well as in Praeneste in Italy) the identification of Tyche and Isis took a particular cultic form: the role of the horn in the feeding of Zeus made Tyche a member of the earlier generation of gods and in this aspect she was worshipped as Tyche Protogeneia and assimilated to Isis as Isis Tyche Protogeneia, see Mastrocinque (2002), pp. 367–370. 599. Parente (2002), pp. 268–269. 600. Adulis inscription, OGIS I, 54 (= Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 26 = Austin (2008), no. 268), ll. 4–5; Satyrus FGrHist 631 F1; Bemmann (1995), pp. 48–55. On Dionysus as a dynastic god of the Ptolemies, see Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 201–207. 601. Diod. 3.68. 602. Heinen (1978), p. 188. 603. Athen. 5.202b–c, 202f.

128

Introduction

Figure 2.8. Zeus Ammon on a reformed bronze coin of Ptolemy II. Enlarged.

as cakes, were typical offerings to him.604 Dionysus’ role as Lord of Souls, his death by dismemberment, and his subsequent resurrection were among the grounds for his identification with the Egyptian god Osiris. Isis and Osiris were both responsible for the Nile inundation, the source of Egypt’s fertility: the flood was regarded as the effluence from the corpse of Osiris and as the tears of Isis grieving for his death. Among its multiple meanings, the double cornucopiae may have alluded to the appearance of the star Sothis, harbinger of the New Year and of the Nile’s annual inundation, at the time of Arsinoe’s death.605 The Greek sources also hint at an association of the cornucopiae with the theme of cyclical renewal which was so prominent in the life of Egypt. In the Grand Procession, the division of Dionysus opened with a temporal tableau led by a personification of Eniautos (the Year) carrying the horn of Amaltheia, followed by personifications of Penteteris (the cycle of quadrennial games) and the Four Seasons.606 The word eniautos had a secondary meaning, cycle, and the Eniautos Daimon actually personified the cycles of nature.607 Because of the obviously cyclical character of the personifications associated with Eniautos, the scene in the pompe seems to implicate the cornucopiae in temporal cycles.608 The reform of the bronze currency in the later 260s introduced another iconographic innovation of Ptolemy II. Most denominations bore a new obverse type, the horned head of Zeus-Ammon (Fig. 2.8), which would remain the dominant obverse type of Ptolemaic bronze coins to the end of the dynasty.609 Zeus-Ammon was a hellenized version of the Theban god Amun in his oracular aspect. While Cyrenaica was an important center of his worship, his cult had also been transplanted to Aphytis in Macedonia, not necessarily before Alexander’s conquest of Egypt.610 The syncretic Zeus-Ammon was of great symbolic importance to the Ptolemies for, as the god of Siwah, he had recognized Alexander as his 604. Müller (2009), p. 375, also noting the association of grapes with Hera in Callim. frg. 113 Asp (101 Pfeiffer). 605. Parente (2002), p. 268. 606. Athen. 5.198a–b. Thompson (2000), p. 375, observed that the palm branch, carried by Penteteris in the procession, was used by Thot to count years in Egyptian temple scenes. 607. Rice (1983), pp. 50–51. 608. For Thompson (2000), p. 376, the temporal personifications symbolized the suspension of regular time for festival time. 609. On Ammon and Zeus-Ammon generally, see Leclant and Clerc (1981). 610. Paus. 3.18.3 ; Caneva (2011), p. 197.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

Figure 2.9. Two eagles on a reformed bronze drachm of Ptolemy II. Enlarged.

129

Figure 2.10. Double cornucopiae symbol on a reformed bronze coin of a Syro-Phoenician mint. Enlarged.

son and thus legitimized Macedonian rule over Egypt. Because the tax policies of Ptolemy Philadelphus promoted circulation of the new bronze coinage throughout the Egyptian chora, this message of dynastic legitimacy based on selection by the Egyptian god of kingship was advertised constantly to the immigrants settled there and perhaps it was also understood by the native population.611 In his coin images Zeus-Ammon wears a taenia with a vertical protuberance at the top. It is assumed to be a basileion (the Alexandrian term for the headdress or coiffure of an Egyptian deity)612 and in this case it must be a miniaturized depiction of the tall double feather crown of Amun, viewed in profile. The consistent subject of the reverse of the bronze coinage is the eagle on thunderbolt device of Ptolemy I, which in the new context could easily be understood as pertaining to Zeus-Ammon himself as well as to the King Ptolemy named in the surrounding legend. The eagle is depicted in varying poses to help distinguish the several denominations. The bronze drachm has two eagles perched on two thunderbolts (Fig. 2.9), a variation whose symbolic meaning is obscure, but which from the reign of Ptolemy V was used to mark the largest bronze denomination of the Egyptian currency system. Reformed bronze coins struck in the province of Syria and Phoenicia under Ptolemy II feature the double cornucopiae of Arsinoe Philadelphus in the field beside the eagle(s) (Fig. 2.10). The allusion to the deified queen is somewhat puzzling: apparently the new bronze coinage was under her specific protection and was thus associated with concepts of prosperity and royal benefaction.

611. Cf. Picard (1998a), pp. 410–411, arguing that the type was not a concession to Egyptian sentiment, and von Reden (2007), pp. 59–60, suggesting that the avoidance of a royal portrait in place of a divine image was indeed such a concession. 612. Seyrig (1988).

PTOLEMY III EUERGETES 246–222 B.C.

I. History of the Reign Genealogy and Dynastic Chronology Ptolemy III was the eldest son of Ptolemy II by his first wife, Arsinoe I. After his mother’s disgrace and exile, he may have been sent to Thera and reared there.1 From 267 to 259 Egyptian documents name a son of Ptolemy II as coregent.2 His disappearance from the Egyptian record has been linked to a revolt in Asia Minor, and no scholar for more than a century has identified him with Ptolemy III.3 The latter inherited the throne upon the death of his father at the end of January 246.4 In his Greek titulature he was named son of the Theoi Adelphoi, so that his biological mother, Arsinoe I, was officially excluded from Lagid genealogy. In Egyptian he was known as King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Juaw-Necherwy-Senwy Setepen-Ra Sekhem-Ankh Amun Son of Ra, Ptulmis Ankh Djet Meri-Ptah5 In accordance with the agreement between Ptolemy II and his half-brother Magas to reunite the kingdoms of Egypt and Cyrenaica, Ptolemy III married his cousin Berenice (II), daughter of Magas.6 In Greek dating protocols she was officially titled Sister and Wife; this fiction reflected pharaonic custom and the more immediate example of Arsinoe Philadelphus, and became standard practice for subsequent reigns.7 Berenice’s Egyptian titles, in contrast, were feminine equivalents of the king’s titles, implying that she was a full coruler with her husband.8 1. IG XII, 3, 464; Bennett, http://www.tyndalehouse.com /egypt/ptolemies/genealogy.htm, sv. Ptolemy III, n. 4.1. 2. On Ptolemy the Son, see n. 28 in the reign introduction for Ptolemy II. 3. The main proponents of this view were Mahaffy (1895), p. 195, and Bouché-Leclercq (1903), pp. 182‒183 n.2. 4. For the date, see Samuel (1962), pp. 95 (7 Choiak = 28 January) and 106 (25 Dios = 29 January); Pestman (1967), p. 16 (7 Choiak = 28 January); Höbl (2001), p. 71, n.71; Huß (2001), p. 331 (25 Dios = 6 Choiak = 27 January). 5. From the Alexandria Decree of 243, see El-Masry, Altenmüller, and Thissen (2012), pp. 13, 22. For his full five-part Egyptian titulature, with translation, see below, pp. 145–146. 6. Schol. Callim. F110 (= P. Oxy. 20.2258) names Magas and Apame as her parents. Just. 26.3.2 calls her mother Arsinoe rather than Apame, presumably in error. Hyg. Astro. 2.24 conforms to Ptolemaic protocol in characterizing Berenice as the daughter of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II. The precise date of her marriage to Ptolemy III is unknown. 7. Pestman (1967), p. 28 note c. On the role of the court poet Posidippus in redefining Berenice’s ancestry, see Bingen (2002), pp. 52–53. On Egyptian precedents, see Černý (1954), p. 26; Middleton (1962), p. 605. Eldamaty (2011), pp. 28–29, cited inscriptions from the Maat offering scene on the Euergetes Gate at Karnak (Clère (1961), pl. 32) which explicitly represent the royal pair as the children of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II: nTrwj mnxwj HoA jAwt nt jt.sn jwa 6Awj Hr nst mwt.sn (the two Beneficent Gods; the ruler of the office of their father, heir of the Two Lands on the throne of their mother) and Hwnwj n mwt.sn (the two young ones of their mother). 8. Her female Horus name is discussed below in the section on ruler worship and royal ideology. Berenice’s other royal titles include one dating back to Dynasty XVII, Lady of the Two Lands, and also HoAt (female ruler, equivalent to Greek

131

132

Introduction

Ptolemy III and Berenice II had six children: Ptolemy (the future Ptolemy IV), Magas, Alexander, a fourth son whose name is unknown (Lysimachus is probable), Arsinoe (the future Arsinoe III), and a Berenice who died in childhood.9 Ptolemy Euergetes died in December of 222 B.C. of natural causes.10 Berenice did not long outlive him; she expired in early 221, poisoned on the orders of the powerful courtier Sosibius, who was to be the dominant influence on Ptolemy IV.11 Foreign Affairs and Mediterranean Empire Within months of his accession, Ptolemy III faced a crisis. The Seleucid king Antiochus II died at Ephesus under suspicious circumstances, leaving two widows.12 One of them was Ptolemy’s sister, Berenice, who had married Antiochus as part of the settlement of the Second Syrian War.13 After fathering a son on Berenice, Antiochus had returned to his first wife, Laodice, who lived in exile in Asia Minor. Berenice’s infant son, Antiochus, was the designated heir according to the treaty of 252 and he was recognized as king after his father’s death.14 But Antiochus’ marital vacillation seriously clouded the issue of the succession, and civil war erupted between the two widows.15 To support his sister’s cause, Ptolemy organized a great invasion, mustering infantry, cavalry, his elephant corps, and his fleet.16 Around the time of his arrival in Syria loyalists of Berenice sailed a small fleet to Cilicia and captured Soli, seizing 1500 talents from the local treasury.17 Seleucia in Pieria and Antioch surrendered to Ptolemy’s advance agents and welcomed the king with the ceremonies usual for surrendering cities.18 Berenice and her son, however, had already been murdered by partisans of Laodice.19 Ptolemy crossed the Euphrates into the heart of the Seleucid kingdom and, after heavy fighting, took the city of Babylon in January of 245.20 His campaign of conquest advanced to Persis and Susiana, where he apparently received basilissa), see Herklotz (2000), p. 52. In the dating protocols of demotic documents Berenice is sometimes named as the Pharaoness Berenice (tA pr-aAt BrnjgA), see Quaegebeur (1978), p. 255. 9. Huß (1975), pp. 312–313. Bennett (2002), p. 145, hypothesized the birth order and approximate birth dates of the six royal children, but his chronology was rejected as speculative by Kosmetatou (2002), p. 107. 10. Polyb. 2.71.3. For the date, see Samuel (1962), pp. 106–108; Huß (2001), p. 380 n.4. 11. Polyb. 15.25.1–2; Zenob. 5.94. 12. App. Syr. 65; Hieron. In Dan. 11.6. News of his death reached Babylon on 19 August 246, see Sachs and Hunger (1989), Vol. 2, no. -245 A r.5'–6'. 13. App. Syr. 65; Hieron. In Dan. 11.6 (Por. FGrHist II B 260 F 43). 14. SEG XLII, 994 = SEG XLVI, 1413 = Austin (2006), no. 267; Blümel (1992), p. 129. 15. App. Syr. 65; Just. 27.1.4–5; Hieron. In Dan. 11.6 (Por. FGrHist II B 260 F43). 16. Adulis inscription (OGIS I, 54 = Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 26 = Austin (2006), no. 268), ll. 8‒13; Just. 27.1.6. On the Third Syrian War, see Grainger (2010), pp. 153–170. 17. Gurob Papyrus (FGrHist 160 = Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 27 = Austin (2006), no. 266), ll. 23–31; Piejko (1990), pp. 14, 16. 18. Gurob Papyrus (FGrHist 160 = Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 27 = Austin (2006), no. 266), ll. 37–100; Just. 27.1.1–7; Hauben (1990), pp. 30‒31; Piejko (1990), pp. 14, 16, 21–27. 19. App. Syr. 65; Just. 27.1.7; Polyaen. 8.50. 20. Adulis inscription (OGIS I, 54 = Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 26 = Austin (2006), no. 268), ll. 17‒18; App. Syr. 65; Hieron. In Dan. 11.6 (Por. FGrHist II B 260 F 43). Actions of the Ptolemaic army at Seleucia on the Euphrates and Babylon are recorded in a Babylonian document, see R. J. van der Spek and I. L. Finkel, Babylonian Chronicles of the Hellenistic Period, forthcoming, preliminary on line: http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/chron)).html, BCHP 11 (BM 34428); see also El-Masry, Altenmuller, and Thissen (2012), pp. 155‒159; Clancier (2012). Egyptian troops arrived in Babylonia between 26 November and 25 December 246 and were still present in February or March of 245. Belet Ninua, the fortress of Babylon, fell on 9 January 245 and Lagid troops entered the city on 18 January. Two days later a “prince of renown” (probably the strategos Xanthippus) made offerings to Bel Marduk in the Esagila, chief sanctuary of Babylon.

Ptolemy III Euergetes

133

the submission of territories as far east as Bactria.21 Later in 245, he suddenly abandoned the battlefield because of a revolt in Egypt.22 Ptolemy left his general Xanthippus behind as governor of his provinces beyond the Euphrates, and also appointed a governor for his newly acquired territory in Cilicia.23 He returned to Egypt laden with spoils reportedly valued at 40,000 talents of silver, including prisoners, horses, elephants, and warships, as well as 2500 precious metal vessels and religious images that had been looted from Egypt by the Persians.24 Ptolemy’s Asian conquests justified the title Great King, and for his service to Egyptian religion he soon assumed the surname Euergetes.25 Meanwhile, the foreign war continued successfully in Ptolemy’s absence. The new Seleucid king, Seleucus II, reclaimed the core of his kingdom, but he could not recapture Seleucia in Pieria, the port of Antioch, which remained in Ptolemaic hands until 219.26 Egyptian forces rolled back the advances made by Antiochus II in Asia Minor during the Second Syrian War. Lagid control was reasserted over Cilicia and Pamphylia, and the Ptolemaic fleet, under the command of (the king’s half-brother?) Ptolemy Andromachus, detached many coastal cities of Asia Minor and Thrace from the Seleucid sphere, including Samos, Miletus, perhaps Priene, Magnesia on the Meander, Ephesus, Colophon, Lebedus (renamed Ptolemais), Teos, Larisa in the Troad (refounded as Ptolemais), Aenus, Maronea, and perhaps Priapus (implying a Ptolemaic presence in the Propontis).27 Of these cities, Samos was a major naval base and Ephesus an equally important center for the land army; and Ptolemaic garrisons were probably installed in the other cities immediately after their surrender.28 In the later stages of the war, Ptolemy Andromachus lost a major naval 21. Alexandria Decree of 243, El-Masry, Altenmüller, and Thissen (2012), hieroglyphic l. 9 (pp. 16, 23, 40, 97), demotic § 10 (pp. 54, 97), Greek § 10 (pp. 97, 217), with commentary pp. 100‒102; Adulis inscription (OGIS I, 54 = Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 26 = Austin (2006), no. 268), ll. 18‒20; Hieron. In Dan. 11.6 (Por. FGrHist II B 260 F 43). Otto (1928), p. 65, Will (1979), p. 252, and Hauben (1990), pp. 31–32, all expressed doubts about the sweeping claims of the Adulis inscription; they supposed that Ptolemy advanced no farther than Babylon and received only a nominal submission from ambassadors from the eastern provinces. Persis, Elam, and Susa were included in another list of peoples conquered by Ptolemy III inscribed in the temple of Khnum at Esna, recorded by Champollion but later destroyed, see Urk. II, no. 33, p. 158; and for a second copy from the Roman era, Sauneron (1952). The primary sources for the Third Syrian War are collected and discussed by El-Masry, Altenmüller, and Thissen (2012), pp. 151‒163. 22. Just. 27.1.9; Hieron. In Dan. 11.7 (Por. FGrHist II B 260 F 43); P.Haun. 6, ll. 14–17, see Bülow-Jacobsen (1979); Huß (1978); Peremans (1981); Hauben (1990), pp. 32–35; McGing (1997), pp. 274–277; Veïsse (2004), pp. 3–5. Bingen (1997), p. 39, interpreted the Aigyption apostasis of P.Haun. 6 as a desertion of the troops brought from Egypt, rather than a native revolt. 23. Hieron. In Dan. 11.9 (Por. FGrHist II B 260 F 43); PP VI, 14584. 24. Hieron. In Dan. 11.7 (Por. FGrHist II B 260 F 43); Alexandria Decree of 243, El-Masry, Altenmüller, and Thissen (2012), hieroglyphic ll. 7‒9 (pp. 16, 23, 39‒40, 92‒93, 97‒99), demotic § 9‒10 (pp. 53‒54, 92‒93, 97‒99), Greek § 9‒10 (pp. 92, 97‒99), with commentary pp. 94‒96, 99‒102, 164‒165. On the looting and return of Egyptian sacred images, see Winnicki (1994); for the pharaonic precedent of Nectanebo I, see Klotz (2009), p. 298 with n.124. 25. For the title Great King, see the Adulis inscription (OGIS I, 54 = Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 26 = Austin (2006), no. 268), l. 1. For the epithet Euergetes, see Hieron. In Dan. 11.8 (Por. FGrHist II B 260 F 43). Koenen (1993), p. 61, observed that the Ptolemies selected their Greek epithets so that they corresponded with Egyptian epithets; in the case of the epiklesis Euergetes the corresponding term mnx was very ancient, having been an epithet of the Dynasty IV pharaoh Snofru. 26. Polyb. 5.58.10–5.61.2. On Seleucia in Pieria, see also Jähne (1974). 27. For these Ptolemaic conquests, attested mainly by inscriptions, see Bagnall (1976a), pp. 159–162, 168–175; Ma (1999), pp. 44–45 with nn.64–66; Huß (2001), pp. 372–373 with nn.1–11. The evidence pertaining to the renaming of Larisa and Lebedus is numismatic, see Dieudonné (1902); Robert (1946), pp. 516–519; Cook (1973), pp. 219–221; Robert and Robert (1976), p. 175 n.87; Robert (1982), pp. 319–333; Cohen (1995), pp. 157–159, 188–191. 28. Polyb. 5.35.11 mentions the military force at Ephesus among the considerations that persuaded the advisors of Ptolemy Philopator to detain Cleomenes in Egypt instead of backing him in an attempt to recover the throne of Sparta. Aenus, too, was almost certainly garrisoned after passing under Euergetes’ rule; see Polyb. 5.34.8–9, describing Aenus and Maronea as levers of Lagid power in Thrace and Macedonia at the accession of Ptolemy IV.

134

Introduction

battle at Andros against Antigonus Gonatas and was subsequently assassinated by his own Thracian mercenaries.29 The Laodicean or Third Syrian War (246–241) was formally ended by treaty in 241.30 Ptolemy Euergetes took care to prevent a Seleucid resurgence. During the War of the Brothers he provided troops to Antiochus Hierax, younger brother of Seleucus II and usurper in Asia Minor, to help him suppress a revolt by his Galatian troops in Magnesia.31 In 227 Hierax was expelled from Asia Minor and made an unsuccessful attempt to invade Mesopotamia, after which he sought refuge with Ptolemy (in Thrace?) but was placed under arrest.32 In 225/4 the Ptolemaic mints of Syria and Phoenicia produced a special, coordinated issue of mnaieia and tetradrachms, probably in reaction to the death of Seleucus II; the likely purpose of this coinage was either to finance new hostilities against the Seleucid kingdom or to mobilize defenses against an anticipated attack.33 Late in 222, after the death of Seleucus III and shortly before his own death, Ptolemy III sent an expedition to Asia under the command of his son Magas and placed him in charge of all royal affairs in Asia.34 In retaliation for these many affronts, Antiochus III conceived a firm ambition to conquer Coele Syria, with consequences that eventually proved devastating for the Ptolemaic empire.35 The eastern policy of Ptolemy III also failed to prevent the defection of the Nabataean Arabs, for it was apparently during his reign that a Nabataean kingship emerged and by the time of the Fourth Syrian War the Nabataeans were allies of Antiochus III.36 Another principal goal of the foreign policy of Ptolemy III was to block the ambitions of the Antigonids of Macedon on behalf of the cities of Greece. To this end Ptolemy became hegemon of the Achaean League, probably in 243 when the league’s strategos, Aratus of Sicyon, liberated Corinth from its Macedonian garrison, inspiring revolts in Megara, Troezen, and Epidaurus.37 Ptolemy received the title of hegemon in exchange for an annual subsidy to the league.38 In 229, Aratus played a role in ending the Macedonian occupation of Attica and this opened a new era of friendly relations and frequent diplomatic contact between Athens and Alexandria.39 Shortly afterward, Ptolemy allied with the Aetolian 29. On Ptolemy Andromachus, see P.Haun. 6, fr. 1, ll. 4–13; Bülow-Jacobsen (1979), pp. 92–93. 30. Just. 27.2.9; Grainger (2010), p. 169, expressed skepticism that the treaty was drafted with ten-year duration, as opposed to the lifetimes of the two kings involved. 31. Por. FGrHist II 260 F 32.8. 32. Just. 27.3.9–10. 33. Mørkholm (1980b). The death of Seleucus II, dated to 226 in earlier literature, is now dated to winter of 225/4 by Babylonian documents, see Houghton, Lorber, and Hoover (2008), pp. 657–658 and 682. Seyrig (1971) drew attention to an exceptional tetradrachm of Simyra with Seleucid types, dated to the same year, and suggested that it might be connected with abortive plans for an invasion of Ptolemaic Syria and Phoenicia. The Seleucid numismatic evidence for a muster of troops in 225/4 is not very strong. Houghton and Lorber (2002), pp. 335–337, claimed an unusual burst of mint activity at the mints of Aradus and its peraia in 225/4, but the corrected readings in Houghton, Lorber, and Hoover (2008), pp. 664–666, show that there was no special activity in that year. 34. P.Haun. 6, fr. 1, ll. 19 and 28–31; Bülow-Jacobsen (1979); Huß (1977b), where the expedition is interpreted as an attempt to support Attalus I of Pergamum as Achaeus campaigned to recover Seleucid Asia Minor from him; Habicht (1980), pp. 3–4; Grainger (2010), pp. 183‒184. The date of Magas’ expedition is established by the mention, in P.Haun. 6, l. 22, of Eutheinos, archon of Athens in 221. 35. Polyb. 5.42.4–6. 36. Barkay (2011), pp. 67–70. 37. Plut. Arat. 23.4. 38. Noeske (2000), pp. 235–238. The subsidy, however, may not have been a quid pro quo so much as a continuation of the policy of Ptolemy II, see Plut. Arat. 9–15. 39. Plut. Arat. 24.4, 41.5; Habicht (1994), pp. 145, 148; id. (1997), pp. 173–174.

Ptolemy III Euergetes

135

League (229/8) and provoked an unsuccessful revolt of the Thessalians against Antigonus Doson.40 The rise of Sparta under its king Cleomenes III caused a general realignment. In winter 227/6 Aratus sought to strengthen his own position in the Peloponnesus by soliciting the support of Antigonus Doson, whereupon Ptolemy diverted his subsidy to Cleomenes.41 Ptolemy expressed his esteem for his ally by dedicating a monument to Cleomenes at Olympia.42 Cleomenes, for his part, acknowledged Ptolemy’s aid by placing the Lagid eagle on thunderbolt device on the reverse of his Spartan bronze coinage.43 Antigonus marched into Achaea in 224 and organized most of Greece into a Hellenic League; Ptolemy countered by drawing Athens into his alliance with the Aetolians.44 After Athens offered cultic honors to Ptolemy and Berenice, Ptolemy strengthened his ties to the city by financing the construction of a new gymnasium, the Ptolemaion, near the Athenian agora.45 But the conflict with Antigonus in the Peloponnesus did not go well. Cleomenes was obliged to request additional financial contributions from Ptolemy and to send his mother and children to Alexandria as hostages. Ptolemy withdrew his support in 222. Cleomenes was defeated and went into exile in Alexandria.46 In conjunction with his political and military involvements in Greece, Euergetes continued the family tradition of competing in the panhellenic games. The only royal victor attested is Berenice II. An epinician ode by the court poet Callimachus commemorates a chariot-racing victory at Nemea, which is perhaps to be connected with Aratus’ attempt to reestablish the games at Nemea several decades after their transfer to Argos.47 Berenice is also known to have competed at the Olympics.48 We can surmise a record of impressive wins from the name Athlophoros (Prize-Bearer) given to her eponymous priestess when her cult was created in 211/0.49 Apart from participating in the panhellenic festivals, Ptolemy III was less generous than his predecessors in his support of traditional cults in the Greek oikoumene. At the very outset of his reign, in 246, he founded a new festival on Delos, honoring the gods of the island and called, like the Delian festivals established by his father, the Ptolemaeia (III).50 Thereafter he seems not to have made offerings to traditional gods, but to have encouraged divine honors for himself and his family in the sacred places of Greece. In the early 220s, a destructive earthquake on Rhodes inspired an outpouring of aid from various kings, of whom Ptolemy was the most munificent: he donated 300 talents 40. Fron. Str. 2.6.5; IG IX, 1,12, 56, 202–203. 41. Polyb. 2.51. 2.63.1; Plut. Cleom. 19.8. Noeske (2000), pp. 238–240, suggested that this subsidy was paid in silver and enabled Cleomenes to mint his portrait tetradrachms. 42. I.Olympia 309; Bringmann and von Steuben (1995), no. 59; Schmidt-Dounas (1995), pp. 119–121; ead. (2004), pp. 99–100. 43. Meadows (1998), pp. 128–129; Noeske (2000), pp. 238–239. 44. Habicht (1994), pp. 145–146. 45. Paus. 1.17.2; Habicht (1981), pp. 112–117; Bringmann and von Steuben (1995), no. 17; Habicht (1997), p. 183; Schmidt-Dounas (2004), p. 104. 46. Polyb. 2.63.1, 2.65–69; Plut. Cleom. 29–32. 47. P.Lille 82; Parsons (1977), pp. 49–50; Remijsen (2009), p. 260, on Callimachus’ revival of an outdated poetic form. For coin finds possibly attesting Ptolemaic involvement in the reestablishment of the games at Nemea, see Knapp and Mac Isaac (2005), pp. 29, 30, 57. 48. Hyg. Astr. 2.24. Bingen (2002), pp. 51–52, attributed other panhellenic victories to Berenice before her marriage to Ptolemy III, however these were assigned to Berenice Syra, daughter of Ptolemy II, by Bennett (2005), pp. 93, 94–96, and Thompson (2005), pp. 273–279. 49. Ijsewijn (1961), pp. 136–137; Bingen (2002), p. 51 with n.9. 50. Bruneau (1970), pp. 519–520, 534.

136

Introduction

of silver, a million artabas of wheat, timber for the construction of ten quinqueremes and ten triremes as well as other shipbuilding materials, 1000 talents of coined bronze, 3000 talents of bronze to restore the shattered Colossus, and a team of skilled laborers to be paid at his expense.51 The predominance of bronze in these donations probably reflects a change in the financial structure of the Ptolemaic empire. Under Ptolemy II patterns of monetary production shifted much of the burden of military finance away from Alexandria to the provinces of Syria and Phoenicia and Cyprus. By the mid-250s, mints in these provinces were the sole producers of silver tetradrachms, a coinage strongly associated with military finance. These Cypriote and Syro-Phoenician tetradrachms are found in Greece, in coastal Asia Minor, and throughout the Levant, and they comprise an important part of the huge hoards from the military sites of Meydancıkkale in Cilicia Trachea and Iraq al-Amir in Jordan. From this we can infer that these coins played an essential role in maintaining the Ptolemaic thalassocracy and external empire. As detailed in the section on coinage below, production of such tetradrachms ceased after the Third Syrian War and an effort was made to substitute bronze currency for silver. Cypriote and Syro-Phoenician bronze coinages, however, were essentially local currencies that did not circulate far from their home provinces. This may suggest that these provinces experienced relief from heavy fiscal exactions, but it also raises questions about how the Ptolemaic fleet was financed after c. 240 and whether the new system of support was adequate to maintain Lagid sea supremacy over the long run. There is little information about conditions in these provinces under Ptolemy III. On Cyprus, Greek civic institutions are attested at Citium for the first time in his reign.52 This, along with the boule attested at Curium in the preceding reign, seems to represent the vanguard of a process of hellenization culminating in the second century B.C., when secondary cities that had earlier been dependencies of their more powerful neighbors were recognized as Greek poleis in their own right.53 The nymphaeum of Kafizin (dependent on Idalium and ultimately on Citium) has yielded inscribed vases dated to the years 225‒217 and these imply that a tax of 10% was collected on the produce of land not belonging directly to the king.54 A fragmentary royal letter addressed to one of the Cypriote Arsinoes, not necessarily of the reign of Ptolemy III, mentions the apomoira, a tax on each metretes of wine, a pasture tax, and remission from some obligation to the crown.55 It appears that the tax and fiscal regime of Ptolemaic Cyprus was similar to that of Egypt. The Domestic Realm The revolt that caused Ptolemy’s premature return from the battlefield to Egypt is poorly documented. Justin and St. Jerome refer to sedition in Egypt, while the third-century papyrus P.Haun 6 refers to a revolt or defection of the Egyptians.56 Some modern historians 51. Polyb. 5.88–89; Noeske (2000), pp. 240–243. The donations in kind were made immediately, but only one third of the cash. 52. I.Kit. 2014; Bagnall (1976a), p. 62. 53. Bagnall (1976a), pp. 58‒60, 63‒66. 54. Mitford (1950); Bagnall (1976a), pp. 75‒78. 55. Bagnall (1976a), p. 78, where a parallel to the decree of the Telmessians for Ptolemy, son of Lysimachus, is suggested. 56. P.Haun. 6, l. 15; Just. 27.1.9; Hieron. In Dan. (Por. FGrHist II B 260 F43); McGing (1997), pp. 274‒277; Veïsse (2004), pp. 3‒5.

Ptolemy III Euergetes

137

have assumed a rebellion of the native Egyptians—the first of many that would challenge the Lagids—and have related it to several successive low Nile inundations, culminating in the one mentioned in the Canopus Decree of 238.57 This ecological problem threatened the kingdom with starvation and had grave implications for royal ideology which represented the king as guarantor of Egypt’s prosperity and preserver of the cosmic order.58 To avert famine, Ptolemy imported grain at great expense from Syro-Phoenicia, Cyprus, and elsewhere to feed his subjects.59 This significant benefaction is not mentioned in the recently published Alexandria Decree of 3 December 243,60 compelling the conclusion that the disastrous failure of the inundation occurred after that date. The crisis of 245 thus remains obscure. It may have been a palace conspiracy, a military mutiny, or a native uprising. Various historians have expressed doubt about the last of these possibilities because of the lack of supporting evidence in the abundant papyrological documents.61 Here numismatics may perhaps make a contribution. Three or more important coin hoards were lost in Egypt around this time.62 After the reign of Ptolemy I the loss of large and/or especially valuable hoards was not a frequent occurrence in Egypt. It is therefore tempting to associate the pattern of hoard loss in the early years of Ptolemy III with the sedition of 245. If the hoards truly belong to this context, they indicate that serious violence affected sites in both Upper and Lower Egypt. The high value of the hoards suggests that wealthy elites and perhaps institutions were targeted, with the further implication that social and economic resentments were a significant factor in the rebellion. The resolution of the threat is implied by the ceremonial visit of the royal couple and their young children to Philae, probably in 242, on which occasion they confirmed the gift of the Dodekaschoinos to Isis of Philae and dedicated her temple jointly to the goddess and to her son Harpocrates.63 The presence of the king and queen on the southern border of their kingdom symbolized the restoration of their control over all of Egypt. The travels 57. Bonneau (1971), pp. 119–147; Huß (1978), pp. 155‒156; Hauben (1990), pp. 33–34. Hölbl (2001), p. 49, also implicated the exactions to finance the king’s military campaign. The connection of the seditio domestica with the low inundation of the Canopus decree was already questioned by Pfeiffer (2004), pp. 226‒228. 58. Onasch (1976), pp. 142‒143. This interpretation was rejected by Pfeiffer (2004), pp. 217‒218. 59. Canopus Decree, Urk. II, no. 30, § 8, pp. 130–132; Kom el-Hisn stela, demotic ll. 4–5, see Simpson (1996), pp. 226–229; OGIS I, 56 (Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 164 = Austin (2006), no. 271), ll. 13–19; Heinen (2006), especially pp. 15–22. The demotic text of the Tanis stela, l. 18, specifies that the grain was purchased n HD, translated by Simpson as “in silver” (Simpson (1996), pp. 226–227). Hazzard (1995a), pp. 80–81, suggested that Euergetes’ relief measures, by reversing Egypt’s normally favorable balance of trade, could have drained the kingdom’s stock of silver. But in this case HD is used in the sense of money, not silver metal. I owe this clarification to Willy Clarysse (personal communication). 60. El-Masry, Altenmüller, and Thissen (2012). 61. Préaux (1936), pp. 523‒525; Peremans (1981), pp. 629‒630; McGing (1997), pp. 275‒277; Veïsse (2004), p. 5; Grainger (2010), pp. 163–164, hinting that Ptolemy might have wanted a face-saving excuse to extricate himself from an untenable position. 62. A hoard of 5 gold and 136 silver pieces found near Alexandria in 1844 (CH VIII, 303) closes with a mnaieion of Ioppe dated 245/4. A hoard of gold mnaieia of Arsinoe Philadelphus found in Egypt around 1927 (IGCH 1682) closes with the issue marked X datable to the period c. 246‒c. 241 or perhaps more precisely to 247/6. A large hoard of 112 Arsinoe mnaieia from Upper Egypt (IGCH 1687), specific varieties unknown, was assigned a burial date in the mid-third century by G. K. Jenkins in his role as an editor of IGCH. Possibly also to be included in this group is a hoard of 200 silver decadrachms of Arsinoe from Zagazig (ancient Bubastis) (IGCH 1689), whose published contents close with the variety marked MM, datable shortly before c. 246 or perhaps c. 250. For the dates of the second and fourth hoards, see Troxell (1983), p. 56; Lorber in Olivier and Lorber (2013). In addition, Chauveau and Thiers (2006), p. 393, attributed the loss of the Toukh el-Garmous hoard (IGCH 1680), found in the temple treasury of Amun-Ra, to the seditio domestica of 245. The hoard itself closed with trichrysa of Ptolemy II datable c. 274 or a few years later. 63. Bingen (1997), pp. 32‒42 (dating the visit to late 245/early 244); Clarysse (2000), p. 37 (242).

138

Introduction

of the royal family on the Nile undoubtedly involved other formal appearances at major sites along the way. Ptolemy III became the first of his dynasty to respond to rebellion with forgiveness and conciliation. The Alexandria Decree of 243 praises him for reducing some taxes and renouncing others altogether; for forgiving the arrears of capitation taxes, which reportedly amounted to a great sum; and for releasing many longtime prisoners.64 These are typical terms of an amnesty in the pharaonic tradition and they anticipate the philanthropa decrees of later Ptolemies.65 The sweeping nature of the benefactions suggests that Ptolemy was addressing widespread dissatisfaction and this could be compatible with a popular insurrection; later Ptolemaic amnesties invariably sought reconciliation after periods of widespread and serious unrest. The Alexandria Decree of 243 states that the king’s reforms pleased both the army and the people. This detail could imply that the revolt of 245 involved disaffection in the military, or perhaps it only implies that military men were particular beneficiaries of the tax reforms. The tax reduction and remission cited in the Alexandria Decree must certainly refer to the well-studied reforms of 243: the introduction of a lower rate for the salt tax, four obols for males and one and a half obols for females, and the elimination of the obol tax on males, which was subsumed in the salt tax.66 These reforms represented a second reduction in the salt tax rate, as Ptolemy II had already reduced it for the first time in 254. The repeated reductions in and of themselves suggest that these taxes were burdensome for the most humble of the king’s subjects and that the government encountered increasing difficulties in collecting them. These inferences are now confirmed by the forgiveness of arrears mentioned in the Alexandria Decree.67 The second salt tax rate survived alongside the third one until 231, but the rules governing their application are obscure.68 The classes officially exempt from the salt tax expanded to include doctors (who were supported by the iatrikon tax), priests, and temple scribes.69 In the Thebaid, however, more privileged residents did not receive exemptions but were instead subject to supplementary capitation taxes collected alongside the salt tax.70 The Alexandria Decree may also allude to the king’s grant of the privileged tax status of Hellenes to the Egyptian residents of Philae and Elephantine, including those who had emigrated to the Fayum.71 Another Egyptian administrative institution seems to have changed around this same time. Monopoly banks, which specialized in currency exchange, are no longer attested 64. Alexandria Decree of 243, El-Masry, Altenmüller, and Thissen (2012), hieroglyphic ll. 6‒7 (pp. 15, 23, 38, 86‒88), demotic § 5‒7 (pp. 52‒53, 86‒88), Greek § 5‒7 (pp. 86‒88, pp. 216‒217), with commentary pp. 88‒91. Perhaps to be related is the concession granted in P.Petrie III 53, fragment q, recto (244/3), which allowed Paches, the high priest of Sobnektynis, to retain the annual taxes due from the temple in his private account in exchange for pledging his personal property as a guarantee of future payment, see Bussi (2013), pp. 121–122. 65. Cf. Koenen (1962); Smith (1968). Similar measures are commended in the Memphis Decree of 196, as noted by El-Masry, Altenmüller, and Thissen (2012), p. 91. 66. Clarysse and Thompson (2006), pp. 44‒45, 71‒72. 67. Clarysse and Thompson (2006), pp. 46‒47. 68. Clarysse and Thompson (2006), pp. 47‒48. The authors cited some evidence suggesting that the main beneficiaries of the lower rate were military men and cleruchs, but Clarysse and Thompson (2009), p. 257 note to lines 148‒162, found military men paying the older (second) salt tax rate in a bank register from the 230s. 69. Clarysse and Thompson (2006), pp. 55‒59, 162‒164. 70. Gorre (2014), pp. 101–104. 71. Török (2009), pp. 388–389, suggesting that this grant was made on the occasion of the royal visit to Philae.

Ptolemy III Euergetes

139

after 243.72 Yet currency exchange remained essential for the export trade on which the wealth of the Ptolemies depended. Monopoly banks may have continued to operate at the port of Alexandria and other points of entry without leaving any trace in papyri, which survive mainly from the Fayum and Middle and Upper Egypt. Alternatively, the function of exchanging foreign currency may have been transferred to a different agency.73 One spectacular innovation of Ptolemy II that was retained by his son was the hunting of elephants.74 It is assumed that the hunts depleted the elephant populations along the nearer parts of the African coast so that it was repeatedly necessary to establish new hunting stations farther to the south. Tentatively attributed to the reign of Ptolemy III are the foundations of several settlements on the west coast of the Red Sea: Arsinoe near Deire, Berenice near Sabai (Adulis), and Berenice epi Deire near the Bab el-Mandeb Straits which connect the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden.75 Land expeditions into Nubia remained an alternative method of elephant hunting at least until the end of the reign.76 The court at Alexandria remained a center of brilliant culture. Callimachus was still in residence at the beginning of the reign. His fellow Cyrenean, Eratosthenes, was summoned from Athens by Ptolemy Euergetes to become tutor to the royal children and director of the Library, which together with the Museion attained its greatest distinction under his leadership.77 This remarkable polymath numbered among his achievements the invention of systematic geography and the accurate calculation of the earth’s circumference. He was also a poet and one of his surviving epigrams includes a pair of courtly distychs praising Euergetes’ love for the Muses and for his son.78 The famous mathematician Archimedes of Syracuse spent some time at Alexandria, probably around the mid-third century, and he reputedly invented the water screw during his stay.79 Afterward he carried on a fruitful correspondence with scholars in the Museion, dedicating mathematical treatises to the astronomers Conon of Samos and Dositheus, and to Eratosthenes.80 Some negative stories attach to growth of the Library under Ptolemy III. The king grew so avaricious for texts that he ordered the seizure of any books found on ships arriving at the harbor of Alexandria; such books were copied at the Library, and the owner received the copy, while the Library accessed the original with a special label, ek ploion (from the ships).81 Even more abusive was his deception of the city of Athens: he borrowed the official critical editions of the works of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides against a surety of fifteen talents, then returned very handsome copies to Athens and kept the originals, forfeiting the surety.82

72. Von Reden (2007), pp. 253‒254 with n.7. 73. Von Reden (2007), p. 254. 74. Adulis inscription (OGIS I, 54 = Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 26 = Austin (2006), no. 268), ll. 10‒14. 75. Cohen (2006), pp. 310, 313‒314, 315‒316. 76. P.Eleph. 28 = Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 120. 77. FGrHist 241 T 1; Habicht (1994), pp. 149–150; Geus (2000). 78. Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 411–412, 611; Vol. IIa, p. 594 n.289. 79. Diod. 5.37.3; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 309, 399; Owens (2007), p. 295; Greene (2008), pp. 806–807. 80. Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 400‒409; on Conon, see also Vol. IIa, pp. 580–581, nn. 188–196. 81. Galen, CMG V, 10.2.1, pp. 78–79; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 325; Habicht (1994), p. 150. 82. See preceding note and Fraser (1972), Vol. IIa, n.147 (second paragraph).

140

Introduction

Ptolemy Euergetes innovated in his relations with the Egyptian clergy by convoking national synods of the priesthood, apparently on an annual basis.83 On at least two occasions, in 243 and 238, the synod proposed honors to the king and the Lagid dynasty and promulgated a formal decree of those honors to be inscribed in hieroglyphic, demotic, and Greek on stelae erected in temples throughout the country.84 Hieroglyphic was the primary script of these publications, invariably appearing first, followed by demotic and/or Greek in no fixed order (either language may appear on the sides, and each is omitted from some stelae).85 This is significant, because the “sacred writing” had a binding character for the personnel of Egyptian temples.86 Yet the priestly decrees follow the form of the honorary decrees of Greek cities, and the stated motives for offering the honors sometimes conform to Greek rather than pharaonic values.87 These texts even employ the Greek term psephisma (decree), which evokes the voting of a Greek poliad assembly.88 The synods thus appear analogous to Greek popular assemblies and it is conceivable that Ptolemy consulted the clergy about important political decisions.89 Nevertheless the only documented role of these synods was to authorize Egyptian forms of ruler cult (on which more below). The third Ptolemy followed his father’s example in confiding the most sensitive religious missions to hand-picked members of the Egyptian clergy.90 He selected a Theban priest, Ahmes son of Smendes, to supervise the construction and decoration of the Euergetes Gate of the temple of Khonsu at Karnak.91 Ahmes was subsequently placed in charge of the temples of Hermopolis Megale and investigated some sort of clerical corruption there, and he also acted as the king’s representative in an audit of the temples of Memphis.92 By the end of Euergetes’ reign at least some religious issues were subject to his civil administration: in his final year Epoeris, Egyptian priestess of a shrine of Isis in the village of Athenas Kome in the Fayum, petitioned the king requesting an official inspection of the dilapidated shrine so it could be demolished and rebuilt.93 In the first year of Philopator a similar petition from another Egyptian priestess sought official permission to demolish and rebuild a temple at Magdola.94 Ptolemy III oversaw an expansive program of Egyptian temple construction and restoration of which the Euergetes Gate was just a part.95 On 23 August 237, he founded, in 83. Pfeiffer (2004), p. 9. Annual synods may be implied in the Canopus Decree; see Huß (1994b), pp. 46‒47; Hölbl (2001), p. 105; Pfeiffer (2004), p. 150. 84. For the texts of the decrees of these synods, some quite fragmentary, see Huß (1991), nos. 3‒6; Clarysse (1999), p. 42, nos. 1‒3. Huß (1991), pp. 189‒190, posited earlier synods at Sais in 266/5 and at Mendes in 264 or 263, based on phrases in the Sais and Mendes stelae. The texts of these stelae were clearly composed by the local priesthoods and do not resemble the formal resolutions of the synods convoked by Ptolemy III. 85. Pfeiffer (2004), p. 40. The texts were not originally composed in hieroglyphics, however, but almost certainly in Greek, see Pfeiffer (2004), pp. 52‒55, with earlier literature. 86. Pfeiffer (2004), pp. 7‒8. 87. Onasch (1976), p. 140; Clarysse (1999), pp. 48‒52. 88. Clarysse (1999), p. 51; Pfeiffer (2004), p. 220. 89. Quack (2008), pp. 287–289. 90. Gorre (2010), pp. 567‒568, 577‒584. 91. Gorre (2010), no. 18, pp. 72‒77, 571‒575. On the Euergetes Gate, see Clère (1961); Blyth (2006), p. 227. 92. Gorre (2010), pp. 73‒77, 575‒577. 93. P.Enteux. 6. 94. P.Enteux. 7. 95. There is reason to believe that the reconstruction and decoration of Egyptian temples was usually financed from temple revenues, and that the king was credited for the improvements as a matter of ideology, see Manning (2003), p. 69;

Ptolemy III Euergetes

141

person, the temple of Horus at Edfu, a sanctuary of supreme importance to royal ideology whose construction continued over many reigns until it was finally consecrated in 70.96 The third Ptolemy rebuilt the Sarapieion in Alexandria (discussed more fully in the section on ruler worship) and he founded new temples to Osiris at Canopus, to Sarapis (probably also at Canopus), to Amun Gereb and Khonsu at Heraclion, and to Isis at Syene, the last marking the southern border of his kingdom.97 At Philae he constructed the mammisi (birth house) for the temple of Isis.98 Other temples enlarged or embellished under Ptolemy Euergetes include the small temple of Khnum at Esna; the temples of Montu at Tuphion, Karnak, and Medamud; the temples of Amun, Ptah, and Opet at Karnak; and the temple of Pnepheros at Theadelphia.99 These building projects associated Ptolemy with the gods of kingship: Horus and his parents Osiris (or Sarapis) and Isis, Amun, Ptah, and especially Montu. The last was a solar and war god, usually depicted with the head of a falcon wearing the solar disk and often assimilated to Ra as Montu-Ra. Montu overlapped Horus in several respects and both deities represented the king in his aspect as conquering warrior. Montu was also related to the kingship as a father to Horus, for the child Harpocrates was sometimes attributed to the union of Montu with Retawwy (the female counterpart of Ra). The improvements to three of the four cult centers of Montu suggest that decisions regarding temple improvements may have been influenced by Ptolemy’s success as warrior king.100 Some decorations of the Euergetes Gate at Karnak represent him as suppressing rebellion, a theme with ideological significance possibly also alluding to the revolt of 245. In a pair of apotropaic reliefs, the king sacrifices the oryx, the Rebel against the Wadjet Eye, to Khonsu-Iah, Khonsu in his lunar aspect; and in the corresponding scene he spears the serpent Apophis, the enemy of Ra, before Khonsu-Ra, Khonsu in his solar aspect.101 The two scenes represent the king as defender of the cosmic order through suppression of rebellion and the latter scene, like the emphasis on Montu and Horus elsewhere, reflects the pervasive influence of solar theology on Egyptian religion during the Ptolemaic period.102 Thiers (2006), pp. 276, 282, 292–294. Thiers (2009a) concluded that major construction projects required royal financing or other forms of royal aid. Famous religious centers that received generous subsidies could afford to finance restorations from their own local resources, but smaller temples, located especially in Middle and Lower Egypt, were reliant on private euergetism and this severely limited the scope of restoration and new construction. 96. Cauville and Dechauvelle (1984), especially pp. 32–33 on foundation of the temple by Ptolemy III; Kurth (2004), p. 49. 97. Hölbl (2001), p. 87. A gold foundation plaque with a Greek inscription (BM EA 1063 = Bernand (1970), pp. 236– 237, no. 7) records Ptolemy’s dedication of the enclosure wall of the Osirian temple at Canopus, see Thiers (1999), p. 438 n.47. A silver foundation plaque with a Greek inscription records his dedication of a temple to Sarapis, see Borgeaud and Volokhine (2001); SEG LIV, 1723. Bricault (2006), pp. 31‒33, noted that Alexandrian foundation plaques are bilingual and tentatively attributed the silver plaque to Canopus. Another gold foundation plaque inscribed in Greek, found in the underwater excavations of Heraclion, indicates that Ptolemy founded a sanctuary of Heracles (meaning his Egyptian counterpart Khonsu); its precise significance has not yet been analyzed, but it is certainly relevant that the major temple of the city, dedicated to Amun Gereb and his son Khonsu, was called the temple of Heracles by the Greeks, see Goddio (2007), p. 117 and fig. 3.88, discussion of the temple pp. 74‒78. 98. Hölbl (2001), p. 87. 99. Hölbl (2001), p. 87; Huß (2001), pp. 376–377; Thiers (2010), pp. 384‒394, on work at Karnak. 100. This suggestion is not, however, supported by the building inscription for the enclosure wall of the temple of Montu-Ra at Medamud, where the god rewards the king’s piety with a traditional grant of “life, stability and prosperity. Thou shalt shine as king of Upper and Lower Egypt on the throne of Horus like Re, eternally,” see Saleh (1981), p. 418. 101. Clère (1961), pls. 11, 12; Fabrique (1998), pp. 884–893. See also Clère (1961), pl. 62, where Ptolemy clubs a captive, and pl. 64, where he brandishes a mace before Amun-Min. 102. Finnestad (1997), pp. 205–215, 221–223.

142

Introduction

Ruler Worship and Divine Kingship Berenice II was sacralized very early in the reign.103 When Ptolemy was called away to war on behalf of his sister, Berenice prayed for his safety and vowed to sacrifice a lock of her hair upon his return. She fulfilled the vow by depositing the shorn lock in the temple of Arsinoe-Aphrodite Zephyritis, most likely in a formal public ceremony.104 The lock disappeared mysteriously overnight, but the court astronomer Conon of Samos announced that he had discovered it in the sky as a new constellation. These events were mythologized in a witty poem of Callimachus, the Coma Berenices, which recounted how Arsinoe-Aphrodite had sent Zephyr, the West Wind, to waft the lock into the sea, whence it rose with the stars into the sky before sunrise.105 The catasterism foreshadowed Berenice’s own divinity.106 It brought her into relation with the goddess Isis, who cut her hair in mourning over the death of Osiris.107 It may also have evoked an obscure myth of Hathor in which the sea somehow seized a tress of her hair.108 Callimachus explicitly associated Berenice with Aphrodite in her aspect as sea goddess as well as with her Lagid avatar Arsinoe-Aphrodite.109 Through her intervention Arsinoe-Aphrodite demonstrated her love for her daughter and established her role as Berenice’s divine protectress.110 In late summer 243, Ptolemy III and his queen were deified as the Theoi Euergetai (Beneficent Gods, nA nTrw mnxw) and associated in the state cult with Alexander and the Theoi Adelphoi (Sibling Gods).111 This was the actual beginning of the Greek dynastic cult, although the cult of the Theoi Soteres (Ptolemy I and Berenice I) remained separate.112 The state cult was eventually centered in the Alexandrian Sarapieion and Euergetes initiated the construction of a new Sarapieion that would house the cult statue of Sarapis, the Nilometer, the tombs of Alexander the Great and the deified Ptolemies, and perhaps a temple library.113 The foundation deposits followed Egyptian rather than 103. Plut. Arat. 146; Hyg. Astr. 2.24; Callim. fr. 110; Hauben (2011), pp. 357–365. 104. Hyg. Astr. 2.24; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 729‒730, Vol. IIa, p. 1023 n.105; Gutzwiller (1992), p. 363; Koenen (1993), pp. 100–103. 105. Callimachus’ poem achieved great popularity in the Hellenistic period and was subsequently translated into Latin by Catullus: Catull. 66; Pfeiffer (1975); Hollis (1992); Koenen (1993), pp. 89–113; Van Oppen (2015a), pp. 71–115. Much later this famous poem was parodied by Alexander Pope’s mock-epic, “The Rape of the Lock.” 106. Gutzwiller (1992), pp. 362–364, 380; Hauben (2011), pp. 361–365. 107. Nachtergael (1981), p. 585, n.3; Pantos (1987), pp. 350–352; Koenen (1993), pp. 107, 109; Herklotz (2000), p. 45. A lock of Isis was one of the relics of the temple of Coptos, see Youtie (1946). Nachtergael (1980, 1981) insisted on the distinction between offering a lock in fulfilment of a vow, in accordance with Greek tradition, and offering a lock as a gesture of mourning, a tradition common to many ancient cultures. Gutzwiller (1992), pp. 369–372, represented the cutting of the lock as a “contrived reworking” of the Greek tradition of ritual hair cutting to mark the transition from childhood to adulthood. 108. Posener (1986). 109. Gutzwiller (1992), pp. 363–368, 380; West (1985), p. 63, emphasized the marine associations of Aphrodite. 110. Koenen (1993), pp. 110–113; Gutzwiller (1992), pp. 363–368, 380. 111. Minas (2000), pp. 102–103. The cult names are lacking from P.dem. Chicago 25262 (July/August 243) and first attested in PSI IV 389 (August/September 243), see Lanciers (1991), p. 132 n.94. See also Pestman (1967), p. 28 with notes d–f. Separate state cults for Berenice Euergetis (tA [nTrt] mnxt) and Ptolemy Euergetes (pA [nTr] mnx) were not established until 211/10 and 165/4, respectively, see Ijsewijn (1961), pp. 124, 136–137; Clarysse and van der Veken (1983) pp. 16–17, no. 80; Minas (2000), pp. 116–120, 139–140; Herklotz (2000), p. 46; Pfeiffer (2008b), p. 67. 112. Pfeiffer (2008b), pp. 64–70. On the ideology of the dynastic cult, see Herklotz (2005). 113. Rowe (1946); McKenzie, Gibson, and Reyes (2004). Wild (1981), pp. 29–34, argued that the Nilometor could not have served the practical purpose of measuring the depth of the inundation, because by the time the river reached Alexandria most of the flood waters were dissipated in the fields of the Nile Valley. Its purpose must have been to symbolize the authority of Sarapis over the inundation and thus over life itself.

Ptolemy III Euergetes

143

Greek tradition, consisting of several sets of ten plaques of different materials (gold, silver, bronze, turquoise-glazed terracotta, Nile mud) with bilingual texts in Greek and in hieroglyphics dedicating the sanctuary to Sarapis in the Greek version and to Osiris-Apis in the hieroglyphic version.114 His second temple to Sarapis, located probably in Canopus, was founded on the god’s own instructions.115 The association of the Lagid dynasty in the cult of Sarapis is reflected in farflung Greek private dedications from the Delta, Upper Egypt, and Salamis on Cyprus honoring the Theoi Euergetai together with Sarapis, Isis, and the Nile.116 Although it is a truism that Sarapis found little favor with the Egyptians, some of these inscriptions imply that he was included along with the royal couple as a temple-sharing deity in Egyptian temples.117 The development of the dynastic cult and the importance of Sarapis as patron of the royal house are reflected in the oaths sworn by both Greek and Egyptian subjects in their dealings with the government.118 A typical oath named King Ptolemy, Queen Berenice, the Sibling Gods, the Savior Gods, the Beneficent Gods, and finally Isis, Osiris-Apis (or Sarapis, depending on the language of the oath), and the other gods.119 The double mention of the king and queen and the Beneficent Gods is not unique and stands as a warning against a straightforward identification of the ruling couple with their divine personae. It is also interesting that the Savior Gods were named in oaths, whereas they were not named in the dating protocols of documents because their exclusion from the state dynastic cult meant that their names did not appear in the title of the eponymous priests. In winter of 243, after the Theoi Euergetai were associated in the state cult, the Egyptian clergy assembled in Alexandria to celebrate the festival of Ptolemy and the Sibling Gods, and this became the occasion for what was probably the first nationwide synod.120 On 3 December 243, the final resolutions of the gathered priests, reflecting the strong influence of the king, were published in a formal decree modeled on Greek honorary decrees but with the text in triplicate, in hieroglyphic, demotic, and Greek.121 It is the earliest source for the full Egyptian titulature of Ptolemy III: Horus: Hkn nTrw rmTw Hr.f m Ssp.f nsjt m-a jt.f (over whom gods and men rejoice since he received the kingship from his father)

114. McKenzie, Gibson, and Reyes (2004), pp. 81‒82. One of the gold foundation plaques (GRM inv. P.8375) was published by Bernand (2001), pp. 42–43, no. 13. Its hieroglyphic text emphasizes Ptolemy’s fulsome titulature but varies his throne name from the form given in the Canopus Decree: “The King of Upper and Lower Egypt, heir of the Sibling Gods, chosen by Amun, powerful is the life of Ra, son of Ra, Ptolemy, living forever, beloved of Ptah, made the temple and sacred precinct for Osir-Hapi.” 115. See n.97 above. 116. Bernand (1970), pp. 234–236, nos. 4–6 (stelae from Canopus); Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 263; Pfeiffer (2008b), p. 56 n.151. Sal. Test. no. 56, the Salaminian dedication by Philinos, son of Philotimos, to Sarapis and King Ptolemy and Queen Berenice, Theoi Euergetai, is the first of only three Cypriote dedications pertaining to the royal cult. 117. Pfeiffer (2008b), p. 56. 118. Pfeiffer (2004), pp. 230‒231. 119. Minas (2000), pp. 167–168. 120. For possible earlier synods, see n.84 above. 121. El-Masry, Altenmüller, and Thissen (2012); see p. 71 for the date. For commentary on the structure of the synodal decrees and the debate over the original language in which they were drafted, see Daumas (1949); Onasch (1976), pp. 140‒144; Simpson (1996), p. 22; Clarysse (1999) ; Pfeiffer (2004), pp. 52–55; Moyer (2011b), pp. 120‒124.

144

Introduction

Two Ladies: on nDtj nTrw jnb mnx n 6A mrj (mighty protector of the gods, excellent wall of the Land of Egypt) Horus of Gold: wr pHtj jrj Axt nbt Hbw sd mj PtH-6A-Tnn jtj mj Ra (great of strength, accomplisher of every splendor [lit. horizon], lord of sed festivals like Ptah-Tatenen, sovereign like Ra) King of Upper and Lower Egypt: jwaw (n) nTrwj snwj stp n Ra sxm anx (n) Jmn (heir of the two Sibling Gods, chosen of Ra, living image of Amun) Son of Ra: Ptwlmjjs anxw Dt mrj PtH (Ptolemy, living eternally, beloved of Ptah)122 Euergetes’ five-part titulature is far more elaborate than the Great Names of his father or grandfather. The evocation of his parents in his throne name created a link between his Egyptian kingship and the Alexandrian dynastic cult, and this practice would be followed in the titulature of all of his successors. Euergetes was also the first of his line to bear Egyptian titles emphasizing his relation to Ptah, the great god of Memphis; these reflect the important ties established by the second Ptolemy with the high priest of Ptah, whose successors remained closely involved with the Macedonian rulers to the end of the dynasty.123 Ptah was a god of kingship, the original deity who created the other gods and ruled over them as their first king.124 He was believed to have celebrated many sed festivals as king of the gods and in his assimilated form Ptah-Tatenen he was a special patron of the sed festival of the human pharaoh since at least Dynasty XIX.125 Ptah was also assimilated to Horus-Tatenen, a form of Horus associated with the union of the Two Lands and the foundation of Egypt; a text at Edfu proclaims the true name of Ra-Horus to be “the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Ptah, the father of the gods.”126 The epithet “lord of the sed festivals” became a fixture in the Horus of Gold names of the next six Lagid kings, and nearly every subsequent Ptolemy claimed in his Son of Ra name to be beloved of Ptah (exceptionally, Ptolemy IV and Ptolemy XII were beloved of Isis). The Alexandria Decree of 243 is the earliest known synodal decree and a model for those that came later, notably the famous Canopus, Raphia, and Memphis (or Rosettana) Decrees. The prescript sets forth the reasons for the honors to be offered in the second part: the priests commend the king for his benefactions to Egyptian temples, for his military success in the Third Syrian War and for the rich booty he brought back, for repatriating icons of Egyptian gods that had been stolen by the Persians, for supporting the cults of sacred animals, and for repairing all the temples and altars of the land.127 Most of these benefactions were traditional duties of the Egyptian pharaoh, except for the return of sacred images, which dated back only as far as Nectanebo I but became a topos of the 122. From the Alexandria Decree of 243, see El-Masry, Altenmüller, and Thissen (2012), pp. 13, 22. Beckerath (1984), p. 118, gave virtually identical titulature from the lunette of the Kom el-Hisn stela (Canopus Decree). Other inscriptions provide a shortened version of this Horus name and an alternate Horus name wr pHtj jrj aDt m bTnw.f (powerful great one, who corrects the rebels). 123. Crawford (1980), pp. 7–8, 18–42. 124. Bergman (1968), pp. 73–79. 125. Bergman (1968), pp. 79–85. 126. Bergman (1968), pp. 71–72. 127. Alexandria Decree of 243, El-Masry, Altenmüller, and Thissen (2012), hieroglyphic ll. 4‒13 (pp. 14‒18, 23‒24, 37‒43), demotic § 3‒14 (pp. 51‒57), Greek § 3‒14 (pp. 216‒218), with commentary pp. 83‒115.

Ptolemy III Euergetes

145

Ptolemaic period because it exploited Egyptian animosity toward the Persians and toward western Asia generally.128 The second part of the Alexandria Decree repays the benefits received from the king. In return for his services the gods have granted Ptolemy and Berenice a great kingship, established in perpetuity.129 The priests, wishing to increase the honors to Ptolemy and Berenice and to their parents the Sibling Gods, decree that statues of the Beneficent Gods shall be installed as associated deities (synnaoi theoi) in the Egyptian temples and that on festival occasions their images shall process in a golden shrine adorned with ten royal diadems furnished with uraei.130 The text informs us that Ptolemy’s birthday, 5 Dios, and the anniversary of his accession, 20 Dios, were already annual festivals in the temples and that members of the clergy traveled to the capital each year to celebrate them with the king.131 Henceforth the images of the Beneficent Gods are to receive offerings at monthly festivals to be celebrated on the 5th, in honor of the king’s birthday, on the 9th, in honor of the queen’s birthday, and on the 25th, in honor of the king’s accession, and in addition the queen’s birthday, 9 Audnaios, is established as a new annual festival.132 Private replicas of the shrine of the Beneficent Gods are explicitly authorized and the inhabitants of Egypt are urged to celebrate the monthly festivals in their homes.133 These occasions were commemorated in the Greek milieu as well: the royal birthday and accession were celebrated on a monthly basis in the gymnasia, and the 25th of every month was celebrated as the Day of the King at Ptolemais.134 The last measure of the Alexandria Decree of 243 orders that its text be engraved on stelae in hieroglyphs, demotic, and “the letters of the Aegeans” and displayed in the public courtyards of every Egyptian temple of the first, second, and third class.135 By 239, the Theoi Euergetai had a temple of their own at Canopus.136 In late 239, the king summoned another nationwide synod of the Egyptian priesthood to assemble in this temple.137 The final resolutions, formally adopted on 7 March 238, are known as the 128. Pfeiffer (2002), pp. 942–944, commenting on the Canopus Decree. Pfeiffer treated the return of sacred images as a Ptolemaic innovation, but see Klotz (2009), p. 198 with n.124. 129. Alexandria Decree of 243, El-Masry, Altenmüller, and Thissen (2012), hieroglyphic l. 13 (pp. 18, 24, 43‒44), demotic § 15 (p. 51), Greek (p. 218), with commentary pp. 115‒117. 130. Alexandria Decree of 243, El-Masry, Altenmüller, and Thissen (2012), hieroglyphic ll. 14‒16 (pp. 18‒19, 24, 44‒46), demotic § 16‒20 (pp. 58‒60), Greek § 16‒20 (p. 218), with commentary pp. 117‒130. A cult statue of Ptolemy III was excavated from the temple of Hathor/Isis and Min at Coptos, and another bears an inscription associating it with the temple of Isis at Behbeit el-Hagara, see Stanwick (2002), A16, A17. 131. Alexandria Decree of 243, El-Masry, Altenmüller, and Thissen (2012), hieroglyphic ll. 16‒17 (pp. 19‒20, 24, 46‒47), demotic § 21 (pp. 60‒61), Greek § 21 (p. 218). From the corresponding information in the Canopus Decree, various scholars have inferred an obligation to travel annually to Alexandria for a synod, see n.83. 132. Alexandria Decree of 243, El-Masry, Altenmüller, and Thissen (2012), hieroglyphic ll. 17‒19 (pp. 20‒21, 24, 47‒48), demotic § 21‒23 (pp. 61‒63), Greek § 21‒23 (p. 219), with commentary pp. 130‒143. The celebration of a pharaoh’s birthday and accession were ancient Egyptian customs, but the celebrations were annual, see Bergman (1968), p. 89. Pfeiffer (2004), p. 241, pointed out that monthly festivals were a prerogative of the traditional gods. 133. Alexandria Decree of 243, El-Masry, Altenmüller, and Thissen (2012), hieroglyphic ll. 19‒20 (pp. 21, 25, 48‒49), demotic § 24 (pp. 63‒64), Greek § 24 (p. 219), with commentary pp. 143‒146. 134. SB V, 8853, ll. 8–9; Perpillou-Thomas (1993), p. 162. 135. El-Masry, Altenmüller, and Thissen (2012), hieroglyphic ll. 20‒21 (pp. 21‒22, 25, 49), demotic § 25 (pp. 64‒65), Greek § 25 (p. 219), with commentary pp. 146‒150. 136. Canopus Decree, Urk. II, no. 30, § 2, p. 127; Kom el-Hisn stela demotic l. 2, Tanis stela demotic ll. 7–8, see Simpson (1996), pp. 224–225; OGIS I, 56 (= Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 164 = Austin (2006), no. 271), l. 7; Pfeiffer (2008b), pp. 54–55; cf. Pfeiffer (2002), p. 154, where the temple was interpreted as the Canopic temple of Osiris. 137. Onasch (1976), p. 140 with n.26.

146

Introduction

Canopus Decree.138 It has many similarities to the Alexandria Decree of 243, which in fact it supplemented. First it praises the royal couple (or sometimes the king individually) for their benefactions to Egyptian temples, their care for the sacred animals, the king’s return of cult statues that had been stolen by the Persians, his foreign campaigns in defense of Egypt which preserved the country in peace, and the rulers’ provision of justice to their subjects.139 These acts not only fulfilled the traditional duties of the Egyptian pharaoh but also exemplified the Greek royal virtues of eusebeia (piety), dikaia (justice), and eunomia (good order).140 The decree next credits Ptolemy and Berenice with an act of salvation, their importation of grain from Syria, Phoenicia and Cyprus, at their own expense, to prevent famine after a failed Nile inundation; this is described as an immortal benefaction and the greatest memorial to their excellence, and it was almost certainly the motive for the new decree.141 There were many Greek precedents for saving cities from starvation.142 But, as noted above, this particular benefaction could have had awkward implications in the context of Egyptian royal ideology, since it implied the failure of the king in his role as guarantor of the Nile inundation and of the fertility of Egypt, and indeed the failure of the cosmic order.143 The Egyptian priests nevertheless made this benefaction the centerpiece and climax in their litany of the sovereigns’ good works, and they strongly reasserted the link between kingship, fertility, and the cosmic order in the next part of the decree. Like the Alexandria Decree and the Greek honorary decrees on which it was modeled, the Canopus Decree proceeds from the rulers’ benefactions to the rewards they merit. The gods have granted them a stable and blessed rule.144 The priesthood, for its part, vows to increase the honors already paid to the Beneficent Gods and their ancestors and ordains that all Egyptian priests thereafter will officially serve both the cult of a native god and that of the Beneficent Gods.145 The decree also establishes a new five-day festival of 138. For extant copies and editions of the decree, see Huß (1991), p. 192 n.21 and p. 201; Clarysse (1999), p. 42. For the hieroglyphic text, see Urk. II, no. 30, pp. 124–154; for the most recent transliteration and translation from the demotic, see Simpson (1996), Appendix B, pp. 224–241; for the Greek text, see OGIS I, 56 (= Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 164 = Austin (2006), no. 271). For commentary on the decree as a source for royal ideology and the divinity of the rulers, see Onasch (1976), pp. 140–148; Pfeiffer (2002); id. (2004), pp. 200‒283, 287, 301‒307; Hauben (2011), pp. 366‒374. 139. Canopus Decree, Urk. II, no. 30, § 3‒7, pp. 127‒130; Kom el-Hisn stela demotic ll. 2‒4, Tanis stela demotic ll. 8‒14, see Simpson (1996), pp. 224‒227; OGIS I, 56 (= Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 164 = Austin (2006), no. 271), ll. 7–13. The return of stolen images was a topos of such decrees, also occurring in the Satrap Stela (Urk. II, p. 14, no. 10), l. 3 (which mentions texts as well as images); Pithom stela of Ptolemy II (Urk. II, no. 20) = Thiers (2007), pp. 39, 45–46, 100–106; and the Raphia Decree, demotic ll. 22–23, see Simpson (1996), pp. 248–249. Winnicki (1994) documented the reality of the abductions and of the celebrations of the return of the images. 140. Pfeiffer (2002), pp. 939–940, 940–942. 141. Canopus Decree, Urk. II, no. 30, § 8, pp. 130‒132; Kom el-Hisn stela demotic, ll. 4‒5, Tanis stela demotic ll. 14‒20, see Simpson (1996), pp. 226‒229; OGIS I, 56 (= Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 164 = Austin (2006), no. 271), ll. 13–19. On the grain purchases as the motive for the decree: Pfeiffer (2004), p. 216, and see p. 228 where the failed inundation of 241/0 is identified as the probable occasion of the grain purchases. 142. Pfeiffer (2004), pp. 222‒224. 143 Hauben (1990), pp. 33–34; Pfeiffer (2002), pp. 940, 944–945; but see also Pfeiffer (2004), pp. 217‒218, where this idea is rebutted.. 144. Canopus Decree, Urk. II, no. 30, § 9, p. 132; Kom el-Hisn stela, demotic ll. 5‒6, Tanis stela demotic l. 20; OGIS I, 56 (= Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 164 = Austin (2006), no. 271, ll. 19–20). 145. Canopus Decree, Urk. II, no. 30, § 10‒11, pp. 132‒134; Kom el-Hisn stela demotic ll. 6‒9, Tanis stela demotic, ll. 20‒32, see Simpson (1996), pp. 228‒231; OGIS I, 56 (= Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 164 = Austin (2006), no. 271), ll. 22–23. An additional measure of importance to the clergy was the creation of a new, fifth phyle of priests named for the Beneficent Gods, whose status is minutely regulated in the decree, see Pfeiffer (2004), pp. 238‒241. This was advantageous for the priests, since the phylae alternated in their periods of service to the gods, see Clarysse (2009), p. 573. The financing of the royal cult is not treated in the decree, but the penalty clauses of many contracts indicate that fines for

Ptolemy III Euergetes

147

the Beneficent Gods, explicitly compared to the festivals of the “other greatest gods.” Its date implies that it commemorates the “immortal benefaction” of Ptolemy and Berenice: it is to be celebrated at the New Year in conjunction with the heliacal rising of the star Isis (Sothis), when crops are harvested and the Nile inundation begins.146 Because the Nile inundation was believed to be the effluent from the corpse of Osiris, augmented by the tears of Isis, the festival closely associated the royal couple with these gods, affirming their role as guarantors of the fertility and prosperity of Egypt.147 In order to preserve this association in perpetuity, the Canopus Decree announces a reform of the Egyptian civil calendar, which by its nature moved gradually against the seasons.148 The Egyptian year comprised twelve months of thirty days each, plus five epagomenal (supplementary) days dedicated to festivals of Osiris, Horus, Seth, Isis, and Nephthys; to these 365 days the reform added a sixth epagomenal day to be celebrated every fourth year in honor of the Beneficent Gods, who were thus elevated to the status of Egypt’s traditional deities and associated particularly with the gods involved in the institution of kingship in Egypt.149 The hieroglyphic and demotic texts of the decree describe the calendrical reform as a correction of small defects in the order of the seasons and in knowledge of celestial phenomena, made for or on account of the Beneficent Gods.150 The Greek text, however, attributes the reform to the rulers themselves, essentially as another benefaction.151 There is a tension here, since the reform proposed to correct an order that was divinely ordained and guaranteed. Isis, with whom the rulers were closely associated by their new annual festival, was venerated as Mistress of the Year and bound up with its length of 365 days; as Isis-Sothis she not only brought the New Year but guaranteed the unchangeableness of time.152 This may be the reason why the calendrical reform had no real impact before its adoption by Julius Caesar.153 The rite of enthronement in the late Ptolemaic period apparently involved an oath to maintain the calendar unchanged.154 non-fulfilment of contractual obligations paid for burnt sacrifices and libations for the kings, see Lanciers (1991), p. 139. 146. Canopus Decree, Urk. II, no. 30, § 15‒16, pp. 137‒139; Kom el-Hisn stela demotic ll. 9‒11, Tanis stela demotic ll. 32‒39, see Simpson (1996), pp. 230‒233; OGIS I, 56 (= Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 164 = Austin (2006), no. 271), ll. 34–38. 147. Pfeiffer (2004), pp. 208‒213, 287‒288. 148. Canopus Decree, Urk. II, no. 30, § 18, pp. 140‒142; Kom el-Hisn stela demotic ll. 10‒12, Tanis stela demotic ll. 36‒43, Simpson (1996), pp. 232‒235, OGIS I, 56 (= Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 164 = Austin (2006), no. 271), ll. 38–45. 149. Most historians have interpreted the reform as an expression of Greek “rationalism” imposed by the king, ignoring the irrational complexities of the Greek lunar calendars and the lack of any attempt to reform them, see Pfeiffer (2004), pp. 251‒254. On the complexities of the lunar calendars, see Bennett (2011), who demonstrated that there probably were attempts to reform the Macedonian calendar in Egypt, albeit clumsy attempts. 150. Canopus Decree, Urk. II, no. 30, § 18, pp. 141–142; Kom el-Hisn stela demotic l. 12, Tanis stela demotic ll. 43–45, Simpson (1996), pp. 234–235; Pfeiffer (2004), pp. 132–135, 252. 151. Canopus Decree, OGIS I, 56 (Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 164 = Austin (2006), no. 271), ll. 45–46; Pfeiffer (2004), pp. 131‒132. The rulers’ power to correct the order of the universe implied their cosmic status, see Legras (2004); Hauben (2011), pp. 366–374. 152. Bergman (1968), pp. 97–98. 153. Hauben (2011), pp. 374–383. The conventional view is that the priesthood resisted a reform imposed by the king; see Pfeiffer (2004), pp. 252‒257, who ultimately suggested that the reform was observed through the reign of Ptolemy III, since it involved a festival in his honor, but abandoned afterward. Bennett (2011), pp. 42–50 and 179–186, found that anomalous Macedonian/Egyptian double dates can sometimes be explained in terms of the Canopic calendar and submitted that the Canopic calendar coexisted alongside the Egyptian calendar into the reign of Ptolemy VI. 154. Nigidius Figulus, quoted by Bergman (1968), p. 95, with commentary pp. 95–99.

148

Introduction

During the synod of 238, the young daughter of the royal couple, called Queen Berenice since her birth, died unexpectedly.155 The assembled priests performed rites for her deification in the Osirian temple at Canopus. They established an annual four-day boat procession in her honor that, by its date, implied her association with the Daughter/ Eye of Ra, divine protectress of her father.156 They further ordered that the cult of Berenice Mistress of Virgins be installed in all the native temples of the first and second class, and prescribed the iconography of her statues and the rituals for her worship.157 One of the prescribed attributes was a diadem adorned with two grain ears and a sceptre with a serpent coiled around it.158 The grain ears associated Berenice in the royal ideology of fertility and implied her identification with Persephone; the serpent-sceptre was a protective symbol also appearing on the coinage of Arsinoe Philadelphus and implying that the deified Berenice would be the protectress of her father (who by implication was equated with Ra).159 The cult of the deceased Berenice was promoted in a Greek form in the Lagid external possessions.160 The Egyptian royal cult instituted by the synodal decrees is reflected in priestly titles and cult statues. Three priests at Edfu bore the title Servant of the Beneficent Gods (Hm nA nTrw mnxw), and the same title is attested at Thebes and Achmim.161 One of just two surviving cult statues of Ptolemy III from the Egyptian milieu depicts him in the guise of Thot, i.e., as supreme judge, and the hieroglyphic inscription on the back of the statue alludes to his royal predestination and calls him valiant Horus, protector of sanctuaries.162 Two of these themes, his justice and his protection of Egyptian religion, echo the praises of the Alexandria and Canopus Decrees, while royal predestination had earlier been attributed to Ptolemy II in the texts of the Pithom and Mendes stelae. By 238, at the latest, Berenice II became the first royal spouse in Egyptian history to receive an abbreviated royal titulary during her lifetime, consisting of a Horus name: 1rt sAt HoA jrt n HoAt (Female Horus, ruler’s daughter, born of a female ruler).163 The emphasis 155. Canopus Decree, Urk. II, no. 30, § 19, pp. 142‒143; Kom el-Hisn stela demotic ll. 12‒13, Tanis stela demotic ll. 45‒47, Simpson (1996), pp. 234‒235; OGIS I, 56 (= Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 164 = Austin (2006), no. 271), ll. 46–48. It was normal practice to designate all unmarried female members of Ptolemaic family as queen, see Kosmetatou (2002), p. 110; ead. (2004), p. 21 n.15. 156. Canopus Decree, Urk. II, no. 30, § 22, pp. 145‒146; Kom el-Hisn stela demotic ll. 15‒16, Tanis stela demotic ll. 53‒58, Simpson (1996), pp. 236‒237; OGIS I, 56 (= Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 164 = Austin (2006), no. 271), ll. 54–58; Koenen (1993), p. 28. Pfeiffer (2004), pp. 265‒266, noting that some forms of the myth associated the Eye of Ra with Sothis, an association already established for Berenice’s parents in the earlier part of the decree. 157. Canopus Decree, Urk. II, no. 30, § 23‒29, pp. 147‒ 153; Kom el-Hisn stela demotic ll. 16‒20, Tanis stela demotic ll. 58‒74, Simpson (1996), pp. 236‒241; OGIS I, 56 (= Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 164 = Austin (2006), no. 271), ll. 58–70. 158. Canopus Decree, Urk. II, no. 30, § 24, pp. 148‒149; Kom el-Hisn stela demotic ll. 17‒18, Tanis stela demotic ll. 61‒63, Simpson (1996), pp. 238‒239; OGIS I, 56 (= Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 164 = Austin (2006), no. 271), ll. 62–63. 159. On the grain ears: Pfeiffer (2004), pp. 273‒274. On the sceptre: Koenen (1993), p. 28. 160. We have specific evidence only for Arsinoe in Cilicia, see Jones and Habicht (1989). 161. P.Eleph. 6–7 (225/4); P.dem. Florence 3678; Lanciers (1991), pp. 120–121, 123, 125. 162. Thiers (1998); Stanwick (2002), p. 101, A18, fig. 13. 163. Beckerath (1984), p. 118; Troy (1986), p. 179; Minas (2005), p. 135. Eldamaty (2011), pp. 24–25, read the full form of Berenice’s titulature as it appears in the lunette of the Kom el-Hisn stela as: Female Horus, ruler’s daughter, born of a female ruler, formed by Khnum, who is elevated by the perfection of the sublime goddesses so that she inherits the Two Lands, the female vizier, the daughter of Thot the great in power, the protectress of the wretched, who was given her excellence by Nebtj-rechjt, who received her courage from Neith, the mistress of Sais, whom Bastet, Mut, and Hathor made magnificent with their perfection, she of wise counsel, the mistress of the Two Lands, Berenice, sister and wife of the son of Ra Ptolemy, he lives forever, beloved of Ptah; the two Beneficent Gods (English translation from Eldamaty’s German).

Ptolemy III Euergetes

149

on her royal birth apparently compensated for her non-Ptolemaic origin, for the same Horus name was later borne by Cleopatra I, the only other foreign princess to marry into the Ptolemaic line.164 Berenice’s Horus name implied that she shared fully in her husband’s sovereignty and evoked the duality considered essential to the regeneration of the kingship.165 An inscription on the Euergetes Gate at Karnak represents the two Horus names of Ptolemy and Berenice as a pair of falcon hieroglyphs; the falcon representing Berenice’s female Horus name wears a double-feather crown to distinguish it from the falcon representing Ptolemy’s Horus name, which wears the double crown of Egypt.166 In temple decorations, Berenice is represented as the king’s companion, venerating the gods with him and receiving the divine kingship jointly from them.167 In a relief from the Euergetes Gate at Karnak, Ptolemy and Berenice receive their kingship and their Horus names from the god Khonsu-Thot, who inscribes the years of their reign; the royal pair stand on the divine side of the scene, Ptolemy clad in a jubilee robe symbolizing his apotheosis as Horus at the moment of his enthronement, Berenice wearing ceremonial garb and the horned disk and plumes of the goddess Hathor , the typical crown of Egyptian queens since the New Kingdom.168 Euergetes and Berenice wear the same jubilee attire in the lunette of the Kom el-Hisn stela recording the Canopus Decree, possibly reflecting the celebration of a sed festival renewing his kingship.169 Berenice again wears the crown of Hathor when she appears behind her husband in a wine offering scene on the south façade of the Euergetes Gate, where Khonsu grants numerous years of rule.170 Berenice’s identification with Hathor, like that of Arsinoe II before her, followed ancient Egyptian tradition based on Hathor’s role as both consort and mother of Horus in a cycle of rebirth in which all generations were interchangeable; Hathor was the model and equivalent of the queen in her dual role as wife of the king and mother of the future king.171 As Mistress of Byblos, Hathor was also patroness of the Egyptian empire in Asia.172 We shall see below that the coinage implies a similar symbolic role for Berenice. Horus and Hathor were not the only divine counterparts of the royal couple. On the west façade of the sanctuary of Isis at Behbeit el-Hagara are paired reliefs, one showing Ptolemy III offering a monument to Osiris, the other showing Berenice II offering a monument to Isis. Each of the deities responds by confirming the rule, power, and beneficence of the offering sovereign. The parallelism of the scenes expresses the parity of the two rulers, as does the positioning of their cartouches between a row of Hathor heads. The whole 164. Eldamaty (2011), pp. 28–29. 165. Minas-Nerpal (2011), p. 58. 166. Eldamaty (2011), p. 26: nTrw rmT mAA.sn Hm.sn wbn m 1rwj tp srxwj m 1r Hkn nTrw rmT Hr.f 1rt sAt HoA jrt n HoAt (The gods and men rejoice because they see their Majesties appearing as two Horus falcons on two serekhs, as Horus, over whom gods and men rejoice, and as female Horus, ruler’s daughter, born of a female ruler). 167. Quaegebeur (1978), p. 254; Herklotz (2000), pp. 47–51; Eldamaty (2011), p. 28. 168. Clère (1961), scene 43; Quaegebeur (1989a), p. 97 (on the king’s jubilee robe); Herklotz (2000), p. 49, fig. 2; Pfeiffer (2004), p. 33, fig. 4; Llewellyn-Jones and Winder (2011), p. 259, fig. 5. On the tradition of the crown, see Minas (2005), pp. 128–133, 135. Isis was also depicted wearing the horned disk and plumes crown of Hathor, see, e.g., Colin (1994), p. 276. 169. For the scene in the lunette: Pfeiffer (2004), pp. 31‒32 and figs. 2, 3; Herklotz (2000), p. 51, fig. 4; Llewellyn-Jones and Winder (2011), p. 258, fig. 3. For the suggestion of a sed festival: Pfeiffer (2004), pp. 43‒44. 170. Clère (1961), scene 13; Herklotz (2000), p. 48, fig. 1; Llewellyn-Jones and Winder (2011), p. 260, fig. 7. 171. Troy (1986), pp. 53–72; Herklotz (2000), p. 53; Llewellyn-Jones and Winder (2011), pp. 257–261, where the uniqueness of Berenice’s identification with Hathor is overstated. 172. Lesko (1999), pp. 97–99; Llewellyn-Jones and Winder (2011), p. 261. Hart (2005), p. 65, described Hathor as goddess of all foreign possessions from which Egypt derived material benefit, including Syria, Nubia, and the Sinai.

150

Introduction

context implicitly compares the king to Osiris and the queen to Isis.173 Berenice’s Egyptian epithet sAt 8Hwtj (daughter of Thot), attested at Philae and in the lunette of the Kom elHisn stela, identifies her with Isis, implying her divinity and her role as wife of the king, mother of the future king, and a link in the chain of legitimate succession, indeed in the maintenance of creation.174 Other titles or epithets of Berenice II emphasize her beauty and her compassion, or give her a militant aspect, associating her in the protection of Egypt: Xkrt 3nm (jewel of Khnum), sjar.s nfrw nTrwt r jwaw 6Awj (she brings the perfection of the goddesses to the heir of the Two Lands), nD mArw (shield of the helpless), and onj.s wsr sj Nt nbt 4Aw (who received her courage from Neith, mistress of Sais).175 Already in the reign of Ptolemy III we find the first hints of an Egyptian version of the dynastic cult.176 As noted above, he was the first of his dynasty to include his descent in the throne name of his Egyptian titulature. A relief on the Euergetes Gate at Karnak shows him offering incense to his deified parents and receiving his kingship from his father, a grant that traditionally came from a god or gods.177 This scene illustrates the Horus name of his Egyptian titulary (over whom gods and men rejoice because he received the kingship from his father) and it is positioned opposite the scene where Ptolemy III and Berenice II receive their kingship from Khonsu-Thot; complementary inscriptions in the two scenes mentioning the kas of the two royal couples link legitimate succession with filial piety and explicitly evoke the ideology of the royal ka.178 The lunette at the top of the Kom elHisn stela foreshadows later Egyptian representations of Ptolemaic dynastic succession.179 The scene shows the ruling couple, followed by Thot, Sechat, and their deified parents and grandparents, meeting a group of gods who bring emblems of sovereignty.180 In the accompanying inscriptions the king’s father, (step)mother, and grandmother promise him the protection of the gods, and his grandfather strengthens his throne.181 Ptolemy I bears the epithet jt nTrw (father of the gods), referring to his role as founder of a dynasty of divine kings, and Berenice I bears the corresponding epithet mwt nTr (divine mother or mother of god), i.e. mother of the Horus-King, a Hathoric and Isiac epithet also commonly attributed to Arsinoe II.182 The text of the Canopus Decree inscribed below the lunette, proposing to increase the cultic honors already being offered to the Beneficent Gods, their parents the Sibling Gods, and their grandparents the Savior Gods, refers to the deified 173. Herklotz (2000), p. 50. 174. Troy (1986), pp. 179, 181; Herklotz (2000), pp. 53‒54. 175. Pfeiffer (2004), p. 31; Eldamaty (2011), pp. 24–25. All of these are from the lunette of the Kom el-Hisn stela. See also van Oppen de Ruiter (2015a), pp. 37–40. 176. Pfeiffer (2008b), pp. 85–86, cited priestly titles suggesting that the Egyptian version of the dynastic cult may already have existed under Ptolemy II. 177. Clère (1961), scene 61; Winter (1978), p. 149, Dok. 1, commentary pp. 153–154. 178. Quaegebeur (1989a), p. 97; Herklotz (2005), pp. 157–158. 179. Pfeiffer (2004), pp. 41, 44, 230. 180. Kamal (1904–1905), no. 22186; Minas (2000), pp. 105–106; Pfeiffer (2004), pp. 31‒34; id. (2008b), pp. 96–97. Winter (1978), p. 152, Dok. 24, also cited the upper frieze on the south side of the Euergetes Gate at Karnak (Clère (1961), scenes 17‒18), where the first two Ptolemaic couples are represented among a group of twenty-three gods receiving offerings, indicating their status as associated gods. The inclusion of the Theoi Soteres is highly unusual, for as a general rule the Egyptian dynastic cult excluded both Alexander and Ptolemy I, see Winter (1978), pp. 156–157; Quaegebeur (1989a), p. 95; Koenen (1993), p. 54. 181. Pfeiffer (2004), pp. 33‒34. 182. Pfeiffer (2004), p. 34. This epithet of Berenice I also appears on the lintel of the Euergetes Gate at Karnak, see Clère (1961), pl. 18; Troy (1986), pp. 178, 193; Colin (1994), p. 276.

Ptolemy III Euergetes

151

rulers in their aspect as synnaoi of the Egyptian gods but not necessarily to their worship as a group.183 Clerical titles from Thebes identify priests who served both the Sibling Gods (nTrw snw) and the Beneficent Gods (nTrw mnxw), in some cases in association with Amonrasonther.184 More formal Egyptian versions of the dynastic cult took shape in the reign of Ptolemy IV. The subjects of Ptolemy III and Berenice II supplemented the state cults with other forms of ruler worship, typically private in Egypt and civic in the provinces. The cavalry unit stationed at Hermopolis Megale built an impressive sanctuary of Doric style for the Theoi Euergetai and the Theoi Adelphoi.185 In Pelusium, a Macedonian soldier constructed a private shrine dedicated to the Dea Syria and Aphrodite-Berenice in the Egyptian home where he was billeted.186 Egypt had a tradition of religious associations attached to temples which, in the Ptolemaic period, apparently gave primacy to the royal cult over the principal god of the temple, since they named the kings before the traditional gods in their documents.187 The best documented such religious association is that of the village of Sebek Pisai, which provided daily burnt offerings and libations for Ptolemy the pharaoh, Berenice the pharaoness, Arsinoe, the Sibling Gods, the Beneficent Gods, and all the gods of Egypt in the forecourt of the temple of Horus Behedeti; each member of the association paid dues of 1 kite (2 drachms) to support these activities.188 In 246, immediately after Ptolemy’s accession, the Cretan city of Itanus thanked him for preserving its freedom—apparently an allusion to its Ptolemaic garrison—and established sacred precincts for the royal couple, decreeing annual sacrifices on the royal birthday and games in their honor in the gymnasium.189 Already by the year 242, Aenus had a priest of Ptolemy III, Berenice II, and their children.190 The Thracian city had only recently become a Ptolemaic possession in the course of the Third Syrian War and the cult was very likely connected with its negotiated surrender to the Lagid fleet.191 At Arsinoe in Cilicia, sometime after 238, sacrifices were instituted for the king, Arsinoe, and the deceased princess Berenice Parthenos, and the people of neighboring Nagidus were also required to participate along with the residents of Arsinoe in public sacrifices to Homonoia (Concord) and to the Theoi Adelphoi.192 On the island of Thera, a Ptolemaic naval base, a citizen of Perga built a small sanctuary dedicated to the Theoi Euergetai.193

183. Canopus Decree, Urk. II, no. 30, §10, pp. 132‒133; Kom el-Hisn stela demotic l. 6, Tanis stela demotic ll. 20‒23, Simpson (1996), pp. 228‒229; OGIS I, 56 (= Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 164 = Austin (2006), no. 271), ll. 20–22; Koenen (1993), p. 53. 184. Lanciers (1991), pp. 123–124. 185. Wace, Megaw, and Skeat (1959), pp. 4–11; and see the comments of Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 234–235. 186. Guéraud (1931), no. 13, pp. 36–37. See Tondriau (1948b), p. 21, no. 2 for other identifications of Berenice with Aphrodite, and p. 22, no. 6 (P.Petrie III 1 2) for a private shrine in Crocodilonpolis where perhaps she was identified with Isis. The Berenice honored in this private shrine has also been interpreted as Berenice I, see Colin (1994), p. 273; Pfeiffer (2008b), p. 59. 187. Cenival (1972), pp. 23, 139–142. 188. P.dem. Lille 29 (March/April 223), ll. 5–6; Cenival (1972), pp. 3–10; Pfeiffer (2008b), pp. 91–92. 189. ICret. III 4.4 = Syll. I3, 463 = Kotsidu (2000), pp. 284–285, no. 195; Habicht (1970), pp. 121–122; Bagnall (1976a), p. 121; Viviers (2011), p 45. 190. Herzog and Klaffenbach (1952), no. 8, l. 1; Habicht (1970), pp. 122–123; Bagnall (1976a), p. 160. 191. For the religious-ceremonial aspects of negotiated surrender, see Piejko (1990), pp. 21–26. 192. Jones and Habicht (1989) = Austin (2006), no. 272. 193. IG IX 3, 421, 422, 863, 1333–1350, 1388; Bagnall (1976a), p. 134.

152

Introduction

Foreign alliances and benefactions to non-subject cities and peoples also inspired worshipful gestures. Ptolemy’s anti-Macedonian alliance with the Aetolian League (229/8) is reflected in statue groups of the Ptolemaic family erected at the league’s capital Thermos and at Delphi, and in the dedication of an individual portrait statue of Euergetes at Delphi.194 The strategos of the Aetolian League employed a seal depicting Berenice in the guise of Demeter.195 In addition, the Aetolians may have founded a new city named Ptolemais in honor of their ally.196 The refoundation of the Aetolian village of Konope as Arsinoeia may also belong in this context, although Strabo attributed it to Arsinoe Philadelphus herself.197 When Ptolemy brought Athens into this alliance (224/3), the city established an official cult for his worship and that of his queen. The cult honors corresponded precisely to those offered previously to Antigonus Monophthalmos and Demetrius Poliorcetes, including a new phyle called Ptolemais, a deme called Berenikidai, statues of Ptolemy erected in the Athenian agora and at Delphi, and the institution of a quadrennial Ptolemaieia festival.198 Rhodes expressed its gratitude for aid delivered after the earthquake of the early 220s by establishing a cult to Ptolemy III and Berenice II.199 In the case of the royal cult at Itanus, Ptolemy III ceded land he owned in the center of the city to provide the sacred precincts, a clue that the establishment of the cult was the fruit of negotiations between king and city.200 The active role of the Ptolemies in promoting these cults is also attested by their provision of cult images.201 Because marble had to be imported into Egypt, Alexandrian artists produced royal portraits in the acrolithic technique, using marble only for heads or even faces, and this makes them easily recognizable today.202 The earliest surviving examples date from the reign of Ptolemy III and include a Parian marble head of Euergetes with the bull’s horns of Dionysus, said to have been found in Crete and now in Copenhagen; another Parian marble head of the king with the wings of Hermes, from Sparta; and a Parian marble head of Berenice from the Athenian agora.203

II. Coinage Egyptian coinage of Ptolemy III Alexandria’s only issue of tetradrachms under Ptolemy III was a small emission featuring an idealized portrait of the dynastic founder and an adjunct symbol on the reverse, a cornucopiae usually regarded as the personal emblem of Ptolemy Euergetes. Hoard provenances, none of them Egyptian, indicate that these coins were being minted in the 194. Fron. Str. 2.6.5; IG IX, 12, 56, 202–203; Huß (1975); Kosmetatou (2002). 195. Pantos (1987). 196. Cohen (1995), pp. 118–119. 197. Strab. 10.2.22; Cohen (1995), pp. 109–110. 198. Paus. 1.5.5, 10.10.2; Steph. Byz., s.v. Βερενικίδαι; Habicht (1982), pp. 105–112; id. (1994), p. 146; id. (1997), p. 182; Kotsidu (2000), pp. 65–70 and no. 18. The Athenian Ptolemaieia continued to be celebrated to the end of the second century, see Habicht (1994), pp. 155–156. 199. Polyb. 5.88–90; Kotsidu (2000), no. 153. It appears that the Rhodians also expressed their gratitude by portraying Berenice Euergetis on their civic bronze coinage, see Ashton (1986). 200. Viviers (2011), p. 45. 201. Palagia (2013). 202. Palagia (2013), pp. 143–144. 203. Palagia (2013), pp. 148–152, figs. 9.3–9.6. On the Spartan head, see also Palagia (2006), pp. 210–212.

Ptolemy III Euergetes

153

earliest years of the reign.204 The lack of further tetradrachm issues from Alexandria helps to explain the virtual disappearance of silver currency from the Egyptian economy, treated in an excursus below. Earlier literature leaves the impression that production of the Theoi Adelphoi gold coinage and/or coinage in the name of Arsinoe Philadelphus continued under Ptolemy III. The presence of fresh specimens of the Theoi Adelphoi coinage in the Benha hoard of 1936 (IGCH 1694) actually inspired E. T. Newell and A. B. Brett to credit Euergetes for the inauguration of this coinage.205 H. A. Troxell cited the record of a bank deposit, P. Cair. Zen. I 59022, which mentions mnaieia and pentekontadrachma in the early 250s, to prove that the Theoi Adelphoi coinage was introduced by Ptolemy II; but she allowed that it was issued by several successive Ptolemies.206 She also tentatively dated the end of the Arsinoe mnaieia and silver decadrachms around 242/1, because dated mnaieia in the name of Arsinoe were produced at the Syro-Phoenician mints until the sixth regnal year of Ptolemy Euergetes.207 Metallurgical analyses conducted by J. Olivier revealed that the gold of the Theoi Adelphoi coinage and of the mnaieia of Arsinoe Philadelphus is slightly less refined than that of the coinage of Berenice II,208 with the implication that neither of these earlier series could have been struck for any length of time under Ptolemy III. The coinage honoring Berenice II probably commenced with a pair of exceptional denominations that blend iconographic elements related to Arsinoe Philadelphus and Berenice: a double mnaieion of Arsinoe Philadelphus, so far unique, and silver 15-drachm pieces for Berenice. These were, respectively, the largest gold and silver coins ever struck by the Ptolemies and they must have served as impressive presentation pieces, probably distributed in ceremonies celebrating the safe return of the king from his Syrian campaign. The silver 15-drachm piece is linked to other Alexandrian coinage of Berenice by portrait style and by the symbols of the Dioscuri on the reverse. Svoronos originally interpreted the denomination as an Attic-weight dodecadrachm (12-drachm piece), but several scholars have noted his reliance on a single, damaged coin and have reinterpreted the denomination according to the Ptolemaic standard.209 Its average weight of c. 53 g falls a little short of 15 Lagid drachms (54.0 g) and may represent a compromise with the weight of an Attic dodecadrachm (51.60 g), suggesting the possibility of a bivalent denomination that could have exchanged on either standard.210 Coin legends naming Berenice the Queen do not imply that she was the issuing authority, but rather designate the coinage as belonging to her in the same sense that the standard tetradrachms belonged to Ptolemy Soter, or the coinage of Arsinoe Philadelphus

204. The hoard evidence for the date of this coinage is rather scanty. The issue is represented by single examples in Eretria, 1937 (IGCH 175); Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308); Dniyé (Trésors 5); and Saida (Trésors 40); and by two examples in Sophikon (IGCH 179). The latest securely dated coin of the Saida hoard is a tetradrachm of Ioppe inscribed for regnal year 3 (245/4), making it likely that the issue marked with the cornucopiae was in production by that date. 205. Brett (1952), pp. 6–7 with n.3. 206. Troxell (1983), pp. 60–61. 207. Troxell (1983), pp. 54–56. 208. Olivier and Lorber (2013), pp. 57–58. 209. Naville (1951), p. 105 n.1; Vagi (1997), pp. 5–10; Bagnall (1999), p. 198 n.3. 210. Olivier (2006), pp. 120–122, citing an average weight of 52.70 g.

154

Introduction

belonged to the deceased queen.211 The famous Berenikeion nomisma212 was produced in two series, one on the usual Ptolemaic weight standard and the other on the Attic standard, which had been banned in Egypt since c. 305. Coin hoards indicate that only the Attic-weight series can be attributed to Berenice’s lifetime. In this enigmatic series the exceptional weight standard is associated with a set of very unusual denominations: gold decadrachms, pentadrachms, 2½ drachms, drachms, hemidrachms, and quarter drachms, and silver pentadrachms and 2½ drachms. The production of this coinage extended through much of the reign of Ptolemy III, as indicated by control links to Alexandrian bronze coinage involving the marks E, %, and ‚, the last implying to some numismatists that the final issue was struck under Ptolemy IV.213 The later emissions included only a few selected denominations and the two final issues were very small, to judge from the few surviving examples. We can conclude that the final issues, at least, reveal an intermittent pattern of production. The function of this coinage remains a subject of investigation and is treated in a separate excursus below. At an uncertain point, most likely in the early reign of Ptolemy III, the Alexandria mint began to produce a new bronze coinage. Because the introduction of Egyptian Series 3 was closely connected with the fiscal reforms of Ptolemy II, it is natural to suspect that Egyptian Series 4 was similarly associated with the tax reforms proclaimed in the amnesty of 243 and commemorated in the priestly decree of the same year.214 Still, the cornucopiae symbol that marks all but one of the denominations of Series 4 furnishes a thematic link to the only tetradrachm issue of the reign, and this could imply that the new bronze coinage was introduced earlier, in or before 245/4. Series 4 adhered to the weight standard of Series 3 but altered the mix of denominations in circulation.215 The octobol of c. 90 g, the largest bronze coin ever struck by the Ptolemies, had been a rare denomination of Series 3 but was now minted in high volume.216 It retained its original reverse type and thus lacked Euergetes’ cornucopiae symbol, which otherwise appears consistently on his bronze coinage. An anomalous arrangement of the legend, with the royal title on the left and the royal name on the right, was also a holdover from the first appearance of the octobol. The bronze drachm of c. 69 g, the principal coin of Series 3, was not struck at all in Series 4. On the other hand the tetrobol and trihemiobol (the latter a new denomination) were produced in great abundance. Series 4 was weak in denominations smaller than the obol but Series 3, which remained in circulation alongside Series 4, apparently provided an ample supply of small change. 211. Brunelle (1976), p. 32; Cavagna (2006), p. 279 with n.26. Some scholars have assumed that Berenice enjoyed the power to mint coinage, e.g., Caltabiano (1996), pp. 181–192, or have interpreted the coin legends as evidence that the coins were issued by Berenice during a supposed regency at the time of the Third Syrian War: Svoronos (1904–08), Vol. I, cols. σμςʹ‒σμζʹ; Vol. IV, cols, 169‒170; Naville (1951), p. 105; Herklotz (2000), pp. 45, 55; Pfrommer (2002), p. 87; Calabria and Finocchi (2003), p. 184. 212. Pollux 9.85. 213. Caltabiano (1996), pp. 179–180; Cavagna (2007), pp. 110–113. Caltabiano’s analysis rested in part on the misattribution of the bronze series marked E, as Egyptian Series 4 is assigned to Ptolemy IV in almost all the standard works of reference. 214. Von Reden (2007), pp. 66‒67, suggesting a connection with the introduction of the Theoi Euergetai; Gorre (2014), pp. 111–112. 215. Lorber (2000), pp. 73–79, and (2005a), p. 158, posited an increase in the bronze weight standard and a redefinition of the bronze octobol as a drachm, followed by a later return to the original weight standard and to a drachm of c. 72 g. This hypothesis was properly criticized by Cavagna (2010), p. 144 n.171. It must be abandoned, because hoards show that coins of Series 3, 4, and 5 circulated together, see Faucher and Lorber (2010), p. 36 n.4. 216. Newell (1935), pp. 58–59; Picard (2003), p. 29.

Ptolemy III Euergetes

155

Series 4 included a second new denomination that is somewhat problematic. It falls between the diobol and tetrobol, where we should expect to find a triobol.217 Yet it is significantly lighter than the triobols of Series 5 and its metrology is consistent with a value of 20 rather than 24 chalkoi, that is, 2.5 obols rather than 3 obols.218 Such a denomination, unknown in traditional Greek monetary systems, may have fit the needs of the Ptolemaic system, where bronze coinage often exchanged against silver at the rate of 26.5 obols per stater instead of 24 obols per stater. A bronze denomination of 2.5 obols corresponds to the amount of the surcharge and was perhaps considered a fundamental unit of the currency system. It is suggestive that this denomination was introduced by Ptolemy III, whose monetary policies intentionally created a shortage of silver coinage in circulation (see below). This inevitably increased the frequency of transactions in which silver was stipulated but payment was rendered in bronze (pros argyrion), thus incurring the surcharge (allage) of 2.5 obols per stater. It is further suggestive that the introduction of this unusual denomination correlates more or less closely with the disappearance of the monopoly banks that specialized in monetary exchange, last attested in 243.219 In contrast to the production pattern of Ptolemy Philadelphus, whose many bronze issues bore most of the letters of the Greek alphabet, Euergetes produced a few massive issues featuring the new denominational set, marked by the controls L, E, and variant monograms like ¯,  and .220 Far skimpier coinages marked S and SE preceded a new reform of the bronze currency. The bronze coinage of Euergetes’ later reign (Series 5A–B) brought changes to the use of obverse types as denomination markers: the laureate head of Zeus, identified with the diobol since Series 2, disappeared entirely, and Alexander in the elephant headdress, similarly identified with the obol, was demoted to the trichalkon and chalkous, leaving Zeus-Ammon predominant on all but the smallest denominations. Series 5A and 5B are further distinguished by a recognizable obverse style (a tall, narrow head of Zeus-Ammon) and by an improved alloy containing a relatively high admixture of tin.221 Series 5 restored the bronze drachm of c. 69 g to production and introduced the first triobols. Series 5B, with the control %, is noteworthy for its numerous small denominations, including the chalkous, which had not been struck since the reign of Ptolemy I. These probably replaced the small denominations of Series 3, whose larger denominations, at least, were withdrawn upon the introduction of Series 5.222 Small denominations played an essential role in daily life. The standard surcharge of 2.5 obols per stater, added to 217. The denomination was in fact identified as a triobol by Picard and Faucher (2012), p. 44. 218. Wolf (2013). The largest denomination of Series 2D appears to be the same denomination, but too few examples survive for reliable metrological study. 219. Von Reden (2007), pp. 69, 75‒76, 253‒254 with n.7. 220. For the sequence of the controls, see Lorber (2000), pp. 69–73. 221. Faucher (2012), pp. 48‒50. Picard and Faucher (2012), pp. 51‒52, placed the introduction of Series 5 in the early reign of Ptolemy IV, c. 220, and associated it with the rising prices noted in papyri and the implied degradation of the bronze coinage. Gorre (2014), p. 112 suggested an association with the fiscal reforms of 223. 222. Hoards reflecting the contemporary circulation of Series 3 and 4 include Elephantine, before 1993 (CH IX, 687), Tuna el-Gebel, 1962 (CH X, 448), and Saqqara, 1977 (CH V, 37 = CH VIII, 310), whereas the numerous hoards deposited near the end of the third century include coins of Series 4 and 5, but not of Series 3, see Faucher (forthcoming). The “Coinex” hoard of 1992 (CH VIII, 413 = CH X, 455) apparently violates this pattern, but it is now recognized that the record published by Huston and Lorber (2001) inadvertently confused two separate bronze hoards that appeared on the coin market at the same time. The earlier lot in fact contained coins of Series 3 and 4.

156

Introduction

certain payments in bronze, resulted in many payments involving hemiobols;223 such payments could be tendered using either hemiobols of Series 3 and 5 or the 2.5 obol denomination of Series 4. Quarter obols and eighth obols are attested in tax receipts;224 dichalka were struck in Series 3 and dichalka and chalkoi in Series 5. In the second half of the third century the usual price of admission to the public baths was a half obol or a quarter obol.225 Egyptian hoards reflect not only the withdrawal of the larger denominations of Series 3 upon the introduction of Series 5, but also the continuing circulation of Series 4 alongside Series 5. The following table summarizes the denominational sets provided in the reformed coinage of Ptolemy II (Series 3) and in the two series minted under Ptolemy III, and it allows us to see how the different series complemented one another, first Series 3 in combination with Series 4, then Series 4 in combination with Series 5. Table 3.1. Bronze denominations produced under Ptolemy II (Series 3) and Ptolemy III Denomination

Diameter

Weight

Ptolemy II Series 3

Ptolemy III Series 4

Octobol

45

90

Very rare

Common

Drachm

42

69

Common

Tetrobol

36

45

Moderate

Triobol

35

35

2.5 obols

35

28

Diobol

30–32

22

Trihemiobol

27–28

14

Ptolemy III Series 5A–B Common

Ext. common Common Moderate

Moderate

Rare

Moderate

Ext. common

Obol

24

11

Common

Tritartemorion

20

7

Common

Hemiobol

18

5

Moderate

Trichalkon

17

4

Dichalkon

16

2.6

Chalkous

13

1.4

Moderate

Moderate

Rare

Moderate Moderate

Moderate

Moderate Moderate

S. von Reden has proposed an ingenious if not entirely convincing explanation for the changes in Egyptian bronze currency under Ptolemy III, based on the changing rates of the salt tax.226 Rate A, 264/3‒254/3: males 1 drachm 3 obols, females 1 drachm Rate B: 254/3‒231: males 1 drachm, females 3 obols Rate C: 243/2‒217: males 4 obols, females 1.5 obols227 223. Clarysse, Thompson, and Capron (2011), see recto col. ii, ll. 32 (=179), 33 (=180), 50 (=197), and many others. 224. For quarter obols, Clarysse, Thompson, and Capron (2011), see recto col. ii, l. 58 (=205+206), col. iii, l. 69 (=14), col. vi, ll. 162 (=101) and 165 (=104), col. vii, l. 193 (=132), verso ll. 3, 4, 9. Chalkoi are also mentioned in recto col. v, ll. 131 (=70), 133 (=72), 143 (=182), col. vi, ll. 176 =115) and 177 (=116), and verso ll. 2, 6, 9. The authors dismiss the chalkous as an accounting fiction. But Gorre (2014), pp. 101–104, insisted on the reality of eighth obols in demotic tax receipts issued at Thebes between 263 and 223. 225. Faucher and Redon (2014). 226. Von Reden (2007), pp. 63–69. 227. Clarysse and Thompson (2006), pp. 44‒49.

Ptolemy III Euergetes

157

In von Reden’s view, the bronze of c. 69 g, introduced under Ptolemy Philadelphus, was tariffed as a triobol to facilitate payment of the salt tax at rates A and B.228 The still lower rate C, introduced in 243/2, required the addition of a bronze tetrobol to the currency system and accounts for the bronze of c. 90 g.229 Rates B and C coexisted for some nine years, after which the disappearance of the higher rate coincided with the reintroduction of the bronze triobol of c. 69 g at the end of the 230s. We can consider von Reden’s idea about the effect of salt tax rates without accepting her view of the face values of the bronze coins. The above table suggests that, under Ptolemy II, rates A and B could be paid with drachms and obols. Series 4 of Ptolemy III placed new emphasis on the octobol, greatly increased production of the tetrobol, and introduced a trihemiobol which was minted in abundance. These three developments are very likely to be related to the introduction of rate C in 243/2.230 In Series 5 the drachm and triobol predominated. In this case, probably, the quantity of older money was sufficient to meet the requirements of the salt tax. The drachm was reintroduced in order to compensate for the withdrawal of the drachms of Series 3. Elimination of silver coinage from the Egyptian economy From the study of papyri major scholars of the twentieth century, including C. Préaux, M. Rostovtzeff, T. Reekmans, and E. Will, deduced a shortage of silver in the Ptolemaic kingdom, beginning near the end of Euergetes’ reign and worsening under Philopator.231 This thesis was criticized by G. Le Rider, H. Cadell, and F. de Callataÿ, who insisted on the great wealth of the Ptolemies and substituted the notion of a shortage of silver currency in the chora, reflecting the geographic origin of the papyri.232 The disappearance of silver coinage from the Egyptian economy in the latter decades of the third century is clearly indicated in the record of Egyptian silver hoards from the early Hellenistic period until the accession of Ptolemy VI.233 Because the hoards are concentrated in the Delta, they supplement the papyri and demonstrate that the disappearance of coined silver was not limited to Middle and Upper Egypt, but also affected the most fully monetized region of Egypt.

228. Von Reden (2007), pp. 63–66. 229. Von Reden (2007), pp. 66–67. 230. The octobol, as the double denomination of the tetrobol, could be useful in households with two adult males. In their study of the Ptolemaic census and salt tax receipts, Clarysse and Thompson (2006), pp. 237–254, found that in the third century families with more than two adults comprised 43% of those attested in their documents; and households with more than two adults (i.e., extended families or those with non-kin dependants or slaves) comprised 45.4% of those attested in their documents. Overall, it appears that males and females were about equally represented, although their proportions varied according to family type. 231. 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 (1995a), pp. 80–81; Maresch (1996), pp. 15, 56–57; von Reden (2007), pp. 61, 68. Cf. Burkhalter and Picard (2005), p. 53, where the scarcity is dated from the end of the third century. 232. Le Rider (1998a), pp. 804‒805, 809; Cadell and Le Rider (1997), pp. 73, 89–90; Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), pp. 192–198; see also von Reden (2007), pp. 75, 117 (but cf. 76). 233. Egyptian hoards were previously cited as evidence for the Ptolemaic silver shortage by Milne (1938), p. 204; Rostovtzeff (1941), Vol I, p. 400; Gara (1984), p. 110; Muhs (2005), p. 12 with n.81.

158

Introduction

Table 3.2. Egyptian silver hoards from the early Hellenistic period to the accession of Ptolemy VI Hoard

Closure

Contents

Kings Represented

1. Demanhur, 1905 (IGCH 1664)

318/7

8000+ AR

Alexander III, Philip III, Ptolemy as satrap (265)

2. Egypt, 1893 (IGCH 1665)

318/7

44 AR

Alexander III, Ptolemy as satrap (5)

3. Egypt, 1912 (IGCH 1668)

c. 316–310

20 AR

Alexander III, Ptolemy as satrap (1)

4. Mit Ya-ish (IGCH 1666)

c. 315

200 AR

Alexander III, Ptolemy as satrap

5. Egypt, 1974 (CH I, 41)

311

140+ AR

Alexander III, Philip III, Ptolemy as satrap (11+)

6. Lower Egypt, 1894 (IGCH 1669)

306

79+ AR

Alexander III, Philip III, Ptolemy as satrap (15)

7. Commerce, early 1986

306

16 AR

Philip III, Ptolemy as satrap (15)

8. Abu Hommos, 1919 (IGCH 1667)

c. 305

1000 AR

Alexander III, Philip III, Ptolemy I (58)

9. Phacous, 1956 (IGCH 1678), Pot A

c. 305

2040 AR

Alexander III, Philip III, Ptolemy I

10. Demanhur, 1896 (IGCH 1671)

c. 300

2000 AR

Ptolemy I

11. Egypt, before 1936 (IGCH 1676)

c. 300–295

11+ AR

Ptolemy I

12. Kuft, 1874/5 (IGCH 1670)

c. 295

438+ AR

Alexander III, Philip III, Ptolemy I (86–87)

13. Egypt, c. 1912 (IGCH 1675)

c. 295

34 AR

Ptolemy I

14. Delta, 1856 (IGCH 1684)

Soon after 294

15. Egypt, uncertain date (CH V, 33 )

c. 288/7

93 AR

Ptolemy I

16. Phacous, 1956 (IGCH 1678), Pot B

c. 288/7

363 AR

Ptolemy I

17. Egypt, before 1908 (IGCH 1677)

c. 288/7

491 AR

Ptolemy I

18. Mit Rahineh (CH X, 447)

c. 288/7

101 AR

Ptolemy I

19. Saqqara, 1968 (IGCH 1681)

c. 274

28 AR

Ptolemy I (6), Ptolemy II (21)

20. Alexandria environs, 1908 (IGCH 1683)

254

4 AR

Ptolemy II

21. Nile Delta, before 1867 (Zervos 1980c, pp. 93–94)

249/8

15+ AR

Ptolemy II

22. Zagazig, 1905 (IGCH 1689)

c. 246?

200 AR

Ptolemy II

23. Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303)

245/4

5 AV 136 AR

Ptolemy I (5) Ptolemy II (5 AV, 130 AR) Ptolemy III (1)

24. Rüppell, East Delta, before 1822

241

13 AR

Ptolemy I (6) Ptolemy II (6) Ptolemy III (1)

25. Tell Nebesheh, 1886 (IGCH 1688)

225/4

25 AR

Ptolemy I (4) Ptolemy II (14) Ptolemy III (5)

26. Suez Canal, 1860 (IGCH 1693)

222 or earlier

1 AV 2 AR

Ptolemy III (1 AV, 2 AR)

27. Mit Ya-Ish (EH I, 200)

c. 215

35 AR

Ptolemy I (2) Ptolemy II (23) Ptolemy III (5) Ptolemy IV (2)

28. Delta, 1922 (IGCH 1690)

c. 215

21 AR

Ptolemy II (1) Ptolemy III (2) Ptolemy IV (18)

29. Asyut, 1936 (IGCH 1702)

185/4

4+ AR

Ptolemy III (2) Ptolemy V (2)

Alexander III, Philip III, Ptolemy I

Ptolemy III Euergetes

159

The silver hoards of the early Hellenistic period are numerous and often large. A hoard found near Alexandria in 1844 (IGCH 1688), closing in 245/4, is the last large silver hoard of Egypt until the Tanis hoard of 1986, deposited c. 170 or later. Only three silver hoards are recorded for the remainder of Ptolemy Euergetes’ reign, and only two for the reign of his son and one for his grandson. All of these hoards are small or at best moderate in size. They suggest that older silver coinage began to disappear from circulation under Ptolemy III and that the process was completed during the reign of Ptolemy IV. This is not the result of natural attrition, for hoards from Syria and Phoenicia show that tetradrachms of the first two Ptolemies remained an important component of the circulating currency until at least the end of the Fifth Syrian War. Table 3.3. Ptolemaic silver hoards from Syria and Phoenicia from Ptolemy I to Ptolemy V Hoard

Closure

Contents

Kings represented

1. Sfiré, 1932 (IGCH 1511)

321/0

84 AR

Alexander III, Philip III, Ptolemy as satrap (2)

2. Byblus, 1931 (IGCH 1515)

c. 309–308

141 AR

Alexander III, Philip III, Ptolemy as satrap (3)

3. Aleppo, 1893 (IGCH 1516)

c. 305

3000+ AR

Alexander III, Philip III, Ptolemy as satrap (20)

4. Hebron area, 1999 (CH IX, 484)

280–270

25 AR

Ptolemy I (1) Yehud of Ptolemies I and II

5. Beirut commerce, 1987–88 (EH I, 85)

c. 260

14 AR

Ptolemy I (8) Ptolemy II (6)

6. Seleucia-Pieria, 1932–39 (IGCH 1526)

256/5

12 AR

Ptolemy I (2) Ptolemy II (6)

7. Nuba, near Hebron, 1975 (CH II, 69)

255/4

5+ AR

Ptolemy II

8. Hebron area, 1977 (CH IV, 40)

250/49

5+ AR

Ptolemy I (1) Ptolemy II (4)

9. Beth Shean, 1921–23 (IGCH 1585)

c. 246

20+ AR

Ptolemy II

10. Saida, 1949 (IGCH 1586)

c. 245

39 AR

Ptolemy I (8) Ptolemy II (27) Ptolemy III (4)

11. Beqaa Valley, 1964 (EH I, 97)

242/1

25 AR

Ptolemy I (13) Ptolemy II (10) Ptolemy III (2)

12. Iraq al-Amir, 1993 (CH X, 268)

c. 240

1100+ AR

Ptolemy I (84) Ptolemy II (928) Ptolemy III (118)

13. Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Lot A

c. 215

66 AR

Ptolemy I (4) Ptolemy II (30) Ptolemy III (6) Ptolemy IV (24)

14. Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304)

c. 215

115 AR

Ptolemy I (26) Ptolemy II (75) Ptolemy III (9) Ptolemy IV (5)

160

Introduction

Hoard

Closure

Contents

Kings represented

15. Tell Michal, 1977 (CH IX, 498)

213 or later 47 AR

Ptolemy I (10) Ptolemy II (28) Ptolemy III (7) Ptolemy IV (2)

16. Damour, 1949 (IGCH 1549)

After 204

4 AR

Ptolemy IV (3) Ptolemy V (1)

17. Syria, 1981 (CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 73), subsuming CH VIII, 306, CH VIII, 311, CH VIII, 322, and CH VIII, 344*

198

1000+ AR

Ptolemy I (302+) Ptolemy II (336+) Ptolemy III (27+) Ptolemy IV (35) Ptolemy V (150+)

18. Balatah (ancient Shechem), Samaria, 1960 (IGCH 1588)

198

35 AR

Ptolemy I (5) Ptolemy II (13) Ptolemy III (1) Ptolemy IV (4) Ptolemy V (12)

19. Madaba, c. 1919 (IGCH 1592)

Probably 198

6+ AR

Ptolemy I (1) Ptolemy II (1) Ptolemy IV (1) Ptolemy V (3)

* The identification of these individual lots as part of the Syria, 1981 hoard is due to the researches of Andrew Meadows.

The comparison of Egyptian and Levantine silver hoards makes it clear that Ptolemy Euergetes had a special monetary policy for Egypt. In the first place, he failed to replenish the stock of older tetradrachms in circulation. His single issue of tetradrachms from Alexandria was very limited: V. van Driessche recorded only ten obverse dies in the die study included in her unpublished mémoire de license; a new study under way has increased the count to thirteen. In addition the state must have employed some process to remove older silver currency from the Egyptian economy, and to return new silver coinage to the treasury as efficiently as possible.234 Most likely the royal banks were instructed to sequester all silver coinage rendered in payment of taxes, penalties, and sureties, and to make most official payments in bronze. Specific institutions and practices no doubt aided the recovery of silver coinage. Silver was required in the payment of many money taxes, including the apomoira, taxes on the sale of real estate, and taxes on transportation of goods.235 Although it was possible to substitute bronze for silver in these cases, the allage (exchange commission) of 2.5 obols per stater on the exchange of bronze for silver penalized such substitutions and probably encouraged the surrender of silver.236 Beginning in 236/5 the royal banks of the Arsinoite nome also added a surcharge of one hemiobol per stater on bronze payments when bronze was the stipulated form of payment (pros chalkou, chalkos isonomos).237 The purpose of this surcharge was probably to encourage the voluntary payment of taxes in silver, even when payment in bronze was legally authorized.238 The king could also pull silver into 234. Cf. Gara (1084), p. 116, referring in particular to the Attic-weight issues of Ptolemy III. 235. Von Reden (2007), p. 116. 236. Maresch (1996), pp. 2, 18, 89‒90; Burkhalter and Picard (2005), pp. 56‒58, 66‒67; von Reden (2007), pp. 112‒117; Cavagna (2010), pp. 201‒203. 237. Clarysse and Thompson (2009), pp. 232‒233. The authors cited personal communication from S. von Reden suggesting a connection with the improved alloy of the bronze coinage of Ptolemy III (meaning Series 5). 238. W. Clarysse (private communication, 24 January 2013). Clarysse points out that this surcharge would have had the effect of undermining public confidence in the bronze currency.

Ptolemy III Euergetes

161

his treasury by requiring its use in other transactions with the state, as for example in the announcement (c. 223) of an auction of confiscated land which specified a 25% down payment “in gold or silver of the new coinage.”239 It is not difficult to imagine Euergetes’ motives for withdrawing silver coinage from the Egyptian economy. Because Egypt had no significant deposits of silver ore, the metal had to be imported. Successive Ptolemies showed a concern for managing their stock of silver, Ptolemy I by reducing the weight of his tetradrachm and closing the Egyptian economy, Ptolemy II by shifting tetradrachm production (and hence military finance) from Alexandria to provincial mints. The Lagid treasury was dependent on the export trade to bring in fresh supplies of coined silver and to finance the purchase of silver bullion from abroad. Around 240 a disastrous failure of the Nile inundation demonstrated how the export trade could be disrupted and its benefits reversed: the Canopus Decree informs us that Euergetes imported grain at great expense, from his provinces and from other places, in order to avert famine in Egypt.240 Perhaps because of this experience Ptolemy III apparently conceived a desire to monopolize the use of silver for his own purposes. A large reserve of silver would be insurance against contingencies and would allow maximum flexibility in conducting wars, as silver was the principal medium for the payment of mercenaries. Euergetes’ deliberate engineering of a shortage of coined silver attests to his belief that the economy, the lower levels of the administration, and much of the military establishment could function successfully using a mix of bronze currency, payments in kind, and cashless accounting.241 The improved alloy of Series 5 was perhaps intended to bolster public confidence in the bronze currency as silver coinage became unavailable.242 In any case the new monetary regime was a natural extension of past policy, for the reformed bronze currency of Ptolemy II (Series 3) had already established the practical equivalence of bronze and silver coinage. Both papyrologists and numismatists have assumed that the Series 3 bronze coinage was intended to replace silver currency in the chora.243 However, it was only under the reign of Ptolemy III that the first large bronze hoards began to be deposited.244 This development seems to indicate that even people in fairly comfortable circumstances were now receiving the cash portion of their incomes in coined bronze.

239. P.Eleph. 14, ll. 7‒8 = SP II, no. 233 = Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 87, cited by Hazzard (1995a), p. 81. 240. Canopus Decree, Urk. II, no. 30, §8; Kom el-Hisn stela ll. 4‒5, Tanis stela ll. 14‒20, Simpson (1996), pp. 226‒229; OGIS I, 56 (Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 164 = Austin (2006), no. 271), ll. 13‒19. On the purchase of grain see also n. 59 above. 241. On cashless accounting by the royal banks as a method of expanding the money supply, see von Reden (2007), pp. 257‒259. The extensive use of credit in private contracts between people who were related socially also expanded the money supply and helped to compensate for the inadequacy of actual coinage, see von Reden (2007), pp. 153‒252. 242. Von Reden (2007), pp. 67‒68. 243. E.g., Milne (1938), pp. 203‒204; Rostovtzeff (1941), Vol. I, p. 400; Picard (1998a), pp. 416‒417; Le Rider and Callatay (2006), pp. 138‒140; von Reden (2007), pp. 58‒60. Milne, followed by Préaux (1939), p. 276, and Rostovtzeff believed that the reform of Ptolemy II consisted in introducing a bronze coinage of intrinsic value; Préaux and Rostovtzeff believed that the reform was driven by Egyptian preferences for the use of bronze in exchange; and both Milne and Rostovtzeff cited Gresham’s law to explain the disappearance of silver. 244. Elephantine (CH IX, 687), closing with Series 4A; Tuna el-Gebel (CH X, 448), closing with Series 4B; Saqqara (Anubieion) (CH VIII, 310), closing with Series 4E. In addition, the report of the “Coinex” hoard of 1992 (CH X, 455) is now recognized as confusing two distinct hoards that entered the coin market at the same time, and the earlier of the two is another hoard of Ptolemy III closing with coins of Series 4D.

162

Introduction

Bronze currency had not only replaced silver in exchange but had acquired another of the classic functions of money: it now served as a store of value. Even if bronze was a successful substitute for silver in internal exchange, other segments of the economy must have required different solutions. The highest levels of the elite, especially the courtiers in Alexandria, foreign traders, and large business interests, probably relied on gold. Hoards like those from Benha (IGCH 1694‒1695) show that older gold coinage remained abundant until after the battle of Raphia. (Curiously, Attic-weight gold coinage in the name of Berenice is very weakly represented in these hoards, although it is the only Alexandrian coinage of Ptolemy III found in Egyptian silver hoards.245) Banks and credit transactions could also have played a key role in foreign trade and other large commercial transactions. The function of Attic-weight coinage in the name of Berenice the Queen Any investigation into the function of the Attic-weight coinage in the name of Berenice the Queen will benefit from an assessment of its volume. The following table shows the results of an unpublished die study conducted by V. van Driessche for her mémoire de license, supplemented in the case of the silver “dodecadrachm” by newly collected material. It should be noted, however, that the “dodecadrachm” does not really belong to the Atticweight coinage, since its weight is not Attic but at best a compromise between the Attic and Lagid standards. Table 3.4. Die statistics for the Attic-weight coinage of Berenice the Queen Denomination

Specimens

Dies

N/d

Estimated dies (Carter)

Estimated dies (Esty)

Rounded estimate

AV decadrachm

11

2

5.5

2.18

AV pentadrachm

18

9

2

14.6103

14.5623

15

2

AV 2½ drachms

13

2

6.5

2.12922

2.12970

2

AV drachm

3

2

1.5

4.80769

4.70618

5

AV hemidrachm

15

7

2.14

10.7714

10.6955

11

AV quarter drachm

5

4

1.25

15.6006

15.3759

15‒16

AR “dodecadrachm”

17

5

3.4

6.08969

6.04363

6

AR pentadrachm

4

2

2

3.24675

3.23606

3

AR 2½ drachms

7

5

1.4

13.9275

13.6230

Total dies

38

14 73–74

The table indicates that the Attic-weight coinage of Berenice was a substantial coinage,246 far more valuable in the aggregate than the tetradrachm issue of Ptolemy III. The most important denominations, according to the die estimates, were the gold pentadrachm, the gold hemidrachm, the gold quarter drachm, and the silver 2½ drachms; with the exception of the gold pentadrachm, these are the smallest denominations in each metal. We must assume that these four denominations were also the most useful. Other aspects that may be relevant to understanding this coinage are the fact that a nearly full range 245. The abundant Ptolemaic gold coinage on the numismatic market since 2007 suggests the existence of a hoard similar to the Benha hoards. Only a few gold pentadrachms of Berenice have appeared since 2007, in contrast to very numerous specimens of older Theoi Adelphoi and Arsinoe Philadelphus gold. 246. Qualified as “very substantial” by von Reden (2007), p. 54, perhaps correctly.

Ptolemy III Euergetes

163

of denominations was struck on just one occasion, while later emissions were produced episodically and dwindled in size. The denominational set was very limited for silver as compared with gold, and the latest emissions involved a particularly narrow range of denominations, namely silver 2½ drachms and gold and silver pentadrachms. Most early scholarship on the Attic-weight coinage of Berenice II held that it was struck in Cyrenaica, her birthplace, in part or entirely before her marriage to Ptolemy III.247 The attribution to Cyrenaica appears plausible on its surface, since Cyrenaican silver coinage of the classical era conformed to the Attic weight standard and used the pentadrachm as its basic unit.248 Nevertheless Svoronos rejected the attribution, noting that he had been unable to discover any examples of the Berenice coinage with a provenance from the region.249 In the 1990s there were rumors of a find of Attic-weight silver of Berenice in Libya, but these rumors may well have been disinformation intended to conceal the real provenance of the coins. Other interpretations of the Attic-weight coinage of Berenice rest on the assumption that it was intended for external circulation. Svoronos related it to the expenses of the Third Syrian War in Syria and Asia Minor, attributing part of the coinage to Seleucia in Pieria and part to Ephesus.250 W. Koch attributed the entire coinage to Seleucia in Pieria and identified the honorand as the king’s dead sister, Berenice Syra, rather than his wife.251 W. Giesecke, followed by A. Jähne, viewed the coinage as a political statement advertising the queenship of Berenice Syra as the legal basis for Ptolemy’s attempted conquest of the Seleucid kingdom and for his occupation of Seleucia in Pieria.252 R. A. Hazzard interpreted the coinage as military pay minted by Ptolemy III during his Syrian campaign and, like Koch, saw it as commemorating Berenice Syra.253 H.-C. Noeske tentatively connected the Attic-weight coinage with Euergetes’ subsidy to the Achaean League.254 It is problematic for all of these hypotheses that the majority of the recorded findspots for Attic-weight coins of Berenice are Egyptian. Newell reported specific provenances from the Delta, Suez Canal area, Heliopolis, and Upper Egypt.255 As he observed, these finds support an Egyptian origin for the Attic-weight coinage,256 although the discovery of a gold pentadrachm in a Syrian hoard of 1989 (CH VIII, 462) provides some slight support for interpretations involving Seleucid Syria. Hazzard tried to counter the Egyptian provenances by observing that findspots do not necessarily indicate where circulation 247. E.g., Poole (1883), pp. xlvi–xlvii. 248. Pollux 9.60. 249. Svoronos (1904–08), Vol. I, cols. σμδʹ–σνεʹ; Vol. IV, col. 167. Naville (1951), p. 105, placed the Attic-weight coinage of Berenice in the sequence of Egyptian issues, without supporting argument. 250. Svoronos (1904–08), Vol. I, cols. σμαʹ–σναʹ; Vol. IV, cols. 164‒175. Specifically, Svoronos credited the introduction of the Attic-weight coinage to Chremonides of Athens, arguing that he was admiral of the Ptolemaic fleet and that he chose the standard because of his own background and because it was acceptable in the theaters of the war. 251. Koch (1923a), pp. 100‒101; id. (1923b), pp. 89‒91, 102‒103. 252. Giesecke (1930), pp. 46‒49; Jähne (1974), p. 508. 253. Hazzard (1995a), p. 5. 254. Noeske (2000b), pp. 237–238. Noeske’s attempt to support his hypothesis by means of coin finds is confused. He referred to Attic-weight silver octadrachms of Arsinoe II of the type of Svoronos 937ff in the Megalopolis hoard of 1947 (IGCH 180). The error did not originate with Noeske but the coins in question are properly described as silver decadrachms and they have nothing to do with the Attic-weight coinage in the name of Berenice. 255. Newell (1927b), pp. 8–9. 256. Olivier (2006), pp. 55, 125–126, reported metallurgical analyses indicating that the Attic-weight gold issues of Berenice share the same platinoid trace elements as undoubted Alexandrian gold issues, though small variations in their gold content leave open the possibility that they may have been minted elsewhere.

164

Introduction

commenced, but where it ended, implying that the coins were carried back to Egypt by the returning army. He did not address the control links to the bronze coinage of Ptolemy III, which can only be interpreted to mean that the Attic-weight coinage was produced over a considerable period of time, with some issues postdating the Third Syrian War. Another interpretive tradition emphasizes that the denominations of the Attic-weight coinage of Berenice are compatible with both Attic and Lagid units. R. S. Poole suggested that the purpose was to harmonize the coinage of Cyrenaica with that of the Ptolemaic state before the two kingdoms were reunited by the marriage of Berenice to Ptolemy III.257 Newell broadened the scope of this explanation beyond Cyrenaica, observing that a bivalent coinage was suitable for circulation either inside or outside the Ptolemaic empire, at a ratio of 5 Attic to 6 Lagid drachms.258 It was this same underlying metrological relationship that allowed earlier Ptolemaic tetradrachms to circulate in Greece, as attested by numerous hoards. According to this ratio, the two silver denominations were pentadrachms and 2½ drachms on the Attic standard, but also hexadrachms and tridrachms on the Ptolemaic standard.259 As for the gold coinage, in an Attic-standard context, where gold exchanged for silver at a 1 : 10 ratio, the gold decadrachm was a mnaieion, worth 100 silver drachms; in the Ptolemaic milieu, where the ratio was 1 : 12.8, the same coin represented 1½ mnaieia or 150 silver drachms.260 The production of such a coinage, Newell suggested, might have been inspired by unknown exigencies of trade or politics, or else an influx of Attic-weight booty from the Third Syrian War might have required an intermediary coinage.261 The allusion is to the 40,000 silver talents that Ptolemy III is said to have brought to Egypt when he returned from the battlefield in 245.262 One of the attractions of the booty hypothesis is that it furnishes a plausible explanation for the episodic character and dwindling size of the later emissions of the Attic-weight coinage. As the foreign coinage entered government coffers in the form of taxes, penalties, or sureties, it would have been retained in the treasury, so that there was less need for a special coinage to facilitate exchange. It must be confessed, however, that no single foreign coin has been found in Egypt that might represent a remnant of the Syrian booty. The 40,000 talents is a figure representing the value of the booty and does not imply that it consisted entirely of silver, much less coined silver. To the extent that coined silver formed a part of the booty, Euergetes probably retained most or all of it in his treasury, using gold or older silver coinage to reward his veterans. The concept of a bivalent currency has been repeated and sometimes elaborated by other scholars.263 L. Naville observed that at the usual Ptolemaic exchange rate of 1 : 13.33, i.e., the rate including allage, the Attic-weight gold decadrachm would have exchanged for 160 Ptolemaic silver drachms, and the smaller gold denominations would have exchanged for 80, 40, 16, 8, and 4 Ptolemaic drachms, respectively.264 This hypothetical system of exchange has the virtue of converting gold into sums of silver payable in tetradrachms, by far the most common silver denomination of the Ptolemaic currency system. 257. Poole (1993), pp. xlvi‒xlvii. 258. Newell (1927b), pp. 11–12. 259. Newell (1927b), pp. 11–12. 260. Newell (1927b), pp. 11–12. 261. Newell (1927b), p. 11. 262. Hieron. In Dan. 11.7 (Por. FGrHist II 260 F 43). 263. Naville (1951), p. 105 with n.1; Bagnall (1999), p. 198 n.3; Olivier (2006), pp. 120–123. 264. Naville (1951), p. 105, followed by Olivier (2006), p. 122.

Ptolemy III Euergetes

165

J. Olivier offered an interpretation combining elements from the two main traditions: he submitted that the Attic-weight coinage was bivalent and that it was struck for use by Ptolemaic troops stationed in or near Seleucid territory, so that it might have supported not only Euergetes’ invasion at the outset of the Third Syrian War but also the ongoing occupation of such sites as Seleucia in Pieria.265 This thesis is consistent with the intermittent production of Attic-weight coins of Berenice type throughout the reign of Ptolemy III and could subsume the conjecture of A. Cavagna that one of the late issues might be related to the reopening of the Syro-Phoenician mints in 225/4.266 Still, the overvaluation of gold in the Ptolemaic kingdom would have provided a disincentive for exchanging it for silver at the 1 : 10 ratio prevalent in the Seleucid kingdom, and indeed, as noted earlier, the pattern of finds confirms that the Attic-weight Berenikeion nomisma circulated almost entirely in Egypt. It thus seems unlikely that border exchange was the primary purpose of this coinage. It is intriguing that this enigmatic coinage was produced in a reign that saw the disappearance of masses of older Ptolemaic silver currency from the Egyptian economy. In theory, Attic-weight gold coins could have encouraged the surrender of older Ptolemaic silver coins if the latter were accepted in exchange as equivalent to Atticweight tetradrachms and decadrachms. The most common denominations in gold were pentadrachms, hemidrachms, and quarter drachms and while the gold pentadrachm could have exchanged for five silver decadrachms without allage, neither of the two smallest gold denominations was equivalent to a round number of tetradrachms. The hypothesis of Naville yields convenient exchanges but excludes any special advantage in encouraging the surrender of silver coinage. In either case it is difficult to suggest a role for the Atticweight silver denominations in attracting earlier silver coinage into the king’s treasury. Yet these were included in the final emissions and this implies that they were essential to the purpose of the Attic-weight coinage, whatever it may have been. These complications suggest an additional hypothesis concerning the Attic-weight precious metal coinage: the conditions for its exchange against bronze coinage are unclear, and perhaps such exchanges were impossible. An impediment to the purchase of precious metal coins with bronze coins would have allowed the king to make payments in precious metal as necessary, with the assurance that his precious metal coins would not escape into the general economy. A few scholars have proposed explanations for the revival of the Attic standard in Egypt that do not involve external circulation or special exchange functions. A. Gara speculated that the revival of the Attic standard might be the result of an unexpected availability of silver.267 Von Reden treated it as an expression of opulence and presumed that the Berenikeion nomisma was intended for “special payments in a particular context,” mentioning the deification of Ptolemy III in 243 as a possible occasion.268 To be sure, the emphasis on gold would be consistent with royal donatives, the range of denominations implies recipients of varying rank, and the preponderance of small denominations matches hierarchies in which the lower ranks were more populous than the upper ranks, 265. Olivier (2006), p. 121. 266. Cavagna (2010), pp. 113–114. 267. Gara (1984), pp. 116–117. 268. Von Reden (2007), p. 54 n.105. Von Reden also associated the new weight standard with the heavier bronze coinage, which in turn she associated with the new salt tax rate of 243/2.

166

Introduction

including the court hierarchy, the Egyptian clergy, and the military. As it was essential to reward the troops returning from the Third Syrian War, the largest emission of the Attic-weight coinage should almost certainly be identified as a military donative. The unusual denominations may have inhibited comparison with the monetary rewards paid by Ptolemy II to his retiring troops, which seem to have involved gold mnaieia as the basic unit. The multiple emissions and episodic production of the Berenikeion nomisma imply several other special occasions and payments over the years. The revival of the Attic standard probably also had a symbolic aspect, though perhaps not the significance posited by von Reden. The several unusual denominations and the innovative denominational structure seem designed to draw attention to the novelty of the coinage and to proclaim a rupture with past practice. The decimal basis of the system may have been inspired by demotic accounting, in which the deben was equal to five staters or twenty drachms. In that case, the Berenikeion nomisma would represent a reform not unlike the reform of the Egyptian civil calendar announced in the Canopus Decree, visionary but short-lived, and the ultimate failure of the monetary reform may have been preordained in the king’s own policies. Coinage of Ptolemy III in the provinces The provincial coinages of Ptolemy III can be related either to his wars and foreign policy, or to his domestic policy of conserving his stock of silver by promoting the use of bronze currency instead of silver within his kingdom. The first important military success of the Third Syrian War may be reflected in a rare coinage of gold minors, a one-eighth mnaieion with a portrait of Ptolemy III and tetartai of Queen Berenice that endue her with some attributes of Arsinoe Philadelphus. These coins share legend anomalies and some features of their reverse style with a royal bronze coinage securely attributed to the North Syrian coast and perhaps specifically to Seleucia in Pieria. It is conceivable that the gold issue was struck at Seleucia in Pieria on the occasion of its surrender in order to reward the cooperative Seleucians or the invading troops. The bronze coins in question refer to both Ptolemy III and Berenice II.269 The queen’s portrait appears on the obverse, encircled by the legend BERE N I KHS BASILISSHS. The reverse transposes the standard Ptolemaic legend to BASILEWS pToLEMAIoU, and the main type is a cornucopiae bound with a royal diadem, later replaced by a standing eagle and a corrected disposition of the legend. The Berenice/cornucopiae bronzes often display subsidiary symbols on the reverse—a club, an eagle, or both—either cut into the original die or applied to the coin by means of countermarks. Poole assigned this coinage to Cyprus, but Svoronos gave the Berenice/cornucopiae varieties with the club symbol to Tyre and those without the club to Sidon, while suggesting either Ioppe or Gaza as the mint of the Berenice/eagle bronzes.270 Recently both series were reported in impressive numbers from the excavations at Ras Ibn Hani on the Syrian coast, just north of Laodicea by the Sea.271 This site, recently identified as Heraclea by the Sea, was occupied by Ptolemaic troops at the beginning of the Third Syrian War and was subsequently protected by a Ptolemaic 269. On this coinage, see Cavagna (2006); Lorber (2007b). 270. Poole (1883), p. xlvi; Svoronos (1904–08), Vol. I, cols. σνςʹ–σνθʹ, Vol. IV, cols. 180–183. 271. Augé (2000), pp. 62–64.

Ptolemy III Euergetes

167

garrison.272 The distribution of finds indicates that these coins circulated mainly in the various Ptolemaic enclaves along the Syrian coast.273 The inescapable conclusion is that the Berenice bronzes represent a local mintage associated with the Ptolemaic occupation of coastal Syria, struck either at Heraclea itself or at Seleucia in Pieria.274 New Ptolemaic mints also opened in various cities of Asia Minor and Thrace, reflecting further territorial acquisitions during the Third Syrian War.275 The securely identified mint cities include Aenus and Ephesus, both striking tetradrachms of Ptolemaic type, and Ptolemais (Lebedus), striking civic bronze coins with Ptolemaic royal portraits. At least five additional tetradrachm mints operated in the newly acquired territories. Stylistic affinities suggest that at least two of them (Uncertain Mints 29 and 30) were located in Ionia in the neighborhood of Ptolemais (Lebedus) and Ephesus, the most likely mint cities being Teos, Colophon, Ptolemais itself, Magnesia, Miletus, and Samos. Two other series of tetradrachms have different characteristics and their mints must have been located at some distance from Ionia; one of these (Uncertain Mint 28) is tentatively ascribed to northwest Asia Minor, the other (Uncertain Mint 31) to Cilicia. Most of the new mints produced tetradrachms bearing the portrait of Ptolemy III, often with a lion skin tied around his neck. Euergetes was not portrayed on Egyptian precious metal coinage during his lifetime, and it seems likely that there was some protocol that authorized the issue of his portrait tetradrachms only in newly acquired territories—territories that were in theory doriktetos (spear-won), but which in fact must have surrendered to his fleet on negotiated terms. The legends of Euergetes’ provincial portrait tetradrachms are inconsistent and somewhat puzzling. Most mints employed the royal title. Aenus briefly accorded him the epithet Soter but usually referred to him simply as Ptolemy the King. Ephesus and a neighboring Ionian mint (Uncertain Mint 30) first referred to him as king but soon substituted Soter, probably after establishing one or more municipal savior cults in his honor. The case of Ephesus presents particular problems of interpretation because of a double series of tetradrachms, both of which apparently began shortly after the Ptolemaic conquest. The main series, with a bee mintmark above a monogram, probably represents a royal coinage issued under the authority of the Ptolemaic epistates of Ephesus, while the brief series bearing the initials of Ephesus may represent a civic coinage advertising the institution of a municipal cult to Ptolemy III as Soter. If this interpretation is correct, the municipal issues mark a key point of transition. They introduced the epithet Soter, which was subsequently advertised on the royal emissions of Ephesus. They also adopted the iconography of the earlier Ephesian tetradrachms, depicting Ptolemy III wearing a lion skin around his neck, but this imagery was abandoned by the subsequent royal emissions. The presumed issues of the Ptolemaic administration of Ephesus include gold mnaieia for Berenice II, identified as Ephesian by their bee mintmark.276 They feature a beautiful, 272. Gatier (2008); Rey-Coquais (1978). 273. Cavagna (2006), pp. 285–287; Lorber (2007b). 274. Weiser (1995), p. 56, nos. 82–83, suggesting attribution of the Berenice/eagle bronzes to Seleucia in Pieria; Cavagna (2006), pp. 285–287; Lorber (2007b). 275. Cities certainly known to have passed under Ptolemaic control at this time include Aenus, Teos, Lebedus, Colophon, Ephesus, Samos, and various cities of Cilicia (Selinus, Anemurium, Zephyrium, Aphrodisias, Corycus, Soli, and Mallus), see Bagnall (1976a), pp. 80, 114–115, 160, 169–175. 276. The interpretation of the bee as a mintmark was rejected by Caltabiano (1996), pp. 189–190 with n.47, who considered it a symbol appropriate to female sovereignty. Caltabiano tentatively associated these mnaieia with the marriage of Berenice II and Ptolemy III or with the refoundation of Euesperides as Berenice.

168

Introduction

idealized portrait that does not resemble Egyptian images of the queen, and a lateral transposition of the contents of her cornucopiae so that the grain ear appears on the left instead of the right. All of the portrait tetradrachms of Ptolemy III are extremely rare today, and this is also true for the portrait silver of Ptolemy II. Some of the series are brief, and some of the longer series made repeated use of a few obverse dies, an indication that the emissions themselves were small. These coinages were obviously not intended to meet the general currency needs of their mint cities, and they would have been inadequate to support a major military installation like that of Ephesus. In some cases the repetition of small emissions may imply a recurring obligation such as the provision of occasional sacrifices to the king or a periodic cult festival. Most examples of these tetradrachms have been found in Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine and must have been carried east by the Ptolemaic fleet. Ptolemais (Lebedus), perhaps one of the new tetradrachm mints, produced a quasimunicipal bronze coinage in two series, one portraying Ptolemy and the other Berenice, with reverse types honoring Athena Ilias and Triptolemus, respectively. These coins bear the full signatures of local magistrates or moneyers in addition to the abbreviated ethnic.277 Other civic coinages of this period that express loyalty to the Ptolemaic dynasty include a bronze issue of Melos whose reverse design echoes the particular emblem of Berenice II, the cornucopiae flanked by caps of the Dioscuri; a bronze issue of Abdera portraying Ptolemy III with a wing at his temple; a bronze issue of Maronea with cryptic royal portraits of Ptolemy and Berenice;278 a bronze coinage of Ptolemais (Larisa) in the Troad with the types Apollo/amphora accompanied by various Lagid symbols;279 and silver obols and bronzes from Caunus with an Egyptianized city-founder on the obverse and the cornucopiae of Berenice II on the reverse. Euergetes’ interests in Greece were supported by a special royal bronze coinage featuring the king’s portrait, laureate and wearing the aegis like a chlamys. These coins are found almost exclusively in the Peloponnesus, especially in Corinth where they apparently were accepted as part of the monetary system.280 Many scholars have assumed that this coinage was struck at Alexandria for distribution in Greece, and that it represents the annual subsidy paid to Aratus, strategos of the Achaean League, from 243 to 227.281 Citing the homogeneity of the coinage, T. Hackens favored a shorter period of issue and associated it with Cleomenes of Sparta, on Ptolemy’s payroll from c. 227 to 222.282 S. Psoma demonstrated a strong connection between bronze coinage and the food-allowance component of military pay and argued that the portrait bronzes of Ptolemy III do not represent a royal subsidy for Cleomenes but rather pay for Ptolemaic troops sent to aid him, possibly produced at a local mint in Greece.283 The victorious character of Ptolemy’s portrait nevertheless seems more suitable to the events of 243, to Aratus’ expulsion of the 277. Dieudonné (1902); Svoronos (1902), pp. 66–69 (wrongly identifying the portraits as those of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II); Robert (1946), pp. 516–519. 278. Jähne (1998), pp. 312–313. 279. This is a portion of the coinage given to Ptolemais (Lebedus) by Dieudonné (1902), later reattributed to Ptolemais in the Troad (Larisa) by Robert (1982), pp. 319–331. 280. Chryssanthaki (2005), pp. 168–169. 281. Plut. Arat. 41; Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou (1941); Hackens (1968), pp. 82–85; Price (1988), p. 70; Mørkholm (1991), p.107; Price (1988), p. 70, dating the coinage to the 220s; Noeske (2000), pp. 235–237; Chryssanthaki (2005), pp. 168–169. 282. Plut. Cleom. 19.8; Hackens (1968), pp. 84–86. 283. Psoma (2009), especially pp. 26‒27.

Ptolemy III Euergetes

169

Macedonian garrison from the Acrocorinth and Ptolemy’s own election as hegemon of the Achaean League.284 Moreover the denominational structure of the coinage aligns it with Egyptian Series 4, supporting a date in the first half of Euergetes’ reign.285 The concentration of finds at Corinth and the irregular style of the portraits suggest the operation of a Lagid mint in Corinth, striking money to pay the Ptolemaic garrison there.286 During the years of the Third Syrian War, the five Syro-Phoenician mints continued in the pattern begun in 261/0, striking annual issues of dated tetradrachms for Ptolemy Soter and dated mnaieia for Arsinoe Philadelphus, the latter apparently produced more regularly than in the preceding reign.287 In contrast to the significant output of the four northern mints, Gaza was barely active, managing to issue tetradrachms only in the second and sixth years of the reign. The production of precious metal coinage ceased in Syria and Phoenicia after 242/1. The closure of the Syro-Phoenician mints has usually been associated with the end of the Third Syrian War, but it is worth recalling that these mints remained active in the years between the end of the Second Syrian War and the outbreak of the Third. Their closure should probably be related to the termination of tetradrachm production in Egypt.288 In that case we can envision a policy of Ptolemy Euergetes pertaining to the silver currency of his entire kingdom, with the difference that he did not eliminate older tetradrachms from circulation in Syria and Phoenicia as he did in Egypt. The transition to a new system of finance based on bronze currency and payments in kind is reflected in part by a very intense production of bronze coinage at Tyre. Bronze coins marked only with the city’s club mintmark are far more common than the varieties issued under Ptolemy Philadelphus. The types, denominations, and metrology conform to those of Egyptian Series 5B, implying that these Tyrian issues should be dated to the latter part of Euergetes’ reign. A far smaller coinage, also conforming to Series 5B, bears a harpe, the probable mintmark of Ioppe. Surprisingly, there is no major Syro-Phoenician bronze coinage corresponding to Egyptian Series 4. We can only suppose that in the early years of the reign there was little need for new bronze currency, since Egyptian issues do not seem to have been imported. There remain two Syro-Phoenician bronze coinages that cannot be related securely either to the Third Syrian War or to the profound change in royal finance. Berytus was probably the mint of hemiobols with an Alexander obverse (exceptional for the hemiobol denomination), a trident symbol, and a reverse type borrowed from Egyptian Series 4A; the correspondence suggests that this coinage belongs to the early years of Ptolemy III. 284. Plut. Arat. 41; Price (1988), p. 70. 285. The portrait bronzes are differentiated from Series 4 by the leftward orientation of their cornucopia symbol. This might seem to argue for an association with Series 5, but there are many parallels on precious metal coins struck in the early years of the reign. 286. Psoma (2009), p. 26, suggested the possibility of a local mint without naming a specific city. The idea of a mint serving a Ptolemaic garrison at Corinth was mentioned by O. Picard in July 2010 (personal communication) but it may have been discussed for years by various numismatists without leaving a published record. 287. Sidon struck mnaieia in regnal years 4–6; Tyre in years 1–4; Ptolemais in years 2, 5, and 6; Ioppe in years 1, 3, 4, and 6. The mysterious connection between Tyre and Ioppe, first evidenced by their sharing of a mnaieion obverse die in 253/2, now manifested itself in stylistic details of Arsinoe’s portrait, including a schematic rectangular chignon and a ram’s horn whose tip turns downward instead of curling around her ear. This variant of the ram’s horn, prevalent on the late Arsinoe coinage of Alexandria, first appeared on mnaieia of Tyre c. 248 and remained standard until the final issue of 244/3; at Ioppe it has the character of an irruption, affecting only the mnaieia of 246 and 245/4, after which the curled horn returned, see Troxell (1983), pp. 51–53. 288. Suggested by Andrew Meadows (personal communication).

170

Introduction

A bronze coinage marked only with a double cornucopiae, doubtfully attributed to Sidon by Svoronos, had been introduced under Ptolemy II and continued in production until the rise of the Nabataean kingdom, when many examples were overstruck with the earliest Nabataean types.289 The “Sidonian” coinage is characterized by a variety of types, styles, and fabrics and surely warrants a closer analysis. The five Syro-Phoenician mints were reopened for a coordinated emission of precious metal coinage in regnal year 23 (225/4).290 This coinage, signed by a single overseer, comprised both gold and silver, for the most part undated; only the southernmost mints, Ioppe and Gaza, actually dated their tetradrachms on this occasion. The precise reason for this unusual late emission is unknown but it no doubt reflects military preparations following the death of Seleucus II. No precious metal coinage can be attributed to Cyprus during the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes, though Cypriote mints had produced tetradrachms in profusion under Ptolemy II. This dramatic contrast is surely linked to the changed policy concerning silver coinage in Egypt, and also to the closure of the precious metal mints in Syria and Phoenicia.291 It appears that in the provinces, as in Egypt, the Ptolemaic administration shifted to a new method of finance based on bronze coinage and payments in kind, although such a shift must have been problematic in Cyprus where the garrisons were manned by foreign mercenaries, including a group definitely attested at Old Paphos in 224/3.292 At any rate there is a corresponding increase in the production of bronze coinage on Cyprus.293 Finds in archaeological excavations at Paphos indicate that it was the mint of two series of the standard Zeus-Ammon/eagle type, marked with a lotus blossom in the reverse left field. The range of denominations suggests these coins were contemporary with Egyptian Series 4. A well-known Cypriote series with a locally significant reverse type depicting the cult statue of Aphrodite Paphia mirrors the tall, narrow Zeus-Ammon head and the small denominations of Egyptian Series 5B. This coinage too was struck at Paphos, the cult center of Aphrodite on Cyprus, and it was produced in great abundance. The opening of new royal bronze mints in southern Asia Minor can also be placed in the context of the transition to bronze-based finance. Publication of the Ptolemaic bronzes in the archaeological museums at Fethiye (near the site of ancient Telmessus) and Bodrum (ancient Halicarnassus) has made it possible to identify two royal bronze coinages that circulated in Ptolemaic Lycia and Caria.294 These coinages, with the standard ZeusAmmon/eagle types, bear either a trident or a tripod as a subsidiary symbol and were assigned by Svoronos to Berytus and Ptolemais (Ake), respectively. Possible mint cities in southern Asia Minor can be identified only tentatively, but Telmessus itself is a likely mint for one of the coinages, and nearby Caunus for the other. The attribution of a coinage to Telmessus is of particular interest, because it was the seat of Ptolemy of Telmessus, the eldest son of Arsinoe II by Lysimachus, who was allowed to rule Ptolemaic Lycia as a 289. Hoover and Barkay (2010), pp. 197‒199. 290. Mørkholm (1980). The regnal date appears on the tetradrachms of Ioppe and Gaza, which serve to date the entire issue even though the gold and silver issues of Sidon, Tyre, and Ptolemais (Ake) are undated. 291. Keen (2012), Chapter 2. 292. Bagnall (1976a), pp. 263‒265. 293. Keen (2012), Chapter 3. 294. Ashton (2002), pp. 8 and 10; Konuk (2004), pp. 173–174.

Ptolemy III Euergetes

171

quasi-independent dynast.295 Ptolemy of Telmessus had previously signed a civic bronze issue of Telmessus. Arguably he also signed the first issue of tripod bronzes, which betrays its local origin by its lack of central cavities. The subsequent tripod issues and all trident bronzes are consistent in fabric, style, and metrology with the products of Alexandria and their types match those of Series 5 at Tyre and Ioppe. The province of Cyrenaica remained separate and unique in its monetary policies. From this reign forward it issued bronze coinage only, retaining the weight standard of Ptolemy I and continuing the Ptolemy Soter/Libya types that would be its hallmark for the next eighty years. Of the four denominations struck under Magas, only the obol and dichalkon were retained, supplemented by the diobol and the chalkous. These are the first Soter/Libya bronzes to display the central cavities that were introduced to Egyptian bronze coins by the reform of Ptolemy II in the 260s (Series 3). Numismatic Iconography Ptolemy III was not portrayed on precious metal coinage struck at Alexandria during his lifetime but, following a pattern established by his father, his likeness does appear on tetradrachms minted in new possessions acquired during the Third Syrian War. In these provincial portraits his physiognomy varies considerably, from youthful and idealized (Figs. 3.1a‒b) to heavy jowled and thick necked, with emaciated variants at two mints, Ephesus (I) and Uncertain Mint 30 (Figs. 3.2a‒d). The virtually identical youthful portraits of Uncertain Mint 29 and Ephesus (I) suggest that Ptolemaic officials controlled the royal image, at least in the initial stages of the Ionian portrait coinages. At some mints the different portrait types can be arranged in a sequence that appears to reflect the aging process, but such an iconographic program cannot be generalized to all mints. Local styles and/or the abilities and tastes of different engravers also contributed to the diversity of Euergetes’ portraits. Earlier numismatists and iconographers failed to achieve consensus in identifying the subject of these provincial portraits.296 The principal iconographic markers that enable us to recognize Ptolemy III are the conventional position of the diadem on the top of the head, rather than below the hairline as in portraits of Ptolemy I, and a chevron-shaped eyebrow that rises to a point above the eye. In all but the most youthful portraits the hairline is distinctive, with a little forelock of hair that juts forward above the forehead, often met by a second small lock that sweeps upward, pincer-like—and even in the youthful portraits this second lock is visible beneath the bangs. The nose usually has a bony bump on the bridge and a fleshy tip.

295. Segrè (1938), 183, ll. 2–11; OGIS I, 55, ll. 2–9. 296. Most of these portraits were identified as likenesses of Ptolemy III by Poole (1883), pl. xlii, and Dieudonné (1902), pp. 57–58. Many were reassigned to Ptolemy II, but with reservations, by Svoronos (1902), pp. 61–69. Svoronos also suggested that the Ephesian coinage was struck under the Asian administration of Ptolemy the Son and that the portraits represented either Ptolemy I or Ptolemy II, depending on the presence or absence of the epithet Soter, see Svoronos (1904–08), Vol. I, cols. σιβʹ–σιγʹ, Vol. IV, cols. 135–138. Pfuhl (1930) identified most of the portraits as Ptolemy II. The pendulum swung back in favor of Ptolemy III in subsequent scholarship, most importantly Kyrieleis (1975), pp. 25–27, but with the problem that a portrait of Ptolemy II was included, making it impossible to define a coherent set of iconographic markers.

172

Introduction

Figure 3.1a. Portrait of Ptolemy III on a silver tetradrachm Figure 3.1b. Portrait of Ptolemy III on a silver tetradrachm of Uncertain Mint 29. Enlarged. of Ephesus. Enlarged.

Figure 3.2a. Portrait of Ptolemy III on a silver tetradrachm Figure 3.2b. Portrait of Ptolemy III on a silver tetradrachm of Uncertain Mint 31. Enlarged. of Uncertain Mint 28. Enlarged.

Figure 3.2c. Portrait of Ptolemy III on a silver tetradrachm Figure 3.2d. Portrait of Ptolemy III on a silver tetradrachm of Ephesus. Enlarged. of Ephesus. Enlarged.

On many of his portrait tetradrachms Ptolemy wears a lion skin around his neck, implying his assimilation to Heracles.297 The hero had already been represented as a Lagid ancestor in the preceding reign.298 In the Adulis inscription the third Ptolemy claimed 297. For two sculptures depicting Ptolemy III as Heracles, in Naples and Berlin, see Thomas (2001), p. 35. The second of these apparently relates to Heracles as patron god of the gymnasium, see n. 301 below. 298. Theoc. Id. 17.20–27. Cf. Kyrieleis (1975), p. 166, B1, pl. 9 for a statuette in London portraying a Ptolemaic king, perhaps Philadelphus, with the club of Heracles.

Ptolemy III Euergetes

173

descent from Heracles in the male line and from Dionysus in the female line.299 The Ptolemaic claim of descent from Heracles was an important aspect of Lagid foreign policy, widely known in the Greek world and favorably received.300 Beyond the claim of descent, the identification of Ptolemy III with Heracles characterized the king as a warder against evils and a victor over them; the epiklesis Soter (Savior) that appears on some of these portrait coins was also an epithet of Heracles. The combination of the lion skin and the epithet occurs at Ephesus and the nearby Uncertain Mint 30, making it almost certain that at least one of these cities established a cult to Ptolemy III as Heracles Soter.301 This was in fact a rare cultic title for Heracles, scarcely attested apart from the famous cult of Thasos, where it seems to have been connected with the god’s Phoenician origin.302 It therefore seems quite significant that there was a cult of Heracles Soter at the Ephesian colony of Kerkinitis on the Black Sea, and that one of the rare dedications to Heracles Soter was found at Miletus.303 It is also significant that the tetradrachm series of Ephesus and Uncertain Mint 30 both began by portraying Ptolemy with the lion skin around his neck and soon substituted the epiklesis Soter for the royal title; this parallel development suggests a role of the Ptolemaic administration in encouraging the institution of civic cults to the king. The situation was different in Egypt: Ptolemaic religious policy placed great emphasis on Dionysus, whereas Heracles was almost entirely neglected. Within Egypt proper there is little evidence for a Greek cult of Heracles outside of the gymnasia, despite his ancestral link to the ruling house.304 A different portrait of Ptolemy III appears on the series of bronze coins minted at Corinth (Fig. 3.3, below). The king is shown en buste, with the aegis covering his chest and a laurel crown replacing the diadem. The aegis was one of the divine attributes of Ptolemy Soter, symbolizing his succession from the deified Alexander and, ultimately, the divine favor and protection of Zeus or even assimilation to the king of the gods. But the aegis worn like a chlamys had special associations. It appears on a statue type known as Alexander Aigiochos (Fig. 3.4, below), which exists in various examples of exclusively 299. Adulis inscription (OGIS I, 54 = Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 26 = Austin (2006), no. 268), ll. 5‒6. On the separation of these two lines of descent, which were identical for the king’s sibling parents, and also identical almost all the way back to Dionysus, who was Heracles’ father-in-law, see Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 44 and 45. On the inscription itself, erected before 243 at the site of a Hellenistic settlement and perhaps marking the southernmost outpost of Ptolemy III, see Fauvelle-Aymar (2009), who proposed the hypothesis that Ptolemy sent out an elephant hunting expedition shortly after his return from Syria in order to replenish his elephant corps, and that this expedition founded or reinforced the establishment at Adulis. 300. Huttner (1997), pp. 124–129. 301. A cult of Ptolemy as Heracles Soter is probably to be distinguished from the association of the Ptolemaic king in the gymnasium cult of Hermes Enagonios and Heracles. A Samian victor list dated to the time of Ptolemy IV ends with praises to Ptolemy Hermes Heracles, see Girard (1881), pp. 481–483, no. 4; Preuner (1903), pp. 357–362. Preuner suggested that the list stemmed from a cult involving monthly offerings and contests in honor of the king, Hermes, and Heracles on the royal birthday. A similar cult is attested at Eresus on Lesbos, see Kawerau and Rehm (1914), p. 370 no. 152, ll. 77, 82–83; Robert (1925), pp. 423–426, especially 425. IG XII 2, 527, also dated by its editor to Philopator’s reign on palaeographic grounds, mentions Eresian games in honor of Ptolemy and Heracles (see IG XII Suppl., p. 33). 302. Van Berchem (1967), pp. 102–104 with n.2. Heracles, in his aspect as savior, was more commonly addressed as Alexikakos or Callinicus. 303. SEG XXXIX, 703; Stolba (1989); id., “Graffiti and dipinti,” p. 2, online at www.pontos.dk/publications/books/ panskoye-i-1-files/panskoye_1_228–244.pdf; I.Milet. 9.372 = SEG IV, 425. The Milesian inscription is undated and contains only the two words ΗΡΑΚΛΕΟΥΣ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ. 304. On the association of Ptolemaic ruling couples in gymnasium cults in Egypt and Cyprus, see Pfeiffer (2008b), 74–75 with nn.270–271 (with earlier literature). See Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 208, for identification of Heracles with various Egyptian gods.

174

Introduction

Figure 3.3. Portrait of Ptolemy III on a bronze coin of Corinth. Enlarged.

Egyptian provenance, and which must replicate the cult statue of Alexander as the principal god of the Alexandrian dynastic cult.305 The Ptolemaic garrison in Corinth, the initial recipient of these coins, must have included at least some troops from the Lagid kingdom who would have understood the allusion to their king as a new Alexander, justified by his recent victories in Syria, Babylonia, and Susiana which made him the latest conqueror of the Orient. This is the first, indeed only representation of a laureate Ptolemy on coinage and the laurel crown was probably a victor’s wreath, alluding not only to his successes in the Third Syrian War but equally to the liberation of Corinth in 243.306 The laurel wreath and the very prominent aegis also likened the king to Zeus.307 This imagery was suitable to Ptolemy as hegemon of the Achaean League, because Zeus was the league’s patron god, portrayed on the obverse of its second-century coinage. The aegis advertised Ptolemy’s role as protector of the Greeks and this, together with his assimilation to Alexander, had a special resonance at Corinth, where Alexander had formed the league dedicated to liberating the Greeks of Asia from Persian domination. The defense of Greek liberty was an important element of Lagid royal ideology and it had already been associated symbolically with the city of Corinth: in the Grand Procession of Ptolemy II a personification of Corinth appeared together with figures of Alexander and Ptolemy I, implying that the latter had inherited Alexander’s zeal for the liberty of the Greeks.308 On these Corinthian bronzes Euergetes is decidedly plump, and some of his tetradrachm portraits are also of a physkon type. For the tetradrachm portraits, the most plausible interpretation is that the bull neck represents the heavy musculature of Heracles. The plump portraits of the bronzes should also have an ideological explanation. There is an interpretive tradition that sees Ptolemaic fleshiness as an expression of the royal ideal of 305. Perdrizet (1913–14); Parlasca (2004), pp. 340–362. Both Perdrizet and Parlasca identified the Alexander Aigiochos type as the cult statue of Alexander ktistes, founder of Alexandria. But this association of the statue type with a city cult of Alexandria is very difficult to reconcile with the wide dispersion of the statues throughout Egypt—one was found at Minsha south of Sohag (ancient Ptolemais, which had its own founder cult honoring Ptolemy), another at Coptos, and two at Luxor (ancient Thebes). Kleiner (1950/51) was the first to identify the Alexander Aigiochos statue type as the cult image of Alexander in the state dynastic cult. Stewart (1993), pp. 243, 247, cited the testimony of Nikolaus Rhetor that the cult figure of Alexander ktistes was an equestrian statue and noted that the founder cult is attested only by a single papyrus of Hadrianic date. 306. Kyrieleis (1975), p. 27. The laurel wreath could also imply an identification with Heracles Invictus, see Laubscher (1992). 307. The coin type was associated with Zeus Aigiochos by Tondriau (1948c), p. 131, but without reference to the historical context. 308. Athen. 5.201d–e; Rice (1983), pp. 102–110.

Ptolemy III Euergetes

175

Figure 3.4. Alexander Aigiochos (Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore).

tryphe, the luxury and magnificence that symbolized the prosperity guaranteed by Lagid divine kingship.309 Ptolemy III is supposed to have borne the epithet Tryphon310 and the theme of tryphe is consistent with the cornucopiae that appears on the reverse of each denomination of his Corinthian coinage. A municipal bronze issue of Abdera features a portrait of Ptolemy III with a wing at his temple.311 Virtually all commentators have regarded the wing as an attribute of Hermes. Sculptures portraying Ptolemaic rulers with winged temples are fairly common; examples ranging from parts of cult statues to smaller decorative pieces and even furniture attachments have been found in Sparta, Delos, western Asia Minor, Cyprus, Cyrenaica, Egypt (including one piece from the Ptolemaic temple of Hermopolis Megale), and even Pompeii.312 The kings portrayed in this manner include each of the first five Ptolemies and their wings are sometimes accompanied by a lotus leaf or feather, indicating a syncretism involving an Egyptian god.313 Two of the Egyptian figures with wings and lotus leaf 309. Tondriau (1948f); Heinen (1978), pp. 188–190; Koenen (1993), p. 27. 310. Heinen (1978), p. 188. 311. The portrait was identified as Ptolemy II by Svoronos (1904–08), Vol. I, col. σιςʹ, Vol. IV, cols. 140–141, and as Ptolemy III by Imhoof-Blumer (1908), p. 252; Strack (1912), p. 16; and Kyrieleis (1975), p. 27. Dissents were registered by Picard (1987), p. 82; Ashton (1998), pp. 18–19; Jähne (1998), p. 302; and Chryssanthaki (2005), p. 163 with n.141. 312. Palagia (2006), pp. 210–212, on the Spartan head of Ptolemy III; Svenson (1995), pp. 58–59, on the Delian bust of Ptolemy I; Laubscher (1992) on a statuette in the Louvre associating Ptolemy III with iconography of both Hermes and Heracles; Thomas (2001), pp. 35–42. 313. On late Ptolemaic clay seal impressions from Nea Paphos, a wing at the temple is occasionally associated with an upright attribute before the diadem, which Kyrieleis (2015), p. 21, preferred to identify not as a lotus leaf, but as a

176

Introduction

Figure 3.5a–b. Ptolemaic king as victorious wrestler (Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut, Istanbul).

show the king as an athelete with aryballos and as a diskobolos, connecting him with the gymnasium cult of Hermes Enagonios.314 Kyrieleis analyzed a particular Egyptian statuary type depicting a pair of wrestlers, representing a Ptolemaic king, sometimes with winged temples and/or a lotus leaf on his head, effortlessly subduing a barbarian (Fig. 3.5a–b).315 Kyrieleis interpreted this type as assimilating the king to Hermes Enagonios, god of the palaestra, and to Horus, the invincible warrior king. In his view the pankratiast group replicates a victory monument erected by Ptolemy III after the Third Syrian War, perhaps in the main gymnasium of Alexandria or perhaps in all the gymnasia of Egypt.316 Given the weight of the evidence, it seems superfluous to suggest that the depiction of Ptolemy III at Abdera was influenced by the winged portraits of Seleucid kings from northwestern Asia Minor.317 During this reign Alexandria’s precious metal coinage was dominated by Berenice II. Her portraits on this coinage show a slightly plump woman with a large, often elongated feather, the symbol of Maat, implying the assimilation of the king to Hermes-Thot. For sealings with this combination of attributes, see P18‒P21. (I thank Stefan Pfeiffer for drawing this interpretation to my attention.) 314. Thomas (2001), pp. 38 (a terracotta figure in a Munich private collection), 40 (diskobolos in the Württembergischen Landesmuseum, Stuttgart). To the visual evidence we can also add inscriptions from Asia Minor and Egypt, see nn.301 and 304. 315. Kyrieleis (1973a). 316. Kyrieleis (1973a), p. 145; Lehmann (1988c), p. 296. 317. See Ashton (1998), p. 19; Thomas (2001), p. 35, suggesting the wings reflected the alliance between Ptolemy III and Antiochus Hierax against Seleucus II; Palagia (2006), p. 211.

Ptolemy III Euergetes

177

Figure 3.6. Portrait of Berenice II on a gold decadrachm of Attic weight. Enlarged.

Figure 3.7. Portrait of Berenice II on a bronze coin of Ptolemais (Lebedus). Enlarged.

eye, diademed, veiled, and wearing her hair in the melon coiffure, with a high chignon (Fig. 3.6). The large eye may be a sign of divinity and its elongation recalls an Egyptian artistic mannerism. The image overall is an icon with ideological significance, a goddess type embodying beauty and power; it is not a realistic likeness of a human woman that can be parsed for signs of aging.318 In Greek culture the veil symbolized modesty and virtue and was sometimes also associated with marriage, as in the Cyrenean relief depicting Berenice-Aphrodite covering her face with her veil.319 The cornucopiae on the reverse of these coins is a single horn bound with a royal diadem, whose contents include a prominent grain ear on the right. The cornucopiae itself is the visual equivalent of the queen’s cult epithet Euergetis.320 The veil, grain ear, and cornucopiae in conjunction imply her association or identification with Demeter.321 This association may be further attested by the bronzes of Ptolemais (Lebedus), which pair the queen’s veiled portrait with a seated male deity traditionally if not conclusively identified as Triptolemus (Fig. 3.7). Most remarkable are the seal impressions from the house of the strategoi of the Aetolian League at Callipolis, which depict Berenice wearing a crown of grain, unveiled and short 318. Herklotz (2000), p. 55; pace Caltabiano (1996), pp. 179–180. 319. Bacchielli (1995), pp. 242–245; Santucci (2000), p. 82; Cavagna (2006), pp. 276–277. 320. Herklotz (2000), p. 55. 321. Pantos (1987); Brunelle (1976), p. 33. Berenice was also identified with Demeter in her torchbearing aspect Thesmophoros through toponyms such as Berenikis Thesmophorou, see P.Enteux. 86; Tondriau (1948b), pp. 22–23, no. 8.

178

Introduction

Figure 3.8. Portrait of Berenice II on a gold mnaieon of Ephesus. Enlarged.

Figure 3.9. Portraits of Ptolemy III and Berenice II on bronze coins of Ptolemais (Lebedus). Enlarged.

haired.322 The short hair alludes to the court myth of the lock of Berenice, immortalized by the poet Callimachus.323 Berenice’s provincial coinages do not always follow the iconography of their Alexandrian models. The most famous examples are the mnaieia of Ephesus (Fig. 3.8, below), where the diademed and veiled head of the queen is slender and fine boned, the grain ear appears in the left side of the cornucopiae instead of the right, and the horn is adorned with two grape clusters hanging from its rim, an apparent retention from the double cornucopiae of Arsinoe Philadelphus. H. Troxell proposed that these discrepancies were the result of ignorance, that the dies were executed before any exemplar of Berenice’s official iconography had arrived at Ephesus.324 The highly idealized, youthful portrait of Ptolemy III on the earliest tetradrachms of Ephesus suggests another possibility, that of a deliberate iconographic program emphasizing the ideal beauty of the Lagid rulers. Such a program seems to be attested by the portrait bronzes of Ptolemais (Lebedus) (Fig. 3.9). The Ephesian program goes one step further, implying the divinity of the Lagid couple by assimilating the king to Heracles and the queen to Arsinoe Philadelphus. Other provincial mnaieia share the Ephesian reverse variant and further confuse the iconography of Berenice with that of Arsinoe Philadelphus by depicting the former with 322. Pantos (1987). 323. See nn.104 and 105 above. 324. Troxell (1983), p. 65.

Ptolemy III Euergetes

Figure 3.10. Portrait of Berenice II on a gold tetarte. Enlarged.

179

Figure 3.11. Portrait of Berenice II on a bronze coin of Heraclea by the Sea (or Seleucia in Pieria). Enlarged.

a ram’s horn curling about her ear. M. C. Caltabiano saw this as a deliberate attempt to identify Berenice with the deified Arsinoe.325 A third instance of iconographic confusion can be found in gold tetartai that endow Berenice with the stephane and lotus sceptre of Arsinoe (Fig. 3.10). These attributes not only identify the younger queen with her dynastic mother, but also with Aphrodite and Isis.326 The bronzes of Heraclea by the Sea (or Seleucia in Pieria) are easily the most anomalous coinage of Berenice II. These coins portray a diademed but unveiled queen with the melon coiffure and either a low or a high chignon (Fig. 3.11). The portrait with the low chignon is iconographically identical to the images of Berenice I on silver didrachms and bronzes issued in Cyrenaica by her son Magas—except that the North Syrian bronzes sometimes show sagging flesh under the chin of Berenice II, which makes her appear older. The resemblance between these portraits was noted by K. Regling and inspired Hazzard to identify the first Berenice on both the Cyrenaican and Syrian coinages.327 E. La Rocca argued that in royal iconography a diademed, unveiled portrait was the mark of a queen who exercised sovereign power legitimately and in her own right.328 Following La Rocca, Caltabiano gave the Cyrenaican coins to Berenice II as queen of Cyrenaica, perhaps before her marriage to Ptolemy III, and the Syrian bronzes to a supposed regency of the widowed Berenice for Ptolemy IV.329 The reverses of the North Syrian bronzes feature two different types, either a cornucopiae or an eagle on thunderbolt. The eagle does not belong to the iconography of Berenice and should be understood as the blazon of Ptolemy the King, whose name is inscribed on the reverse. The club that appears as a subsidiary symbol beside the cornucopiae probably symbolizes the identification of Ptolemy III with Heracles, as attested by his portrait tetradrachms from Ionia (although alternatively it could be a mintmark of Heraclea by the Sea330). The cornucopiae reverse type may also pertain to the king, in which case the absence of a grain ear among its contents would have 325. Caltabiano (1996), p. 190. 326. Thompson (1973), p. 61 with n.7 (the latter citing the reference in P. Magd. 2, 3 to a shrine of the Dea Syria and Aphrodite Berenice, perhaps referring to Berenice I rather than the second Berenice). 327. Regling, in Svoronos (1904–08), Vol. IV, col. 479; Hazzard (1995a), pp. 2–3. 328. La Rocca (1984), pp. 23–64. 329. Caltabiano (1996), pp. 183–189. A regency of Berenice for Ptolemy IV was first suggested by Wilcken, RE III/1, p. 285. Calabria and Finocchi (2003), p. 185, gave both coinages to Cyrenaica. 330. I owe this suggestion to P.-L Gatier (personal communication, February 2013).

180

Introduction

Figure 3.12. Piloi on an Arsinoe Philadelphus gold double mnaieon. Enlarged.

no relevance to the iconography and identity of the queen. The contents do not match those of the cornucopiae on the posthumous gold coins depicting the deified Ptolemy Euergetes, but they are similar or identical to the contents of the cornucopiae that appears as an adjunct symbol on the Alexandrian tetradrachms of his lifetime. Noting the chthonic aspect of Demeter and the strong link between her veil and her mourning for Persephone, Cavagna proposed a tentative explanation for the absence of the veil and the grain ear from the Berenice/Ptolemy bronzes, namely that these elements were purposely omitted to eliminate funerary associations, which had become especially strong for the veil because of the abundant coinage of Arsinoe Philadelphus.331 Cavagna reconciled this interpretation with the presence of the veil and grain ear on the precious metal coinage of Berenice by dating the bronzes to the time of the Third Syrian War and the precious metal coinage later. According to the chronologies proposed here, the two coinages were probably contemporary, at least in part. The iconographic significance of veiled and unveiled busts may not yet be properly understood. Berenice was usually shown unveiled in her portraits in the round and on Ptolemaic cult oinochoai.332 Symbols of the Dioscuri—either their laureate piloi, or a pair of stars—flank the cornucopiae on the gold double mnaieion of Arsinoe Philadelphus, the silver 15-drachm piece of Berenice, and much of Berenice’s Attic-weight coinage (Figs. 3.6, 3.12‒3.13). Hazzard suggested that the piloi on the double mnaieion might allude to the court myth of the apotheosis of Arsinoe: on the eve of her death her spirit was conducted to heaven by the Dioscuri.333 He offered a similar interpretation for the piloi on the coinage of Berenice, which he believed was issued in honor of Berenice Syra, the dead sister of Ptolemy III.334 It seems highly implausible that funerary imagery appropriate for Arsinoe Philadelphus would have been reused for her daughter; the court poets devised different tales of apotheosis for Berenice I, Arsinoe, and Berenice II and we should expect a similar differentiation in imagery for Berenice Syra. Olivier saw in the stars and piloi a possible reference to the ancestors of Berenice Syra but he did not develop the idea in detail.335 If the queen in question is really Berenice II, as all other scholars have assumed, the symbols of the Dioscuri will require a different explanation. 331. Cavagna (2006), pp. 277–278, 283–284. 332. Thompson (1973), pp. 84–87 and nos. 29 and 75; pp. 15, 75, 119. 333. Hazzard (1995b), pp. 423–424. 334. Hazzard (1995a), p. 5. 335. Olivier (2006), p. 51.

Ptolemy III Euergetes

181

Figure 3.13. Piloi on a Berenice 15-drachm piece. Enlarged.

Caltabiano suggested that the purpose of the paired stars and piloi was to advertise a dyarchic and dynastic ideology.336 The cult of the Dioscuri was probably introduced to Alexandria by Arsinoe II or at least encouraged by her, and the lighthouse of Alexandria was dedicated to the savior gods, surely including the Dioscuri among others.337 Two Greek dedications from the Fayum, from the reigns of Philadelphus and Euergetes respectively, reveal that first Ptolemy II and then Ptolemy III and Berenice II were synnaoi with the Dioscuri, but temple sharing was almost unknown among Greek deities in Egypt and these inscriptions probably allude to the Egyptian equivalent of the Dioscuri, the Two Brothers, a pair of protective crocodile gods.338 The Dioscuri often formed a triad with female divinities, especially Isis, and the presence of their symbols on coins of both Arsinoe Philadelphus and Berenice II may imply the identification of both queens with Isis.339 We can also propose a more specific interpretation. Because the Dioscuri were savior gods who rescued those in danger, both seafarers and men in battle, the association of their symbols with those of the queens most likely evokes the safe return of the king from his Syrian campaign and credits it to the protection of the goddess Arsinoe-Aphrodite, already worshipped as a protectress of men at sea, and to the prayers offered by Berenice to all the gods but especially to Arsinoe-Aphrodite, in whose temple she dedicated a lock of her hair. The two savior queens are further linked by an iconographic transposition: on the double mnaieion of Arsinoe Philadelphus the diadem tied around the double cornucopiae hangs straight, as is usual on the Attic-weight coins of Berenice, while on the 15-drachm coin of Berenice the cornucopiae is bound with a sinuous diadem borrowed from the coinage of Arsinoe (Figs. 3.12–3.13).340 This deliberate transposition of iconographic elements makes it likely that the confusion of the two queens’ iconography on several provincial coinages was also intentional and significant. The second aspect of the Dioscuri, as patrons of the military and battlefield saviors, suggests that Berenice’s role as divine protectress of her husband was not limited to his safe 336. Caltabiano (1996), p. 179 n.8. 337. Luc. Hist. 62; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 18–19, 207. 338. Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 207, and Vol. IIa, p. 352, n.144; Quaegebeur (1983), pp. 313–316; Pfeiffer (2008b), pp. 57–58. 339. Chapouthier (1935), pp. 248–262; cf. Thompson (1973), pp. 66–67; Brunelle (1976), p. 33. 340. It is very interesting to note that Ptolemaic cult oinochoai faithfully reflect the disposition of the diadem ends as seen on the respective coinages of the two queens, see Thompson (1973), p. 34.

182

Introduction

Figure 3.14. Cult statue of Aphrodite on a Cypriote bronze coin of Ptolemy III. Enlarged.

homecoming, but also extended to his military successes. The advertisement of Berenice on a highly unusual bronze coinage struck in northern Syria is consistent with the thesis that she was patroness of warfare against the “Asiatics” and of the territories triumphantly seized from them. Further support for the thesis may come from the famous mosaic of Sophilos, from Thmuis in the Egyptian Delta, which portrays a female bust usually identified as Berenice, posed before a round shield, holding a stylis (naval standard), crowned with a warship’s prow and ram, and wearing a military chlamys fastened with a fibula in the shape of an anchor.341 The anchor, besides being a naval symbol, was a wellknown emblem of the Seleucid kingdom. The royal ideology that identified both Arsinoe Philadelphus and Berenice II with Isis and her Greek equivalent Aphrodite can explain the revival of allusions to Aphrodite on the bronze coinage of her sacred island, Cyprus. On some coins she is symbolized by a lotus blossom, a flower also associated with Isis (among many other deities both male and female). The lotus blossom became a prevalent feature of Cypriote bronze coins, serving as a mintmark through the reign of Ptolemy VIII. A famous series of Cypriote bronzes, issued under Ptolemy III, depicts the goddess’ cult statue: she stands facing on a low pedestal, wearing a polos and chiton, her right hand holding a lotus blossom to her breast, her left hand lifting a fold of her garment away from her waist while holding a pair of myrtle branches, or perhaps a pair of poppies (Fig. 3.14).342

341. Daszewski (1985), no. 38, pp. 142–158, and a copy, also from Thmuis, no. 39, pp. 158‒160; Koenen (1993), p. 27 (suggesting inter alia a similarity between the rostral crown and the elaborate crowns of Egyptian deities); Dunbabin (1999), pp. 24–26; Pfrommer (2003), pp. 89–90. The subject of the mosaic is considered a personification of Alexandria by other authors. For the recent suggestion that the female bust represents Arsinoe II, see Blouin (2013), pp. 1951–1960. 342. Lichocka (1986).

PTOLEMY IV PHILOPATOR 222–204 B.C.

I. History of the Reign Genealogy and Dynastic Chronology Ptolemy IV, son of Ptolemy Euergetes and Berenice of Cyrene, mounted the throne of Egypt as a young man of approximately twenty years, probably between 18 October and 31 December 222.1 In Egyptian contexts he was known as King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Juaw-Netcheru-Menkhu Setep(-en)-Ptah User-Ka-Ra Sekhem-Ankh-Amun Son of Ra, Ptulmis Ankh Djet Meri-Ist2 The reign of Ptolemy IV began with a purge of his family. An uncle, Lysimachus, was done away with; Ptolemy’s younger brother Magas, perhaps their mother’s favorite, was stabbed in his bath; and the queen-mother Berenice was poisoned.3 The assassinations were instigated by the chief minister Sosibius, presumably to ensure his own influence, and other courtiers were privy to the plot; Theodotus, later governor of Syria and Phoenicia, committed the murder of Magas.4 Ptolemy married his sister Arsinoe (III) in or before autumn 220.5 A son was born to them on 9 October 210 and was associated in his father’s rule before 4 February 209.6 Ancient authors report that Arsinoe was repudiated or even put to death by her husband near the end of his life.7 However, these sources are not especially trustworthy and the later honors to Arsinoe in the dynastic cult argue against a public rupture.8 1. Samuel (1962), pp. 106–108. Koenen (1993), p. 77, preferred 29 December 222–15 January 221. 2. Raphia decree, hieroglyphic, from the Pithom stela, based on the transliteration and translation of Huß (2001), pp. 384–385. 3. Polyb. 5.36.1, 15.25.1–2; Just. 30.1.2; Ps.-Plu. De prou. Alex. 13; Zenob. 4.92; Huß (1976b), pp. 33–35, 244–245. 4. Polyb. 15.25. 1–2; Ps.-Plu. De prou. Alex. 13; Walbank (1957), pp. 564, 570. Huß (2001), pp. 382–383, inferred that there was a faction at court favoring the succession of Magas, headed by Berenice herself, and that Sosibius intervened to assure the succession of Ptolemy. 5. The marriage is first attested in P.dem. Vatic. 2037B (17 October–15 November 220), see Lanciers (1988). 6. Huß (2001), p. 450 with nn.52–53. The first mention of the coregency is in P.dem. BM 10829. Just. 31.1.2 and Val. Max. 6.6.1 both state that Philopator placed his infant son under the protection of the Roman people, but this was probably later Roman propaganda, see, e.g., Huß (1976b), pp. 168–170. 7. Just. 30.1.7; John of Antioch, Mariev (2008), pp. 82–85, fr. 76 = FGrHist IV 558 F 54. 8. Huß (2001), p. 465 with nn. 10–11. Hölbl (2001), p. 134, noted that Arsinoe had been “supplanted” by Agathoclea but also suggested that Philopator had wished her to rule as regent for their son. Walbank (1936), p. 29, cited OGIS I, 89, an inscription on behalf of Ptolemy IV and his son which omitted the queen, to support the historicity of a separation or divorce.

183

184

Introduction

Ptolemy IV died prematurely at less than forty years of age, in spring or summer of 204.9 His death was concealed for a time to allow for the assassination of the queen.10 External Possessions and Foreign Relations Our impression of Ptolemy IV is inevitably colored by a literary conceit of Polybius, an extended comparison of his deficiencies with the virtues of his bellicose contemporary Antiochus III.11 Ptolemy IV is portrayed as a dissolute alcoholic who neglected his kingly duties, especially foreign affairs, and could not command the loyalty of honorable men.12 The conduct of the government was left to his ministers, Sosibius, an able but appalling politician who had previously served Ptolemy Euergetes, and Agathocles of Samos, probably a boyhood friend of the king.13 Agathocles’ sister Agathoclea became Ptolemy’s mistress and together the two siblings encouraged the royal dissipations.14 This disastrous reign, according to Polybius, began the decline of the Ptolemaic kingdom. The peace treaty with the Seleucid kingdom had lapsed with the deaths of Seleucus II and Ptolemy III and for the first time it was the Seleucid king who initiated hostilities. Seleucus III reportedly mustered troops for an attack on Ptolemy IV, but was diverted to Asia Minor where he met his death at the hands of disloyal troops.15 Incited by a forged letter that accused Ptolemy of fomenting revolt in Seleucid Asia Minor, the young Antiochus III in 221 invaded Ptolemaic Syria via the Beqaa Valley.16 His advance was blocked by Theodotus of Aetolia, military governor of the province (and the murderer of Ptolemy’s brother Magas).17 Antiochus then turned east to suppress the revolt of Molon in Babylonia, his generals having failed at the task.18 The following year the feared revolt in Asia Minor became a reality when Antiochus’ kinsman Achaeus declared himself king.19 Ptolemy openly took sides, releasing the usurper’s father Andromachus, who had been a hostage at Alexandria.20 Around this same time Ptolemy was threatened by another Alexandrian prisoner, his father’s old ally Cleomenes III of Sparta. Sosibius had confided in Cleomenes when plotting to murder Magas and Berenice and subsequently came to fear him.21 Ptolemy denied Cleomenes’ repeated requests to return to Greece and eventually, at Sosibius’ instigation, placed him under house arrest for suspected sedition.22 When the king made 9. Hölbl (2001), p. 133, with n. 38 citing UPZ I 112 (8 September 204) as the first document dated by Ptolemy V. Huß (2001), p. 470, placed Philopator’s death between 22 July and 13 October, with bibliography in nn.1–2. Samuel (1962), pp. 113, 139, reckoned the date of Philopator’s death as 28 November 205. 10. Polyb. 15.25; Just. 30.2.6. According to John of Antioch (Mariev (2008), pp. 82–85, fr. 76 = FGrHist 558 F54), Arsinoe was murdered in a manner that destroyed part of the royal palace (by implication, a fire). 11. On the influence of Polybius, see Préaux (1965). 12. Polyb. 5.34, 5.62.7–8, 14.12.3; Just. 30.1.1–3. 13. Polyb. 5.35.7, 5.63.1–4; Just. 30.2.5. On the earlier career of Sosibius, see Walbank (1957), p. 567; Hölbl (2001), pp. 127–128; Huß (2001), pp. 458–459. 14. Polyb. 14.11.5; Just. 30.1.7–30.2.5. On the lines of influence in the royal court, see Mooren (1985). 15. Por. FGrHist 260 F44. 16. Polyb. 5.42.5–8, 5.45.7–5.46.2. On the choice of route, see Grainger (1991), p. 90. 17. Polyb. 5.46.3–5; Huß (1976b), pp. 31–33. Bagnall (1976a), pp. 15‒16, expressed doubt whether Theodotus was really military governor of Syria and Phoenicia. 18. Polyb. 5.46.5, 5.48.17. 19. Polyb. 4.48.11–13. 20. Polyb. 4.51. 21. Polyb. 5.36.1–7. 22. Polyb. 5.35, 5.36.7–5.38. On Ptolemy’s new alliance with Philip V of Macedon, see Huß (2001), pp. 416–417.

Ptolemy IV Philopator

185

a state visit to Canopus, Cleomenes escaped with his followers and called for a popular uprising, but the lack of response left him no alternative but to commit suicide.23 Ptolemy had Cleomenes’ body sewn into a skin and publicly displayed in Alexandria.24 In the meantime Antiochus III had defeated Molon.25 For the time being he chose to ignore the revolt of Achaeus and instead launched the Fourth Syrian War against Ptolemy.26 In spring 219, he recovered the port city of Seleucia in Pieria, which had been captured by Ptolemy III at the beginning of the Third Syrian War.27 Theodotus, despite his successful defense of his province in 221, had fallen out of favor at the court and had been recalled to Alexandria.28 Fearing for his life, he wrote to the Seleucid king and offered his service and the garrisons of Ptolemais and Tyre.29 The newly appointed Ptolemaic strategos of Syria and Phoenicia arrived in the province and besieged the two cities until Antiochus came to the rescue, leaving many Ptolemaic garrisons in his rear.30 Ptolemy meanwhile hastened to Memphis and Pelusium to organize the defense of these key strategic locations.31 When Antiochus received news of Ptolemy’s defensive measures at Pelusium he abandoned any thought of invading Egypt.32 Over the winter of 219/18 the Egyptian government engaged in elaborate negotiations while the Lagid army was secretly enlarged and reorganized.33 Ptolemy moved his capital to Memphis so that foreign envoys would not observe the military preparations taking place at Alexandria.34 Antiochus resumed his aggression in spring 218, securing northern Phoenicia, then systematically occupying Galilee and the area around Lake Gennesaret (the future Decapolis), while Sidon, the southern Beqaa Valley, and Damascus remained Ptolemaic.35 In Egypt military preparations continued in the Delta under the king’s personal supervision; he is known to have visited Bubastis in 218 and perhaps also Phacous.36 In June 217, after offering a dedication to Euodia, a personification of auspicious travel,37 Ptolemy IV marched out of Egypt to confront Antiochus, with the queen in train.38 When the two armies were encamped near Raphia, Theodotus stole into the Ptolemaic camp and entered the royal tent, intending to assassinate Ptolemy, but the attempt failed because the king was sleeping elsewhere.39 The decisive battle was fought at Raphia on 22 June 217.40 The Ptolemaic army included, for the first time, a phalanx of native Egyptian troops, trained 23. Polyb. 5.39. 24. Fraser (1972), vol. I, p. 523. 25. Polyb. 5.49–5.55. 26. Polyb. 5.57–5.58.2. 27. Polyb. 5.58.3–5.61.2; Huß (1976b), pp. 41–43. 28. Polyb. 5.40.1–2, 5.61.4. 29. Polyb. 5.40.3, 5.61.3–6. 30. Polyb 5.61.8‒5.62.3. On Antiochus’ strategy in this situation, see Grainger (1991), pp. 92‒93. 31. Polyb. 5.62.4, with Thompson (2012), p. 139; P.Frankf. 7, col. 1, ll. 10–12. 32. Polyb. 5.62.4‒8. 33. Polyb. 5.63.1–5.65.11, 5.67; Huß (1976b), pp. 45–55 passim. Fischer-Bovet and Clarysse (2012a) tested Polybius’ account of the military reforms against papyrological documents and detected nothing but changes in the eponymous officers of the regiments, spread over several years. 34. Polyb. 5.63.7–10, 5.66.8–9; Thompson (2012), p. 139. 35. Polyb. 5.68–5.71. 36. P.Frankf. 7, col. 1, ll. 10–12; SB 10867; Thiers (2009b), p. 31. 37. OGIS I, 77 (= SB V 8865); Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 241; Vol. IIa, p. 392 n.412; Bernand (2001), pp. 64–65, no. 23. 38. Polyb. 5.79–5.80.3, 5.83.3; III Macc. 1.1. 39. Polyb. 5.81; III Macc. 1.2–3. 40. Polyb. 5.82–5.86.6; Walbank (1957), pp. 589–592; Huß (1976b), pp. 55–68; Galili (1976–77).

186

Introduction

to fight in the Macedonian manner and personally commanded by Sosibius.41 The panic of Ptolemy’s Ethiopian elephants nearly cost him the battle.42 Arsinoe, in a state of high distress, beseeched the troops to defend themselves and their families and promised two gold minae per man if they won the battle.43 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.44 Antiochus, now vulnerable to an attack in his rear by Ptolemy’s ally Achaeus, chose to withdraw in good order and Ptolemy did not pursue him.45 Later in the summer, while Sosibius negotiated with Antiochus at Antioch, Ptolemy made a triumphal tour of his reconquered province of Syria and Phoenicia, making thank offerings, restoring temples, and arranging for the return of sacred images of the Egyptian gods to their original homes.46 According to the Raphia Decree he also invaded Seleucid territory and held it for a short time; his aim was perhaps the recovery of Seleucia in Pieria or an opportunity for plunder that had been denied him in a defensive war.47 Ptolemy returned to Egypt after four months, on the Festival of the Birth of Horus, and celebrated his triumph at Memphis in November 217 after distributing a donative of 300,000 gold pieces to the army.48 The peace treaty ending the Fourth Syrian War presumably bound the two kings for their lifetimes, although it did not prevent one further unfriendly intervention. In 214, when Antiochus III besieged Achaeus at Sardes, Sosibius provided funds for a rescue of his ally, but his Cretan agent instead betrayed Achaeus to Antiochus.49 The victory at Raphia was not an isolated success in a reign of incompetence and decline. Ptolemy Philopator presided over important innovations in the administration of his empire. Early in his reign the administration of Ptolemaic Cyprus was reformed decisively: the new office of strategos of the island, with plenary military and civil authority, unified a formerly decentralized administration based on city garrisons.50 The first strategos of Cyprus, Pelops, son of Pelops, moved the administrative center from Salamis to Nea Paphos, whose location at the west end of the island allowed for easier communication with Alexandria.51 The first evidence for Greek civic institutions at Nea Paphos dates 41. Polyb. 5.65.5, 5.65.8–9, 5.82.6, 5.85.9. On the military role of Egyptians under earlier kings, see Rodriguez (2004); Fischer-Bovet (2014), 37–42, 161–164. 42. Polyb. 5.84–5.85.6. But see now Brandt and Roca (2014), arguing that the Ptolemaic elephants were not smaller than the Indian elephants of the Seleucid army, and that Polybius was influenced by the popular belief that all animal species from India were larger than their counterparts elsewhere. 43. III Macc. 1.4. 44. Polyb. 5.85.7–5.86.6; III Macc. 1.5; Huß (1976b), pp. 55–68. 45. Polyb. 5.86.3–4, 5.86.8, 5.87.2; Huß (1976b), pp. 68–69; Galili (1976–77), p. 61. 46. III Macc. 1.6–7; Raphia Decree, demotic ll. 14–23; Thissen (1966), pp. 15–19, 56–60; Simpson (1996), pp. 244–251; Huß (1976b), pp. 69–74. 47. Raphia Decree, demotic ll. 23–25; Thissen (1966), pp. 19, 60–63; Simpson (1996), pp. 248–251; cf. Polyb. 5.87.1. See also Huß (1976b), pp. 74–77; Winnicki (2001a), pp. 135–140, interpreting this passage as reporting a betrayal of the troops sent to secure the territories recovered from Antiochus; Fischer-Bovet (2014), pp. 88–89. The Khan el-Abde hoard (IGCH 1597), found near the site of ancient Orthosia, may be related to these operations. 48. Raphia Decree, demotic ll. 26–30; Greek A (SEG VIII, 467), ll. 1–22; Thissen (1966), pp. 19–21, 63–65; Simpson (1996), pp. 250–253; Huß (1976b), pp. 77–82. The interpretation of the word chryson in this text has been debated in scholarship and is treated below in the section on the Raphia donative. 49. Polyb. 8.15–21; Huß (1976b), pp. 90–92. 50. Bagnall (1976a), pp. 45‒57, 252‒253. 51. Młynarczyk (1990), pp. 121‒122. Pelops, son of Pelops, dedicated statues to his king at three stages of his rule. The first statue base (OGIS I, 75), found at Salamis, is inscribed for Ptolemy, son of Ptolemy, and Berenice, the Theoi Euergetai, and apparently dates before the king’s marriage. The absence of the epithet Philopator has been taken to date

Ptolemy IV Philopator

187

from this period.52 Control links among the coinages of Alexandria, Cyprus, Tyre, and Cyrenaica, detailed below in the section on coinage, attest an administrative initiative to coordinate coin production in the four core regions of the Ptolemaic kingdom. Other events show that the Lagid kingdom under Philopator maintained its role as a major and benevolent world power. When Philip V was organizing the Social War against the Aetolians (220–217), he sent envoys to Ptolemy to ensure his neutrality and this marked the beginning of a new friendship between the Antigonid and Lagid kingdoms.53 In 217, Ptolemy, acting in concert with his allies Rhodes and Byzantium, helped to arbitrate the end of the Social War, and he attempted to perform the same service in connection with the First Macedonian War (215–205) in 209, 208, and 207.54 The last king of Syracuse, Hieronymus (215–214), sent his uncle Zoippus on a mission to Alexandria, hoping to draw Ptolemy into an alliance with Carthage and against Rome, but the assassination of Hieronymus ended the awkward situation.55 About 214–213, amid the difficulties of the Second Punic War, Rome sent an embassy to Alexandria to renew her treaty of friendship with the Ptolemies and to obtain a supply of grain.56 An emergency issue of Roman gold coins with an eagle on thunderbolt reverse almost certainly reflects a significant and otherwise unattested gift of gold from Ptolemy to his Roman allies.57 Ptolemy Philopator resumed the policy, apparently neglected by his father, of displaying his piety in the holy sites of Greece. As patron of the Muses in Alexandria he took a particular interest in their cults in Boeotia.58 Before 220 Ptolemy and his queen sent a gift of 25,000 drachms for the purchase of a plot of land whose revenues would support the reorganized festival of the Muses at Thespiae.59 The new Mouseia were devoted to musical and poetic contests exclusively and became stephanites, meaning that only crowns were awarded as prizes, as at the most prestigious panhellenic games.60 The king and queen together dedicated a silver phiale weighing a Ptolemaic mina in the Amphiareion of Oropus.61 Their minister Sosibius was honored by decrees of proxenia at Tanagra and Orchomenus, as well as at Oropus, in gratitude for his role in supporting the pro-Boeotian policies of the Ptolemaic court.62 Ptolemy also maintained a profile in the panhellenic the dedication before 217, but this is probably not warranted; 220, the year of the marriage, may be the true terminus ante quem. The dedication records no title for Pelops, with the probable implication that he was present in Salamis before his appointment as strategos. The second statue base (OGIS I, 84) was found at Nea Paphos and is inscribed for King Ptolemy and his sister Queen Arsinoe, the Theoi Philopatores. The third, found at Old Paphos, is inscribed for King Ptolemy and his sister Queen Arsinoe, the Theoi Philopatores, and their son, see Mitford (1960). 52. Bagnall (1976a), p. 61. 53. Polyb. 4.30.8; Bringmann and von Steuben (1995), p. 415, no. *338; Huß (2001), pp. 416–417. 54. Polyb. 5.100.9, 11.4.1; Liv. 27.30.4–12, 28.7.13; Huß (1976b), pp. 110–113. 55. Polyb. 7.2.2; Liv. 24.26; Huß (1976b), pp. 173–175. 56. Liv. 27.4.10; Polyb. 9.11a; Huß (1976b), pp. 166–167 (where the embassy is dated 210); for the higher date, see Meadows (1998), pp. 130–134. 57. Meadows (1998). For a skeptical response, see Hollstein (2008), pp. 46‒47. 58. Huß (1976b), pp. 120–125. 59. Jamot (1895), pp. 379–385; Feyel (1942), pp. 101, 105; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 313; Vol. IIa, p. 467 n.55; Bringmann and von Steuben (1995), pp. 134–136, no. 85 (there attributed to Ptolemy III); Bringmann (2000), p. 54, no. 85; Kotsidu (2000), p. 442, no. *317; Noeske (2000), pp. 243–244. Although the benefaction has been dated to other Ptolemaic reigns by various scholars, Huß (2001), pp. 413–414, argued that only under Ptolemy IV were there such close relations between Boeotia and Alexandria. 60. Jamot (1895), pp. 312‒322, 326‒327; Feyel (1942), pp. 89, no. 1, 90, no. 2. 61. IG VII, 3498; Huß (1976b), p. 121; Bringmann and von Steuben (1995), p. 127, no. 79; Bringmann (2000), p. 54, no. 79; Schmidt-Dounas (2004), p. 99. 62. OGIS I, 80 = IG VII, 507; IG VII, 3166; OGIS I, 81 = IG VII, 298; Huß (1976b), p. 254.

188

Introduction

games of Greece, even if he did not enjoy the conspicuous success of his predecessors.63 His only known victory was in a chariot race at the Basileia of the Boeotian city Lebadeia but several of his protégés were Olympic victors.64 Ptolemy IV inherited substantial overseas possessions in Thrace, the Hellespont, Aeolis, Ionia, Caria, and southern Asia Minor.65 The Aegean islands of Samothrace, Lesbos, Chios, Calymna, and Cos remained allied with him, while Samos and Thera were under direct Ptolemaic administration.66 Most of this empire survived to be dismantled during the reign of his son, but a few possessions fell away during the Fourth Syrian War. In western Asia Minor, a number of Aeolian and north Ionian cities—Cyme, Temnus, Aegae, Smyrna, Phocaea, Colophon, and Teos—passed under the temporary control of Achaeus before surrendering to Attalus I in 218.67 On Crete, important to the Hellenistic kings as a source of mercenaries, many cities rejected the hegemony of Cnossus and formed a symmachy under the auspices of Philip V (c. 217).68 Ptolemy retained his protectorate over Itanus and, in an apparent attempt to extend his influence on the island, funded the construction of defensive walls for the city of Gortyna.69 The renaming of Rhithymna as Arsinoe and the presence of many Ptolemaic bronzes around the town probably indicate that he established a second garrison and naval base on Crete.70 Lyttus, destroyed by Cnossus in 219, was also refounded under the name Arsinoe and provided a fourth center of Lagid influence in eastern Crete.71 The Chora and the Court Immigration from Greece into Egypt slowed or stopped during Philopator’s reign, if not before.72 This, in combination with the dominance of cavalry in the cleruchic system, was a reason for the use of Egyptian infantry in the Fourth Syrian War.73 The government began to reward the loyalty of crucial segments of the Egyptian population by extending the cleruchic system to paramilitary groups involved in law enforcement. Under Ptolemy IV a desert patrolman (chersehippos) received a grant of 30 arouras in Kerkeosiris; subsequently other public safety officers, who were normally Egyptian, received land allotments ranging from 10 to 24 arouras, smaller than the kleroi of the Greek immigrants.74 They were, 63. Peremans (1975), p. 398 with n 6. 64. Vollgraff (1901), pp. 365‒375, no. 19, l. 19; Huß (1976b), pp. 121–125, 127. For another view, Holleaux (1906). 65. Polyb. 5.34.7–9; Huß (1976b), pp. 188–213; id. (2001), pp. 427–434. 66. Lesbos: OGIS I, 78 = IG XII 2, 498; IG XII 2, 527; Kotsidu (2000), pp. 233–236, no.155 (E1, E2). Chios: SEG XV, 856. Cos: I.Cos. 8. Samos: SEG I, 366. Thera: IG XII 3, Suppl. 1389. See Huß (1976b), pp. 213–238. 67. Polyb. 5.77.4–6; Huß (1976b), pp. 207–208. 68. Polyb. 4.53–55; Huß (1976b), pp. 144–147. 69. Strab. 10.478; Bringmann and von Steuben (1995), pp. 268–270, no. 238; Schmidt-Dounas (2004), p. 104. 70. Le Rider (1969a); Bagnall (1976a), pp. 119, 201, 400. Other scholars attribute the refoundation of Rhithymna to Ptolemy Philadelphus, e.g., Huß (1976b), p. 155; Cohen (1995), pp. 139–140. Lefebvre (2012), pp. 14‒16, suggested that the site was first occupied by Patroclus but the name change occurred in the time of Ptolemy IV. 71. Cohen (1995), pp. 132–134; Lefebvre (2012), pp. 14, 17‒18. 72. Peremans (1975), pp. 393, 398. For a contrary view, see Stefanou (2013), who argued that cleruchs are mentioned in greater numbers in papyri of the second half of the third century than in those of the first half of the century. 73. On the inadequacy of the cleruchic system, see Griffiths (1935), pp. 117–118, 121–125; Fischer-Bovet (2014), pp. 45, 82, 86. 74. Fischer-Bovet (2008), pp. 204‒208; Thompson (2011), p. 21; Fischer-Bovet (2014), p. 218. On Ptolemaic police generally, see Bauschatz (2013); on the river police, see Kruse (2013). An exception to the rule that public safety officers were usually Egyptian was Chaihap, a Jewish police chief from Memphis who held many priestly offices, see Vittmann (1998), pp. 1244‒1246; as his Egyptian name and burial indicate, his family was Egyptianized, and perhaps this helped him to obtain a position generally considered to be “Egyptian.”

Ptolemy IV Philopator

189

however, larger than the kleroi of the machimoi, a class of armed guards, predominantly but not exclusively Egyptian, who had apparently been incorporated into the Ptolemaic army under Ptolemy III.75 According to Polybius, the success of the Egyptian phalanx at Raphia inspired ethnic pride in the Egyptian soldiers and stirred them to revolt.76 Modern scholarship generally discounts Polybius’ claim of nationalism. It was recently suggested that the instigators of the rebellion may have been disgruntled military professionals seeking greater rewards from the king.77 This view may be supported by a document of c. 210 discussing a desertion by machimoi and sailors.78 Other studies, however, place the revolt near the end of Philopator’s reign.79 The main scholarly tradition emphasizes the economic problems that could have fueled the insurrection.80 The intense economic exploitation that supported the Ptolemaic court and foreign wars tended to impoverish the Egyptian peasantry, and abuse by government functionaries was commonplace.81 The Egyptian economy experienced inflation and former soldiers allegedly fled their properties to take up a life of banditry, a phenomenon known as anachoresis.82 Yet other evidence suggests that prosperity was spreading downward from the upper strata of Egyptian society. It is precisely in the reign of Ptolemy IV that necropoleis expanded and a new type of tomb appeared throughout Egypt, indicating that more people could afford mummification and funerary cult.83 The motives of the rebels thus remain obscure, but by the end of Philopator’s reign, if not earlier, there was an uprising in the Delta and the city of Lycopolis in the Sebennytic nome became a rebel stronghold.84 The loss of several valuable coin hoards in this period adds new evidence for the insurrection (discussed more fully below, pp. 208–210). These hoards place it earlier rather than later in the reign, confirm its locus in the Delta, and identify Athribis as a center of the revolt.

75. On the machimoi, who received land allotments ranging from 5 to 10 arouras, with 20 arouras for cavalrymen (machimoi hippeis), see Fischer-Bovet (2013), especially pp. 219–225. 76. Polyb. 5.107.1–3; 14.12.3–4. In the first passage Polybius states that the revolt occurred soon after the battle of Raphia, but in the second that it occurred late in his reign. 77. Fischer-Bovet (2014), pp. 89–92. 78. P.Tebt. III 1, 703, ll. 215–222, cited by Goudriaan (1988), p. 124, and Fischer-Bovet (2013), p. 225. 79. Peremans (1978) pointed to the internal contradictions in Polybius’ account and concluded that Polybius was referring to the Great Revolt of Upper Egypt. Polybius’ contradictions were also analyzed by McGing (1997), pp. 278‒283, who concluded that Polybius was referring to the revolt of Lycopolis and perhaps other places in the Delta, and that these did not erupt until later in Philopator’s reign. Veïsse (2004), pp. 5–7, argued that no securely dated document mentions disorders in the decade after Raphia, i.e., before the revolt of the Thebaid; BGU VI 1215 describes a violent incident, but the context is uncertain. 80. Strongly influenced by Préaux (1936). 81. Préaux (1936), pp. 524–525; Peremans (1933); id. (1975), p. 399; id (1978), pp. 42–43; Hölbl (2001), pp. 153–154. Von Reden (2007), p. 69, suggested that collection of the salt tax may have been suspended after 217, but Clarysse and Thompson (2006), Vol. 2, pp. 44–45, related the disappearance of salt tax receipts to an innovation in record keeping rather than a suspension or elimination of the salt tax itself, since it is attested in many second-century records. 82. Reekmans (1949), pp. 337–338; Peremans (1978), pp. 42–43. On the inflation, see Cadell and Le Rider (1997); von Reden (2007), pp. 70–71. 83. Schreiber (2011), pp. 124‒127. 84. McGing (1997), pp. 278–283, citing the Memphis Decree of 196 (OGIS I, 90), ll. 27‒28, where the account of the suppression of the long-standing revolt at Lycopolis in the Delta is immediately followed by praise of Ptolemy Epiphanes for executing the rebels who revolted against his father; Hölbl (2001), p. 154. Peremans (1975) argued that the government made no notable attempt to suppress these disorders and only took up arms when Upper Egypt revolted.

190

Introduction

Institutional changes designed to increase royal control in Upper Egypt probably also contributed to unrest.85 Edfu was already home to the only settlement of Greek cleruchs in the Thebaid, in the military colony Arsinoe by Apollonopolis, and this, together with the construction of a temple closely associated with the ideology of kingship, made Edfu a symbolic center of Ptolemaic power.86 The presence of bankers and a royal granary within the temple by 222 implies its partial integration into the state fiscal machinery.87 Around 223/2, procedures were established for the confiscation of private land and its sale at public auction.88 The principal reasons for such confiscations were dereliction and tax arrears, however the former owners of the land had the right to reclaim it by paying the hammer price. The earliest attested examples of this process are from Upper Egypt, specifically from Edfu, where taxes from the temple were in arrears since 246. The high priest Estphenis had pledged personal assets to guarantee payment, and finally in 225 the epistates (state overseer) of the temple foreclosed on Estphenis’ sons.89 Euphronius, praktor (bailiff) of temples for the Apollonopolite nome, instructed his subordinate Milon to conduct an auction of the assets, which included land, houses, and a priestly office, and to investigate the finances of the temple.90 However Milon proved corrupt both in his administration of the land auctions and in his audit of the temple revenues, and he was forced to flee.91 The circumstances suggest that the introduction of land auctions may have been connected with corruption in financing the construction of the Edfu temple. The sale of lands at the “auction of Pharaoh” was accompanied by changes in the tax regime and fiscal administration. The harvest tax (Egyptian Smw, Greek epigraphe), which went back to the New Kingdom, had historically been paid to the temples but now was collected in a royal granary in Thebes.92 Royal scribes (Egyptian sXw nsw or sXw praA, Greek basilikoi grammateis) replaced the scribes of Amun in collecting taxes in kind, meaning that a royal fiscal administration replaced the temple administration.93 After 220, at least at Thebes, the office of royal scribe ceased to be the hereditary prerogative of a single priestly family, suggesting that the state intervened to put an end to nepotism and to gain more control over this powerful office.94 The diversion of the harvest tax from the temples to the crown is attested at Thebes as early as 220–218 and at Elephantine in 217/16.95 Because the harvest tax was assessed on the lessee of agricultural land rather than on the owner, it applied not only to private land but also to royal land and to temple 85. Manning (2003), pp. 163–164; Vandorpe (2005), p. 168. 86. Manning (2003), pp. 86, 97. 87. P.Eleph. 10; Manning (2011), p. 7. 88. P.Eleph. 14 (223/2) = SP II, no. 233 = Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 87; P.dem.Hausw. 16 (221/0); Manning (1999); Vandorpe (2000), pp. 173, 194; Manning (2003), pp. 160–161. The purchase price was to be paid in installments, partly in cash and partly in kind. 89. W. Clarysse (27 November 2003) at www.trismegistus.org/arch/archives/pdf/141.pdf. Compare the case of Paches, high priest of Sobnektynis, who in 244/3 was granted the privilege of retaining the annual taxes due from the temple in his personal account, in exchange for a pledge of his personal property, see P.Petrie III 53, fragment q, recto; Bussi (2013), pp. 121–122. For the high priest as tax farmer, see also Monson (2012b), pp. 217‒218. 90. Clarysse as in n.89; Manning (2003), pp. 85, 163–164; Bussi (2013), pp. 122–123, emphasizing the hierarchy of state and temple authorities. P.Eleph.dem. 5 (223) records the oath of the epistates Harsiesis to repay the arrears of byssus. 91. P.Eleph. 19 (222); Clarysse as in n.89; Manning (2003), pp. 83–85. 92. Vandorpe (2000), pp. 176–177, 195. 93. Vandorpe (2000), p. 177. 94. Arlt (2011), p. 18–22. 95. O.Tait Bodl. I 147; O.Wilck. 1253 (222); O.Wilck. 1489 (218); P.dem. Berl. Eleph. III 13537 (217/6); P.dem. Berl. Eleph. I 1552 (217/6); Vandorpe (2000), p. 195.

Ptolemy IV Philopator

191

land in the Thebaid.96 Some tax receipts indicate that temple land was subject to double taxation involving both the harvest tax and a fixed land tax (the artabeion) and this regime may also have begun c. 222.97 In yet another reform damaging to the interests of Egyptian temples, the two ancient sales taxes on real estate, the “tenth of scribes” and the “2½ kite of the house,” were replaced in 210 by two new sales taxes, the enrollment tax (enkyklion) and the copper tax (chalkiaia) which together totalled more than 12.5%; and unlike the earlier taxes, which had been divided between temple and state, both taxes were now collected by the state.98 The temples received some compensation for these lost revenues in the form of the syntaxis, an annual subsidy in grain and money paid by the king out of the revenues he received from temple land. The syntaxis was instituted by Ptolemy IV, perhaps in the context of the tax reforms described above. It is first mentioned in the text of the Memphis Decree of 196, where Ptolemy V confirms that the syntaxis, the apomoira, and the other possessions of the gods should remain as they were in his father’s time.99 But the syntaxis probably did not fully replace the lost revenues and it is not clear that all temples received it.100 In practice it enhanced royal control of the temples and priesthood by increasing their financial dependence on the king. In 207/6 “ignorant rebels” halted the construction of the temple of Edfu, signalling the beginning of a revolt that soon engulfed Upper Egypt.101 The driving force behind this uprising was almost certainly popular resentment of taxation and of the institutions of government control, more than nationalism or ethnic hatred.102 The fact that the Edfu temple was the first target of the rebels may indicate that they particularly resented the methods financing its construction, or it could be a hint that jealousy on the part of the Theban priesthood was also a motive.103 By late autumn of 205 a native pharaoh called Horwennefer was recognized in the Thebaid and the secessionist kingdom he established sustained itself long into the reign of Ptolemy V.104 The distress of the countryside was of course not felt at court. Ptolemy IV was called Tryphon (the luxurious) by his contemporaries.105 His affinity for extraordinary ships is often cited as an aspect of his tryphe. He built the largest warship of antiquity, the tesserakonteres, in the form of a catamaran with two prows, two sterns, and four rudders, richly adorned with figures of animals and with a frieze of ivy leaves and thyrsoi between the oars and the keel; it was apparently just a showpiece, too unwieldy for practical use.106 In an unsuccessful attempt to launch it, a substructure was built employing enough wood for fifty pentereis (quinqueremes). The waste of money and materials was not just a self96. Vandorpe (2000), p. 196. 97. Monson (2012b), pp. 173–174. 98. Muhs (2005), pp. 10, 71‒72. 99. OGIS I, 90 (= Bagnall and Derow 2004, no. 165 = Austin 2006, no. 283), ll. 14–16. 100. Monson (2012b), pp. 174–175. 101. Edfu Temple building inscription: Edfou VII, 6.6‒8; De Wit (1961), p. 288; Cauville and Devauchelle (1984), pp. 35–36; Kurth (2004), p. 50; Veïsse (2004), pp. 14–15. 102. Manning (2003), pp. 165–168; see also Peremans (1978). 103. Vandorpe (2000), p. 173 n.12, quoting Manning, but without citing the source; ead. (2005), p. 168. 104. Stela CG 38258; Spiegelberg (1912); Alliot (1951); Zauzich (1978); Pestman (1995); McGing (1997), pp. 285–289; Hölbl (2001), pp. 154–155; Veïsse (2004), pp. 11–26. The first regnal year of Horwennefer began between 13 October and 10 November 205. 105. Plin. NH 7.208. 106. Callixenus of Rhodes apud Athen. 5.203e–5.204b, FGrHist 627 F 1 39; Plut. Dem. 43.4–5; Chaffin (1993).

192

Introduction

indulgence, but a failure of policy: the Lagid fleet had shrunk sorely since its acme under Ptolemy Philadelphus and Philopator missed the opportunity to enlarge it, contributing to costly naval defeats in the reign of his son.107 Nearly as impractical as the tesserakonteres was a gigantic transport ship constructed by Hieron II of Syracuse who, upon learning that the harbors of Sicily could not accommodate it, changed its name from Syrakosai to Alexandris and sent it as a gift to Ptolemy.108 Philopator also built a thalamegos—a class of shallow-draft catamaran used for official travel on the Nile—of surpassing magnificence.109 It had two decks furnished with numerous banquet halls and sleeping chambers constructed of precious woods and adorned with ivory and gold. On the upper deck were two private shrines, a circular shrine dedicated to Aphrodite, with a marble statue of the goddess; and a room dedicated to Dionysus, with a grotto of stone and gold containing statues of the Ptolemaic ancestors in Parian marble.110 One of the upper banqueting rooms was decorated in the Egyptian style and this juxtaposition of Greek and Egyptian elements is also apparent in other monuments of the reign, notably in the fountain of Arsinoe and the Nymphs, and in the depiction of the king on horseback, in Greek style, on the stelae recording the Raphia Decree.111 The Museion and Library of Alexandria continued to flourish under the direction of the great scholar Eratosthenes of Cyrene. Anecdotes from the reign of Philopator show that the resident scholars interacted intimately and informally with the king.112 Having been tutored personally by Eratosthenes, Philopator had even a finer education than his cultivated predecessors.113 Following the family tradition, he took a keen interest in literature and his devotion to Dionysian religion probably influenced the work done in the Library. The court poet Euphronius invented a new literary category, the priapic song.114 Philological and historical studies of Greek drama were a specialty of the reign.115 Theatre and literature emerged as important themes of the epigrams of Dioscorides.116 Ptolemy himself penned a tragedy called Adonis, on which his friend Agathocles wrote a commentary.117 The king’s religious and literary passions coalesced in his foundation of a 107. Hauben (1981); see also Erskine (2013). 108. Moschion apud Athen. 5.206d–209e, FGrHist 627 F 1 39. Among the remarkable features of this ship were its mosaic floors illustrating the entire story of the Iliad. This ship, too, had a shrine to Aphrodite with a floor of agate and other semiprecious stones. 109. Callixenus of Rhodes apud Athen. 5.204c–5.206d, FGrHist 627 F 1 39; Caspari (1916); Casson (1971), pp. 341– 342. 110. On the shrines, Athen. 5.205d–f, FGrHist 627 F 1 39; Caspari (1916), pp. 55–57; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 197; Vol. IIa, pp. 331–332 n.49; Schmidt-Dounas (2004), p. 99. Pfrommer (2002), p. 95, suggested that the cult offered in the Aphrodite shrine was to Aphrodite-Arsinoe. 111. Athen. 5.206a–c, FGrHist 627 F 1 39; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 609–611; Huß (1994b), pp. 47–48; id. (2001), p. 451. 112. Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 309–310. 113. Alonso Troncoso (2005), p. 106. 114. Rostagni (1956), p. 375–376. 115. Rostagni (1956), pp. 376–378; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 628. Rostagni, pp. 378–380, claimed that the major fruit of these studies was that Alexandrian theatrical performances restored the splendor of classical drama, with the Dionysian processions, choruses, and choreography that had fallen out of fashion in fourth century theatre. 116. Rostagni (1956), pp. 384–387; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 599–603. 117. Schol. Aristoph. Thesm. 1059; Rostagni (1956), p. 373; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 198, 311; Vol. IIa, p. 333 n.63. Rostagni (1956), pp. 377, 382–384, claimed a significant production of original dramatic works by Euphronius and Machon, but see the comments of Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 595 (death of Machon c. 240), 618–622 (paucity of original dramaturgy in Alexandria).

Ptolemy IV Philopator

193

temple and cult of Homer at Alexandria.118 The dedicatory poem for the occasion praises Ptolemy as the best of spearman and commander of the Muses.119 Probably related to the Homereion is an allegorical relief that portrays the apotheosis of Homer with Ptolemy and his queen standing behind him, personified as Chronos (time) and Oikoumene (the inhabited world), respectively.120 The Alexandrian festival of the Muses and Apollo, involving literary competitions in the Library, is first attested from the reign of Philopator and there is every reason to believe he was the founder.121 Polybius and other ancient authors condemned Ptolemy Philopator as a self-indulgent and ineffectual ruler. Their critique arose in large part from an overvaluation of the military aspect of kingship, with a corresponding contempt for an essentially artistic and religious personality, and especially from their disapproval for ecstatic mystery cults.122 Plutarch described Philopator’s religious fervor as theolepsia (divine possession, literally seizure by a god).123 The king showed a special devotion to the dynastic god Dionysus, from whom the Lagids claimed descent through the mother of Ptolemy Soter.124 In the only surviving fragment of a biography of Arsinoe III, Eratosthenes wrote that Ptolemy founded and participated in many festivals and ceremonies, the majority of them in honor of Dionysus.125 Only one specific festival is named in the passage, the Lagynophoria (Festival of the Flagons), a drinking party in the royal palace that disgusted the queen.126 Another courtier, Ptolemy of Megalopolis, reported that the king assembled from all of Alexandria a group of sympotai (drinking companions) which he called the geloiastai (Society of Laughter).127 The vocabulary employed by Plutarch makes it clear that Ptolemy IV organized a thiasos or Dionysian community at the court to celebrate the god’s mysteries.128 The king was, in short, a participant in one of the great religious movements of antiquity, the Bacchic or Orphic mysteries which celebrated Dionysus’ rebirth after death and dismemberment and promised his initiates a purifying madness and a blessed afterlife in the underworld.129 This form of personal salvation was known at the court even earlier, probably in the time of Ptolemy II, since Callimachus referred to the fusion of Dionysus and the Orphic Zagreus.130 One of the important texts of these mysteries is a 118. Ael. VH 13.22; Rostagni (1956), p. 372; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 311. 119. Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 611; Vol. IIb, pp. 862–863 n. 423. 120. Robertson (1975), Vol. I, pp. 562–564; Vol. II, pl. 172c. 121. Fraser (1970); id. (1972), Vol. I, pp. 196, 316. 122. Tondriau (1946b), pp. 150–152, 156. For a survey of historiographic judgements of Ptolemy IV, see Lefebvre (2009). 123. Plut. Quom. Adul. 56 d–e; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 203; Vol. IIa, p. 344 n.108. 124. Adulis inscription (OGIS I, 54 = Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 26 = Austin (2006), no. 268), ll. 5–6. One public expression of this devotion was Philopator’s conferral of Dionysian names on eight demes of Alexandria, which he then placed in the Dionysian tribe, see Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 44; Vol. IIa, pp. 120–121, n.148. 125. Eratosthenes apud Athen. 7.276a–c, FGrHist 241 F 16; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 203–204. 126. Eratosthenes apud Athen. 7.276a–c, FGrHist 241 F 16; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 204; Vol. IIa, pp. 344–345 n.112. 127. Ptolemy of Megalopolis apud Athen. 6.246c, FGrHist 161 F 2; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 204; Vol. IIa, p. 345 n.113. 128. Plut. Cleom. 33.2, 34.2, 36.7; Tondriau (1946b), pp. 152–156. Tondriau stated (p. 149) that the court thiasos did not have mystic tendencies but rather a unique and original character that concealed politico-religious motives consistent with a specific dynastic plan. But at the end of his exposition (p. 156) he concluded that the existence of “ce thiase mystique” confirmed Cumont’s belief that the cult of Dionysus assumed the form of mysteries under Philopator. 129. Burkert (1987), pp. 21–23 and passim.; Graf and Johnston (2007), pp. 140–150. Cf. Dunand (1986), pp. 102–103), who seemingly trivialized the significance of Dionysian associations by suggesting their purpose was to promote the concept of royal tryphe. 130. Callim. Etym. Mag. p. 406, 46; Tondriau (1950b), pp. 289–290.

194

Introduction

third-century Gurob papyrus which attests to a local initiation ritual in the Fayum based on the Orphic myth of Dionysus.131 A famous edict of Ptolemy IV required all priests who initiated devotees into the mysteries of Dionysus throughout the Egyptian chora to report to Alexandria and register at the census office, to declare the persons from whom they received their rites going back three generations, and to surrender a signed and sealed copy of their sacred texts.132 Although this edict has been interpreted as a regulatory measure or an attempt to impose some sort of orthodoxy on Dionysian religion, it recalls Euergetes’ methods of building the Library of Alexandria and may represent an attempt to collect hieroi logoi, sacred literature concerning the mysteries which otherwise would have remained secret. Philopator had his body tattooed with an ivy leaf, presumably a symbol of his Bacchic initiation.133 An allusion by the poet Euphronius of Cherronesus to mysteries of Neos Dionysus celebrated at Pelusium indicates that a thiasos existed there venerating the king as an avatar of Dionysus.134 Ptolemy also assumed the name Gallos, meaning a eunuch priest of Cybele, and this was perhaps his title as leader of the court thiasos.135 Cybele’s consort Attis was assimilated to Dionysus and it is perhaps significant that the Gurob papyrus combined mysteries of Rhea (i.e., Cybele) with those of Dionysus.136 Ptolemy IV and his queen stood in an intimate relationship with the divine couple Sarapis and Isis.137 In the king’s Egyptian titulature, his personal name included the epithets anx Dt mrj Ast (living forever, beloved of Isis).138 He dedicated a temple to Isis Megiste (the Greatest) in Alexandria—the first known use of this epithet implying her superiority over all other deities.139 In 219, after the occupation of Syria and Phoenicia by Antiochus III, Sarapis and Isis were associated in the defense of Egypt when their images appeared on the tetradrachms of Ascalon. The Raphia Decree recounts how all the deities of Egypt accompanied Ptolemy to Syro-Phoenicia as his protectors and sent him an oracle in a dream, promising to preserve him and to give him the victory.140 After the battle of Raphia Ptolemy founded a new cult to Sarapis and Isis as Theoi Soteres (Savior Gods), apparently crediting them with a miraculous battlefield intervention that gave him the victory.141 All inscriptions naming Sarapis and Isis as Theoi Soteres date from the 131. P.Gurob 1; Graf and Johnston (2007), pp. 150–155, 188–189 (translation). 132. BGU VI 1211 = C.Ord.Ptol. 29 = Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 160; Tondriau (1946a); Zuntz (1963), arguing inter alia that the edict should be attributed to Ptolemy III; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 204; Vol. IIa, pp. 345–346 n.114; Dunand (1986), pp. 97–100; Huß (2001), pp. 454–456. Tondriau (1948e), p. 10, speculated that this edict could be related to a plan to create a hierarchy of provincial thiasoi affiliated to the court thiasos, convoking all Dionysian priests so that they could be examined for their suitability to found and lead provincial thiasoi. 133. Etym. Magn. p. 220, 19–20; Tondriau (1950b). III Macc. 2: 27–30 reports (no doubt apocryphally) that Ptolemy required his Jewish subjects, on pain of death, to register with the state, to accept servile status, and to be branded with the ivy leaf of Dionysus, while offering as an alternative initiation into the mysteries and full Alexandrian citizenship. 134. Euphronius apud Hephaestion, De Metr. 15, 59; Tondriau (1948e); Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 207; Vol. IIa, p. 247 n.117, p. 351 n.140. Rostagni (1956), pp. 374–375, saw these verses as evidence that Ptolemy IV had celebrated the mysteries of Dionysus at Pelusium in 217, as he was proceeding with his army toward the confrontation with Antiochus III at Raphia. 135. Etym. Mag., p. 220 s.v. Γάλλος; Tondriau (1946b), p. 156; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 278; Vol. IIa, p. 434 n.734. 136. Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 206; Graf and Johnston (2007), pp. 150–151, 154–155. 137. Bricault (1999), pp. 337–340; Huß (2001), pp. 453–454. 138. Raphia Decree = Austin (2006), no. 276, Greek l. 6 (αἰωνοβίου ἠγαπημένου ὑπὸ τῆς Ἴσιδος), demotic l. 4; Thissen (1966), pp. 11, 40–42; Simpson (1996), pp. 242–243. 139. Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 203; SB VIII 9809 = SEG XX, 496 140. Raphia Decree, demotic ll. 7–14; Thissen (1966), pp. 13, 51–57; Simpson (1996), pp. 244–245. 141. Bricault (1999), pp. 337–338; cf. III Macc. 3.12–13. Bricault claimed that the Raphia Decree promised monthly sacrifices to the Theoi Soteres and argued that the reference must be to Sarapis and Isis, rather than to the first Ptolemaic

Ptolemy IV Philopator

195

reign of Ptolemy IV, including one from the Beqaa Valley, territory that was recovered from Antiochus III, and another from Philae invoking these gods for the safety of the (war) elephants.142 A gold foundation plaque, inscribed in both Greek and hieroglyphics, commemorates the dedication of an Alexandrian temple of Sarapis and Isis, the Savior Gods, and of Ptolemy and Arsinoe, the Father-Loving Gods, no earlier than 215/14.143 Ptolemy claimed to be acting on a command of Sarapis and Isis when he added a small shrine of Harpocrates in the great Alexandrian Sarapieion.144 The assimilation of Dionysus and Osiris meant that Sarapis, too, was identified with Dionysus, not least through Dionysian sculptures added to the dromos of the Memphis Sarapieion in the early Ptolemaic period, probably under the reign of Ptolemy IV.145 Philopator’s private worship of Dionysus as a savior god and his public cult of Sarapis and Isis as Theoi Soteres were two aspects of the same belief system. The link is explicit in a dedication from Abu el-Matamir to Sarapis Dionysus and Isis Aphrodite, the Savior and Fruitful Gods.146 It is implied in a pair of dedications from Upper Egypt left by Lichas, a general in command of elephant hunts, one honoring the Theoi Philopatores, Sarapis, and Isis, and the other honoring the Theoi Philopatores, Dionysus, and a goddess whose name is missing.147 The king’s devotion to Osiris may be implied by his renovation of the ancient Osirian catacombs at Karnak, where a figurine of the god was interred each year at the end of his festival in the month of Khoiak.148 In the Edfu temple Ptolemy IV is closely associated with Osiris. In three locations—the First Chamber of Sokaris, the Chamber of the Nile, and the hypostyle hall—the king offers him Nile water, which was believed to flow from Osiris’ own body and whose power of purification was essential for the maintenance of his bodily integrity.149 In exchange Osiris promises to flow as the swollen Nile flood at the beginning of the year, to inundate and fertilize the fields.150

couple, because the latter were not admitted to the dynastic cult until two years later. This does not seem relevant to Egyptian forms of worship, although it is true that Ptolemy I and Berenice I were rarely honored in Egyptian contexts. In the Raphia Decree the mention of the Savior Gods comes after lacunae in both the Greek and demotic texts: Greek B, l. 1; demotic l. 39, Thissen (1996), pp. 24–25. Thissen interpreted this fragment as part of the royal genealogy. The translation of Simpson (1996), pp. 256–257, mentions honors to the Savior Gods but does not imply their identity. 142. Bricault (1999), p. 337, nos. 1 and 2, also pp. 339–340. 143. SB I 2136; Fraser (1972), Vol. IIa, pp. 410–411 n.557; Bernand (2001), pp. 53–56, no. 18; see also Bricault (1999), p. 337; Huß (2001), pp. 453–454. 144. GRM inv. P.10035 = SB VI, 9600; Rowe (1946), p. 55; Bernand (2001), pp. 60–61, no. 21; Huß (2001), p. 454. Once again this is attested by a gold foundation tablet with bilingual inscriptions, this time with the hieroglyphs expressed in cryptographic script, the form of writing held in highest regard by Egyptian scribes because of its esoteric quality. 145. Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 206, 255–256; Bergmann (2007). 146. SB I 5863; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 48, 197–198, 255–256; Vol. IIa, p. 332 n.53. 147. OGIS I, 82; SB IV 7306; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 179; Vol. IIa, p. 308 n.371. Isis is suggested for the missing name of the goddess. 148. Coulon (2011), pp. 80–81. 149. Cauville (1983), pp. 21, 94, 103, 179. 150. Cauville (1983), pp. 23, 94, 95.

196

Introduction

Another of the traditional offerings of Egyptian religion was the wine offering.151 Already in the Pyramid Texts the wine offering was identified with the Eye of Horus and thus with the restoration of a state of divine perfection.152 The wine offering could be directed to various gods and was especially associated with the confirmation of kingship, the conferral of kingly valor and strength, and the grant of dominion over Egypt and foreign lands.153 A Ptolemaic innovation, beginning with the third Ptolemy, was the naming of specific wine-growing regions both in the wine offering itself and in the divine grants of dominion.154 Under Ptolemy III and IV, these places included Phoenicia, Lebanon, and northern Syria (“God’s Land”), clearly relating to the military successes of these two kings and to the royal aspect of the wine offering.155 In the Edfu temple, the victory at Raphia also reflected in the epithets of Ptolemy IV as he makes the wine offerings and in the grants the gods confer in response: Ptolemy is named nineteen times as ruler or victor over Phoenicians, Asiatics, foreigners, or enemies and receives nineteen grants of dominion over them, as well as nine grants of dominion over the entire world.156 Similar grants are almost entirely lacking for the later Ptolemies, a strong indication that temple decoration was tailored to individual kings.157 Another purpose of the wine offering was to elicit the spiritual gift of intoxication.158 At Edfu, in the Mesenit, Hathor rewards a wine offering of Ptolemy IV with “a drunkenness always renewed” and in the Chapel of the Throne of the Gods Nephthys promises, “I give you drunkenness every day, the heart dilated without suffering pain.”159 In Egyptian as in Greek religion, wine was a divine drink and drunkenness was not a vice but rather a gift of the gods.160 It is possibly a reflection of Philopator’s personal faith that in the Edfu temple he is represented making 151. Poo (1995), pp. 29–62. Though wine was often included among other offerings, Poo’s study of the texts accompanying wine offerings demonstrated that wine had its own significance in the do ut des ritual transactions between the king and the gods, particularly in the Ptolemaic period, and multifaceted associations with theology and myth. In the temple of Opet at Karnak, a sanctuary dedicated to divine kingship, scenes of wine offerings are associated with the birth of Osiris (de Wit (1962), 167; id. (1968), 169–170), his interment and resurrection (de Wit (1962), 114; id. (1968), 165ff), and the birth of Horus (de Wit (1962), 142–143; id. (1968), 167ff), see Poo (1995), p. 68, also pp. 149–151 on the association of wine with Osiris, his resurrection, and the annual inundation, pp. 151–153 on the assimilation of wine to blood, both the blood of Osiris and the blood of Horus, which healed the Eye of Horus by filling it. 152. Poo (1995), pp. 71–85. In funerary offerings the dead king was identified with Osiris and the living king, as Horus, offered his Eye in order to “open the mouth,” referring both to the ritual that resurrected the deceased and to a magical quickening of his cult statue so that it could consume the offerings. Ptolemy III introduced the term Green Eye of Horus as a synonym for wine, emphasizing its connection with fertility and prosperity, see Poo (1995), pp. 24–25 and 125. 153. Poo (1995), pp. 133–141. 154. Poo (1995), pp. 139–141, 164–166. Poo suggested that this innovation might reflect the success of Lagid policies to encourage viticulture in the oases, or the more general policy of expanding viticulture both to meet the demand for wine in the growing Greek population and to provide a livelihood for cleruchs. 155. Urk. VIII, 15, 58; Edfou I, 448; Poo (1995), pp. 90, 100 n.(o), 139, 165–166. Urk. VIII, 129 (Poo (1995), p. 7) similarly uses a wine offering to assert the restoration of control over these regions by Ptolemy VI. 156. Götte (1986), especially pp. 74–75. 157. Götte (1986), especially p. 75. 158. Poo (1995), pp. 142–143, 166–167. Drunkenness was especially associated with Hathor, Mistress of Drunkenness. In one myth humanity was saved from destruction by Hathor’s violent, leonine aspect Sekhmet when Ra tricked her into drinking beer dyed red to resemble blood. In another myth cycle, Hathor-Tefnut, the Eye of Ra, was recalled from Nubia and brought with her the inundation, but she retained a blood-thirsty essence that required propitiation with wine offerings, music, and dance. A festival of the Drunkenness of Hathor was celebrated at Dendera during the inundation. See Poo (1995), pp. 153–157 159. Cauville (1983), pp. 65, 74, 75. 160. Poo (1995), pp. 148–149, 161–163.

Ptolemy IV Philopator

197

the wine offering twenty times, far more than any of his successors, and he receives the gift of drunkenness eight times, again far more often than any of his successors.161 Ptolemy Philopator is credited with more projects of construction and renovation of Egyptian temples than any of his predecessors.162 He continued the works begun by his father, of which the most important was the temple of Horus at Edfu: the completion of the naos and of the hypostyle hall was celebrated in August of 212, twenty-five years after the act of foundation; and the decoration of the naos was completed by his sixteenth regnal year, along with preparation of the main gates and double doors.163 Philopator was especially active in the foundation of new temples. A partial list of building projects initiated under him includes a temple to Isis in Alexandria, the naos of Mut at Tanis, the temple of Osiris at Taposiris Magna, the east gate to the temple of Ptah at Memphis, a temple of Hathor at Qusae, the chapel of Khonsu-Neferhotep in the temple complex of Khonsu at Karnak, the temple of Hathor and Maat at Deir el-Medina, a temple of the Meroitic god Arensnuphis on Philae, a temple to Mandulis (another Nubian god worshipped especially in the eastern desert) at Kalabsha (ancient Talmis), and reconstruction of the temple of Thot of Pnubs at Dakka (ancient Pselchis).164 A stela in the temple at Dakka records Philopator’s confirmation of the donation of the revenues of the Dodekaschoinos to Isis of Philae.165 The three temples to Arensnuphis, Mandulis, and Thot of Pnubs also had special importance for royal policy in Lower Nubia, for they provided ideological legitimation for Philopator’s authority there, anchored his control of the celebrated gold mines of Wadi el-Allaqi, and contributed to a blending of Egyptian and Nubian cultures.166 Other construction projects honored Osiris in Abydus and Coptos; Amun, Mut, Ptah, and Thot at Karnak; Montu at Typhion; Isis and an unidentified deity at Syene; and Khnum at Elephantine.167 Some scholars have inferred a particular interest in the religious life of the Thebaid and perhaps a concern for the loyalty of Upper Egypt.168 Remarkably, Ptolemy IV is the only Lagid known to have offered benefactions to the temples of Syria and Phoenicia. On Cyprus the sanctuary of Aphrodite at Old Paphos emerged as a pan-Cypriote religious center and a space for the expression of Ptolemaic ideology through dedications and honorific statues erected by persons associated with the Ptolemaic administration.169 But there is no evidence of concrete royal support for any Cypriote cult or temple. The stark contrast with the enduring Ptolemaic patronage of Egyptian religion suggests the inadequacy of historical interpretations that overemphasize 161. Götte (1986), pp. 73, 75. See Edfou I, pp. 71–72, 86, 99–100, 109–110, 132, 144–145, 234–235, 258–259, 272–273, 279, 287–288, 294–295, 362–363, 448, 449–450, 458–459, 461–462, 499; II, 38, 135; IV, 113; Philae II, 132. For grants of drunkenness, Edfou I, 86.13, 110.1, 234.15, 295.1, 449.16, 459.4, 462.1; II, 100.13. 162. In addition, a stela erected at Heraclion in the time of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II informs us of a benefaction to Amun-Gereb by Ptolemy IV, namely a grant of land elsewhere in the Delta, probably at Diospolis Kato, along with its revenues; see Heraclion stela, l. 18; Thiers (2009b), p. 18, with commentary pp. 43–45. 163. Edfu Temple building inscription, see Cauville and Devauchelle (1984), pp. 33–35, 44; Kurth (2004), pp. 49–50. 164. Hölbl (2001), pp. 160–161; Thiers (2009b), p. 31 n.76; Török (2009), p. 388 on the temples in the Dodekaschoinos. A number of bilingual glass foundation plaques from Qusae consecrate the temple to Hathor Who Is in Heaven, identified in the Greek versions as Aphrodite Ourania, see Fraser (1956), where the cult is considered Greek in conception, surely erroneously; Shore (1961), p. 35; Fraser (1972), Vol. IIa, p. 332 n.50. 165. Locher (1997). 166. Dietze (1994), pp. 103–104; cf. Török (2009), pp. 394–395. 167. Huß (2001), pp. 457–458; Lanciers (1986), pp. 174, 175–176. 168. Hölbl (2001), p. 161; Huß (2001), pp. 457–458. 169. Keen (2012), Chapter 4.

198

Introduction

political calculation. It is undeniable that the Macedonian rulers needed the support and cooperation of the Egyptian elite. They also needed the cooperation of the Phoenician and Cypriote elites, and yet they won the support these provincial elites without embracing their local cults. The unavoidable conclusion is that the Ptolemies sought the particular favor and protection of the Egyptian gods. The rulers’ behavior in this realm was surely driven, at least in most cases, by congruent motives of political advantage and religious belief. Ruler Worship and Divine Kingship Ptolemy IV apparently received the epiklesis Philopator (Father-Loving) from his father, who thus designated his eldest son as his chosen successor.170 This epithet expressed the filial piety appropriate to a Greek heir but also alluded to an important theme of Egyptian royal ideology, the protection of the king (Horus) for his father (Osiris).171 The theme of the king as protector is explicit in several elements of Philopator’s Egyptian titulature: Horus: Hwn onj sxaj sw jt.f (valiant youth whose father caused him to appear) Two Ladies: wr pHtj mnx jb xr nTrw nbw nDtj nj Hnmmt (powerful great one, excellent heart before all the gods, protector of humanity) Horus of Gold: swDA Kmt sHD gsw prw smn hpw mj 9Hwtj aA aA nb Hbw sd mj PtH-6A-Tnn jtj (mj) Ra (preserver of Egypt, adorner of temples, he who upholds the laws like twicegreat Thot, lord of the sed festival like Ptah-Tatanen, sovereign like Ra) King of Upper and Lower Egypt: jwaw nTrw mnxw stp(-n-) PtH wsr kA Ra sxm anx Jmn (heir of the Benefactor Gods, chosen of Ptah, mighty ka of Ra, living power of Amun) Son of Ra: Ptwlmjs anx Dt mrj Ast (Ptolemy, he lives eternally, beloved of Isis)172 The titles “mighty youth,” “protector of humanity,” “preserver of Egypt,” and “beloved of Isis” (a rare epithet repeated only by Ptolemy XII) emphasized the fourth Ptolemy’s ritual 170. Huß (1976b), p. 264 with n.18; Lanciers (1988), pp. 27–28; Koenen (1993), p. 63. P.Petrie. III 78, probably datable to the reign of Ptolemy III on palaeographic grounds, is a letter from the farmers of a village in the Arsinoite nome called Philopator Apiados, see Grenfell and Hunt (1902), p. 81; Battaglia (1982). A second village named Philopator is first attested in the second century B.C. 171. Koenen (1993), pp. 63–64. 172. Raphia decree, hieroglyphic, from the Pithom stela, based on the transliteration and translation of Huß (2001), pp. 384–385. The demotic version differs slightly, most notably in four of the five permanent elements of the titulature, the variant Horus name, and the use of the definite article with the name of Ra. The following is based on the transliteration and translation of Simpson (1996), pp. 242–243; see also the transliteration and commentary of Thissen (1966), pp. 27–42. 1r (Horus): Hwn onj (r-)tj pAj.f jt Ha.f (n) pr-aA (valiant youth whose father crowned him king) Nb jarwt (Lord of Uraei): nt nA-aj tAj.f pHvt nt nA-mnx HAt.f Xr nA nTrw r tj nxv n nA rmTw (whose [might] is great, whose heart is beneficent on behalf of the gods so as to give security to his people) pA nt Hr nAj.f DDjw (The One Who is over his Enemies): j.jr tj wDA Kmy jw.f sHty nA jrpyw j.jr smne nA hpw r.D 9Hwt aA aA pA nb n rnpwt [n Hbs] m-otj PtH pA aA pr-aA m-otj pA Ra (who has preserved Egypt, making bright its temples, who has established the laws which twice-great Thot spoke, the Lord of Years [of Jubilee] like Ptah the Great, king like Pre‘) Pr-aA n nA tSw nt Hrj jrm nA tSw nt Xrj (Pharaoh of the Upper Districts and the Lower Districts): pA Sr n nA nTrw mnxw r-stp PtH r-tj n.f pA Ra pA naS pA twtw anx [n Imn] (the son of the Beneficent Gods, whom Ptah has chosen, to whom Pre‘ has given success(?), the Living Image of Amun) Pr-aA (Pharaoh): Ptwlmjs aws anx Dt mr Ast (Ptolemy, living forever, beloved of Isis)

Ptolemy IV Philopator

199

identification with Horus, the model of the legitimate heir, complementing the epithet Father-Loving.173 His throne name or praenomen is the first to contain the triad of Ptah, Ra, and Amun, with Ptah taking precedence; this formulation reflects the dominance of the Memphite priesthood and the lessened prestige of Thebes, and it became a fixture in the titulature of all subsequent Ptolemies.174 Philopator’s pharaonic “Great Name” was translated into Greek in the Raphia Decree, a first-time occurrence in Ptolemaic history that has sometimes been interpreted as evidence for a growing Egyptian influence on Ptolemaic kingship.175 At the time of their marriage, Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III were recognized in the native milieu as the Gods Who Love Their Father (nA nTrw mr jtv.w).176 A priest of Amun, the Sibling Gods, the Beneficent Gods, and the Gods Who Love Their Father is attested before October/November 220.177 The high priest of Memphis Anemhor, who died in June 217, counted among his titles Prophet of the Beneficent Gods and the Gods Who Love Their Father and in 216 there was a priest of Khnum, the Sibling Gods, the Beneficent Gods, and the Gods Who Love Their Father.178 These priestly titles exemplify the Egyptian dynastic cult, wherein the living and deceased Ptolemies were honored in association with traditional deities, and they demonstrate that it took a different form in every temple. A parallel version of ruler cult, honoring the reigning couple without their ancestors, is also attested but not so closely dated: a hieroglyphic inscription on the back of a statue shows that a priest from Elkab included among his titles Prophet of the Four Genies and Prophet of the Gods Who Love Their Father.179 The early emergence of these Egyptian cults as compared with their Greek counterparts may suggest that the impetus for ruler worship arose from Egyptian priestly circles, but most likely the king actively encouraged the development of Egyptian forms of ruler cult.180 In the Raphia Decree of 15 November 217, the Egyptian priesthood placed great emphasis on the religious dimensions of the victory. After praising the piety of Pharaoh Ptolemy toward the gods of Egypt, they asserted that the gods had sent him an oracle in a dream, promising him victory over the Syrian enemy.181 In their account of the battle they explicitly compared the king to Horus, son of Isis.182 They credited him with 173. Huß (2001), pp. 385–386. Koenen (1993), p. 77, claimed that eventually the anniversary of his accession came to be celebrated on 6 January, also the official accession date of Philadelphus and Euergetes, corresponding to the Alexandrian festival of Aion (Eternity) and the great festival of Horus at Edfu, thus lending resonance to the theme of legitimate succession and dynastic continuity. 174. See the remarks of Ritner (2011). 175. Thissen (1966), pp. 10‒11, with commentary pp. 80–81; cf. Hölbl (2001), p. 164. Johnson (1995) argued that papyri, inscriptions, and coins display no corresponding Egyptianization of the royal titulature and that they demonstrate the essentially Greek character of the Ptolemaic kingship, which was only superficially influenced by Egyptian culture. 176. Both marriage and epiklesis are first attested in P.dem. Vatic. 2037B (17 October–15 November 220), see Lanciers (1988). 177. P.dem. Vatic. 2037B; Lanciers (1988), p. 27. 178. Reymond (1981), pp. 71–77, no. 4; P.dem. Berlin 13563; Lanciers (1988), p. 28. Lanciers (1991), pp. 126–127 and 127–128, listed several other high priests of Memphis who bore this title, the last of whom died in 164, and on p. 135 he stipulated that one of them, Harchebis, was Prophet of the Images of the Beneficent Gods and the Gods Who Love Their Father. 179. Lanciers (1991), pp. 121, 142. 180. Lanciers (1988), pp. 29–30. Koenen (1993), p. 64, submitted that the priority given to the development of Egyptian royal cult was unobjectionable because the Greek dynastic cult was meant to emulate Egyptian royal ideology. 181. Raphia Decree, demotic ll. 7–10; Thissen (1966), pp. 13, 51–53; Simpson (1996), pp. 242–245. 182. Raphia Decree, demotic ll. 10–14; Thissen (1966), pp. 13–15, 53–59; Simpson (1996), pp. 244–245.

200

Introduction

the restoration of sacred images, cult utensils, and temple revenues in the reconquered territory and with the return of images of the Egyptian gods to Egypt.183 The king himself returned to Egypt on a day of symbolic importance, the Birth of Horus.184 In gratitude for Ptolemy’s salvation of Egypt, the priesthood vowed to increase the honors paid to him and his queen, the Father-Loving Gods, and to their forebears the Beneficent Gods, the Sibling Gods, and the Savior Gods.185 The decree ordered the erection of statues of the royal couple in the courtyard of every native temple, together with a statue of the principal god of the temple, who would present the scimitar of victory to “Ptolemy Harendotes (Horus who has vindicated his Father), whose victory is fair.”186 This passage evokes both the Greek epithet Callinicus and the Egyptian myth cycle of Osiris and Horus as the divine model for the royal succession.187 The decree also established a five-day national festival in honor of the king, to be celebrated annually with processions and sacrifices, its first day falling on the anniversary of his victory.188 The anniversary of the victory was also to be celebrated on the tenth of every month as a festival in the temples.189 For these festivals the decree authorized a second, portable cult statue of the god King Ptolemy Harendotes, to be carried in public processions.190 Ptolemy’s identification with Horus is abundantly illustrated in the temple of Horus at Edfu, whose cult was dedicated to the perpetual renewal of the divine kingship. The decoration of two chapels represents Ptolemy sharing in the Hb sd (sed festival) of Horus.191 The sed festival here is not the ancient rite of renewal of the kingship typically celebrated for the first time on a pharaoh’s thirtieth anniversary, but rather the annual New Year celebrations of 1 Thoth, considered to be the sed festival of Ra and of the two solar forms of Horus especially venerated at Edfu, Ra-Harakhty and Horus Behedeti.192 On this occasion the festival of the Enthronement of the King was celebrated at temples throughout Egypt to confirm the divine nature of the kingship, and at Edfu the enthronement of the king was analogous to that of Horus.193 In rites performed in the Chapel of the Throne of the Gods, Horus received the royal insignia, symbolizing the transfer of the kingship to him from his fathers Ra and Osiris, while in a parallel ritual in the Chapel of the Throne of Ra, the kingship was transmitted by Ra-Horus to the king, represented in the ceremony by the priest of the king.194 The decorations of the Throne of the Gods include six reliefs 183. Raphia Decree, demotic ll. 14–23; Thissen (1966), pp. 15–19, 59–60; Simpson (1996), pp. 244–249. 184. Raphia Decree, demotic ll. 25–26; Thissen (1966), pp. 19, 63; Simpson (1996), pp. 250–251. 185. Raphia Decree, demotic ll. 30–32; Thissen (1966), pp. 21–23, 66–67; Simpson (1996), pp. 252–253. 186. Raphia Decree, demotic ll. 32–34; Thissen(1966), pp. 22–23, 67–73; Simpson (1996), pp. 252–255. 187. Thissen (1966), pp. 67–69; Koenen (1993), pp. 63–64; Huß (2001), p. 384. 188. Raphia Decree, demotic ll. 36–38; Thissen (1966), pp. 23–25, 73–76; Simpson (1996), pp. 254–255. 189. Raphia Decree, demotic ll. 38–40; Thissen (1966), pp. 25, 76–77; Simpson (1996), pp. 256–257. 190. Raphia Decree, demotic ll. 40–42; Thissen (1966), pp. 25, 77–78; Simpson (1996), pp. 256–257. 191. Winter (1978), p. 152, docs. 26, 27. 192. Alliot (1954), 207, 275–276, 353–355, 358–359; Goyon (1972), 42–43; Cauville (1987), pp. 90– 93; Goyon (1988), 37–38; Perpillou-Thomas (1993), pp. 144–145; Kurth (2004), 58. For the ancient rite, see Uphill (1965) for an account of the sed festival of Osorkon II based on reliefs in his temple at Bubastis; Kessler (1989), pp. 69–79 for a theological interpretation of the sed festival emphasizing the role of Osiris-Apis, Apis-Osiris, and the Apis bull as a sacred animal representing Horus. Alliot (1954), p. 432, believed that the sed festival of the Ptolemaic king was observed in connection with the celebrations of 1 Tybi. 193. Myśliwiec (2004), pp. 92–93; Finnestad (1997), p. 223. 194. Cauville (1987), 17, 24–36, 91; Ibrahim (1975); Hölbl (2001), 161. The two major myth cycles concerning the descent of Horus, one representing Haroeris as the son of Ra, the other representing Harsiese as the son of Osiris, were coordinated at Edfu, and Horus was explicitly represented as the son of two fathers, Ra and Osiris.

Ptolemy IV Philopator

201

showing Ptolemy IV, wearing the Double Crown of Egypt, the Swtj (double feather) crown of Amun, or the hmhm crown of Horus, and offering the insignia of kingship to Horus.195 Philopator is even more prominent in the decoration of the Throne of Ra, which was in effect a chapel of the dynastic cult. Reliefs on its exterior show his induction into the temple, his presentation to Horus, and his enthronement in the presence of his parents and grandparents, the Beneficent and Sibling Gods.196 In the interior of the Throne of Ra, below the hieroglyphic title “Day of Confirmation of Royal Power,” four scenes portray Horus conferring the xpS (scimitar) and other royal insignia on Ptolemy IV.197 Another pair of scenes in the interior of the Throne of Ra illustrate Philopator’s investiture in the presence of Horus, Hathor, Harsomtus, and the goddesses of Upper and Lower Egypt, as Thot and Seshat inscribe the millions of years of his reign on the persea tree.198 This emphatic identification of Ptolemy IV with Horus was matched by a strong association of his queen with Hathor, the divine consort of Horus. As was typical for Egyptian queens since the New Kingdom, in Egyptian contexts Arsinoe III wears the crown of Hathor, a solar disk flanked by cow’s horns and surmounted by two tall vertical feathers. She is so depicted in six scenes on the north wall of the sanctuary of Edfu temple, where the royal couple makes offerings to Horus and Hathor.199 The same crown is also worn by the queen’s mother and her great grandmother Berenice I in a relief from the west staircase of the Edfu temple, where Ptolemy IV makes offerings to the local triad and to his ancestors;200 this sharing of the crown illustrates the equivalence of every generation of rulers in Egyptian royal ideology. In the Ptolemaic period the crown of Hathor was sometimes worn by Isis, indicating the assimilation of the two goddesses. On a stela from Tanis, where Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III are depicted making an offering to the local divine triad, Arsinoe wears the Hathoric crown and the knotted garment of Isis, so that she is represented as Hathor-Isis.201 Arsinoe’s Egyptian epithets inscribed in the temples at Edfu and Dakka were mainly traditional titles that had been borne by numerous queens before her and except for snt Hmt n sA Ra (sister-wife of the son of Ra) they do not explicitly promote her identification with Hathor.202 195. Edfou I, 147–148 (HoA and nxx sceptres), 154–155 (ankh, djed, and was sceptres), 145 (wadjet), 152 (wadjet), 143 (HH), 150 (bow and arrow); Edfou IX, pl. 22; Cauville (1987), p. 28. 196. Edfou I, 91, 104–105, 108–109, 112; Ibrahim (1975), p. 21, scene 3, p. 22, scenes 4, 8, 12; Cauville (1987), pp. 14, 15, 17, figs. 5, 6. 197. Edfou I, 292 (xpS), 298–299 (xpS), 290 (HoA and nxx scepters), 296–297 (mks, symbol of his heritage); Ibrahim (1975), scenes 9, 10, 13, 14; Cauville (1987), pp. 20 (fig. 10), 22. 198. Edfou I, 291–292, 297–298; Ibrahim (1975), scenes 11, 12; Cauville (1987), p. 21, fig. 11. 199. Edfou IX, pl. 13b. The crown worn by the Hathor herself in these scenes is the solar disk flanked by cow’s horns, worn atop the vulture headdress. Cauville (1987), p. 5, noted the parallel between the divine and royal couples. Arsinoe apparently also wears the crown of Hathor on the Pithom and Memphis stelae publishing the Raphia Decree, where she is represented standing behind her mounted brother, holding the ankh sign, see Thompson (1988), pp. 117–118; Hölbl (2001), pp. 163–164, fig. 6.1. On the Hathoric crown as typical of Egyptian queens, see Minas (2005), pp. 128–133, 135. 200. Edfou I, pp. 526–527, pl. 36a; Winter (1978), p. 152, doc. 28; Minas (2000), p. 63; Herklotz (2000), p. 50, fig. 4; ead. (2005), p. 158; Pfeiffer (2008b), p. 101, fig. 17. 201. BM no. 1054; Quaegebeur (1971b), p. 201; Ashton in Walker and Higgs (2001), pp. 45–46, fig. 7; Stanwick (2002), p. 219, fig. 206; Pfeiffer (2008b), p. 112, fig. 20. 202. These titles include Hmt nsw wrt (great wife of the king), snt nsw (sister of the king), sAt nsw (daughter of the king), rt pat (noblewoman), nbt 6Awj (mistress of the Two Lands); HoAt (female ruler) stands apart as a title first devised for her mother Berenice II. See Troy (1986), pp. 179, 193, 194, 196; cf. Minas (2000), pp. 3–4, doc. 1, for the offering scene in the temple of Thot at Dakka. Much later Arsinoe III shared in the title mwt nTr n mwwt.f (divine mother of his mothers), conferred on her, Berenice II, and Arsinoe II by Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II in a scene of ancestor cult in the temple of Thot at Medinet Habu (west Thebes), see Minas (2000), p. 29, doc. 56.

202

Introduction

Hieroglyphic ancestor lists, in the form of series of cartouches naming Ptolemaic royal ancestors, began to assume a definitive form in this reign.203 Ancestor lists naming the descent of the Gods Who Love Their Father, beginning with the Sibling Gods, were recorded in the temple of Thot at Dakka and on a foundation tablet for the temple of Anat at Tanis.204 The more numerous ancestor lists from later reigns illustrate the strong tendency in the Egyptian forms of dynastic cult to consider the Sibling Gods as the founders of the dynasty,205 with the possible implication that consanguineous marriage had great ideological significance in the native milieu. The same tendency can be seen in the priestly titles cited above.206 The first Ptolemaic couple was occasionally reverenced in Egyptian contexts: in the aforementioned relief in the west staircase of the Edfu temple, Ptolemy IV is depicted offering foodstuffs to Horus, Hathor, and Harsomptus together with his forebears Ptolemy III and Arsinoe (an error for Berenice II), Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, and Ptolemy I and Berenice I.207 At three other locations in the Edfu temple— the sanctuary (site of the daily ritual), the hall of offerings, and the inner hypostyle hall— there are paired reliefs showing Ptolemy IV making offerings to his parents in one scene and to Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II in the other scene.208 These royal predecessors may have been honored in the daily ritual of the temple and almost certainly they were associated in the Ritual of the Ancestors consecrated to the ancestor gods of the temple.209 In the temple of Arensnuphis at Philae, as well, Ptolemy IV pours a libation to his parents.210 As noted earlier, reliefs elsewhere in the Edfu temple make Philopator’s ancestors participants in enthronement rites and in the New Year’s Festival, and on the latter occasion their portable images were carried to the roof of the temple, along with images of the Egyptian gods, to be regenerated by the sun’s rays in the nationwide rite of Xmn jtn (union with the solar disk).211 A closer look at the complex of scenes in the hall of offerings shows how all the different kinds of cult were closely integrated. The king’s words to his parents illuminate the funerary aspect of the Egyptian dynastic cult: “I offer [to] your corpses, so that you will come out at my voice, be satisfied by my gifts, and partake of the libations from my arms. For your ka I have gathered a death offering, then comes the father to the voice of his son.”212 In the relief immediately below Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III, seated on the divine 203. Minas (2000), pp. 180–181; Herklotz (2005), p. 157; Pfeiffer (2008b), p. 103. 204. Winter (1978), p. 152, doc. 25; Quaegebeur (1989a), p. 101; Minas (2000), pp. 3–5, 39; Hölbl (2001), p. 160. On the Tanis foundation tablet the king is described as beloved of the Sibling Gods, the Beneficent Gods, and the Gods Who Love Their Father. For parallels under Ptolemy III, i.e., texts that name the king and queen in addition to the Theoi Euergetai, see pp. 151–152 205. Nilsson (2010), pp. 321‒328. Herklotz (2005), p. 157, drew attention to the absence of Alexander and Ptolemy Soter from these lists. 206. One further example can be cited, the Memphite stela of Teos which names him Scribe of the Sibling Gods, the Beneficent Gods, and the Gods Who Love Their Father, see PP IX, 5829a; Lanciers (1991), p. 128. Royal oaths are another source pertaining to ancestor lists, but none has survived from the reign of Ptolemy IV in either Greek or demotic documents, see Minas (2000), pp. 164–166. 207. Edfou I, 527, pl. 36a; Winter (1978), p. 152, doc. 28; Minas (2000), p. 63; Herklotz (2005), p. 158; Pfeiffer (2008b), p. 101, fig. 17. 208. Edfou I, 42, 46, 479–480, 494, pls. 12, 35a; II, 46–47, 55, pl. 40b; Winter (1978), p. 149, docs. 2–7. 209. Cauville (1987), pp. 1, 99, 247. 210. Quaegebeur (1989a), p. 100. 211. Alliot (1954), pp. 275–276, 353–355, 358–359; Goyon (1972), p. 43; Cauville (1987), pp. 90, 237–238; Goyon (1988), pp. 37–38; Finnestad (1997), p. 221; Kurth (2004), p. 58. 212. Edfou I, 479–480, pl. 35a; Winter (1978), p. 155 (author’s translation from Winters’ German translation of the hieroglyphic original).

Ptolemy IV Philopator

203

side of the scene, receive an offering of foodstuffs from Hapy, god of the Nile inundation, who says, “With this you increase the offering portions of the gods and maintain the life of all men.”213 The royal couple responds: “We take care of the banks [of the Nile] and heap [benefactions] upon the temples; we increase the foundations that provide offerings for the gods; the things that you [i.e., the Nile] bring we donate to the living, so that there will not be a year of famine in our time.” On the opposite wall Ptolemy offers Hapy’s gifts to Horus, creating a parallel between his earthly ancestors and his divine father.214 In Greek contexts, as noted earlier, Philopator and his queen were associated in the cult of Sarapis and Isis, probably from the time of the Fourth Syrian War. This form of cult is reflected in an inscription from Edfu with a double dedication to King Ptolemy, Queen Arsinoe, Sarapis, and Isis, and in two similar dedications from Ephesus evidently offered by the garrison commander and his military associates.215 It was apparently not until the beginning of the seventh regnal year, in autumn 216, that Ptolemy IV initiated a series of reforms to the Greek dynastic cult. At that point he and his queen were associated in the dynastic cult at Alexandria as the Theoi Philopatores (FatherLoving Gods, nA nTrw mr jtv.w).216 The deities of this cult already included Alexander, the Theoi Adelphoi (Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II), and the Theoi Euergetai (Ptolemy III and Berenice II). However the dynastic founder and his wife had only a separate cult as the Theoi Soteres. This anomaly was at last corrected, and in 215/14 Ptolemy Soter and Berenice I joined their successors in the Greek dynastic cult, so that the dating protocols of documents provided a complete listing of the Lagid rulers in the title of the priest of Alexander.217 Philopator’s belated inclusion of the Theoi Soteres in the dynastic cult was perhaps compensation for the disappearance of the Ptolemaieia, the quadrennial games celebrated in memory of the dynastic founder, which are no longer attested after the reign of Ptolemy III.218 Although originally recognized as isolympic, that is, equal in prestige to the Olympic games, the Ptolemaieia apparently failed to attract a comparable level of international competition. An inscription from Tegea records the victories of a performing artist who won theatrical events in the Greek games, but men’s boxing at the Ptolemaieia.219 The religious reforms of 215/14 probably also included the dedication of the new Sema, a pyramidal mausoleum that housed the mummified bodies of the deceased and deified Ptolemies together with that of the deified Alexander.220 There is reason to believe that the sarcophagus of Nectanebo II, the last native pharaoh and a supposed father of Alexander, 213. Edfou I, 475, pl. 35a; Winter (1978), pp. 154–155. 214. Cauville (1987), p. 99. 215. OGIS I, 82; Meadows (2013b). 216. The earliest known document attesting their enrollment in the Alexandrian cult is BGU VI 1283 (24 October–22 November 216), see Lanciers (1988), p. 28. Arsinoe Philopator received a separate cult at Alexandria from 199/8, see Pestman (1967), p. 36 note e; Minas (2000), p. 125; Pfeiffer (2008b), p. 67. Ptolemy Philopator received a separate cult at Ptolemais from 165/4, see Pestman (1967), p. 36 note d; Minas (2000), pp. 139–140. 217. Minas (2000), pp. 112–114. According to Fraser (1972), Vol. IIa, p. 369 n.237, the likely occasion for the announcement was the celebration of the Ptolemaieia in this year, but see n.218 below. Fraser also suggested (1972, Vol. I, pp. 232–233) that Philopator may have founded the Soteria festival honoring Ptolemy I. 218. Remijsen (2009), p. 259, dated the latest mention of the Ptolemaieia to the late 240s; Bennett (2011), pp. 106–107, cited P.Grad. 6 (223/2), which uses the name Penteteris instead of Ptolemaieia. 219. Syll.3 III 1080, cited by Remijsen (2009), p. 259. 220. Strab. 18.1.8; Zen. 3.94; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 16; Vol. IIa, p. 33 n.80.

204

Introduction

was displayed in the Sema as well.221 Unfortunately no information survives about the rites performed in the Sema. Aboard his luxury yacht, as noted earlier, Philopator associated his predecessors with a different principal deity, his personal patron Dionysus, in a private shrine with statues of Parian marble.222 A private dedication of similar character was erected at Thmuis: excavations there unearthed a group of fragmentary statues of acrolithic type, honoring a dynastic group of ten figures including Alexander the Great, Arsinoe II, Ptolemy III and Berenice II, Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III, Dionysus, Aphrodite (represented twice), and Isis.223 Although this shrine has been dated to the reign of Ptolemy V, the presence of Dionysus and the parallel with the shrine aboard the thalamegos may point to a date in Philopator’s lifetime.224 In a further religious reform of 215/14 the Theoi Philopatores were installed as associated deities (synnaoi theoi) of Ptolemy Soter at Ptolemais north of Thebes, creating a second Greek dynastic cult of eponymous status for Ptolemy the God and the ruling couple.225 While the eponymous priests of the Alexandrian cult were cited throughout the country, those of Ptolemais were cited only in the south, alongside the Alexandrian priests, so that Upper Egypt recognized a double dynastic line that symbolized the union of the Two Lands, the essential achievement of pharaonic kingship.226 The priests of Ptolemais, despite their eponymous status, were not always appointed annually and might serve for a period of years.227 In the twelfth year of the reign (211/10) Philopator’s mother Berenice II received a separate eponymous cult of Greek character, with an annual priestess bearing the title Athlophoros (Prize-Bearer), who took precedence over the Kanephoros of Arsinoe Philadelphus.228 Thereafter the official Alexandrian dating formula cited the eponymous priest of Alexander and of the deified Lagid couples, the Athlophoros of Berenice, and the Kanephoros of Arsinoe Philadelphus; the Athlophoros was normally appointed Kanephoros in the following year.229 Ptolemy also constructed a temple to his mother as Berenice Sozousa (Savior) on the Alexandrian coast.230 Outside his kingdom he promoted the worship of both of his parents. A Theuergesia festival attested on Delos from 216 to

221. Gorre (2009a), pp. 66–67. 222. Callixenus of Rhodes apud Athen. 5.205e–5.206a, FGrHist 627 F 1 39. 223. Lembke (2000); Queyrel (2003); Herklotz (2005), pp. 159–160; Pfeiffer (2008b), p. 68. 224. Pfeiffer (2008b), pp. 69–70. 225. Minas (2000), pp. 114–116; see also Koenen (1993), pp. 56–57. The first evidence for this cult dates from 14 April–13 May 214. Habicht (1970), p. 123, noted that this is also the first attestation of the cult of Ptolemy as ktistes of Ptolemais but presumed that the cult itself was established during his lifetime. 226. Koenen (1993), pp. 56–57. 227. Minas (2000), pp. 114–115. 228. Ijsewijn (1961), pp. 136–137; Clarysse and van der Veken (1983) pp. 16–17, no. 80; Minas (2000), pp. 116–120; Herklotz (2000), p. 46; Pfeiffer (2008b), p. 67. 229. This phenomenon is known as “Bell’s Law,” see Glanville and Skeat (1954), especially pp. 45–46. Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 220, suggested an intent to degrade Arsinoe Philadelphus but did not explain why Philopator should have entertained such a sentiment. 230. Zenob. 3.94; Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 238–239; Vol. IIa, p. 388 n.385.

Ptolemy IV Philopator

205

202 was probably a new festival in honor of the Theoi Euergetai, founded by their pious son.231 The Rhodian cult of Ptolemy and Berenice also appears to date from his reign.232 Philopator’s devotion to Dionysus and his apparent identification with the god inspired a few artworks of Greek style. Portraits of Ptolemy IV in the guise of Dionysus have been recognized in a terracotta head in the Benaki collection, where the king wears an ivy wreath, and in the decoration of a silver alabastron from Palaiokastro in Thessaly, where he is represented as the infant Dionysus with Nymphs.233 Ptolemy IV is also depicted wearing the ivy wreath and nebris, and holding either a filleted thunderbolt or a thyrsus over his shoulder, on silver didrachms and drachms of Cyprus, probably issued under Ptolemy V.234 Compared with the varied, even florid expressions of the divinity of earlier Ptolemaic queens, the individual apotheosis of Arsinoe III seems decidedly modest. On faience oinochoai of the royal cult, only Ptolemy Philopator is named in the inscriptions and in one case even the attached figure of the queen was omitted.235 An Alexandrian fountain, apparently a private dedication, combined Parian and Hymettan marble with Egyptian granite and depicted an Arsinoe, probably Arsinoe III, in relief along with the Nymphs.236 The anonymous epigram through which this fountain is known implies an annual festival in which Arsinoe was associated with the Nymphs. A statue base inscribed in Greek for Arsinoe Thea Philopator, dedicated by a priest of Nilus, was found in the ruins of the temple of Isis at Canopus.237 There is scattered evidence for the worship of Ptolemy IV in his possessions outside Egypt. An inscription found near Jaffa names a priest of Great King Ptolemy Theos Philopator, attesting a civic cult of Ioppe almost certainly established in 217 during the king’s victory tour of Syria and Phoenicia.238 Another post-Raphian inscription calls him Great King, Soter, Nicephorus (Savior, Bearer of Victory).239 The title Great King, with its Achaemenid associations, was previously assumed by Ptolemy III after his victories in the Third Syrian War and now designated the fourth Ptolemy as victor over the Asiatics.240 In private dedications made after the battle of Raphia this title was even extended to his sister-wife, Great Queen Arsinoe Thea Philopator.241 In the Phoenician sanctuary of Milk ‘Ashtarte at Umm el-‘Amed (ancient ‘Hammon) south of Tyre, several votive statues took the form of sphinxes representing a Ptolemaic king wearing the Egyptian 231. Bruneau (1970), pp. 525–528. Bruneau mentioned the possibility of a foundation by a philos of Ptolemy III, but Philopator seems a strong candidate in view of his enthusiasm for cultic innovation. Bruneau also mentioned, but did not favor, an alternate interpretation of the Theuergesia as a new name for the Ptolemaieia. 232. Huß (1976b), p. 115, contrary to the opinion of Habicht (1970), p. 110, who considered it likely that the cult was founded during the lifetime of Ptolemy III. 233. Tondriau (1952), p. 458, d; Fraser (1972), Vol. IIa, p. 348 n.119. 234. Svoronos (1904–08), Vol. II, nos. 1785–1786; Mørkholm (1987), nos. 20–23 = Hazzard (1998), nos. 20–23; Svenson (1995), pp. 31, 32, nos. 65, 69, pl. 17 (nos. 70 and 71 are doubtful as portraits of Ptolemy IV). 235. Thompson (1973), pp. 20, 139 no. 42, 153–154 no. 87, 155–156 no. 92, 171 no. 141 (without queen figure), 185–186 no. 198, and pll. xvi–xvii, xxxi–xxxii, xxxvi, xlix, lvii. 236. Fraser (1972), Vol. I, pp. 609–611; Vol. IIb, pp. 860–861 n.412. 237. Bernand (1970), pp. 237–238, no. 8. 238. SEG XX, 467; Huß (1976b), p. 72. 239. OGIS I, 89 (= SB V 8769). 240. Huß (1976b), pp. 72–74. 241. OGIS I, 94, A, 2; Huß (1976b), p. 71.

206

Introduction

nemes headdress.242 The faces are of a hybrid Greco-Egyptian style usually attributed to the second century, but arguably introduced in the later third century. The state visit of Ptolemy IV to Phoenicia after the victory at Raphia is a likely occasion for the erection of such statues, with their protective symbolism, and this form of commemoration may be linked to the presence of other more traditional Egyptian elements in the eclectic art and architecture of Umm el ‘Amed.243 A marble head of Philopator in the museum at Tolmeta implies that a cult statue stood in the Libyan Ptolemais.244 At Xanthus in Lycia Ptolemy was associated in the cult of his parents the Theoi Euergetai.245 A Samian victor list from the time of Philopator ends with praises of Ptolemy Hermes Heracles, reflecting the association of the king with Hermes Enagonios and Heracles in a gymnasium cult, and this same cult is attested by Samian private dedications.246 In the gymnasium cult of Eresus on Lesbos athletic contests were held in honor of Heracles and the king.247 Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III received divine honors outside their kingdom as well. The Boeotians acknowledged their benefactions by erecting bronze statues of the royal pair in the Amphiareion, making them synnaoi theoi with the oracular god of Oropus.248 The Rhodians erected a statue of King Ptolemy Theos Philopator, probably in connection with their alliance and joint diplomatic activity in Greece between 217 and 207.249 On Cos, another allied island, an Alexandrian citizen, Callimachus son of Antiphilus, served as agonothetes (supervisor of competition) at a festival honoring the Ptolemies and afterward dedicated a basalt or granite statue of Arsinoe III, probably of Egyptian style.250 The people of Cos erected a bronze statue of the same queen in the Asklepieion in gratitude for some unknown benefaction.251 Ptolemy IV was also honored on Cos, perhaps posthumously, with a cult statue in the city and an equestrian statue in bronze in the Asklepieion.252

II. Coinage Egyptian coinage of Ptolemy IV The earliest Alexandrian coinage of Ptolemy Philopator in precious metal may have been a small emission of unmarked gold mnaieia featuring a radiate portrait of the deified Ptolemy III, wearing the aegis like a chlamys and holding a trident over his shoulder. The principal precious metal issue of the reign was marked with the letters  and included 242. Nitschke (2011), pp. 96‒97. 243. Nitschke (2011), pp. 92‒94, 96, 101. 244. Laronde (1987), pp. 438‒439. 245. SEG XXXVIII, 1476, ll. 1–4; Pfeiffer (2008b), p. 50. 246. Girard (1881), 481–483, no. 4; Preuner (1903), 357–362; Kotsidu (2000), no. 181, Ea, E2; Pfeiffer (2008b), p. 50. 247. IG XII 2, 527; IG XII Suppl., 33; Huß (1976b), p. 229. 248. OGIS I, 81 = IG VII 298; Huß (1976b), p. 254. Schachter (1961) and Noeske (2000), pp. 244–245, also claimed numismatic honors—the depiction of Arsinoe III as the Tenth Muse on the bronze coinage of Thespiae and as one of the Graces on the bronze coinage of Orchomenus, implying an otherwise unrecorded benefaction to the Charitesia—but these interpretations were refuted by Guittet (2012). 249. OGIS I, 76 = IG XII 1, 37; Huß (1976b), pp. 115–116. 250. SEG XXXIII, 674; Habicht (2007), p. 138; Ma (2010), p. 159. Although Ma left room for doubt about the Egyptian character of this statue, Stanwick (2002) concluded that hellenizing features were not included in royal portraiture belonging to the Egyptian tradition until the reign of Ptolemy V. 251. Höghammar (1993), p. 173, no. 63, fig. 28; Palagia (2013), p. 153. 252. Höghammar (1993), p. 204, nos. 94a–b; Palagia (2013), p. 153.

Ptolemy IV Philopator

207

mnaieia, pentekontadrachmai, and eighth mnaieia of the Ptolemy III portrait type; mnaieia of Arsinoe Philadelphus; and silver tetradrachms with another novel type, the jugate busts Sarapis and Isis. A final small emission of these tetradrachms was marked with the letters .253 Both the posthumous portrait of Ptolemy III and the images of Sarapis and Isis were related to the Fourth Syrian War (below, under numismatic iconography). The absolute chronology of the Sarapis and Isis tetradrachms can be inferred from the series of this type issued at Ascalon (below), dated to regnal years 3–5. This comparison suggests that the issue of Alexandrian Sarapis and Isis tetradrachms marked  was struck intensively from 219 to 217 to finance military preparations for a counteroffensive against Antiochus III. This assumption receives support from a die study showing that the mint employed multiple anvils to strike the bulk of this emission.254 A die study of the Ptolemy III mnaieia indicates that they were minted in particular haste and this confirms the general impression that they were struck for the Raphia victory donative.255 A gold mnaieion with the portrait of Ptolemy IV can be dated later than the above coinage based on its control ;, which was employed for Alexandrian bronze coinage after , , , and . Mnaieia of the same type, showing Ptolemy clad in a chlamys and an eagle facing right, accompanied by the king’s epithet Philopator, had been struck earlier at several provincial mints (see below). The last precious metal emission of Alexandria, apparently, was a coinage of gold mnaieia, silver decadrachms, and tetradrachms with the types of Berenice II, struck on the Ptolemaic weight standard. The denominations and weight standard match those of the posthumous coinage of Arsinoe Philadelphus, rather than the lifetime coinage of Berenice, from which the later issue is also distinguished by the absence of symbols pertaining to the Dioscuri. A date in the latter reign of Ptolemy IV is indicated by both style and hoard evidence.256 The presence of a small loop marking the knot where the diadem is tied around the cornucopiae is a detail shared by the posthumous gold coins of Ptolemy III but by no other Alexandrian coins depicting cornuacopiae.257 These Berenice coins are absent from the two Benha hoards (IGCH 1694, 1695) which close with the posthumous mnaieia of Ptolemy III. Neither have they appeared in the plentiful Ptolemaic gold coinage in commerce since 2007, which appears to represent another hoard with the same closing coins. The only hoard provenance of Ptolemaic-weight Berenices is Antalya (CH II, 69), where they were associated with the same posthumous mnaieia of Ptolemy III. The hoard record thus tends to confirm the posthumous date of the Ptolemaic-weight Berenices and suggests that they postdated Raphia and its Egyptian victory celebrations. Possibly the second Berenikeion nomisma was introduced in connection with the establishment of an eponymous cult for Berenice in 211/10. The bronze coinage of Ptolemy IV reflects a kingdom-wide centralization of mint administration, with identical controls appearing on Alexandrian and provincial bronze 253. Three such tetradrachms were represented in the Delta hoard (IGCH 1690), see Newell (1927b), nos. 4–6. Newell considered their style to be earlier than that of the Sarapis and Isis tetradrachms marked DI and proposed a date in the reign of Ptolemy III. But the stylistic contrast is debatable, and the conspicuous promotion of Sarapis and Isis by Ptolemy IV makes it far more likely that these coins belong to his reign. 254. Landvatter (2012), pp. 77–79. 255. Lorber in Olivier and Lorber (2013), pp. 99–115. 256. Olivier (2006), p. 51. Caltabiano (1996), pp. 179–180, proposed a date late in the reign of Ptolemy III, citing the matronly appearance of the queen’s portrait. 257. This detail was drawn to my attention by J. Olivier in personal communication.

208

Introduction

coins. The Egyptian mint initially concentrated its bronze production on relatively large denominations, issued in great abundance—drachms and triobols marked  and . The system was then expanded to six denominations; drachms and triobols were joined by tetrobols, diobols, hemiobols, and dichalka,258 marked with the controls , , and í. There followed a period in which only tetrobols were minted, in about half a dozen emissions of decreasing size, each marked by different controls. The Raphia Donative The Greek text of the Pithom Stela reports that after the battle of Raphia Ptolemy IV distributed χρυσῶν μυριάδων τριάκοντα (300,000 chrysoi, or 300,000 in gold) to his soldiers.259 Chrysoi or gold staters had not been minted in Egypt since the reign of the first Ptolemy. H. Cuvigny argued that the word chrysous was merely an accounting term equivalent to 20 silver drachms, with no implications for the metal used in the donative.260 S. von Reden restated this argument using demotic accounting terms, equating the chrysous with one deben or five silver staters.261 H. Cadell and G. Le Rider calculated the donative in terms of its silver equivalent, six million drachms or 1,000 talents.262 All of these scholars overlooked the battlefield promise of Queen Arsinoe of two gold minae per man, which does reflect the actual currency of the day.263 In addition, a die study of the principal Alexandrian issue of mnaieia depicting the deified Ptolemy III (Svoronos 1117) found evidence that it was minted in haste using as many as five anvils concurrently.264 That discovery, considered together with the testimony of the Raphia decree and III Maccabees, should put the scholarly doubts to rest: the Raphia donative was indeed paid in gold. The mnaieion was equivalent to a mina of silver or 100 silver drachms, thus also to five gold staters. The total of 300,000 chrysoi thus represents 60,000 mnaieia, enough to pay the promised donative to 30,000 troops. But the total of 60,000 mnaieia falls far short of two mnaieia per head if we accept the testimony of Polybius concerning the size of the Ptolemaic army at Raphia. At 5.79.2‒10 the troops are counted at 70,000 foot and 5,000 horse, and at 5.65 the individual units apparently total 70,000 foot, including 20,000 Egyptians trained to fight in the Macedonian style, and 3,000 horse (the number of the Greek and mercenary cavalry is not given). The ambiguities in Polybius’ description of the army have inspired various revisions of his figures.265 Of particular concern is the fact that he mentions two phalanxes, one of 25,000 men whose ethnicity is not specified, and a second of 20,000 Egyptians.266 But if 25,000 Greek phalangites were available, as implied by Polybius’ figures, there would have been little reason to spend two years training Egyptians to fight in the Greek manner. In what is probably the most influential critique, G. T. Griffith noted that the combined phalanx of 45,000 would have vastly outnumbered 258. As noted earlier, hemiobols and dichalka were essential denominations of a practical monetary system. Their use is attested in many papyri. 259. Raphia Decree, Greek A (SEG VIII, 467), ll. 20–22. 260. Cuvigny (2003), pp. 115–116. 261. Von Reden (2007), p. 77. 262. Cadell and Le Rider (1997), p. 79. 263. III Macc. 1.4. 264. Lorber in Olivier and Lorber (2013), pp. 99–101. 265. For a summary and critique of the scholarship, see Galili (1976–77), pp. 62–64. 266. Polyb. 5.65.3–4, 5.65.9–10.

Ptolemy IV Philopator

209

the 20,000-man phalanx of Antiochus III and this should have been reflected in the battle tactics.267 Yet the Ptolemaic phalanx was held back while the wings were the first to engage the enemy. Griffith concluded that Polybius had confused his numbers and that his first figure 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. This correction would reduce the total size of the Ptolemaic army at Raphia to 55,000 men, 50,000 foot, of whom 20,000 were native Egyptians, and 5,000 horse. Griffith’s conclusion was endorsed by F. Walbank in his influential commentary on Polybius.268 Scholars since Walbank, including E. Galili and the military historian B. BarKochva, have accepted Polybius’ figures for the size of the Ptolemaic army at Raphia.269 K. Goudriaan refuted Griffith’s arguments, noting that Polybius 5.82.2–6 mentions the phalanx (by implication the Graeco-Macedonian phalanx) and the Egyptian phalanx separately in different positions in the line of battle.270 In demographic studies based on papyrological sources, D. Rathbone and C. Fischer-Bovet both found Polybius’ figures credible, and Fischer-Bovet specifically rejected the Griffith-Walbank interpretation as implying a failure of the cleruchic system that is not supported by the documentation overall.271 W. Huß offered a creative solution to the problem of the Raphia donative. Based on Polybius’ total of 75,000 troops and taking the word chryson as referring to gold without specifying a particular coin denomination, he hypothesized that each soldier received four gold pentekontadrachma.272 These could hardly have been pentekontadrachma bearing the radiate portrait of the deified Ptolemy III (Svoronos 1118), which were produced in very small numbers.273 Coins of the Theoi Adelphoi, however, were indeed available in this denomination at the time of Raphia, as attested by their presence, in quantity, in hoards that closed with portrait mnaieia of Ptolemy III, namely the two Benha hoards (IGCH 1694, 1695) and the presumed hoard in commerce since 2007. Still, Huß’s solution is not entirely acceptable now that we have strongly associated mnaieia depicting the radiate Ptolemy III with the Raphia donative. If we read the word chryson as denoting gold rather than gold staters, the donative could have been paid in these mnaieia and the entire army could have been rewarded at the rate of two mnaieia each. A minimum of 150,000 mnaieia was required for the rankand-file troops and presumably an equal number of mnaieia was distributed among the officers, who were remunerated more handsomely, and according to their rank.274 This solution is consistent with the ancient sources, and it is more plausible than a donative of 267. Griffith (1935), pp. 118–123. 268. Walbank (1957), pp. 589–590. 269. Galili (1976–77), pp. 64, 68; Bar-Kochva (1979), p. 135 and map 8. 270. Goudriaan (1988), p. 122. 271. Rathbone (1990), pp. 112–113; Fischer-Bovet (2011), pp. 138‒141; ead. (2013), pp. 78‒80. 272. Huß (1976b), pp. 81–82 with n.360. 273. Lorber, in Lorber and Olivier (2013), pp. 114–115, 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. The recent die study found only one specimen in commerce in the last quarter century and it is impossible to determine whether it is identical with Svoronos’ third specimen, or whether it represents the fourth known. 274. Under Ptolemy V the strategos Scopas received a daily salary of ten minae, and all subordinate officers received one mina per day (Polyb. 13.2.3).

210

Introduction

only 60,000 mnaieia in terms of the rate of survival.275 The 300,000 mnaieia represent an expenditure equivalent to 30,000,000 silver drachms or 5,000 talents, a staggering sum. The Raphia donative can now be counted among the extravagances of a king famous for his excesses. The Loss of Gold Hoards in Post-Raphian Egypt The loss of hoarded silver was rare in Egypt under Ptolemy IV; only two Egyptian silver hoards are securely datable to his reign, Mit Ya-Ish (EH I, 200) and Delta, 1922 (IGCH 1690), both of modest size.276 In contrast, the loss of Egyptian gold hoards is a remarkable phenomenon of the period. Of the eight known third-century gold hoards, three close with mnaieia of Ptolemy IV depicting the radiate Ptolemy III, which were issued around the time of the battle of Raphia. In two of the three cases, these mnaieia belong to the issue struck specifically for the Raphia donative (Svoronos 1117). Only two of these eight hoards were found in controlled archaeological excavations. The Heraclion hoard was discovered underwater in the near vicinity of the sunken temple of Khonsu, and the Toukh el-Garmous hoard came from the treasury of a temple of Amun-Ra. These two cases suggest that the other gold hoards could also represent temple treasures or monies associated with temple finance or with worshippers. But other possibilities must also be considered, including government payments, commercial capital, the savings of elite individuals, or accumulations associated with military units. The coinages of the Theoi Adelphoi and of Arsinoe Philadelphus appear to have been hoarded separately in several instances. They occur together only in the hoards deposited in the last quarter of the third century, where they are associated with gold issues of Ptolemy IV. The earlier pattern of segregation cannot be due to the chronology of the two series; in that case, we would see earlier hoards containing only coins of the Theoi Adelphoi and later hoards containing coins of both series. The separate hoards point to different recipients. In the case of the Arsinoe mnaieia, the majority of the coinage was probably distributed to military veterans after the end of the Second Syrian War (see p. 111). The large Upper Egypt hoard (IGCH 1687) could conceivably represent the retirement bonus of a very high-ranking officer, or accumulated offerings to a temple by a group of pious soldiers. Less likely hypotheses, because less parsimonious, are that the coins passed into the hands of a merchant or returned to the treasury and then formed a new lot that was somehow exposed to loss.

275. The die study recorded 263 mnaieia. If the total production was 300,000 mnaieia, the rate of survival would be 1 in 1141 coins; if the total production was 60,000 mnaieia, the rate of survival would be 1 in 228 coins. Both are higher than the average survival rate for Greek coins overall, calculated as 1 in 6427 by Faucher (2011b), pp. 124–125, but a survival rate of 1 in 228 coins seems particularly improbable. I am grateful to Thomas Faucher for suggesting this approach. 276. The Mit Ya-Ish hoard closed with provincial tetradrachms bearing the control , probably datable to the Fourth Syrian War or its immediate aftermath. I am grateful to Thomas Faucher for communicating the contents of this hoard. Of the 21 coins of the Delta, 1922 hoard, 18 were Sarapis and Isis tetradrachms of Ptolemy IV. The main issue of these coins can be associated with the financing of the Fourth Syrian War, but four of the specimens in the hoard were postRaphian, meaning that the hoard itself was lost some time after 217.

Ptolemy IV Philopator

211

Table 4.1. Egyptian gold hoards before and after Raphia Hoard

Closure

Contents

Heraclion (Hawass & Goddio 2010, pp. 141–142)

After 294

5 tetartai

Toukh el-Garmous, 1905 (IGCH 1680)

c. 270?a

160 trichrysa

Zagazig, 1894 (IGCH 1692)

c. 260?

100 Theoi Adelphoi mnaieia

Upper Egypt, before 1905 (IGCH 1687)

c. 245?

112 Arsinoe Philadelphus mnaieia

Egypt, 1927? (IGCH 1682)

c. 245?

6+ Arsinoe Philadelphus mnaieia

Benha, 1922–23 (IGCH 1695)

After 217

8 Theoi Adelphoi mnaieia unspecified pentekontadrachma 6 mnaieia with radiate Ptolemy III

Benha, 1936 (IGCH 1694)

After 217

1 trichryson 2+ Theoi Adelphoi mnaieia 3+ Theoi Adelphoi pentekontadrachma 19 Arsinoe mnaieia 1–2 Ephesian mnaieia of Berenice II 2 Alexandrian mnaieia with radiate Ptolemy III (Sv. 1117) 1 Sidonian mnaieion with radiate Ptolemy III (Sv. 1184)

Commerce, 2007

After 217

55+ Theoi Adelphoi mnaieia 53+ Theoi Adelphoi pentekontadrachma 138+ Arsinoe mnaieia a few Attic-weight pentadrachms of Berenice II 136+ mnaieia with radiate Ptolemy III (Sv. 1117)

a Chauveau and Thiers (2006), p. 393, attributed the loss of this hoard to the seditio domestica of 245.

The post-Raphian gold hoards were all potentially very large, as they were dispersed in commerce and recorded only partially.277 It is somewhat difficult to account for their formation. On the one hand they were repositories for older gold coins, mainly of the Theoi Adelphoi and Arsinoe types, which had formerly been hoarded separately. On the other hand at least one of these hoards, the hoard in commerce since 2007, represents an impressive accumulation of Svoronos 1117, an issue at least half of which was distributed to some 70,000 individual soldiers. None of these hoards included Alexandrian mnaieia of Berenice II and this is especially significant for the large commerce, 2007 hoard, which should have included any recent gold issue. The absence of Berenice mnaieia suggests that this hoard was lost before the introduction of a posthumous coinage for Berenice Euergetis (perhaps in 211/0, the year of the creation of her individual cult).278 This does not allow much time for fiscal and economic processes to remove the donative coins from the hands of the Raphia veterans and recycle them into new accumulations. Most likely, then, these were the savings of elite military officers, or the combined savings of entire 277. The Benha, 1936 hoard appeared on the Cairo market before A.B. Brett was notified. Brett (1952), p. 1, reported that she was unable to view the coins acquired by the Alexandrian collector Victor Adda, and that the Theoi Adelphoi gold coins, of which she recorded only five, were “going begging” because they were so numerous. The stream of Ptolemaic gold coins that entered the numismatic market in 2007 continues unabated. 278. We can probably discount the possibility that mnaieia of Berenice are missing from the hoards because they had non-military recipients. The highest military officers were members of the court elite.

212

Introduction

military units, or temple treasures enriched by recent donations from members of the military. The more or less simultaneous loss of these valuable hoards cannot be attributed to chance. The only plausible cause for such losses is the insurrection that roiled Egypt in the post-Raphian period,279 and this revolt probably also accounts for the approximately contemporary loss of the two silver hoards. The known find spots of the gold hoards confirm that Lower Egypt was the locus of the rebellion and identify Athribis (modern Benha) as a particular trouble spot. The loss of especially valuable hoards implies serious violence and suggests that wealthy elites or institutions were specific targets of the uprising, consistent with the view of various scholars that social and economic resentments were important motives of the revolt. But the presence of so many mnaieia recently distributed in the Raphia donative tends to associate these hoards with the military. This association is suggestive in light of Polybius’ allusion to a major mutiny in the military, but it falls short of actual corroboration. Bronze currency reform under Ptolemy IV A. The bronze demonetization in Egypt A major break in the record of Egyptian bronze hoards provides evidence for a reform of the

bronze currency toward the end of the third century. Of the twenty-one third-century Egyptian bronze hoards known to us, no less than twelve close at precisely the same point, with issues of Egyptian Series 5E marked , , or í.280 Insofar as the findspots of these hoards are known, two come from Lower Egypt and five from the Thebaid, including four from Thebes itself. These hoards contain no denominations of Ptolemy IV smaller than the triobol, and almost no tetrobols of Series 5, except for two specimens countermarked with a cornucopiae. As we shall see below, these countermarked tetrobols are almost certainly intrusive. The simultaneous deposit of these hoards was already evident to numismatists of the early twentieth century. E. T. Newell attributed their loss to the disorders and rebellions that troubled the reign of Ptolemy IV, while J. G. Milne associated the break in the hoards with a currency reform under Ptolemy VI.281 Later, in 1984, A. Gara dated the break in the hoards to the year 210,282 implicitly connecting it with a change in the value of the bronze drachm and a fundamental reform of the Ptolemaic method of accounting (see Section B below). The hoard contents definitely point to a reform that demonetized most of the large bronze denominations of Series 4 and 5, but not the tetrobols of Series 5. In a second and much smaller group of hoards the bronze issues of Ptolemy IV are represented exclusively 279. On this revolt, with sources and discussion of the chronology, see p. 191 280. Lorber (2000). To the eight hoards cited there it is now possible to add four others. The twelve hoards are: Lower Egypt, before 1913 (IGCH 1691); Xois, 1995 (CH IX, 688); Egypt, before 1976 (Getty Museum) (CH VI, 30 = CH X, 449); Egypt, before 1908 (IGCH 1696); Egypt, before 1908 (IGCH 1697); Egypt, before 1908 (IGCH 1698); Egypt, before 1914 (CH IX, 686) = Noeske (1998); Nag Hammadi, 1937 (CH X, 453) = Seif el Din, Faucher, and Shahin (2008); Nektanebo Wall, Karnak (CH X, 451‒452), now known to be a single hoard, to be published by T. Faucher; Ramesseum, Thebes, 1896 (IGCH 1699); Birabi (Luxor), 1907‒1911 (CH X, 450); Luxor (Birabi), 1915‒1916 (IGCH 1700). A similar hoard, Egypt (Auckland Museum) (CH VIII, 352), closes slightly earlier with Series 5D. 281. Newell (1935), pp. 66‒67; Milne (1938), pp. 205‒206. 282. Gara (1984), p. 110.

Ptolemy IV Philopator

213

by coins bearing a cornucopiae countermark, and it is in these hoards that we find the tetrobols missing from the first group of hoards. A hoard found in the North Bubastid door of Karnak temple in 1972 (CH X, 454) contained only countermarked tetrobols and diobols of Series 5. The “Coinex” hoard of 1992 (CH VIII, 413 = CH X, 455) associated countermarked tetrobols of Series 5 with many coins of Series 6.283 Another hoard recorded from a commercial website in 2013 contained a similar mix of countermarked tetrobols of Series 5 and coins of Series 6.284 It is clear from these hoards that the tetrobols and diobols of Series 5 remained legal tender after the demonetization, but at some point, perhaps immediately, they had to be countermarked. The Karnak hoard suggests an interval in which the countermarked coins were the only available currency, while the “Coinex” and commerce 2013 hoards provide evidence of the next developments. The policies of demonetization and countermarking were imposed by the Ptolemaic state and could not have been enforced in Upper Egypt during the Great Revolt. A natural assumption is that the Theban hoards, including the Karnak hoard of countermarked tetrobols and diobols, were deposited before the enthronement of the rebel pharaoh Horwennefer at Thebes in October‒November 205.285 The reassertion of Lagid sovereignty over Thebes in the year 198, lasting perhaps as late as 194,286 presents another possible window of opportunity for the imposition of monetary reforms. But it is very doubtful that there was an effective fiscal administration in Thebes following the Ptolemaic recovery of 198.287 So far as we know, there were no deposits to the royal bank in Thebes between 207 and 192.288 The lack of tax receipts from the Thebaid for the entire duration of the Great Revolt is further evidence of an administrative vacuum.289 Absent a functioning administration, it would have been impossible to enforce a demonetization or to organize the countermarking of tetrobols and diobols. Thus the terminus ante quem for these monetary reforms is the collapse of the Ptolemaic fiscal administration in Thebes after 12 September 207.290 The battle of Raphia provides a terminus post quem, since the control  was in use at least until November of 217, when the Raphia donative was paid with gold mnaieia bearing this control. The massive bronze series 5E, with controls , , and í, must occupy the first part of the post-Raphian period. Series 5F, despite its six controls, was a much smaller coinage and need not necessarily have required much time. Accordingly, the demonetization might be dated as early as c. 214 or as late as 207. The rationale behind these monetary reforms is elusive. They were almost certainly a response to dislocations in the currency system, which are attested in the papyrological record (see Section B below). The manner in which the reforms were effected was 283. Huston and Lorber (2001). The bronzes of Ptolemy III reported as part of the “Coinex” hoard are now believed to belong to a separate hoard that appeared simultaneously on the market. 284. Recorded on Vcoins in January and October 2013. 285. Lorber in Huston and Lorber (2001), p. 29. The demotic stela or ostracon O.Cair. 38.258 indicates that the rebel pharaoh Horwennefer was recognized in Karnak on 9 Thoth, year 1 (10 November 205), see Pestman (1965), pp. 159 (no. 1), 161; Veïsse (2004), pp. 12, 25. The Ptolemaic army used Thebes as an operating base in the first regnal year of Ptolemy V (summer‒beginning of October 204), but this hardly implies an ability to impose monetary reform at that date. 286. Theban documents attest to the authority of Epiphanes in 198 and to that of Ankhwennefer in 194, see Veïsse (2004), pp. 13, 19, 26. 287. O’Neil (2012), pp. 136, 146. 288. Bogaert (1994), p. 258. 289. Clarysse (2004), p. 4; O’Neil (2012), p. 136. 290. Pestman (1995), pp. 103, 105, and 110 text d (O.Tait 1 = O.Bodl. 1).

214

Introduction

unprecedented, at least for Ptolemaic bronze coinage. Series 2 had been retired from circulation and replaced by a reformed coinage (Series 3) without leaving a dramatic break in the hoards. To be sure, diobols of Series 2 often bear a trident countermark, but there are few hoards on record containing coins of Series 2. Similarly, coins of Series 3 occur in hoards with coins of Series 4, but not in hoards containing coins of Series 5, and this suggests that Series 3 was retired to make way for Series 5.291 In these earlier cases we can assume an orderly process in which banks played the key role, either tacitly withdrawing the older coinage, or permitting the exchange of old for new coinage within a defined period of time.292 In contrast, the demonetization that heralded the transition from Series 5 to Series 6 deprived many families of a significant portion of their savings. The precise findspots of the hoards from Karnak and Luxor indicate that at least some of the hoarders belonged to the priestly class, including choachytes (minor clergy who served the mortuary cult).293 At the same time the government lost a great deal of bronze that might have been recoined or diverted to other uses. Far greater losses attended the abandonment of the Attic weight standard by Ptolemy I, but at least in that case we can discern an immediate advantage to the state. Some of the bronze hoards deposited because of the great demonetization were recorded in sufficient detail to allow an assessment of their total value, based on current beliefs about the face values of the various bronze denominations:294 Lower Egypt, before 1913 (IGCH 1691) (incomplete) Egypt, before 1976 (CH VI, 30 = CH X, 449) (incomplete) Egypt, before 1908 (IGCH 1696) Egypt, before 1908 (IGCH 1697) Egypt, before 1908 (IGCH 1698) Egypt, before 1914 (CH IX, 686) Nag Hammadi, 1937 (CH X, 453) (intact) Ramesseum, 1896 (IGCH 1699) (intact)

70 dr., 4 ob. 119 dr., ½ ob. 34 dr., 2 ob. 27 dr., 4 ob. 64 dr., 2 ob. 40 dr., 4 ob. 56 dr., 3 ob. 53 dr., 1 ob.

In order to put these values into perspective, they can be converted into their equivalent in wheat. Penalties (epitima) and the conversion ratio between wheat and olyra295 (emmer wheat, a less nutritious grain) suggest that wheat prices may have averaged 5‒6 drachms per artaba under Ptolemy IV.296 Penalties may not be a reliable guide to actual market prices (see below), but they are the only evidence available for this reign. An adult could 291. This observation was made by T. Faucher in correspondence, December 2012. Series 3 and 4 are associated in Elephantine, before 1993 (CH IX, 687); Tuna el-Gebel, 1967 (CH X, 448); Lot A of the “Coinex” hoard of 1992 (CH VIII, 413 = CH X, 455), see n.283 above; and Saqqara, 1977 (CH V, 37 = CH VIII, 310). Coins of Series 3 are included in only one of the hoards deposited at the time of the great bronze demonetization, Lower Egypt, 1913 (IGCH 1691). 292. P.Cair.Zen. II 59176 (255 B.C.) indicates that a bank held a quantity of demonetized bronze coinage as much as decade after the reform of the bronze currency by Ptolemy II. 293. The Ramesseum hoard (IGCH 1699) was found in a recess in the great north wall of the temple, see Quibell (1896), p. 13. A hoard from the Luxor Necropolis was found in a corner of one of the small brick vestibules before the entrance to a mud-brick vaulted Ptolemaic tomb, see H. Carter in Carnarvon and Carter (1912), pp. 44‒45. A nearby tomb was the source of two demotic papyri dated to the fourth regnal year of the native pharaoh Horwennefer, found in an amphora buried under the floor, see W. Spiegelberg in Carnarvon and Carter (1912), pp. 46‒47. 294. Lorber (2000), p. 87, attempted a similar exercise but assumed a higher weight standard and lower face values for Series 4. 295. Mayerson (2002), pp. 210‒211. 296. Cadell and Le Rider (1997), p. 60.

Ptolemy IV Philopator

215

survive on a minimum of 10 artabas of wheat per year.297 Based on these figures, in the reign of Ptolemy IV a bare subsistence level for a single adult for a year probably lay in the range of 50‒60 drachms. Five of the eight hoards above fall within or slightly above that range. These were not great fortunes, but they no doubt represented irritating losses for their owners. The date of the great demonetization, at most a few years before the secession of Upper Egypt, suggests that outrage over monetary losses might have been a cause of the Great Revolt, or a factor that rallied the Theban clergy to support it.298 On the other hand the costs of rebellion were great, ranging from the immediate certainty of losing state stipends to the risk of divine wrath. It is entirely possible that the Theban clergy did not enthusiastically support the restoration of a native kingship but merely acquiesced in the face of armed power. B. Perturbations in the currency system of Egypt in the late third century Papyrologists and economic historians have long believed that their sources reveal a breakdown in normal monetary exchange around the end of the third century, as well as a significant alteration in the value of the bronze drachm.299 References to silver coinage become very scarce in Egyptian papyri from the latter reign of Ptolemy III, reflecting the removal of silver currency from the Egyptian economy that is also attested in the hoard record.300 UPZ I 149, a private account of a commercial voyage from Memphis to Alexandria variously dated between 220 and 200, records in line 32 the purchase of a silver stater (tetradrachm) for 16 bronze drachms (plus allage), quadrupling the exchange rate that had obtained for most of the third century. A private account of grain purchases in the Fayum, BGU VII 1532 (Philadelphia, 210/09–205/4 or 193/2–188/7), has been interpreted by a series of scholars as equating the gold mnaieion with more than 7200 bronze drachms, a value far removed from the 100 silver drachms to which the mnaieion was equivalent.301 These documents signal a rupture in the parity between silver and bronze drachms and foreshadow a severe devaluation of the bronze coinage vis-à-vis silver in the second century. There are no other records of monetary exchange datable to this period, but scholars have cited other kinds of economic data suggesting inflation. Under Philopator, epitima 297. Pestman (1993), pp. 347‒349. 298. Lorber (2000), p. 88; ead. in Huston and Lorber (2001), p. 35. That elites initiated the revolt has also been suggested by Veïsse (2004), pp. 197–232, and Monson (2012b), p. 174 n.68. 299. The evidence has been discussed, and various interpretations have been proposed, by Heichelheim (1930), pp. 12–16; Segrè (1942); Reekmans (1948, 1951); Gara (1984), pp. 119–125; Hazzard (1995a), pp. 82–84; Maresch (1996); Cadell and Le Rider (1997); von Reden (2007), pp. 70–78; Cavagna (2010), pp. 169–229 (with extensive history of scholarship). 300. Economic historians and papyrologists have usually attributed the silver shortage to a contraction in the export trade or to excessive spending by Ptolemy III. See 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 (1995a), pp. 80–81; Maresch (1996), pp. 11, 15, 56–57, 76; von Reden (2007), pp. 61, 68, 75‒76; Lorber (2013b), pp. 136–138, 148–150; pp. 158–162 in the present volume. 301. BGU VII 1532 belongs to a group of ostraca (BGU VII 1500–1562) that mention regnal years 13–18 of an uncertain Ptolemy, either Philopator or Epiphanes. They are usually dated to the earlier reign on palaeographic grounds, see Heichelheim (1930), p. 12 n.2; Reekmans (1951), p. 69 n.2; Maresch (1996), p. 99; Cadell and Le Rider (1997), pp. 48–49 (preferring the reign of Epiphanes); Fischer-Bovet and Clarysse (2012b), p. 39 with n.39.

216

Introduction

(penalties for breach of contract) doubled.302 And in his reign or that of his son leases and wages reckoned in bronze rose sharply in some parts of Egypt, while those reckoned in silver or grain remained stable. Entry to public baths, for example, usually cost a quarter obol or a half obol in the second half of the third century, but texts from the end of the third or beginning of the second century record prices of 1 obol, 2 obols, 3 obols, and even a drachm, the last representing a twelve-fold increase over the hemiobol.303 For most of the third century the lease of pasturage or fodder for animals cost between 1 drachm 4 obols and 10 drachms per aroura, but it rose as high as 18 or 20 drachms in 215/14 and prices of 100, 120, and 200 drachms are attested in 204–203.304 Documents from the Arsinoite and Memphite nomes, dated to the eighth and tenth regnal years of an unidentified Ptolemy, record cereal prices 75 to 90 times higher than their average in the mid-third century.305 Other documents indicate an at least 60-fold increase in wages, first attested in the twelfth regnal year of an unidentified Ptolemy.306 Demotic marriage contracts show an enormous increase in the value of the in-Sn (a type of veil), from 0.15–1.6 deben in the third century to 30 deben in P.dem. Berlin 13953 (198).307 Papyrologists generally have concluded that silver ceased to be the sole standard of value and that a new standard was adopted for the bronze currency. This so-called copper or bronze standard308 was based on a redefinition of the bronze drachm; instead of a large bronze coin equivalent in value to the silver drachm, or nearly so, the drachm became a much smaller accounting unit that may have existed only as a concept. The reform in fact had two components: The old divisional system of drachms, obols, and chalkoi was replaced by a system based on multiples of the drachm.309 And bronze currency supplemented or replaced silver as a measure of value, as indicated by the valuation of the mnaieion in terms of bronze drachms in BGU VII 1532, and by the almost universal references to bronze in second-century documents.310 E. Révillout, writing in 1891, placed the transition to the bronze standard early in the reign of Ptolemy V.311 In 1930, F. Heichelheim shifted the focus to the reign of Ptolemy IV. Relying on BGU VII 1532, which in his view equated the gold mnaieion with 7271 bronze drachms 4 obols, and on purported changes in the rate of allage, Heichelheim dated the adoption of the bronze standard between 210 and 204 and deduced that the silver drachm 302. Reekmans (1951), p. 61. 303. P.Lille I 58 (Ghoran, Arsinoites), recto 2, ll. 19–20 (1 ob.), recto 3, l. 6 (2 ob.), l. 18 (1 ob.); P.Tebt. III 2, 889, l. 34 (1 dr.), l. 41 (3 ob.); from Faucher and Redon (2014). 304. P.Agri. 2, cols. 3–4 (215/4?), 18 or 20 drachms; P.Bürgsch 6 (204), 100 drachms; P Bürgsch 5 (204/3), 120 drachms; P.Bürgsch 4 (203), 200 drachms. See Monson (2012a), pp. 4–5 on the dating of P.Agri., pp. 22–26 for practices in the purchase of grazing rights and fodder, with list of documents and prices on p. 25. 305. P.Petrie. II 32 (1) (Arsinoites, year 8), ll. 24–27; P.Köln V 217 (Memphites, year 10), ll. 6–11. 306. Reekmans (1951), p. 70 with n.2. 307. Lüddeckens (1960), pp. 289‒291; Pestman (1961), p. 95; Maresch (1996), pp. 41‒42; Gorre (2010), pp. 83‒90. 308. The papyrological scholarship usually refers to copper instead of bronze. The misnomer was corrected by Cadell and Le Rider (1998), p. 27; see also Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), p. 164 n.1. For the sake of simplicity only the term bronze is used here, even when discussing scholars who wrote of the copper standard, copper drachm, or drachms of copper. 309. Burkhalter and Picard (2005), pp. 59–64; Cavagna (2010), p. 216; Picard (2012a) pp. 84–85. 310. See especially Maresch (2012), publishing the accounting records of the royal bank of the Heracleopolite nome from the latter 140s and 130s B.C. In these accounts sums in silver or gold coinage are regularly converted into their bronze equivalent, and at the end of each business day the balance is calculated in bronze. 311. Révillout (1892), p. 81.

Ptolemy IV Philopator

217

was revalued at 60 of the new bronze drachms.312 T. Reekmans’ synthesis of monetary exchanges and price data led him to attribute the inflation under Ptolemy IV to two causes. First, he posited a doubling in the face values of bronze coins at the outset of the reign, with no visible change in the coins themselves.313 Then the bronze standard was introduced between 13 April and 2 July 210, based on a reformed bronze drachm weighing c. 1.8 g and worth 1/60 of the old bronze drachm.314 A. Gara rejected the theory of a revaluation of the bronze coinage vis-à-vis silver and posited a bookkeeping reform in which the bronze drachm became the unit of account, its value variable in relation to silver and perhaps even in relation to the actual bronze coinage in circulation.315 K. Maresch elaborated on Reekmans’ hypotheses, suggesting that the value of the silver stater rose to eight bronze drachms at the very beginning of the reign of Ptolemy IV, with subsequent increases to 16 and 20 drachms, but also suggesting a gradual and uneven transition to the use of drachms of account, beginning perhaps in 214 or 213.316 Maresch followed Heichelheim and Reekmans in assuming a 60 : 1 ratio between the old and new drachms. Whereas Reekmans and Maresch situated these developments in the context of a general shortage of silver, G. Le Rider, singly and in collaborations with H. Cadell and with F. de Callataÿ, insisted that Ptolemy IV had access to an adequate supply of bullion and continued to mint precious metal coinage in abundance, although silver coinage became scarce for the inhabitants of the chora.317 In a study based solely on prices of wheat and other cereals, Cadell and Le Rider broke with earlier scholarship, arguing that the price increases under Ptolemy IV and his successors were real, not just an artifact of changed accounting practices, and that they were driven by an excess supply of bronze currency combined with probable disruptions in agricultural production.318 Cadell and Le Rider rejected the terminology of their predecessors: they insisted that silver remained the sole standard of value in the Ptolemaic kingdom, that the Ptolemaic state always maintained a weight relationship between bronze and silver coinage, and that the term bronze standard is a misnomer for a rupture in the parity between bronze and silver coinage.319 Using price comparisons, Cadell reattributed the ostraca BGU VII 1500–1562 from the reign of Philopator to that of his son, thereby removing much of the evidence for a new system of accounting under Ptolemy IV, including the gold : bronze conversion on which Heichelheim relied when he first drew attention to the year 210 as a critical date.320 As a matter of methodology Cadell and Le Rider dismissed wage data as unreliable, because subject to too many unknown variables,321 eliminating more of the evidence supporting the hypotheses of Reekmans and Maresch. Ultimately Cadell and Le Rider concluded that 312. Heichelheim (1930), pp. 12–21, 25‒27. 313. Reekmans (1951), pp. 61–69. 314. Reekmans (1951), pp. 69–78. For Reekmans, the purpose of the reform was to simplify accounting, see p. 78. 315. Gara (1984), pp. 118‒125. 316. Maresch (1996), pp. 6, 21, 55‒56, 58–59, 72‒73. 317. Cadell and Le Rider (1997), pp. 16, 73, 89‒90; Le Rider (1998a), pp. 804‒805, 808‒809; Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), pp. 192‒198. 318. Cadell and Le Rider (1997). 319. Cadell and Le Rider (1997), pp. 90‒91; see also Le Rider (1998a), p. 807; Burkhalter and Picard (2005), pp. 63‒64; Le Rider and Callataÿ (2006), pp. 197‒198; Cavagna (2010), pp. 204‒205; Picard and Faucher (2012), p. 70. 320. Cadell and Le Rider (1997), pp. 48‒49. Cadell’s redating of these documents was accepted by von Reden (2010), p. 201, but challenged by Fischer-Bovet and Clarysse (2012b), pp. 39–42. 321. Cadell and Le Rider (1997), pp. 23–24.

218

Introduction

their price data reflected severe but natural inflation under the fourth and fifth Ptolemies, with no sudden, dramatic jump implying a new system of reckoning. This revisionist view won no adherents in subsequent scholarship, although Cadell’s dating of the documents and Le Rider’s critique of the bronze standard were influential among numismatists. S. von Reden countered the position of Cadell and Le Rider by emphasizing the importance of credit in the Egyptian economy, a factor that muddies any direct relation between currency supply and economic activity in the chora.322 She echoed Reekmans’ hypothesis that a doubling of prices and penalties at the beginning of Philopator’s reign might reflect monetary manipulation, but she followed Maresch in proposing that the bronze coinage may have been retariffed vis-à-vis silver, so that eight bronze drachms were required in exchange for one silver stater.323 Drawing attention to the geographic concentration of key documents, she suggested that they may reflect local adjustments or even individual negotiations, contributing to the disintegration of a national currency system, with royal banks perhaps playing a role.324 Von Reden reaffirmed the reality of the new system of reckoning and claimed the first evidence for it in P.Tebt. III 2 820, dated 201.325 This document stipulates an epitimon (penalty) of 2,000 bronze drachms for breach of contract in the cession of a stathmos (military residence)—the first such penalty expressed in bronze coinage.326 Like other economic historians, von Reden believed that the obol was equated to 10 of the new drachms of account, so that the old drachm of the silver standard was equivalent to 60 drachms on the bronze standard. Subsequent scholarship has drawn attention to the weakness of the data on which Cadell and Le Rider relied. In her own study of wheat prices, von Reden noted that 75% of the figures cited in connection with grain prices are either standard rates for conversion between cash and kind (adaeratio) or penalties based on those rates.327 She urged caution in drawing conclusions about actual price levels from the extant documentary sources and suggested a 25% increase in real and iconic prices by the end of the third century. C. Fischer-Bovet and W. Clarysse offered a critical review of the documentary evidence pertaining to the adoption of the bronze standard. They warned against drawing inferences from the elevated penalties of Philopator’s reign, because they may represent more stringent enforcement of contracts rather than underlying inflation.328 Using prosopographical arguments, they redated a key document (P.Heid. VI 383) to the reign of Ptolemy III, eliminating the only actual wheat price for the reign of Ptolemy IV as well as the basis for Cadell’s redating of BGU VII 1500–1652.329 Following Maresch, Fischer-Bovet and Clarysse declined to fix the date of this group of ostraca, which may belong to the reign of either Ptolemy IV or Ptolemy V,330 although they did comment on the third-century palaeography of BGU VII 1532, the text originally cited by Heichelheim. Fischer-Bovet and Clarysse also revisited some documents cited by Reekmans and Maresch but excluded 322. Von Reden (2007), pp. 77–78, 151‒252. 323. Von Reden (2007), pp. 70‒72. 324. Von Reden (2007), pp. 72‒74. 325. Von Reden (2007), p. 74 n.52. 326. Burkhalter and Picard (2005), p. 72. 327. Von Reden (2010), pp. 141–155, 200–205; Cavagna (2010), pp. 169‒174. 328. Fischer-Bovet and Clarysse (2012b), p. 42. 329. Fischer-Bovet and Clarysse (2012b), pp. 39‒42. Maresch (1996) , p. 21 n.3, also stipulated that the grain prices in P.Heid. VI 383 are expressed on the silver standard. 330. Maresch (1996) , p. 99; Fischer-Bovet and Clarysse (2012b), p. 39 with n.9.

Ptolemy IV Philopator

219

by Cadell and Le Rider because they do not involve grain transactions.331 Their tentative conclusion: a change of monetary standard in Philopator’s year 12 (211/10) remains a viable possibility, supported most clearly by P.Tebt. III 2 884, an account dated to year 12 of an uncertain Ptolemy but attributable to the reign of Ptolemy IV on palaeographical grounds, which begins with figures in drachms and obols and ends with talents and thousands of drachms.332 Reekmans, however, had cited this papyrus (or group of papyri) only as a terminus post quem for the reform because of its very fragmentary state and the fact that only fragment 1 bears a date.333 C. Toward a reconciliation of documentary and numismatic evidence It is easy to dismiss Cadell and Le Rider’s thesis that the price increases attested by papyri reflect normal if aggravated inflation. The hoard evidence for demonetization of the bronze coinage under Ptolemy IV proves that an excessive supply of bronze money could not have caused price inflation in the early second century. The demonetization supports the traditional view of papyrologists that the bronze currency underwent a radical reform.334 The hoard record indicates that bronze coins of Series 5 circulated alongside those of Series 4, with the clear implication that they belonged to the same currency system. Their equivalence is further demonstrated by the perfect continuity of the metrology of Series 3, 4, and 5 across roughly half a century.335 The physical evidence argues against any change in the face values of the coinage before the great demonetization of the late third century. Against the physical stability of the coinage we must weigh Reekmans’ claim that higher epitima in contracts can only be explained by official monetary manipulation. All of the contracts in question, with one exception, come from a single village (Tholthis) over the course of a decade and may respond to special local conditions.336 We saw above that some scholars have urged caution in inferring market prices from these penalties.337 But even if the elevated epitima genuinely reflect a price level of 5 or 6 drachms per artaba of wheat, they do not prove monetary manipulation by the government of Ptolemy IV. Fischer-Bovet and Clarysse’s redating of P.Heid. VI 383 moved an actual wheat price of 6 drachms to the year 234, the midpoint of a twenty-year lacuna in the record of cereal prices assembled by Cadell and Le Rider.338 It is entirely possible that grain prices were not as stable as is usually assumed. Whereas the elevated epitima inspired Reekmans to assume a doubling in the face value of the bronze coinage, Maresch and von Reden posited an official revaluation of bronze coinage in relation to silver. This hypothesis is explicitly contradicted by another class of documents. Demotic marriage contracts of 219 and 217/6 include a new feature, 331. Fischer-Bovet and Clarysse (2012b), pp. 36‒39. 332. Fischer-Bovet and Clarysse (2012b), p. 42. 333. Reekmans (1948), pp. 19–20. 334. Lorber in Huston and Lorber (2001), p. 34. Burkhalter and Picard (2005) also affirmed the reality of the reform in their study of financial terminology, but they did not pinpoint the reign of Ptolemy IV as a period of particular interest. 335. Wolf (2013). 336. P.Hib. I 90 (222), l. 19; SB XII 11061 (218), ll. 20–21; BGU VI 1262 (Oxyrrhyncus? 216/5), l. 13; BGU VI 1264 = P.Frankf. 2 (215/4), ll. 22–23; BGU VI 1277 (215/4); BGU VI 1278 (215/4), l. 10; BGU VI 1265 (214/3), l. 20; F.Frankf. 1 (213), l. 23; Reekmans (1951), p. 61, supplemented from Burkhalter and Picard (2005), p. 71; von Reden (2007), pp. 73–74. 337. Von Reden (2010), pp. 143–144; Fischer-Bovet and Clarysse (2012b), p. 42. 338. Cadell and Le Rider (1997), p. 29, where document 23 is dated 244/3 and document 24 is dated 26 January 222.

220

Introduction

an evaluation in bronze of the bride’s personal possessions, with the formula obol 24 = kite 2 stipulating the traditional value of the silver stater at 24 obols.339 This formula refers to chalkos isonomos and affirms the continuing theoretical equivalence of the bronze and silver currencies. The very fact of its inclusion, however, could imply that the parity of bronze and silver coinage was no longer taken for granted, yet was still a possible mode of reckoning that could be agreed upon by the negotiating parties. The continuing equivalence of bronze and silver is again attested explicitly by the tax farming contract UPZ I 112 (Oxyrhynchites, 204), which classifies payments as pros argyrion subject to allage and pros chalkon isonomon.340 The slightly later demotic marriage contract P.dem. Berlin 13593 (198) does not include the formula equating 2 kite to 24 obols but implies the continuing equivalence of the silver and bronze currencies by adding sums expressed in silver and bronze together.341 The context for all of the documents discussed here was the shortage of coined silver deliberately engineered by Ptolemy III and perpetuated by his successor, a shortage reflected in papyrological documents and confirmed by the record of Egyptian silver hoards.342 The disappearance of older silver coins from Egyptian hoards indicates that they were somehow removed from private hands. The assessment of allage when bronze was substituted for silver had always encouraged the surrender of silver to the treasury, and such inducements increased under Ptolemy III. Devaluation of the bronze coinage is attested as early as 235 in the Fayum, when the royal bank of the Arsinoite nome began to charge a small allage of a hemiobol per stater on some tax payments in bronze even when bronze was the stipulated form of payment.343 Such official devaluations would naturally tend to shake public confidence in the bronze currency.344 And as silver became ever scarcer, actual exchanges of bronze coinage for silver must have been very rare and difficult. The effective lack of convertibility deprived the fiduciary bronze coinage of its backing, further undermining the theoretical parity of the two currencies.345 The inconsistent patterns in private documents datable to the reigns of Ptolemy III and IV may represent ad hoc responses to the loss of confidence in the bronze currency.346 As reconstructed by Maresch, a lacunose loan contract from the final year of Ptolemy Euergetes, SB XVIII 14013 (Arsinoites, 5 June 222), implies that the relation between silver and bronze currencies was no longer reliably fixed.347 In fact, bronze is not mentioned in the surviving text, which refers to the old coinage or old monetary standard and to the stater348 and allows for an alternative repayment to be fixed by an official at Crocodilonpolis 339. Lüddeckens (1960), Urk. 23 and 24; Gorre (2012), pp. 112–113. On the significance of the formula, Pierce (1965). 340. These terms continued in use in the second century in transactions with the royal treasury, see Segrè (1942), p. 186 with n.14; Maresch (1996), pp. 210‒211; von Reden (2007), pp. 112‒114. The terms are considered to be anachronisms indicating merely that pros argyrion payments were somewhat higher than chalkos isonomos payments. 341. Gorre (2010); id. (2012), pp. 113‒115. 342. Lorber (2013b), pp. 136‒138, 148‒150; present volume, pp. 158‒162. 343. P.Sorb. Inv. 371 (Crocodilonpolis, 235/4), ll. 14, 42; Clarysse and Thompson (2009), pp. 232‒233. 344. Cf. Gorre (2010), p. 89. 345. Maresch (1996) , p. 4: “Damit war das Silbergeld als Bezugsgröße für das Bronzegeld unbrauchbar geworden....” 346. Cf. Maresch (1996) , pp. 6, 21, positing a gradual transition to the new system. See especially von Reden (2007), pp. 70, 72–74, 76, who described a disintegration of the currency system and suggested that neglect by the central authority in Alexandria opened currency values either to negotiation or to independent regulation by local banks, ultimately preferring the latter explanation. 347. Maresch (1996) , pp. 70‒80; von Reden (2007), p. 73. 348. The term old coinage probably refers to the fact that no silver tetradrachms had been struck in Egypt for at least twenty years, and perhaps also to the Ptolemaic weight standard as opposed to the Attic weight standard, which had

Ptolemy IV Philopator

221

when the loan falls due in two years. The elevated epitima in contracts from Tholthis in the early years of Philopator may similarly have been a hedge against future devaluation of the bronze coinage.349 UPZ I 149, the sailor’s account of expenses incurred during a shipment of goods from Memphis to Alexandria, is unambiguous evidence of a rupture in the relation between silver and bronze coinages. While this papyrus indisputably records an exchange of a silver stater for 16 bronze drachms, there is no reason to consider it as evidence for an official policy enforced throughout the Lagid kingdom. Bronze drachms were still equivalent to their silver counterparts in some contexts, as implied by the marriage contracts cited above. The exchange in UPZ I 149 should be understood as representing a unique negotiation of values under the circumstances of extreme silver scarcity. At some point in the post-Raphian period the state imposed a monetary reform. The first step was demonetization of most existing bronze coinage, drastically reducing the volume of currency in circulation. Such an extreme measure would be likely to affect prices and it might also be associated with changes in monetary terminology. Certainly the time frame established for the demonetization (c. 214–207) coincides with the dates favored by papyrologists for the introduction of the bronze standard. A few scholars have already assumed a connection between the break in the hoards and the introduction of the new system of reckoning.350 The earliest document to use the bronze standard may be the small letter fragment P.Köln VI 269 (Arsinoites, 214/13).351 In lines 6‒7 two taxes are listed, followed by amounts that could be on the bronze and silver standard.352 Maresch suggested that the figures might express each tax payment on both standards, as similar ratios are involved. The silver : bronze ratio is 334 : 1 for the natron tax and 298.5 : 1 for the tetarte, and the approximate 10% difference can be explained as allage charged in connection with the first payment, because the natron tax was payable pros argyrion. These silver : bronze ratios are far higher than those implied by other early documents using the bronze standard, but Maresch hypothesized that the bronze standard was superimposed in a situation where the stater was valued at 20 bronze drachms.353 A more likely explanation is that the second, smaller figure in each entry represents a surcharge of some kind, since small surcharges on taxes are well attested. The case for the appearance of the bronze standard in 210 also remains debatable. Fragment 1 of P.Tebt. III 2 884, an account of receipts and expenditures dated to year 12 been revived for precious metal coinage struck in denominations other than the tetradrachm (i.e., the Berenikeion nomisma). Another allusion to the peculiar history of the precious metal coinage can be seen in P.Eleph.14 (Edfu, 222), l. 8, and 20 recto, ll. 19–20, a document from the archive of Milon the praktor which requires that new precious metal coinage be used in down payments on land purchased at state auctions. This almost certainly refers to the Attic-weight Berenikeion nomisma, a truly new coinage in every respect, and it has no implications for reform of the bronze coinage as implied by the citation in Burkhalter and Picard (2005), p. 53 n.3. 349. Cf. Reekmans (1951), p. 64, citing risk aversion by lenders to explain epitima that more than doubled the thirdcentury level. 350. Gara (1984), p. 110, implicit in her dating of 210 for the break in the hoards; Cavagna (2010), pp. 217‒219 (emphasizing countermarks rather than demonetization); Picard (2012a), p. 85. 351. Maresch (1996), pp. 72–73. The letter is dated to year 9 of an uncertain Ptolemy but attributed to that of the fourth Ptolemy presumably on paleographic grounds. 352. Nitrikes (of the natron tax) 1 T. 1458 dr. 22 dr. 2 ob. Tetartes (of the one-quarter tax) 1194 4. 353. Maresch (1996), p. 73, deduced that the drachm on the silver standard had been subdivided into 5 nominal silver drachms.

222

Introduction

of an uncertain Ptolemy, includes a possible conversion from bronze to silver at the rate of 60 : 1.354 O.Mich. I 1, a private account from the Arsinoite nome also dated to year 12 of an uncertain Ptolemy, records a daily wage of 20 drachms for work moving sand;355 this represents more than a hundred-fold increase of the typical third-century wage of an obol per day for unskilled labor. The key document cited by Heichelheim, BGU VII 1532, can be dated to the period 210/09‒205/4 if we accept the palaeographical observation of Fischer-Bovet and Clarysse.356 This text records two wheat prices on the bronze standard (155 and 180 drachms per artaba) and its calculations have been interpreted as equating the mnaieion with 7271 bronze drachms 4 obols (or 7296 bronze drachms 4 obols).357 Since the mnaieion was by definition equivalent to 100 silver drachms, and actually exchanged for 104 silver drachms including allage, its bronze value implies a silver : bronze exchange rate of 70 : 1. The discrepancy between the 70 : 1 ratio and the 60 : 1 ratio inferred from other documents is probably due to the involvement of gold and may reflect the overvaluation of gold since the reforms of Ptolemy II and/or continued discounting of bronze currency even after the introduction of the bronze standard. The dating of BGU VII 1532 to Philopator’s reign brings with it BGU VII 1500–1531 and 1533–1562, found in the same archive and recording some additional commodity prices and labor costs according to the reformed system.358 The earliest securely dated document of this group that mentions sums of money indisputably reckoned according to the reformed accounting is BGU VII 1503 (year 16, i.e., 207/6), which records a cost of 750 drachms each for the construction of dikes in a garden, and a pay rate of 7 drachms 3 obols for each naubion of earth moved. This is vastly higher than the mid-third century rate of c. 3.5 chalkoi per naubion, attested for example by P.Lille I 1 (259/8).359 BGU VII 1501 (year 17, i.e. 206/5) mentions a sale of roofing tiles in the previous year at the high price of 110 drachms each. The same text furthermore values a goose at 600 drachms and goslings at 200 drachms each in year 17. BGU VII 1507, also dated to year 17, records a daily rate of pay of 15 drachms for threshers. These texts clearly demonstrate that the new system of reckoning was in use in 207/6 and 206/5. Contemporary use of the reformed system by the Ptolemaic administration can be inferred from BGU VII 1561, which lacks a precise regnal year. It calculates an apomoira 354. Maresch (1996) , p. 22. The interpretation is delicate, since ll. 6 and 7 merely juxtapose the figures 353 and 6 without explicitly indicating the operation, and a conversion at this point would imply that the receipts recorded in ll. 1–5 and totaled on l. 6 were reckoned on the bronze standard, whereas the expenditures in the following lines are clearly reckoned on the silver standard, since the figures are given in obols. 355. Dated 235 by the original editors, but most subsequent scholarship has preferred a date of 210, see Reekmans (1948), p. 21; Maresch (1996) , p. 193 with nn. 67–68; HGV; APIS (probably 211/0); and Fischer-Bovet and Clarysse (2012b), p. 38 (210?). For other wage data, see von Reden (2007), p. 71 n.45, p. 74. Reekmans (1948), pp. 19–21, cited additional documents in connection with his date of 210 for the introduction of the bronze standard, but they appear less reliable. P.Tebt. III 1 770, a petition concerning a debt contract, was considered to refer to the silver standard by Fischer-Bovet and Clarysse (2012b), p. 38. The private expense account BGU VI 1495 (21 Epeiph, year 12) was dated to 210 by Reekmans but Fischer-Bovet and Clarysse (2012b), p. 38, placed a question mark after the date. 356. See n. 217 above. 357. 7271 dr. 4 ob.: Reekmans (1951), p. 77; Cadell and Le Rider (1997), p. 62. 7296 bronze drachms: Maresch (1996), pp. 100–104. Maresch (1996), pp. 103‒104, found the implications of the ratio problematic and proposed a hypothetical revaluation of the mnaieion. Cadell and Le Rider (1997), p. 62, inferred a theoretical value of 72 bronze drachms for the silver drachm. 358. BGU VII 1505 (Philadelphia, year 16), l. 3 (180 dr. per artaba); BGU VII 1536 (Philadelphia, 210/09‒205/4), l. 4 (160 dr. per artaba), and see Maresch (1996), p. 99, for several wine prices. 359. On rates of pay for moving earth, see Thompson (1999); von Reden (2007), pp. 211‒213.

Ptolemy IV Philopator

223

payment using the new system to value the wine at 300 drachms per metretes (of 8 choes), more than twenty times the price of 14 drachms per metretes (of 6 choes) in P.Ent. 34 (Kerkesucha Oros, Arsinoites, 218). Official use of the bronze standard is also attested in the earliest years of Ptolemy V by P.Bürgsch. 6, 5, and 4 (204, 204/3, and 203, respectively), recording leases of royal pasture land at rates of 100, 120, and 200 drachms per aroura, a five- to ten-fold increase as compared with the highest price under Ptolemy IV, which was already elevated in comparison to the prices of the mid-third century.360 In P.dem. Lille 118 (year 6, probably of Ptolemy V, thus 199) a crop of olyra is evaluated at 250 in bronze; the monetary unit, though not explicit, is presumably deben in which case the value is equivalent to 33 drachms 2 obols (or perhaps 30 drachms 4 obols) per artaba, more than thirty times the only known third-century prices of 5 obols and 4 obols 6 chalkoi, recorded in P.Lond. VII 1937 (Memphites, 257).361 At the same time, the old system of reckoning on the silver standard continued in use alongside the new system.362 SB VI 9419/1 (Syene, year 16, either 206 or 189) records a deposit to the royal bank in drachms and obols chalkou pros argyrion. The tax farming contract UPZ I 112 (Oxyrhynchites, 204) not only classifies payments as pros argyrion and pros chalkon isonomon, but also stipulates the rate of allage as well as small surcharges expressed in obols and half obols to be attached to payments pros chalkon isonomon, continuing the official policy of slightly penalizing bronze currency to encourage payments in silver.363 C.Ptol.Sklav. 5 (probably Arsinoites, 198/7), an administrative document concerning a sale of slaves, stipulates payment pros argyrion of several taxes whose rates involve obols and half obols.364 C.Ptol.Sklav. (7 January 197), a similar document concerning the sale of a single slave, records the payment in bronze with allage and mentions amounts of 5 obols and 4 obols.365 The private character of early documents using the bronze standard has inspired the suggestion that the bronze standard was first employed in the private sector and/or by village scribes, with the possible corollary that Egyptian accounting traditions influenced its development.366 But BGU VII 1561 and P.dem. Bürsgch 6, 5, and 4 show the Ptolemaic administration also made early use of the reformed accounting. Other official documents, especially those relating to tax payments, apparently adhered to the old system of reckoning.367

360. Monson (2012a), pp. 22‒25. P.Bürgsch 6 is dated to year 2 of the son of Ptolemy and Arsinoe. P. Bürsch 4 is dated to year 3 in a Greek subscription and names the same royal scribe as P.Bürgsch 1‒3, dated to years 1 and 2 with further chronological indicators. P.Bürgsch 1 and 3 name the king’s mother as Arsinoe, and P. Bürsch 2 names the priest of Alexander Aristomenes, son of Menas, who served in 204/3. Interestingly, P.Bürgsch 6, ll. 7–8, cites the traditional demotic formula equating 2 kite with 24 obols in connection with the surety. 361. On the date of P.dem. Lille 118, see Clarysse and Lanciers (1989), pp. 118–119; on the date and other difficulties of interpretation, Cadell and Le Rider (1997), pp. 44–45. On P.Lond. VII 1937, see Cadell and Le Rider (1997), p. 34. 362. Milne (1925); Reekmans (1948), pp. 21‒22; Maresch (1996), pp. 6, 21, 210‒216; von Reden (2007), pp. 112‒117. 363. Maresch (1996), pp. 91–93. 364. SP II 205; Scholl (1990), pp. 34–42. 365. Scholl (1990), pp. 57–62; Bagnall and Derow (2004), no. 34, but see commentary p. 70 where the editors assume that the price was paid in depreciated bronze currency and represented a “great bargain.” 366. On private initiative in introducing the bronze standard, see Reekmans (1951), pp. 79–80; Maresch (1996), pp. 6 n.12. On demotic accounting and its possible influence on the new system of reckoning, see Gara (1984), pp. 123–124; cf. Picard (2012a) p. 85. 367. Segrè (1942), p. 186; Reekmans (1948), p. 22.

224

Introduction

D. Date and economic effect of the monetary reform There is some reason to believe that the demonetization of the late third century was not just a poorly executed monetary transition, but a deliberate attempt to reduce the supply of bronze coinage in Egypt. It was followed by an interval of uncertain length in which virtually the only available currency consisted of tetrobols and diobols of Ptolemy IV. At some point after the demonetization, perhaps immediately afterward, these coins were revalidated by the application of a cornucopiae countermark. Countermarked tetrobols in particular survive in huge numbers.368 Drachms and triobols are only rarely encountered with the same countermark and must represent errors or exceptions. The countermarked coins were undoubtedly supplemented by smaller denominations of Series 5, which do not occur in hoards and were not countermarked.369 The hoard from the North Bubastid door of Karnak temple, cited above, is the sole hoard that reflects an interval in which the only large bronze coins were countermarked tetrobols and diobols. The next Theban hoard, the Karnak Baths hoard of 2007 (CH X, 459), consists primarily of coins of Series 7 but includes a few of Series 6.370 A survey of other excavated sites found that Series 6 was very poorly represented elsewhere in Upper Egypt.371 This pattern suggests that Series 6 was not introduced before the Great Revolt. Faucher and Lorber demonstrated that the denominations of Series 6 must have been valued according to the new system of reckoning.372 Documents from the Thebaid do not attest the bronze standard before 186 and various scholars have inferred that it was not introduced there until after the suppression of the revolt.373 The silence of the texts thus complements the coin finds and strengthens the case for placing the introduction of Series 6 in Lower Egypt at some time during the Great Revolt. Based on their demonstration that Series 6 bronzes were valued according to the new system of reckoning, Faucher and Lorber associated the introduction of Series 6 with the first greatly elevated commodity prices which, following Cadell and Le Rider, they dated c. 200.374 Picard and Faucher emphasized the novel features of Series 6 that advertised a break with the past and assumed that its introduction coincided precisely with that of the new system of reckoning.375 Citing C.Ptol.Sklav. 9 (7 January 197) as the last document to use the old system of reckoning and P.Petrie. II 32 (September 197) as the first to use the new system, Picard, Faucher, and Gorre dated the introduction of Series 6 between January and September of 197.376 Lorber responded with the corollary that this date implies a 368. See, e.g., Jungfleisch (1948), pp. 57‒58; Noeske (1995), pp. 198, 206. 369. These may also have been supplemented by Hacksilber, see Vargyas (2002), especially pp. 1188–1189. Vargyas mentions “some twenty” hoards of Hacksilber dating from the Hellenistic and Roman periods, including one from Kîmân Fâris containing a cut Ptolemaic coin. Information pointing to a more specific date is not presently available. I thank Gilles Gorre for drawing Hacksilber and this article to my attention. 370. Boraik and Faucher (2010), p. 9, nos. 1–6. 371. Faucher (2011a), pp. 439, 443. 372. Faucher and Lorber (2010), p. 52, followed by Picard and Faucher (2012), pp. 60–68. The conclusion rests on the continuity of obverse types across Series 6 and 7, indicating the equivalence of various denominations. Since these coinages circulated for most of the second century, their face values had to be compatible with the bronze standard. 373. Révillout (1891), p. 80; Reekmans (1948), pp. 22–23; id. (1951), pp. 79–80; Clarysse and Lanciers (1989), pp. 119–120; Maresch (1996), p. 39. 374. Faucher and Lorber (2010), p. 52. 375. Picard and Faucher (2012), pp. 60–68. 376. Picard and Faucher (2012), p. 69; Gorre (2012), p. 124.

Ptolemy IV Philopator

225

prolonged interval of constricted currency supply lasting a minimum of eight years.377 This low chronology must be abandoned in light of the documents cited in the preceding section. The new system of valuation is perhaps first attested in 210, and certainly attested in 207/6. Its use by the Ptolemaic administration was virtually contemporary. Thus the accounting reform may have preceded the demonetization and certainly antedated the introduction of Series 6. Either or even both elements of the monetary reform could have occurred in the year 207/6. The interval of severely constricted currency supply was probably brief, but the currency supply may have recovered only gradually after the introduction of Series 6. Economic theory would predict depressed prices in a period of monetary shortage, although the papyrological literature has emphasized precisely the opposite. The deflationary effect of demonetization may have been masked by the new system of reckoning. Alternatively, the period of monetary shortage may simply have been too brief to have any effect on prices. By testing these hypotheses against the price data in documents, it may be possible to arrive at a better understanding of the economic effects of the monetary reforms. There are rather few securely dated documents from the time of the monetary reform and the years immediately following that can be used in such an inquiry (see Table 4.2 below). In order to compare their post-reform prices with pre-reform equivalents on the silver standard, it is necessary to convert from one monetary system to the other. We have no textual evidence for a precise conversion ratio, only theoretical ratios that have been proposed by papyrologists. We shall employ two of these: the conversion rate of 1 : 60 favored by most papyrologists, and an alternative rate of 1 : 120 implicit in the recent proposals of R. A. Hazzard (discussed in Section E below). Only a few of these documents record market transactions in which supply and demand, including monetary supply, could have affected the prices. P.Tebt. III 2, 885, a household account, gives two market prices for wine.378 Conversion to the silver standard by either ratio yields a price level less than half of prices paid before the monetary reform.379 P.Tebt. III 2, 889, an expense account for three men traveling on the Nile, provides prices for several common purchases. The cost of wine for these travelers, when converted to the silver standard, was higher by about half than the prices in P.Tebt. III 2, 885 but still well below pre-reform prices. The price of bread was apparently less affected. The 1 : 60 conversion rate, applied to the prices in P.Tebt. III 2, 889, yields a price range on the silver standard only slightly below the price level of the mid-third century, whereas the 1 : 120 conversion rate implies an important decrease in the price of this staple. As for entry to the public baths, both conversion rates give results implying that the cost of this amenity fell drastically after the adoption of the bronze standard.

377. Lorber (2013b), pp. 142‒143 378. The first price is 126 drachms for 1.5 choes, which is converted to a price of 7 drachms per kotyle (one twelfth chous) to enable a direct comparison. 379. The price in CPR XVIII 5 and 30 is 4 drachms per chous, converted to 2 obols per kotyle to allow direct comparison. For the date of CPR XVIII, see Fischer-Bovet and Clarysse (2012b), p. 39, rebutting the arguments of Maresch (1996), pp. 76‒81, and Cadell and Le Rider (1997), pp. 54‒56.

226

Introduction

Table 4.2. Prices after the monetary reform and their pre-reform equivalents Source and date

Amount

1 : 60

1 : 120

Pre-reform

BGU VII 1532 (210/09–205/4)

Artaba of wheat, 155 and 180 dr.

2 dr. 4 ob. 3 dr.

1 dr. 2 ob. 1 dr. 3 ob.

1 dr. 3 ob.; 1 dr. 2 ob. P.Cair.Zen. 59499 (254) 3 dr.; 2 dr. P.Lond. VII 1996 (c. 250)

BGU VII 1561 (210/09‒205/4)

Adaeratio per metretes (8 choes) of wine 300 dr.

5 dr.

2.5 dr.

5 dr. P.Rev.Laws (259) 7 dr. (keramion) P.Lond. VII 1974 (254) 8 dr. (keramion) SB XVI 12811 (mid-III cent.) 3 dr. (oxos) P.Cair.Zen. V 59851, P.Lille 58

P.dem. Bürgsch. 6, Lease of royal pasture land 5, 4 (204‒203) (per aroura) 100, 120, 200 dr.

1 dr., 4 ob. 2 dr. 3 dr. 2 ob.

5 ob. 1 dr. 1 dr. 4 ob.

2 dr. 3 ob. P.Petrie III 71 (294) 1 dr. 4 ob. P.Hib. I 52‒53 (246/245)

BGU VI 1266 + BGU XIV 2386 (203/2)

Penalty per artaba of olyra 20 dr.

2 ob.

1 ob.

2 dr. P.Hib. I 102 (239) P.Hib. I 86 (248) 4 dr. BGU VI 1277, 1278 (215/4) BGU X 1944 (213/4)

BGU VI 1266 + BGU XIV 2386 (203/2)

Penalty per aroura of fodder 30 dr.

3 ob.

1 ob. 4 ch. 4‒10 dr. Monson (2012a), p. 25

P.Tebt. III 2 820 (201)

Penalty in contract for cession of stathmos 2000 dr.

33 dr. 2 ob.

16 dr. 4 ob.

100‒20,000 dr. Burkhalter and Picard (2005), Appendix III, pp. 71‒78

P.dem. Leconte 7 (201/0)

Guarantee of surety for brewing monopoly 800 dr.

13 dr. 2 ob.

6 dr. 4 ob.

Usually 5 or 10 dr, occasionally 20, 40, 50, 60, 120 dr. RÉg 30 (1978), pp. 67‒73

P.Tebt. III 2 885 (c. 200)

Kotyle of wine 7 dr. 6 dr.

c. 5 ch.

c. 2.5 ch.

2 ob. CPR XVIII 5 and 30 (231) 2 ob.; 2 ¼ ob. UPZ I 149 (Ptolemy IV, pre-reform)

P.dem. Lille 118 (199)

Adaeratio per artaba of olyra 33 dr. 2 ob.

3.3 ob.

1.67 ob.

1 dr. Reekmans (1951), p. 94 with n.3

P.Tebt. III 2 889 (early II cent.)

Bath house fee 3 ob. 1 dr.

1/20 ob. 1/10 ob.

1/40 ob. 1/20 ob.

Typically 1/4 ob. (2 ch.)

P.Tebt. III 2 889 (early II cent.)

Loaf of bread 2 dr. 3 ob. 8 dr.

1/4 ob. 4/5 ob.

1 ch. 2/5 ob.

3/4 ob.; 1 ob. P.Lille 185 (III cent.)

P.Tebt. III 2 889 (early II cent.)

Kotyle of wine 12 dr.

1 1/5 ob.

3/5 ob.

2 ob. CPR XVIII 5 and 30 (231) 2 ob.; 2 ¼ ob. UPZ I 149 (Ptolemy IV, pre-reform)

P.Petrie II 32 (1) (197)

Olyra (per artaba) 60 dr.

1 dr.

3 ob.

5 ob.; 4 ob. 6 ch. P.Lond. VII 1937 (257)

Ptolemy IV Philopator

227

Most of the other documents record transactions with the state, or transactions over which the state had a strong influence. BGU VII 1532 records private purchases of wheat, but this was a commodity whose price was strongly influenced by the state through its dominant presence in the market. Both conversion rates yield prices on the silver standard within the range of mid-third century prices.380 If grain prices really were elevated in the early years of Ptolemy IV, as suggested by the high epitima of this period, then these prices would represent a deflation in his final years, with a return to traditional rates. Two of the documents involve adaeratio, the assignment of a cash value to a crop, in both cases for tax purposes. P.dem. Lille 118 gives the cash equivalent of a crop of olyra.381 Both conversion rates yield prices on the silver standard that are decidedly below the third-century adaeratio of 1 drachm. BGU VII 1561 records the cash value of a vintage for payment of the apomoira.382 In this case we have no direct parallel from the third century but must use wine prices mentioned in various contexts. The 1 : 60 conversion rate yields a price on the silver standard equal to the lowest attested wine price of the third century, but the 1 : 120 rate yields a price even lower than the third-century price of 3 drachms for a keramion of oxos (wine of the lowest quality). The sample of documents provides three penalties for breach of contract. P.Tebt. III 2, 820 is a contract for the cession of a stathmos (military residence) and the first document to stipulate a penalty in bronze drachms. Both conversion rates yield values significantly lower than any third-century penalty cited in the literature about the bronze standard, none of which however pertains to the cession of a stathmos.383 BGU VII 1266 is famously problematic because it gives a penalty for olyra which is lower, per artaba, than the adaeratio attested for olyra just a few years later, though penalties were normally set at double the adaeratio. The document stipulates its penalties in silver drachms. Segré, followed by Maresch, assumed that silver nevertheless referred to bronze drachms on the new system of reckoning, subject to allage.384 If that assumption is correct, conversion to the silver standard, using either rate, yields values for the olyra penalty that are only a small fraction of the usual mid-third century penalty of 2 drachms per artaba.385 The penalty per aroura of fodder, when converted to the silver standard, is only a fraction of the lowest 380. Cadell and Le Rider (1997), pp. 46‒47. P.Köln V 217, dated to a year 12 and with comparable wheat prices, may belong to the same year or it may attest the stability of wheat prices in 195. 381. For the date, see Clarysse and Lanciers (1989), pp. 118‒119; for commentary on this and other problems, see Cadell and Le Rider (1997), pp. 44‒45. 382. The same adaeratio is attested by P.Tebt. III 2 1062, dated to year 15 of an uncertain Ptolemy, thus either 208/7 or 191/0. This document may indicate that the reformed accounting system was in official use in 208/7. But if the regnal year is of Ptolemy V, the document does not necessarily prove the stability of the wine adaeratio over more than a decade. Wine varies importantly in quality and the character of each vintage must have determined its adaeratio. 383. Other third-century penalties involving lump sums for the contract rather than assessments per some unit of merchandise are collected in Appendix III of Burkhalter and Picard (2005), pp. 71–78: P.Eleph. 3 (284/3), 3,000 dr.; P.Eleph. 4 (284/3), 10,000 dr.; P.Ryl. IV 584 (third cent.), 20,000 dr. Additional epitima that may be comparable were cited by Maresch (1996) , pp. 199 and 201 include: P.Eleph. 2 (285/4), 1,000 dr.; P.Hib. I 91 (244/3 or 219/8), 100 dr.; BGU VI 1267 (third. cent.), 500 dr.; P.Petrie. III 74a (third cent.), 500 dr.; BGU X 1964 (221–204), 500 dr.; BGU X 1949 (221–201), 3[00] dr.; BGU X 1973 (211–204), 300 dr. 384. Segrè (1942), p. 187 n.15; Maresch (1996), pp. 32, 186 n.28. Cf. Reekmans (1948), p. 21 n.4 on the use of argyrion in the sense of money, though on the next page he cited BGU VI 1266 as an example of the continuing use of the silver standard. 385. Segrè (1942), p. 187 n.15, commented on the low price implied by the penalty for olyra. Monson (2012a), pp. 4‒5, noted that it implies a monetary value ten times lower than that of the mid-third century, apparently assuming that it was expressed on the bronze standard but not accepting a 1 : 60 ratio.

228

Introduction

actual third-century price for fodder (1 drachm 4 obols in P.Hib. I 52‒53, dated 246/5) and dramatically less than the average third-century price of 4 to 10 drachms. Reekmans, followed by Cadell and Le Rider, assumed that the references to silver drachms in BGU VII 1266 should be taken literally; noting an exemption for destruction due to acts of war, these authors suggested that the purpose of the high penalties was not to indemnify the victim in case of breach of contract, but to ensure the fulfillment of the contract in the fraught context of internal insurrections and the threat of invasion by Antiochus III.386 Four documents are contracts between individuals and the state. For the leasing of royal pasture land, conversion to the silver standard using the 1 : 60 ratio yields rates comparable to the lowest rates of the pre-reform period,387 while the 1 : 120 conversion ratio yields even lower rates. These figures imply a significant reduction with respect to rates from earlier in the reign of Ptolemy IV, namely the 18 or 20 drachms of P.Agri. 2, cols. 3‒4 (215/14) or the 10 drachms of P.Tebt. III 2, 999 (212/11?).388 The guarantee of the surety for the brewing monopoly in P.dem.Leconte 7 represents one fifth of the value of the monopoly and conversion to the silver standard using either rate yields results in line with brewers’ sureties offered before the monetary reforms.389 P.Petrie II 32, the latest document in the survey, provides a different sort of value for olyra.390 A petitioner seeking redress for an abusive seizure of property lists among his losses olyra borrowed from a tax farmer and valued at 60 drachms per artaba in the loan contract. In this case the conversion ratio of 1 : 60 produces a silver standard equivalent slightly higher than the only attested prices of the third century, but exactly equal to the adaeratio of the third century. The 1 : 120 conversion rate produces a silver standard equivalent slightly lower than the market prices of the third century. This survey suggests that many real costs declined after the demonetization, either returning to the levels of the mid-third century, or falling even lower. But a deflationary episode due to currency shortage can be inferred only tentatively, because the data include few actual market prices which could have been influenced by monetary supply. In transactions with the royal administration, or in transactions strongly influenced by state policy, lower prices can hardly be attributed to an inadequate supply of cash. We can surmise that the state complemented the accounting reform by resetting its rates for a variety of economic transactions. Wine and olyra are the only commodities for which these documents allow comparison within the period under examination. The adaeratio of the vintage of BGU VII 1561 (210/09‒205/4) works out to 3 drachms per kotyle (on the bronze standard), only about half the market price of wine in P.Tebt. III 2 885 (c. 200) and a quarter of the price paid for wine by the Nile travelers of P.Tebt. III 2 889 (early second century). These examples may indicate a gradual increase in prices as the currency supply recovered, or they may support the observation of W. Clarysse and E. Lanciers that the Ptolemaic state accepted commodity prices in its adaeratio conversions that were far lower than the normal market 386. Reekmans (1951), p. 71 n.2; Cadell and Le Rider (1997), p. 44. 387. Bogaert (1998/99), p. 91. 388. See the table of fodder prices in Monson (2012a), p. 25. 389. Devauchelle (1978); Bogaert (1998/99), p. 84. 390. For commentary on the date and type of grain, both of which much be inferred but seem reliable, see Cadell and Le Rider (1997), pp. 45‒46.

Ptolemy IV Philopator

229

value.391 The penalty on olyra in 203/2 implies an adaeratio price of 10 drachms per artaba (on the bronze standard), but the adaeratio in 199 is 33 drachms 2 obols per artaba, and the value of loaned olyra in 197 is 60 drachms per artaba. These examples, again, may illustrate a gap between adaeratio and market prices, or they may indicate that the state, after lowering various rates in conjunction with its new system of reckoning, raised them again less than a decade later. E. Numismatic evidence for possible changes in face values of bronze coins In the “Coinex” hoard of 1992 (CH VIII, 314 = CH X, 455) countermarked tetrobols of Ptolemy IV were associated with later coins belonging to Series 6A through 6C,392 and in the commerce, 2013 hoard they were associated with coins of Series 6A through 6E. The largest denomination of Series 6A and 6B is nearly identical in diameter to the tetrobols but slightly lighter, with an average weight of c. 40 g as compared to the average of c. 45 g for the tetrobols.393 The similarity of module suggests that the two denominations were equivalent, and this impression inspired the hypothesis that the cornucopiae countermark retariffed the tetrobols at the face value of the later coins.394 Thanks to the hoard found in the North Bubastid door of Karnak temple (CH X, 454), we can now be certain that the episode of countermarking preceded the introduction of Series 6. A plausible interpretation is that the reformed accounting system was introduced at the time of the demonetization, and that the countermark revalued selected denominations so that they could bridge the gap between the demonetization and the provision of a new coinage with compatible face values. Faucher and Lorber hypothesized several face values for the largest denomination of Series 6A, one of which was 80 drachms.395 The value of 80 drachms was subsequently endorsed by Picard and Faucher.396 If this valuation is correct, the presumed equivalence of countermarked tetrobols of Series 5E and 5F with the 80-drachm coins implies that the former somehow increased in value from 4 obols to 80 drachms. One possible mechanism is that the cornucopiae countermark doubled their face value from 4 to 8 obols, after which conversion to the bronze standard redefined the obol as 10 drachms, allowing for an alternative valuation as 80-drachm pieces. A monetiform weight in a California private collection has been cited previously as providing physical evidence for the change in face values associated with the adoption of the bronze standard.397 It is a cast bronze disk with a diameter of c. 40 mm and weight of 80.14 g, slightly convex on one side, bearing raised characters: the mark = or  appears on the convex surface and the Greek letter  or  on the flat surface. The convex surface in particular shows clear signs of wear. This artifact reportedly came to light in a hoard of 391. Clarysse and Lanciers (1989), p. 119. 392. See Huston and Lorber (2001). 393. Huston and Lorber (2001), pp. 24‒25. 394. Lorber in Huston and Lorber (2001), pp. 35–37, offering two further hypotheses about the values involved. Hypothesis A, insofar as it relates the countermark to face values of earlier coinage (of Series 4), must be disregarded, since it is now recognized that Huston and Lorber’s hoard report unintentionally confused two separate hoards. 395. Faucher and Lorber (2010), pp. 54‒58. The other hypothetical values were 40, 100, and 120 drachms. 396. Picard and Faucher (2012), pp. 64‒68. 397. In the collection of S.M. Huston, Alameda, California, cited by Hazzard (1995), p. 47; Huston and Lorber (2001), p. 34; Lorber (2005a), p. 142; Cavagna (2010), pp. 218‒219; Faucher and Lorber (2010), p. 55. The object was formally published by Hazzard and Huston (2015).

230

Introduction

large bronzes of Ptolemy IV found in Lebanon in 1993, including examples of Svoronos 1125 and 1127 countermarked with a cornucopiae or an ivy leaf on the reverse. Its double inscription seems to imply a function in converting between two different systems of valuation, while its association with countermarked Ptolemaic bronze coins hints that they were subject to such conversions. Before considering the implications in more detail, we must acknowledge the many problematic aspects of the available information. The reported Lebanese provenance could be disinformation disguising the origin of a hoard removed illegally from Egypt.398 The use of the bronze standard is attested in Ptolemaic Egypt, but not in the province of Syria and Phoenicia, for which we possess very few papyri. The report of the hoard contents is vague and not corroborated by parallel finds from the Levant. The Svoronos numbers pertain to Alexandrian issues, with no mention of the Tyrian issues to be expected in a Lebanese hoard. It is impossible to determine whether Tyrian issues were present but not reported by the original informant, or whether the hoard consisted entirely of Egyptian coins. It is similarly impossible to determine what proportion of the hoard coins were countermarked, the ratio of cornucopiae to ivy leaf countermarks, or the denominations countermarked. Svoronos 1125 and 1127, the only varieties specifically mentioned, are drachms and triobols, denominations rarely encountered with the cornucopiae countermark. In Egypt these denominations were demonetized, whereas the cornucopiae countermark was applied especially to tetrobols and diobols which remained in circulation.399 Despite the many uncertainties, the monetary weight and its hoard context are tantalizing. If the Lebanese provenance is not a cover story, the find would seem to establish the important fact that the bronze standard was employed in Syria and Phoenicia before the province was lost to Antiochus III in 198. The Lebanese weight has already inspired several hypotheses about the conversion between the old and new systems of valuing Ptolemaic bronze coinage.400 R. A. Hazzard proposed what is certainly the correct reading of the inscriptions on the weight.401 He identified the mark = as the standard symbol for diobol used in papyri.402 Assuming a vertical die axis for the weight, as for Ptolemaic coinage, the only possible reading of the Greek letter is , representing the numeral 40. The equation of = and  seemingly indicates that the diobol was equivalent to 40 drachms of the new system of reckoning. It 398. Hazzard and Huston (2015), n. 5. 399. This discrepancy between Egyptian practice and what is reported of the Lebanon hoard could perhaps be due to the different denominational structure of the bronze coinage in Syria and Phoenicia, which did not include the tetrobol denomination under Ptolemy III and IV, or the diobol under Ptolemy IV. 400. The first interpretation was offered by Hazzard (1995), p. 67, who read the Greek letter as , i.e., the numeral 200, and deduced that it indicated a value of 200 bronze drachms for the weight itself, from which he further deduced a face value of 180 bronze drachms for the third-century denomination of c. 72 g. This approach implies a weight of c. 0.4 g for the theoretical bronze drachm of account and a face value of 120 drachms for the bronze tetrobol when it was converted to the new system of reckoning. C. C. Lorber noted that the weight of 80.14 g was equivalent to two of the “large-horn Ammon” bronzes represented in the “Coinex” hoard (i.e., the Zeus-Ammon/double eagle denomination of Series 6A); assuming the reading of  as the numeral 200, and interpreting the mark  as an indication for two, she hypothesized that each of the “large-horn Ammon” coins had the face value of 100 drachms of account, or one mina, see Huston and Lorber (2001), p. 37; Lorber (2005a), p. 142 n.50; followed by Cavagna (2010), pp. 218‒219. Faucher and Lorber (2010), pp. 55–56, also examined this interpretation and found it problematic because it does not allow for the identification of a pentadrachm, the only coin denomination whose existence is certainly attested, in Series 7. 401 Personal communication, 31 March 2000; cited by Huston and Lorber (2001), p. 37; Lorber (2005), p. 142 n.50; Hazzard and Huston (2015), where the concurrence of R. Bagnall and W. Clarysse is reported. 402. Gonis (2009), p. 176.

Ptolemy IV Philopator

231

follows that the obol was equivalent to 20 of the new drachms and hence to the Egyptian deben, a standard unit of account in demotic texts. This conversion differs from the common assumption of papyrologists, derived from changes in commodity prices and especially wages, that the obol was equivalent to 10 of the new drachms. The ponderal aspect of the monetiform weight presents difficulties. Since the object is marked as a diobol and weighs 80.14 g, it seems to imply that the bronze obol of the third century weighed c. 40 g. But no third-century bronze denomination has a weight of c. 40 g. The closest module has a mean weight of 44–45 g and, as D. Wolf ’s metrological study demonstrated, the Ptolemies carefully controlled the mean weights of their bronze coins.403 Assuming that the weight of the artifact was relevant instead to the reformed bronze drachm of the new system of reckoning, Hazzard divided 80.14 g by 40 (drachms) and concluded that the essence of the reform was a reduction in the weight of the bronze drachm to c. 2 g.404 He identified several small bronze coin varieties that, in his view, represented actual drachms on the bronze standard. The existence of a drachm coin on the bronze standard is implied by P.Tebt. III 2, 889 (early second century) and C.Ptol.Sklav. II 130 (c. 180), both of which record this amount as a bath house fee. The dichalkon of Series 5E, with a mean weight of 2.684 g, could be a candidate. According to this approach, the tetrobol of Series 5E, with a mean weight of 44.27 g, probably represented only 20 drachms on the bronze standard. In a separate study Hazzard proposed face values for the denominations of Series 6, based on his conclusion that the weight of the drachm had been reduced to c. 2 g.405 The largest denomination is 20 drachms, consistent with the face value he proposed for the tetrobol of Series 5E. The smallest denomination is the drachm, and the values of the intervening denominations can be inferred from their average weights as 2 drachms, 4 drachms, 8 drachms, 10 drachms, and 15 drachms. The conversion factor from the silver to the bronze standard is 120 : 1, a ratio assigned to a slightly later period by Reekmans and his followers. Hazzard’s hypothesis has the virtue of providing an obol equivalent that was struck in great numbers to facilitate payments on the silver standard. The range of values is far lower than in any of the hypotheses considered by Faucher and Lorber and would imply that huge quantities of coins were necessary to make the large payments attested in second-century accounts and tax receipts. The tax farming contract UPZ I 112, of the year 204, instructs the tax farmer to impose a surcharge (katagogion) to cover the expense of transporting the tax money and also, in the case of pros argyrion taxes, to pass on the cost of baskets (time spuridon) required to hold the cash during transportation. Such charges commonly appear on tax receipts of the second and first centuries.406 Coinage of Ptolemy IV in the provinces It has been assumed that after the cessation of regular tetradrachm production in Syria and Phoenicia in 242/1, subsequent production occurred mainly in response to military crises. The city of Ascalon issued an exiguous series of Sarapis and Isis tetradrachms dated to regnal years 3, 4, and 5. The issue of year 3 was the only one known to Svoronos, 403. Wolf (2013). 404. Hazzard and Huston (2015). 405. Hazzard (2016). 406. Milne (1925), p. 280.

232

Introduction

who assigned it to the reign of Ptolemy IV. O. Mørkholm was somewhat inclined to date the Ascalon coinage to the context of the Fifth Syrian War.407 The Khan el-Abde hoard of 1938 (IGCH 1597), however, included an example of year 3, together with thirteen specimens of the large Alexandrian issue of Sarapis and Isis tetradrachms, which are the closing coins of the hoard.408 The Ascalon series thus establishes that the Sarapis and Isis type was introduced no later than 220/19. As this date corresponds to the occupation of Syria and Phoenicia by Antiochus III, and the Ascalonian series ends two years later, corresponding to the victory at Raphia, it is clear that Ascalon, which never previously struck coinage for the Ptolemies, produced this coinage in connection with the defense of Egypt against a possible advance by the Seleucid. The association of Sarapis and Isis with the defense of Egypt is persuasive and argues for dating the first Alexandrian Sarapis and Isis tetradrachms to 219, specifically after the second invasion of Antiochus III. Another issue dated to year 3 probably also represents a response to the emergency in Syria and Phoenicia. It is a portrait mnaieion of Ptolemy IV introducing his standard types, diademed king wearing chlamys/eagle right on thunderbolt. As at Ascalon the date is preceded by the year sign , perhaps indicating an origin in Syro-Phoenicia or in the Phoenician sector of Cyprus.409 Whereas earlier Ptolemaic mnaieia had advertised the divinity of Arsinoe Philadelphus and Berenice II, the imagery here can be construed as warlike: the chlamys was a military garment and the eagle a bird of prey. Ptolemy Philopator celebrated his recovery of Syro-Phoenicia with a four-month tour of the region. At this time the mints of Sidon, Tyre, and Ptolemais produced an important coinage in gold and silver, all marked with the letters , sometimes in the form of a monogram. Mørkholm dated the  coinage to the early years of Ptolemy V, while allowing that it may have begun late in the reign of his father.410 The earlier attributions of Poole and Svoronos to Ptolemy IV are vindicated by the Delta hoard of 1922 (IGCH 1690), which closed with the Sarapis-Isis tetradrachms of Ptolemy IV and included one Sidonian example with the letters .411 The presence of three Alexandrian Sarapis-Isis tetradrachms with the control  ensures that this hoard closed after the battle of Raphia. The sharing of the signature  conforms to the local tradition of temporarily reviving the production of precious metal coinage at several mints under a consolidated administration. Svoronos, followed by H. Kyrieleis, interpreted these letters as the signature of Sosibius.412 But it is doubtful that Philopator’s chief minister would have assumed a charge so far beneath his position in the hierarchy,413 even if he had not been absent in Antioch negotiating the peace treaty with Antiochus III. Based on the quantity 407. Mørkholm (1987), p. 157. Mørkholm’s redating was accepted by Hazzard (1998), pp. 25, 27, who cited the use of the year sign  and the lack of other dated coins of Ptolemy IV. 408. Strictly speaking, they are the closing coins of the earlier of two separate hoards that became confused in the riverbed where they were found. The second hoard involved Seleucid tetradrachms of Tryphon and Antiochus VII, dating from the third quarter of the second century, see Seyrig (1950), pp. 3–6. Seyrig misinterpreted the Ptolemaic material as two separate hoards. 409. The year sign is a common abbreviation in papyri, which also occurs in inscriptions from Kafizin, near Idalium, in the latter reign of Ptolemy III and the early reign of Ptolemy IV, see Mitford (1980), pp. 251–252. 410. Mørkholm (1979), p. 207 n.14. 411. Poole (1883), pp. li–lii; Newell (1927b), pp. 1–13. 412. Svoronos (1904–08), vol. I, cols. τγʹ–τϚʹ vol. IV, cols. 225–229; Kyrieleis (1973), pp. 236, 238 (dating the coinage to the early years of Ptolemy V). 413. Mørkholm (1983), p. 245, rejected the tendency of earlier scholars to associate famous historical figures with the signatures of moneyers.

Ptolemy IV Philopator

233

of gold coins and the variety of types, Sidon was the preeminent mint of the  group, probably because it had remained loyal to Ptolemy throughout the Fourth Syrian War. The Sidonian issue includes mnaieia with the posthumous portrait of Ptolemy III, radiate and wearing the aegis like a chlamys; mnaieia depicting Ptolemy IV wearing the military chlamys, with his epiklesis Philopator; tetradrachms depicting Ptolemy IV with either his cult title or (rarely) the royal title; and tetradrachms of the Sarapis and Isis type. Tyre’s output comprised numerous small issues of tetradrachms only, some with the portrait of Ptolemy IV and his epiklesis, others with the standard Lagid type of Ptolemy I, with either his cult name Soter or the royal title in the legend. Ptolemais struck a more limited coinage, including a portrait mnaieion of Ptolemy IV with his epiklesis and three small, perhaps earlier tetradrachm emissions of the Ptolemy I type with the title Soter. The  coinage may have played a part in Philopator’s rich temple dedications in Syria and Phoenicia, attested by the Raphia Decree, and almost certainly funded donatives to local garrisons and communities.414 The prominence of Philopator’s portrait in this coinage may be related to a protocol of his predecessors, for (apart from the mnaieia of the Theoi Adelphoi) neither Ptolemy II or Ptolemy III was portrayed on his precious metal coinage except in newly acquired territory. In these earlier cases the usual mechanism of territorial acquisition was probably negotiated surrender, but Ptolemy IV could accurately claim that his province was doriktetos (spear won).415 Another regional emission has been identified in a scanty series of tetradrachms of the traditional Lagid type, issued at Ptolemais, Ioppe, and an unidentified Palestinian mint, all associated by the control letters  (usually in monogrammatic form). Since Ptolemais is involved in this emission as well as in the  emission, it is natural to assume that they were chronologically distinct. But this assumption is challenged by a complicated die history at Ptolemais. The Ptolemais mint employed an obverse die transferred from Sidon, which was repeatedly recut and repaired.416 The changing states of this obverse die leave no doubt that the mint initially employed the control letters  but then alternated them with the control letters . The anomalous pattern of the controls at Ptolemais creates uncertainty about when the series began (perhaps in response to the first invasion of Antiochus IV in 221?) and which if any of its  tetradrachms can be attributed to the post-Raphian regional emission. It also raises doubt about the administrative function of the control letters. Since  and  were used contemporaneously, it is difficult to maintain that they were the marks of a regional administrator supervising the production of several mints; one or both of them may designate something else, perhaps officials who requisitioned coinage from different mints. Additional coinage for Raphian victory donatives, including mnaieia with the portrait of the deified Ptolemy III, was struck at unidentified mints. A posthumous mnaieion of Ptolemy III, marked with a letter B, was recently joined by a similarly marked portrait mnaieion of Ptolemy IV of very unusual style. The types reflect the iconographic program of the  mnaieia of Sidon and it is difficult to imagine that an isolated emission of gold 414. III Macc. 1.6–9; Raphia Decree, demotic ll. 14–19; Thissen (1966), pp. 15–17, 56–59; Simpson (1996), pp. 244– 247. 415. Mehl (1980–81), pp. 201–202, noting that the victory and the legitimacy of the spear-won territorial claim were recognized by treaty. 416. Carlen and Lorber (2015).

234

Introduction

coins could be elicited by any event but the victory at Raphia. A series with dynastic types, linked by a & monogram, includes mnaieia with the posthumous portrait of Ptolemy III; mnaieia of Berenice II; and silver tetradrachms of Ptolemy IV with his epiklesis Philopator. In this case the controls point to at least two emissions, one presumably immediately after Raphia, the second somewhat later after the inauguration of a posthumous coinage for Berenice at Alexandria. A few tetradrachms of the standard type but of provincial style share their controls with issues of Alexandria. Two with the letters  can be dated to the time of the Fourth Syrian War and may be related either to regular war finance or to the donative; a third is control linked to the Berenice coinage. In Syria and Phoenicia the post-Raphian victory coinage was followed by a few tetradrachm issues of Sidon, Tyre, Ptolemais, and Ioppe, employing either the Sarapis and Isis or Ptolemy I types. These tetradrachms either bear civic mintmarks only, or are entirely unmarked and attributable only because they reused the obverse dies of earlier emissions. In accordance with the hypothesis offered above concerning regional mint administration, the lack of a shared monogram should date this coinage to the period after the conclusion of the treaty between Ptolemy IV and Antiochus III. Probably datable after Raphia is an enigmatic group of tetradrachms of the Ptolemy I type, with the Soter legend on the reverse, either unmarked or with a letter  between the legs of the eagle. These tetradrachms occur in several hoards from Syria and Phoenicia and probably originated in the province, where they were apparently produced by at least two mints. Obverse die deterioration and a reverse erasure indicate that the letter  preceded the unmarked phase of the issue. The absence of the year sign  before the  suggests that this was not a regnal date. The placement of the letter between the legs of the eagle has parallels on the Ptolemaic era coinage (see below), where a series of numerals in this position has been interpreted as designating era dates. Possibly the  coinage reflects an attempt to introduce a new era, perhaps based on the victory at Raphia, that was quickly abandoned in favor of a different era. This brief series is associated in hoards with early issues of the Ptolemaic era coinage, and there is a stylistic kinship between the two series as well. Better known, but still enigmatic and controversial, is the intermittent era coinage that, for the first half of its existence, consisted of tetradrachms of the standard Lagid type, naming Ptolemy Soter in the legend. The era coins bear no control marks except for numerals that are assumed to represent dates according to an era. Before 1976 numismatic scholars proposed many different eras but generally favored an attribution to Phoenicia or Phoenicia-Palestine, the region where most examples are found.417 The mystery was apparently solved by Mørkholm, who cited hoards in which the era coins occurred alongside dated Seleucid coins to demonstrate that the era must have begun around 260; he submitted that the Aradian era, commencing in 259/8, was the only well-known era in the region where the coins circulated and tentatively identified the era coinage as an imitative currency issued by the autonomous Phoenician city of Aradus, alternating with Aradian Alexanders and civic tetradrachms.418 R. A. Hazzard, over the course of many publications, developed a competing theory, that the era coinage was an official Ptolemaic currency minted at Pelusium, dated according to a Soter era beginning in 262, 417. Mørkholm (1975–76), pp. 23–24, surveyed the most important earlier opinions. 418. Mørkholm (1975–76), pp. 48–57.

Ptolemy IV Philopator

235

and introduced as one of the many religious reforms of Ptolemy IV.419 In a monograph on Hellenistic Aradus, F. Duyrat drew attention to key differences between the era coinage and undoubted issues of Aradus and expressed skepticism that Aradus, a faithful ally of the Seleucid kings, would have minted coinage of Ptolemaic type.420 The present author argued in support of Hazzard’s chronology but questioned his theoretical framework for the Soter era, and J. Olivier also accepted Hazzard’s chronology.421 According to this chronology, the first dated issue, bearing the numeral 48, was struck in 215/4, while an earlier undated variety, associated by style and considered the inaugural issue by Morkholm, probably belongs to the preceding year. The era tetradrachms were struck almost annually until 205/4, with hiatuses in 210/9 and 207/6–206/5. The mint remains uncertain, though it was probably located in Syria and Phoenicia, at least during the reign of Ptolemy IV.422 Provincial bronze coinage from the reign of Ptolemy IV is linked by its controls to the products of Alexandria and attests to a centralized administration of bronze coin production. Cypriote bronzes with a lotus blossom in left field bear the controls , , , and í, implying their production before and after the Fourth Syrian War, but not during the Seleucid occupation of Syria and Phoenicia. The denominations minted were the octobol and tetrobol,423 both of which were introduced to Cypriote bronze coinage under Ptolemy III. No other bronze octobols were struck during Philopator’s reign. Under Ptolemy IV only one Phoenician mint issued bronze coins for the province of Syria and Phoenicia. Early bronzes with the Tyrian club mintmark bear nearly the same series of controls seen on contemporary Cypriote bronzes—(?), , , , and í. The coinage marked  should be dated immediately after the battle of Raphia. The denominations are initially the same as for contemporary Egypt, the drachm and triobol, but subsequent issues involve nothing larger than an obol. The Soter/Libya coinage continued in Cyrenaica, still on the weight standard of Ptolemy I. The main series consists of diobols with an apple branch behind Libya’s head, normally a mintmark for Berenice (Euesperides). The controls parallel those of Alexandria, but in this case they begin only with  and í and continue through the controls of the more common Alexandria tetrobol emissions (; and ). Occasional cornucopiae countermarks, applied on the obverse, may perhaps signal that this coinage was subject to a currency reform late in the reign of Ptolemy IV, but this is very doubtful. 419. Hazzard (1975); id. (1990); Hazzard and Fitzgerald (1991); Hazzard (1995a), pp. 33–34; id. (2000), pp. 3–79. Savalli-Lestrade (2010), p. 64 n.41, identified several weaknesses of Hazzard’s hypothesis that the era was established by Ptolemy II in order to fix the date of the Ptolemaieia to the achronical rising of the star Canopus. Her most telling criticism is that a winter date would be least suitable for an international festival because of the difficulties of navigation in winter. 420. Duyrat (2005), pp. 115–119, 223. 421. Lorber (2007a), pp. 105–110; Olivier (2012), pp. 379‒385. 422. Lorber (2007a), pp. 110–117, noted affinities to Cypriote coins in the second century and suggested that the era coinage could have been minted on Cyprus and introduced to Syria and Phoenicia by the Ptolemaic fleet, especially in connection with the Syrian Wars. Olivier (2012), pp. 387‒397, demonstrated that the era coinage was almost certainly produced by different mints at different periods. 423. Another Cypriote bronze coinage long assigned to Ptolemy IV consists of small bronzes with a female bust traditionally identified as a portrait of Arsinoe III. This identification rests on no sure foundation and the bust more likely represents Aphrodite, patron deity of Cyprus, in which case there is no basis for an attribution to Ptolemy IV. Fresh study of this coinage revealed a range of fabrics, styles, and reverse variants pointing to a long period of production, probably something in the range of fifty to a hundred years. The flans lack central cavities, perhaps evidence for a relatively late period of issue, unless this feature was simply omitted because of the low value of the coins in question.

236

Introduction

The island of Imbros has yielded an enigmatic chalkous, issued in the name of a King Ptolemy, presumably by one of the Lagid possessions in the North Aegean. The obverse type is a female head with rolled hair but no identifying attributes, and the reverse type is a radiate double cornucopiae. Since radiate cornuacopiae only appear on coins of Ptolemy IV and V, the Imbrian bronze probably belongs to one of these reigns. The reign of Philopator may also be the context for civic coinages issued by Arsinoe on the Peloponnesus (Methana), Arsinoe (Rhithymna) in Crete, and Caunus in Caria. The Peloponnesian Arsinoe, a Lagid military base in Argolis, produced bronzes pairing a head of Aphrodite, perhaps representing a Ptolemaic queen, and a warrior with a snake coiling around his spear, probably Ares.424 Arsinoe (Rhithymna) continued its civic bronzes with the types Athena/two dolphins, merely changing the reverse legend to reflect its new dynastic name. In the preceding reigns Caunus had struck bronze and later also silver coins bearing the cornuacopiae of Arsinoe II and Berenice II. There is no equally strong basis for associating a Caunian coinage with Ptolemy IV, but we have tentatively assigned to his reign bronze dichalka depicting the civic founder on both sides and bronze chalkoi with a sheathed sword on the reverse, both of which must be accommodated before the introduction of a plinthophoric fabric c. 200.425 Numismatic Iconography The tetradrachms of Ptolemy IV bearing the jugate busts of Sarapis and Isis were the first (and only) Lagid tetradrachms to substitute the images of gods for a royal portrait (Fig. 4.1a). The innovation was an important expression of one of Philopator’s religious policies, for—as described above—he founded a new cult of Sarapis and Isis as Theoi Soteres (Savior Gods), associated them with the defense of Egypt, and credited them with a battlefield intervention that led to his stunning victory at Raphia in 217. Dated tetradrachms of the Sarapis and Isis type were struck at Ascalon in 220/19, no doubt after the occupation of Syria and Phoenicia by Antiochus III, and it is highly likely that the Alexandrian issues began at the same time. If this is so, the Sarapis and Isis tetradrachms corroborate the textual sources that refer to the Egyptian gods as protectors of the kingdom and its king. In addition to the Raphia Decree and passages in III Maccabees, we can cite Philopator’s decorations in the temple of Horus at Edfu, several of which explicitly state that these gods had granted dominion over Phoenicia and Syria to the Greek pharaoh. In the First Sokarian Chamber, Osiris addresses Ptolemy IV in hieroglyphic script: “I grant that Egypt will be faithful to your majesty and that the land of the Asiatics will be your slave;” in the Mesenit Horus says to him, “I give you Phoenicia with its tribute” and Isis says, “I give you Asia with its offerings;” in the Chapel of the Throne of the Gods the same grants are repeated by Isis and her sister Nephthys.426 The implication of these divine grants is that Lagid possession of the contested province was a part of the cosmic order (maat), which Ptolemy had preserved through his victory over Antiochus. The tetradrachms of Ptolemy IV provide the earliest known depiction of the GraecoEgyptian god Sarapis. He is portrayed wearing a laurel wreath surmounted by the atef 424. Gill (1997), p. 279. Hoover (2011), p. 185, dated this coinage to the second quarter of the second century. The most detailed analysis is the die study of Meadows (forthcoming). 425. For the change of fabric, see Ashton (1999), p. 153. 426. Cauville (1983), p. 19, 65, 66, 77 (English translation from Cauville’s French translation of the hieroglyphic texts).

Ptolemy IV Philopator

237

Figure 4.1a–b. Sarapis and Isis tetradrachm of Ptolemy IV. Enlarged.

crown of Osiris, rather than the kalathos of his Alexandrian cult statue (known only from copies and descriptions of Roman date).427 Through these attributes Sarapis is presented as a syncretism of the Greek Zeus and the Egyptian Osiris, each of whom was a cosmic deity and a god of kingship.428 The iconography emphasizes Osiris’ aspect as heir to the kingship of the Two Lands, the penultimate in a line of god-kings whose death, resurrection, and installation as lord of the dead led to the permanent kingship of Horus and the completion of the cosmos.429 Isis, for her part, is shown wreathed with grain and wearing a simplified crown of Hathor, a solar disk framed by cow’s horns. This combination of attributes reflects the syncretism of Isis with Hathor and with Demeter and expresses her aspects as mother of the Horus-King and source of Egypt’s fertility. The Zeus-Sarapis and Demeter-Isis coin type has sometimes been understood as a representation of the living royal couple.430 Although these are not recognizable portraits of Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III furnished with divine attributes, there may well be an ideological or symbolic representation based upon the close association of the rulers with Sarapis and Isis. This does not conflict with the interpretation of Sarapis/Osiris and Isis as the parents of Horus, with whom the king was identified; in Egyptian royal ideology, based on the broader theological concept of perpetual cyclical renewal, each generation was equivalent to the preceding and following generation. Paired with the images of Zeus-Sarapis and Demeter-Isis is a new tetradrachm reverse type, borrowed from bronze coinage, that shows the Ptolemaic eagle holding a double cornucopiae bound with a royal diadem above its back, its lower end tucked under the bird’s far wing (Fig. 4.1b). The earliest appearance of this motif was on provincial bronzes of Ptolemy II, struck mainly or exclusively in Syria and Phoenicia, and it is conceivable that the tetradrachm reverse alludes to the contested province. But its primary significance is 427. Svoronos identified the basileion (headdress) of Sarapis on these tetradrachms as a lotus bud, Newell as a pschent (double crown). Seyrig (1988), pp. 726–727, identified it as the atef crown of Osiris and expressed his belief that this was the earliest surviving representation of Sarapis, making the omission of the kalathos quite noteworthy. For other depictions of Sarapis wearing the atef crown, see Clerc and Leclant (1994), nos. 115, 131a, 141a, 150. Sarapis could be assimilated to Ammon, see Clerc and Leclant (1994). p. 687. Nevertheless Bricault (1999), p. 341, suggested that the new prominence of Osiris temporarily eclipsed Amun and thus contributed to the Theban revolt. 428. The syncretism Zeus-Sarapis is attested at Delos in 112/11, see I.Délos 2152(b); Fraser (1972), Vol. I, p. 259; Vol. IIa, p. 409 n.542. Bricault (1999), p. 341, speculated that the coin type with its atef crown reflects a consecration of the Greek god Sarapis as Osiris by the religious authorities at Memphis. 429. Bonhême and Forgeau (1988), pp. 69–70; O’Connor (2009), pp. 31–39. 430. Svoronos (1904–08), Vol. I, col. σπθʹ; Brunelle (1976), pp. 53–54.

238

Introduction

defined by its new context. Osiris was the god of the Nile inundation, the source of Egypt’s prosperity; the flood was believed to originate in the effluents from his corpse during the annual mystery of his death and regeneration.431 As a symbol of prosperity the cornucopiae referred to the inundation and to Osiris, but also to the king, who was responsible for the life-sustaining waters according to the secret harmony of the cosmos.432 The double cornucopiae was strongly associated with the deified Arsinoe II, and this association was reinforced by the production of a few mnaieia of Arsinoe Philadelphus sharing the  control of the major Alexandria emission of Sarapis and Isis tetradrachms. An allusion to the great Arsinoe as assimilated to Isis and Agathe Tyche, or in her aspect as savior goddess, is possible here. But it may be valid to assume that the double cornucopiae was no longer her exclusive emblem and to read it as symbolic of a double power of fruitfulness, flowing from Sarapis/Osiris and Isis and from the royal couple.433 The cornucopiae is supported by the Ptolemaic eagle, a bird sacred to Zeus. Since the obverse image of Sarapis shows him to be a syncretism of Zeus and Osiris, these coins may mark the beginning of the eagle’s association with Zeus-Sarapis.434 The eagle was also sacred to Amun as the Egyptian counterpart to Zeus.435 Amun, in his syncretic aspect as Amun-Ra, was the sun, the source of life and the other source of Egypt’s prosperity. The tetradrachm types thus seem to allude to the parallel roles of Amun-Ra and Osiris in Egyptian royal ideology, where both gods were fathers to the king.436 These relationships were explicit in the case of Ptolemy IV, whose identification with Horus has already been discussed, and whose Egyptian titulature included the epithets “Mighty is the ka of Ra, the living image of Amun.”437 The most spectacular coin type of the reign is the posthumous portrait of Ptolemy III on gold coins, mainly mnaieia (Fig. 4.2a). The late king is shown with the attributes of three Greek gods, the rays of Helios, the trident of Poseidon, and the aegis of Zeus, worn over his torso like a chlamys.438 This complex image has inspired many commentaries which vary greatly in perspective and in depth of exegesis; the symbolism is clearly polyvalent, supporting multiple interpretations. Taken literally the portrait represents the king as a syncretic deity assimilating Helios, Poseidon, and Zeus.439 Kyrieleis read the diverse attributes of Ptolemy III as reflecting aspects of his divinity.440 He was the first of several scholars to note the equivalence of the divine attributes to royal regalia: the radiate crown 431. Cauville (1983), pp. 21, 32, 94–95, 102–103. 432. Bonhême and Forgeau (1988), pp. 116–118, 158–166. 433. Brunelle (1976), pp. 53–54. 434. Lichtenberger (2006), p. 192. 435. Aelian, De nat. animal. 12.4. 436. Amun-Ra was the transmitter of the royal ka, the divine aspect of kingship, while Osiris transmitted his kingship to his son Horus, see Bonhême and Forgeau (1988), pp. 72–75; Pfeiffer (2008b), pp. 24–26. 437. Raphia Decree, demotic l. 11; Thissen (1966), p. 11 (“to whom Pre [Ra] has given strength”); Simpson (1996), pp. 222–223 (“to whom Pre [Ra] has given success?”); Huß (2001), p. 385 (“mighty is the power of Ra”). 438. The association of the aegis with Zeus, though conventional, is somewhat problematic. Zeus bears the epithet Aigiochos in the Iliad and other texts, but he is almost never described as wearing the aegis, and he was rarely depicted with the aegis in any visual medium before Roman times. See LIMC VIII, s.v. Zeus, especially 351, no. 288, 432–3, nos. 117–8. Images of Zeus Aigiochos are mainly found on the coins of Hellenistic Bactria, at a remote distance from Egypt, and they show the god with the aegis draped over his left arm. There is no clear evidence that he was ever shown wearing the aegis over his torso. 439. Seltman (1933), p. 423, instead identified Helios, Ammon, and Zeus. 440. Kyrieleis (1975), pp. 28–29, 148.

Ptolemy IV Philopator

239

Figure 4.2a–b. Gold mnaieion of Ptolemy IV depicting Ptolemy III. Enlarged.

is analogous to a diadem, the trident to a sceptre, the aegis to a chlamys.441 For R. R. R. Smith this was proof that the attributes symbolized the godlike qualities or powers of the king without actually implying his divinity.442 This sensibility has also led to metaphorical or political interpretations of the attributes, e.g., as showing the king’s mastery of the three elements, heaven, earth, and sea;443 as recalling his involvement in the affairs of Greece;444 or as symbolizing the cooperation between the Ptolemies (Zeus) and Rhodes (Helios) to secure control of the sea (Poseidon).445 As noted earlier with respect to early Ptolemaic portraits of Alexander, pharaonic art provides precedents for royal portraits with divine attributes deriving from different gods, and such images also became popular in the minor arts of Graeco-Roman Egypt beginning approximately in the reign of Ptolemy IV.446 Kyrieleis therefore proposed that interpretations of Euergetes’ portrait should be sought in Egyptian concepts.447 A detail of the portrait, a lotus bud or blossom on the middle prong of the trident, is another clue favoring an Egyptian (or at least Graeco-Egyptian) interpretation, as are the Egyptian elements of the contemporary tetradrachm type. Recalling that Ptolemy III constructed temples for both Sarapis and Osiris, W. Huß asked if the types of his posthumous coinage represent him as Sarapis; the multiple divine attributes of the portrait may be explained by the redemptive fusion of Ra and Osiris in Egyptian religion and by the syncretisms of Sarapis with Helios, Poseidon, and Zeus, the first attested by an oracle attributed to the time of Ptolemy I, the others in late Hellenistic sources.448 A. Alföldi submitted that the portrait, complemented by the reverse type of a radiate cornucopiae, presented Ptolemy Euergetes in the guise of Aion Plutonios, the focus of a mystery cult developed by the court at Alexandria.449 Combining aspects of Sarapis/Osiris, Hades, and Kronos, Aion 441. Kyrieleis (1975), p. 29 n.120; Smith (1988), p. 12; Svenson (1995), pp. 72–73; Johnson (1999), p. 52. 442. Smith (1988), p. 12, followed by Johnson (1999). 443. Mørkholm (1991), p. 109. 444. Kyrieleis (1973b), pp. 219, 221; id. (1986), p. 60. Cf. Euergetes’ Greek bronze coinage (fig. 3.4). 445. Davis and Kraay (1973), caption to figs. 23–24. Svenson (1995), p. 72, offered a political interpretation of the trident alone, alleging that it is composed of bundles of lotus and papyrus, the emblematic plants of Upper and Lower Egypt, making it a symbol of kingship over the Two Lands. 446. Kyrieleis (1975), 148–149; Grimm (1978), 105–107. 447. Kyrieleis (1975), 148–149. 448. Huß (1976a). 449. Alföldi (1977), pp. 1–13. Kyrieleis (1986), p. 60, expressed skepticism, arguing that this cult would have been unfamiliar to the soldiers who were the main recipients of the coins.

240

Introduction

Plutonios was the ruler of the universe and of infinite time, the bringer of rich crops and the source of wealth, who would restore the Golden Age. He was associated with the third Ptolemy because, according to Tacitus, the end of a cosmic cycle and the rebirth of the universe were announced under his reign, heralded by the reappearance of the phoenix at Heliopolis, whence the solar rays of the portrait.450 M. Bergmann saw a pantheistic image with symbolic allusions to power on land and sea, the military successes of Ptolemy III, and the fertility of the kingdom.451 Following a hint of Kyrieleis, she emphasized the association of these coins with the Fourth Syrian War. This is an important perception that warrants fuller development. In the context of the Fourth Syrian War the portrait can be understood as an evocation of a great victor over the Seleucids, who filled the perpetual role of Egypt’s hated Oriental foes.452 The rays symbolize Euergetes’ eastern victory and the trident his conquests by sea, while the aegis identifies him as the protector of Egypt. The aegis worn like a chlamys was the particular attribute of the cult statue of the deified Alexander in the Ptolemaic dynastic cult centered at Alexandria453 (Fig. 3.4, above). Its assumption by Ptolemy Euergetes represents him as a new Alexander who had replicated his predecessor’s conquests in the east, an identification further supported by the inclusion of Alexander’s famous anastole in some of the coin portraits.454 The apotheosis of Ptolemy III as Alexander may have been meaningful only or primarily in the Greek cultural sphere, since Alexander was not promoted as a god in Egyptian versions of the dynastic cult and was no longer honored on the bronze coinage of Ptolemy IV.455 Nevertheless, the interpretation is not inconsistent with Egyptian sources. Alexander’s conquests were authorized by the Egyptian gods, according to inscriptions in the Alexander shrine in the temple of Amun at Luxor.456 As kings campaigning against Egypt’s eastern enemies, both Alexander and Ptolemy Euergetes fulfilled their royal role as the earthly incarnation of Horus, the savior king.457 The rays express Horus’ aspect as a solar god and also evoke the destructive power of the warrior king, who was associated with the sun in Egyptian royal ideology.458 The aegis, always a symbol of protection, is especially connected to Horus through its snake imagery, for snakes were the particular guardians of Horus in his aspect as Harakhty, the rising sun.459 The trident with its lotus ornament may be understood as the interpretatio graeca of a harpoon, the weapon with which Horus avenged Ra-Harakhty after Seth attempted to revolt against him.460 This myth was celebrated at Edfu in the annual Festival of Victory and a harpoon ritual, known 450. Tac. Ann. 6.28. 451. Bergmann (1998), pp. 60–61. 452. Hazzard (1995a), pp. 6–7; id. (2000), pp. 116–117; Queyrel (2002), p. 13. 453. Parlasca (2004). For the association of this statue type with the state cult, see Kleiner (1950–51), pp. 214–215, and Stewart (1993), pp. 243, 247. The now-lost cameo from the treasury of Cammin cathedral, dated to the third century A.D., reproduced the Alexander Aigiochos statue with a radiate crown, see Stewart (1993), pp. 52, 246–247, 334, and fig. 82; Svenson (1996), pl. 4. 454. See, e.g., Svoronos (1904–08), Vol. III, pl. xxxvi, 1–2, 4, or Kyrieleis (1975), pl. 17, 2 and 4. 455. It is conceivable, however, that the military training of Egyptian phalangites in preparation for the confrontation with Antiochus III included exposure to the cult of Alexander as a part of army tradition. 456. Schäfer (2007), pp. 59–60, 68–69. 457. Hölbl (2001), p. 79. 458. Bonhême and Forgeau (1988), pp. 64, 72–74, 117. 459. Goyon (1985), pp. 3–110, especially pp. 79–91. 460. Alliot (1954), pp. 677–882; Fairman (1974), pp. 14–35.

Ptolemy IV Philopator

241

from Dynasty I, is attested by inscriptions in the Edfu temple dating to the reign of Ptolemy IV.461 The coinage of Ptolemy IV thus attests to a double ideology with respect to victory in Syria and Phoenicia. Epigraphic sources and the tetradrachm types associate Sarapis and Isis with the domination of the province and the protection of Egypt, whereas the types of the Ptolemy III mnaieia connect Syro-Phoenician victory with Horus in his solar aspect. There is a late textual source supporting the solar associations of the victory: Aelian reports that after the battle of Raphia Philopator sacrificed four elephants to Helios and erected an epinician monument commemorating the sacrifice to further honor the god.462 The imagery of the mnaieia also expresses the identification of Ptolemy III with Ra. Every Ptolemaic king was explicitly identified as the son of Ra by the fifth invariant name of his Egyptian titulature, which appears in the Greek version of the titles as Son of Helios.463 The role of (Amun-)Ra as the divine transmitter of kingship parallels that of the late Ptolemy Euergetes who transmitted his kingship to his son. These relations are reflected in part of the “Great Name” of Ptolemy IV: his first title was “Horus, the valiant youth whose father caused him to appear” (i.e., as king).464 The assimilation of Ptolemy III to Ra/Helios, as implied by the coin type, could also suggest that he was the recipient or implied recipient of the Raphian elephant sacrifice. On well-preserved coins it is possible to observe that the rays on Euergetes’ head are alternately smooth or adorned with a row of pellets. This detail became the basis for an interpretation by P. Iossif and C. Lorber.465 A pattern of alternating rays is a standard motif in Egyptian funerary art of Dynasty XXI in scenes symbolizing the revivifying power of Ra, the sun, in his nightly encounter with the corpse of Osiris in the netherworld, a union that not only resurrected Osiris but also renewed Ra for his morning rising as RaHarakhty466 (Fig. 4.3, below). Such scenes express the belief that the whole cosmos entered a state of death with the setting of the sun and was revived or even recreated by the light of the rising sun.467 The scenes also associate the mystery of solar regeneration with the birth of Horus, who guaranteed the stability of the cosmos by protecting the eternal recurrence (nHH) of all its elements468 (Fig. 4.4, below). Although the motif of alternating rays cannot be documented between c. 1000 B.C. and the reign of Ptolemy IV, the beliefs themselves remained powerful under the Ptolemies, as attested by the pervasiveness of solar religion, the inclusion of Osirian themes in all temples built during the Ptolemaic period, and the continuing use of early funerary texts.469 The rays of Ptolemy III can thus be understood to identify him with Horus, Ra, and Ra-Harakhty and to assert the solar quality of his divinity, attributing to him the regenerative power of the sun and implicating him in the 461. Alliot 1954, 683–684; Finnestad (1997), p. 225. 462. Aelian, De nat. animal. 7.44, ultimately deriving from Juba, see Matz (1952), p. 739. 463. Koenen (1983), p. 155 n.36; id. (1993), pp. 49–50, 59. 464. Raphia Decree, hieroglyphic and demotic versions of the Horus name; Thissen (1966), pp. 27–31, 39–40; Simpson (1996), pp. 242–243; Huß (2001), pp. 384–385. 465. Iossif and Lorber (2012). The alternating rays were previously noted by Seltman (1933), p. 243; Smith (1988), p. 42. 466. Piankoff (1957), pp. 60, 62–63, 65, figs. 47, 50–51, 53. On the theology, see Quirke (2001), pp. 41–52; Taylor (2001), pp. 28–29; O’Conner (2009), p. 39. 467. Finnestad (1997), p. 203–213. 468. O’Conner (2009), p. 39. 469. Finnestad (1997), p. 213–216; Taylor (2001), p. 199.

242

Introduction

Figures 4.3–4. Depictions of the rays of Ra reviving the corpse of Osiris.

eternal cosmic cycle of death and regeneration, in which the annual cycle of vegetation in Egypt was mysteriously linked to the nightly rebirth of the sun.470 The rays also allude to the late king’s own resurrection and immortality, strongly implied by his rejuvenated portrait. Indeed this portrait is so childlike as to suggest a revival of the New Kingdom practice of representing deceased pharaohs as the solar child.471 This interpretation is supported by the presence of the lotus blossom adorning the central prong of the trident. In the Hermopolitan cosmogony, very popular in the Late Period, the origin of the cosmos was envisioned as the emergence of a lotus from the primordial waters (nun) and the appearance of a solar demiurge among its petals, in the form of a child whose brilliant gaze brought forth the gods and the rest of creation472 (Fig. 4.5). The morning of creation was called the First Time, implying that the world was created anew every morning with the rising of the sun.473 The lotus became a symbol of this eternal renewal because the Egyptian blue lotus was believed to sink under water every night and rise again every morning, so that its daily cycle appeared as a mystical doubling of the daily cycle of the sun.474 In the Ptolemaic period ritual offerings of the lotus blossom in the temples of Edfu and Dendera affirmed the assimilation of the king to the demiurge and renewed his royal power so that he could guarantee the daily regeneration of the world, the annual inundation of Egypt, the order of the cosmos, and the promise of another life in the hereafter.475 The regeneration of the Ptolemaic king and his assimilation to the solar child were also assured by Egyptian festivals celebrating the birth of the infant god of the local triad, centered on the mammisi (birth house) of every major temple.476 470. Cauville (1987), especially pp. 68–72, 93; Bonhême and Forgeau (1988), pp. 116–118, 126–130. The perpetuation of these cycles was dependent on rituals performed by the king or by his delegates, the priesthood, see Bonhême and Forgeau (1988), pp. 126–130, 132–135, 144–155; Quirke (2001), pp. 52–64; Tallet (2010), p. 409. 471. Tallet (2010), p. 410 n.43. 472. Sauneron and Yoyotte (1959), p. 51–62; Tallet (2010), p. 401. 473. Sauneron and Yoyotte (1959), pp. 77–78; Tallet (2010), p. 408. 474. Sauneron and Yoyotte (1959), p. 39; Tallet (2010), p. 407. 475. Tallet (2010), pp. 409–411. 476. Bonhême and Forgeau (1988), pp. 80–85, 93–99; Myśliwiec (2004), pp. 90–92; Tallet (2010), pp. 409, 411–413.

Ptolemy IV Philopator

243

Figure 4.5. Depiction of the solar child and the revivification of Osiris.

The rays of Ptolemy III are attached to the diadem rather than to his head, indicating that the themes of solar regeneration and perpetual renewal pertained to the kingship, not to him personally. This detail of the depiction allows for the innovative use of the radiate diadem to claim the cornucopiae, previously associated with Ptolemaic queens, as an attribute of the kingship: the diadem bound round the cornucopiae loops above the top of the horn so that the rays of the king appear to crown it (Fig. 4.2b, above). The cornucopiae thus acquires a new layer of meaning; besides fertility and abundance, the Nile inundation, and chthonic deities with their promise of immortality, it now evokes Egyptian concepts of the sun and solar deities as the source of life and regeneration and it identifies the solarized king as the source of this perpetual cycle of replenishment.477 The implications are akin to those of the Canopus Decree, which established a festival associating the Beneficent Gods with the beginning of the solar New Year and the annual cycle of the Nile inundation, making them guarantors of Egypt’s prosperity; it also proclaimed a calendrical reform implying their mastery of time cycles on a cosmic scale.478 Compared with the elaborate and richly symbolic imagery attached to Ptolemy III, the coin portraits of Ptolemy IV (Fig. 4.6a, below) are understated and consistent with Macedonian tradition. The king is portrayed without divine attributes, despite the fact that most of these coins carry his cult epithet on the reverse. The portraits show a rather fleshy young man with tightly curled hair, an upturned nose, and a strong chin, wearing the royal diadem and a Macedonian military chlamys. The chlamys made its first appearance on Ptolemaic coinage as the garment of Ptolemy II on the Theoi Adelphoi gold, where its military significance was reinforced by the Galatian shield. It represents On the mammisis, see Daumas (1958). 477. It is worth recalling here that the first appearance of the cornucopiae in a Ptolemaic context was in the Grand Procession of Ptolemy II, where it was carried by Eniautos, a personification of the year but also, significantly, of cyclical time and the recurring cycles of nature, see Athen. 5.198a; Rice (1983), p. 50. 478. OGIS I, 56, ll. 35–47; Bernand (1970), ll. 26–37; demotic: Kom el-Hisn stela, ll. 9–12, Tanis stela, ll. 33–45, Simpson (1996), pp. 230–235. On the religious and ideological implications of the calendrical reform, see Legras (2004), p. 196–199; Hölbl (2001), p. 108; Hauben (2011), pp. 366–374.

244

Introduction

Figure 4.6a–b. Gold mnaieon of Ptolemy IV. Enlarged.

the king in his military role, as supreme commander of his army, and it was apposite both at the outbreak of the Fourth Syrian War, to communicate Philopator’s intention to fight back, and after the battle of Raphia, as a reminder of his great victory. The reverse type on both gold and silver is the Ptolemaic eagle on thunderbolt, turned to the right. It departs from the cornucopiae reverse of the gold coins of Arsinoe Philadelphus, Berenice II, and Ptolemy III and this departure was probably intended to place an accent on Philopator’s heroic militancy as opposed to his guarantee of prosperity and salvation. With respect to tetradrachms there is no such semantic contrast, but the orientation of the eagle to the right, as opposed to its traditional orientation to the left, may be a correlate to the legends naming Philopator, i.e., a visual clue that the coinage “belonged” not to Ptolemy I but to his great grandson. The bronze coinage of Ptolemy IV depicts only one deity, Zeus-Ammon. The deified Alexander, the original subject of Ptolemaic bronze coinage, appeared for the last time on coins of Ptolemy III, leaving the bronze coinage as the province of traditional gods. F. Herklotz related his disappearance from the coinage to his omission from the Egyptian versions of dynastic cult that took their definitive form in the reign of Philopator; Alexander was excluded from both priestly titles and from ancestor lists in temple reliefs and temple inscriptions.479 We might counter that the displacement of Ptolemy I from tetradrachms struck in Egypt also seems to correspond to the development of Egyptian forms of the dynastic cult, but hardly to the new honors created for Soter in the Greek milieu, especially at Ptolemais. Almost every attempt to relate the iconography and/or inscriptions of coinage to ruler cult confirms the lack of any direct correlation.

479. Herklotz (2005), p. 157.

ADMINISTRATION OF ALEXANDER III (CLEOMENES OF NAUCRATIS OR PTOLEMY I) Memphis Silver Fraction of “Cyrenean” Type The following issue in silver and its equivalent in bronze (Vol. 2, no. B1) are attributed to Cyrenaica in the standard works of reference. Finds of the bronzes in the Saqqara excavations and the provenances of both silver and bronze specimens in the British Museum led M. J. Price (1981a, p. 163) to propose reattribution to an Egyptian mint during the lifetime of Alexander and/or Philip III. Price’s reattribution receives further support from the fact that no coins of these types were found in the excavations at the Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, see T. V. Buttrey (1997), p. 49. The small denominations in both metals tend to support an early date. The issue probably antedated the production of Alexander-type coinage in Egypt, since Alexander had his own types for silver fractions and bronzes. The pairing of Zeus-Ammon and Athena symbolizes important themes of Alexander’s kingship—his recognition as the son of Ammon by the god’s oracle at Siwah and the protection of Athena as patroness of his campaign against Persia. These types were later echoed in the iconography of Ptolemy’s satrapal coinage. Beginning with his Type II tetradrachms the obverse device is a portrait of Alexander with the horn of Ammon, wearing an elephant headdress. Ptolemy’s Type III silver series associates Alexander’s horned portrait with an Athena Promachos reverse.

1. Silver hemiobol(?) (6 mm, 0.27–0.43 g): Facing head of Zeus-Ammon, inclined slightly to r., dotted border/Helmeted and draped bust of Athena r.

Reference: BMC Cyrenaica 273–274. Notable provenance: One found on beach at Alexandria.

Alexandrine Coinage The minting of gold staters and silver tetradrachms of Alexandrine type may have commenced in Egypt during Alexander’s lifetime. This was the view of Svoronos (1904, Vol. I, cols. μη´‒μθ´; 1908, Vol. IV, cols. 3‒4), E. T. Newell (1923a, pp. 144–146), and other influential Hellenistic numismatists, including O. Mørkholm (1991, pp. 48, 52) and M. J. Price (1991, pp. 496–499). The Alexandrine coinage of Egypt is here assigned to the satrapy of Ptolemy and the scholarship is discussed more fully in the paragraphs preceding no. 2 below.

245

PTOLEMY I SOTER

Satrap, 323–305/4 B.C. King, late 305/early 304–282 B.C. EGYPT Memphis Alexandrine Coinage, Attic Standard, c. 323–c. 321/0 B.C. The early coinage of Hellenistic Egypt consisted principally of tetradrachms in the name of Alexander, issued in three series with different types: the traditional Heracles/Zeus variety of Alexander himself (Type I), as well as Alexander/Zeus and Alexander/Athena varieties long attributed to the satrapy of Ptolemy (Types II and III). The overlapping structure of these series of Egyptian tetradrachms was laid out by O. H. Zervos (1967). The linchpin of their absolute chronology is the Demanhur hoard (IGCH 1664), which contained an almost continuous run of the Type I tetradrachms, and whose probable closing date of 318/7 was established by a series of dated tetradrachms from Tyre (“Ake”), the latest bearing the date 29, until recently believed to correspond to the year 318/7. (The Tyrian royal chronology established by J. Elayi and A. G. Elayi (1993) raised the Tyrian dates by three years, so that Sidonian tetradrachms now close the Demanhur hoard in 319/8.) Calculating back from 318/7, Zervos placed the beginning of the coinage in 326, an inaugural date first suggested by E. T. Newell (1923a, pp. 144–146). Zervos made the attractive proposal that the Egyptian tetradrachms were issued on an annual basis, reflecting an annual rotation of moneyers at the mint. The first four issues, consisting of traditional Alexandrine tetradrachms of Type I, thus covered the years 326–323. Zervos’ 1974 Ph.D. dissertation comprised a massive die study of the early precious metal coinage of Hellenistic Egypt, including tetradrachms of Types I–III and associated gold staters and silver fractions. In his analysis of the collected material, Zervos retreated from the notion of annual issues and instead assumed a uniform average annual rate of die use, specifically, nine tetradrachm obverse dies per year (pp. 303–304). The resulting chronology placed the beginning of the coinage in the period 324–322, and in Zervos’ opinion the mint probably opened on Ptolemy’s orders. Its initial four issues, of Alexandrine type (Type I), extended to 321. Zervos argued that the mint city must have been Memphis, citing its importance under Alexander, literary references suggesting that it was Ptolemy’s first satrapal capital, and the Satrap Stela of 311, which describes Ptolemy’s establishment of his residence at Alexandria in terms that have been interpreted as implying its transfer from another location (pp. 263–275). M. J. Price (1991, p. 496) added further considerations favoring Memphis as the mint of the early Hellenistic coinage of Egypt. From the mid-fourth century Memphis had housed a mint that produced tetradrachms imitating the “owls” of Athens. Price linked small bronzes which he believed were minted at Memphis during Alexander’s lifetime and with his portrait (Vol. 2, no. B2) to the precious metal coinage with a Pegasus forepart symbol (nos. 24–26). He dated the beginning of Alexander’s Egyptian coinage to c. 332. G. Le Rider (1997, pp. 87–89; 2007, pp. 197–200) defended the earlier view that the coinage of Hellenistic Egypt was minted at Alexandria from the outset. Disputing Newell’s contention that the Alexandria mint was the first to depict Zeus with his legs crossed, and that this innovation was imitated on tetradrachms of Sidon dated 325/4, Le Rider countered that the circulation patterns of Alexander’s tetradrachms made it more likely that the cross-legged Zeus was developed at Sidon and imitated at Alexandria, so that the first Egyptian issue can be dated no earlier than 325/4. Since the construction of Alexandria was completed 247

248

Ptolemy I Soter

Memphis

during the administration of Cleomenes (Arist. Oecon. 33c), Le Rider presumed that the new city served as Cleomenes’ headquarters down to 323 and that it was the most convenient location for a mint. M. Weber (2008) and K. Sheedy and B. Ockinga (forthcoming) offered separate iconographic studies of the ram’s head symbol of nos. 3 and 4 that showed it to be highly meaningful for the ideology of Egyptian kingship. For Weber it proclaimed the legitimacy of Alexander’s kingship, whereas Sheedy and Ockinga interpreted it as advertising the legitimate succession of Philip Arrhidaeus. Their arguments provide new reasons to credit Ptolemy with ordering the first production of Alexandrine coinage in Egypt. The initial emission of unmarked gold staters (no. 2) was probably struck shortly after Ptolemy’s arrival in his new satrapy, before he had conferred with Egyptian advisors in order to select an appropriate emblem to announce the character of his satrapal administration. The following catalogue relies on the die links reported by Zervos in his 1974 dissertation but alters the sequence of his emissions to take better account of strong linkage between the unmarked and ram’s head gold stater varieties (nos. 2 and 3) and, later, the die links connecting various Type II tetradrachms. The resulting sequence for the Alexandrine coinage is almost identical to that of Price, except that a Type I tetradrachm issue without a symbol (no. 27), considered the earliest by both Zervos and Price, is here provisionally associated with a Type II tetradrachm that shares the same control letters. The catalogue offers a provisional annual dating, arguably justified by the evidence for annual issues at many mints during the Hellenistic period. In order to preserve an inaugural date of 323, it was necessary to allocate to a single year all the coins bearing a rose symbol, even though it is associated with several different letters or letter combinations. The result is an exceedingly large production assumed for the year 322/1, following an already large production marked by the ram’s head in the preceding year. The plausibility of such heavy coin production in the years when Ptolemy was forming his army may compensate for the inconsistency of the classification. The dates proposed here remain provisional because of multiple uncertainties: The hypothesis of annual emissions is plausible, but unproven. We cannot be entirely certain that formation of the Demanhur hoard ceased with no. 30. The final Type I issue (no. 32) was apparently very small—Zervos recorded only two examples—and that alone could account for its absence from the hoard. What is more, G. Dattari reported the presence of ten Alexander/Zeus (Type II) tetradrachms in the Demanhur hoard but did not specify the controls. The absolute date of closure of the Demanhur hoard can also be questioned, as we do not know how quickly coinage moved from the coastal mints of Phoenicia into Egypt, or whether those mint cities reckoned the beginning of the year from the fall or from the spring.

Gold staters: Head of Athena r., wearing crested Corinthian helmet ornamented with coiled serpent on bowl (except as noted)/ALEXANDRoU on r., Nike standing l., holding wreath in extended r. hand, initially lotus sceptre and later stylis over l. shoulder. Silver tetradrachms: Head of young Heracles r. in lion skin headdress, dotted border/ ALEXANDRoU on r., Zeus enthroned l., holding eagle on extended r. hand and resting l. on sceptre, feet on footrest, dotted border. Silver didrachm: Types as preceding. Silver drachm: Types as preceding. No Control, c. 323 B.C. 2.

Gold stater (lotus scepter, sometimes with crossbar): No controls. Reference: Price 3961; Zervos (1974), Issue 72 [13 recorded, from 5 obverse dies]; ANS 1944.100.35717 with crossbar on lotus scepter. Multiple obverse die links with no. 3 below. Hoards: 2 in Potidaea, 1984, Le Rider (1991), 125–126; Thorikos, 1969 (IGCH 134); Asia Minor, c. 1950 (IGCH 1442); commerce, 1993 (CH X, 247) Troxell (1997).

Memphis



Ptolemy I Soter

249

Head of Amun-Ra as Ram with Double Plume Crown and , c. 323/2 B.C. The symbol of this issue is conventionally identified as Khnum, the god of the source of the Nile, associated with the inundation and by extension with silt, pottery, and the creation of bodies, and whose sacred sites were at Elephantine island and Esna. J. Yoyotte pointed out that the ram’s head could just as well represent Banebdjed (the Ram of Mendes), Herishef (Heracles), or Amun (see G. Le Rider, 2007, p. 193 n.82). K. Sheedy and B. Ockinga (forthcoming) argued convincingly that the symbol depicts Amun, the source of Egyptian kingship and the god with whom Alexander was especially associated, both through his visit to the oracle of Zeus-Ammon at Siwah and through the construction of shrines dedicated to Alexander in the Egyptian temples of Amun at Karnak and Luxor. The display of Amun’s head in a recognizably Egyptian form on Ptolemy’s first issue of coinage announced the succession of the new king, Philip Arrhidaeus, within the Egyptian tradition. Ptolemy later proceeded to add a shrine to Philip in the temple of Amun at Karnak.

3. Gold stater (lotus sceptre): Head of Amun-Ra in outer l. field,  to l. of Nike’s feet. Reference: Svoronos 5, pl. i, 5–6; Price 3963; SNG Copenhagen 6; Zervos (1974), Issue 73 [18 recorded, from 7 obverse dies]. Multiple obverse die links with no. 2 above. Hoards: Malko Topolovo, Bulgaria, 1940 (IGCH 853); Anadol, Ukraine, 1895 (IGCH 866).

4.

Silver tetradrachm: Head of Amun-Ra in l. field,  under throne. Reference: Svoronos 6, pl. i, 7; Price 3964; SNG Copenhagen 9; Zervos (1974), Issue 3 [94 recorded, from 8 obverse dies]; Zervos (1967), Issue III (dated 324 B.C.). Hoards: 33 in Demanhur, 1905 (IGCH 1664), 4748–4780; Mit Ya-ish, 1954 (IGCH 1666); Abu Hommos, 1919 (IGCH 1667); Egypt (“Dutilh II”), 1894 (IGCH 1669); 4 in Kuft, before 1875 (IGCH 1670), Nash (1974), p. 24; 6 in Phacous, 1956 (IGCH 1678), Jar 1, Jenkins (1960), p. 24.

Rose Emission, c. 322/1 B.C. Rose and A 5.

Gold stater (stylis): Rose in outer l. field, A to l. of Nike’s feet. Reference: Price 3966A; Zervos (1974), Issue 77 [3 recorded, from 1 obverse die].

Rose and EU 6.

Gold stater (stylis): Rose in outer l. field, E to left of Nike’s feet. Reference: Zervos (1974), Issue 78 [4 recorded, from 2 obverse dies].

6A.

Gold stater (stylis): EU reading upward in outer l. field, erasure to left of Nike’s feet, rose to r. of her feet. Reference: Commerce 2010.

7.

Gold stater (griffin or coiled serpent on helmet, stylis): Rose in outer l. field, E—U flanking Nike’s feet. Reference: Price 3965; Zervos (1974), Issue 79A [2 recorded, from 1 obverse die]. Reverse die link to no. 8 below. Hoard: Larnaca, 1870 (IGCH 1472), Price (1969), 127

250

Ptolemy I Soter

8.

Gold stater (griffin, coiled serpent, or no device on helmet, stylis): Erasure in outer l. field, E above rose below l. wing, U below r. wing.

Memphis

Reference: Zervos (1974), Issue 79B [2 recorded, from 2 obverse dies]. Obverse die links to nos. 9 and 10 below; reverse die link with no. 7 above, die recut here to lower rose.

9.

Gold stater (griffin or no device on helmet, stylis): EU in outer l. field, rose to l. of Nike’s feet. Reference: Zervos (1974), Issue 80 [2 recorded, from 2 obverse dies]. Obverse die links to nos. 8 above and 10 below.

10.

Gold stater (coiled serpent or no device on helmet, stylis): EU to l. of Nike’s feet, rose to r. of her feet or body. Reference: Price 3966; Zervos (1974), Issue 81 [4 recorded, from 2 obverse dies]. Obverse die links to nos. 8 and 9 above. Hoards: Epidaurus, 1977 (CH VII, 64 = CH IX, 129); Larnaca, 1870 (IGCH 1472), Price (1969), 126.

11.

Gold stater (coiled serpent on helmet, stylis): Cornucopiae in outer l. field, EU to l. of Nike’s feet, rose to r. of her feet. Reference: Ephoreia of Antiquities of the Dodecanese, inv. N 1938; Apostolou (1999), p. 69. E. Apostolou (1999) noted the stylistic affinities of this stater to nos. 14–16 below, but she also observed that the cornucopiae and the letters EU occur together on Rhodian didrachms of the late fourth century, as do the letters D and DI. She suggested that this stater could be a Rhodian imitation of the Egyptian issues or, alternatively, that that whole group of staters was minted at Rhodes. Her proposals were rejected by R. H. J. Ashton (2004b), who considered the apparent control links to be banal and coincidental. He defended the Egyptian attributions of O. H. Zervos and M. J . Price and submitted that the new stater must also be an Egyptian issue.

12.

Silver tetradrachm: Rose in l. field, Zor [ under throne. Reference: Berlin, acc. 1852/9600 (acquired from the collection of the painter Güterbock); W. Hansen coll., see NCirc 2010, pp. 218–222; in commerce with CNG, February 2014

13.

Silver tetradrachm: Rose in l. field,  under throne. Reference: Hersh (1998), no. 87 (Hersh coll., now in the British Museum).

Rose and N I 13A. Gold stater (stylis): N I to l. of Nike’s feet, rose to r. of her feet. Reference: CNG 81, 20 May 2009, lot 355.

Rose and DIo 14.

Gold stater (stylis): Rose in l. field, D under l. wing. Reference: Price 3967; Zervos (1974), Issue 75 [3 recorded, from 1 obverse die]. Obverse die link with nos. 15 and 16 below. Hoard: Larnaca, 1870 (IGCH 1472), Price (1969), 116.

15.

Gold stater (stylis): Rose in l. field, DI under l. wing.

Memphis



Ptolemy I Soter

251

Reference: Price 3969; Zervos (1974), Issue 76 [10 recorded, from 3 obverse dies]. Obverse die link with nos. 14 above and 16 below. Hoards: Potidaea, 1984, Le Rider (1991)—or perhaps no. 16?; Greece, before 1966 (IGCH 801).

16.

Gold stater (stylis): Rose in l. field, DI under r. wing. Reference: Price 3968; Zervos (1974), Issue 74 [3 recorded, from 1 obverse die]. Obverse die link with nos. 14 and 15 above. Hoards: Malko Topolovo, Bulgaria, 1940 (IGCH 853); perhaps Larnaca, 1870 (IGCH 1472), per Zervos.

17.

Silver tetradrachm: Rose in l. field, o above strut of throne, DI below strut. Reference: Price 3970; Zervos (1974), Issue 2A [4 recorded, from 1 obverse die]. Obverse die link with nos. 18, 20, and 21 below. Hoards: Aleppo, 1893 (IGCH 1516), per Newell’s manuscript in ANS; 4 in Demanhur, 1905 (IGCH 1664), 4610–4613.

18.

Silver tetradrachm: Rose in l. field, DIo under throne. Reference: Commerce (NFA); Zervos (1974), Issue 2B [16 recorded, from 4 obverse dies]. Obverse die link with no. 17 above; multiple obverse die links with nos. 19 and 20 below. Hoards: Aleppo, 1893 (IGCH 1516), per Newell notes in ANS; 2 in Demanhur, 1905 (IGCH 1664), per Zervos (1974).

19.

Silver tetradrachm: Rose in l. field, DI under throne and o behind rear throne leg. Reference: Price 3971; SNG Copenhagen 7–8; Zervos (1974), Issue 2C [198 recorded, from 13 obverse dies]; Zervos (1967), Issue II (dated 325 B.C.). Obverse die link with no. 17 above; multiple obverse die links with nos. 18 above and 20 below. Hoards: Jabukovac, before 1920 (IGCH 447), Vucković-Todorović (1969), p. 392, 2; Asia Minor, c. 1970, Kampmann (1972); 3 in Meydancıkkale, 1980 (CH VII, 80 = CH VIII, 308 = CH X, 269), Meydancıkkale 2208–2210; Agios Ioannes, Cyprus, 1949 (IGCH 1470); Byblos, 1931 (IGCH 1515); 2 in Sfiré, 1932 (IGCH 1511); Aleppo, 1893 (IGCH 1516), per Newell’s manuscript in ANS; 21 in Demanhur, 1905 (IGCH 1664), 4614–4747 (including examples of no. 20 below); 4 in Abu Hommos, 1919 (IGCH 1667); Egypt (“Hassan I”), 1912 (IGCH 1668); 6 in Kuft, before 1875 (IGCH 1670), Nash (1974), p. 24; 9 in Phacous, 1956 (IGCH 1678), Jar 1, Jenkins (1960), p. 24; commerce, 1993 (CH X, 246), Troxell (1997).

20.

Silver tetradrachm: Rose in l. field, DI under throne and o to r. behind sceptre. Reference: Price 3971; Zervos (1974), Issue 2D [31 recorded, from 4 obverse dies]; Zervos (1967), Issue II (dated 325 B.C.). Obverse die link with no. 17 above; multiple obverse die links with nos. 18 and 19 above. Hoards: Gordion hoard V, 1961 (IGCH 1405), Cox (1965), pl. 38, 27, pl. xi; Byblos, 1931 (IGCH 1515); 9 in Demanhur, 1905 (IGCH 1665), per Zervos.

21.

Silver tetradrachm: Rose in l. field, ID under throne. Reference: Price 3970A (where the throne control is described as IoD). The legends are somewhat irregular. This is the only variety of the Rose—DIo group with the royal title in the exergue, and its final j appears in the right field below Alexander’s name. The N of his name is retrograde and the D inverted. While these anomalies might suggest an imitative issue, the obverse die is of fine style consistent with the series as a whole.

22.

Silver didrachm: Rose in l. field, ID under throne. Reference: Harlan J. Berk, August 2010. Only traces of the legend are on the flan: …A DR….

252

Ptolemy I Soter

Memphis • Memphis (and Alexandria?)

22A. Silver drachm: LLEXANDRo on r., U (placed sideways) under throne, D in l. field before Zeus’ feet, Io under dotted line beneath his feet. Reference: Roma IV, 30 September 2012, lot 1233. The irregularity of the legend recalls no. 21 above.

Grain ear and AI, c. 321/0 B.C. 23.

Silver tetradrachm: Grain ear in l. field, AI under throne. Reference: Price 3972; Zervos (1974), Issue 6 [16 recorded, from 3 obverse dies]; Zervos (1967), Issue IV (dated 323 B.C.). Obverse die link with no. 25 below. Hoards: 2 in Demanhur, 1905 (IGCH 1664), 4820–4821; Egypt (“Dutilh I”), 1893 (IGCH 1665); 2 in Abu Hommos, 1919 (IGCH 1667); 3 in Kuft, before 1875 (IGCH 1670), Nash (1974), p. 24.

Memphis (and Alexandria?) Alexandrine and Alexander/Zeus Types, Attic Standard, c. 320/19–c. 314/13 B.C. Control links indicate that the second Egyptian tetradrachm series (Type II), with the types deified Alexander/ Zeus, was minted for a time alongside the coinage of traditional Alexandrine type and eventually replaced it. O. H. Zervos (1967) dated the introduction of the Type II tetradrachms to 322 and observed that their limited output would be consistent with the production of a parallel series alongside the more abundant tetradrachms of Alexandrine type. According to Zervos’ 1967 chronology, tetradrachms of Alexandrine type were last struck in 318, while the Alexander/Zeus tetradrachms continued in production until 315. In his 1974 dissertation Zervos dated the introduction of the second series (Type II) to the period 321–319 and envisioned continuing production of both series down to 317. The end of the first series was marked by the transfer of a reverse die to the second series (see nos. 32 and 33) and by a sharp increase in the production of Type II tetradrachms. Zervos associated the new obverse design of Type II with Ptolemy’s theft of Alexander’s body in 321 (pp. 305–308, 383–384). He also related the introduction of Type II to the transfer of Ptolemy’s court and mint from Memphis to Alexandria, an event that he dated c. 320 or 319 (pp. 263–275). A technical feature—a small but significant percentage of Type II tetradrachms with loose dies, as opposed to the nearly invariant vertical die axes of Type I tetradrachms—points to the conclusion that the two series were produced in separate workshops. Having already attributed the Type I coinage to Memphis, Zervos assigned the Type II coinage to Alexandria, suggesting that the short period of parallel production reflected a precaution in case Alexandria should prove too insecure (pp. 309–312). Ptolemy’s abandonment of the international types in 317 (Zervos 1967), in 316 (Zervos 1974), or in 315/14 (here) may have served some symbolic purpose, such as a loosening of allegiance to the Macedonian monarchy after Olympias’ murder of Philip III in autumn of 317. But in purely practical terms it was a method of conserving silver for circulation in Egypt, for the Type II tetradrachm did not easily find acceptance outside Egypt, as indicated by its absence from foreign hoards. Gold staters of Alexandrine type were issued alongside the two types of tetradrachms, but they were not associated in every emission. The coining of gold was suspended for a time after Ptolemy ended the production of Type I tetradrachms.

Gold stater: Helmeted head of Athena r., wearing crested Corinthian helmet ornamented with coiled serpent on bowl/ALEXANDRoU on r., Nike standing l., holding wreath in extended r. hand and stylis over l. shoulder. Silver tetradrachm: Head of young Heracles r. in lion skin headdress, dotted border/ ALEXANDRoU on r., Zeus enthroned l., holding eagle on extended r. hand and resting l. on sceptre, feet on footrest, dotted border.

Memphis (and Alexandria?)



Ptolemy I Soter

253

Silver tetradrachm: Horned head of the deified Alexander r., wearing elephant headdress and eventually mitra (as noted), in high relief and of austere style, dotted border/ ALEXANDRoU on r. (occasionally with BAjILEWj in ex.), Zeus enthroned l., holding eagle in extended r. hand and resting l. on sceptre, feet on footrest, dotted border. Pegasus and Œ, c. 320/19 B.C. 24.

Gold stater: Pegasus standing r. in l. field, Πunder l. wing. Reference: Price 3973; SNG Berry 189; Zervos (1974), Issue 83 [1 recorded, New York].

25.

Silver tetradrachm (Heracles/Zeus): Pegasus rearing r. in l. field, Œ under throne. Reference: Svoronos 94 (attributed to Corinth), pl. i, 19; Price 3974; SNG Copenhagen 10; Zervos (1974), Issue 5 [26 recorded, from 5 obverse dies]; Zervos (1967), Issue A–V (dated 322 B.C.). Obverse die link with nos. 23 above and 30 below. Hoards: Messene, before 1922 (IGCH 95); 2 in Aleppo, 1893 (IGCH 1516), per Newell’s manuscript in ANS; 5 in Demanhur, 1905 (IGCH 1664), 4822–4826; 4 in Kuft, before 1875 (IGCH 1670), Nash (1974), p. 24; perhaps Phacous, 1956 (IGCH 1678), Jar 1, Jenkins (1960), p. 24.

26.

Silver tetradrachm (Alexander/Zeus): Pegasus rearing r. in l. field, Πunder throne. Reference: Svoronos 93, pl. i, 18 (attributed to Corinth); Zervos (1974), Issue 8 [1 recorded, Paris]; Zervos (1967), Issue B-V (dated 322 B.C.). Obverse die link to no. 28 below. Hoard: Phacous, 1956 (IGCH 1678), Jar 1, Jenkins (1960), p. 24.

Thunderbolt and oR, c. 319/8 B.C. 27.

Silver tetradrachm (Heracles/Zeus): oR under throne. Reference: Price 3962; Jenkins (1960), p. 24, pl. iv, 1; Zervos (1974), Issue 1 [9 recorded, from 1 obverse die]; Zervos (1967), Issue I (dated 326 B.C.). Hoards: Pontoleibade-Kilkis, Macedonia, 1961 (IGCH 445), Varoucha (1962), p. 419, hoard 3, a, pl. 10, 1; Akçakale, Turkey, 1958 (CH X, 251), Le Rider and Olçay (1988), 117; Aleppo, 1893 (IGCH 1516), per Newell’s manuscript in ANS; 2 in Kuft, before 1875 (IGCH 1670), Nash (1974), p. 24; Phacous, 1956 (IGCH 1678), Jar 1, Jenkins (1960), p. 24, pl. iv. O. H. Zervos listed this variety as the first tetradrachm issue of Hellenistic Egypt. The obverse style, however, seems later than that of the issue marked with the head of Amun. Some features of the reverse, such as the single strut under the throne and the small lettering of the legend, suggest an association with the Alexander/Zeus tetradrachm marked with a thunderbolt and the letters oR (no. 28), which otherwise lacks a corresponding Type I tetradrachm. Since the Heracles/Zeus variety was struck from a single die pair, the omission of the thunderbolt symbol could be an oversight. The absence of this variety from the Demanhur hoard may be due to the small size of the emission. It is represented in the Aleppo hoard, along with nos. 17, 18, 20, 25, and 30, a nearly continuous run of Egyptian issues. The last of these is also the closing Egyptian issue of the Demanhur hoard.

28.

Silver tetradrachm (Alexander/Zeus): Thunderbolt in l. field and oR under throne. Reference: Svoronos 24, pl. i, 17; Zervos (1974), Issue 9 [15 recorded, from 1 obverse die]; Zervos (1967), Issue B-VIII (dated 319 B.C.). Obverse die link to no. 26 above. Hoard: Abu Hommos, 1919 (IGCH 1667); 2 in Phacous, 1956 (IGCH 1678), Jar 1, Jenkins (1960), p. 24; Delta (“Huber”), 1856 (IGCH 1684).

254

Ptolemy I Soter

Memphis (and Alexandria?)

Thunderbolt and DI, c. 318/7 B.C. 29.

Gold stater: Thunderbolt in outer l. field, DI to l. of Nike’s feet. Reference: Svoronos 11, pl. i, 10; Price 3975; Zervos (1974), Issue 82 [10 recorded, from 2 obverse dies].

30.

Silver tetradrachm (Heracles/Zeus): Thunderbolt in l. field, DI under throne. Reference: Svoronos 12, pl. i, 11; Price 3976–3977; Zervos (1974), Issue 4 [125 recorded, from 18 obverse dies]; Zervos (1967), Issue A-VI (dated 321 B.C.). Obverse die link with no. 25 above. Hoards: Prilepec, 1950 (IGCH 448); Thessalonica, before 1897 (IGCH 444), per Newell’s list in ANS; Manissa, 1971 (IGCH 1293); Mektepini, 1965 (IGCH 1410), Olcay and Seyrig (1965), 665; Meydancıkkale, 1980 (CH VII, 80 = CH VIII, 308 = CH X, 269), Meydancıkkale 2211; Agios Ioannes, Cyprus, 1949 (IGCH 1470); 8 in Aleppo, 1893 (IGCH 1516), per Newell’s record in ANS; Ai Khanoum, 1973 (CH III, 53); 39 in Demanhur, 1905 (IGCH 1664), 4781–4819; 2 in Egypt (“Dutilh I”), 1893 (IGCH 1665); commerce, early 1986; 8 in Abu Hommos, 1919 (IGCH 1667); 9 in Kuft, before 1875 (IGCH 1670), Nash (1974), p. 24; 3 in Phacous, 1956 (IGCH 1678), Jar 1, Jenkins (1960), p. 24.

31.

Silver tetradrachm (Alexander/Zeus): Thunderbolt in l. field, DI under throne. Reference: Zervos (1974), Issue 12 [2 recorded, from 2 obverse dies]; Zervos (1967), Issue B-VI (dated 321 B.C.). One specimen is subaeratum, characterized as a contemporary forgery by Jenkins (1960), p. 24. But Zervos recorded an obverse die link with nos. 33 and 35 below, proving that the die, at least, was official. Hoard: Phacous, 1956 (IGCH 1678), Jar 1, Jenkins (1960), p. 24, pl. iv, 4 (subaeratum).

Thunderbolt and ,, c. 317/6 B.C. 32.

Silver tetradrachm (Heracles/Zeus): Thunderbolt in l. field, , under throne. Reference: Price 3979; Zervos (1974), Issue 7 [2 recorded, from 1 obverse die]; Zervos (1967), Issue A-IX, pl. ii, 11 (dated 318 B.C.). Reverse die link with no. 33 below. Hoard: Kuft, before 1875 (IGCH 1670), Nash (1974), p. 25.

33.

Silver tetradrachm (Alexander/Zeus): Thunderbolt in l. field, , under throne. Reference: Svoronos 22, pl. i, 15; SNG Copenhagen 11; Zervos (1974), Issue 13 [45 recorded, from 7 obverse dies]; Zervos (1967), Issue B-IX (dated 318 B.C.). Obverse die link with nos. 31 above and 35 below; reverse die link with no. 32 above. Hoards: 3 in commerce, early 1986; Egypt, 1974 (CH I, 41); 2 in Lower Egypt (“Dutilh II”) 1894 (IGCH 1669); 2 in Kuft, before 1875 (IGCH 1670), Nash (1974), p. 25; 8 in Phacous, 1956 (IGCH 1678), Jar 1, Jenkins (1960), p. 24; Delta (“Huber”), 1956 (IGCH 1684).

Thunderbolt and RU, c. 316/5 B.C. 34.

Silver tetradrachm (Heracles/Zeus): Thunderbolt (?) in l. field, RU (?) under throne. Reference: Price 3978; Zervos (1967), Issue A-VII (dated 320 B.C.) [1 recorded, an ancient forgery]. See also Emmons (1954), p. 83, 2, pl. xii, 2 (undertype). Confirmation required.

35.

Silver tetradrachm (Alexander, sometimes with mitra/Zeus, rarely with royal title): Thunderbolt in l. field, RU under throne. Reference: a) without royal title: Svoronos 20, pl. i, 13 [10 listed]; b) with royal title: Svoronos 18, pl. i, 12 [4 listed, all from a single reverse die); Zervos (1974), Issue 14 [43 recorded, from 3 obverse dies (including specimens with royal title)]; Zervos (1967), Issue B-VII (dated 320 B.C.). Obverse die link with nos. 31 and 33 above.

Memphis (and Alexandria?) • Alexandria

Ptolemy I Soter

255

Hoards: Egypt, 1974 (CH I, 41); Abu Hommos, 1919 (IGCH 1667); 2 in Kuft, before 1875 (IGCH 1670), Nash (1974), p. 25; 6 in Phacous, 1956 (IGCH 1678), Jar 1, Jenkins (1960), p. 24. The mitra makes its first appearance in the iconography of the deified Alexander on one obverse die of this issue.

Thunderbolt and AU, c. 315/4 B.C. 36.

Silver tetradrachm (Alexander/Zeus): Thunderbolt in l. field, AU under throne. Reference: Svoronos 23, pl. i, 16; Zervos (1974), Issue 11 [1 recorded, London]; Zervos (1967), Issue B-XI (dated 316 B.C.).

Thunderbolt and , c. 314/3 B.C. 37.

Silver tetradrachm (Alexander, with mitra/Zeus): Thunderbolt in l. field,  under throne. Reference: Svoronos 21, pl. i, 14; Zervos (1974), Issue 10 [2 recorded, from 1 obverse die]; Zervos (1967), Issue B-X (dated 317 B.C.). Hoard: Phacous, 1956 (IGCH 1678), Jar 1, Jenkins (1960), p. 24.

Alexandria Special Emission of Gold Staters with Prow Reverse, Attic Standard, probably c. 312 B.C. The combination of Alexander’s portrait with a ship’s prow represents the conqueror as patron of the Ptolemaic fleet, while the use of gold lends a special prestige to the message. The obverse type matches the redesigned portrait of Alexander introduced at Alexandria on a transitional tetradrachm dated c. 312 (no. 39), providing a terminus post quem for the gold staters. For long the only recorded provenance was from Saida (ancient Sidon), a city that passed under Ptolemy’s control in autumn of 312, see P. V. Wheatley (2003b). It was lost again in 311, not to be recovered until 294. The Saida provenance argues in favor of a date of issue before autumn of 312. A second provenance from the Aradian peraia may support this argument. A special emission around 312 might have celebrated the naval campaign of 313, in which Ptolemy, after suppressing the revolt on Cyprus, sacked Poseidium at the mouth of the River Orontes as well as another city called Potami Caron, then sailed to Cilicia and captured Mallus before returning to Cyprus. This interpretation is a bit suspect, because Ptolemy’s coin types were not otherwise topical, but broadly symbolic, concerned with royal ideology and legitimation; he does not seem to have celebrated other specific victories on his coinage. The date of this extraordinary emission also corresponds to the transfer of Ptolemy’s capital from Memphis to Alexandria (see the commentary on no. 39), suggesting that the prow staters could commemorate the dedication of Alexandria as a city sacred to Alexander and as the new base of the Egyptian fleet. The date proposed here differs little from that of Svoronos, who assigned these gold staters to Alexandria and dated them c. 311. With them he associated an anepigraphic bronze emission pairing Ptolemy’s portrait and a prow reverse (Svoronos 27; Vol. 2, B108), but the portrait implies a later date of issue, after Ptolemy became king.

38.

Gold stater: Horned head of the deified Alexander r., wearing elephant headdress, mitra, and scaly aegis, dotted border/Prow r. Reference: Svoronos 25, pl. i, 22–23; Gulbenkian II 1071; Zervos (1974), Issue 87 [3 recorded, from 2 obverse dies]. Notable provenances: The Paris specimen was acquired c. 1860 by Péretié from an officer who had long been garrisoned at Saida. Its reported provenance from the Saida hoard (IGCH 1508) is almost certainly mistaken,

256

Ptolemy I Soter

Alexandria

since the hoard appears to have closed c. 323–320 B.C., see U. Westermark (1979–80), p. 32f. M. Badawi (2009) reported the discovery of another specimen (among other coins) in tomb K-2002 in the necropolis of al-Jbeibat north of Gabala.

Transitional Tetradrachm Issue, Attic Standard, c. 313/12 B.C. The following tetradrachm is a transitional issue combining the enthroned Zeus reverse, appearing for the last time on Ptolemaic coinage, with a redesigned head of Alexander. The conqueror’s image is larger, rendered in lower relief and enriched with decorative details, including artificial patterns of locks framing his face and scales added to the aegis. This type of Alexander head remained standard for the silver coinage until Ptolemy replaced it with his own portrait. The eagle on thunderbolt symbol, which makes its debut here, is also a regular feature of subsequent coinage. There is some reason to associate the reconceived head of Alexander, more elegant and more decorative than its predecessor, with the transfer of Ptolemy’s mint from Memphis to Alexandria. The literary sources (Diod. 19.79.1 and 19.80.4) only begin to mention Alexandria in 313. The conventional interpretation of the Satrap Stela implies the transfer of Ptolemy’s court from Memphis to Alexandria before a Syrian campaign. The reference could be to Ptolemy’s first occupation of Phoenicia, in 320/19, as assumed by O. H. Zervos and by P. M. Fraser (1974, vol. IIa, pp.11–12, n.28). But the stela, erected in 311, could also allude to the recent Syrian campaign of 312/11. This later date is more consistent with the literary record and is preferred by the majority of Ptolemaic specialists. With this tetradrachm Svoronos associated a drachm with the Athena Promachos reverse type (Svoronos 30, no. 197), but its style, loose dies, and blundered legend argue in favor of a provincial origin despite the apparent control link to Alexandria. Ptolemy probably inaugurated his first regular bronze coinage in conjunction with this transitional tetradrachm issue (see Vol. 2, B4–B6). This is suggested both by control links and by thematic links to the new silver types, including the mitra worn by Alexander, which is either absent or inconspicuous on most earlier tetradrachms, and the eagle which appears as a subsidiary symbol on the reverse of the silver.

Silver tetradrachm: Horned head of the deified Alexander r., wearing elephant headdress, mitra, and scaly aegis, dotted border/ALEXANDRoU on r., Zeus enthroned l., holding eagle in extended r. hand and resting l. on sceptre, feet on footrest, dotted border. Eagle on thunderbolt and D, c. 313/12 B.C. 39.

Silver tetradrachm (Alexander/Zeus): Eagle standing l. on thunderbolt in l. field, D under throne. Reference: Svoronos 29, pl. ii, 5–6; SNG Copenhagen 12; Zervos (1974), Issue 15 [11 recorded, from 3 obverse dies]; Zervos (1967), Issue XII (dated 315 B.C.). Obverse die link with no. 40 below. Hoard: 2 in Phacous, 1956 (IGCH 1678), Jar 1, Jenkins (1960), p. 24, pl. iv, 2.

Athena Promachos Series, Attic Standard, c. 312/11–c. 306 B.C. At some point Ptolemy completely abandoned Alexander’s typology, replacing the Zeus reverse of his tetradrachms with a new design featuring Athena Promachos (Type III). The Alexander/Athena tetradrachms were initially struck on the international Attic standard (Type IIIa) but an important reform subsequently reduced their weight while retaining the types with nearly imperceptible stylistic changes (Type IIIb). Since 1937 most literature on Ptolemaic coinage has employed a high chronology purportedly deriving from E. T. Newell’s study of the Abu Hommos hoard (IGCH 1667). E. S. G. Robinson (1941, p. 1636) dated Ptolemy’s introduction of the Athena reverse type c. 316 and his first reduction of the tetradrachm c. 310. G. K. Jenkins (1960, pp. 30–37, and 1967, pp. 60–63) altered these dates only slightly, c. 315 for introduction of the Athena reverse type and c. 312–310 for the reduction of the weight standard. For O. H. Zervos (1967, 1974) the Athena type could be dated c. 314 or 316. The high chronology is problematic when the overview includes

Alexandria



Ptolemy I Soter

257

Ptolemy’s bronze coinage. Some specific criticisms are summarized below in the paragraphs discussing the first reduced weight standard. Introduction of the Athena Promachos reverse type in 311, as proposed by C. C. Lorber (2005b), implies a very tight chronology; the terminus ante quem is provided by a tetradachm of Sidon with the Athena Promachos reverse type (no. 240), dated year 20 (= 312/11 B.C.). The catalogue below and the date proposed for the final issue of Attic weight adjust the schema of Lorber (2005b) to correct for the erroneous inclusion of a provincial issue (nos. 202–204) in the output of Alexandria. The Alexander/Athena tetradrachms (Type III) retained the new obverse style introduced on the transitional issue of c. 312 (no. 39) and indeed shared one of its three obverse dies. The other obverse dies mark the beginning of a new practice, the concealment of tiny letters in the design. The cryptic letters, most commonly a D, are camouflaged among the scales of the aegis on some, but not all obverse dies. This concealment of letters in the type remained a feature of obverse dies for precious metal coinage even after Ptolemy replaced the head of Alexander with his own portrait, and it did not entirely disappear until the early reign of Ptolemy II. The letter D has been considered the signature of an Alexandrian die engraver by many specialists in Ptolemaic coinage, including J. N. Svoronos (1904, Vol. 1, col. ρξηʹ), O. H. Zervos (1974, p. 82), A. Davesne (Meydancıkkale, p. 275), and R. A. Hazzard (1995, pp. 23–27), while this interpretation has been doubted or rejected by other numismatists, including R. H. J. Ashton (1997, p. 226), C. C. Lorber (2005b, p. 56), and A. Cavagna (2008, pp. 170–171 with n.23). But whether it is an engraver’s signature or something else—e.g., the mark of a die engraving workshop—it has noteworthy implications for chronology and for the eventual organization of a network of provincial mints (see Cavagna, 2008, pp. 170–172). Another new aspect of the Alexander/Athena coinage was the expansion of the denominational system to provide small change in silver. The silver minors—drachms and fractions—were struck underweight, a common practice in antiquity; it may be merely coincidental that their weight appears to approximate the Phoenician standard of the newly recovered territories and to foreshadow the standard that Ptolemy would eventually adopt for his tetradrachms. These precious metal fractions were only rarely accompanied by bronze. The word ALEXANDRE IoN appears in two anomalous legends of the following series (nos. 41 and 51). J. N. Svoronos (vol. IV, col. 11) interpreted the word as a reference to the mint at Alexandria and his interpretation was accepted by various scholars, among them G. K. Jenkins (1960, p. 29), O. Mørkholm (1980a, pp. 148–149), and M. J. Price (1991, p. 496). (For Price, it signaled the transfer of the Ptolemaic mint from Memphis to Alexandria.) Other scholars have understood the term ALEXANDRE IoN as an adjective denoting the coin itself, beginning with G. MacDonald (1905, p. 127) and B. V. Head (1911, p. 848) and including, more recently, D. Knoepfler (1989, pp. 204–210; 1997, pp. 39–42), O. Masson (1991, pp. 69–70), G. Le Rider (1992, p. 225; 1997, pp. 88–89; 2007, pp. 198–199), and R. A. Hazzard (1995, pp. 72–73). According to this reasoning, ALEXANDRE IoN means something like “Alexander-coin,” referring perhaps to Alexander’s weight standard, or perhaps to his image on the obverse. In both cases the special legend appears on only a portion of the overall emission, suggesting that it was targeted at some particular category of recipients, perhaps newly arrived soldiers who required clarification or assurance about unfamiliar coin types. No. 41, with the remarkable legend ALEXANDRE IoN pToLEMAIoU, is the first Egyptian coin to name Ptolemy as its issuing authority. We can only assume that the gesture was not well received, since it was not repeated. The final issue of Attic-weight Athena Promachos tetradrachms (no. 56) introduced a subtle stylistic change in the reverse type. In the original version of the design, the goddess was portrayed with her skirt clinging to her right (rear) leg. On no. 56 she was shown with a somewhat looser skirt falling freely behind the leg and this became the standard configuration of the reduced-weight tetradrachms (Type IIIb).

Gold stater: Head of Athena r., wearing crested Corinthian helmet ornamented with coiled serpent on bowl/ALEXANDRoU on r., Nike standing l., holding wreath in extended r. hand and stylis over l. shoulder. Silver tetradrachm: Horned head of the deified Alexander r., wearing elephant headdress, mitra, and scaly aegis, sometimes with tiny D (or Do or K) on aegis, dotted border/

258

Ptolemy I Soter

Alexandria

ALEXANDRoU on l. (or rarely ALEXANDRE IoN or ALEXANDRE IoN pToLEMAIoU, as noted), Athena Promachos advancing r., brandishing spear and shield, dotted border. Silver drachm, of reduced weight: Types as preceding, with legend ALEXANDRoU. Silver triobol, of reduced weight: Types as preceding, with legend ALEXANDRoU. Silver diobol: Types as preceding, with legend ALEXANDRoU. Eagle on thunderbolt and DI, c. 312/11 B.C. For the associated bronze issue, see Vol. 2, B7.

40.

Silver tetradrachm (sometimes with tiny D or K on aegis): ALEXANDRoU (sometimes blundered) on l., eagle on thunderbolt above DI in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 33, pl. ii, 12–13; SNG Copenhagen 14; Zervos (1974), Issue 16 [48 recorded, from 14 obverse dies]; Zervos (1967), Issue XIII (dated 314 B.C.). Obverse die link with no. 39 above. Hoards: 3 in commerce, early 1986; 4+ in Egypt, 1974 (CH I, 41); 6 in Abu Hommos, 1919 (IGCH 1667); 2 in Lower Egypt (“Dutilh II”), 1894 (IGCH 1669); 4 in Kuft, before 1875 (IGCH 1670), Nash (1974), p. 35; 2 in Egypt, before 1938 (IGCH 1676), Godefroy (1936), p. 283, 1 and 3 (with D and K, respectively, on aegis); 14 in Phacous, 1956 (IGCH 1678), Jar 1, Jenkins (1960), p. 25.

41.

Silver tetradrachm: ALEXANDRE IoN on l., pToLEMAIoU on r., DI in inner l. field, eagle on thunderbolt in inner r. field. Reference: Svoronos 32, pl. ii, 10–11; SNG Copenhagen 13; Zervos (1974), Issue 17 [17 recorded, from 2 obverse dies]; Zervos (1967), Issue XIII (dated 314 B.C.). Hoards: Egypt, 1974 (CH I, 41); Abu Hommos, 1919 (IGCH 1667); Lower Egypt (“Dutilh II”), 1894 (IGCH 1669). Provenanced specimen: Svoronos 32η found at Alexandria with tetradrachms of Alexander type, as reported by Dattari. The exceptional legend means something like “Alexander coin issued by Ptolemy.” A parallel usage appears on contemporary coins of Cyrene, see nos. 257–263 below.

42.

Silver drachm: Eagle on thunderbolt above DI in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 34, pl. ii, 14; Zervos (1974), Issue 68 [34 recorded, 14 obverse dies identified].

43.

Silver triobol: Eagle on thunderbolt above DI in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 35, pl. ii, 15 [10 listed]; Zervos (1974), Issue 71 [11 recorded, 5 obverse dies identified].

44.

Silver diobol: Eagle on thunderbolt above DI in r. field. Reference: Cambridge, Gitler and Lorber (2002), no. 1.

EU issue, c. 311/10 B.C. 45.

Gold stater: EU in outer l. field. Reference: Svoronos 41, pl. A, 3; Price 3980; Zervos (1974), Issue 84 [4 recorded, from 3 obverse dies]. Hoard: 2 in Larnaca, 1870 (IGCH 1472), Price (1969), 118–119.

Alexandria

46.



Ptolemy I Soter

259

Gold stater: EU under Nike’s l. wing. Reference: Price 3981. The specimen illustrated by Price is of a different style from other products of Alexandria.

47.

Silver tetradrachm (sometimes with tiny D on aegis): EU and eagle on thunderbolt in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 42, pl. ii, 20; SNG Copenhagen 15; Zervos (1974), Issue 18 [63 recorded, from 15 obverse dies]; Zervos (1967), Issue XIV (dated 313 B.C.). Hoards: 5 in commerce, early 1986; 12 in Abu Hommos, 1919 (IGCH 1667); 2 in Lower Egypt (“Dutilh II”), 1894 (IGCH 1669); 2 in Kuft, before 1875 (IGCH 1670), Nash (1974), p. 25; 12 in Phacous, 1956 (IGCH 1678), Jar 1, Jenkins (1960), p. 25. Other notable provenance: Svoronos vol. IV, cols. 27–28, reported many examples found in the Peloponnesus. In the course of this issue the control configuration changes from eagle on thunderbolt above EU to EU beside eagle on thunderbolt.

48.

Silver drachm: Eagle on thunderbolt above EU in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 43, pl. ii, 21; Zervos (1974), Issue 69 [10 recorded, from 7 obverse dies].

—EU issue, c. 310/9 B.C. For the associated bronze issue, see Vol. 2, B8.

49.

Gold stater: EU in outer l. field,  under l. wing. Reference: Zervos (1974), Issue 85 [1 recorded, New York].

50.

Silver tetradrachm (sometimes with tiny Do on aegis): ALEXANDRoU on l.,  in inner l. field, EU and eagle on thunderbolt in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 44, pl. ii, 22–23; Zervos (1974), Issue 20A [26 recorded, from 6 obverse dies]; Zervos (1967), Issue XV (dated 312 B.C.). Obverse die link with no. 51 below. Hoards: Commerce, early 1986; 2 in Abu Hommos, 1919 (IGCH 1667); Lower Egypt (“Dutilh II”), 1894 (IGCH 1669); 2 in Kuft, before 1875 (IGCH 1670), Nash (1974), p. 25; 5 in Phacous, 1956 (IGCH 1678), Jar 1, Jenkins (1960), p. 25.

51.

Silver tetradrachm (sometimes with tiny  on aegis): ALEXANDRE IoN on l.,  in inner l. field, EU and eagle on thunderbolt in r. field. Reference: Zervos (1974), Issue 20B [3 recorded, from 1 obverse die]; Zervos (1967), Issue XV (dated 312 B.C.). Obverse die link with no. 50 above. Hoards: Abu Hommos, 1919 (IGCH 1667); Egypt, before 1936 (IGCH 1676), Godefroy (1936), p. 283, 2; Phacous, 1956 (IGCH 1678), Jar 1, Jenkins (1960), p. 25, pl. iv, 3. This rare variant legend, like that of no. 41, means something like “coin of Alexander type.”

52.

Silver drachm:  in inner l. field, eagle on thunderbolt above EU in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 45, pl. ii, 24; SNG Copenhagen 16; Zervos (1974), Issue 70 [17 recorded, from 10 obverse dies].

260

Ptolemy I Soter

Alexandria

F—EU issue, c. 309/8 B.C. 53.

Silver tetradrachm: F in inner l. field, eagle on thunderbolt above EU in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 48, pl. ii, 26; Zervos (1974), Issue 19 [7 recorded, from 1 obverse die]; Zervos (1967), Issue XVI (dated 311 B.C.). Hoard: Lower Egypt (“Dutilh II”), 1894 (IGCH 1669).

Z issue, c. 308/7 B.C. 54.

Silver tetradrachm: Z and eagle on thunderbolt in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 40 [1 listed, Dattari, weight 17.06 g]. Confirmation required. Because this variety is known only from Svoronos’ catalogue entry, the possibility exists that it represents a mint error in which the types of no. 77 were struck on a flan that had not been trimmed down to reduce its weight. In that case, the assumption of annual issues of Type IIIa becomes somewhat problematic.

» issue, c. 307/6 B.C. 55.

Gold stater: » in outer l. field. Reference: Svoronos 36, pl. ii, 16; Price 3982; Zervos (1974), Issue 86 [5 recorded, from 2 obverse dies]. Hoard: Larnaca, 1870 (IGCH 1472), Price (1969), 117.

56.

Silver tetradrachm (with tiny D on aegis): » and eagle on thunderbolt in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 37, pl. ii, 17; Zervos (1974), Issue 21 (part) [13 recorded, from 5 obverse dies]; Zervos (1967), Issue XVII (dated 310 B.C.). Multiple obverse die links with issues of reduced weight: obverse die link with no. 58 below; two obverse die links with no. 76 below; another obverse die link with no. 77 below. Hoards: 2 in commerce, early 1986; 5 in Abu Hommos, 1919 (IGCH 1667); 4 in Lower Egypt (“Dutilh II”), 1894 (IGCH 1669), weights not recorded, thus perhaps including one or more specimens of no. 57 below; perhaps Phacous, 1956 (IGCH 1678), Jar 1, Jenkins (1960), p. 25.

Athena Promachos Tetradrachms, First Reduced Standard, c. 306–c. 300 B.C. Following his defeat in the battle of Salamis and his loss of Cyprus with most of his fleet, Ptolemy suspended the production of gold staters and silver fractions, reduced the weight standard of his tetradrachms, and concentrated on the production of tetradrachms exclusively. The new tetradrachms (Type IIIb) retained the types of the previous Attic-weight tetradrachms and apparently circulated alongside them. B. Emmons (1954, pp. 70–71) demonstrated that the weight reduction was accomplished by lightening Attic-weight tetradrachms by about 1.5 g per coin, from 17.20 g to 15.70 g, and then restriking them. This process enabled the government to coin about nine tetradrachms from the amount of silver formerly required for eight. Emmons dated the weight reduction c. 305, following Svoronos. The composition of the Abu Hommos hoard (IGCH 1667) inspired a higher chronology: it contained just a few tetradrachms of reduced weight, and the latest dated coins of Sidon and Tyre (“Ake”), of years 22 and 36 (312/11) apparently fixed its deposit in that year. Thus E. T. Newell (1937, pp. 24–25), E. S. G. Robinson (1941, p. 1636), and O. H. Zervos (1974, pp. 278–279) placed the reduction of the tetradrachm c. 312–310. G. K. Jenkins (1960, pp. 32–35) concurred, citing the Chiliomodi hoard (IGCH 85) as further evidence that the weight reduction occurred before 306. The Abu Hommos hoard contents can be reconciled with the low chronology adopted here if we assume that the Sidon and Tyre (“Ake”) tetradrachms entered Egypt as a result of Ptolemy’s conquests in Phoenicia in 312/11, and that hoard formation continued afterward during a period when coinage did not flow freely

Alexandria



Ptolemy I Soter

261

from Phoenicia into Egypt, probably because of the hostility between Ptolemy and the Antigonids. The Kuft hoard (IGCH 1670) also contained a Sidonian tetradrachm dated to 312/11 (but of Ptolemaic type), together with numerous Ptolemaic tetradrachms of reduced weight. D. Nash (1974, pp. 29–30) was obliged to posit a time lag of five to six years between the minting of coins in Phoenicia and their arrival in Egypt, even though she accepted the high chronology. C. C. Lorber (2005b) cited control links to bronze coinage to demonstrate that most or all of the reduced-weight tetradrachms were minted after Ptolemy had assumed the royal title, and that the loss of the Chiliomodi hoard must be dated 304 or even early 303. The latter conclusion followed the lead of O. Mørkholm (1980a, p. 156), who pointed out that there was no solid basis for dating the Chiliomodi hoard to 306. Table 1. Control links between reduced-weight tetradrachms (Types IIIb–c) and bronze coins. Helmet Series Tetradrachms (Type IIIb)

Helmet Series Bronzes

Aphlaston Series Bronzes

Plain Series Bronzes

Gold Staters and Type IIIc Tetradrachms

ALEXANDRoU

pToLEMAIoU BASILEWS

pToLEMAIoU

pToLEMAIoU

pToLEMAIoU BASILEWS

Helmet/

Helmet/

Helmet/

Helmet/ Aphlaston/DI

DI

Helmet/DI



, ./, /, , etc.,

Aphlaston/TI

Ã

/ Ã

TI

: commerce. Hoard: Aisaros River, 1879? (IGCH 1955).

273.

Gold stater: òï in ex. Reference: Svoronos 151, pl. v, 1 [7 listed]; Naville (1951), 246–247; SNG Copenhagen 426. Hoard: 2 in Aisaros River, 1879? (IGCH 1955).

274.

Gold tetrobol: Crab in outer l. field,  (or ) in lower r. field. Reference: a) with : Svoronos 304, pl. iii, 13–14; Naville (1951), 257–258 [9 listed]; b) with : Svoronos 304γ; Naville (1951), 259 [1 listed].

Euesperides Gold Stater with Ptolemy’s Portrait, early 290s B.C. The following stater bears a symbol in the exergue instead of the monogram and letter controls standard at Alexandria and Cyrene. Svoronos described it as a silphium plant, but most other authorities have seen an apple branch, presumed to be the mintmark of Euesperides.

310

Ptolemy I Soter



Euesperides

Gold stater (c. 7.13 g): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., with aegis/  in two lines above elephant quadriga l., Alexander standing in the chariot, aegis draped over his near shoulder, holding thunderbolt in r. hand and reins in l. 275.

Gold stater: Branch in exergue. Reference: Svoronos 101, pl. iv, 1–2; Naville 239–240 [11 listed].

PTOLEMY II PHILADELPHUS 283/2–246 B.C. EGYPT Alexandria Coinage on System of Ptolemy I: Ï and Ï above Galatian Shield Series Issues with the sign Ï were attributed to Cyprus by R. S. Poole, J. N. Svoronos, and D. H. Cox, but A. Davesne (Meydancıkkale, p. 278 with n.85) reassigned them to Alexandria based on the holdings of the Alexandria and Nicosia Museums. In addition Davesne (pp. 277–278) noted the absence of these series from the Egypt before 1908, and Phacous hoards (IGCH 1677, 1678) and dated them between 279/8 and 262/1. He derived the upper date from his metrological analysis and his assumptions of annual emissions and a regular rate of annual weight loss, a methodology not embraced here. C. Lorber (2012c, pp. 38‒40) identified irregular rhythms of production and proposed that episodes of intense mint activity should be correlated with military campaigns. The terminus ante quem for these series is the change of the reverse legend in 261/0, from PToLEMAIoU BASILEWS to PToLEMAIoU SWTHRoS. Svoronos (1904, Vol. 1, cols. ρξςʹ–ρξηʹ and 1908, Vol. 4, cols. 99–100) suggested that the sign Ï abbreviated the epithet Soter. The two inner hastae of the sign are invariably straight, however, and the presence of W cannot be confirmed.

Gold trichryson or triple stater (“pentadrachm,” c. 17.85 g): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., sometimes with  or other mark behind ear, aegis tied around neck, dotted border/  on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. Silver stater (tetradrachm, c. 14.26 g): Types as preceding. Silver drachm (c. 3.60 g): Types as preceding, but eagle with spread wings. Ï issue, perhaps 282 B.C. C. Lorber (2012c, pp. 39‒40) tentatively dated this issue to the first year of the sole reign of Ptolemy II, when dynastic conflicts of at the court of Lysimachus provided an opportunity to deploy the Lagid fleet and to form the Ptolemaic sea empire with little risk of opposition. For the associated bronze coinage, see Vol. 2, B164–B165.

276. Gold trichryson or triple stater (“pentadrachm”): Ï in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 547, pl. xiv, 1 [18 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 106. Hoards: Hüseyinli (CH IX, 489), Davese and Yenisoğancı (1992), 57; 23 in Toukh el Garmous, 1905 (IGCH 1680).

277.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (sometimes with  or pellet behind ear): Ï in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 548, pl. xiv, 2 [16 listed].

311

312

Ptolemy II Philadelphus



Alexandria

Hoards: 5 in Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 421–424, plus 1 in Newell’s record in ANS; Sophikon (IGCH 179), Svoronos (1907a), 932; Sounion, Attica (CH IV, 32); 2 in Corinth (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 347–348; Sparta, 1908 (IGCH 181), Wace (1907/08), 81; 2 in Sögutlüdere (CH VIII, 246), Ashton, Arslan, and Dervișağaoğlu (1996), 8–9; 82 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3732–3813; 2‒3 in Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; 3 in Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); 3 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 308‒310; Saida, 1949 (IGCH 1586), Trésors 40.15; Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1977), 11; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 29; 6 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 49–54; 12 in Saqqara, 1968 (IGCH 1681 = CH IX, 684), Price (1981), 7–18; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303); Rüppell, East Delta, before 1822, per Noeske (2006), p. 41.

Ï above Galatian Shield series, probably 275/4–c. 272 B.C. Ptolemy II adopted an oval shield as his personal emblem. Many scholars have connected it with his suppression of a revolt of Gallic mercenaries in the army sent against Magas of Cyrene, probably in 275/4. Ptolemy lured the Gauls to an island in the Nile and trapped them there to starve. The court poet Callimachus, Hymn IV (To Delos 171–187), compared this action to Apollo’s defense of his Delphic sanctuary against the Gallic invaders of Greece in 279/8 and explicitly awarded Galatian shields to both the god and the king as symbols of their victories. The poet imputed cosmic significance to the twin episodes, calling the Galatians “late-born Titans” and implying that Ptolemy had saved his kingdom from chaos, one of the primary functions of an Egyptian pharaoh. The comparison to Apollo also evoked his Egyptian equivalent, the royal god Horus, who was responsible for the maintenance of Maat (cosmic and worldly order) and was especially associated with the suppression of revolts. D. Salzmann (1980) challenged this interpretation of the shield, drawing attention to its association with the Egyptian god Bes and with other deities in Graeco-Roman Egypt. He suggested an allusion to the court myth that Ptolemy I was exposed on a shield as an infant and nurtured by an eagle sent by his father, Zeus; the shield thus served Ptolemy II as a dynastic symbol implying his own divine descent and the legitimacy of his succession. Like most symbols, the shield is probably polysemous. When associated with the portrait of Ptolemy II, as on the gold coinage of the Theoi Adelphoi (nos. 307–319 below), it naturally recalls the episode of the rebellious mercenaries. When associated with an eagle, as in the present series, it recalls the miraculous salvation of the infant Ptolemy. With this series, the Alexandria mint introduced a new control system based on individual letters of the Greek alphabet, as opposed to the monograms and occasional symbols that had been used earlier. Svoronos (1904, Vol. 1, cols. ρμηʹ–ρξβʹ) interpreted the letters as regnal dates, expressed not according to the usual decimal system of numeration but rather with the letters of the alphabet representing a continuous series of numbers. This exceptional system inspired skepticism in M. J. Price (1981, p. 156) and H. A. Troxell (1983). A. Davesne (Meydancıkkale, pp. 275–276) refuted it entirely by reporting die links among all of the principal control letters, some links involving as many as six letters. These patterns of linkage suggest that the control letters were employed simultaneously rather than successively. (However, contrary to the impression given by Davesne, his linkages do not account for all of the known control letters, some of which were not represented in the Meydancıkkale hoard.) Davesne estimated that the minting of this coinage required from one to four years and plausibly associated it with the First Syrian War (274–271). The bulk of the issue probably dates from just before the war, and production had probably ceased by the introduction of the Theoi Adelphoi gold coinage in or before 272 (see below). The provenances of the tetradrachms and their associated bronzes (Vol. 2, B166–B183A) indicate that they also played a role in financing the Chremonidean War and perhaps later Ptolemaic interventions in Greece as well. In addition to bronze coins associated with these precious metal issues (Vol. 2, B166–B183A), there was also a separate series of bronze diobols and obols marked with Ï above shield above _, with control letters between the eagle’s legs (Vol. 2, B184–B201).

Alexandria



Ptolemy II Philadelphus

313

No control letter For the associated bronze coinage, see Vol. 2, B166–B167.

278. Gold trichryson or triple stater (“pentadrachm”): Ï above Galatian shield in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 599 [2 listed].

279.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Ï above Galatian shield in l. field. Reference: Keen (forthcoming), 55. Hoards: Saida, 1949 (IGCH 1586), Trésors 40.17 (with upper control erased); Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 55.

279A. Silver drachm: Ï above Galatian shield in l. field. Reference: CNG 75, 23 May 2007, lot 558.

Control letter  For the associated bronze coinage, see Vol. 2, B168–B169, and cf. B170–171.

280. Gold trichryson or triple stater (“pentadrachm”): Ï above Galatian shield in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 558, pl. xiii, 1 [6 listed]. Hoard: Toukh el Garmous, 1905 (IGCH 1680).

281. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Ï above Galatian shield in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 559, pl. xiii, 8 [6 listed]. Multiple obverse die links with nos. 283 and 288; single obverse die links with nos. 295, 299, and 302. Hoards: 9 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3817, 3831, 3834, 3837, 3841–3842, 3848, 3858– 3859; Saqqara, 1968 (IGCH 1681 = CH IX, 684), Price (1981), 19.

Control letter  For the associated bronze coinage, see Vol. 2, B172.

282. Gold trichryson or triple stater (“pentadrachm”): Ï above Galatian shield in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 566, pl. xiii, 2 [8 listed]. Hoard: 6 in Toukh el Garmous, 1905 (IGCH 1680).

283.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Ï above Galatian shield in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 567, pl. xiii, 9 [10 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 107–108. Multiple obverse die links with nos. 281, 288, 299, and 302; single obverse die link with no. 295. Hoards: Enna, Sicily, 1966 (IGCH 2232 = CH IX, 670), Burnett (1983), 158; 14 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3814–3815, 3819, 3827, 3830, 3832, 3836, 3838–3839, 3844, 3849–3850, 3865–3866; Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 311;

314

Ptolemy II Philadelphus



Alexandria

Beirut commerce, 1987–88 (EH I, 85); Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 56; Saqqara, 1968 (IGCH 1681 = CH IX, 684), Price (1981), 20; 2 in Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

284.

Silver drachm: Ï above Galatian shield in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: ANS 1944.100.76018.

Control letter  284A. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Ï above Galatian shield in l. field, H between eagle’s legs. Reference: Paris, Gallica website btvlb85085208.

Control letter  For the associated bronze coinage, see Vol. 2, B173.

285. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Ï above Galatian shield in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 569, pl. xiii, 10 [3 listed].

286.

Silver drachm: Ï above Galatian shield in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 570, pl. xiii, 16 [1 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 111.

Control letter  For the associated bronze coinage, see Vol. 2, B174.

287. Gold trichryson or triple stater (“pentadrachm”): Ï above Galatian shield in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 573, pl. xiii, 3 [2 listed]. Hoard: 2 in Toukh el Garmous, 1905 (IGCH 1680).

288.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Ï above Galatian shield in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 574, pl. xiii, 11 [11 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 109. Multiple obverse die links with nos. 281 and 283; single obverse die links with nos. 299 and 302. Hoards: Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 428; 7 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3818, 3833, 3840, 3843, 3846, 3853, 3856; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 30; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 57; 3 in Saqqara, 1968 (IGCH 1681 = CH IX, 684), Price (1981), 21–23; Rüppell, East Delta, before 1822, per Noeske (2006), p. 41.

289.

Silver drachm: Ï above Galatian shield in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 575 [2 listed].

Control letter  For the associated bronze coinage, see Vol. 2, B175–B176.

Alexandria



Ptolemy II Philadelphus

315

290. Gold trichryson or triple stater (“pentadrachm”): Ï above Galatian shield in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 578, pl. xiii, 4 [2 listed].

291. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Ï above Galatian shield in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 579 [3 listed]. Hoard: 2 in Saqqara, 1968 (IGCH 1681 = CH IX, 684), Price (1981), 24–25.

292.

Silver drachm: Ï above Galatian shield in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Numisantique on VCoins, May 2010, egy-pto-007.

Control letter  293.

Silver drachm: Ï above Galatian shield in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Formerly Donald H. Doswell coll., Decatur, Illinois.

Control letter  For the associated bronze coinage, see Vol. 2, B177.

294. Gold trichryson or triple stater (“pentadrachm”): Ï above Galatian shield in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 583, pl. xiii, 6 [5 listed]. Hoard: 7 in Toukh el Garmous, 1905 (IGCH 1680).

295.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Ï above Galatian shield in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 584, pl. xiii, 12 [9 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 110. Obverse die links with nos. 281, 283, and 302. Hoards: Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 429; 2 in Sophikon (IGCH 187), Svoronos (1907), 933–934 (latter with unclear letter between eagle’s legs); 4 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3825, 3847, 3860, 3864.

296.

Silver drachm: Ï above Galatian shield in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 585, pl. xiii, 15 [4 listed].

Control letter  For the associated bronze coinage, see Vol. 2, B177A.

297.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Ï above Galatian shield in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 588 [1 listed, Rollin et Feuardent].

316

Ptolemy II Philadelphus



Alexandria

Control letter  For the associated bronze coinage, see Vol. 2, B178.

298. Gold trichryson or triple stater (“pentadrachm”): Ï above Galatian shield in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 590, pl. xiii, 5 [9 listed]. Hoards: Hüseyinli (CH IX, 489), Davesne and Yenisoğancı (1992), 58; 8 in Toukh el Garmous, 1905 (IGCH 1680); Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

299.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Ï above Galatian shield in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 591, pl. xiii, 13 [10 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 112. Multiple obverse die links with nos. 283 and 302; single obverse die links with nos. 281 and 288. Hoards: 4 in Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 430–432, plus 1 in Newell’s record in ANS; Keratokambos, Crete, 1992 (CH IX, 165), Touratsoglou (1995), p. 50; 7 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3822, 3828, 3835, 3845, 3851–852, 3862; Beirut commerce, 1987–88 (EH I, 85); 2 in Saqqara, 1968 (IGCH 1681 = CH IX, 684), Price (1981), 26–27; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

300.

Silver drachm: Ï above Galatian shield in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 592, pl. B, 24 [1 listed, Gotha, NZ 1869, p. 17, 2].

Control letter  For the associated bronze coinage, see Vol. 2, B179.

301. Gold trichryson or triple stater (“pentadrachm”): Ï above Galatian shield in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 595, pl. xiii, 7 [3 listed]. Hoard: 3 in Toukh el Garmous, 1905 (IGCH 1680).

302.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Ï above Galatian shield in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 596, pl. xiii, 14 [4 listed]. Multiple obverse die links with nos. 283 and 299; single obverse die links with nos. 281, 288, and 295. Hoards: Eretria (IGCH 175), per Newell’s record in ANS; 9 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3816, 3820–3821, 3823–3824, 3829, 3854–3855, 3861; perhaps Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; 3 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 312–314; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 31; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 58.

303.

Silver drachm: Ï above Galatian shield in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 597, pl. xiii, 17 [1 listed, Vienna].

Ï above Galatian shield—A issue A. Davesne (Meydancıkkale, pp. 276–277) observed that this issue and the next were not represented in the Saqqara hoard (IGCH 1681 = CH IX, 684) and suggested that they were probably later than the main Ï above Galatian Shield series. For the associated bronze coinage, see Vol. 2, B180.

Alexandria



Ptolemy II Philadelphus

317

304. Gold trichryson or triple stater (“pentadrachm”): Ï above Galatian shield in l. field, A in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 551, pl. xiv, 5 [5 listed]. Hoard: 7 in Toukh el Garmous, 1905 (IGCH 1680).

305.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Ï above Galatian shield in l. field, A in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 552, pl. xiv, 6 [14 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 306 below. Hoards: 2 in Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 425–426; 2 in Corinth (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 349–350; Megalopolis, 1947 (IGCH 180), Robinson (1950), 31; 16 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3867–3882; Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 59; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

Ï above Galatian shield— issue 306.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Ï above Galatian shield in l. field,  or C or  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 555, pl. xiv, 8 [23 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 113. Obverse die link with no. 305 above. A specimen in the A. D. Philippidis coll., Hicksville, N.Y., has three parallel lines resembling  in place of the shield (P-2009-09-12.001). Hoards: 2 in Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 427, plus 1 in Newell’s record in ANS; 18 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3883–3900; Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 315; Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 50 (with control above shield erased); Saida, 1949 (IGCH 1586), Trésors 40.16 (with shield erased or abraded).

Early Stages of Currency Reform: Precious Metal Coinage of the Theoi Adelphoi, from before August 272 B.C. Sometime after his marriage to Arsinoe II, Ptolemy II radically altered Egypt’s precious metal coinage, abandoning the denominational system inherited from his father in favor of a new system built around gold and silver coins of much higher value. An innovative series in gold commemorated the king’s deified parents, the Soteres, as well as Ptolemy II and his second wife, together deified as the Theoi Adelphoi. This series introduced the gold mnaieion or one-mina piece, equivalent to 100 silver drachms, which remained a standard denomination of the Ptolemaic currency system until at least the mid-second century. Its half denomination was called the pentekontadrachmon or 50-drachm piece. Several lines of evidence indicate that these coins were current in the 260s B.C. Mnaieia and pentekontadrachma are mentioned in an Egyptian bank document of the early 250s, P.Cair.Zen. I 59022. H. A. Troxell (1983, pp. 61–62) cited this text as proof that the gold coinage of the Theoi Adelphoi was introduced by Ptolemy Philadelphus, and some numismatists have inferred a date around 260 for the inauguration of this coinage, notably O. Mørkholm (1991, pp. 103–104), G. Le Rider (1997–1998, pp. 795–798); Le Rider and F. de Callataÿ (2006, pp. 151–153), and J. Olivier (2006, p. 61A). I. Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou (1961, pp. 225–226) reported two Theoi Adelphoi pentekontadrachma found at Mount Hymettus in a military context that implied that they were introduced into Greece during the Chremonidean War, fought during the 260s. A. Davesne (1994b) published a small lot from the Aydıncık hoard (CH VIII, 284 = CH IX, 486) in which gold coins of the Theoi Adelphoi were associated with the earliest mnaieion in the name of Arsinoe Philadelphus, datable c. 261/0; but because the majority of the hoard was dispersed without record, the actual closing coins are unknown and the chronological implications of the hoard are somewhat unclear. A. Cavagna (2008a) dated the introduction of the Theoi Adelphoi coinage between 272 and 270, soon after the deification of the ruling couple. Burkhalter (2007, pp. 71‒72) found documentary support for a high chronology in P.Hib. I 110, which records a payment in gold on 27 August 272 that can only have been rendered in mnaieia and pentekontadrachma.

318

Ptolemy II Philadelphus



Alexandria

The vast majority of mnaieia and pentekontadrachma of the Theoi Adelphoi are indistinguishable in style and present no visible features that allow for a chronological classification. The rare exceptions are some varieties that bear control letters (nos. 307–312), a variety featuring a kerykeion behind the head of Ptolemy Soter (no. 318), and a variety with the entire legend on one side of the coin (no. 319), whereas in its standard configuration the legend is divided between the obverse and the reverse. A new study by J. Olivier (in Olivier and Lorber, 2013) brings some clarity to this series. Certain details—crude portrait style, a triangular knot behind the head of Ptolemy I, the letter  drawn with a rounded loop, and heavier average weight—serve to identify the varieties with control letters as the earliest. Die linkage indicates that these marked varieties represent a brief phase of coinage, quickly succeeded by the more common unmarked varieties. Metallurgical analyses of the Theoi Adelphoi coinage revealed trace elements of lead and copper that match the profile of Ptolemaic gold staters, trichrysa, and mnaieia in the name of Arsinoe Philadelphus, but differ from the profile of gold coins in the name of Berenice and mnaieia depicting the radiate Ptolemy III. These results imply that most or all of the Theoi Adelphoi coinage belongs to the reign of Ptolemy II and they further suggest the possibility that its production may have continued after the introduction of mnaieia in the name of Arsinoe Philadelphus, which can be dated no later than 261/0. Olivier’s die study points to a relatively compact issue: of 39 obverse dies of the unmarked pentekontadrachma, 17 are either represented in the Aydıncık hoard or linked to dies represented there. While we lack comparable evidence for the mnaieia, the stylistic homogeneity of both denominations probably implies a similar chronology. The smaller fractions (nos. 315‒316) required very few dies, two obverse dies for the quarter mnaieia and only one for the eighth mnaieia. An impression of intense production is supported by another result of metallurgical analyses. Based on their platinoid signatures, the Theoi Adelphoi coins were struck from two different stocks of metal. One matches the regular stock of gold employed by the Alexandria mint throughout the third and second centuries, while the other represents a supplementary source. Presumably the latter was drawn on because the regular stock was insufficient for the required emission. The question of which side of these coins is obverse and which reverse has been disputed; for bibliography, see Cavagna (2008a, p. 162 n.2). Olivier’s die study confirmed a nuanced answer. For the variety with the entire legend on one side of the coin (no. 319), the portraits of Ptolemy I and Berenice I occupy the obverse and the legend appears on the reverse, its usual position in Greek coinage. For the remaining varieties, the reigning couple occupy the obverse and their parents the reverse. Coins of the Theoi Adelphoi survive in such large numbers that most numismatists have assumed their production spanned more than one reign or even continued throughout most of the third century. Now that we are in possession of evidence suggesting that most or even all of these coins were struck under Ptolemy II, their high survival rate and their presence in hoards deposited in the last quarter of the third century should both be attributed to a tendency to hoard them.

Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (gold octadrachm, c. 27.87 g), Type 1:  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/ above, jugate busts r. of Ptolemy I and Berenice I, the former diademed and wearing himation, the latter diademed and veiled, dotted border. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (gold octadrachm, c. 27.87 g), Type 2: Jugate busts r. of Ptolemy I and Berenice I, the former diademed and wearing himation, the latter diademed and veiled, dotted border/  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. Gold pentekontadrachmon or 50 drachm piece (gold tetradrachm, c. 13.90 g): Types as for Type 1 mnaieion.

Alexandria



Ptolemy II Philadelphus

319

Other denominations as noted. Series with control letter above shield 307. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (gold octadrachm), Type 1:  above Galatian shield, single cornucopiae under Arsinoe’s chin. Reference: Cf. Svoronos 613, pl. xiv, 27 [1 listed, Glasgow]; Hunter III, p. 367, 38, pl. lxxxi, 15; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 155–156 (die A20). Hoard: 2 in commerce, 2007. The Glasgow coin is of a later style than others recorded by Olivier and Lorber (2013) and shows affinities to other mnaieia datable to the reign of Ptolemy V.

308. Gold pentekontadrachmon or 50-drachm piece (gold tetradrachm):  above Galatian shield, double cornucopiae under Arsinoe’s chin. Reference: Svoronos 614, pl. xiv, 28; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 385–389 (dies A50, A51). Reverse die link with no. 309 below. Hoard: Antalya, 1974 (CH I, 69).

309. Gold pentekontadrachmon or 50-drachm piece (gold tetradrachm):  above Galatian shield, double cornucopiae under Arsinoe’s chin. Reference: Svoronos Vol. IV, Addenda, 616A, pl. B, 25 [1 listed, Athens]; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 390–392 (die A52). Reverse die link with no. 308 above.

Series with control letter under queen’s chin Davesne (1994b, pp. 41–42) hypothesized that the letters on these varieties might run parallel with those of silver decadrachms in the name of Arsinoe. As noted above, stylistic observations by J. Olivier (in Olivier and Lorber, 2013) established that these varieties belong among the earliest issues of the Theoi Adelphoi coinage.

Control letter  310. Gold pentekontadrachmon or 50-drachm piece (gold tetradrachm):  under Arsinoe’s chin. Reference: Svoronos 621, pl. xiv, 31 [1 listed, Athens]; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 165 (die A1). Svoronos read the control letter as P. The corrected reading was proposed by J. Olivier.

Control letter  311. Gold pentekontadrachmon or 50-drachm piece (gold tetradrachm):  under Arsinoe’s chin. Reference: Svoronos 618, pl. xiv, 29–30 [8 listed]; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 166–183 (dies A2–A5). Reverse die link with no. 314 below. Hoards: Mount Hymettus, Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou (1965), pl. xviii, 1; 4 in Antalya, 1974 (CH I, 69); Benha, 1936 (IGCH 1694), Brett (1952), 26, pl. iv.

320

Ptolemy II Philadelphus



Alexandria

312. Gold pentekontadrachmon or 50-drachm piece (gold tetradrachm):  under Berenice’s chin. Reference: HistMusFrankfurt 38; Christie’s sale, 9 October 1984, lot 290; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 184–193 (die A6). Hoard: Mount Hymettus, Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou (1965), pl. xviii, 2.

Unmarked issue 313. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (gold octadrachm), Type 1:  on obverse,  on reverse. Reference: Svoronos 603, pl. xiv, 15–17 [48 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 132; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 1–152 (dies A1–A19). Obverse die link with no. 318 below. Hoards: Aydıncık (CH VIII, 284 = CH IX, 486), Davesne (1994b), 2; Antalya, 1974 (CH I, 69); Tarik Darreh (Kangavar), 1974 (CH II, 70 = CH VIII, 312); Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303); 2+ in Benha, 1936 (IGCH 1694), Brett (1952), 22–23, pl. iv; many in commerce since 2007.

314. Gold pentekontadrachmon or 50-drachm piece (gold tetradrachm): Types as preceding. Reference: Svoronos 604, pl. xiv, 18–21 [47 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 133; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 194–384 (dies A7–A49). Reverse die link with no. 311 above. Hoards: Naupactus, 1955 (IGCH 174); 15 in Aydıncık (CH VIII, 284 = CH IX, 486), Davesne (1994b), 3–17; 13 in Antalya, 1974 (CH I, 69); 2+ in Benha, 1936 (IGCH 1694), Brett (1952), 24–25, pl. iv; many in commerce since 2007. Provenanced find: Found close to Tel ʾAkko by M. Prausnitz and delivered to the Israel Antiquities Authority on 20 July 1972, information courtesy of Donald T. Ariel.

315.

Gold quarter mnaieion or 25 drachms (gold didrachm): Types as preceding. Reference: Svoronos 605, pl. xiv, 22 [1 listed, Vienna]; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 393–397 (dies A1, A2).

316.

Gold eighth mnaieion or 12 ½ drachms (gold drachm): Types as preceding. Reference: Svoronos 606, pl. xiv, 23 [1 listed, Paris]; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 398–399 (die A1).

317.

Silver didrachm: Types as preceding. Reference: Svoronos 608, pl. xiv, 25 [1 listed, Florence]. A silver didrachm seems out of place in the above sequence, suggesting that the object in Florence may be the silver core of a plated pentekontadrachmon. See M. J. Price (1991), no. 3779 for a gold-plated stater of Alexander with a silver core; also J. Spier (1998), p. 329, no. 12, and N. M. Waggoner (1983), no. 271 for examples of plated electrum coins with silver cores. Svoronos 609, an uninscribed triobol of these types, is also anomalous and of somewhat barbarous style. It is listed here as an issue of Jerusalem (no. 707), because this mint struck a plentiful coinage of small silver fractions with various types representing the Ptolemies.

Issue with kerykeion The addition of a kerykeion behind the head of Ptolemy Soter was apparently intended to balance the Galatian shield that appears behind the head of Philadelphus; the juxtaposition would imply that the kerykeion was the personal emblem of the dynastic founder, just as the Galatian shield was the personal emblem of his successor. Though the kerykeion is most familiar as the identifying attribute of a herald, it was also related to kingship, signifying legitimate succession and victory. The issue with kerykeion is die linked to other coins without this special symbol.

Alexandria



Ptolemy II Philadelphus

321

318. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (gold octadrachm), Type 1: Kerykeion behind head of Ptolemy I. Reference: Triton XIV, 4–5 January 2011, lot 387; Berk 158, 26 March 2008, lot 11; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 153–154 (die A19); Lorber (2014). Obverse die link with no. 313 above.

Issue with entire legend on reverse Svoronos dissociated this rare variety from the rest of the coinage in the name of the Theoi Adelphoi and dated it to the reign of Ptolemy III. However A.B. Brett (1952, pp. 6–7; 1955, p. 302) argued that this rarity must represent the inaugural issue of the series. Brett’s view is now untenable in light of J. Olivier’s stylistic observations (in Olivier and Lorber, 2013) that place varieties with control letters at the beginning of the Theoi Adelphoi series. No. 319 is almost certainly a special issue struck at the end of the series. Over and above the exceptional placement of the legend it is characterized by technical features that further set it apart from the rest of the Theoi Adelphoi coinage. Olivier’s die study revealed a different pattern of die use: whereas all other coins of the Theoi Adelphoi series used obverse dies depicting the conjoined portraits of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, this special issue employed a single obverse die depicting Ptolemy I and Berenice I, with their successors on the two reverse dies, and the legend appears on the reverse, its usual position in Greek coinage. In addition mnaieia with a single legend are slightly but significantly lighter than other Theoi Adelphoi mnaieia; the mean weight of the latter is 27.70g while the heaviest mnaieion with a single legend weighs just 27.71 g.

319. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (gold octadrachm), Type 2:   on reverse. Reference: Svoronos 934, pl. xxviii, 1–2 [5 listed]; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 157–164 (die A21).

Second Phase of Currency Reform: Silver Decadrachms of Arsinoe Philadelphus, after 270/268–c. 246 B.C. After the death of Arsinoe II a new coinage was inaugurated in her honor. The earliest series comprised silver decadrachms, issued in the name of the deified Arsinoe Philadelphus and bearing her portrait and her cult symbol, the dikeras (double cornucopiae). This impressive new denomination represented one tenth of the gold mnaieion. With its introduction, production of the silver tetradrachm, long the standard coin of the currency system, was apparently suspended in Egypt. Svoronos (1904, Vol. I, cols. ρμηʹ–ρξβʹ) believed that the letters that appear on the obverses of the gold mnaieia (octadrachms) and silver decadrachms of Arsinoe Philadelphus represent dates, reckoned from her death on 9 July 270. H. A Troxell (1983) showed by stylistic analysis that mnaieia and decadrachms bearing the same control letter were not synchronous. She identified groups of mnaieia and decadrachms that share similar styles and concluded that the decadrachms were introduced somewhat before the mnaieia. Comparison with dated mnaieia of the Syro-Phoenician mints provided weak evidence for an absolute chronology. Troxell admitted that she could not date the final phases of the Arsinoe coinage with precision, and her suggested date of c. 246?‒c. 241? for the latest varieties stemmed largely from a perception that Arsinoe’s plump features were influenced by the appearance of Berenice II. Metallurgical analyses of the Arsinoe mnaieia, reported by J. Olivier (in Olivier and Lorber, 2013), indicate that they were struck from slightly less refined metal than the gold of Berenice II, with the implication that their production ended before, or not long after, Euergetes’ accession. A new chronology proposed for the mnaieia by C. Lorber (in Olivier and Lorber, 2013) dates the final issue to 246/5. This is a plausible date for the end of the decadrachm series, with the numismatic honors of the goddess Arsinoe transferred to Queen Berenice after the king’s return from Syria in 245. However the last seven decadrachm emissions are missing from a hoard found near Alexandria in 1844 (CH VIII, 303), which was probably lost around 245. This suggests the decadrachms may have remained in production a bit longer than the mnaieia.

322

Ptolemy II Philadelphus



Alexandria

The entire series of decadrachms is listed below, for convenience, following Troxell’s classification, with dates suggested by Lorber’s study of the mnaieia, supplemented by Troxell’s dates where they differ significantly.

Silver decadrachm: Veiled head of deified Arsinoe r., with ram’s horn, wearing diademed stephane, lotus scepter over far shoulder, sometimes with serpent coiled around shaft, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing pyramidal cakes, pomegranate, and other fruits, a grape cluster hanging from the rim of each horn, dotted border. Group 1: Unmarked issue to control letter , after 270–c. 262/1 B.C. 320.

Silver decadrachm: No control letter behind head. Reference: Svoronos 409, pl. xv, 18 [4 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 41 [3 specs., 3 rev. dies]. Hoard: Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

321.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 420 [6 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 41 [5 specs., 5 rev. dies]. Hoard: Zagazig (ancient Bubastis), 1905 (IGCH 1689), Eddé (1906), 4.

322.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 428, pl. B, 11 [4 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 41 [4 specs., 3 rev. dies].

323.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 432, pl. xv, 19 [5 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 41 [2 specs., 2 rev. dies]. Hoard: Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

324.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos Vol. IV, Addenda 434a, pl. B, 12 [2 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 41 [5 specs., 2 rev. dies] Hoard: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3995.

325.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 444, pl. xv, 20 [7 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 41 [11 specs., 7 rev. dies]. Hoards: Zagazig (ancient Bubastis), 1905 (IGCH 1689), Eddé (1906), 5; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

326.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 455, pl. xvi, 1 [1 listed, Athens]. Troxell (1983), p. 41 [1 spec.].

327.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Gans, 16 April 1960, lot 468. Troxell (1983), p. 41 [1 spec.].

328.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 461, pl. xvi, 2 [2 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 41 [1 spec.].

329.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 477, pl. xvi, 3 [5 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 41 [7 specs., 5 rev. dies]. Hoard: 2 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3996–3997.

Alexandria

330.



Ptolemy II Philadelphus

323

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Cf. Svoronos 487; Paris, Z.2884, 122 (Dattari coll.). According to Troxell (1983, p. 41 n.11), Svoronos’ entry for a decadrachm with  behind Arsinoe’s head, based on a single specimen in Athens, involved a misreading of the control , only partially visible. The Paris specimen cited here is from a die whose style clearly places it in the alphabetic sequence of single letters.

Transitional to Group 2: Control letters  and , c. 261/0 B.C. 331.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 488, pl. xvi, 4 [2 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 42 [3 specs., 3 rev. dies].

332.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 490, pl. xvi, 5 [3 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 42 [5 specs., 3 rev. dies]. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3998; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

Group 2: Control letters  through , c. 261/0–c. 253/2 B.C. 333.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 492, pl. xvi, 6 [1 listed, Athens]. Troxell (1983), p. 42 [1 spec.].

334.

Silver decadrachm: P behind head. Reference: Svoronos 495, pl. B, 13 [3 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 42 [4 specs., 3 rev. dies]. Hoard: Zagazig (ancient Bubastis), 1905 (IGCH 1689), Eddé (1906), 6.

335.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 496, pl. xvi, 7 [6 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 135. Troxell (1983), p. 42 [5 specs., 4 rev. dies]. Hoard: Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

336.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 502 [2 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 42 [6 specs., 2 obv. dies, 5 rev. dies]. Hoard: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3999.

337.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 503 [4 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 42 [4 specs., 4 rev. dies].

338.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 508, pl. xvi, 10 [5 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 42 [8 specs., 6 rev. dies]. Hoards: 2 in Zagazig (ancient Bubastis), 1905 (IGCH 1689), Eddé (1906), 1–2; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

339.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 512, pl. xvi, 9 [3 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 42 [4 specs., 3 rev. dies]. Hoard: Zagazig (ancient Bubastis), 1905 (IGCH 1689), Eddé (1906), 3.

340.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 513 [1 listed, Alexandria]. Troxell (1983), p. 42 [2 specs., 2 rev. dies].

324

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

341.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head.



Alexandria

Reference: Svoronos 517, pl. xvi, 11 [5 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 42 [4 specs., 3 rev. dies]. Hoard: Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

Transitional to Group 3: Control letters  to , c. 253/2 B.C. 342.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 518 [2 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 43 [1 spec.].

343.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 937, pl. xxviii, 3 [6 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 43 [10 specs., 6 rev. dies].

344.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 938, pl. xxviii, 4 [13 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 136. Troxell (1983), p. 43 [11 specs., 8 rev. dies]. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4000; Zagazig (ancient Bubastis), 1905 (IGCH 1689), Eddé (1906), 7; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

Group 3: Control letters  to , c. 253/2–c. 250/49 B.C. (Troxell: c. 253/2‒246? B.C.) 345.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos Vol. IV, Addenda 938a [1 listed, Rassegna Numismatica III, 34, p, pl. i]. Troxell (1983), p. 44 [2 specs., 2 rev. dies]. Hoard: Zagazig (ancient Bubastis), 1905 (IGCH 1689), Eddé (1906), 9.

346.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 939, pl. xxviii, 5 [6 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 44 [3 specs., 2 rev. dies]. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4001; Zagazig (ancient Bubastis), 1905 (IGCH 1689), Eddé (1906), 8.

347.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 940, pl. xxviii, 6 and 23, also pl. Γ, 14 [12 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 44 [19 specs., 15 rev. dies]. Hoards: Megalopolis, 1947 (IGCH 180), Robinson (1950), 39; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

348.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 941 [3 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 44 [1 spec.].

349.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 942, pl. xxviii, 7 [7 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 44 [11 specs., 9 rev. dies]. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4002; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

350.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 943, pl. xxviii, 8 [7 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 44 [4 specs., 4 rev. dies]. Hoard: Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

Alexandria

351.



Ptolemy II Philadelphus

325

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 944, pl. xxviii, 9 [5 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 44 [10 specs., 5 rev. dies]. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4003; Zagazig (ancient Bubastis), 1905 (IGCH 1689), Eddé (1906), 11; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

352.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 945, pl. xxviii, 10 [2 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 44 [7 specs., 4 rev. dies]. Hoards: Zagazig (ancient Bubastis), 1905 (IGCH 1689), Eddé (1906), 10; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

353.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 946, pl. xxviii, 11 [6 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 44 [5 specs., 3 rev. dies]. Hoard: 2 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4004–4005.

354.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 947, pl. xxviii, 12 [12 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 44 [15 specs., 11 rev. dies]. Hoards: Zagazig (ancient Bubastis), 1905 (IGCH 1689), Eddé (1906), 12; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

355.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 948, pl. xxviii, 13 [4 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 44 [4 specs., 3 rev. dies]. Hoard: Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

356.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 949, pl. xxviii, 14 [3 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 44 [3 specs., 3 rev. dies]. Hoard: Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

357.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 950, pl. xxviii, 15 [3 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 44 [4 specs., 2 rev. dies]. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4006; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

Transitional to Group 4: Control letters PP and , c. 249 B.C. (Troxell: 246? B.C.) 358.

Silver decadrachm: PP behind head. Reference: Svoronos 951, pl. Γ, 15 [2 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 44 [2 specs., 2 rev. dies].

359.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 952, pl. xxviii, 16 [3 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 44 [2 specs,. 2 rev. dies]. Hoard: Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

Group 4: Control letters  to , c. 249/8‒c. 246/5 B.C. (Troxell: 246?–241? B.C.) 360.

Silver decadrachm;  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 953, pl. xxviii, 17 [1 listed, London]. Troxell (1983), p. 45 [2 specs., 2 rev. dies]. Hoards: Megalopolis, 1947 (IGCH 180), Robinson (1950), 40; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

326

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

361.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head.



Alexandria

Reference: Svoronos 954, pl. xxviii, 18 and pl. xvi, 8 [3 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 45 [1 spec.] Hoard: Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

362.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 955, pl. xxviii, 19 [1 listed, Löbbecke]. Troxell (1983), p. 45 [3 specs., 3 rev. dies].

363.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 956, pl. xxviii, 20 [2 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 45 [2 specs., 2 rev. dies]

364.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 957 [1 listed, Athens]. Troxell (1983), p. 45 [1 spec.].

365.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 958, pl. xxviii, 21 [3 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 45 [3 specs. 3 rev. dies].

366.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 959, pl. xxviii, 22 [8 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 45 [6 specs., 4 rev. dies].

367.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 960, pl. xxviii, 24 [2 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 45 [1 spec.].

368.

Silver decadrachm:  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 961, pl. xxviii, 25–26 [6 listed]. Troxell (1983), p. 45 [8 specs., 6 rev. dies].

Third Phase of Currency Reform: Gold Mnaieia (Octadrachms) of Arsinoe Philadelphus, later 260s to end of reign  Series Silver Tetradrachms of Arsinoe Philadelphus, later 260s–255/4 B.C.  Series Silver Tetradrachms of Ptolemy Soter, later 260s–256/5 B.C. Ptolemy Philadelphus’ reform of his precious metal coinage culminated in the latter 260s with the creation of a new series of gold mnaieia (octadrachms) in the name of the deified Arsinoe Philadelphus, with the same types as her decadrachms. This reform also renewed the production of tetradrachms, now issued in two series, one for Ptolemy Soter and another for Arsinoe Philadephus, struck from the same obverse dies as her mnaieia. The Soter tetradrachms ended after five emissions, those of Arsinoe after six. A close study of the entire Arsinoe coinage by H. A. Troxell (1983) led her to the conclusion that the letters on the obverse of these coins do not represent annual dates. She proposed two alternate dates for the beginning of the mnaieion series: 263/2, in connection with the diversion of the tax on orchards and vineyards (the apomoira) to support the cult of Arsinoe Philadelphus in the temples, or 261/0, the date at which the Syro-Phoenician mints began to strike Arsinoe mnaieia. C. Lorber (in Olivier and Lorber 2013) reported on a new die study of the Arsinoe mnaieia that emphasized the enormous variability in the size of different issues. She suggested that the production of mnaieia could have been organized on an annual basis, even if the letters do not designate actual dates, though she left open the possibility that the initial, unmarked issue lasted longer than a year. She showed that the large issues could be correlated with specific events. In particular, the gigantic issue marked Q coincides with the end of the Second Syrian War and may have served to pay bonuses to the troops and/or to finance the settlement of the war veterans on reclaimed land in the Fayum. Production continued at a high volume for the three succeeding issues and it is certain that land reclamation work continued in these years. Thereafter the size of the issues fell precipitously except

Alexandria



Ptolemy II Philadelphus

327

for a larger output of mnaieia marked X coinciding with the accession of Ptolemy III in 247/6. The series of mnaieia ended in the following year. The new chronology is very close to that of Troxell except that it compresses the final issues. Her belief that these issues may have continued until c. 241 was influenced by an assumption that Alexandria ended its coinage for Arsinoe Philadelphus at the same time as the Syro-Phoenician mints. Troxell in fact emphasized the fragility of her chronology for the late emissions of mnaieia and decadrachms. Despite the likelihood that production of the mnaieia continued briefly under Ptolemy III, the entire series of mnaieia (with associated tetradrachms) is listed below for convenience. The presentation follows Troxell’s classification, but the proposed dates are Lorber’s. Troxell’s dates are given as well where they differ significantly. The currency reforms of the 260s changed the relationship between the precious metal and bronze currencies. New, larger bronze denominations were introduced, including bronze coins with the face value of a drachm, so that there was no further need for the minting of silver drachms. Like the various precious metal series of this period, the reformed bronze coinage was normally marked only by letters of the alphabet. There is no reason to think that the control letters link the bronzes to any particular precious metal series.

Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (gold octadrachm): Veiled head of deified Arsinoe r., with ram’s horn, wearing diademed stephane, over far shoulder lotus scepter with serpent coiled round shaft, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing pyramidal cakes, pomegranate, and other fruits, a grape cluster hanging from the rim of each horn, dotted border. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Veiled head of deified Arsinoe r., with ram’s horn, wearing diademed stephane, over far shoulder lotus scepter with serpent coiled round shaft, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of deified Ptolemy I r., with aegis, dotted border/   on l.,  (rarely , as noted) on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. Troxell Group 2: Unmarked to control letter , 263/2 or 261/0–255/4 B.C. No control letter behind head Svoronos catalogued two tetradrachms of Arsinoe without a letter on the obverse, which thus might seem to belong to this issue, but both were disqualified by H. A. Troxell (1983, p. 43 n.14). Svoronos 410, pl. xvi, 13, is an example of no. 384 below, with the control letter off the flan. Svoronos 936, a tetradrachm in Athens with a double cornucopiae reverse, is a cast forgery in silver from a gold mnaieion, sharing dies with no. 369 below.

369. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): No control letter behind head. Reference: Svoronos 408, pl. xv, 6 [7 listed]; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 1–11 [3 obv. dies, 5 rev. dies]. Reverse die link with no. 371 below. Hoard: Benha, 1936 (IGCH 1694), Brett (1952), 1, pl. I; Aydıncık, Davesne (1994b), no. 1.

370. Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy): No control letter behind head, no letter between eagle’s legs. Reference: Leu 77, 11‒12 May 2000, 382. Cf. Svoronos 411, described with  between eagle’s legs [3 listed]. One of the examples cited by Svoronos, BMC p. 51, 47, pl. x, 5, in fact has  behind the head, mostly off the

328

Ptolemy II Philadelphus



Alexandria

flan, and the two alleged examples in Meydancıkkale match the obverse dies of the  and  issues. Other reported specimens from hoards may also represent coins with the obverse letter off the flan. Hoards: Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 17 (possibly with a letter behind Ptolemy’s head); 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 68–70; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303); Tell Nebesheh (ancient Am), 1886 (IGCH 1688).

 behind head 371. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 419, pl. xv, 7 [3 listed]; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 12. Obverse die link with no. 372 below; reverse die link with no. 369 above.

372.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Arsinoe):  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 421 [2 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 371 above; reverse die link with no. 375 below.

373. Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy):  behind head, reverse with  and  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Paris, Z.2884, 106 (Dattari coll.). Obverse die link with no. 374 below.

374. Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy):  behind head, eroded, reverse with  but no letter between eagle’s legs. Reference: Paris, Z.2884, 105 (Dattari coll.). Obverse die link with no. 373 above. Although this variety has features suggesting it should be earlier than no. 373, including the royal title and the lack of a letter  between the legs of the eagle, the state of the obverse die suggests that it is later than no. 373.

 behind head 375.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Arsinoe):  behind head. Reference: SNG Lockett 3408; Troxell (1983), p. 43, pl. 4, 6. Reverse die link with no. 372 above.

376.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Arsinoe):  behind head,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 429, pl. xvi, 14 [9 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 139. Reverse die link with no. 378 below. Hoard: Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 318.

377.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy):  behind head,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 430, pl. xvi, 17 [6 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 137. Hoard: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3901 (listed as unmarked, but die identified by E. Carlen).

 behind head 378.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Arsinoe):  behind head,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos Vol. IV, Addenda 432a [1 listed, Dattari]. Reverse die link with no. 376 above.

379.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy):  behind head,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 433, pl. xvi, 18 and pl. xxvii, 20 [4 listed]. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3902 (listed as unmarked, but die identified by E. Carlen); Balatah (ancient Shechem), 1960 (IGCH 1588), Carlen (2014), 6.

Alexandria



Ptolemy II Philadelphus

329

 behind head 380. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 434, pl. xv, 8 [1 listed, Glasgow]; Hunter III, p. 363, 8, pl. lxxxi, 6; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 13–14 [1 obv. die, 1 rev. die]. Obverse die link with no. 381 below; reverse die link with no. 383 below.

381.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Arsinoe):  behind head,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 435, pl. xvi, 15 [4 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 380 above; reverse die links with nos. 384 and 386 below. Hoard: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4008. Provenanced find: Ras Ibn Hani excavations, Augé (2000), pp. 62–63.

382.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy):  behind head,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 436, pl. xvi, 19 [6 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 138; BMC p. 51, 47, pl. x, 5. Hoards: 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 316‒317; 2 in Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 27‒28; Mit Ya-Ish (EH I, 200). Provenanced finds: Epidaurus environs, 1979/80 (CH VII, 69 = CH VIII, 298 = CH IX, 179); Maresha excavations (61-711-1112 CN1, information courtesy of R. Barkay and A. Kloner, director of the excavations).

 behind head 383. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 443, pl. xv, 9 [2 listed]; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 15–18 [1 obv. die, 2 rev. dies]. Obverse die link with no. 384 below; reverse die links with nos. 380 above and 385 below. Hoard: Egypt, 1927? (IGCH 1682).

384.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Arsinoe):  behind head invisible,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 445 [3 listed]; Svoronos 410, pl. xvi, 13 (described as without control letter behind head) [2 listed]; see Troxell (1983), p. 43, n.14 for correction of Svoronos’ reading. Obverse die link with no. 383 above; reverse die links with nos. 381 above and 386 below. Hoard: Delta, before 1867, per Zervos (1980c).

 behind head 385. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 454, pl. xv, 10 [1 listed, Glasgow]; Hunter III, p. 363, 9; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 19–21 [1 obv. die, 1 rev. die]. Obverse die link with no. 386 below; reverse die link with no. 383 above.

386.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Arsinoe):  behind head,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 456, pl. xvi, 16 [3 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 140. Obverse die link with no. 385 above; reverse die links with nos. 381 and 384 above. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4009; Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 319.

Transitional to Group 3: Control letters  and , 254/3‒253/2 B.C. 387. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  behind head.

330

Ptolemy II Philadelphus



Alexandria

Reference: Svoronos 459, pl. xv, 11 [5 listed]; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 22–30 [1 obv. die, 4 rev. dies]. Hoards: Egypt, 1927? (IGCH 1682); Benha, 1936 (IGCH 1694), Brett (1952), 2, pl. I; commerce 2007.

388. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 460, pl. xv, 12 [26 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 134; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 31–141 [1 obv. die, 34 rev. dies]. Two reverse die links with no. 389 below. Hoards: Syria, 1989 (CH VIII, 462); Egypt, 1927? (IGCH 1682); Benha, 1936 (IGCH 1694), Brett, (1952), 3–4, pl. i; at least 54 in commerce 2007.

Group 3: Control letters  through , 252/1–250/49 B.C. (Troxell: 253/2‒246? B.C.) 389. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 471, pl. xv, 13 [6 listed]; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 142–170 [2 obv. dies, 10 rev. dies]. Obverse die link with no. 390 below; two reverse die links with no. 388 above. Hoards: Syria, 1989 (CH VIII, 462); Egypt, 1927? (IGCH 1682); Benha, 1936 (IGCH 1694), Brett (1952), 5, pl. i; at least 14 in commerce, 2007.

390. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 475, pl. xv, 14 [18 listed]; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 171–251 [1 obv. die, 25 rev. dies]. Obverse die link with no. 389 above (die recut to change  to ). Hoards: Egypt, 1927? (IGCH 1682); Benha, 1936 (IGCH 1694), Brett (1952), 6–7, pl. i; at least 42 in commerce, 2007.

391. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 476, pl. xv, 15 [6 listed]; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 252–291 [1 obv. die, 15 rev. dies]. Hoard: At least 22 in commerce, 2007.

Group 4: Control letters  to , 249/8–246/5 B.C. (Troxell: 246?‒241? B.C.) 392. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 486, pl. xv, 16 [2 listed]; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 292–296 [1 obv. die, 4 rev. dies]. Reverse die link with no. 394 below. Hoard: Benha, 1936 (IGCH 1694), Brett (1952), 8, pl. iii.

393. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  behind head. Reference: Troxell (1983), p. 44, pl. 8, 2; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 297. Reverse die link with no. 394 below.

394. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  behind head. Reference: Svoronos 489, pl. xv, 17 [5 listed]; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 298–314 [1 obv. die, 8 rev. dies]. Reverse die links with nos. 392 and 393 above. Hoards: Egypt, 1927? (IGCH 1682); Benha, 1936 (IGCH 1694), Brett (1952), 9–10, pl. ii; at least 5 in commerce, 2007.

395. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  behind head. Reference: Christie’s sale, London, 8 October 1985, lot 392; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 315.

396.

Vacat.

Alexandria • Arsinoe-Ephesus

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

331

ASIA MINOR Lysimachia Coinage of Lysimachus Type, perhaps issued by Ptolemy Ceraunus, autumn 281–February 279 B.C.

W. Hollstein (1995) attributed to Ptolemy Ceraunus, half-brother of Ptolemy II, a gold stater and tetradrachms of Lysimachus type, issued in the name of Lysimachus. These coins are marked by a lion head and an elephant in the left field, with the monogram P on Athena’s throne. After his defeat of Lysimachus at Corupedium, Seleucus proceeded toward Macedonia with his forces. He was murdered near Lysimachia by Ceraunus, who was then acclaimed king by the Seleucid army. The elephant on the coinage is presumed to symbolize Ptolemy Ceraunus’ command of the Seleucid army, dating the coinage to the brief period of his reign (autumn 281–February 279) and the lion head is considered as the mintmark of Lysimachia. Hollstein’s attribution is speculative and other interpretations of the field marks are possible.

Byzantium Byzantine Countermarks on Ptolemaic Tetradrachms Tetradrachms of Ptolemy I and II not infrequently bear countermarks of the city of Byzantium, consisting of a civic monogram within which various letters or monograms are inscribed. Ten different forms of the monogram are known, implying a sustained period of countermarking. The phenomenon has been associated with the monetary gift provided to Byzantium by Ptolemy II which enabled the city to pay tribute to the Galatians who settled at Tylis in Thrace, see Noeske (2000), pp. 232–235 and Table IV.

Arsinoe-Ephesus Lifetime Coinage for Arsinoe II(?), under Lysimachus, 290s–280 B.C. Strabo 14.1.21 reports that Lysimachus refounded the city of Ephesus and renamed it Arsinoe after his wife, the sister and future wife of Ptolemy II. This tradition was challenged as unreliable by S. M. Burstein (1982, pp. 198–199 with nn.6–7). He submitted that Lysimachus’ parallel refoundation of Smyrna as Eurydicea in honor of his daughter Eurydice (Strabo 14.1.37) makes it more likely that Ephesus was renamed for his other daughter, Arsinoe, who would become the first wife of Ptolemy II. Burstein also pointed to SEG3 368, l. 24, which shows that the refoundation of Ephesus took place in the 290s, when Lysimachus’ first wife Nicaea was perhaps still alive and his second wife Arsinoe may not yet have been basilissa. The civic coinages of Arsinoe-Ephesus and Eurydicea-Smyrna under Lysimachus both feature rather similar veiled female heads. The head on the silver and bronze coins of Arsinoe-Ephesus was identified as a portrait of Arsinoe II by Svoronos, but Burstein’s argument raises the possibility that this is the only numismatic portrait of Arsinoe I. In view of the rather generic character of these heads, which lack a royal diadem, we cannot exclude the possibility that they represent deities rather than royal portraits, though the melon coiffure probably tends to favor a human subject.

397.

Vacat.

332

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

Uncertain Mint 15 • Uncertain Mint 16

Uncertain Mint 15, in Asia Minor Coinage on System of Ptolemy I: Tetradrachm with Galatian Shield Symbol,

275/4–262/1 B.C.

A. Davesne (Meydancıkkale, pp. 291–292) cited the presence of a shield in the right field of various Cypriote tetradrachms (Svoronos 541–544, nos. 441–442, 448–449) and suggested the following might be a contemporary issue from an uncertain mint (in his view, datable c. 261/0–257/6). In a later work, Davesne (1994b, p. 41 n.25) claimed that the treatment of the knot and ends of the diadem have parallels on certain Alexandria tetradrachms with the shield symbol in left field (Svoronos 552 and 555, here nos. 305–306), and on that basis proposed a possible attribution to Alexandria, c. 265–261 B.C. Against this it may be objected that the details cited by Davesne are scarcely visible on this coin. Other aspects of the portrait style, particularly the texture of the hair on the back of the neck, are not consistent with an Alexandria attribution. The lack of letter or monogrammatic controls would seem to identify this as an isolated special emission. The Lycian associations of the Galatian shield may conceivably point to a mint in that province, perhaps Limyra, where a small temple erected probably in the 270s commemorated the victory of a Ptolemaic army over Galatian invaders, see J. Borchardt (1991) and G. Stanzl (2003). The tetradrachm’s royal title argues for a date of issue before 261/0. For another tetradrachm issue with the same symbol but Soter legend, see no. 399 below.

398. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., with aegis, dotted border/on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, Galatian shield with thunderbolt device in l. field, dotted border. Reference: Meydancıkkale 5197. Hoard: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308).

Uncertain Mint 16, in Asia Minor Ptolemy Soter Tetradrachm with Galatian Shield Symbol, c. 261/0 B.C. Svoronos classed this issue with gold coins of the Theoi Adelphoi series, which show a Galatian shield behind the head of Ptolemy II. A. Davesne (Meydancıkkale, pp. 291–292) argued that the Theoi Adelphoi gold belonged to the period c. 265–261, whereas the shield tetradrachm with its Soter legend must be dated 261/0 or later. At Alexandria and on Cyprus, the shield disappeared from the coinage of Ptolemy II when the reverse legend began to name Ptolemy Soter instead of Ptolemy the King. The association here of the shield, personal emblem of Ptolemy II, with the epithet Soter, particular to Ptolemy I, can also be observed on portrait coins of Ptolemy II struck at Tarsus (see nos. 400–401 below). That the pairing of these disparate elements occurs at two different mints makes it somewhat unlikely to be a mint error. Instead, the coins may be evidence for short-lived savior cults dedicated to Ptolemy II in newly conquered cities. The portrait of no. 399 is definitely unusual. The hair is full and luxuriantly curly, the knot of the aegis large and elaborate. The identity of the king portrayed is not entirely clear. On the London specimen, illustrated by Svoronos, the face is rejuvenated, the nose has an upturned tip, and the chin is smaller than usual for Ptolemy I. On the Dattari specimen in Paris the fine bony nose, combined with a small chin, creates a profile that distinctly recalls Ptolemy II as depicted at Tarsus. The specimen in the Meydancıkkale hoard could also depict Ptolemy II. Assuming this isolated issue was struck at a city conquered in the early stages of the Second Syrian War, a portrait of the second Ptolemy might be expected.

399.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy II(?) r., with aegis at neck, dotted border/on l., S on r., eagle with closed wings

Uncertain Mint 16 • Tarsus

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

333

standing l. on thunderbolt, Galatian shield with thunderbolt device in l. field, dotted border. Reference: Svoronos 607, pl. xiv, 24 [3 listed]. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 5198; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

Tarsus Silver Coinage with Portrait of Ptolemy II, c. 261/0–259 B.C. E. T. Newell (1941, pp. 222–223) attributed the following series to Tarsus during the Ptolemaic occupation of 246–243. He identified the portrait as that of Ptolemy III and pointed out control links to the Seleucid coinage of Antiochus II. The portrait was more convincingly identified as that of Ptolemy II by A. Davesne (1999, pp. 129–131). Davesne redated the series to the Second Syrian War, specifically to the short period from the end of 261 to 259. Davesne’s reattribution is persuasive, because there is a break in the Tarsian coinage of Antiochus II that is filled by the following series, which displays control links to both the preceding and subsequent coinage. Concerning the anomalous combination of Philadelphus’ portrait and the Galatian shield with the Soter legend on the first emission of the series (nos. 400–401), Davesne suggested that the shield and the epiklesis Soter had the same function: the shield recalled an earlier military success, while the epithet glorified recent victories in Syria and Phoenicia. The pairing of the shield and epithet on no. 399 above suggests the possibility of local savior cults, an hypothesis that receives support from the Asia Minor coinage of Ptolemy III, whose portrait is associated with Soter legends at particular mints (see nos. 751, 770–776, 779–780, 783–786).

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy II r., with aegis around neck (except as noted), dotted border/ on l.,  on r. (but S on first emission), eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. Silver drachm: Diademed head of Ptolemy II r., with aegis around neck, dotted border/ on l., S on r., eagle with spread wings standing l. on thunderbolt. 400.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (with Soter legend): Galatian shield in l. field, £ above ö in r. field. Reference: Svoronos Vol. IV, Addenda 911a, pl. Γ, 11 [1 listed, Boston]; Newell (1941), pl. xlix, A. Obverse die link with no. 402 below. Hoard: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 5189–5190. The same monograms occur on gold staters and tetradrachms of Antiochus II struck at Tarsus toward the beginning of his reign, see Newell (1941), nos. 1305–1307 or Houghton and Lorber (2002), nos. 559 and 561.

401. Silver drachm (with Soter legend): ö above Galatian shield in l. field, £ behind eagle’s tail. Reference: British Museum; A. D. Philippidis coll., Hicksville, N.Y. (P-1996-12-14.001), ex Elsen 47, 14 December 1996, lot 213, and Sternberg 27, 7‒8 November 1994, lot 46.

402.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (with royal title): Owl l. in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 911, pl. xxvii, 17 [1 listed, Athens]; Newell (1941), pl. xlix, B (ANS 1944.100.77202); commerce, Frank Kovacs, June 1994. Obverse die link with no. 400 above. Hoard: Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier.

334

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

Tarsus • Unattributed Provincial Issues

The lower monogram occurs on the Seleucid coinage of Tarsus, struck during the latter reign of Antiochus II, see Newell (1941), no. 1310 or Houghton and Lorber (2002), nos. 562, 563c. The sole example recorded by Svoronos is damaged in the reverse right field, partially obscuring the lower monogram; nevertheless there is a high probability that the coin belongs to this issue. Svoronos described the symbol as a small eagle on thunderbolt, but Davesne proposed an owl instead. If his reading is correct, the owl could signal that this issue was struck at, or more likely on account for, Soli, which later employed an owl mintmark on its coinage, including tetradrachms issued for Ptolemy V, see C. C. Lorber and F. L. Kovacs (1997).

403. Silver stater (tetradrachm) (with plain neck truncation and royal title): Pomegranate in l. field,  above 1 in r. field, dotted border. Reference: Svoronos 910, pl. xxvii, 16 [1 listed, Glasgow]; Newell (1941), pl. xlix, C; Triton XIII, 6 January 2010, lot 1359 (there attributed to Side). The lower monogram occurs on the Seleucid coinage of Tarsus, struck during the latter reign of Antiochus II, see Newell (1941), nos. 1309–1311 or Houghton and Lorber (2002), nos. 562–563. Small differences in style and iconography (the plain neck truncation and the rising diadem tie) suggest a possibility that this issue was struck at a mint other than Tarsus.

Uncertain Mint 17, in Cilicia, probably Cilicia Pedias Tetradrachm with Portrait of Ptolemy II, c. 260–259 B.C. The portrait of Ptolemy II below strongly resembles his portrait on the coinage of Tarsus (see nos. 400–403). The dissimilarity of the controls supports attribution to a different mint, perhaps a subsidiary of Tarsus, but in any case a mint under Tarsian artistic influence.

404. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy II r., with aegis around neck, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt,  in r. field, dotted border. Reference: Commerce, F. Kovacs, 1994; Sotheby’s, 27–28 October 1993, lot 934; formerly W. Wahler coll., Palo Alto.

UNCERTAIN PROVINCES Unattributed Provincial Issues Portraying Ptolemy II Unmarked Tetradrachm with Portrait of Ptolemy II, c. 260–259 B.C. The entry at Svoronos 996 lists two unmarked tetradrachms, both ostensibly bearing the portrait of Ptolemy III. Svoronos associated these tetradrachms with a series of bronzes depicting a bust of Ptolemy Euergetes, laureate and wearing his aegis like a chlamys (Svor. 997–1000; Vol. 2, B404–B407), which have been found in numbers in the Peloponnesus. The two tetradrachms are both poorly preserved but vary greatly in appearance. Specimen α (Svoronos pl. xxx, 2), from the Sophikon hoard, shows a royal head with full bangs over the forehead, a large eye, sharp chin with sagging flesh under the jaw, and an aegis around the neck. These details suffice to dissociate the coin from the portrait bronzes of Ptolemy III, despite the shared Peloponnesian provenance. The portrait, in fact, resembles the portrait of Ptolemy II at Tarsus and its subsidiary mint above. Specimen β (Svoronos pl. xxx, 3) is so worn on the obverse that it is impossible to identify the portrait with certainty, but a likeness of Ptolemy III seems probable and the coin is catalogued below under his reign (no. 802). The two coins also offer distinctly different renderings of the eagle’s tail. These contrasts suggest that Svoronos was wrong to associate specimens α and β under a single catalogue number, but the question remains open pending discovery of further examples.

Unattributed Provincial Issues • Uncertain Mint 18

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

335

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy II r., with aegis around neck, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. 405.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): No controls. Reference: Svoronos 996α, pl. xxx, 2 [Athens]. Hoard: Sophikon (IGCH 179), JIAN II, p. 295, 15; Svoronos (1907a), 942.

Tetradrachm with Portrait of Ptolemy II, c. 260–259 B.C. The following issue was unknown to Svoronos. The portrait is not strongly characterized, but the subject can probably be identified as Ptolemy II based on the bangs above the forehead, with slight thinning at the temple, and the sharp chin with sagging flesh beneath the jaw. The iconographic dependence of the portrait on Tarsian models may argue for an attribution to Cilicia or the near environs, and a similar date of issue. On the other hand, the Hebron area hoard provenance of two of the four known specimens could point instead to a mint in the Syro-Phoenician province, although this tetradrachm variety cannot be accommodated in the highly systematized coinage of the five regular Syro-Phoenician mints, which produced dated issues with city mintmarks, portraying Ptolemy I and bearing the Soter legend. Oddly, the Levantine provenance could also be consistent with an origin in western or southwest Asia Minor, as portrait coins of Ptolemy III from this region are found mainly in the Levant and indeed one occurred in the Hebron area hoard.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy II r., with aegis around neck, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. 406.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Cornucopiae oriented to r. above t or  in l. field. Reference: a) with t: CH VIII, 304, pl. xxxvii, 1 and 3; P. Pavlou coll., ex Spink NCirc March 1988, lot 1016; b) with : Lanz 46, lot 342. Hoard: 2 in Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304), pl. xxxvii, 1 and 3 (= EH I, 100), Meadows 40‒41.

Uncertain Mint 18, Perhaps in Asia Minor or the Islands Small Silver for Arsinoe Philadelphus Svoronos catalogued the following silver minors and an associated bronze (Vol. 2, B304) as issues of ArsinoeEphesus under Ptolemy II, but the city reverted to its original name after the death of Lysimachus and did not receive a dynastic name under the Ptolemies. A. Davesne (1991, pp. 23–24) submitted that on royal coinage the reverse inscription must refer to the sovereign and that the  legend therefore names the queen, not the mint city. Davesne cited control links to tetradrachm issues which he assigned to Paphos and dated to the late 270s (Svoronos 349 and 371, here cat. nos. 413 and 497), and suggested a tentative reattribution of the  coins to Cyprus, c. 265–260. The Paphian origin of the tetradrachms is not assured. Moreover, the left-facing portrait and the relatively straight double cornucopiae not bound by a royal diadem seem improbable at any of the major mints of Cyprus, which followed the iconography of Alexandria. The deviant iconography bespeaks an occasional issue originating outside the regular network of Ptolemaic mints. The types suggest that the mint city may have borne the dynastic name Arsinoe. Possibilities include Arsinoe (Methana) in the Peloponnesus, Arsinoe (Koresia) on the Greek island of Keos, the Cretan Arsinoes, Arsinoe (Patara) in Lycia, the still-unidentified Arsinoe in Pamphylia, the Arsinoe (east of Anemurium) in Cilicia (C. P. Jones and C. Habicht 1989), and on Cyprus Arsinoe (Marium), Arsinoe near Old Paphos, and Arsinoe near Salamis.

336

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

407.

Silver drachm (17 mm, 3.57–3.80 g): Veiled head of Arsinoe l., without ram’s horn,  behind head/S on r., double cornucopiae (apparently not bound with royal diadem),  above 5 in l. field.

Unattributed Provincial Issues

Reference: Svoronos 890, pl. xxvi, 16 [3 listed].

408.

Silver triobol (1.82 g): Types as preceding. Reference: Svoronos 891 [1 listed, Frankfurt].

Unattributed Provincial Issues Portraying Arsinoe II Gold Mnaieon (Octadrachm) of Arsinoe Philadelphus, 261/0 B.C. or later The following mnaieion is similar in its style and control convention to those of the three Cypriote mints, but its monogram cannot be interpreted as a mintmark. Possibly the original die included another element or two beneath this monogram, but they are not visible on the one recorded example.

409. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Veiled head of Arsinoe II r., with ram’s horn, wearing diademed stephane, lotus scepter over far shoulder, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing pyramidal cakes, pomegranate, and other fruits, a grape cluster hanging from the rim of each horn, Ò in lower r. field under double cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos Vol. IV, Addenda 523a, pl. B, 14 [1 listed, Rome sale, Sotheby, 1904, lot 177].

Arsinoe Philadelphus/Eagle Silver Trihemiobol, 260s B.C. or later The following coin is of provincial style. Svoronos listed it as an issue of Ptolemy III, possibly correctly. However, the types Arsinoe/eagle were employed under Ptolemy II, on Alexandrian tetradrachms issued for a short period between c. 261/0 and c. 253/2 (nos. 372, 375–376, 378, 381, 384, 386) and on bronze coins issued c. 254/3 at Byzantium, which also used abbreviated legends (see Vol. 2, B299–B300). A similar pairing occurs on a series of bronzes from an uncertain mint operating in the reign of Ptolemy II (Svoronos 346, 351, 352, 383; Vol. 2, B307–B313). The following piece clearly differs in style from all the parallels.

410.

Silver trihemiobol (?) (0.76–0.87 g): Diademed and veiled bust of Arsinoe II r., without stephane or ram’s horn, dotted border/ on l., S on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. Reference: Svoronos 985, pl. xxxi, 21 [2 listed].

Unattributed Provincial Issues Portraying Ptolemy I Silver Tetradrachm, perhaps 265/4 B.C. The following unique coin in Copenhagen features a portrait of Ptolemy I with unusual stylistic traits, notably the texture of the hair and the arrangement of the locks on his neck below the diadem. The fabric is also distinctive: the royal title is straight rather than curved, and the edge of the die is visible, showing clearly that there is no dotted border. The controls are not entirely legible from the illustration, but as reported by Kromann and Mørkholm they link to a control combination employed at Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus (see no. 421 below), which has a Galatian shield in the right field and also a different portrait style, a dotted reverse border, and curving legends. The tetradrachm of Uncertain Mint 9 was struck in the period c. 275– 261/0 and this same date range is likely for the control-linked tetradrachm in Copenhagen. The latter may

Unattributed Provincial Issues • Uncertain Mint 9



Ptolemy II Philadelphus

337

perhaps have originated on Cyprus, as implied by the double control link, but its unusual features set it apart from other Cypriote tetradrachms and suggest that it was an isolated issue, perhaps struck in one of the places that came under Ptolemaic control as Ptolemy II expanded his thalassocracy in the 260s. Its Byzantine countermark reflects a period of circulation at Byzantium, and its Cretan provenance suggests it was used in the pay of a Cretan mercenary who served abroad and brought his earnings home with him.

411. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., with aegis at neck, dotted border/[] on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, P above 1 in l. field, no border. Reference: SNG Copenhagen 98. Provenance: Found on Crete.

Silver Drachm, probably before 261/0 B.C. 412. Silver drachm: Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., with aegis at neck, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with spread wings standing l. on thunderbolt. Reference: Paris 453.

CYPRUS Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus Coinage on System of Ptolemy I, before c. 275 B.C. Nos. 413–414 are triply die linked to an earlier issue of Uncertain Mint 9. A. Davesne (Meydancıkkale, pp. 282–283) gave nos. 414 and 415 to Citium (or Salamis) because he could not fit their weights into his metrological sequence for Salamis (or Citium); he explained the die linkage by positing die transfers between the two mints. He did not detect the die link to no. 413 and thus assigned it to Paphos. The listings here keep die linked varieties at a single mint except where control conventions strongly suggest a die transfer. Some obverse dies of this mint feature a tiny  behind the king’s ear, apparently the same mark that appears on most Alexandrian precious metal coinage of Ptolemy I after c. 306. On the coinage of the Cypriote mints it occurs irregularly, finally disappearing after the currency reform of 261/0. The same marking did not survive at Alexandria much past the reign of Ptolemy I.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, sometimes tiny  behind ear, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing left on thunderbolt, dotted border. 5 above  issue 413.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (without ): 5 above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 349, pl. ix, 22 [3 listed]. Obverse die link with nos. 229 above and 414 below. Hoards: 2 in Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 401, plus 1 in Newell’s record in ANS; Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 5145; 3 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 320–322.

338

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

Uncertain Mint 9

 above  issue 414.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (without ):  above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 365, pl. ix, 24 and pl. vii, 23 [17 listed]. Obverse die links with nos. 229 and 413 above (through Meydancıkkale 5067) and 415 below; see Meydancıkkale 5076–5077, with traces of  above  erased from die, and 5078, with traces of  visible above the monogram, implying two reverse die links with no. 229 (and/or 227–228). Hoards: Thebes 1935 (IGCH 193), Hackens (1969); 2 in Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 404, plus 1 in Newell’s record in ANS; 2 in Corinth, 1938 (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 325–326; Sögütlüdere (CH VIII, 246), Ashton, Arslan, and Dervișağaoğlu (1996), 16; 17 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 5067– 5083; 9 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 323–331; Dniyé (Aradian Peraea), 1952 (IGCH 1538), Trésors 5.27; 2 in Saida, 1949 (IGCH 1586), Trésors 40.9–10; 2 in Hebron area, 1977 (CH IV, 40); Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 32; Tel Michal (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 10; 5 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 777–781.

 above  issue 415.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (sometimes with ):  above  (or ) in l. field. Reference: a) with : Svoronos 764, pl. xxv, 1 [14 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 467 (Ptolemais); b) with : commerce (Berk), 1994. Obverse die link with no. 414 above. Hoards: a) 16 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 5084–5099; Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); Syria, 1989 (CH VIII, 462); 4 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 674‒677; Balatah (ancient Shechem), 1960 (IGCH 1588), Carlen (2014), 17; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 33; 7 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 782–788; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

Coinage on System of Ptolemy I: Tetradrachms with  and Galatian shield, c. 275/4–262/1 B.C.

The following tetradrachms were assigned to Alexandria by A. Davesne (Meydancıkkale, pp. 286–290), but both their style and their control configuration argue in favor of a Cypriote origin. The repetition of the control P from no. 415 above supports the attribution of this series to Uncertain Mint 9. The shieldbearing trichrysa and tetradrachms of Alexandria (nos. 278–306) represent an intense emission probably to be associated with the start of the First Syrian War (275/4). The provenances of Cypriote shield-bearing tetradrachms show that they, like their Alexandrian counterparts, also played a role in the Chremonidean War and perhaps in other Ptolemaic interventions in Greece.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, sometimes tiny  behind ear, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing left on thunderbolt, dotted border. 416.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (sometimes with ): P above  in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 528, pl. xii, 2 [11 listed]. Obverse die links with cat. nos. 417 and 466 (Svoronos 531) below, the latter apparently representing a die transfer from Uncertain Mint 9 to Uncertain Mint 19. Hoards: 2 in Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 413–414; 3 in Corinth (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 338–340; 1–2 in Megalopolis, 1947 (IGCH 180), Robinson (1950), 25, perhaps 33 (latter with shield effaced); 17 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3924–3940; 3 in Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; Syria, 1989 (CH VIII, 462); Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 67; 2 in Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

Uncertain Mint 9

417.

Ptolemy II Philadelhus

339

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (without ):  above : in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 527, pl. B, 15 [1 listed, London]. Obverse die link with no. 416 above. Hoards: 2 in Corinth (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 336–337; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

418. Silver stater (tetradrachm) (with  or Ó): P above ˆ in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 530, pl. xii, 4 [10 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 104. Hoards: Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 416; 2 in Corinth (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 342–343; 14 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3941–3954; 2 in Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 336; Dniyé (Aradian Peraea), 1952 (IGCH 1538), Trésors 5.30; Saida, 1949 (IGCH 1586), Trésors 40.12; 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 60–62.

419.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (with  or thunderbolt behind ear):  above E or  in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 525, pl. xii, 1 [4 listed]. Obverse die link to no. 420 below. Hoards: Corinth (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 335; 15 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3903– 3917; Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 65; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

420.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference/hoard: Iraq al-Amir hoard (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 66. Obverse die link with no. 419 above.

421.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (with ): P above I in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 529, pl. xii, 3 [11 listed]. Hoards: Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 415; Corinth (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 341; Olympia, 1922 (IGCH 176), Newell (1929), 79; 6 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3918–3923; Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; Saida, 1949 (IGCH 1586), Trésors 40.11; 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 63–64; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303); Tell Nebesheh (ancient Am), 1886 (IGCH 1688).

422.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (with ):  above  in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 526 [1 listed, Turin].

Reformed Coinage: Tetradrachms with Soter Legend, from 261/0 B.C. A. Davesne (Meydancıkkale, p. 293) tentatively gave the following series to Paphos. The attribution to Uncertain Mint 9 rests in part on the repetition of the primary (upper) control  from the preceding series (see no. 416 above) but mainly on the fact that the primary control  links the pre- and post-reform coinages of Uncertain Mints 10 and 19. Several controls of the present series occur as secondary controls of Uncertain Mint 10. Among the controls shared with Uncertain Mint 10 are monograms composed of the letters  (see nos. 430, 432, 460); in addition, the letters  appear on a reformed tetradrachm of Uncertain Mint 9 (see no. 434). The same letters and very similar monograms serve as mintmarks of Citium on mnaieia in the name of Arsinoe Philadelphus (see nos. 488–491 below). There is an obverse die link between no. 432 of

340

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

Uncertain Mint 9

Uncertain Mint 9 and no. 463 of Uncertain Mint 10; possibly it reflects a die transfer, or possibly it implies that no. 432 (and probably other issues with related controls) are really products of Uncertain Mint 10. The consequences of such a reattribution would be, first, that the control convention at Uncertain Mint 10 would no longer feature the consistent use of  as the primary control; second, that all varieties with an apparent Citium mintmark would be attributed to Uncertain Mint 10, perhaps implying that it should be identified as Citium; and third, that the reformed tetradrachm series of Uncertain Mint 10 (Citium?) would become larger than that of Uncertain Mint 9 (Salamis?).

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, nothing behind ear, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. 423.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above Ï above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 396, pl. xviii, 12 [3 listed]. Hoards: Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 333; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 836; Mit Ya-Ish (EH I, 200).

424.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above Ï above  in l. field. Reference: Paris, 1994/170. Hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 835.

425.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above Ï above È in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 395, pl. xviii, 11 [4 listed]. Obverse die link with nos. 426–427 below. Hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 834.

426.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 392, pl. xviii, 17 [1 listed, London]. Obverse die link with nos. 425 above and 427 below; second obverse die link with nos. 478–480 below, apparently the result of a die transfer from Uncertain Mint 20.

427.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 397, pl. xviii, 14 [1 listed, Athens]. Obverse die link with nos. 425–426 above. Hoard: Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 334.

428.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field. Reference: Colosseum Coin Exchange Mail Bid Sale 99, 3 February 1998, lot 101.

429.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above Ì above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 398, pl. xviii, 15 [1 listed, London]. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 5188; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 837.

430.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  in l. field, Ò and Ú above Ô in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 407, pl. xviii, 18 [2 listed]. Hoard: 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 840–841.

Uncertain Mint 9 • Uncertain Mint 10

431.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

341

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above Ï above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 391, pl. xviii, 13 [2 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 526 (uncertain Phoenician mint). Hoards: 2 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 5186–5187; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 838.

432.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Ô above  above Ì in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 404, pl. xviii, 16 [2 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 463 below, an issue of Uncertain Mint 10, either reflecting a die transfer between the two mints or indicating that no. 432 (and perhaps other issues) should be attributed to Uncertain Mint 10. Hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 839.

433.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Ì above Ï in l. field. Reference: Ponterio 70, 13 July 1994, lot 363. Hoard: Iraq al-Amir hoard (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 843.

434.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  above  (or ) in l. field. Reference: Paris, Z.2884, 88 (Dattari coll.). Hoard: 2 in Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6).

435.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 393, pl. xviii, 19 [1 listed, Alexandria]. Hoard: Megalopolis, 1947 (IGCH 180), Robinson (1950), 36 (worn coin, reading of controls not assured).

436.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field. Reference: Ponterio 70, 13 July 1994, lot 364. Hoard: Iraq al-Amir hoard (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 842.

Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus (Salamis or Citium) Coinage on System of Ptolemy I: Precious Metal Coinage with Galatian shield,

c. 275/4–262/1 B.C.

Nos. 437–438 bear letters and a monogram that link them to the earlier coinage of Uncertain Mint 10, all of which was given to Citium (or Salamis) by A. Davesne (Meydancıkkale, pp. 281–283). The presence of the Galatian shield implies a date contemporary with the shield coinage of Alexandria, which was probably issued at the start of the First Syrian War. No. 439 is associated because of its identical obverse style and double control link, though Davesne (Meydancıkkale, p. 293 table) assigned it to Paphos, along with other varieties here considered products of different mints (see nos. 496–499 and 500 below). In the first phase of their operation, under Ptolemy I, Uncertain Mints 9 and 10 both produced a high volume of coinage. The pace slowed at both mints under Ptolemy II, and for the first time an imbalance can be observed: Uncertain Mint 10 struck the last Cypriote trichrysa, and its silver issues were more numerous and sometimes larger than those of Uncertain Mint 9. It is natural to suspect that the more important of the two mints was located at Salamis, the Ptolemaic administrative headquarters on Cyprus, but other considerations suggest that Uncertain Mint 10 might have been Citium, see discussion preceding no. 423. On the letter  which appears on the obverse of coins of Uncertain Mint 10, see the brief discussion under Uncertain Mint 9, preceding no. 413 above.

342

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

Uncertain Mint 10

Gold trichryson or triple stater (“pentadrachm”): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, sometimes tiny  behind ear, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing left on thunderbolt, dotted border. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Types as preceding.

 above Q above  issue, with Galatian shield 437. Gold trichryson or triple stater (“pentadrachm”) (sometimes with ):  above Q above  in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 537, pl. xii, 8 [2 listed]. Hoards: 2 in Hüseyinli (CH IX, 489), Davesne and Yenisoğancı (1992), 42–43; Toukh el Garmous, 1905 (IGCH 1680).

438.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (with ):  above Q above  in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 538, pl. xii, 9 [7 listed]. An example in Giessener Münzhandlung 73, lot 243, was overstruck on no. 219 above, an issue of Uncertain Mint 9 (Svoronos 361). Hoards: Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 418; Corinth (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 346; 10 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 5057–5066; 2 in Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 19.

Ù above Q above  issue, with Galatian shield 439.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (with ): Ù above Q above  in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 536, pl. B, 17 [2 listed].

—Galatian Shield Series The following tetradrachms are tentatively associated with no. 439 above because the monogram Ù (or its variant ) appears on several issues. Most of these varieties (those with the control ˚) were assigned tentatively to Salamis by A. Davesne (Meydancıkkale, pp. 286–290). He proposed a date range in the 250s based on the average weight of the specimens in the Meydancıkkale hoard, but these issues must be dated before 261/0 because they name Ptolemy the King rather than Ptolemy Soter. For the chronological implications of the titulature, see R. A. Hazzard (2000), pp. 1–24. The Galatian shield series of Uncertain Mint 10 is considerably more extensive than the shield series of Uncertain Mints 9 and 19. It was suggested above that the Cypriote shield series were likely contemporary with those of Alexandria, and that this implies a probable date at the start of the First Syrian War (275/4).

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, sometimes tiny  behind ear, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing left on thunderbolt, dotted border. Silver drachm: Types as preceding, but eagle has spread wings. 440.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (with ):  above  above  in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 546 [1 listed, Alexandria].

Uncertain Mint 10

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

343

Hoards: Dokimion, 1955 (IGCH 173), Varoucha (1956), p. 227; 2 in Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 420, plus 1 in Newell’s record in ANS; 2 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 5146–5147; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 795.

441.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (with ):  above ˚ above ˆ or F in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 544, pl. xii, 14 [11 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 521 (uncertain Phoenician mint). Hoards: Macedonia/Thessaly, 1992 (CH IX, 200), Touratsoglou (1995), 86; Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 419; Corinth (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 345; Sparta, 1908 (IGCH 181), Wace (1907/08), 80; Sögütlüdere (CH VIII, 246), Ashton, Arslan, and Dervișağaoğlu (1996), 17; 9 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 5161–5169; Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; Cyprus, before 1916, Olivier (2015), 5; Syria, 1989 (CH VIII, 462); 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 352–353; Saida, 1949 (IGCH 1586), Trésors 40.14; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

442.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (with ):  above ˚ above  in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 542, pl. xii, 12 [6 listed]; HistMusFrankfurt 111 (with lower controls reengraved over an erasure); Paris, Z.2884, 139 (Dattari coll., with shield lacking and lower controls reengraved over an erasure). Hoards: Corinth (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), no. 344; 7 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 5154– 5160; Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 351; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303). The anomalies of the Dattari coin raise questions that cannot be answered at present. It was struck from a reengraved reverse die that seemingly should be dated before c. 275, when the Galatian shield was added to the reverse design. Yet its upper control does not fit comfortably among the controls of the earlier coinage of Uncertain Mints 9 and 10, see nos. 413–415 and 230–239, and the Frankfurt specimen attests to erasure and reengraving of the lower controls on a reverse die with the shield. Roughness in the die behind the eagle may indicate the erasure of an existing shield, but it would be difficult to explain such an erasure at a time when the shield was a desired element of the reverse design.

443.

Silver drachm:  above ˚ above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos Vol. IV, Addenda 542a, pl. B, 18 [1 listed, Dattari].

444.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (with ):  above ˚ above  in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Paris Z.2883, 134 (Dattari coll.).

445.

Silver drachm:  above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 364, pl. xii, 15 [3 listed]. For a triobol belonging to this emission, see Late Additions.

446.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (with ):  above ˚ above  in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 539 [2 listed]. Hoard: 2 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 5148–5149.

447. Silver stater (tetradrachm) (without ):  above ˚ above ; in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 540, pl. xii, 13 [1 listed, Berlin].

344

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

Uncertain Mint 10

448. Silver stater (tetradrachm) (without ):  above ˚ above  in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 541, pl. xii, 11 [5 listed]. Svoronos specimen ε is subaeratum, but from the same obverse die as no. 447 above. Hoards: 2 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 5152–5153; Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 18.

449.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (with , , , or  behind ear):  above ˚ above  in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 543, pl. xii, 10 [6 listed].  behind ear: Meydancıkkale 5150–5151. Hoards: Macedonia/Thessaly, 1992 (CH IX, 200), Touratsoglou (1995), 85; 2 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 5150–5151.

450. Silver stater (tetradrachm) (without ):  above  above  in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 545, pl. xii, 16 [4 listed]. Hoard: Megalopolis, 1947 (IGCH 180), Robinson (1950), 30.

451. Silver stater (tetradrachm) (without ):  above  above  in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Paris, Z.2884, 142 (Dattari coll.). Obverse die link with no. 452 below.

452. Silver stater (tetradrachm) (without ):  above  above Ì in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Paris, Z.2884, 132 (Dattari coll.). Obverse die link with no. 451 above.

453. Silver stater (tetradrachm) (without ):  above  above  in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: ANS 1944.100.75896.

454. Silver stater (tetradrachm) (without ):  above  above  in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: ANS 1944.100.75895; Paris, Z.2884, 136 (Dattari coll.).

Reformed Coinage:  Series Tetradrachms with Soter Legend, from 261/0 B.C. A. Davesne (Meydancıkkale, pp. 286–290, 293) assigned the following tetradrachms to Salamis or Citium, opting doubtfully for the latter mint. Their provisional association with the preceding Galatian shield series is based on the shared controls  above  and on several other control links. In addition, this series shares controls with the coinage attributed to Uncertain Mints 9 and 19. A possibility exists that the following catalogue should include some tetradrachms presently attributed to Uncertain Mint 9 (at a minimum, nos. 430, 432, and 434). The considerations are weighed in the paragraph preceding no. 423.

Uncertain Mint 10

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

345

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, nothing behind ear, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. 455.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  above Ì in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 402, pl. xviii, 5 [12 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 525 (uncertain Phoenician mint). Hoards: 6 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 5170–5175; Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 335; Dniyé (Aradian Peraea), 1952 (IGCH 1538), Trésors 5.29; Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 47; Balatah (ancient Shechem), 1960 (IGCH 1588), Carlen (2014), 16; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 35; 6 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 827–832; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303); Mit Ya-Ish (EH I, 200).

456.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  above  in l. field. Reference: ANS 1944.100.75912; Paris, Z.2884, 96 (Dattari coll.); Berk 82, 13 July 1994, lot 407.

457.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  above  in l. field. Reference: Commerce, 1994.

458.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos Vol. IV, Addenda 541a [1 listed, Athens].

459.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  above ± (or ) in l. field. Reference: a) with ±: Svoronos 401, pl. xviii, 6 [15 listed]; b) with : Seyrig (1950), 44–46. Obverse die link to no. 460 below. Hoards: a) Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 412; 10 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 5176– 5185; 8 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 816–823; b) 3 in Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 44–46; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 34; 2 in Near Alexandria 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

460.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  above ± in l. field, ‚ or  between eagle’s legs. Reference: a) with ‚: Svoronos 405, pl. xviii, 7 [2 listed]; b) with : Svoronos 406 [1 listed, London]. Obverse die link with no. 459 above. Hoards: a) 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 825–826; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303); b) Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 824.

461.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 399, pl. xviii, 8–9 [3 listed]. Hoards: Cyprus, before 1916, Olivier (2015), 4; Seleucia-Pieria excavations (IGCH 1526), Waage (1952), p. 90, 965; 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 811–812.

462.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  above Ó (or b) in l. field. Reference: a) with Ó: Svoronos 400, pl. B, 9 [3 listed]; SNG Berry 1472; b) with b: CNG E-Auction 256, lot 153 (2560153 on cngcoins.com). Hoards: a) Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 43; 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 813–815; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

346

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

463.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  above Ì in l. field.

Uncertain Mint 10 • Uncertain Mint 19

Reference: Paris, Z.2884, 94 (Dattari coll.). Obverse die link with no. 432 above, an issue of Uncertain Mint 9, either reflecting a die transfer between the two mints or indicating that no. 432 (and perhaps other issues with related controls) should be reattributed to Uncertain Mint 10.

464.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above â above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos Vol. IV, Addenda 402a, pl. B, 10 [1 listed, New York].

465.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  above 2 in l. field. Reference: Recorded in A. Spaer’s notes on the Syria, 1981 hoard. Hoard: Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 354.

Uncertain Mint 19, on Cyprus (perhaps Paphos) —Galatian Shield Series, from c. 275 B.C. The following tetradrachms were assigned to Alexandria by A. Davesne (Meydancıkkale, pp. 283–289) on the assumption that all Cypriote issues carried three monograms. Their reassignment to Cyprus is based on their style and control configuration, which differ from those of the Galatian shield tetradrachms of Alexandria. The series also shares secondary controls with the other Cypriote mints, and it received a die from Uncertain Mint 9 (see no. 466). There are two series of tetradrachms with the primary control  and a Galatian shield, one of which features two controls and the other three; either of them could be linked to the  of nos. 437–439 above. The classification proposed here assumes the continuity of three controls at Uncertain Mint 10, but the whole structure is provisional. A die study of the Cypriote tetradrachms of this period might resolve the uncertainties. If the classifications proposed here are approximately correct, Uncertain Mint 19 can probably be identified with Paphos. P. Keen (2012) reasoned that the early precious metal mints would have been opened at trading centers which had the ability to “capture” foreign coins for conversion into Ptolemaic currency. Salamis and Citium were such commercial centers. Paphos, in contrast, was mainly active in exporting timber and copper to Alexandria, see Młynarczyk (1990), pp. 108, 109. The late start of tetradrachm production at Paphos and its lower output would be consistent with the mint’s history in the second century, when it was usually less active than the mints at Salamis and Citium, see Olivier (2012) and Olivier and Keen (forthcoming). Davesne’s metrological theory of regular annual weight loss in circulation yielded a date of 252/1– 250/49 for these tetradrachms. That date must be rejected, because beginning in 261/0 the reverse legend of tetradrachms consistently cited the epiklesis Soter instead of the royal title, as was demonstrated by R. A. Hazzard (2000, pp. 1–24).

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, sometimes tiny  or  behind ear, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing left on thunderbolt, dotted border. 466.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (sometimes with  behind ear):  above : in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: a) nothing behind ear: Meydancıkkale 3955–3967; b) with  behind ear: Svoronos 531, pl. xii, 6 [4 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 522 (uncertain Phoenician mint). Obverse die link with no. 416 above (through Meydancıkkale 3955–3957 and 3940), apparently representing a die transfer from Uncertain Mint 9, and with 466A–466B below.

Uncertain Mint 19



Ptolemy II Philadelphus

347

Hoards: Epidaurus environs, 1979/80 (CH VII, 69 = CH VIII, 298 = CH IX, 179); 13 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3955–3967; Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; SeleuciaPieria excavations (IGCH 1526), Waage (1952), p. 90, 969; 3 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 337‒339; 2 in Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 48–49 (with upper control erased); Saida, 1949 (IGCH 1586), Trésors 40.13; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 36; 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 793–794; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

466A. Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above : in l. field,  between eagle’s legs, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: CNG E-Auction 256, lot 154. Obverse die link with nos. 416, 466, and 466B. Same dies as no. 471A (where the shield is erased).

466B. Silver stater (tetradrachm) (nothing behind ear):  above Î in l. field, Galatian shield above  in r. field. Reference: Berk 82, 13 July 1994, lot 516. Obverse die link with nos. 416, 466, and 466A. Hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 796.

467.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (nothing behind ear):  above ˜ in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 532 [3 listed]. Hoard: Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier.

468.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (with  behind ear):  above ¯ in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 533, pl. xii, 7 [3 listed].

469.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (nothing behind ear):  above ˘ in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 534, pl. B, 16 [3 listed]. Hoard: 2 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3972–3973.

470.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (with  behind ear):  above — in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 535 [1 listed, London]; SNG Copenhagen 523 (uncertain Phoenician mint). Hoards: Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 417; Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3974; Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

471.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (nothing behind ear):  above Î in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 524, pl. xii, 5 [3 listed]. Hoard: 4 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3968–3971.

Reformed Coinage:  Series Tetradrachms with Soter Legend, c. 261/0 B.C. and perhaps shortly after A. Davesne (Meydancıkkale, p. 289) gave the following tetradrachms to Alexandria. As with the preceding series, style and the control configuration argue for a Cypriote attribution, and the two series are linked

348

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

Uncertain Mint 19 • Uncertain Mint 20

by the shared monogram Î. In this period the Cypriote mints also produced gold mnaieia in the name of Arsinoe Philadelphus, bearing the mintmarks of Salamis, Citium, and Paphos, but it is presently impossible to determine how the mnaieia relate to the tetradrachms of Uncertain Mints 9, 10, and 19.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, nothing behind ear, dotted border/  on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. 471A. Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above : in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Israel National Collection, IAA 11146. Same dies as no. 466A, with shield erased from reverse.

472.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above Î in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 388, pl. xviii, 4 [10 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 524 (uncertain Phoenician mint). Hoards: 6 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3989–3994; Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; 4 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 341‒344; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 37; 8 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 797–804; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

473.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 390, pl. xviii, 3 [9 listed]. Obverse die link with nos. 474 and 475 below; reverse die links with no. 474 below. Hoards: 6 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3975–3980; Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; 7 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 345–350 plus CH VIII, pl. xxxviii, 5; Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 13; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 38; 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 809–810; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303); Mit Ya-Ish (EH I, 200).

474.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 389, pl. xviii, 1–2 [9 listed]. Obverse die links with nos. 473 and 475; reverse die links with no. 473 above. Hoards: Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 411; 8 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 3981– 3988 (first three with  recut into die over ); Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 12; 4 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 805–808; Tell Nebesheh (ancient Am), 1886 (IGCH 1688); Mit Ya-ish (EH I, 200). Provenanced find: Naucratis excavations, Head (1886), p. 13.

475.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) or stater:  above  above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 403, pl. xviii, 10 [3 listed]. Obverse die link with nos. 473 and 474 above. Hoards: 2 in Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 402–403; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 833 ; 2 in Mit Ya-ish (EH I, 200).

Uncertain Mint 20, on Cyprus The following control-linked series was not represented in the Meydancıkkale hoard (CH VIII, 308), and only one of the six varieties was recorded by Svoronos. Three of them have Syro-Phoenician provenances, a fact that might suggest their attribution to a mint in that region. Arguing against this is the use of three controls arranged vertically in the left field, a practice fairly common on Cyprus, and the lack of conformity to the control conventions of Syro-Phoenicia. The five Syro-Phoenician mints operating after 261/0—Sidon, Tyre, Ptolemais, Ioppe, and Gaza—all placed mintmarks and dates on their precious metal coinage and arranged the controls of the tetradrachms in both right and left fields.

Uncertain Mint 20 • Salamis

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

349

Tetradrachms with Royal Title, probably shortly before 261/0 B.C. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. 476.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): 3 above  above  in l. field. Reference: CNG E-Auction 226, 19 October 2011, lot 200. Obverse die link with no. 477 below. Hoard: Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 332.

477.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): P above S above S in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 394, pl. xviii, 20 [2 listed, in London, described with Soter legend]; BMC p. 64, 21–22 (described with royal title). Obverse die link with no. 476 above.

478.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): 3 above P above } in l. field. Reference: Forum Ancient Coins, 2008. Obverse die link with nos. 479–480 below; the die was subsequently transferred to Uncertain Mint 9, creating a die link with no. 426 above.

Tetradrachms with Soter Legend, from 261/0 B.C. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/ on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. 479.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): 3 above  above } in l. field. Reference: Paris, Z.2884, 89 (Dattari coll.). Obverse die link with nos. 478 above and 480 below; the die was subsequently transferred to Uncertain Mint 9, creating a link with no. 426 above. Hoard: Probably Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 39.

480.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): 3 above P above  in l. field. Reference: Lanz 123, 30 May 2005, lot 267. The  is recut over an earlier control. Obverse die link with nos. 478–479 above; the die was subsequently transferred to Uncertain Mint 9, creating a link with no. 426 above.

481.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): 3 above P above  in l. field. Reference: A. D. Philippidis coll., Hicksville, N.Y. (P-2007-12-09.001). Commercial provenance: Jerusalem.

482.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Erased control above P above  in l. field. Reference/hoard: Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 42. The association of this coin with this series is tentative, because the uppermost control is missing and Seyrig did not provide an illustration.

350

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

Salamis • Citium

Salamis Reformed Coinage: Gold Mnaieia (Octadrachms) of Arsinoe Philadelphus, from 261/0 B.C., perhaps extending into reign of Ptolemy III The Cypriote mints clearly identified their Arsinoe Philadelphus mnaieia by means of mintmarks, even while employing an impenetrable control system for their silver coinage. The dates proposed for the mnaieia follow H. Troxell (1983, pp. 62–63), who based her chronology on a stylistic comparison with the dated mnaieia of the Syro-Phoenician mints.

Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Veiled head of Arsinoe II r., with ram’s horn, wearing diademed stephane, over far shoulder lotus scepter with serpent coiled round shaft, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing pyramidal cakes, pomegranate, and other fruits, a grape cluster hanging from the rim of each horn. c. 261/0–253/2 B.C. 483. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Club above  below cornucopiae. Reference: Troxell (1983), p. 63, 9. Hoard: Benha (IGCH 1694), Brett (1952), 15, pl. iii.

484. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Kerykeion above › below cornucopiae. Reference: Troxell (1983), p. 63, 10 = Leu 25, 23 April 1980, lot 199.

485. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  below cornucopiae with simple disc as tip ornament. Reference: Troxell (1983), p. 63, 11 = Leu 18, 5 May 1977, lot 274.

c. 253/2–246 B.C. or later (to 241 B.C.) 486. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  below cornucopiae with calyx ornament at tip. Reference: Svoronos 521, pl. xv, 3 [1 listed, Athens].

487. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Star in lower l. field,  in lower r. field, flanking tip of cornucopiae. Reference: Troxell (1983), p. 64, 13. Hoard: Benha (IGCH 1694), Brett (1952), 11, pl. ii.

Citium Reformed Coinage: Gold Mnaieia (Octadrachms) of Arsinoe Philadelphus, from 261/0 B.C., perhaps extending into reign of Ptolemy III For the mint attribution and proposed dates of the following coins, see the comment under Salamis.

Citium • Paphos



Ptolemy II Philadelphus

351

Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Veiled head of Arsinoe II r., with ram’s horn, wearing diademed stephane, over far shoulder lotus scepter with serpent coiled round shaft, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing pyramidal cakes, pomegranate, and other fruits, a grape cluster hanging from the rim of each horn. c. 261/0–253/2 B.C. 488. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  below cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 522, pl. xv, 4 [1 listed, Hague]; Troxell (1983), p. 63, 1–2.

c. 253/2–246 B.C. or later (to 241 B.C.) 489. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Thunderbolt above  in lower r. field by tip of cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 523, pl. xv, 5 [4 listed]; Troxell (1983), p. 63, 3–5. Obverse die link with nos. 490‒491 below. Hoard: Benha (IGCH 1694), Brett (1952), 12, pl. ii.

490. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): « in lower r. field by tip of cornucopiae. Reference: Hunt sale, Sotheby’s, 21–22 June 1990, lot 636. Obverse die link with nos. 489 and 491.

491. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): ‚ above thunderbolt in lower r. field by tip of cornucopiae. Reference: Troxell (1983), p. 63, 6. Obverse die link with nos. 489‒490 above. Hoard: Benha (IGCH 1694), Brett (1952), 13, pl. ii.

Paphos Gold Mnaieia (Octadrachms) of Arsinoe Philadelphus, from 261/0 B.C., perhaps extending into reign of Ptolemy III For the mint attribution and proposed dates of the following coins, see the comment under Salamis.

Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Veiled head of Arsinoe II r., with ram’s horn, wearing diademed stephane, over far shoulder lotus scepter with serpent coiled round shaft, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing pyramidal cakes, pomegranate, and other fruits, a grape cluster hanging from the rim of each horn. c. 261/0–253/2 B.C. 492. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): •  • below cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 520α, pl. xv, 1 [1 listed, Athens]; Troxell (1983), p. 63, 7. The pellets flanking  are not visible on all specimens. For another issue with similar control, but of later style, see no. 494 below.

352

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

Uncertain Mint 21 • Uncertain Mint 22

493. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  below cornucopiae. Reference: Troxell (1983), p. 63, 8.

c. 253/2–246 B.C. 494. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  below cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 520β, pl. xv, 2 [1 listed, Berlin, Graf Prokesch-Osten 1875]; Troxell (1983), p. 63, n.39. This issue is distinguished by the form of the control. For an issue with similar control, but of earlier style, see no. 492 above.

495. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Star above  below cornucopiae. Reference: CNG 86, lot 390.

Uncertain Mint 21, perhaps on Cyprus Coinage System of Ptolemy I, before later 260s The following issue was given to Paphos by A. Davesne (Meydancıkkale, pp. 290–291), not because of affinities to other coins, but because his attributions to Paphos were less numerous than those to Salamis and Citium. Neither the control convention nor the controls themselves point unequivocally to Cyprus. The tetradrachm no. 497 was apparently produced in volume and circulated widely.

Gold trichryson or triple stater (“pentadrachm”): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, sometimes mark behind ear, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border Silver stater (tetradrachm): Types as preceding. Silver drachm: Types as preceding, but eagle has spread wings.

 above  issue 496. Gold trichryson or triple stater (“pentadrachm”) (without ):  above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 370, pl. ix, 18 [4 listed]. Hoards: Hüseyinli (CH IX, 489), Davsne and Yenisoğancı (1992), 44; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

497.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (sometimes with dart or pellet):  above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 371, pl. ix, 19 [11 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 498 below (through Meydancıkkale 5129). Hoards: Sounion, Attica (CH IV, 32); Corinth (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 332; 21 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 5124–5144; 7 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 355–361; Beqaa Valley, 1964, Paris R4465/14 (Seyrig coll.); 4 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 789–792; Tell Nebesheh (ancient Am), 1886 (IGCH 1688). Provenanced find: Khirbet Qeiyafa excavations, Israel, Farhi (2016), 94.

498.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  in circle above  in l. field. Reference: A. D. Philippidis coll., Hicksville, N.Y. (P-1999-03-06.001). Obverse die link with no. 497 above.

Uncertain Mint 22 • Sidon

499.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

353

Silver drachm:  above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 372, pl. ix, 20–21 [4 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 67.

Uncertain Mint 22, perhaps on Cyprus, perhaps Ptolemais (Ake) Coinage System of Ptolemy I, before later 260s Davesne (Meydancıkkale, pp. 282–283) assigned the following tetradrachm to Paphos along with nos. 210 and 213, issues here listed under Ptolemy I and given to separate uncertain mints. The affinities cited by Davesne—the disposition of the royal title in a nearly straight line, absence of  behind the ear, associated small bronzes but no associated gold—are not compelling. No. 500 is here tentatively associated with a short series of bronzes of exceptional beauty, which feature eagles of similar style and share the control  (Svoronos 381–382, 341; Vol. 2, B317–320); the first three of these bronze varieties also display the royal title in a straight line. The bronzes have reported provenances from both Cyprus and Israel and Uncertain Mint 22 must have lain within this Levantine region. The tetradrachm and bronzes may represent a coinage of Ptolemais (Ake) struck before Philadelphus’ currency reform, perhaps in the 270s in connection with the First Syrian War.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border.  above  issue 500.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (without ):  above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 373, pl. xi, 25 and pl. xxvii, 19 [12 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 97. Hoards: Corinth, 1938 (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 333; 21 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 5103–5123; Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; Cyprus, 1982 (CH VIII, 430), Hazzard (1998), 2; 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 362–363; 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 745–747.

SYRIA AND PHOENICIA Sidon Coinage on System of Ptolemy I The earliest issue of Sidon’s Ptolemy/eagle coinage (nos. 241–242) employs a monogram from the first phase of the final currency reform of Ptolemy I at Alexandria and is consequently assigned to his reign and dated c. 294. Subsequent mint activity was evidently episodic, as the several undated issues below are hardly adequate to fill up the years before the introduction of regular, dated issues in 261/0. The letter controls of nos. 501–503 correspond to the practice of Alexandria after c. 275, suggesting that these issues represent a Sidonian contribution toward the finances of the First Syrian War. The important  issue (nos. 504–505) parallels the i above club issue of Tyre (nos. 560–561), and like it is extremely large. These two enormous issues must reflect the reminting of Attic-weight coinage and the closure of the Syro-Phoenician economy. The purpose was almost certainly further war finance, as trichrysa of these issues are the closing coins of the Hüseyinli hoard (CH IX, 489), which was lost in northern Syria by a retreating Ptolemaic army. While Davesne and Yenisoğancı (1992, p. 32) postulated such an episode in the Second Syrian War, the Ptolemaic invasion of Syria in 274 is known to have ended in a retreat from Syria. A. Davesne (Meydancıkkale, pp. 267–268) observed that an obverse die shared by nos. 503 and 505 appeared more worn when used for the latter emission. He also drew attention to the presence of the

354

Ptolemy II Philadelphus



Sidon

monogram K on the earliest dated tetradrachms of Sidon (no. 508) and concluded that the  above K issue (no. 506) immediately preceded the introduction of dated issues.

Gold trichryson or triple stater (“pentadrachm”): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Types as preceding, but sometimes tiny  or  behind ear.

 and Letter Series, probably c. 275/4 B.C. 501.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (without ):  in l. field,  (?) in r. field. Reference/hoard: Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 67. Confirmation required. Another specimen possibly of this type occurred in a hoard found in the Nile Delta before 1867, see Zervos (1980c), p. 93, no. 1.

 above  issue 502.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (without ):  above  in l. field. Reference: Paris, Z.2884, 200 (Dattari coll.).

 above  issue 503.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (without ):  or  above  in l. field. Reference: a) with : Svoronos 719 [1 listed, Dattari]; b) with : Svoronos 720, pl. xxi, 5 [7 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 505 below. Hoards: Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 461; Sophikon (IGCH 179), Svoronos (1907a), 939; Corinth, 1938 (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 375; a) 8 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4460–4467; 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 620‒621; b) Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4468; Beqaa Valley, 1964, Paris R.4465/18 (Seyrig coll.); Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 504; Tell Nebesheh (ancient Am), 1886 (IGCH 1688).

 issue, probably 274 B.C. 504. Gold trichryson or triple stater (“pentadrachm”):  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 712, pl. xxi, 1 [3 listed]. Hoards: 6 in Hüseyinli (CH IX, 489), Davsne and Yenisoğancı (1992), 30–35; Toukh el Garmous, 1905 (IGCH 1680).

505.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (sometimes  or  behind ear):  in l. field. Reference: a) with nothing behind ear: Svoronos 713, pl. xxi, 2 and pl. xxvii, 22 [24 listed]; b) with  behind ear: Svoronos 714 [3 listed]; c) with  behind ear: Svoronos 715, pl. xxi, 3–4 [3 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 506–507. Obverse die links with nos. 503 above and 506 below. Hoards: 2 in Macedon/Thessaly, 1992 (CH IX, 200), Touratsoglou (1995), 79–80; Thebes 1935 (IGCH 193), Hackens (1969); 8 in Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 454–460, plus 1 in Newell’s record in ANS; Sophikon (IGCH 179), Svoronos (1907a), 938; 3 in Sunion, Attica (CH IV, 32); 9 in Corinth (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 366–374; 2 in Epidaurus environs, 1979/80 (CH VII, 69 = CH VIII, 298 = CH IX, 179); 3 in Sparta, 1908 (IGCH 181), Wace (1907/08), 82–84; Thrace, before 1999 (CH IX, 493), Arslan and Lightfoot (1999), 819; 2 in Sögütlüdere (CH VIII, 246), Ashton, Arslan, and Dervișağaoğlu (1996), 10–11; Uşak (ancient Temenothyrae),

Sidon



Ptolemy II Philadelphus

355

1966 (CH II, 68 = CH VIII, 287), Leschhorn (1986), 106; 186 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4469–4488, 4498–4663; 9 in Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; 4 in Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); 78 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 541–618; Syria, 1989 (CH VIII, 462); 3 in Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 64–66; 5 in Saida, 1949 (IGCH 1586), Trésors 40.25–29; Beirut commerce, 1987–1988; 2 in Balatah (ancient Shechem) 1960 (IGCH 1588), Carlen (2014), 10‒11; Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 20; 6 in Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 43‒48; Jordan, 1987 (CH VIII, 320 = EH I, 99), Meadows 3; Tell Nebesheh (ancient Am), 1886 (IGCH 1688); Mit Ya-Ish (EH I, 200); b) 9 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4489–4497; 65 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 505‒569; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303); up to 7 in Tell Nebesheh (ancient Am), 1886 (IGCH 1688); Egypt, 1910 (IGCH 1732), Milne (1910), p. 333.

 above K issue, perhaps closer to 261/0 B.C. 506.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (without ):  above K in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 717, pl. xxi, 6 [7 listed]; Svoronos 718 (K reengraved or struck over ) [2 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 505 above; another obverse die link with no. 507 below. Hoards: 7 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4664–4670; Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 619; 3 in Syria, 1989 (CH VIII, 462); Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 49; 8 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 571‒578; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

Dated Gold Mnaieia (Octadrachms) of Arsinoe Philadelphus, after 261/0 B.C. Dated Silver Tetradrachms of Ptolemy Soter, from 261/0 B.C. A tetradrachm in the Khan el-Abde hoard of 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 63, with an erasure in the left field below the mintmark and a second erasure in the right field, may imply the existence of an issue not catalogued below. A Sidonian tetradrachm with left field controls  above , but with illegible date, was found in a silver hoard in the Seleucia-Pieria excavations (IGCH 1526), see Waage (1952), p. 90, no. 971.

Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Veiled and horned head of deified Arsinoe r., wearing diademed stephane, over far shoulder lotus scepter with serpent coiled round shaft, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing pyramidal cakes, pomegranate, and other fruits, a grape cluster hanging from the rim of each horn, dotted border. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. Undated and unmarked 507.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): No controls. Reference/hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96 ), Keen 579. Obverse die link with no. 506 above. The status of this variety is unclear. It may reflect an engraving error in which the mintmark, date, and other controls were inadvertently omitted from the reverse die. However there are examples of the reuse of Sidonian and Tyrian obverse dies for unmarked issues in the reign of Ptolemy IV, see Landvatter (2012), 86–93 and no. 937 in the present volume, and the phenomenon of the reuse of older dies for unmarked issues was even more extensive in the Syro-Phoenician coinage of Ptolemy V. These cases suggest that the omission of controls could be intentional, signifying some special status of the emissions with respect to the usual fiscal administration. The die link involving nos. 506 and 507 may also seem to support the chronology of

356

Ptolemy II Philadelphus



Sidon

A. Davesne (1989), pp. 267–268, who dated the enormous parallel issues of Sidon and Tyre (nos. 504–505 and 560–561) c. 266, as opposed to the earlier dating proposed here which derives from consideration of the gold coinage. Once again the later Syro-Phoenician coinage is suggestive, as there are several examples of obverse dies of Ptolemy III and IV that were preserved during periods of mint inactivity and reused in later issues, see the links between nos. 866 and 911; between nos. 866 and 938; and between nos. 825‒826, 930–932.

Year KE (25) = 261/0 B.C. 508.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above K in l. field,  or  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 724 [3 listed]. Hoards: 3 in Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 463–464, plus 1 in Newell’s record in ANS; 5 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4671–4675; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 581.

509.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  or  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 722, pl. xxi, 8 [5 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 509. Hoards: Macedon/Thessaly, 1992 (CH IX, 200), Touratsoglou (1995), 81; Corinth (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 376 (Svoronos 722–725?); 5 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4676–4680; 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 622–623.

510.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  or  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 723, pl. xxi, 9 [5 listed]. SNG Milano 142 and Paris Z.2884, 202 (Svoronos 723β and ε) appear to have a simple  in right field. Hoards: Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 462; Corinth (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 377; 3 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4681–4683; Syria, 1989 (CH VIII, 462); 3 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 624–626; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 50; 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 570, 580; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

511.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  or  in l. field,  or  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 725 [1 listed, Dattari]. Hoards: Corinth (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 378; Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 582.

Year K (26) = 260/59 B.C. 512.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 726 [1 listed, Alexandria]. Doubtful entry. Davesne (1999), p. 125 n.14 reported that he was unable to confirm the reading. None of the other Syro-Phoenician mints produced coinage dated to regnal year 26.

Year Kz (27) = 259/8 B.C. 513.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  or Y in l. field, ¤ in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 727, pl. xxi, 10 [3 listed]. Obverse die link with nos. 515–516 below. Hoards: 3 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4685–4687; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 51; 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 585‒586; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

514.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 728 [2 listed]. Reverse die link with no. 515 below.

Sidon



Ptolemy II Philadelphus

357

Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4684; Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 627; 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 583‒584.

Year KH (28) = 258/7 B.C. 515.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 729, pl. xxi, 11 [2 listed]. Obverse die link with nos. 513 above and 516 below. Earlier date erased from Berlin specimen, implying die link with no. 514 above.

516.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Paris, Z.2884, 207 (Dattari coll.); Paris 1994/187. Obverse die link with nos. 513 and 515 above. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4688; Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 21 (citing Svoronos 729); 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 587‒589.

Year KQ (29) = 257/6 B.C. 517.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 730, pl. xxi, 12 [7 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 518 below. Hoards: 5 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4689–4693; 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 628–629; 2 in Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 52‒53; 4 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 590‒593; Delta, before 1867, Zervos (1980c), p. 93, no. 2; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

518.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  or  in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 731, pl. xxi, 13 [10 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 510. Obverse die link with no. 517 above. Hoards: Sögütlüdere (CH VIII, 246), Ashton, Arslan, and Dervișağaoğlu (1996), 12; Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4694; Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); 3 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 630–632; Dniyé (Aradian Peraea), 1952 (IGCH 1538), Trésors 5.33; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 54; 4 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 594‒597; 2 in Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

Year L (30) = 256/5 B.C. 519. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  in lower l. field,  above  in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: Troxell (1983), p. 51, 19–20.

520.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  or › in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 732, pl. xxi, 14 [12 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 511. Obverse die link with no. 521 below. Hoards: Corinth (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 379; 5 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4699– 4703; Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; 4 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 633–636; Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 68; Beqaa Valley, 1964, Paris R.4465/19 (Seyrig. coll.); Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 22; 10 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 598‒607; 2 in Nuba, Hebron, 1975 (CH II, 69); Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303); Canadian commerce, 1967 (IGCH 1722 = CH IX, 698), Hazzard (1994), 1.

358

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

521.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  in r. field.



Sidon

Reference: Svoronos 733, pl. xxi, 15 [13 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 512. Obverse die link with no. 520 above. Hoards: Macedonia/Thessaly, 1992 (CH IX, 200), Touratsoglou (1995), 82; 2 in Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 465, plus 1 in Newell’s record in ANS; 4 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4695–4698; 5 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 637–641; 2 in Saida, 1949 (IGCH 1586), Trésors 40.30–31; Beqaa Valley, 1964, Paris R.4465/20 (Seyrig coll.); 4 in Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 55‒58; 11 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 608‒618; Nuba, Hebron, 1975 (CH II, 69); Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

Year LA (31) = 255/4 B.C. 522.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  or › in l. field,  (or ) in r. field. Reference: a) with : Svoronos 734 [7 listed]; b) with : Svoronos 735 [1 listed, London]. Obverse die link with no. 523 below. Hoards: a) 2 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4716–4717; Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 642; 4 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 619‒622; Delta, before 1867, Zervos (1980c), p. 93, no. 3; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303); b) Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 623.

523.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  (or ) in r. field. Reference: a) with : Svoronos 737 [10 listed]; b) with : Svoronos 736, pl. xxi, 16 [2 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 513. Obverse die link with no. 522 above. Hoards: a) 8 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4704–4706, 4710–4712, 4714–4715; Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; 10 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 624‒633; b) 4 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4707–4709, 4713; 5 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 643–647; Saida, 1949 (IGCH 1586), Trésors 40.32; Beqaa Valley, 1964, Paris R.4465/21 (Seyrig coll.); Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 59; 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 634‒635.

Year LB (32) = 254/3 B.C. 524.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  or › in l. field, LB in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 739, pl. xxi, 17 [9 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 514. Obverse die link with no. 525 below. Hoards: Corinth (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 380; Sparta, 1908 (IGCH 181), Wace (1907/08), 85; 8 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4722–4729; Syria, 1971 (CH II, 81 = CH X, 289); 7 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 649–655; 2 in Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 71–72; Beqaa Valley, 1964, Paris R.4465/22 (Seyrig coll.); 2 in Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 61‒62; 9 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 641‒649; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

525.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field, LB in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 738 [3 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 524 above. Hoards: 4 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4718–4721; Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 648; 2 in Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 69–70; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 60; 5 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 636‒640.

Sidon



Ptolemy II Philadelphus

359

Year LG (33) = 253/2 B.C. 526. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  in lower l. field,  above DI in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: London; Troxell (1983), p. 52, 21.

527.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field, LG in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 740 [12 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 515. Hoards: 2 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4732–4733; 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 656‒657; Madaba, c. 1919 (IGCH 1592); 10 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 650‒659.

528.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field, LG in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 741, pl. xxi, 18 [4 listed]. Hoards: 2 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4730–4731; Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 658; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 660; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 63; Delta, before 1867, Zervos (1980c), p. 93, 4.

529.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 742 [1 listed, Osnabrück].

Year LD (34) = 252/1 B.C. 530.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  or › in l. field, LD in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 743, pl. xxi, 19 [1 listed, London]; CNG E-Auction 264, 21 September 2011, 239 struck from a Ioppe reverse die with mintmark recut and  partially erased from lower r. field, creating die link with no. 671. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4735; Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 659.

531.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field, LD in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 744 [9 listed, specimen θ subaeratum]. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4734; Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 660; 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 661‒662; Delta, before 1867, Zervos (1980c), p. 93, no. 5; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303); Rüppell, East Delta, before 1822, per Noeske (2006), p. 41.

Year LE (35) = 251/0 B.C. 532. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  in lower l. field,  above  in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: Superior sale, 11–12 December 1992, lot 1224.

533.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  or › in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 746, pl. xxi, 20 [5 listed]. Hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 663.

360

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

534.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  in r. field.



Sidon

Reference: Svoronos 745, pl. xxi, 21 [1 listed, Alexandria]. Hoards: 3 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4736–4738; Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 23; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 64; 5 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 664‒668.

Year  (36) = 250/49 B.C. 535. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  in lower l. field, SI above  in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 747, pl. xxi, 22 [1 listed, Munich]; Troxell (1983), p. 52, 22. Hoard: Antalya, 1974 (CH I, 69).

536.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 748, pl. xxi, 23 [2 listed].

537.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 749 [5 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 516. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4739; Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); 3 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 661–663; 6 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 669‒674; Jordan, 1987 (CH VIII, 320 = EH I, 99), Meadows 4.

Year Lz (37) = 249/8 B.C. 538. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  in lower l. field,  above  in lower field under cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 750, pl. xxii, 3 [1 listed, Paris]; Troxell (1983), p. 52, 23.

539.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 751, pl. xxii, 4 [7 listed]. Hoards: Corinth (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 381; Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4740; Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 664; Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 24; 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 678‒680; Delta, before 1867, Zervos (1980c), p. 53, no. 6.

540.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Ponterio 70, 13 July 1994, lot 389. Hoard: 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 675‒677.

541. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  in l. field, SI above  in lower field under cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 752, pl. xxii, 1 [1 listed, Athens]; Troxell (1983), p. 52, 24.

542.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 753, pl. xxii, 2 [1 listed, Athens]. Obverse die link with no. 543 below. Hoards: Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 665; Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 =

Sidon • Tyre



Ptolemy II Philadelphus

361

CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 25; 6 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 681‒686.

543.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Paris, 1994/192; Giessener Münzhandlung 69, 18 November 1994, lot 489. Obverse die link with no. 542 above. Hoard: 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 687‒689.

Year LH (38) = 248/7 B.C. 544. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  in lower l. field,  above  in lower field under cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 754, pl. xxii, 5 [1 listed = Leu 13, lot 340]; Troxell (1983), p. 52, 25.

545.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field, LH above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 755, pl. xxii, 6 [7 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 546 below. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4741; 4 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 666–669; 4 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 690‒693.

546.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field, LH above  in r. field. Reference: Paris, Z.2884, 221 (Dattari coll.); Ponterio 70, 13 July 1994, lot 391. Obverse die link with no. 545 above. Hoards: Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 670; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 65; 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 694‒695.

Year  (39) = 247/6 B.C. 547. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  in lower l. field,  above  in lower field under cornucopiae. Reference: Spink 10, 4 October 1995, lot 66.

548. Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 756, pl. xxii, 7 [1 listed, Athens]. Obverse die link with no. 549 below. Hoards: Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 73; 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 696‒697. Seyrig’s tabular list of the Khan el-Abde specimens notes a pellet in the column headed “Below.” Listings in this column seem sometimes to refer to a control between the eagle’s legs and other times to refer to a control below others in the right field.

549. Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Paris, Rothschild 2806. Obverse die link with no. 548 above. Hoard: 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 698‒700.

550. Vacat.

362

Ptolemy II Philadelphus



Tyre

Tyre Coinage on System of Ptolemy I, to c. 274 B.C. Tyre’s main series of coins commences with an emission that shares a monogrammatic control employed at Alexandria under Ptolemy I (nos. 244–245). Nos. 553–558 below exhibit a different control system based on the use of individual letters, a practice characteristic of Ptolemy II. The combination of the Tyrian club with supplementary letters recalls the control system of the Alexandrian Ï above Galatian shield series (nos. 278–306). The Alexandrian series is die linked in a manner indicating that most of the control varieties were contemporary, implying an intense production probably to be associated with the First Syrian War. A similar interpretation may be offered for the Tyrian club and letter series, whose less dense die linkage is supplemented by a die erasure (see no. 551). It is a safe assumption that Tyre contributed importantly to the cost of a war fought in the province of Syria and Phoenicia. The i above club issue (nos. 560–561) is enormous, yet isolated: no die links to other issues have been recorded. It parallels the  issue of Sidon (nos. 505–506). A. Davesne (Meydancıkkale, p. 267) proposed a date of 266/5 for these twin emissions, but they probably also belong in the context of the First Syrian War. These huge issues seem to represent a wholesale recoining of Attic-weight tetradrachms in Phoenicia, presumably for the purpose of war finance. Trichrysa of these issues are the closing coins of the Hüseyinli hoard (CH IX, 489) which must have been abandoned in 274 when the Ptolemaic invasion force withdrew before the elephants of Antiochus I.

Gold trichryson or triple stater (“pentadrachm”): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, sometimes with tiny sigla behind ear, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Types as preceding. Club and Letter series, probably c. 275/4 B.C. Club For the associated bronze coinage, see Vol. 2, B321.

551. Gold trichryson or triple stater (“pentadrachm”): Club in l. field. Reference: SNG Berry 1479. Obverse die link with no. 553 below. Hoard: 2 in Hüseyinli (CH IX, 489), Davesne and Yenisoğancı (1992), 1–2. Leu 77, 11–12 May 2000, lot 380, shows a letter  above the club, partially erased from the die.

552.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (sometimes with dart): Club in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 626, pl. xix, 1 [7 listed]. Obverse die links with nos. 554 and 558 below; possible obverse link with no. 245 (reported by Davesne (1989), p. 184, but not illustrated). Hoards: Thebes 1935 (IGCH 193), Hackens (1969); 13 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4101–4113; 2 in Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 365‒366; 2 in Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 51–52. Tyre also struck tetradrachms marked only with a club in a later reign, probably that of Ptolemy IV (see no. 936). The later issue is rare and differs in style from the common variety of Ptolemy II.

 above club For the associated bronze coinage, see Vol. 2, B322–B323.

Tyre



Ptolemy II Philadelphus

363

553. Gold trichryson or triple stater (“pentadrachm”):  above club in l. field. Reference: Svoronos Vol. IV, Addenda 633a, pl. B, 29 [1 listed, Alexandria]. Obverse die link with no. 551. Hoards: Hüseyinli (CH IX, 489), Davesne and Yenisoğancı (1992), 19; 2 in Toukh el Garmous, 1905 (IGCH 1680).

554.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (without ):  above club in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 634, pl. xix, 6 [5 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 477. Obverse die link with cat. no. 552 above. Hoards: 14 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4181–4194; 3 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 369–371.

 above club For the associated bronze coinage, see Vol. 2, B324–B326.

555. Gold trichryson or triple stater (“pentadrachm”) (without ):  above club in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 636, pl. xix, 8 [8 listed]. Hoards: 15 in Hüseyinli (CH IX, 489), Davesne and Yenisoğancı (1992), 4–18; Benha, 1936 (IGCH 1694), Brett (1952), 14, pl. ii.

556.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (sometimes with dart or three pellets):  above club in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 637, pl. xix, 9 [27 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 478. Obverse die link with no. 558 below. Hoards: Kozani, 1955 (IGCH 457), Dodson and Wallace (1964), 22; 3 in Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 433, plus 2 in Newell’s record in ANS; 5 in Corinth (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 351–355; Olympia, 1922 (IGCH 176), Newell (1929), 81 (with Byzantium countermark); Thrace, before 1999 (CH IX, 493), Arslan and Lightfoot (1999), 816; 67 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4114–4180; 3 in Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; 3 in Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); 20 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 372–391; Saida, 1949 (IGCH 1586), Trésors 40.18; Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 26; 2 in Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 66‒67; 11 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 289‒299; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303); Tell Nebesheh (ancient Am), 1886 (IGCH 1688).

 above club 557. Gold trichryson or triple stater (“pentadrachm”) (without ):  above club in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 639, pl. xix, 10 [4 listed]. Hoards: Hüseyinli (CH IX, 489), Davesne and Yenisoğancı (1992), 20; 4 in Toukh el Garmous, 1905 (IGCH 1680).

558.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (usually with ):  above club in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 640, pl. xix, 11 [9 listed]. Obverse die links with nos. 552 and 556 above. Hoards: Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 435; Corinth (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 356; 10 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4195–4204; 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 392‒393; Beqaa Valley, 1964, Paris R4465/15 (Seyrig. coll.); Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 288; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303); Rüppell, East Delta, before 1822, per Noeske (2006), p. 41.

364

Ptolemy II Philadelphus



Tyre

 above club 559. Gold trichryson or triple stater (“pentadrachm”) (without ):  above club in l. field. Reference: Svoronos Vol. IV, Addenda 630a, pl. B, 28 [1 listed, Alexandria]. Hoard: Toukh el Garmous, 1905 (IGCH 1680).

i above club issue, probably 274 B.C. 560. Gold trichryson or triple stater (“pentadrachm”) (nothing behind ear): i above club in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 643, pl. xix, 13 [5 listed]. Hoard: 9 in Hüseyinli (CH IX, 489), Davesne and Yenisoğancı (1992), 21–29.

561.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (sometimes  behind ear): i above club in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 644, pl. xix, 14 [25 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 482–483. Hoards: 2 in Kozani, 1955 (IGCH 457), Dodson and Wallace (1964), 24–25; Macedonia/Thessaly, 1992 (CH IX, 200), Touratsoglou (1995), 83; 2 in Larissa (“Sitichoro”), 1968 (IGCH 237 = CH IX, 247), Price (1989), 1087–1088; Thessaly, 1974 (CH II, 72 = CH III, 43); Thebes 1935 (IGCH 193), Hackens (1969); 12 in Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 436–446, plus 1 in Newell’s record in ANS; 3 in Sophikon (IGCH 179), Svoronos (1907a), 935–937; 2 in Corinth (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 357–358; Epidaurus environs, 1979/80 (CH VII, 69 = CH VIII, 298 = CH IX, 179); Olympia, 1922 (IGCH 176), Newell (1929), 80; 3 in Megalopolis, 1947 (IGCH 180), Robinson (1950), 26–28; 2 in Thrace, before 1999 (CH IX, 493), Arslan and Lightfoot (1999), 817–818; 149 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4205–4353; 4 in Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; Cyprus, before 1916, Olivier (2015), 6; 7 in Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); Seleucia-Pieria excavations (IGCH 1526), Waage (1952), p. 90, 970; 76 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 394–463, 463A, 464–468; Syria, 1989 (CH VIII, 462); Saida, 1949 (IGCH 1586), Trésors 40.19; 2 in Beirut commerce, 1987–88; 2 in Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 27–28; Balatah (ancient Shechem) 1960 (IGCH 1588), Carlen (2014), 7; 5 in Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 68‒72; 36 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 300‒335; Jordan, 1987 (CH VIII, 320 = EH I, 99), Meadows 5 ; 2 in Mit Ya-Ish (EH I, 200). Provenanced finds: Beth-Zur excavations, Israel, 1931, Sellers (1933), 19; Maresha excavations (61-711-1112 CN 2, information courtesy of R. Barkay and A. Kloner, director of the excavations).

Dated Tetradrachms of Ptolemy I, 266/5–262/1 B.C. Beginning in 266/5, Tyrian tetradrachms began to carry the regnal dates of Ptolemy II in monogrammatic form. If the preceding issue was truly intended to cleanse Syro-Phoenicia of Attic-weight coinage by reminting it as Ptolemaic currency, the dated coinage must have had a slightly different function. Perhaps the annual issues transformed Attic-weight currency that entered the civic or provincial treasury through harbor dues and currency exchange, and very likely they represented local contributions toward the cost of maintaining the Ptolemaic fleet and/or a local garrison.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) or stater: Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border.

Tyre



Ptolemy II Philadelphus

365

Year K (20) = 266/5 B.C. 562.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 645, pl. xix, 15 [2 listed]. Hoard: 4 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 469–472.

Year KA (21) = 265/4 B.C. 563.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 646, pl. xix, 16 [5 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 484. Hoards: Macedonia/Thessaly, 1992 (CH IX, 200), Touratsoglou (1995), 84; 3 in Corinth (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 359–361; 6 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4354–4359; Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); Syria, 1989 (CH VIII, 462); 4 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 473–476; Beqaa Valley, 1964, Paris R.4465/16 (Seyrig coll.); 7 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 336‒342.

Year KB (22) = 264/3 B.C. 564.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field, R in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 647, pl. xix, 17 [11 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 485. Obverse die link with no. 565 below. Hoards: 2 in Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 447–448; Uşak (ancient Temenothyrae), 1966 (CH II, 68 = CH VIII, 287), Leschhorn (1986), 107; 7 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4360–4366; 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 477‒478; 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 343‒344; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303); Tell Nebesheh (ancient Am), 1886 (IGCH 1688).

Year KG (23) = 263/2 B.C. 565.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field, * in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 648, pl. xix, 18 [3 listed]. Obverse die links with nos. 564 above and 566 below. Hoards: Epidaurus environs, 1979/80 (CH VII, 69 = CH VIII, 298 = CH IX, 179); Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4367; Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 479; 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 345‒347.

Year KD (24) = 262/1 B.C. 566.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 649, pl. xix, 19 [16 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 486. Obverse die link with no. 565 above. Hoards: Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 449; 3 in Corinth (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 362–364; 13 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4368–4380; Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; 10 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 480–489; 2 in Syria, 1989 (CH VIII, 462); Beirut commerce, 1987–88; 2 in Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 29–30; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 73; 9 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 348‒356; 3 in Delta, before 1867, Zervos (1980c), p. 93, nos. 7–9; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303); Mit Ya-Ish (EH I, 200).

Dated Gold Mnaieia (Octadrachms) of Arsinoe Philadelphus, after 261/0 B.C. Dated Silver Tetradrachms of Ptolemy Soter, from 261/0 B.C. In 261/0 Sidon, Ptolemais, Ioppe, and Gaza adopted the Tyrian practice of producing annual, dated issues of tetradrachms with identifiable mintmarks, supplemented by occasional mnaieia in the name of Arsinoe

366

Ptolemy II Philadelphus



Tyre

Philadelphus. The five mints thus collaborated to provide a stock of coinage with highly consistent features. The beginning of this province-wide reform in 261/0 suggests a connection with the outbreak of the Second Syrian War and the wide dispersion of Syro-Phoenician tetradrachms in Greece and throughout the Ptolemaic kingdom probably indicates that this coinage was used in the pay of mercenaries.

Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Veiled head of Arsinoe II r., with ram’s horn, wearing diademed stephane, over far shoulder lotus scepter with serpent coiled round shaft, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing pyramidal cakes, pomegranate, and other fruits, a grape cluster hanging from the rim of each horn, dotted border. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. Year KE (25) = 261/0 B.C. 567.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 650, pl. xix, 20 [12 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 487. Obverse die link with no. 569 below. Hoards: 6 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4381–4386; 8 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 357‒364; Hebron area, 1977 (CH IV, 40).

Year KZ (27) = 259/8 B.C. 568. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): ¤ in lower l. field, i in lower r. field below cornucopiae. Reference: Troxell (1983), p. 50, 1.

569.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field, ¤ in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 651, pl. xix, 21 [4 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 567 above. Hoards: 7 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4387–4393; 2 in Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; 6 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 365‒370.

Year KH (28) = 258/7 B.C. 570.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 652 [1 listed, Paris]. Hoards: 4 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4394–4397; Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 371.

571.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 653, pl. xix, 22 [2 listed].

572.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i (or ) above club in l. field,  (or ) above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: a) with i and : Svoronos 654, pl. B, 30 [5 listed]; b) with  and : Meydancıkkale 4403; c) with i and : Meydancıkkale 4402. Hoards: a) Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 490; 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX,

Tyre



Ptolemy II Philadelphus

367

497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 372‒374; b) and c) Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308).

573. Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 655 [1 listed, Naples]. Hoards: Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 491; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 74.

Year  (29) = 257/6 B.C. 574.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i (or ) above club in l. field,  above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: a) with i: Svoronos 656, pl. xix, 23 [6 listed]; b) with : Meydancıkkale 4404. Hoards: a) 3 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 492–494; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 75; b) Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308); 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 375‒376.

575.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference/hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 377.

Year L (30) = 256/5 B.C. A tetradrachm of this year, with no further details, was reported in the Aradus(?), before 1981 hoard (CH VIII, 311). That hoard is now recognized as a fragment of the Syria, 1981 hoard (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), see Meadows 535.

576. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  in lower l. field, i above  in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: Christie’s sale, London, 8 October 1985, lot 394.

577.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 657, pl. xix, 24 [8 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 488. Obverse die link with no. 578 below. Hoards: 4 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4405–4406, 4414, 4418; 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 495–496; 2 in Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 76‒77; 5 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 378‒382; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

578.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 659 [7 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 577 above. Hoards: 4 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4411, 4413, 4415–4416; Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 497; Saida, 1949 (IGCH 1586), Trésors 40.21; Lebanon, 1983 (CH VIII, 332); Balatah (ancient Shechem), 1960 (IGCH 1588), Carlen (2014), 8; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 383; Rüppell, East Delta, before 1822, per Noeske (2006), p. 41.

368

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

579.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs.



Tyre

Reference: Meydancıkkale 4421; Paris, Z.2884, 169 (Dattari coll.). Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308); 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 384‒385.

580.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 658, pl. xix, 25 [12 listed]. The  is recut over  on a coin in Paris, implying a reverse die link with no. 582 below. Hoards: Larissa (“Sitichoro”), 1968 (IGCH 237 = CH IX, 247), Price (1989), 1089; 3 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4420, 4422–4423; Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; perhaps Khan el-Abde (IGCH 1597), Seyrig 57 (a coin with erasures and an erroneous Svoronos reference to a mnaieion); Saida, 1949 (IGCH 1586), Trésors 40.20; 5 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 386‒390; 2 in Nuba, Hebron, 1975 (CH II, 69); Delta, before 1867, Zervos (1980c), p. 93, no. 10; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

581.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field, M between eagle’s legs. Reference: Meydancıkkale 4417. Hoard: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308).

582.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 660, pl. B, 31 [9 listed]. Obverse die link with nos. 583 and no. 585A (see Late Additions); reverse die link with no. 580 above. Hoards: 2 in Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 450, plus 1 in Newell’s record in ANS; 4 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4407, 4425–4427; Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; 4 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 498–501; Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 31; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 391; Nuba, Hebron, 1975 (CH II, 69); Delta, before 1867, Zervos (1980c), p. 94, no. 11.

583.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field, K between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 661 [5 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 489. Obverse die link with no. 582 above. Hoards: 2 in Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 451, plus 1 in Newell’s record in ANS; 5 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4408–4410, 4419, 4424; 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 392‒394; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

Year LA (31) = 255/4 B.C. The Saida hoard of 1949 (IGCH 1586) included a Tyrian tetradrachm from which the date was omitted in error (Trésors 40.24). Its right field control was ¡, which marked most tetradrachms from regnal years 31 to 35 (255/4–251/0) and also appeared on one variety of year 36 (250/49).

584.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  (or ) above ¡ in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Ponterio 70, 13 July 1994, lot 406. Hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 397.

Tyre

585.



Ptolemy II Philadelphus

369

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Paris, Seyrig coll. For a variant with  between the eagle’s legs, see Late Additions. Hoards: Dniyé (Aradian Peraea), 1952 (IGCH 1538), Trésors 5.31; 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 395‒396.

586.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Implied by a recut die in Paris, see no. 600.

587.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  (or ) above ¡ in r. field, K between eagle’s legs. Reference: a) with : Svoronos 662α; b) with : Svoronos 662β. Hoards: 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 502–503; Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 32.

Year LB (32) = 254/3 B.C. Two tetradrachms dated to year 32 were present in the Ora, 1947 hoard IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier. Two tetradrachms of this year but not further identifiable occurred in the Syria, 1981 hoard (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), one of which was initally attributed to a hoard from Aradus(?), before 1981 (CH VIII, 311), now known to have been a fragment of the Syria, 1981 hoard, see Meadows 513 and 536. A third specimen occurred in a hoard found in the Nile Delta before 1867, see Zervos (1980c), p. 94, no. 12.

588.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field,  or  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 663 [1 listed, Athens].

589.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 667, pl. xix, 27 [1 listed, Athens], control doubtfully described as ; Svoronos 666 [2 listed], control described as . Both of Svoronos’ entries reflect misreadings of an altered control between the eagle’s legs,  recut over , implying one or more reverse die links with no. 590 below. Hoards: 2 in Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 78‒79; near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

590.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 664 [4 listed]. One or more reverse die links with no. 589 above. Hoards: 2 Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4435, 4437; 3 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 504–506; Balatah (ancient Shechem), 1960 (IGCH 1588), Carlen (2014), 9; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 398; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

591.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 668 [5 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 593 below.

370

Ptolemy II Philadelphus



Tyre

Hoards: 2 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4431–4432; 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 507–508; 2 in Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 53–54; Beqaa Valley, 1964, Paris R.4465/17 (Seyrig coll.); Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 33; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 80; 4 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 399‒402; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

592.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field, K between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 669 [7 listed]. Hoards: 3 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4433–4434, 4436; Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 509; 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 406‒407; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

593.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field, í (or ) between eagle’s legs. Reference: a) with í: Svoronos 670 [4 listed]; b) with : Svoronos 665 [1 listed, Rollin et Feuardent]. The second monogram is probably a poorly cut or weakly struck example of the first. Obverse die link with no. 591 above. Hoards: a) 3 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4428–4430; 3 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 510–512; Saida, 1949 (IGCH 1586), Trésors 40.22; 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 403‒405; Mit Ya-Ish (EH I, 200).

Year LG (33) = 253/2 B.C. A tetradrachm of this year, with no further details, was reported in the Aradus(?), before 1981 hoard (CH VIII, 311), now known to be a fragment of the Syria, 1981 hoard (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), see Meadows 537. Another occurred in a hoard found in the Nile Delta before 1867, see Zervos (1980c), p. 94, no. 13.

594. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): - in lower l. field, i above K in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: Troxell (1983), p. 51, 2, pl. 9, C; Spink 10, 4 October 1995, lot 63. Obverse die link with mnaieion of Ioppe, year 33, see no. 667 below.

595.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 679 [3 listed, all subaeratum]. The variety is confirmed by a specimen in Paris, Z.2884, 177 (Dattari coll.).

596.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 672 [1 listed, Dattari].

597.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 671 [1 listed, Athens].

598.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 674 [1 listed, Dattari]. Obverse die link with no. 601 below. Cf. Svoronos 673 [1 listed,

Tyre



Ptolemy II Philadelphus

371

Osnabrück], reportedly with  between the eagle’s legs, but this is probably just the monogram poorly drawn. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4441; Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 55; 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 408‒410.

599.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 675 [9 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 601 below Hoards: Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 452; 2 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4438, 4443; 4 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 514–517; Dniyé (Aradian Peraea), 1952 (IGCH 1538), Trésors 5.32; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 308 = EH I, 100), Meadows 81; 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 418‒419; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

600.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 676 [1 listed, Dattari]; SNG Copenhagen 490. Obverse die link with no. 602 below. The  is recut over  in the date of Paris, Z.2884, 176 (Dattari coll.), implying an otherwise unrecorded variety for year 31. Hoards: 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 518–519; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 82; 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 420‒421; Mit Ya-Ish (EH I, 200).

601.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field, K between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 677, pl. xix, 28 [5 listed]. Obverse die links with nos. 598 and 599 above. Hoards: 3 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4439–4440, 4442; Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); 6 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 520–525; Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 56; Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 34; 7 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 411‒417; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303); Mit Ya-Ish (EH I, 200).

602.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field, í between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 678, pl. xx, 1 [1 listed, Rollin et Feuardent]. Obverse die link with no. 600 above. Hoards: Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 422.

Year LD (34) = 252/1 B.C. A tetradrachm of this year was represented in the Aradus(?), before 1981 hoard (CH VIII, 311). That hoard is now known to be a fragment of the Syria, 1981 hoard (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), see Meadows 538.

603. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  in lower l. field, i above  in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 680, pl. xix, 26 [2 listed]; Troxell (1983), p. 51, 3.

604.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Trésors 40.23. Confirmation required. Because Seyrig did not illustrate this specimen, his abbreviated description leaves some room for doubt, especially in light of the prevalence of erasures on coins

372

Ptolemy II Philadelphus



Tyre

found in Syro-Phoenician hoards. On the other hand, no. 595 above illustrates that a monogram did not invariably appear below the date on Tyrian issues of this period. Hoard: Saida, 1949 (IGCH 1586).

605.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 682 [3 listed]. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4444; Delta, before 1867, Zervos (1980c), p. 94, no. 14 (possibly attesting to a variety with only  between the eagle’s legs).

606.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 681, pl. xx, 2 [6 listed]. Hoards: 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 423‒424; 2 in Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

607.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 683 [6 listed, specimen ε overstruck on coin of Ioppe, year , as no. 669 (Poole 1883, no. 97, there described as altered in the die)]; SNG Copenhagen 491. Another in the Doug Smith coll. with  recut over . Obverse die link with no. 608 below. Hoards: Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 58 (with lower control erased from right field); Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 425; 2 in Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

608.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field, K between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 684 [2 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 607 above. Hoards: 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 426‒427; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

609.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field, í between eagle’s legs. Reference/hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 428.

Year LE (35) = 251/0 B.C. A tetradrachm of this year with an illegible control between the eagle’s legs occurred in the Iraq al-Amir hoard (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), see Keen 439.

610. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  in lower l. field, i above  in lower r. field. Reference: Leu 77, 11–12 May 2000, lot 385. Obverse die link with no. 611 below.

611. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  in lower l. field, i above  in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 685, pl. xx, 3 [2 listed]; Troxell (1983), p. 51, 5. Obverse die link with no. 610 above.

Tyre

612.



Ptolemy II Philadelphus

373

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  and ¡ in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 689 [2 listed].

613.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 687 [1 listed, London, subaeratum]. Hoards: Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 526; 2 in Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 83‒84; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

614.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 688, pl. xx, 5 [1 listed, Athens]. Hoards: Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 85; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 436.

615.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 686, pl. xx, 4 [3 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 492. Obverse die link with nos. 616 and 618 below. Hoards: Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 453; 5 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 429‒433.

616.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Paris, Seyrig coll.; Paris, 1994/203. Obverse die link with nos. 615 above and 618 below. Hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 435.

617.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field, K between eagle’s legs. Reference: Paris, Z.2884, 181 (Dattari coll.); Paris, 1994/204. Hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 438.

618.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field, í between eagle’s legs. Reference/hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 434. Obverse die link with nos. 615–616 above.

619.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field,  or  between eagle’s legs. Reference/hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 437.

620.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Paris 1994/205.

374

Ptolemy II Philadelphus



Tyre

Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4445; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 440.

621.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field, í between eagle’s legs. Reference: Paris, Z.2884, 184 (Dattari coll.).

Year L (36) = 250/49 B.C. 622. Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field, L above ¡ in r. field, K between eagle’s legs. Reference: Paris, 1994/206. Obverse die link with no. 623 below. Hoards: Hebron area, 1977 (CH IV, 40); 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 445‒447.

623.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field, L above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 690 [1 listed, Dattari]. Obverse die link with no. 622 above. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4447; 4 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 441‒444.

624.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field, L above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 691, pl. xx, 6 [5 listed]. Hoards: Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 527; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 448; Mit Ya-Ish (EH I, 200), perhaps an example of no. 626 below.

625.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field, L above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 692 [4 listed]. Hoards: Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 528; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 449; Mit Ya-Ish (EH I, 200).

626.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field, L above  in r. field, K between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 693 [3 listed]. Hoard: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4446.

Year  (37) = 249/8 B.C. 627. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  in lower l. field, i above  in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: Troxell (1983), p. 51, 7–9. Hoard: Benha (IGCH 1694), Brett (1952), 16, pl. iii.

628.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  in r. field. Reference/hoard: Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 59. Confirmation required. Although Seyrig did not indicate erasures on this coin, they were prevalent in the Khan el-Abde hoard.

Tyre • Ptolemais (Ake)

629.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

375

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field, K between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 694 [2 listed].

630.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Ponterio 70, 13 July 1994, lot 418. Hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 452.

631.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field, K between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 695, pl. xx, 8 [2 listed]. Hoards: Larissa (“Sitichoro”), 1968 (IGCH 237 = CH IX, 247), Price (1989), 1090; Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4448; 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 450–451.

Year LH (38) = 248/7 B.C. 632. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  in lower l. field, i above  in lower r. field below cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 696, pl. xx, 7 [1 listed]; Troxell (1983), p. 51, 10.

633. Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field, H above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 697 [5 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 634 below. Hoards: Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 529; 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 453‒455; Mit Ya-Ish (EH I, 200).

634.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field, H above  in r. field, K between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 698, pl. xx, 9 [1 listed, Gotha]. Obverse die link with no. 633 above. Hoards: 5 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 456‒460; Mit Ya-Ish (EH I, 200).

Year Q (39) = 247/6 B.C. 635. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Q in lower l. field, i above  in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 699, pl. Γ, 1 [1 listed, Chatzigrigorakis]. Hoards: Benha (IGCH 1694), Brett (1952), 17, pl. iii; 2 in commerce, 2007.

636.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field, Q above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 700, pl. xx, 10 [2 listed]. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4449; Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 530; 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 461‒463; perhaps Mit Ya-Ish (EH I, 200).

376

Ptolemy II Philadelphus



Ptolemais (Ake)

Ptolemais (Ake) Dated Gold Mnaieia (Octadrachms) of Arsinoe Philadelphus, after 261/0 B.C. Dated Silver Tetradrachms of Ptolemy Soter, from 261/0 B.C. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Veiled head of deified Arsinoe II r., with ram’s horn, wearing diademed stephane, over far shoulder lotus scepter with serpent coiled round shaft, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing pyramidal cakes, pomegranate, and other fruits, a grape cluster hanging from rim of each horn, dotted border. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/  on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. Year KE (25) = 261/0 B.C. 637.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 765, pl. Γ, 3 [5 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 468. Obverse die link with no. 640 below. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4054; Cyprus, 1982 (CH VIII, 430), Hazzard (1998), 3; 2 in Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 678; 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 181–182; 2 in Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

Year KH (28) = 258/7 B.C. 638.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  in l. field,  above f in r. field. Reference: Paris, 1994/183. Hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 184.

639.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  above ı in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 766, pl. xxv, 5 [1 listed, London]. Hoards: 2 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4055–4056; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

640.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  above  on raised boss (resembling , or two pellets on boss) in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 767 [1 listed, Dattari]; Commerce 1994, Harlan J. Berk. Obverse die link with no. 637 above. Hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 183.

Year KQ (29) = 257/6 B.C. 641.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  above  in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 768, pl. xxv, 6 [1 listed, Athens].

642.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 769 [1 listed, Alexandria].

Ptolemais (Ake)

643.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

377

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  or  above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: a) with : Paris, Z.2884, 229 (Dattari coll.); b) with : Svoronos Vol. IV, Addenda 769a, pl. Γ, 4 [1 listed, Dattari = Paris, Z.2884, 230]. Hoards: a) 3 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4057–4059 b) Balatah (ancient Shechem) 1960 (IGCH 1588), Carlen (2014), 12.

Year L (30) = 256/5 B.C. 644.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): G above @ in l. field, L above Î in r. field. Reference: Paris, Z.2884, 231 (Dattari coll.); Paris, 1994/184. Obverse die link with nos. 645–646 below. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4067; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 202.

645.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): G above @ in l. field, L above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 770, pl. xxv, 7 [10 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 469. Obverse die link with nos. 644 above and 646 below. Hoards: Kozani, 1955 (IGCH 457), Dodson and Wallace (1964), 26; 2 in Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 466, plus 1 in Newell’s record in ANS; Uşak (ancient Temenothyrae), 1966 (CH II, 68 = CH VIII, 287), Leschhorn (1986), 108; 7 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308); Meydancıkkale 4060–4066; Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 679‒680; Saida, 1949 (IGCH 1586), Trésors 40.33; Balatah (ancient Shechem) 1960 (IGCH 1588), Carlen (2014), 13; 3 in Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 86‒88; 17 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 185–201; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303); Mit Ya-Ish (EH I, 200).

Year LA (31) = 255/4 B.C. 646.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): G above @ in l. field,  (or ) above Î in r. field. Reference: a) with : Svoronos 771, pl. xxv, 8 [2 listed]; b) with : CNR XIX/2 (1994), lot 129. Obverse die link with nos. 644–645 above. Hoards: a) Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); Syria, 1989 (CH VIII, 462); 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 203–204; b) 2 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4068–4069. For an imitative issue, see no. 698 below.

647.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): G above @ in l. field,  (or ) above  in r. field. Reference: a) with : Svoronos 773 [6 listed]; b) with : Svoronos 774, pl. xxv, 10 [5 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 470. Obverse die link with no. 649 below. Hoards: Balatah (ancient Shechem), 1960 (IGCH 1588), Carlen (2014), 14; a) 3 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4076–4078; 8 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 682‒689; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 205; b) Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 467; Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308); 3 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 690‒692; Nuba, Hebron, 1975 (CH II, 69); Hebron area, 199 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 89; 16 in Iraq alAmir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 206–221.

648.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): G above @ in l. field,  above  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 772, pl. xxv, 9 [3 listed]. Hoards: Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 681; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 205; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

378

Ptolemy II Philadelphus



Ptolemais (Ake)

Year LB (32) = 254/3 B.C. 649.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): G above @ in l. field, LB above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 775, pl. xxv, 11 [6 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 471. Obverse die link with no. 647 above. Hoards: Kozani, 1955 (IGCH 457), Dodson and Wallace (1964), 27; Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 468; 4 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4079–4082; Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; perhaps Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 693‒694; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 90; 6 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 222‒227; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303). This issue inspired a substantial imitative coinage, usually substituting the royal title for the epithet Soter, see nos. 698A–700.

Year LG (33) = 253/2 B.C. 650.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): G above @ in l. field, LG above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 777, pl. xxv, 12 [10 listed, including a barbarous imitation]; SNG Copenhagen 472. Hoards: 4 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4083–4086; Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; 3 in Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); 3 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 695‒697; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 91; 6 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 228‒233; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303); Mit Ya-Ish (EH I, 200). See also no. 701, an imitative issue belonging to the same series as nos. 698–700.

Year LD (34) = 252/1 B.C. 651.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): G above @ in l. field, LD above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 778, pl. xxv, 13 [10 listed, including two barbarous imitations]; SNG Copenhagen 473. Hoards: 4 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4087–4090; 2 in Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 691 (there listed as Svoronos 773, but cf. CH pl. xxxvii, 7); 8 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 235‒242. See also no. 702, an imitative issue belonging to the same series as nos. 698–701.

Year LE (35) = 251/0 B.C. 652. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): LE in lower l. field, G above  in lower r. field below cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 779, pl. xxv, 14 [1 listed, Löbbecke, in Berlin cabinet since 1906]; Troxell (1983), p. 52, 32.

653.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): G above  in l. field, LE above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 780, pl. xxv, 15 [6 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 474. Obverse die link with no. 654 below. Hoards: 4 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4091–4094; Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 698‒699; Khan elAbde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 75; Saida, 1949 (IGCH 1586), Trésors 40.34; 2 in Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 92‒93; 9 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 243–251; Jordan, 1987 (CH VIII, 320 = EH I, 99), Meadows 6; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303); Rüppell, East Delta, before 1822, per Noeske (2006), p. 41. See also no. 703, an imitative issue belonging to same series as nos. 698–702.

Ptolemais (Ake) • Ioppe

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

379

Year L (36) = 250/49 B.C. 654.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): G above  in l. field, L above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 782, pl. xxv, 16 [7 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 475. Obverse die link with no. 653 above. Hoards: 4 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 700‒703; 6 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 252–257; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

Year  (37) = 249/8 B.C. 655.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): G above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 783, pl. xxv, 17 [5 listed, specimen ε subaeratum]. Hoards: 2 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4095–4096; 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 704–705; Beqaa Valley, 1964, Paris R.4465/23 (Seyrig coll.); Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 94; 8 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 258‒265.

Year H (38) = 248/7 B.C. 656.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): G above  in l. field, H above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 784 [2 listed]. Hoard: 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 706‒707.

Year Q (39) = 247/6 B.C. 657.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): G above  in l. field, Q above  in r. field. Reference: Paris, 1994/185; Waddell FPL, 24 April 2008; DCA 19. Obverse die link with nos. 855 and 857 below, issues of Ptolemy III. Hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 266.

Ioppe Dated Gold Mnaieia (Octadrachms) of Arsinoe Philadelphus, from 261/0 B.C. Dated Silver Tetradrachms of Ptolemy Soter, from 261/0 B.C. A tetradrachm of Ioppe with only the mintmark in left field and right field controls erased occurred in the Saida, 1949 hoard (IGCH 1586), Trésors 40.35. It was one of several coins in the hoard showing erasures. Another Ioppe tetradrachm was reported in the Aradus(?), before 1981 hoard (CH VIII, 311), without further details. That hoard is now recognized as a fragment of the Syria, 1981 hoard (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105).

Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Veiled head of Arsinoe II r., with ram’s horn, wearing diademed stephane, over far shoulder lotus scepter with serpent coiled round shaft, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing pyramidal cakes, pomegranate, and other fruits, a grape cluster hanging from rim of each horn, dotted border. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/ on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border.

380

Ptolemy II Philadelphus



Ioppe

Year KE (25) = 261/0 B.C. 658. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  in lower r. field below cornucopiae,  in upper r. field. Reference: Troxell (1983), p. 53, 37, pl. 9, A.

659.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 795, pl. xxiii, 2 [3 listed, monogram misdescribed]; Meydancıkkale 4031–4032. Obverse die link with no. 660 below. Hoards: 2 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4031–4032; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 109; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

Year Kz (27) = 259/8 B.C. 660.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  in l. field, ¤ in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 796, pl xxiii, 3 [2 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 659 above. Hoards: 5 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4033–4037; Seleucia-Pieria excavations (IGCH 1526), Waage (1952), p. 90, 972; Saida, 1949 (IGCH 1586), Trésors 40.35; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 110.

Year KQ (29) = 257/6 B.C. 661.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 797, pl. xxiii, 4 [1 listed, Athens].

Year L (30) = 256/5 B.C. 662.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above · in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 798, pl. xxiii, 5 [4 listed]. Hoards: Eretria (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 469; 2 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4038– 4039; Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 111–112; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

Year LA (31) = 255/4 B.C. 663.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 801 [2 listed]; BMC Ptolemies, p. 34, 128 (erroneously described with ).

664. Silver stater (tetradrachm):  in l. field,  (or ) above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: a) with : Svoronos 799, pl. xxiii, 6 [6 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 461; b) with : Svoronos 800 [1 listed, Alexandria]. Hoards: a) Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4040; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 114; b) 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 709‒710.

Year B (32) = 254/3 B.C. 665.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  in l. field,  (or ) above  in r. field.

Ioppe

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

381

Reference: a) with : Svoronos 803 [2 listed]; b) with : Syria, 1981 hoard. Hoards: a) 1–2 in Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 713; b) Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 714.

666.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  in l. field,  above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 802, pl. xxiii, 7 [3 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 462. Hoards: 2 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4041–4042; Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); Cyprus, before 1916, Olivier (2015), 7; 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 711‒712; 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 115–116.

Year G (33) = 253/2 B.C. 667. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  in lower l. field, S in lower r. field below cornucopiae. Reference: Spink 10, 4 October 1995, lots 64–65; UBS 78, 9 September 2008, lot 1065. Obverse die link with mnaieion of Tyre, year 33, see no. 594 above.

668.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 805, pl. xxiii, 9 [1 listed, Stroganoff 100].

669.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 804, pl. xxiii, 8 [4 listed]. According to Poole (1883), p. xxxiv, a reverse die of this issue was recut for use at Tyre in year 34, creating a link with no. 607, however Svoronos treated this as an overstrike. Hoard: 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 117–119.

670.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): ‡ above · in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 806 [1 listed, Dattari]; SNG Copenhagen 463. Hoard: Epidaurus environs, 1979/80 (CH VII, 69 = CH VIII, 298 = CH IX, 179).

Year D (34) = 252/1 B.C. 671.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 807, pl. xxiii, 10 [6 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 464. Reverse die transferred to Sidon and recut, creating die link with no. 530. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4043; Cyprus, before 1916, Olivier (2015), 8; 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 715‒716; 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 120–122.

Year LE (35) = 251/0 B.C. 672.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field, LE above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 810, pl. xxiii, 11 [9 listed]. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4044; 3 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 717‒719; 5 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 125–129; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

382

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

673.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above · (or ) in l. field, LE above  in r. field.



Ioppe

Reference: a) with ·: Svoronos 809 [2 listed]; b) with : Svoronos 808 [1 listed, Berlin]. Hoard: a) 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 123–124.

Year L (36) = 250/49 B.C. 674.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field, L above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 811, pl. xxiii, 14 [4 listed]. Hoards: Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 95; 5 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 130–134; Jordan, 1987 (CH VIII, 320 = EH I, 99), Meadows 7.

675.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above · or  in l. field, L above  in r. field. Reference: a) with ·: Svoronos 813, pl. xxiii, 12 [3 listed]; ANS 1944.100.76233; b) with : Svoronos 812, pl. xxiii, 13 [1 listed, London]. Hoards: a) Sophikon (IGCH 179), Svoronos (1907a), 940; 2 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4045–46; Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 721; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 96; 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 135–137; a or b) Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 720.

Year Lz (37) = 249/8 B.C. 676.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field, Lz (or ) above  in r. field. Reference: a) with : Svoronos 815, pl. xxiii, 16 [3 listed]; b) with : Berk 82, 13 July 1994, lot 496. Obverse die link with no. 677 below. Hoards: a) Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4048; 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 727‒728; Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 35; a and b) 5 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 138–142.

677.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above · or  in l. field, Lz above  in r. field. Reference: a) with ·: Svoronos 814, pl. xxiii, 15 [5 listed]; b) with : Syria, 1981 hoard. Obverse die link with no. 676 above. Hoards: a) 2 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4047, 4049; 4 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 722‒725; 7 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 143–149; b) Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 726.

Year LH (38) = 248/7 B.C. 678.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above · in l. field, LH above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 816, pl. xxiii, 17 [3 listed]. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4050; 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 729‒730; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 97; 5 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 150–154.

Year LQ (39) = 247/6 B.C. 679.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field, LQ above  in r. field. Reference: Paris, 1994/176. Obverse die link with no. 680 below. Hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 156.

Gaza

680.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

383

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above · or  in l. field, LQ above  in r. field. Reference: a) with ·: Svoronos 817, pl. xxiii, 18 [2 listed]; b) with : Syria, 1981 hoard. Obverse die link with no. 679 above. Hoards: a) Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 98; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 155; b) Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 731.

Gaza Dated Gold Mnaieia (Octadrachms) of Arsinoe Philadelphus, after 261/0 B.C. Dated Silver Tetradrachms of Ptolemy Soter, from 261/0 B.C. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Veiled head of Arsinoe II r., with ram’s horn, wearing diademed stephane, over far shoulder lotus scepter with serpent coiled round shaft, dotted border/ on l.  on r., double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing pyramidal cakes, pomegranate, and other fruits, a grape cluster hanging from rim of each horn, dotted border. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/  on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. Year KE (25) = 261/0 B.C. 681.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 822, pl. xxiv, 1 and 3 [2 listed]. Hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 73.

Year KH (28) = 258/7 B.C. 682.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above F in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Paris, Z.2884, 256 (Dattari coll.). Specimen with only guide dots cut for Gaza monogram in A. D. Philippidis coll., Hicksville, N.Y. (P-1999-04-13.001). Obverse die link with no. 684 below. Hoards: Sparta, 1908 (IGCH 181), Wace (1907/08), 86; 3 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4011–4013.

Year KQ (29) = 257/6 B.C. 683. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): · in lower l. field, KQ in lower r. field. Reference: Svoronos 823, pl. xxiv, 4 [1 listed, Athens]; Troxell (1983), p. 53, 42. One specimen of this issue was altered to resemble the most common Arsinoe mnaieion of Alexandria (no. 388) (offered by Glenn Woods on VCoins in Feburary 2008).

684.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): · above 5 (recut over earlier control) in l. field, KQ in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 824 [1 listed, London]. Obverse die link with no. 682 above; second obverse die link with no. 685 below. Hoard: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4014.

384

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

685.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): · above È in l. field, KQ above  in r. field.



Gaza

Reference: Svoronos 825, pl. xxiv, 5 [2 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 684 above; a second obverse link with no. 688 below. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4015; Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 74.

Year  (30) = 256/5 B.C. 686.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): È above  in l. field,  above · in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 826, pl. xxiv, 7 [2 listed]. Hoards: Thessaly, 1974 (CH II, 72 = CH III, 43); 3 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4016– 4018; Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 37; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 99; 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 77–78.

687.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): · above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference/hoard: Seleucia Pieria excavations (IGCH 1526), Waage (1952), p. 90, 973.

688.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): · above È in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 827, pl. xxiv, 6 [5 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 457. Obverse die link with no. 685 above. Hoards: Balatah (ancient Shechem), 1960 (IGCH 1588), Carlen (2014), 15; 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 75–76.

Year LA (31) = 255/4 B.C. 689.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): · above È in l. field, LA (or AL) above  in r. field. Reference: a) With : Svoronos 828, pl. xxiv, 8 [4 listed]; BMC Ptolemies, p. 35, 137 (with  instead of ); b) with : DCA 17. Hoards: a) Corinth (IGCH 187), Noe (1962), 382; Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4019; 4 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 79–82; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303).

Year LB (32) = 254/3 B.C. 690.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): · above È in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 829, pl. xxiv, 9 [6 listed]. Hoards: Olympia, 1922 (IGCH 176), Newell (1929), 82; 5 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4020–4024; Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 732; Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 38; 4 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 83–86.

691.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): · above È in l. field,  above  above  in r. field. Reference/hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 87.

Year G (33) = 253/2 B.C. 692.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): · above È in l. field, G above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 830, pl. xxiv, 10 [7 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 458. Hoards: 4 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4025–4028; 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 733–734; 7 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 88–94.

Gaza • Uncertain Mint 23

693.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

385

Silver stater (tetradrachm): · above  in l. field, G above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 831, pl. xxiv, 11 [2 listed]. The existence of a separate issue with these markings is very doubtful; most likely the reading  resulted from poor rendering of the È monogram consistently present on the issues of Gaza from year 31.

Year  (36) = 250/49 B.C. 694.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): · above È in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 832 [1 listed, Stroganoff 110, date described as ]. The date appears as  on a specimen from the former D. Doswell coll., Decatur, Illinois. Hoard: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4029.

Year  (37) = 249/48 B.C. 695.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): · above È in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 833, pl. xxiv, 12 [6 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 459. Hoards: Sophikon (IGCH 179), Svoronos (1907a), 941; Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4030; Syria, 1989 (CH VIII, 462); Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 735‒736; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 100; 9 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 95–103; Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303); Mit Ya-Ish (EH I, 200).

Year H (38) = 248/47 B.C. 696.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): · above È in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: CNA, 20 March 1991, lot 247.

Uncertain Mint 23, imitating Ptolemais (Ake) Tetradrachms Naming Ptolemy the King or Ptolemy Soter, 256/5 B.C. or later This unidentified mint imitated the dated tetradrachms of Ptolemais (Ake), specifically those with regnal dates ranging from year 30 (256/5) to year 35 (251/0). Svoronos recorded the imitations for years 32 through 35. Héloïse Aumaître has recently identified further imitations of Ptolemais tetradrachms of Ptolemy III. The activity of this mint apparently commenced with an emission not recorded in the scholarly literature, which is marked with the single control  (no. 697). The  emission required at least five obverse dies of diverse style, three of which are reverse die linked. One of the obverse dies was subsequently used to strike an imitative tetradrachm based on a Ptolemais prototype of year 31 (no. 698). Uncertain Mint 23 must have been located in the sphere of influence of Ptolemais, whose coins it imitated. But the imitative tetradrachms apparently did not win easy acceptance in the Ptolemaic kingdom; they rarely appear in hoards with regular Ptolemaic issues before the second century. Perhaps the imitative tetradrachms originally had a separate area of circulation, or perhaps they were commonly rejected by hoarders because of their anomalous style. Svoronos characterized the Ptolemais imitations as barbarous. It is true that both the portraits and the eagles are of an unusual (local) style, but the substitution of the royal title for the Soter legend on no. 700 implies that the minting authority was literate in Greek and familiar with the conventions of earlier Ptolemaic coinage. At the same time, the appearance of the royal title in this series is contrary to the contemporary practice of all the major Ptolemaic mints, both in Syria and Phoenicia and on Cyprus, and this suggests that Uncertain Mint 23 was located in an area not under direct Ptolemaic administration. A coin hoard dispersed in commerce since 2008 contained one specimen of no. 699 and 31 of no. 700 from

386

Ptolemy II Philadelphus



Uncertain Mint 23

no less than seventeen obverse dies, implying a very large output of these coins. The authority behind this coinage evidently controlled significant stocks of silver, and he must have struck his tetradrachms either to pay Ptolemaic troops or to hire mercenary soldiers who were familiar with the Ptolemaic coin types. We can deduce that this authority was either a Ptolemaic ally or an independent dynast ruling territory to the east of the Lagid province of Syria and Phoenicia.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/ on l.,  or  (as noted) on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. 697.

Silver stater (tetradrachm, with royal title):  in l. field. Reference: P. Pavlou coll., London (providing obverse die link to no. 698); Paris, R.4465/1 (Seyrig coll.); ANS 1944.100.76249; ANS 1986.78.1033. Hoards: Galatia, 1939 (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); Cyprus, before 1916, Olivier (2015), 9; Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 739.

697A. Silver stater (tetradrachm, with Soter legend): G above  in l. field,  above  (for ) in r. field. Reference: Commerce, 2016.

698.

Silver stater (tetradrachm, with Soter legend): G above @ in l. field,  above Î in r. field. Reference: P. Pavlou coll., London; cf. Svoronos 771, pl. xxv, 8. Obverse die link with no. 697 above.

698A. Silver stater (tetradrachm, with Soter legend): G above  in l. field,  in r. field. Reference/hoard: Jericho area, c. 1991 (CH VIII, 412 = EH I, 111), Olivier and Meadows 1.

699.

Silver stater (tetradrachm, with Soter legend): G above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Paris inv. 74; Bucarest inv. 1261, M. 1127 no. 4979; CNG E-Auction 207, 25 March 2009, lot 236. Hoards: Cyprus, before 1916, Olivier (2015), 10; commerce, 2008.

700.

Silver stater (tetradrachm, with royal title): G above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 776, pl. lxiv, 1–2. Hoard: 29 in commerce, 2008.

701.

Silver stater (tetradrachm, with Soter legend): G above  in l. field,  or  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 777ε; BMC p. 33, 119. Hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 234.

702.

Silver stater (tetradrachm, with Soter legend): G above  in l. field,  or  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 778β [Athens, Demetriou 178] and 778ζ [Merzbacher].

Uncertain Mint 23 • Jerusalem

703.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

387

Silver stater (tetradrachm, with Soter legend): G above  in l. field,  or  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 781 [Dattari].

Uncertain Mint 24, perhaps in Palestine Ptolemy Soter Tetradrachm, 261/0 B.C. or later Davesne read the right control as a monogrammatic date (27) and attributed this tetradrachm to Gaza, alleging an obverse die link to coins with a Gaza mintmark, dated to the twenty-eighth regnal year of Ptolemy II. If there is a die link, it is not to the Gazan issue of year 28 but rather to that of year 29 (Meydancıkkale 4014), but the condition of the Gaza piece leaves room for doubt.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/ on l., S on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. 704.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): à in l. field,  (?) in r. field, dotted border. Reference: Meydancıkkale 4010; CH VIII, 304, pl. xxxvii, 2. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308); Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304), pl. xxxvii, 2 (= EH I, 100), Meadows 42.

Jerusalem Quarter obols portraying Ptolemy I and Berenice I, the parents of Ptolemy II, represent a substantial issue (nos. 705–706). The iconography seems to fit the propaganda needs of Ptolemy Philadelphus in the early years of his reign, when he was concerned with confirming the legitimacy of his succession and established cults to his parents both together and individually. The quadruple portrait issue (nos. 707–708) directly parallels iconography introduced at Alexandria after the deification of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II in or before 272. This variety is extremely rare in the Yehud series and most likely represents a special issue. No. 711 is by far the most common variety of the Ptolemy/eagle quarter obols. Gitler and Lorber (2006) regarded it as the latest Ptolemaic coinage of Judah because of its high proportion of vertical die axes. They associated the use of fixed dies with a possible reform of the Jerusalem mint in 261/0, contemporary with other monetary reforms in Syria and Phoenicia, and accordingly they dated these Ptolemy/eagle quarter obols after 261/0. Such a chronology leaves no coinage between c. 272 and 261/0, and it thus seems preferable to place the bulk of the issue in this period. At least two die links to coins with an earlier form of the legend inspired a reattribution of part of the issue to Ptolemy I (see no. 254). Alternatively, the links may imply that Ptolemy/eagle coins with the legend  were produced for a time under Ptolemy II, presumably after the Ptolemy/Berenice issue. A few rare Ptolemy/eagle coins stand apart for their relatively large denominations and superior style. Two of these (nos. 709 and 710) are related to no. 711 by portrait style and the form of their legend. Most plausibly connected with the currency reforms of 261/0 is no. 712. It features a very different portrait style and a fragmentary Greek legend supplementing the ethnic.

Portraits of Ptolemy I and Berenice I, probably before c. 272/1 B.C. 705.

Silver quarter obol (c. 0.18 g): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r./ (Yhd), bare head of Berenice I r. Reference: Gitler and Lorber, Group 6, no. 10 [21 listed]; TJC 33–33a. One reverse die has now been recorded without the inscription.

388

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

706.

Silver quarter obol (c. 0.18 g): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r./ (Yhd), bare head of Berenice I l.



Jerusalem

Reference: Gitler and Lorber, Group 6, no. 11 [4 listed]; TJC 34.

Jugate Portraits on Obverse and Reverse, c. 272 B.C. 707.

Silver triobol (1.73 g): Jugate heads of Ptolemy I and Berenice I r./Jugate heads of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II r. Reference: Svoronos 609, pl. xiv, 26 [2 listed]; A. Spaer coll., Jerusalem. Commercial source: Jerusalem. Svoronos assigned this variety to Alexandria, but the style appears provincial and a silver fraction of small value seems out of place in the Alexandrian coinage with jugate portraits, which otherwise consists entirely (or predominantly) of gold coins. The lack of a visible inscription naming Judah may indicate that this coin originated elsewhere, but we now know of anepigraphic specimens of no. 705 above. The triobol denomination, exceptional in Judah, was also struck in the following period (see nos. 709 and 712 below). Other features favoring an attribution to Jerusalem are the use of damaged dies and dies too large for their flans, both characteristic of the Judah coinage. An attribution to Judah receives further support from the fact that one of the three known specimens was acquired in Jerusalem.

708.

Silver hemiobol (0.35 g): Jugate heads r. of Ptolemy I and Berenice I/ (Yhd), jugate heads r. of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II. Reference: Gitler and Lorber, Group 6, no. 12 [1 listed]; TJC 35. The presence of the legend indicates that the reigning sovereigns, Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, are here depicted on the reverse of the coin, contrary to the usual practice of Alexandria.

Ptolemy/Eagle Varieties, probably c. 272–261/0 B.C. and perhaps later 709.

Silver triobol (1.55–1.65 g): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r./ (Yhdh), eagle with spread wings standing l. on thunderbolt. Reference: Gitler and Lorber, Group 7, no. 14 [4 listed]; TJC 31a.

710.

Silver quarter drachm? (0.80 g): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r./ (Yhdh), eagle with spread wings standing l. on thunderbolt. Reference: Gitler and Lorber, Group 7, no. 15 [1 listed]; Deutsch, INJ 13 (1994–1999), p. 26, 4.

711. Silver quarter obol (c. 0.18 g.): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r./ (Yhdh), eagle with spread wings standing l. on thunderbolt. Reference: Gitler and Lorber, Group 7, no.16 [129 listed]; TJC 32. Hoard: 2 in Hebron area, 1999 (CH IX, 484), Gitler and Lorber (2006), p. 27, nos. 24‒25.

Special Denomination, probably 261/0 B.C. 712.

Silver triobol (1.75 g): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r./ (Yhdh), eagle with spread wings standing l. on thunderbolt,  in inner l. field. Reference: Gitler and Lorber, Group 7, no. 13 [1 listed]; TJC 31. This unique coin is of exceptionally fine style for the Judah series. The dies were probably commissioned from outside the mint. The idealized portrait of Ptolemy I reflects changes to his iconography at all mints following the reform of 261/0.

Cyrene

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

389

CYRENAICA Cyrene Coinage of Magas in Revolt The dates of Magas’ revolt are unknown, but it may have been triggered by the accession of Ptolemy II, see F. Chamoux (1956). During his years of independence Magas probably struck coinage of traditional Cyrenean types. For the precious metal varieties, see L. Naville (1951), p. 84; for the bronzes, see T. V. Buttrey (1997), p. 37. Ptolemy’s name and portrait are notably absent from this coinage, yet Magas did not claim credit as its issuing authority.

Coinage of Magas reconciled with Ptolemy II Cyrenaican coins with the portraits of Ptolemy I and Berenice I were listed in BMC Cyrenaica as issues of Magas in revolt. L. Naville (1951), pp. 83–84, argued that the iconographic program was more likely to signal the reconciliation of Magas with his half-brother. Ptolemy I and Berenice I were jointly and conspicuously honored on the gold coinage of Alexandria from c. 272 until perhaps c. 260 (nos. 307–319). In Cyrenaica the two portraits appeared separately on the coinage, probably reflecting the output of two different mints. The silver coinage honoring Ptolemy is mostly of mediocre style. Didrachms with the eagle oriented to the right invariably feature anomalous legends as well, in which the royal title appears on the left side of the coin and the royal name on the right, inverting the practice of Alexandria and most other mints. These didrachms were probably earlier than didrachms that more closely conform to the conventions of Alexandrian coinage. Didrachms with the eagle oriented to the left, as at Alexandria, initially retained the inverted legend but eventually corrected the anomaly. The sole tetradrachm of this period seems to fall between the two didrachm series. Curiously, the monogram of Magas, which is quite prevalent on contemporary bronze coinage, appears on only a few didrachms of the first series and only one of the second.

Silver Coinage with Portrait of Ptolemy I Ptolemy I/eagle r. didrachms Silver didrachm, Type 1: Diademed Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing r. on thunderbolt. Variations in legend as noted. 713.

Silver didrachm (Type 1, eagle r.):  (retrograde) on l.,  on r., flaming race torch in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 312, pl. iii, 23 [2 listed]; A. D. Philippidis coll., Hicksville, N.Y.

714.

Silver didrachm (Type 1, eagle r.):  (retrograde) on l.,  on r., È in l. field, race torch in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 311, pl. iii, 22 [1 listed, Imhoof-Blumer, Mon. gr. 456, 5]; Svoronos 313, pl. A, 39 [1 listed, Berlin]. On the latter coin the right side of the reverse is not struck up and the undertype is visible.

715.

Silver didrachm (Type 1, eagle r.):  on l.,  on r., \ in l. field,  (monogram of Magas) in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 322, pl. iii, 24 [2 listed].

390

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

716.

Silver didrachm (Type 1, eagle r.):  on l.,  on r.,  (monogram of Magas) in l. field, \ in r. field.



Cyrene

Reference: BMC Ptolemies p. 39, 25.

717. Silver didrachm (Type 1, eagle r.):  on l.,  on r.,  above # (monogram of Magas) in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 323, pl. iii, 25 [1 listed, Athens].

718.

Silver didrachm (Type 1, eagle r.):  on l.,  on r., # (or ?) above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos Vol. IV, Addenda 323A, pl. A, 43 [1 listed, Dattari].

Ptolemy I/eagle l. tetradrachm 719. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck/ (straight) on l.,  (straight) on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, silphium plant in l. field. Reference: Svoronos Vol. IV, Addenda 304A, pl. A, 38 [1 listed, Dattari].

Ptolemy I/eagle l. didrachms Silver didrachm, Type 2: Diademed Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck/  arranged vertically flanking main type, eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt. Variations in legend as noted. 720.

Silver didrachm (Type 2, eagle l.):  on l.,  on r., race torch in l. field, silphium plant in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 305, pl. iii, 15 [3 listed]; ANS 1944.100.7528 has curving legend.

721.

Silver didrachm (Type 2, eagle l.):  on l.,  on r., ª or p above silphium plant in l. field. Reference: SNG Copenhagen 428.

722. Silver didrachm (Type 2, eagle l.):  on l.,  on r., aphlaston in lower l. field, crab in upper r. field. Reference: Svoronos 306, pl. iii, 16–17 [3 listed].

723.

Silver didrachm (Type 2, eagle l.):  on l.,  on r., ” in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 307, pl. iii, 18 [1 listed, London]; London, BMC Cyrenaica 7. Provenanced find: Cyrene excavations, Buttrey (1997), 197.

724.

Silver didrachm (Type 2, eagle l.):  on l.,  on r.,  in l. field. Reference/provenanced find: Buttrey (1997), 198.

Cyrene • Euesperides

725.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus

391

Silver didrachm (Type 2, eagle l.):  on l.,  on r., · in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 308, pl. iii, 20 [1 listed, Paris]; Svoronos 309, pl. iii, 19 [1 listed, Löbbecke], where Svoronos erroneously describes the control as Ê.

726.

Silver didrachm (Type 2, eagle l.):  on l.,  on r., uncertain control (perhaps , s, or a Magas monogram) in l. field.



Reference: Svoronos 310, pl. iii, 21 [1 listed, Paris]. The control is very poorly preserved and Svoronos’ transcription, Á, is unlikely to be correct.

727.

Vacat.

Euesperides Silver Didrachms for Berenice I Many scholars, including Poole, Svoronos, Robinson, and Buttrey, have identified the queen portrayed on silver and bronze coins of Cyrenaica as Berenice I, mother of Magas. However there exists another school of thought that sees the portrait of Berenice II, daughter of Magas and wife of Ptolemy III. D. B. Thompson (1973), p. 85 n.1, related the coin portraits to undoubted representations of Berenice II on cult oinochoai. The coinage could even have been struck by Berenice before her marriage to Ptolemy III, according to M. C. Caltabiano (1996), pp. 188–189. What argues in favor of the elder Berenice is the existence of the parallel silver and bronze coins of Ptolemy I (see nos. 713–727 above and Vol. 2, B343–B352), which are linked to the Berenice issues by the shared monogram of Magas. Ptolemy I and Berenice I were deified together as the Soteres, and it is possible to cite other instances in which they were associated on coinage: the Theoi Adelphoi gold series of Alexandria (nos. 307–319) and the Ptolemy/Berenice silver minimae of the province of Judah (nos. 705–706). There was no similar iconographic program associating Ptolemy I and Berenice II, nor any comparable early Hellenistic coinage promoting even a male heir, much less a female one. Didrachms of Berenice I are superior in style to those issued for Ptolemy I. Svoronos gave both to Cyrene, but Buttrey (1994), p. 137, tentatively attributed the didrachms of Berenice to Euesperides. Buttrey (1997), p. 55, drew attention to the stylistic contrast between the coins of the two sovereigns and to the apple wreath border of those issued for Berenice, which is unique and appropriate to Euesperides. The club reverse of the didrachms echoes earlier bronze types of Euesperides honoring Heracles. The didrachms of Berenice I are likely to have been issued during the years when Berenice I was also honored on the coinage of Alexandria (after 272). For the corresponding bronzes, see Vol. 2, no. B353. In Alexandria Berenice I was associated with Aphrodite, and the same may well have occurred at Euesperides. The city was home to a temple of Aphrodite and the apple wreath border of the coins could allude to the goddess as well as to the city. Euesperides’ production of a coinage for Berenice I may be related to the foundation of the harbor city of Berenice (modern Benghazi), which absorbed the population of Euesperides. The ancient sources attribute the foundation of Berenice to Berenice II and it is usually assumed to have occurred after the accession of Ptolemy III, see Cohen (2006), pp. 389–392 (with earlier literature). However the coin finds from the Euesperides excavations indicate that the city was abandoned before the introduction of the Soter/ Libya bronze coinage (Vol. 2, B354–B355), that is, either during the reign of Magas or shortly after his death. The discovery of three bronzes of Magas in the Sidi Khrebish excavations, reported by Reece (1977), p. 230, further supports an early date for the foundation of Berenice. In the view of Buttrey (1997), pp. 38–41, the foundation of Berenice can be credited to Magas’ daughter Berenice, before her marriage to Ptolemy III. The coinage indicates that Magas had already associated his mother with Euesperides, and it thus seems possible that the new city, whether founded by Magas or by Berenice as queen of Cyrenaica, was actually named in honor of the first Berenice.

392

Ptolemy II Philadelphus



Euesperides

Silver didrachm: Diademed and draped bust of Berenice I r./SSS on l.,  on r., club, apple wreath border. Minor variations as noted. 728.

Silver didrachm: Monogram of Magas (, #, or ) below club, cornucopiae in outer r. field. Reference: Svoronos 316, pl. iii, 45 [1 listed, Copenhagen]; SNG Copenhagen 430.

729.

Silver didrachm:  in outer l. field, trident in outer r. field, and  beneath club. Reference: Svoronos 317, pl. iii, 43 and pl. A, 41 [9 listed]. Provenanced find: Cyrene excavations, Buttrey (1997), 199 (cut quarter, perhaps belonging to one of the other variants listed here).

729A. Silver didrachm: Trident in outer l. field, P in outer r. field,  beneath club. Reference: London.

729B. Silver didrachm: · in outer l. field, trident in outer r. field. Reference: Svoronos 318, pl. iii, 44 [7 listed] SNG Copenhagen 429. Note BMC Ptolemies, p. 60, 13, a subaeratum lacking the trident.

729C. Silver didrachm: § in outer l. field, trident in outer r. field. Reference: Paris, Z.2884, 67 (Dattari coll.).

730.

Silver didrachm: Silphium plant in outer l. field,  beneath club. Reference: Svoronos 319 [2 listed].

731.

Silver didrachm: Wheel in outer l. field,  beneath club. Reference: Svoronos 320, pl. A, 42 [1 listed, London].

PTOLEMY III EUERGETES 246–222 B.C. EGYPT Alexandria Ptolemy Soter Tetradrachm with Cornucopiae Symbol Svoronos assigned certain tetradrachms with the Soter legend and a cornucopiae symbol to Alexandria at the beginning of the reign of Ptolemy III because the cornucopiae is a characteristic feature of Euergetes’ Alexandrian bronze coinage. A. Davesne (Meydancıkkale, p. 292) correctly observed that the presence of a cornucopiae is not sufficient to establish an attribution to Alexandria. Tetradrachms with a cornucopiae symbol come in several styles. Those certainly attributable to the Egyptian capital feature an idealized portrait of Ptolemy Soter, sometimes with an uncharacteristically small nose, and an eagle of typical Alexandrian style. On these coins, the cornucopiae is only rarely bound with a royal diadem. Portraits of anomalous style are more regularly associated with a cornucopiae bound with a diadem. These occur in sequences that employ the royal title as well as the Soter legend, one of which bears the portrait of Ptolemy III and can be assigned to Ionia on the basis of eagle style (see nos. 749‒750, 781‒786). Davesne also argued that the cornucopiae tetradrachms were unlikely to belong to the reign of Ptolemy III, since two examples occurred in the Eretria hoard (IGCH 175), whose burial was placed in 245 by O. Picard (1979), p. 163. One of these was a variety attributed to Ephesus by Svoronos, here identified as an Ionian issue with a portrait of Ptolemy III (no. 782), and the other, photographed in W. P. Wallace’s (partial) photographic record of the Eretria hoard at the American Numismatic Society, also proved to be an Ionian portrait issue of Ptolemy III (see no. 786). An unpublished die study of the Alexandrian cornucopiae tetradrachms by V. van Driessche identified only ten obverse dies, implying a compact emission surely struck in connection with the Third Syrian War. Possibly the entire issue can be associated with the early stages of the war. Two examples occurred in the Sophikon hoard (IGCH 179), whose only other issue of Ptolemy III was a tetradrachm of Ptolemais (Ake) dated year 2 (Svoronos 1035β). Another specimen occurred in the Saida hoard (IGCH 1586 = Trésors 40), whose closing coin was a tetradrachm of Ioppe dated year 3 (of Ptolemy III, 245/4 B.C.).

732.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, cornucopiae (rarely bound with royal diadem) oriented l. in l. field, dotted border. Reference: Svoronos 1001, pl. xxx, 9–11 [19 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 167–168. Hoards: 2 in Sophikon (IGCH 179), Svoronos (1907a), nos. 13–14 (= Svoronos 1001ε, ς); Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); 3 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 739‒741; Dniyé (Aradian Peraea), 1952 (IGCH 1538), Trésors 5.39; Saida, 1949 (IGCH 1586), Trésors 40.38; 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 71–72 ; Mit Ya-Ish (EH I, 200).

393

394

Ptolemy III Euergetes



Alexandria

Gold Double Mnaieion (Double Octadrachm) for Arsinoe Philadelphus, 245 B.C. This double mnaieion was the highest value coin ever struck by the Ptolemies. R. A. Hazzard (1995b, p. 423) interpreted the piloi on the reverse as an allusion to the Ektheosis Arsinoes of the court poet Callimachus, which described how the Dioscuri had conducted Arsinoe’s spirit to heaven on the night of her death. The same piloi also appear on the Attic-weight silver of Berenice II (nos. 734, 742‒743, 746, 748). Taking up a theme of German scholarship, Hazzard associated the Berenice coinage with Berenice Syra, the murdered sister of Ptolemy III, so that the funerary symbolism of the piloi remained relevant. The connection of the coinage with Berenice Syra is very doubtful, however, and it is appropriate to seek a different explanation for the association of the Dioscuri with two queens. Almost certainly the piloi represent the Dioscuri in their most familiar role as the saviors of seafarers, a role shared by the deified Arsinoe Philadelphus in her cult as Arsinoe-Aphrodite Euploia. The coin imagery probably refers to an important event in the life of the court, the safe return of the king from the Third Syrian War in 245. The young Berenice II ensured this happy outcome through her prayers to all the gods, entailing a vow that she fulfilled by dedicating a lock of her hair in the temple of Arsinoe-Aphrodite. As demonstrated by H. A. Troxell (1983, pp. 46–47) the decadrachms and mnaieia for Arsinoe Philadelphus originally portrayed her with the ram’s horn curling tightly around her ear, but later its tip turned downward and it was so represented to the end of the Alexandrian series of both denominations. The double mnaieion revives the portrait style of the earliest decadrachms, with similar facial features and the tightly curled horn. The letter A behind Arsinoe’s head hints that a new series of coins was projected, and apparently the plan involved a return to the earliest style of portraiture. From this we can infer that the Alexandrian series of mnaieia and decadrachms had come to an end before 245, for it seems unlikely that the Alexandria mint would have produced contrasting portraits of the deified Arsinoe contemporaneously, even if they appeared on different denominations. This chronological inference receives further support from metallurgical analyses conducted by J. Olivier and reported by Olivier and Lorber (2013). The piloi of the Dioscuri provide a thematic link between this double mnaieion and the silver 15-drachm piece of Berenice II below (no. 734). In addition, Troxell (1983, p. 64) drew attention to the rendering of the diadem tied around the cornucopiae, which falls straight on the double mnaieion, matching the iconography of Berenice’s Attic-weight coinage rather than the standard iconography of Arsinoe’s coinage. The double mnaieion of Arsinoe Philadelphus and the 15-drachm silver piece of Berenice were closely linked, crediting the two queens for the safe return of Ptolemy III from the Third Syrian War. Clearly they were presentation pieces, distributed at the court on a special occasion, presumably a celebration of the king’s return.

733. Gold double mnaieion or two-mina piece (double octadrachm): Veiled head of deified Arsinoe r., with ram’s horn, wearing diademed stephane, over far shoulder lotus scepter with serpent coiled around shaft,  behind head, dotted border/SS on l.,  on r., double cornucopiae containing pyramidal cakes, pomegranate, and other fruits, a grape cluster hanging from the rim of each horn, the horns bound with royal diadem, its ends hanging straight, in fields flanking cornucopiae laureate piloi of Dioscuri surmounted by stars, dotted border. Reference: Leu 20, 25 April 1978, lot 174; Troxell (1983), p. 64 and pl. 10, A.

Silver 15-Drachm Piece of Berenice II, Ptolemaic Standard, 245 B.C. This large silver denomination was identified by Svoronos as a dodecadrachm on the Attic standard, based on the 46.68 g weight of a single, damaged specimen in Athens and on its evident stylistic kinship with the gold and silver coins of Berenice more certainly struck on the Attic standard (see nos. 735–748). Others have reinterpreted the denomination as a pentekaidekadrachm (15-drachm piece) on the Ptolemaic standard: L. Naville (1951), p. 105 with n.1; D. L. Vagi (1997); R.S. Bagnall (1999), p. 198 n.3; J. Olivier (2006), p. 121.

Alexandria



Ptolemy III Euergetes

395

It is a companion piece to the preceding, to which it is linked by the laureate piloi flanking the cornucopiae, by its exceptional size, and by the odd fact that the ends of the diadem bound around the cornucopiae are arranged in the manner usual on Arsinoe’s coinage, while Arsinoe’s double mnaieion exhibits the straight diadem ends usual for Berenice’s coinage. As savior gods, the Dioscuri preserved men in battle as well as sailors. The juxtaposition of their symbols with the cornucopiae of Berenice probably signifies that she was regarded as the co-savior of her husband, having ensured his safe return from his Syrian campaign through her prayers. The symbolism strongly associates these coins with the Third Syrian War, while the pairing of two exceptional denominations implies a ceremonial function at the court, presumably celebrating the king’s return from the battlefield. For an alternate interpretation of the types, see W. Koch (1923a), pp. 100‒101, and (1923b), pp. 89‒91, 102‒103; W. Giesecke (1930), pp. 46‒49; A. Jähne (1974), p. 508; and most recently R. A. Hazzard (1995a), pp. 5–6 and p. 20 n.16. All of these scholars read the obverse as a posthumous portrait of Berenice, sister of Ptolemy III and widow of Antiochus II. Ptolemy Euergetes initiated the Third Syrian War to defend her dynastic claims and the coinage, according to this interpretative tradition, both commemorated the late queen and legitimized Ptolemy’s conquest of the Seleucid kingdom.

734.

Silver 15-drachm piece, Ptolemaic standard (52.70 g): Diademed and veiled bust of Berenice II r., dotted border/ on l.,  on r., cornucopiae containing grain ear, pyramidal cake, and pomegranate, a grape cluster hanging from the left side of the rim, the horn bound with royal diadem, its ends floating sinuously, in fields flanking cornucopiae laureate piloi of Dioscuri, dotted border. Reference: Svoronos 988, pl. xxxv, 2 [1 listed, Athens]; NFA XXVII, 4–5 December 1991, lot 86; NFA XXX, 8 December 1992, lot 178.

Precious Metal Coins of Berenice II, Attic Standard Egypt had abandoned the Attic standard around 305, and its revival after more than fifty years remains puzzling. The Attic-weight coinage of Berenice features exceptional denominations that were compatible with the Ptolemaic standard as well. R. S. Poole (1883, pp. xlvi‒xlvii) believed that this unusual coinage was struck in Cyrenaica before Berenice’s marriage to Ptolemy III and that its purpose was to harmonize the monetary traditions of their two kingdoms, soon to be united. E. T. Newell (1927, pp. 8–12) cited a number of Egyptian provenances to support the Alexandrian origin of the Attic-weight Berenice coinage. Noting the equivalence of the gold decadrachm to 1.5 minae and the equivalence of 2.5 Attic to three Ptolemaic drachms, he suggested that the coinage may have been designed to facilitate the exchange of war booty from the Third Syrian War. This interesting hypothesis alludes to the 40,000 talents of silver reportedly carried back from Syria by the king when he returned to Egypt in 245 and would imply a similar date for the main issue of the Attic-weight coinage. (For later issues, see nos. 744–748 below.) It must be noted, however, that not a single foreign coin has been found in Egypt that might represent a remnant of the war booty. There is no particular reason to believe that coined silver comprised an important part of the booty or that such coins were allowed to circulate in Egypt even temporarily. Other interpretations of the Attic-weight coinage of Berenice also associate it with the Third Syrian War. Svoronos (1904, Vol. I, cols. σμαʹ‒σναʹ; 1908, Vol. IV, cols. 164‒175) believed it was struck by the admiral of the Ptolemaic fleet in the course of the war, partly at Seleucia in Pieria and partly at Ephesus. W. Koch (1923a, pp. 100‒101; 1923b, pp. 89‒101, 102‒103) and R. A. Hazzard (1995a, pp. 5–6) submitted that it was struck in Syria during the campaign of Ptolemy III in honor of his murdered sister Berenice Syra, widow of Antiochus II. For W. Giesecke (1930, pp. 46‒49) and A. Jähne (1974, p. 508), the coinage advertised Berenice Syra’s queenship in order to legitimize her brother’s attempt to conquer the Seleucid kingdom. Following Poole and Newell, L. Naville (1951, p 105) and J. Olivier (2006, pp. 121) defined the Attic-weight coins as bivalent, capable of being exchanged on either the Attic or the Ptolemaic standard. Olivier offered the further proposition that their bivalence was intended to permit their use in Ptolemaic

396

Ptolemy III Euergetes



Alexandria

outposts that bordered on Seleucid territory. All hypotheses implying a Syrian circulation have so far been supported by only a single find in Syria (see no. 737). The Attic-weight coinage in the name of Berenice differs from the usual output of Alexandria not only in its weight standard, but also in its denominational structure. The fact that coins of identical weight were struck in gold and in silver seems to indicate that the Ptolemaic undervaluation of silver, which had exchanged at 12.5 : 1 against gold, had been abandoned in favor of the 10 : 1 ratio current in the rest of the Hellenistic world. Except for an unmarked issue (nos. 735–736), whose rarity suggests it was ephemeral, these coins bear the symbols of the Dioscuri: stars on the gold denominations and piloi on the silver. For the significance of these symbols, see the commentary on nos. 733–734, where it is suggested that these emblems commemorate the role of Berenice’s prayers in assuring the safe return of her husband from the Third Syrian War. The main issue of the Attic-weight coinage, nos. 737‒743, probably represents a bonus paid to the troops at the end of the war, for whom the symbolism would also have been appropriate. Later issues of Attic-weight coinage in the name of Berenice the Queen bear secondary controls that also appear on the bronze coinage of Ptolemy III, see Vol. 2, B365–B369, B383, and B395–B402. These control links suggest that after the main burst of Berenikeia nomismata in 241, subsequent issues were intermittent. The latest issues are very small in size. These patterns seem to indicate that the Berenice coinage was intended to address a special need that declined over time, perhaps in the resettlement of war veterans.

Gold decadrachm, Attic standard (c. 43.00 g): Diademed and veiled bust of Berenice II r., wearing necklace, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., cornucopiae containing grain ear, pyramidal cake, and pomegranate, grape cluster hanging from l. side of rim, the horn bound with royal diadem, its ends hanging straight, dotted border. Gold pentadrachm, Attic standard (c. 21.30 g): Types as preceding. Gold two and a half drachms, Attic standard (c. 10.75 g): Types as preceding. Gold drachm, Attic standard (c. 4.30 g): Types as preceding. Gold hemidrachm, Attic standard (2.27 g): Types as preceding. Gold quarter drachm, Attic standard (c. 1.07 g): Types as preceding. Silver pentadrachm, Attic standard (c. 21.30 g): Types as preceding. Silver two and a half drachms, Attic standard (c. 10.75 g): Types as preceding. Unmarked series 735.

Gold decadrachm, Attic standard (c. 43.00 g): No symbols or controls. Reference: Svoronos 986 [1 listed, Babelon, Mél. num. II série, p. 1]. Obverse die link with no. 744 below.

736.

Gold hemidrachm, Attic standard (2.27 g): No symbols or controls. Reference: Svoronos 987, pl. xxxv, 13 [1 listed, Löbbecke].

Series with symbols of the Dioscuri (no secondary control) 737.

Gold pentadrachm, Attic standard (c. 21.30 g): Two stars flanking cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 978, pl. xxix, 4–5 [8 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 745 below. Hoard: Syria, 1989 (CH VIII, 462).

Alexandria



Ptolemy III Euergetes

397

738. Gold two and a half drachms, Attic standard (c. 10.75 g): Two stars flanking cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 979, pl. xxix, 6–7 [8 listed]. Provenanced find: Svoronos 979ς found in Egypt.

739.

Gold drachm, Attic standard (c. 4.30 g): Two stars flanking cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 980, pl. xxix, 8 [9 listed].

740.

Gold hemidrachm, Attic standard (c. 2.15 g): Two stars flanking cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 981, pl. xxix, 9 [12 listed].

741.

Gold quarter drachm, Attic standard (c. 1.07 g): Two stars flanking cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 982, pl. xxix, 10–11 [13 listed]. Commercial source: Newell specimen purchased in Cairo, reportedly found in Upper Egypt.

742. Silver pentadrachm, Attic standard (c. 21.30 g): Laureate piloi of Dioscuri flanking cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 989, pl. xxxv, 3 [6 listed]. Hoard: Delta, 1922 (IGCH 1690), Newell (1927), p. 3, 2, pl. i, 1. Provenanced find: Specimen  found in Egypt.

743. Silver two and a half drachms, Attic standard (c. 10.75 g): Laureate piloi of Dioscuri flanking cornucopiae Reference: Svoronos 990, pl. xxxv, 4 [4 listed]. Hoard: Delta, 1922 (IGCH 1690), Newell (1927), p. 4, 3, pl. i, 2.

Series with  For the control-linked bronze series, see Vol. 2, B365–B369. Svoronos (1904–1908, Vol. I, col. σμηʹ–σμθʹ, and Vol. IV, cols. 171–172) assigned both coinages to Ephesus.

744.

Gold decadrachm, Attic standard (c. 42.80 g): Two stars flanking cornucopiae,  below. Reference: Svoronos 972, pl. xxix, 1 [8 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 735 above. Hoard: Suez Canal, 1860 (IGCH 1693). Provenanced find?: Newell specimen probably found at Heliopolis, near Cairo.

745.

Gold pentadrachm, Attic standard (c. 21.30 g): Two stars flanking cornucopiae,  below. Reference: Svoronos 973, pl. xxix, 2–3 [4 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 737 above. Hoard: Commerce, 2007. Provenanced find: Svoronos 979δ found in Egypt. Commercial source: Newell specimen purchased in Cairo.

398

Ptolemy III Euergetes

Alexandria • Uncertain Mint 27

Issue with ‚ Svoronos (1904‒1908, Vol. I, col. σμθʹ–σνʹ, and Vol. IV, cols. 172–173) associated this issue with bronzes bearing similar controls (Vol. 2, B508, B510) and assigned the group to Seleucia on the Orontes (Seleucia in Pieria). These bronzes are now attributed to Ptolemy IV. The control link may perhaps indicate that this silver piece is also an issue of Philopator. Hoard evidence indicates that Attic-weight coins of Berenice were still extant after the battle of Raphia. On the whole, however, it seems prudent to retain this as an issue of Ptolemy III and to suggest a control link to a rare bronze emission of Euergetes (Vol. 2, B383).

746.

Silver two and a half drachms, Attic standard (c. 10.75 g): Diademed and veiled bust of Berenice II r./S on l., SSSS on r., cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, flanked by piloi of Dioscuri, ‚ in lower field, dotted border. Reference: Svoronos 991, pl. xxxv, 5 [1 listed, Schottenstift].

Series with % For the control-linked bronze series, see Vol. 2, B395–B402. Svoronos (1904–1908, Vol. I, cols. σμαʹ–σμηʹ, and Vol. IV, cols. 164–170) interpreted the monogram as the signature of the Athenian exile Chremonides, whom he identified as the admiral of the Ptolemaic fleet in the Third Syrian War. In Svoronos’ view, Chremonides introduced the Attic-weight coinage of Berenice while on campaign, striking it from the 1500 talents captured from the Seleucid treasury at Soli. He issued the coinage in Berenice’s name because she was regent during Ptolemy’s absence from Egypt, and he chose the Attic weight standard because of his Athenian origin and because it would be acceptable in the theaters of the war.

747.

Gold pentadrachm, Attic standard (c. 21.30 g): Two stars flanking cornucopiae, % below. Reference: Svoronos 962, pl. xxix, 17 [1 listed, Consul Weber].

748. Silver pentadrachm, Attic standard (c. 21.30 g): Laureate piloi of Dioscuri flanking cornucopiae, % below. Reference: Svoronos 963, pl. xxix, 18 [2 listed].

EGYPT OR PROVINCES Uncertain Mint 27, probably Provincial Tetradrachms with Cornucopiae Symbol The following tetradrachms may belong to the initial issue of Alexandria (no. 732). In that case no. 749, with the royal title, may reflect a brief moment of indecision about how to present the revived tetradrachm denomination, which had not been minted in Egypt for a decade or more. Some elements, however, suggest that these issues were not products of Alexandria. The eagles are of a different style from those of no. 732, tall and narrow, with less emphasis on the scalelike feathers of the chest and outer wing. The three known examples of this series all have a royal diadem tied around the cornucopiae, whereas this detail is usually lacking from the Alexandrian emission. Finally, on the Australian specimen of no. 750 the ends of the diadem appear as stiff, clublike protuberances, one of which projects at an angle from the cornuopiae instead of falling vertically. If, as seems possible, these coins were struck near the beginning of the Third Syrian War at a provincial mint, perhaps a newly conquered city, the anomalous royal title of no. 749 could be attributed to a lack of clear instruction about the intended features of the coinage and the Soter legend of no. 750 could represent a correction to conform to the Alexandria model. Uncertain Mint 30, near Ephesus, presents certain parallels.

Uncertain Mint 27 • Aenus



Ptolemy III Euergetes

399

Its coinage also transitioned from the royal title to the Soter legend, and one die of no. 783 shows both diadem ends projecting stiffly at an angle from the cornucopiae. But differences in obverse type, overall style, and reverse border argue against associating Uncertain Mint 27 with Uncertain Mint 30 or even locating it tentatively in the same region.

749.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/P on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, cornucopiae bound with royal diadem oriented l. in l. field, dotted border. Reference: Lanz 82, 24 November 205, lot 226. Obverse die link with no. 750 below.

750.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/P on l., o on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, cornucopiae bound with royal diadem oriented l. in l. field, dotted border. Reference: CNG XXXI, 9‒10 September 1994, 565 = Noble 92, 24 November 2009, 5165. Obverse die link with no. 749 above. Hoard: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 5200.

THRACE Aenus Silver Tetradrachms with Portraits of Ptolemy III and Ptolemy I R. S. Bagnall (1976, p. 206) questioned the attribution of this series to Aenus, but the enthroned xoanon or crude wooden cult figure of Hermes Perpheraios is a distinctive symbol that serves as the reverse type of a group of mid-fourth century civic drachms of Aenus, see J. M. F. May (1950), nos. 436–458. The coinage thus complements other sources: the claims of the Adulis inscription (OGIS 54) that Ptolemy III conquered Thrace in the course of the Third Syrian War; a decree of Aenus from the year 242 mentioning Ptolemy III and his family and a priest of their cult (Asylierkunden auf Kos 8); and the testimony of Polybius 5.34.7–8 that Aenus was among the European possessions of the Ptolemies at the accession of Ptolemy IV. The tetradrachms of Aenus vary considerably in style and even portrait subject: some depict Ptolemy III, others Ptolemy I. No. 751 exhibits what appears to be a mint error, the association of a portrait of Ptolemy III with the epithet Soter, corrected on nos. 752–753. Confusion about such matters is plausible after the surrender of a city to a foreign king. Nevertheless, the epithet Soter is also associated with the portrait of Ptolemy III at Ephesus and at least one other Ionian mint (see nos. 770–776, 779–780, 783–786), suggesting that savior cults were established for Ptolemy III in some of the possessions won in the course of the Third Syrian War.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy III r., aegis tied around neck/ P on l., SS (or SS) on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck/ P on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border (as noted).

400

Ptolemy III Euergetes

751.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy III, with Soter legend): Cult figure (Hermes Perpheraios) on throne in l. field.



Aenus

Reference: Svoronos 930, pl. xxvii, 11 [1 listed, Modena]. Obverse die link with nos. 752‒753 below.

752.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy III, with royal title): Cult figure (Hermes Perpheraios) standing in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 931, pl. xxvii, 13 [1 listed, St. Petersburg]. Obverse die link with nos. 751 above and 753 below.

753.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy III, with royal title): Cult figure (Hermes Perpheraios) standing in l. field, ~ in r. field. Reference: Spink, NCirc June 1991, 4491; Carlen coll., Princeton, New Jersey. Obverse die link with nos. 751‒752 above; reverse die link with no. 754 below. Hoard: 1‒2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 742 with note.

754.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (barbarous portrait of Ptolemy III with slight drapery at neck, with royal title): Cult figure (Hermes Perpheraios) standing on double basis in l. field, ~ in r. field. Reference: Paris, Seyrig coll., R2669; Reverse die link with no. 753 above. Notable provenance: Acquired in Beirut.

754A. Silver stater (tetradrachm) (portrait of Ptolemy III, title illegible): Cult figure (Hermes Perpheraios) standing on double basis in l. field, uncertain monogram in r. field. Reference: Paris, Dattari coll., Gallica website btvlb8508733k; Svoronos 932β.

755. Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy I): Cult figure (Hermes Perpheraios) standing on double basis in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 932α, pl. xxvii, 12. Obverse die link with no. 755A, die here in earlier state.

755A. Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy I): Cult figure (Hermes Perpheraios) standing on double basis in l. field, m in r. field. Reference: Heidelberger Münzhandlung Herbert Grün 64, 19 November 2014, lot 1074. Obverse die link with no. 755, die here in later state.

756.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy I): Cult figure (Hermes Perpheraios) on throne in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos Vol. IV, Addenda 930a, pl. Γ, 13 [1 listed, Hirsch XIII, lot 4578]. Obverse die link with nos. 757‒758 below.

757. Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy I): Cult figure (Hermes Perpheraios) on throne in l. field, n in r. field. Reference: NAC 59, 4–5 April 2011, lot 661. Obverse die link with nos. 756 above and 758 below.

758. Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy I): Cult figure (Hermes Perpheraios) standing above  in l. field, dotted border. Reference: Svoronos 933, pl. xxvii, 14 [2 listed]; HistMusFrankfurt 136. Obverse die link with no. 756‒757 above.

Uncertain Mint 28



Ptolemy III Euergetes

401

ASIA MINOR Uncertain Mint 28, perhaps in Northwest Asia Minor Silver Tetradrachms with Portrait of Ptolemy III The following tetradrachms bear non-standard portraits considered by Svoronos to be images of Ptolemy Philadelphus. He listed no. 759 among the unattributed issues of Asia Minor or Thrace. It is here associated with nos. 760–762 on the basis of stylistic affinities, despite the lack of any control link. The royal visage of no. 759 shares the bumpy nose of nos. 760–762 and, despite the uncharacteristic curly hair, can be recognized as a depiction of the same person, perhaps influenced by the style of Attalid coinage. The eagles of all these tetradrachms are very similar and this, in particular, supports a common origin. The circled letter of no. 759 may be a regnal date representing the first year of the reign of Ptolemy III in western Asia Minor, or alternatively a date reflecting the establishment of a new era. The same possible date also appears on no. 767. Nos. 760–762 comprise a brief series initially assigned to Lebedus by Svoronos (1902, pp. 67‒68), who read the right field controls as a series of regnal dates, years 20 through 22 of Ptolemy II. In his great work of 1904, Svoronos resolved the left field monogram as ARSI (for Arsinoe, the name borne by Ephesus under Lysimachus) and reattributed the coinage to Ephesus. Nearly every aspect of Svoronos’ interpretation has been challenged in subsequent scholarship. R. S. Bagnall (1976, p. 206 n.119) objected that the name Arsinoe was anachronistic by the reign of Ptolemy II, and questioned the resolution of the right field monograms as dates. A. Davesne (1991, pp. 27–28) noted the absence of unambiguous Ephesian mintmarks and suggested reattribution to Aradus, on the grounds that the dated coinage of Ptolemy II is otherwise confined to SyroPhoenician mints; however these coins were excluded from Aradus by F. Duyrat (2005, pp. 226–228). R. A. Hazzard (1995a, pp. 6 and 107) accepted Svoronos’ attribution to Ephesus but identified the portrait as Ptolemy III. A better reading of the supposed date of no. 761, together with the evidence of die deterioration, refutes Svoronos’ theory of regnal dating. The control Davesne took as a mintmark in fact varies from issue to issue, with no hint of a rho in the version on no. 762. The position of the diadem well behind the hairline, as opposed to the low diadem-mitra of Ptolemy I, is evidence that this is not a likeness of the dynastic founder. Despite the sometimes infelicitous style we can recognize the hallmarks of the lifetime portraits of Ptolemy III as he was depicted on the tetradrachms of his new possessions: The hair thrusts forward in front of the diadem, with one lock jutting out above the center of the forehead and another rising up to meet it, and there is evidence of thinning at the temple. The eyebrow rises to a point above the eye, and the nose is bumpy, with a fleshy tip. The attribute around the king’s neck is not strongly characterized but the scaly texture of the aegis can be recognized on some specimens, even though there is no snake emerging from the knot.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed bust of Ptolemy III r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/P  on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. 759.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): f in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 908, pl. xxvii, 3 [2 listed]. Svoronos described the control as .

760.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  or M in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 894, pl. xxvi, 18 [1 listed, Six]; Leu 33, 3 May 1983, lot 450. Hoard: 1‒2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 743 with note.

402

Ptolemy III Euergetes

761.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): (?) in l. field,  in r. field.

Uncertain Mint 28 • Unattributed Tetradrachms

Reference: Svoronos 896, pl. xxvi, 20 [1 listed, Athens] (r. control misread as ); ANS 1960.170.413 (from same dies as the Athens specimen, with clear reading of r. control). Obverse die link with no. 762 below, die here in early state.

762.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): N (?) in l. field,  in r. Reference: Svoronos 895, pl. xxvi, 19 [2 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 761 above, die here in later state.

Unattributed Tetradrachms showing Influences from Northwest Asia Minor Silver Tetradrachm with Portrait of Ptolemy I Svoronos assigned this tetradrachm variety to Abdera, along with municipal bronzes purportedly bearing a winged head of Ptolemy III (Vol. 2, B408). R. S. Bagnall (1974, p. 206) rejected this attribution for the tetradrachm on the ground that the griffin forepart does not closely resemble Abderite griffins. Both A. Jähne (1998, p. 302) and K. Chryssanthaki (2005, p. 163 with n. 41) cited the meager finds of Ptolemaic coins in the Abdera excavations as evidence that Abdera was never a Lagid possession. This argument may be less than compelling: Chryssanthaki herself demonstrated that coin finds do not correlate with Ptolemaic political control in the Aegean islands, and Ptolemaic tetradrachms struck in Asia Minor are rarely found there. A different sort of reason for excluding Abdera as the mint of this tetradrachm is the lack of any affinity of style or iconography to the Abderite bronzes portraying Ptolemy III. The griffin was a relatively common parasemon, strongly associated with Abdera’s mother-city, Teos, and also with Phocaea, both of which featured the griffin as a major type on their civic coinage. In Hellenistic times the griffin (or its head or forepart) served as a mintmark on lifetime or early posthumous Alexanders from Abydus, Teos, and Sardes; on Lysimachi from Abydus; on Seleucid issues of Antiochus I and II from Phocaea; and on late posthumous Alexanders from Assus and Phocaea. (Of these mints, Abydus is almost certainly excluded because it coined for both Antiochus II and Antiochus Hierax, showing continuity of controls). An origin in northwest Asia Minor may be suggested by the portrait, which is altogether uncharacteristic for Ptolemaic coinage, but is somewhat reminiscent of the deified Alexander on tetradrachms of Lysimachus.

763.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis or animal skin tied around neck/ on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt,  in l. field, griffin forepart l. in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 928, pl. xxvii, 15 [1 listed, Dattari].

Silver Tetradrachm with Portrait of Ptolemy I An origin in northwest Asia Minor is suggested by the heavy-chinned portrait recalling the image of Philetaerus on Attalid tetradrachms, and more strongly supported by the fact that the coin was acquired in Istanbul. Ptolemaic tetradrachms struck in western Asia Minor are very rarely found there; those with known provenances usually occur in Syro-Phoenician hoards.

764.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis(?) tied around neck or perhaps bare neck truncation, dotted border/  on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, à to left of shaft of kerykeion in l. field. Reference: Paris, Seyrig coll. R2670. Commercial provenance: Istanbul.

Unattributed Tetradrachms • Uncertain Mint 29

Ptolemy III Euergetes

403

Silver Tetradrachm with Portrait of Ptolemy I Poole, followed by Svoronos, assigned this variety to Ptolemy V on the basis of a control link to his portrait coinage. But the monogram is too banal to support such an attribution and stylistically the coin belongs to an earlier reign. The markedly prognathous portrait may show the influence of Attalid coinage. The reverse style, poor epigraphy, and lack of a reverse border all bear comparison with no. 764 above, but also with Ionian issues such as nos. 766‒767 below.

765.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis or drapery tied around neck, dotted border/  on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt,  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 1261, pl. xli, 22 [1 listed, London].

Uncertain Mint 29, in Ionia, near Ephesus Tetradrachms with Young Portrait of Ptolemy III, 245 B.C. The following tetradrachms feature a very youthful and idealized portrait of Ptolemy III, wearing a lion skin around his neck. The lion skin implies his assimilation to Heracles, a cultic association advertised on several of the coinages of Euergetes’ new conquests in Asia Minor, but not in Egypt. The reverses lack mintmarks and exhibit a careless epigraphy. The letter on no. 767 may be a date rather than a control, in which case it could represent either a new regnal count begun to mark Euergetes’s rule in Ionia, or the inaugural date of a new era (for a parallel, see no. 759). Svoronos attributed these tetradrachms to Lebedus because the same youthful portrait type occurs on municipal bronze coins of that city (Vol. 2, B418–424). The tetradrachms should probably be dissociated from the bronzes, because the latter do not depict an unambiguous lion skin around Euergetes’ neck. The youthful portrait of Uncertain Mint 29 has very close parallels, probably from the same hand, at Ephesus (I) (see nos. 768–769) and a slightly older version, again probably from the same hand, was employed at Ephesus (II) (see no. 779). It seems safe to conclude that Uncertain Mint 29 was located in the neighborhood of Lebedus and Ephesus. Other nearby cities known to have been Ptolemaic possessions include Teos, Colophon, Magnesia, Miletus, and Samos. Samos, the major Lagid naval base in the region, deserves particular consideration as the possible location of Uncertain Mint 29, though we might expect a more substantial coinage like that of Uncertain Mint 30.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy III r., lion skin tied around neck/ P on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt. 766.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): No controls. Reference: Svoronos 916, pl. xxvii, 6 [3 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 767 below. The London specimen of this rare issue shows the right half of the legend as SSS, the result of a double strike.

767.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos Vol. IV, Addenda 917a [1 listed, Dattari]; Leu 30, 28 April 1982, lot 223. Obverse die link with no. 766 above. Hoard: 1‒2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 744 with note.

404

Ptolemy III Euergetes

Ephesus (I)

Ephesus (I) Tetradrachms with Portrait of Ptolemy III: “Bee above Monogram” Series, from 245 B.C. The following tetradrachms share the same control configuration, a bee above a monogram, and the same reverse style. The bee was a symbol of Artemis of Ephesus and was the principal obverse type of Ephesian coinage. Not unreasonably, Svoronos attributed Ptolemaic tetradrachms with this symbol to Ephesus. These coins are, however, impossible to integrate with other tetradrachms that bear the abbreviated ethnic of Ephesus (nos. 779–780 below), which differ significantly in reverse style. K. Regling, followed by H. Seyrig, accepted only those coins bearing the initials E– as issues of Ephesus. Regling’s position produced an anomaly. Only two tetradrachm varieties could be attributed to Ephesus with confidence, even though Ephesus was home to the largest Ptolemaic garrison in Asia Minor, while a much longer series had to be assigned to another mint which employed an apparently Ephesian mintmark. It may be relevant to observe that the Ephesian ethnic is unique in the Ptolemaic coinage of Asia Minor and Thrace. The lack of parallels suggests that the ethnic could have had a different significance from the symbols that served as mintmarks on the majority of Ptolemaic tetradrachms in these territories. The hypothesis offered here is that the symbolic mintmarks identified coinages authorized by the Ptolemaic administration in various cities, whereas the ethnic of Ephesus marked a coinage struck on the orders of the poliad administration. The most plausible occasion for such a civic coinage in the name of Ptolemy III was the foundation of a savior cult, in which case the civic issues would be the first to bear the epithet Soter and would follow nos. 768‒769 below. All of the portrait tetradrachms of Ptolemy III were issued on a small scale and could not have met basic needs like paying a local garrison, for which Ephesian civic coinage may have been employed. The longish series of Ephesus (I), like that of Aenus, exhibits iconographic and stylistic discontinuities that suggest a sporadic production. The portraits of earliest “bee above monogram” tetradrachms belong to a cluster of similar portraits from Uncertain Mint 29 (nos. 766–767), Ephesus (II) (nos. 779–780), and Lebedus (Vol. 2, B418–B424), implying that all the mints lay close by.

Series 1, with youthful, idealized portrait, 245 B.C. Nos. 768–769, published here for the first time, feature a reverse whose elements are turned from left to right, as well as a youthful, idealized portrait of Ptolemy III that very closely resembles his portrait on the tetradrachms of Uncertain Mint 29 (nos. 766–767) and on civic bronzes of Lebedus (Vol. 2, B418–B424). The combination of a youthful portrait and iconographic anomalies on the reverse suggests that these issues were struck very shortly after the Ptolemaic expansion in Ionia. The portrait of no. 768 of Ephesus (I) is from the same hand as the portrait of Uncertain Mint 29, strong evidence that the two mints were located close to one another and perhaps even affiliated.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed bust of young Ptolemy III r., lion skin tied around neck, dotted border/A on l., PT A on r., eagle with closed wings standing r. on thunderbolt. 768.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Horizontal bee above  in r. field. Reference: ANS 1992.35.1, ex Sternberg XXV, 25–26 November 1991, lot 220.

769.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Horizontal bee above 4 in r. field. Reference: Paris R.2665 (Seyrig coll.). Acquired from Herbert Cahn in 1957. Obverse die link with no. 768A (see Late Additions).

Ephesus (I)



Ptolemy III Euergetes

405

Series 2, with portrait of “physkon” type The following tetradrachms bear a portrait of Ptolemy III that appears fleshier and somewhat older than the idealized portrait of Series 1. The change may reflect an attempt to portray the king more realistically but we can also recognize the hand of a new artist. It is in Series 2 that the royal title is first replaced by the epithet Soter, which is associated with the lion skin at Ephesus (II) and at a neighboring mint (see nos. 779–780, 783–785A). In contrast with the obverse dies, the same hand is recognizable in all the reverse dies from tetradrachm Series 1 through Series 3 at Ephesus (I).

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed bust of Ptolemy III r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/P  on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. 770.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (with dotted border on rev.): Bee above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 902, pl. Γ, 7 [2 listed].

771.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (with dotted border on rev.): Bee above  in l. field. Reference: CNG 75, 23 May 2007, lot 566. Reverse die link with no. 772 below.

Series 3, with emaciated portrait The style of the eagle and the control convention connect the following tetradrachms with Series 1 and 2 above, and there is a reverse die link to Series 2. The portrait, from a single die, is anomalous. The hollow cheek would seem to exclude Ptolemy III, but other hallmarks of his lifetime portrait—a jutting forelock, chevron-shaped eyebrow, bumpy nose with pointed tip—are present. The order of the emissions suggests that the portrait was intended to represent Euergetes as an old man, implying that these tetradrachms were issued late in his reign. But there is reason to suspect that the emaciated portrait was dictated by an iconographic program whose purpose is unclear to us. Another apparently elderly portrait of Ptolemy III was employed at Uncertain Mint 30 at the beginning of the reign (see nos. 781–783).

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy III r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/P  on l. (often curving only slightly),  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border on some issues. 772.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (with dotted border on rev.): Bee above  in l. field. Reference: ANS 1944.100.76252; Kovacs X, 18 May 1990, lot 215. Reverse die link with no. 771 above; obverse die link with nos. 773–776 below. Hoards: 1‒2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 745 with note; Asyut, 1936 (IGCH 1702).

773.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Bee above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 903, pl. Γ, 8 [1 listed, Athens]. Obverse die link with nos. 772 above and 774–776 below.

774.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Bee above  in l. field. Reference: CNG XVI, lot 234. Obverse die link with nos. 772–773 above and 775–776 below.

775.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Bee above  or O in l. field. Reference: a) with : Leu 30, 28 April 1982, lot 222 = NFA Winter Mail Bid Sale, 14 December 1989, lot 819; b) with O: reported by W. Holt. Obverse die link with nos. 772–774 above and 776 below; obverse die in very worn state for variety b.

406

Ptolemy III Euergetes

Ephesus (I)

Hoard: 1‒2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 746 with note.

776.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (with dotted border on rev.): Bee above M in l. field. Reference: Paris, Z.2884, 268 (Dattari coll.) = Davesne (1991), fig. 7; A. D. Philippidis coll., Hicksville, N.Y. (P-1997-12-01.002), ex Elsen 52, 13 September 1997, lot 103 and Spink FPL, January 1983, lot 36. Obverse die link with nos. 772–775 above; obverse die in late state here, with flaws on the diadem ends. Hoard: Tel Michal (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 47.

Gold Mnaieia (Octadrachms) of Berenice II, with Bee Symbol, probably 245 B.C. The following mnaieia were assigned to Ephesus by Svoronos on the basis of their bee symbol, which links these gold coins with numerous tetradrachms. It has proved impossible to organize all of the tetradrachms into a single series. The coins marked with a bee above a monogram (nos. 768–776) and those bearing the civic initials (nos. 779–780) cannot be integrated with one another. Both K. Regling and H. Seyrig argued that only the mint initials  can assure an origin at Ephesus. In fact this display of an ethnic was unique for the portrait tetradrachms of Ptolemy III struck in the new territories acquired in the course of the Third Syrian War. It was hypothesized above that the ethnic might be the sign of coin issues authorized by city officials, in contrast to the “bee above monogram” tetradrachms which may have been authorized by the Ptolemaic administration of Ephesus. The bee of the mnaieia occurs in both tetradrachm series, and in the absence of either civic initials or a supplementary monogram the mnaieia could theoretically be associated with either series. As a matter of historical probability it is far more likely that gold was struck by the royal administration. H. A. Troxell (1983, p. 65) observed that the cornucopiae of these mnaieia was influenced by the double cornucopiae of Arsinoe II: there are two grape clusters instead of one, and the diadem flutters gracefully, as on the coinage of Arsinoe, rather than hanging straight as on the coinage of Berenice. (The Alexandrian 15 drachm silver piece of Berenice (no. 734) also borrowed the fluttering diadem of Arsinoe’s coinage.) Another iconographic irregularity of the Ephesian mnaieia is the depiction of the grain ear on the left instead of the right side of the horn. These several anomalies, combined with an idealizing portrait that does not resemble Berenice’s Alexandrian portraits, led Troxell to suggest that these issues were struck very soon after the Ptolemaic gains in Ionia, before the arrival at Ephesus of any exemplar of Berenice’s official portraiture. The highly idealized portrait of Ptolemy III on the earliest tetradrachms of Ephesus (I) (nos. 768–769) raises the possibility of a special iconographic program for Ionia in the early days of Ptolemaic rule, emphasizing the godlike beauty of the Lagid couple.

Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Diademed and veiled bust of Berenice r., wearing necklace, with highly idealized, youthful features, dotted border/S around on l., SSSS around on r., cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing pomegranate, pyramidal cake, round fruit, and grain ear on l., with two grape clusters hanging from rim, dotted border. 777. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Bee (sideways) in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 899, pl. xxvi, 23 [5 listed]. Notable provenances: Svoronos 899γ ex Subhi Pasha coll.; Svoronos 899δ reported from Egyptian commerce.

778. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Bee (vertically) in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 900, pl. xxvi, 24 [2 listed]. Hoard: Benha, 1936 (IGCH 1694), Brett (1952), 18, pl. iii.

Ephesus (II)





Ptolemy III Euergetes

407

Ephesus (II) Tetradrachms with Portrait of Ptolemy III, c. 245 B.C. The obverse die of nos. 779‒780 bears a slightly older version of the portrait of no. 768, with identical facial features but with hair receding markedly at the temple; both portraits appear to emanate from the same hand. The attribute around the king’s neck is a lion skin, as at Uncertain Mint 29 and at Ephesus (I). K. Regling and H. Seyrig questioned Svoronos’ Ephesian attributions except in those few cases where the mint initials appear. More recently, A. Davesne (1991, p. 26) supported Svoronos’ attributions to Ephesus but dated the entire coinage to the reign of the coregent Ptolemy the Son in Ionia, c. 261/0–259 B.C. The solution adopted here is to retain the coinage in the reign of Ptolemy III, but to propose different levels of government at Ephesus as the issuing authorities for tetradrachms that bear bee symbol without the mint initials (nos. 768–776) and for those with the civic initials (nos. 779‒780); the former are presumed to be royal issues and the latter civic issues. The marked contrast in reverse style between the two series indicates that they were minted in different workshops. Given the small scale of these coinages, we may suspect that their production was contracted out to private silversmithing firms while the civic mint perhaps continued its regular production of Ephesian coinage. The obverse die of nos. 779‒780 bears a slightly older version of the portrait of no. 768, with identical facial features but with hair receding markedly at the temple; both portraits appear to emanate from the same hand. The attribute around the king’s neck is a lion skin, as at Uncertain Mint 29 and at Ephesus (I). Despite the apparently older portrait, an early date of issue for these tetradrachms is confirmed by the presence of a specimen of no. 779 in the Saida hoard, which closed in the third year of Ptolemy III, 245/4 B.C. The legend of these tetradrachms names Ptolemy Soter instead of Ptolemy the King. The appearance of the epithet Soter, in association with the lion skin, suggests that Ptolemy III received a cult at Ephesus and that he may have been associated or identified with Heracles Soter. The assumption here is that the cult was civic, and that nos. 779‒780 were struck on the orders of municipal authorities to announce the establishment of the cult. If this hypothesis is correct, these issues would follow nos. 768‒769 above and would introduce the epiklesis Soter that appears on nos. 770‒776.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed bust of Ptolemy III r., lion skin tied around neck, dotted border/P  on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt. 779.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): — across field. Reference: Svoronos 904, pl. Γ, 9–10 [2 listed]. Obverse die link with nos. 779A and 780 below. Hoard: Saida, 1949 (IGCH 1586), Trésors 40.36.

779A. Silver stater (tetradrachm): — across field, o below in l. field. Reference: Carlen coll., Princeton, N.J. Obverse die link with nos. 779 above and 780 below.

780.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): — across field,  below in l. field, and bee below in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 901, pl. xxvi, 25 [1 listed, Athens]; Paris R2664, Davesne (1991), fig. 8. Obverse die link with nos. 779–779A above.

408

Ptolemy III Euergetes

Uncertain Mint 30

Uncertain Mint 30, near Ephesus Silver Tetradrachms with Portrait of Ptolemy III and Cornucopiae Symbol, from 245 B.C. The following tetradrachms bear a portrait of Ptolemy III, identifiable from the diadem worn well back from the hairline, the lock of hair jutting forward above his forehead, the chevron-shaped eyebrow, and the lion skin tied around his neck. An attribution to his reign receives further support from the cornucopiae symbol, which is a prominent feature of his Egyptian coinage. An irregular flan, the unconventional placement of the legend, and the transposition of the king’s name and royal title mark no. 781 as the first issue of a new mint. On no. 782 the king’s name and royal title appear in their usual positions, while no. 783 introduces the cult name Soter in place of the royal title. The Eretria and Saida hoard provenances of no. 782 date the first issues of this series very early in the reign of Ptolemy III, a clue that the mint city was acquired in the course of the Third Syrian War. The apparently elderly portrait of nos. 781–783 is surprising in this context, especially when contrasted with the idealized, youthful portraits of Uncertain Mint 29 and the earliest issues of Ephesus (I) (see nos. 766–769), and might seem to imply the isolation of Uncertain Mint 30 from the new Ptolemaic mints in Ionia. But the portraits of nos. 784–785 have fuller cheeks and a more youthful aspect, apparently completing the correction of the anomalies of the early issues. Nos. 781‒785 are associated for the first time here, on the basis of style and the consistent presence of the cornucopiae. Earlier scholarship recognized the relationship of nos. 784–785. Svoronos assigned these issues to Asia Minor and interpreted the circled control of no. 785 as KH, designating regnal year 28 of Ptolemy II. A. Davesne (1991, p. 28) resolved the left field monogram as ARADI and proposed a reattribution to Aradus. He interpreted the cornucopiae as the symbol of Ptolemy III and suggested that the circled control of no. 785 is a letter B that could be a regnal date or a date calculated from a new era. Davesne’s attribution to Aradus receives some support from the Levantine and Syrian provenances of nos. 782‒785, but this is not too significant since portrait tetradrachms of Ptolemy III from other mints also have Levantine provenances (see nos. 754, 760, 767, 772, 775, 776, 779, 786). Davesne’s resolution of the monogram and the Aradian attribution have been firmly rejected by F. Duyrat (2005, pp. 226–228). Affinities to tetradrachms of Ephesus (II) (nos. 779–780) argue for a mint in the orbit of Ephesus: the portraits and the eagles are very similar, and both mints share the use of the epithet Soter. This usage, associated with the lion skin around Ptolemy’s neck, is almost certainly evidence for a previously unknown cult associating the king with Heracles Soter. One of the few known dedications to Heracles Soter was found in Miletus (I. Milet. 9.372 = SEG IV, 425) and this suggests that Miletus could have been the home of Uncertain Mint 30. The unusual legend disposition of no. 781 has parallels on a gold eighth mnaieion with a youthful portrait of Ptolemy III, on a gold tetarte of Berenice II, and on bronzes from the North Syrian coast with the types Berenice/cornucopiae (nos. 805‒806, and Vol. 2, B452–B459), all of which also depict the cornucopiae with the diadem ties falling on either side of it. Disparities in Euergetes’ portraiture, in the contents of the cornucopiae, and in the depiction of the falling ends of the diadem argue against associating the tetradrachms of Uncertain Mint 30 with these gold and bronze pieces. The anomalous disposition of the legend shared by all the coins may reflect the numismatic practice of the Seleucids, who placed the royal title before the ruler’s name.

Silver stater (tetradrachm), Type 1: Diademed head of Ptolemy III r., lion skin tied around neck, dotted border/ on l.,   on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt. Silver stater (tetradrachm), Type 2: Diademed head of Ptolemy III r., lion skin tied around neck, dotted border/Pon l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt.

Uncertain Mint 30 • Probably Uncertain Mint 30

Ptolemy III Euergetes

409

Silver stater (tetradrachm), Type 3: Diademed head of Ptolemy III r., lion skin tied around neck, dotted border/P on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt. 781. Silver stater (tetradrachm), Type 1, with royal title and name transposed: Cornucopiae bound with royal diadem (ends falling on both sides) in l. field. Reference: Meydancıkkale 5199. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308); probably 2 in Mit Ya-Ish (EH I, 200).

782.

Silver stater (tetradrachm), Type 2, with royal title and name in usual configuration: Cornucopiae bound with royal diadem (ends falling on both sides) in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 905, pl. xxvi, 26 [4 listed]. Obverse die link to no. 783 below. Hoard: Saida 1949 (IGCH 1586), Trésors 40.37.

783.

Silver stater (tetradrachm), Type 3, with Soter legend: Cornucopiae bound with royal diadem (ends falling to r.) in l. field. Reference: Paris R.2666 (Seyrig coll.); iNumis, 24 May 2012, 26. Obverse die link to no. 782 above. Hoard: Eretria, 1937 (IGCH 175), Picard (1979), 470.

784. Silver stater (tetradrachm), Type 3, with Soter legend: b above Cornucopiae bound with royal diadem in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 898, pl. xxvi, 22 and pl. Γ, 6 [2 listed]; Davesne (1991), fig. 13 (= Svoronos 898β). Hoard: Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 46.

785. Silver stater (tetradrachm), Type 3, with Soter legend: b above cornucopiae bound with royal diadem in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 897, pl. xxvi, 21 [2 listed]; SNG Copenhagen Suppl. 1281. Commercial source: Paolo Girardi, Aleppo.

785A. Silver stater (tetradrachm), Type 3, with Soter legend: b in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Carlen coll., Princeton, N.J., ex Ebay, 25 October 2014, item 201200973831.

Probably Uncertain Mint 30 The following tetradrachm shows affinities to the coins of Uncertain Mint 30 in its reverse style, use of the Soter legend, and its cornucopiae symbol. But there are also important differences. While the portrait apparently represents Ptolemy III, the king wears the aegis around his neck rather than the lion skin that consistently appears on the portraits of Uncertain Mint 30. In addition, at least one of the four known specimens lacks the royal diadem tied around the cornucopiae, whereas this is a regular feature at Uncertain Mint 30. We cannot exclude the possibility that Uncertain Mint 30 eventually changed some of its practices, in parallel with developments at Ephesus (I). The alternative is attribution of 786 to a different mint, perhaps under the influence of Uncertain Mint 30.

410

Ptolemy III Euergetes

Probably Uncertain Mint 30 • Caunus

786. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy III r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/P on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, cornucopiae in l. field. Reference: BM 1983, 2-9-4 (from M. Hay); Carlen coll., Princeton, N.J., ex Felzmann 150, 4‒5 November 2014, 129. Hoards: Eretria, 1937 (IGCH 175), per Wallace photos at ANS; London specimen probably from the Syria, 1981 hoard (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), information courtesy of A. Meadows.

Caunus in Caria Municipal Silver Coinage with Ptolemaic Reverse Type Under Ptolemy II Caunus issued a municipal coinage in bronze depicting the city’s mythical founder, the Lord (King) of Caunus, on the obverse and the double cornucopiae of Arsinoe Philadelphus on the reverse (see Vol. 2, B303). Under Ptolemy III the reverse type changed to correspond to the single cornucopiae of his queen, Berenice II, even indicating the grain ear that symbolized her identification with Demeter. P. Frei and C. Marek (1997, pp. 73–74, with n.227) suggested an assimilation of the Lord of Caunus with Apollo. This notion was rejected by Ashton (2003, p. 38 n.181) on the grounds that Apollo was the grandfather of the Lord of Caunus. The reverse symbols here associated with the cornucopiae, taken in conjunction with the apparent presence of a lotus bud as an attribute of the deity, may tend to support an assimilation of the Lord of Caunus not only with Apollo, but with his Egyptian counterpart Horus. In Egyptian religious thought, the endless cycle of regeneration rendered every generation equivalent to its predecessors. Caunus is the only city known to have issued a municipal coinage in silver expressing its allegiance to Lagid rule. Evidently its loyalty did not oblige it to adopt the Ptolemaic weight standard for its coinage. The following silver coins have an average weight of c. 0.70g (see R. H. J. Ashton, 1999, p. 153 n.19) and appear to be obols on the Attic standard. For the associated bronzes, see Vol. 2, B433. Caunian bronzes with the types Athena/cornucopiae are of later style and are dated to the second or first century B.C.

Silver obol: Head of Basileus Kaunios r., wearing taenia with lotus bud(?) rising from top/—, cornucopiae oriented to r., bound with royal diadem, dotted border (except as noted). 787.

Silver obol: No symbol on reverse. Reference: a) without reverse border: SNG von Aulock 8088 (now BM 1979-1-1-512), Ashton (1999), pl. xvi, A; b) with reverse border: SNG von Aulock 8089 (now BM 1979-1-1-513), Ashton (1999), pl. xvi, B; Ashton (2003), pl. 7, 5.

788.

Silver obol: Ankh in lower r. field. Reference: BMC Caria, p. 75, 11, pl. xii, 4; Ashton (1999), pl. xvi, C.

789.

Silver obol: Eagle standing l. in lower l. field. Reference: Sternberg 7, 1977, lot 127; Ashton (1999), pl. xvi, F.

790.

Silver obol: Flower in lower l. field, cithara in lower r. field. Reference: SNG Keckman 75; Ashton (1999), pl. xvi, E.

791.

Vacat.

Uncertain Mint 31

Ptolemy III Euergetes

411

Uncertain Mint 31, perhaps in Cilicia Pedias Tetradrachms with Portrait of Ptolemy III, from 245 B.C. Svoronos (1902) assigned the following series of tetradrachms to Ptolemais (Lebedus). He admitted that he had contemplated an attribution to Maroneia until he read A. Dieudonné (1902), who argued that a series of bronzes struck by a Ptolemais probably emanated from Lebedus. K. Regling (in Svoronos 1908, Vol. IV, col. 476) and later R. S. Bagnall (1976, pp. 207–208) rejected the numismatic arguments supporting Svoronos’ attribution to Lebedus. The grape cluster which appears on all these issues may be a mintmark, but the possible mint cities are quite numerous. What can be said is that this is a substantial series of portrait tetradrachms of Ptolemy III, comparable in size to the series of Ephesus (I) (nos. 768–776), and it shows the same evolution of his image from relatively youthful and slender to the “physkon” type, though it lacks the final emaciated type seen at Ephesus (I). In another aspect the iconographic evolution is opposite to that of Ephesus (I): the portraits of Uncertain Mint 31 initially show the aegis at the king’s neck, but it is replaced by the lion skin on the last die of the series. Finally, unlike the portrait tetradrachms of Ephesus and its neighboring mints in Ionia, these coins use the royal title throughout. The pattern of the other portrait tetradrachms of Ptolemy III suggest that his portrait was used only in newly acquired territories. The style of Uncertain Mint 31 and its consistent use of the royal title tend to separate it from the area around Ephesus. An attribution to Maroneia, as originally considered by Svoronos, cannot be excluded. However Ptolemy’s territorial gains in the Third Syrian War were not limited to Thrace and Ionia. The fleet of Berenice Syra raided Soli at the outset of the war and the fleet of Ptolemy III accepted the surrender of Cilicia Trachea in 245, as it was beginning its circumnavigation of Asia Minor. Soli remained a Ptolemaic possession until 197, when it issued a coinage for Ptolemy V, see Lorber and Kovacs (1997). A grape cluster was the usual reverse type of Soli’s civic coinage down to the Macedonian conquest and might have served as a mintmark under Ptolemy III. Another possible candidate is Tarsus, which was recovered by Seleucus II and struck coins for him the very end of his reign, see Houghton and Lorber (2002), p. 249. The broad flans and general fabric of nos. 792–799 below would be consistent with the known products of Tarsus.

Silver stater (tetradrachm), Type 1: Diademed head of Ptolemy III r., aegis tied around neck/P on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt. Silver stater (tetradrachm), Type 2: Diademed head of Ptolemy III r., lion skin tied around neck/P on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt. 792. Silver stater (tetradrachm), Type 1 (with aegis): Cornucopiae bound with royal diadem in l. field, grape cluster above Æ in r. field. Reference: Gorny & Mosch 117, 14 October 2002, lot 351.

793.

Silver stater (tetradrachm), Type 1 (with aegis): Ó above cornucopiae in l. field, grape cluster in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 915, pl. xxvii, 7 [1 listed, Athens].

794.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Ó(?) in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 917 [1 listed, Dattari]. Confirmation required. Svoronos did not illustrate this variety and it has not been identified in Paris. It is therefore impossible to confirm the identity of the portrait or the reading of the control.

412

Ptolemy III Euergetes

795.

Silver stater (tetradrachm), Type 1 (with aegis): Grape cluster with leaf and branch in l. field,  in r. field

Uncertain Mint 31 • Unattributed Issues

Reference: Svoronos 912, pl. xxvii, 8 [1 listed, Athens].

796. Silver stater (tetradrachm), Type 1 (with aegis):  (or 5) in l. field, grape cluster in r. field. Reference: a) with : Svoronos 913, pl. xxvii, 9 [1 listed, Athens]; b) with 5: Paris, Z.2884, 270 (Dattari coll.).

797.

Silver stater (tetradrachm), Type 2 (with lion skin): cornucopiae in l. field, grape cluster in r. field. Reference: SNG Berry 1481; SNG Copenhagen Suppl. 1282. Obverse die link with nos. 798–799 below.

798.

Silver stater (tetradrachm), Type 2 (with lion skin):  above club in l. field, grape cluster in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 914, pl. xxvii, 10 [1 listed, Dattari]; A. D. Philippidis coll., Hicksville, N.Y. Obverse die link with nos. 797 above and 799 below. Hoard: Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 747.

799.

Silver stater (tetradrachm), Type 2 (with lion skin): m above club in l. field, grape cluster in r. field. Reference: Svoronos Vol. IV, Addenda 915a, pl. Γ, 12 [1 listed, formerly Philipsen, Hirsch XXV, lot 3187]. Obverse die link with nos. 797–798 above. Hoard: Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304), pl. xxxvii, 4 (= EH I, 100), Meadows 102.

Unattributed Tetradrachms of Asia Minor(?) The following tetradrachms are unrelated to one another, but all have stylistic features suggesting their origin at new Ptolemaic mints located in territories captured in the Third Syrian War. Most or all are probably from Ionia or Asia Minor more generally, but other possibilities include Thrace, Cilicia, and coastal Syria, perhaps especially Seleucia in Pieria, a prized conquest.

800. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy III(?) r., aegis(?) tied around neck, dotted border/PM on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt. Reference: Svoronos 909α, pl. xxvii, 5 [Athens], 909γ = Paris, Z.2884, 269 (Dattari coll.); SNG Copenhagen 691. Hoards: Syracuse, 1954 (IGCH 2234), Carrò Pisano, AIIN 37, pl. xi, 4; Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 5201. This tetradrachm issue features an idealized portrait that left Svoronos undecided as to its date, and prompted Kromann and Mørkholm to assign it to Ptolemy III. The Meycancıkkale hoard provenance now assures a date no later than the first years of Ptolemy III. The portrait is tentatively identified as that of Euergetes mainly based on the position of the diadem. On some dies the legends do not curve around the edge of the coin, but are placed at a distance from the dotted border and the royal title is almost straight. This legend configuration may reflect the influence of Seleucid coinage.

801. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy III r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/P on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border.

Unattributed Issues • Unattributed Gold



Ptolemy III Euergetes

413

Reference: Svoronos 909β, pl. xxvii, 4 [Rollin et Feuardent]. Hoard: Galatia, 1939 (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6). The portrait is very similar to that of no. 796 and may be a work of the same artist. The eagles of this issue are of two styles. On one reverse die the eagle resembles the eagles of Uncertain Mint 31, while the eagle of a second reverse die bears comparison with eagles of Ephesus (II) (see no. 779).

802. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy III r., with uncertain attribute around neck, dotted border/P on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. Reference: Svoronos 996β, pl. xxx, 3 [Berlin]. Svoronos associated this tetradrachm with another in Athens from the Sophikon hoard (see no. 405 above). The Sophikon piece bears a rare portrait of Ptolemy II, whereas the present piece appears to depict Ptolemy III. The two coins also differ in reverse style

803.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., attribute at neck off flan, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt,  in l. field, dotted border. Reference: A. D. Philippidis coll., Hicksville, N.Y. (P-1994-06-10.005). This tetradrachm bears a non-standard portrait of Ptolemy I, with somewhat idealized features. Although the attribute around his neck is off the flan, his identity is assured by the position of the diadem, worn just below the hairline to approximate the mitra of Dionysus. The eagle is of distinctive style, with some similarities to the eagles of Ephesus (II) and Uncertain Mint 30.

UNCERTAIN PROVINCES Unattributed Provincial Gold Issue Gold Mnaieion (Octadrachm) of Arsinoe Philadelphus, with Quiver Symbol Svoronos catalogued the following mnaieion as an issue of Ephesus and dated it c. 271–270. A. Davesne (1991, p. 25) approved the mint attribution but cited the tightly curled ram’s horn to support an association with Troxell’s Group II, which commenced in 261/0. In fact, stylistic criteria are inconclusive. The ram’s horn did not follow the Alexandrian model at all provincial mints and the calyx ornament seen at the bottom of the cornucopiae on this issue first appears at Alexandria in the coinage transitional between Troxell Groups II and III, dated c. 253/2. The representation of three long tassels at the ends of the diadem, rather than four short ones, has many parallels on Syro-Phoenician mnaieia struck during the Third Syrian War (see nos. 818, 820, 822, 837, 841, 860, 862, 870, 880), but the revived mnaieia of year 23 revert to four tassels. Another detail with possible chronological significance is the position of the tip of the lotus scepter. On the first series of posthumous coins of Arsinoe Philadelphus down to 242/1, it appears above the veil. Here it appears forward of the veil, and the same configuration can be seen on mnaieia of year 23 struck at Sidon and Ptolemais (nos. 824, 864).

804. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Veiled bust of Arsinoe II r., with ram’s horn, wearing diademed stephane, lotus scepter over far shoulder, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing pyramidal cakes, pomegranate, and other fruits, a grape cluster hanging from the rim of each horn, quiver beneath cornucopiae, dotted border. Reference: Svoronos 893, pl. xxvi, 17 [1 listed, Paris].

414

Ptolemy III Euergetes

Uncertain Mint 32

Uncertain Mint 32, perhaps Seleucia in Pieria Gold Eighth Mnaieion or 12½ Drachms (Gold Drachm) with Portrait of Ptolemy III Svoronos identified the portrait of this small gold coin as that of Ptolemy III. Although the iconography recalls Ptolemy II as portrayed on the Theoi Adelphoi coinage, the contents of the cornucopiae confirm Svoronos’ intepretation. The bangs above the forehead mark this as a youthful portrait from the beginning of Euergetes’ reign, comparable to the portraits of Uncertain Mint 29 and the earliest portraits of Ephesus (I) (nos. 766–769). The military chlamys, unique in the portraiture of Ptolemy III, further supports a date during the Third Syrian War. The gold eighth mnaieion has affinities to other coinages belonging to Euergetes’ reign. The transposed legends find parallels on an Ionian tetradrachm portraying Ptolemy III and on a gold tetarte of Berenice II (nos. 781, 806) but the two gold pieces are more closely associated with one another by additional features, the relatively straight cornucopiae and the disposition of the ends of the diadem on either side of the horn. The same anomalous reverse features also occur on bronzes of Berenice II from the North Syrian coast (Vol. 2, B452–B459), attributable either to Heraclea by the Sea on the promontory of Ras Ibn Hani, or to Seleucia in Pieria. While excavations at Ras ibn Hani uncovered some large houses, it is not clear that Heraclea was sufficiently important to have minted gold coinage. The surrender of Seleucia in Pieria to Ptolemy Euergetes may well have warranted a donative, and a small issue in gold portraying the victorious king and his queen could have been distributed on that occasion. The gold eighth mnaieion, an unusual denomination, had been issued previously as part of Alexandria’s Theoi Adelphoi series (no. 316) and would be issued once more under Ptolemy IV with an obverse again portraying Ptolemy Euergetes, but with different attributes (no. 890).

805.

Gold eighth mnaieion or 12½ drachms (gold drachm) (c. 3.10 g): Diademed bust of Ptolemy III r., wearing chlamys, dotted border/SS on l., P on r., cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing pomegranate, pyramidal cake, and grain ear on r., grape cluster hanging from l. rim, dotted border. Reference: Svoronos 995, pl. xxx, 1 [1 listed, Brussels]; Naville 1922 (Evans), lot 983; MMAG, 3–4 December 1948.

Gold Sixteenth Mnaieia or Tetartai (Gold Hemidrachms) of Berenice II The following small gold coins confuse or deliberately blend the iconography of Berenice II with that of Arsinoe Philadelphus, portraying the younger queen with the stephane and lotus scepter of her predecessor. A similar mixing of the two queens’ attributes can be observed on the mnaieia of Uncertain Mint 33 (nos. 809–811), and details of the diadems binding their cornuacopiae were exchanged at Alexandria early in the reign (see nos. 733–734). On the first of the tetartai, no. 806, the queen's name and title are transposed from their usual positions, as on the gold eighth mnaieion of Ptolemy III above (no. 805), on a tetradrachm portraying Ptolemy III (no. 781), and on the reverse of bronzes of Berenice II from Heraclea by the Sea or Seleucia in Pieria (Vol. 2, B452–B459). On the gold fractions and on the bronzes the diadem tied around the cornucopiae is rendered in similar fashion. As noted above, nos. 805 and 806 are probably companion pieces, perhaps struck at Seleucia in Pieria soon after its surrender to Ptolemy III. In contrast, no. 807 displays the straight diadem ends and legend configuration characteristic of the Alexandrian coinage of Berenice, as well as a control letter. These differences may reflect a later correction of the anomalies of no. 806. The tetarte, defined as one-sixteenth of the mnaieion, had been struck previously at Alexandria under Ptolemy I as one of the novel denominations of his currency reform of 294 (see nos. 129, 134, 139, 144, 149, 155, 172). It failed to establish itself as an essential denomination of the Ptolemaic currency system and is attested mainly as a unit of weight used in connection with jewelry. Its revival at the beginning of Euergetes’ reign seems to reflect the same innovative tendency as the revival of the Attic standard in Egypt for the coinage of Berenice II.

Uncertain Mint 32 • Uncertain Mint 33

Ptolemy III Euergetes

415

806. Gold sixteenth mnaieion or tetarte (gold hemidrachm) (c. 1.55 g): Veiled bust of Berenice r., with diademed stephane and sometimes lotus scepter of Arsinoe Philadelphus, dotted border/SSSS on l., S on r., cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, the ends falling on either size of the horn, dotted border. Reference: Svoronos 983, pl. xxxv, 15–16 [5 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 807 below.

807.

Gold sixteenth mnaieion or tetarte (gold hemidrachm) (c. 1.55 g): As preceding, but with legend  on l.,  on r.,  under cornucopiae, and diadem ends falling straight on r. Reference: Svoronos 984, pl. xxxv, 14 [2 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 806 above.

Perhaps Uncertain Mint 32 Gold Sixteenth Mnaieion or Tetarte (Gold Hemidrachm) of Arsinoe Philadelphus This small gold coin bears a very matronly portrait of Arsinoe Philadelphus with a pronounced double chin, and the lotus scepter seems to be lacking. A similar double chin appears on Sidonian mnaieia dated to Ptolemy Euergetes’ fourth and fifth years (nos. 818, 820). The omission of the lotus scepter has parallels on Syro-Phoenician mnaieia of the twenty-third regnal year struck at Tyre and Ioppe (nos. 850, 882), and also on the mnaieia of Uncertain Mint 33 below (nos. 810–811), but in the present case it could simply be an adaptation to the small size of the flan. While the reverse shares none of the anomalies of nos. 805–807, the minting of tetartai is sufficiently unusual to suggest the consolidation of this denomination at a single mint, and an iconographic program associating Berenice and Arsinoe would be consistent with Alexandrian practice during the Third Syrian War.

808. Gold sixteenth mnaieion or tetarte (gold hemidrachm) (c. 1.55 g): Veiled head of Arsinoe II r., with stephane, ram’s horn around ear with no scepter, dotted border/SS on l.,  on r., double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, dotted border. Reference: Svoronos 935, pl. xxxii, 8 and 10 [3 listed].

Uncertain Mint 33 Gold Mnaieia (Octadrachms) of Berenice II and Arsinoe Philadelphus Svoronos assigned a mnaieion of Arsinoe Philadelphus (no. 811) to Berytus on the basis of its trident head symbol, which he understood as a mintmark of the Phoenician city. With this coin he associated a second mnaieion that shares the same portrait style but lacks a mintmark or other control on the reverse (no. 810). Svoronos dated these issues to the reign of Ptolemy III and described the portrait as representing Berenice II in the guise of Arsinoe Philadelphus, because the lotus scepter is lacking from the queen’s attributes. H. A. Troxell (1983, pp. 64–66) added a new mnaieion in the name of Berenice (no. 809) with a nearly identical portrait. This issue too confuses or blends the iconography of Berenice with that of Arsinoe II; specifically, Berenice is represented with a ram’s horn curled around her ear and two grape clusters hang from the rim of her cornucopiae. Troxell observed that the cornucopiae, with its two grape clusters and the grain ear transposed the left, has the same anomalous features as the cornucopiae of the Berenice II mnaieia of Ephesus (I) (nos. 777–778). Consequently she proposed an Ephesian attribution for “some at least” of the “Berenice-type” Arsinoe mnaieia, implying that the contrast between their portrait style and that of Ephesus could be attributable to the arrival of an official portrait model from Alexandria. This explanation seems rather dubious in light of the iconographic confusion of the portrait, which does not exist in the

416

Ptolemy III Euergetes

Uncertain Mint 33

supposedly earlier Ephesian portraits. Another problem with Troxell’s discussion is that it did not account for the trident head symbol. Assuming that the reverse affinities to Ephesus indicate a nearby mint, the trident head could point to Priene, which used this device on its third-century civic silver and on its secondcentury Alexanders. However there is no evidence that Priene was ever a Ptolemaic possession. The vertical legends of no. 809 are sufficiently unusual to suggest it was the first product of a new Ptolemaic mint that was accustomed to the conventions of Seleucid coinage, which normally employed this legend configuration. This is enough to exclude Svoronos’ association of these mnaieia with the trident bronzes (Vol. 2, B434–B435), which are now securely attributed to southwest Asia Minor on the basis of provenance, and which show perfect conformity with all the norms of Ptolemaic coinage. The reattribution of the trident bronzes also demonstrates that Svoronos’ interpretation of the trident head as a mintmark of Berytus cannot be accepted uncritically. Indications for the date of these mnaieia are contradictory. The vertical legends of no. 809 suggest a mint city that had changed its allegiance during the Third Syrian War, and the blending of attributes of Berenice and Arsinoe conforms to an iconographic program attested at Alexandria during the early stages of the war. But the portraits are extremely close in style to that of a mnaieion struck at Sidon in the special emission of year 23 (no. 824), and other mnaieia of that year understate or lack the tip of the lotus scepter. In addition nos. 810 and 811 both display a stylistic detail that may support a later date of issue: a pair of loops on each side of the double cornucopiae, marking knots or bows where the diadem is tied around the horns. On Alexandrian issues, a single loop of this sort first appears in the reign of Ptolemy IV, on gold coins with the posthumous portrait of Ptolemy III, nos. 887–890, and on the Phoenician-weight coinage for Berenice II, nos. 895–898. A hint of a single loop can be observed, in the form of a pellet, on some of the Ephesian mnaieia of Berenice II presumed to have been struck early in the Third Syrian War (see no. 777). The two loops are small or even mere pellets on no. 810 but quite exaggerated on no. 811. The difference may imply an interval of time between the two issues and the latter might even belong to the reign of Ptolemy IV. On balance, however, the observations supporting an early date, at least for nos. 809 and 810, seem weightier.

809. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Diademed and veiled bust of Berenice r., with ram’s horn, dotted border/S vertically on l., reading upward, SSSS vertically on r., reading downward, cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing pomegranate, pyramidal cake, round fruit, and grain ear on l., grape clusters hanging from rim on both sides, dotted border. Reference: Leu 30, 28 April 1982, lot 224; Troxell (1983), pl. 10, F (showing die flaws on reverse in l. field and in lower r. field).

810. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Veiled bust of Arsinoe II r., with ram’s horn, diademed stephane, but no scepter, dotted border/SS on l.,  on r., double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing pyramidal cakes, two pomegranate, and two additional fruits, a grape cluster hanging from the rim of each horn, dotted border. Reference: Svoronos 1062, pl. xxiii, 21 [3 listed]; Troxell (1983), pl. 10, G; Christie’s sale “Property of a Lady” [Adda coll.], 8 October 1985, lot 388. Hoard: Benha, 1936 (IGCH 1694), Brett, (1952), 19, pl. iii.

811. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): As preceding, with trident head beneath right end of diadem. Reference: Svoronos 1061, pl. xxiii, 22 [2 listed].

Sidon



Ptolemy III Euergetes

417

SYRIA AND PHOENICIA Sidon Continuation of Dated Commemorative Coinage, 246–242/1 B.C. Gold Mnaieia (Octadrachms) of Arsinoe Philadelphus Silver Tetradrachms of Ptolemy Soter Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Veiled head of Arsinoe II r., with ram’s horn, wearing diademed stephane, lotus scepter over far shoulder, dotted border/SS on l.,  on r., double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing pyramidal cakes, pomegranate, and other fruits, a grape cluster hanging from the rim of each horn, dotted border. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/  on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. Year A (1) = 246 B.C. 812.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field, A in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 1024, pl. xxxii, 1 [1 listed, Athens].

813.

Vacat.

Year B (2) = 246/5 B.C. 814.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  above  or  in r. field. Reference: Paris 1994/193. Hoard: 6 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 710‒715.

815.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  above  or  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 1025, pl. xxxii, 2 [10 listed]. Hoards: 2 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4742–4743; 2 in Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; Balatah (ancient Shechem) 1960 (IGCH 1588), Carlen (2014), 18; 2 in Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 105‒106; 9 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 701‒709.

Year G (3) = 245/4 B.C. 816.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field, G above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 1026, pl. Γ, 17 [3 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 817 below. Hoards: 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 753‒754; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 107; 5 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 716‒720.

418

Ptolemy III Euergetes

817.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field, G above  in r. field.

Sidon

Reference: Svoronos 1027, pl. xxxii, 3 [8 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 816 above. Hoards: 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 755‒756; 10 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 721‒730.

Year D (4) = 244/3 B.C. 818. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): D in lower l. field,  above  in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 1028, pl. xxxii, 4 [2 listed]. Obverse die link with nos. 820 and 822 below.

819.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field, D above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 1029, pl. xxxii, 5 [2 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 821 below. Hoards: Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 758; 9 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 731–739; Tell Nebesheh (ancient Am), 1886 (IGCH 1688).

Year E (5) = 243/2 B.C. 820. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  in lower l. field,  above  in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 1030, pl. xxxii, 6 [1 listed, London]. Obverse die link with nos. 818 above and 822 below.

821.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in lower l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 1031, pl. xxxii, 7 [2 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 819 above. Hoard: 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 740‒742.

Year S (6) = 242/1 B.C. 822. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): S in lower l. field,  above  in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 1032, pl. xxxii, 9 [2 listed]. Obverse die link with nos. 818 and 820 above.

823.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field, S above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 1033, pl. xxxii, 11 [3 listed]. Hoards: 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 758‒759; 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 743‒744; Rüppell (East Delta), before 1822. Provenanced find: Maresha excavations (61-711-1062 CN3, information courtesy of R. Barkay and A. Kloner, director of the excavations).

Revival of Commemorative Coinage with Monogram ‰, 225/4 B.C. The following issues have parallels at the other four Syro-Phoenician mints. Svoronos assigned them to the reign of Ptolemy II, with reservations. Mørkholm (1980b, pp. 4–5) argued from style and hoard evidence that this complex of coins belonged to the reign of Ptolemy III. The specific year is provided by the regnal date (year 23) on the issues of Ioppe and Gaza (nos. 882–883, 885–886). The context of the issue was an anticipation of renewed hostilities with the Seleucid kingdom after the death of Seleucus II, and the coinage may have financed either military moblization for an abortive invasion, or more likely defensive preparations

Tyre



Ptolemy III Euergetes

419

against an attack that did not materialize. Seyrig (1971, pp. 10–11) suggested a connection with Porphyry’s report (FGrHist F44) that Seleucus III had mustered an army to attack Ptolemy IV, but this clearly refers to a later episode. The obverse die of the tetradrachms was later used at Ptolemais in the reign of Ptolemy IV.

Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Veiled head of Arsinoe II r., with ram’s horn, wearing diademed stephane, lotus scepter over far shoulder, dotted border/ SS on l.,  on r., double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing pyramidal cakes, pomegranate, and other fruits, a grape cluster hanging from the rim of each horn, dotted border. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/M on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. 824. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): ‰ in lower l. field,  in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: Leu 30, 28 April 1982, lot 225; Troxell (1983), p. 67, 1, pl. 10, D.

825.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  in l. field, ‰ in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 757, pl. xxii, 8 [3 listed]; Mørkholm (1980b), p. 7, 1–3. Obverse die link with no. 826 below, and with nos. 911‒912, 930‒932 of Ptolemais. Hoards: Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 760; Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 74.

826.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field, ‰ in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: SNG Copenhagen 518; Mørkholm (1980b), p. 7, 4. Obverse die link with no. 825 above, and with nos. 911‒912, 930‒932 of Ptolemais; die here showing flaws in hair.

827.

Vacat.

Tyre Continuation of Dated Commemorative Coinage, 246–242/1 B.C. Gold Mnaieia (Octadrachms) of Arsinoe Philadelphus Silver Tetradrachms of Ptolemy Soter In addition to minting dated mnaieia and tetradrachms, Tyre also produced an important undated bronze coinage (Vol. 2, B465–B471).

Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Veiled head of Arsinoe II, with ram’s horn, wearing diademed stephane, lotus scepter over far shoulder, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing pyramidal cakes, pomegranate, and other fruits, a grape cluster hanging from the rim of each horn, dotted border. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/  on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border.

420

Ptolemy III Euergetes



Tyre

Year A (1) = 246 B.C. 828. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  in lower l. field, i above  in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 1011, pl. xxxi, 1 [2 listed]. Same dies as no. 831 below.

829.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: CNG E-Auction 105, 5 January 2005, lot 95.

830. Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: A. D. Philippidis coll., Hicksville, N.Y. (P-1998-11-17.001), ex Berk 105, 17 November 1998, lot 301, and Berk 83, 26 October 1994, lot 285. Hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 464.

Year B (2) = 246/5 B.C. 831. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  in lower l. field, i above  in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 1012, pl. xxxi, 2 [2 listed]. Same dies as no. 828 above, reverse die retouched to change date from  to . Hoard: Antalya, 1974 (CH I, 69).

832.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Ponterio 70, 13 July 1994, lot 430. Hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 475.

833.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field, nothing between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 1014, pl. xxxi, 4 [2 listed].

834.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Paris 1994/209. Obverse die link with no. 836 below. Hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 474.

835.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 1013, pl. xxxi, 3 [2 listed]. Hoards: Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 103; 4 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 465‒468.

Tyre

836.



Ptolemy III Euergetes

421

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Paris 1994/208; Berk 82, 13 July 1994, lot 507. Obverse die link with no. 834 above. Hoard: 5 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 469‒473.

Year G (3) = 245/4 B.C. 837. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  in lower l. field, i above  in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: Spink 10, 4 October 1995, lot 67; Bamberg Historical Museum, Richter (1991), p. 90, 4 ( off flan). Same dies as no. 841 below. Hoard: Antalya, 1974 (CH I, 69).

838.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 1015, pl. xxxi, 5 [1 listed, Athens].

839.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 1016 [3 listed]. Hoards: 2 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4450–4451; Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 748; 8 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 476‒483.

840. Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 1017 [1 listed, Berlin]. Hoard: 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 484‒486.

Year D (4) = 244/3 B.C. 841. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  in lower l. field, i above  in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 1018, pl. xxxi, 6 [1 listed, London]. Same dies as no. 837 above, with date recut. Hoards: Antalya, 1974 (CH I, 69); Benha, 1936 (IGCH 1694), Brett (1952), 21, pl. iii.

842. Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 1019, pl. xxxi, 7 [4 listed]. Obverse die link with nos. 843‒844 below. Hoards: 2 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4452–4453; 3 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 749‒751; 2 in Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 41–42; 8 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 487‒494; Jordan, 1987 (CH VIII, 320 = EH I, 69), Meadows 8.

422

Ptolemy III Euergetes



Tyre

843. Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field, 6 between eagle’s legs. Reference: Paris 1994/210; Comptoir Général Financier MBS 29, 19 April 2007, lot 48 = CGF MBS 26, 22 June 2006, lot 107. Obverse die link with nos. 842 and 844. Hoards: Gaza (CH II, 37); 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 495‒496.

Year E (5) = 243/2 B.C. 844.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 1020, pl. xxxi, 9 [1 listed, Athens]. Obverse die link with nos. 842‒843 above. Hoards: Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 104; 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 497‒499.

845.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field, › between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 1021, pl. xxxi, 8 [1 listed, Athens]. Obverse die link with nos. 847 and 849 below; reverse die link with no. 849. Hoard: 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 500‒502.

846.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field,  above  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 1022 [1 listed, London].

847.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field, nothing between eagle’s legs. Reference: Paris, Z.2884, 289 (Dattari coll.). Obverse die link with nos. 845 and 849.

848. Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  above  in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 1023 [1 listed, Dattari]. Confirmation required. This specimen was not identified in Paris and could perhaps represent a confused report of the preceding.

Year S (6) = 242/1 B.C. 849.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field,  engraved over  above  in r. field, C between eagle’s legs. Reference: E. Cohen coll. Obverse die link with nos. 845 and 847 above; reverse die link with no. 845, date recut here.

Revival of Commemorative Coinage with Monogram ‰, 225/4 B.C. The following issues of Tyre, marked with the monogram ‰, have counterparts at the other four SyroPhoenician mints; those of Ioppe and Gaza bear a regnal date (year 23). For the dating and historical significance of this coordinated issue, see commentary preceding no. 824.

Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Veiled head of Arsinoe II r., with ram’s horn, wearing diademed stephane, no scepter, dotted border/SS on l.,

Tyre • Ptolemais (Ake)



Ptolemy III Euergetes

423

 on r., double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing pyramidal cakes, pomegranate, and other fruits, a grape cluster hanging from the rim of each horn, dotted border. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/  on l., SWS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. 850. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): ‰ in lower l. field, i in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: Christie’s sale, London, 9 October 1984, lot 298; see Troxell (1983), pp. 66–67.

851.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field, ‰ placed sideways in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 701, pl. xx, 11 [2 listed]; Mørkholm (1980b), p. 6, 1.

852.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): i above club in l. field, ‰ placed vertically in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 702, pl. xx, 12 [2 listed]; Mørkholm (1980b), p. 7, 2–5. Obverse die link with nos. 853–854 below. Hoard: Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 60.

853. Silver stater (tetradrachm), i above club in l. field, ‰ in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 703, pl. xx, 13 [2 listed]; Mørkholm (1980b), p. 7, 6–7. Obverse die link with nos. 852 above and 854 below. Hoards: Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 752; Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 61.

854.

Silver stater (tetradrachm), i above club in l. field, ‰ above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 704, pl. Γ, 2 [2 listed]; Mørkholm (1980b), p. 7, 8–10. Obverse die link with nos. 852–853 above. Hoard: Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 62.

Ptolemais (Ake) Continuation of Dated Commemorative Coinage, 246–242/1 B.C. Gold Mnaieia (Octadrachms) of Arsinoe Philadelphus Silver Tetradrachms of Ptolemy Soter Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Veiled head of Arsinoe II r., with ram’s horn, wearing diademed stephane, lotus scepter over far shoulder, dotted border/ SS on l. (occasionally retrograde, as noted),  on r., double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing pyramidal cakes, pomegranate, and other fruits, a grape cluster hanging from rim of each horn, dotted border. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/  on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border.

424

Ptolemy III Euergetes

Ptolemais (Ake)

Year A (1) = 246 B.C. 855.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): ≈ above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: DCA 29. Obverse die link with nos. 657 above and 857 below. Hoard: 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 267‒268.

Year B (2) = 246/5 B.C. 856. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  in l. field, ⋲ above  in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 1034, pl. xxxii, 12 [1 listed, London].

857.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 1035, pl. xxxii, 13 [8 listed]. Obverse die link with nos. 657 and 855 above; a second obverse die link with nos. 858–859 below. Hoards: Sophikon (IGCH 179), Svoronos (1907a), 945; 8 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 269‒276.

Year G (3) = 245/4 B.C. 858.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  or ⋲ above  in l. field,  above  or  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 1036, pl. xxxii, 14 [1 listed, Athens]. Obverse die link with nos. 857 above and 859 below. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4097; 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 277‒279.

Year D (4) = 244/3 B.C. 859.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 1037, pl. xxxii, 15 [3 listed]. Obverse die links with nos. 857–858 above and 861 and 863 below. Hoards: 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 280‒282; 2 in Mit Ya-Ish (EH I, 200).

Year E (5) = 243/2 B.C. 860. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm) (with   on one die):  in lower l. field, G above  in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: Spink 10, 4 October 1995, lots 68–69.

861.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field, E above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 1038, pl. xxxii, 16 [1 listed, Athens]. Obverse die link to nos. 859 above and 863 below; reverse die link to no. 863. Hoards: Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 43; 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 283‒285.

Ptolemais (Ake)



Ptolemy III Euergetes

425

Year S (6) = 242/1 B.C. 862. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): S in l. field,  above  in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: Leu 22, 8–9 May 1979, lot 176; Troxell (1983), p. 52, 36, pl. 9, H.

863.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field, S above  in r. field. Reference/hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 286. Obverse die link to nos. 859 and 861 above. Specimen with S recut over  in J. Galst coll., implying reverse die link with no. 861.

Revival of Commemorative Coinage with Monogram ‰, 225/4 B.C. The following varieties belong to a coordinated special issue struck at all five Syro-Phoenician mints, and dated to regnal year 23 by the coins of Ioppe and Gaza. For fuller discussion, see commentary preceding no. 824.

Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Veiled head of Arsinoe II r., with ram’s horn, wearing diademed stephane, lotus scepter over far shoulder, dotted border/SS on l.,  on r., double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing pyramidal cakes, pomegranate, and other fruits, a grape cluster hanging from the rim of each horn, dotted border. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/  on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. 864. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): c in lower l. field, ‰ (turned sideways) above  in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 785, pl. xxv, 2 [1 listed, Athens].

865.

Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): q in lower l. field, Ê in lower r. field below cornucopiae. Reference: Rollin et Feuardent, 9 May 1910, lot 675; Troxell (1983), p. 67, 3.

866.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  in l. field, ‰ in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 786, pl. xxv, 3 [5 listed]; SNG Copenhagen Suppl. 1288; see Mørkholm (1980b), p. 6, 1–8. Two altered reverse dies were reused under Ptolemy IV, one attesting to a variant form of the mintmark in this issue (), see nos. 911 and 930A below. One of the two obverse dies was also reused under Ptolemy IV, see no. 938. Hoards: Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 761; Jericho area, c. 1991 (CH VIII, 412 = EH I, 111), Olivier and Meadows (2017) 2; 3 in Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 108‒110; 4 in Tell Nebesheh (ancient Am), 1886 (IGCH 1688).

426

Ptolemy III Euergetes

Ioppe

Ioppe Continuation of Dated Commemorative Coinage, 246–242/1 B.C. Gold Mnaieia (Octadrachms) of Arsinoe Philadelphus Silver Tetradrachms of Ptolemy Soter In addition to its dated mnaieia and tetradrachms, Ioppe also produced an undated bronze coinage bearing a harpe mintmark (Vol. 2, B472–B475).

Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Veiled head of Arsinoe II r., with ram’s horn, wearing diademed stephane, lotus scepter over far shoulder, dotted border/SS on l.,  on r., double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing pyramidal cakes, pomegranate, and other fruits, a grape cluster hanging from the rim of each horn, dotted border. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/  on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. Year A (1) = 246 B.C. 867. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  in lower l. field,  in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: ANS 1967.152.564; Troxell (1983), p. 53, 38. Hoard: Benha, 1936 (IGCH 1694), Brett (1952), 20, pl. iii.

Year B (2) = 246/5 B.C. 868.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above · (or ) in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: a) with ·: Svoronos 1039, pl. xxxii, 20 [3 listed]; b) with : ANS 1944.100.76347. Obverse die link with no. 869 below. Hoards: a) 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 762‒763; 8 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, Hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 157–164.

869.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Berk 82, 13 July 1994, lot 522. Obverse die link with no. 868 above. Hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 165. Provenanced find: Maresha excavations (61-711-1062 CN 2), information courtesy of R. Barkay and A. Kloner, director of the excavations.

Year G (3) = 245/4 B.C. A tetradrachm of this year, with the lower left control erased, occurred in the Khan el-Abde hoard of 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 104.

870. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  in lower l. field,  above  in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 1040, pl. xxxii, 21 [1 listed, London]. Hoards: Near Alexandria, 1844 (CH VIII, 303); Commerce, 2007.

Ioppe

871.



Ptolemy III Euergetes

427

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Berk 82, 13 July 1994, lot 523. Obverse die link to nos. 872–874 and 876 below. Hoard: 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 166–167.

872.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 1041, pl. xxxii, 22 [2 listed]. Obverse die link with nos. 871 above and 873–874 and 876 below. Hoards: Saida, 1949 (IGCH 1586), Trésors 40.39; 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 171–173.

873.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Paris 1994/178. Obverse die link with nos. 871–872 above and 874 and 876 below. Hoard: 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 168–169.

874.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above 7 in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Paris 1994/179. Obverse die link with nos. 871–873 above and 876 below. Hoard: Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 170.

Year D (4) = 244/3 B.C. 875. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm):  in lower l. field,  above  in lower r. field undercornucopiae. Reference: ANS 1944.100.76346; Troxell (1983), p. 53, 40. Obverse die link with no. 879 below.

876.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 1042, pl. xxxii, 23 [1 listed, Athens]. Obverse die link with nos. 871–874 above. Hoards: Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4051; 3 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 174–176.

Year E (5) = 243/2 B.C. 877.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  (or ) above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 1043, pl. xxxii, 24 [1 listed, London]. Obverse die link with no. 878 below. Hoard: 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 178–179.

878.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  (or ) above Z (or ) in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Paris 1994/182; Berk 82, 13 July 1994, lot 526; Spink 9008, 19 March 2009, lot 424. Obverse die link with no. 877 above. Hoards: 2 in Meydancıkkale (CH VIII, 308), Meydancıkkale 4052–4053; 2 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 177, 180.

Year S (6) = 242/1 B.C. 879. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): S in lower l. field,  above  in lower r. field under cornucopiae. Reference: MMAG 25, 17 November 1962, lot 539; Troxell (1983), p. 53, 41. Obverse die link with no. 875 above.

428

Ptolemy III Euergetes

880.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above Z (or ) in l. field, S above  in r. field.



Ioppe • Gaza

Reference: Svoronos 1044, pl. xxxii, 25 [2 listed]. Hoard: Beqaa Valley, 1964, Paris R.4465/24 (Seyrig coll.).

Revival of Dated Commemorative Coinage with Monogram ‰, 225/4 B.C. All five of the Syro-Phoenician mints struck a special emission marked with the monogram ‰, reviving the commemorative coinage for Arsinoe Philadelphus and Ptolemy Soter, but only Ioppe and Gaza dated their coins. Although Svoronos doubtfully gave these issues to Ptolemy II, Mørkholm (1980b, pp. 4–5) argued from style and hoard evidence that this complex of coins belonged to the reign of Ptolemy III. The regnal year 23, attested by the issues of Ioppe and Gaza, fixes the emission to the year 225/4 B.C. For the probable occasion of issue, see commentary preceding no. 824.

Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Veiled head of Arsinoe II r., with ram’s horn, wearing diademed stephane, no scepter, dotted border/SS on l.,  on r., double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing pyramidal cakes, pomegranate, and other fruits, a grape cluster hanging from the rim of each horn, dotted border. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/  on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. Year KG (23) = 225/4 B.C. 881. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): ‰ in lower l. field,  above  in lower field under cornucopiae. Reference: Svoronos 794, pl. xxiii, 1 [1 listed, Paris]; Christie’s sale [Adda coll.], 9 October 1984, lot 299.

882.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  in l. field,  above ‰ in r. field. Reference: Mørkholm (1980b), p. 6, 1–2. Hoards: Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 76; Asyut, 1936 (IGCH 1702).

Gaza Continuation of Dated Commemorative Coinage, 246–242/1 B.C. Silver Tetradrachms of Ptolemy Soter Until very recently only one emission of Gaza was recorded for the early years of Ptolemy III.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/  on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. Year B (2) = 246/5 B.C. 883.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): · above È in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 1045, pl. xxxii, 26 [3 listed].

Gaza • Uncertain Mint 23



Ptolemy III Euergetes

429

Hoards: Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 44; 5 in Iraq al-Amir (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96), Keen 104–108; Jordan, 1987 (CH VIII, 320 = EH I, 99), Meadows 9.

Year  (6) = 242/1 B.C. 884.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): · above È in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Paris, Z.2884, 260 (Dattari coll.); Gallica website ark:/12148/btv1b85087021. My thanks to Héloïse Aumaître for reporting this unique coin.

Revival of Dated Commemorative Coinage with Monogram ‰, 225/4 B.C. Gaza participated with the four other Syro-Phoenician mints in a special issue marked with the monogram ‰. It was the only one of these mints not to strike gold mnaieia (octadrachms) along with its tetradrachms, and one of only two mints (the other being Ioppe) to date its products. Svoronos gave this entire coinage to the reign of Ptolemy II, with reservations, but Mørkholm (1980b, pp. 4–5) showed that it belonged to the reign of Ptolemy III instead. On the occasion of issue, see commentary preceding no. 824.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/  on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. Year KG (23) = 225/4 B.C. 885.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): · in l. field,  above  (or ‰) in r. field. Reference: a) with : Svoronos 821, pl. xxiv, 2 [3 listed, mintmark described as ]; Mørkholm (1980b), p. 6, 1–2 and 4–5; b) with ‰: SNG Copenhagen Suppl. 1283–1284; Mørkholm (1980b), p. 6, 3. Hoard: Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 36.

886.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): · above  in l. field,  above ‰ in r. field. Reference: Spink NCirc November 1981, lot 7764.

Uncertain Mint 23, imitating Ptolemais (Ake) Silver Tetradrachm of Ptolemy Soter The continuing activity of this imitative mint in the time of Ptolemy III was recognized by Héloïse Aumaître.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/  on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. 886A. Silver stater (tetradrachm, with Soter legend): G above  in l. field,  (for ) above  in r. field. Reference: CNG E-Auction 291, 21 November 2012, 152.

886B. Silver stater (tetradrachm, with Soter legend): G above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Berlin, Lobbecke 1906/7473. Hoard: Cyprus, before 1916, Olivier (2015), 11.

PTOLEMY IV PHILOPATOR 222–204 B.C. EGYPT Alexandria Commemorative Mnaieion (Gold Octadrachm) for Ptolemy III The deified Ptolemy III is portrayed here, and on other mnaieia of Ptolemy IV, with the attributes of at least three gods: the rays of Helios, the aegis of Zeus, and the trident of Poseidon. The syncretic imagery of this portrait has inspired considerable commentary. Drawing attention to the lotus blossom adorning the trident, W. Huss (1976a) suggested the coin type might assimilate Ptolemy III to Sarapis. A. Alföldi (1977) argued that the iconography identifies the late king with Aion Plutonios, a god of wealth, fertility, and rebirth. The iconography, particularly the aegis worn like a chlamys, also presents the third Ptolemy as a new Alexander, the latest conqueror of the Orient, see C. C. Lorber (2011), pp. 312–315, 317–318. The type thus alludes to Ptolemy’s great victory over the Seleucids in the Third Syrian War, a theme that was especially resonant during the Fourth Syrian War. P. P. Iossif and C. C. Lorber (2012) demonstrated further that the solar imagery evokes not only the Horus-King, defender of Egypt, but also Egyptian ideas of cyclical renewal that were inherent in the ideology of kingship and relevant to the repeated victories over the Seleucids. The style of no. 887 is Alexandrian, as can be seen from comparison with other mnaieia with the types of Ptolemy III and especially with no. 888 below. The cornucopiae of the reverse presents two diagnostic details. On mnaieia of Alexandria and Sidon, the radiate crown above the cornucopia appears as a loop of the royal diadem tied around the horn, bearing rays exactly as on the king’s portrait; but on mnaieia of other provincial mints the rendering of this detail does not allow its interpretation as a loop of the diadem. The shape of the calyx ornament also differs from mint to mint. The presence of six examples of no. 887 in the Benha hoard of 1922–1923 (IGCH 1695) argues in favor of an Egyptian origin.

887. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Bust of Ptolemy III r., crowned with radiate diadem and wearing aegis like a chlamys, ornate trident over far shoulder, its middle prong ornamented with lotus bud, dotted border/ on l., SS on r., cornucopiae bound with radiate royal diadem, looped so that its rays appear above the top of the horn which contains two round fruits and pyramidal cake, grape cluster hanging from left side of rim, dotted border. Reference: Svoronos 1131, pl. xxxvi, 4 [1 listed, Berlin]. Hoard: 6 in Benha (IGCH 1695).

 series in precious metal, from 219 until shortly after the battle of Raphia

(22 June 217 B.C.)

III Maccabees reports that Arsinoe III promised a donative of two gold minae per man before the battle of Raphia, and the Raphia Decree records a donative payment in gold. A die study of the mnaieia of the Alexandrian  series bearing the portrait of Ptolemy III with divine attributes (no. 888) reveals that they were minted in haste, probably in a matter of weeks, see C. Lorber and J. Olivier (2013), pp. 99–115. Almost 431

432

Ptolemy IV Philopator



Alexandria

certainly these mnaieia were distributed in the Raphia donative, perhaps with smaller gold denominations of the same type as well. Tetradrachms of this issue, with the obverse type of Sarapis and Isis (no. 892), constituted the principal silver coinage of Ptolemy IV. The die study of T. P. Landvatter (2012) demonstrated that these tetradrachms were produced intensively over a relatively short period. L. Bricault (1999) collected evidence for a cult of Sarapis and Isis as Savior Gods during the reign of Ptolemy IV. He speculated that Philopator may have attributed his unexpected victory at Raphia to a battlefield intervention by these gods, in which case we could conclude that the tetradrachm type was introduced after the battle. However the production of Sarapis and Isis tetradrachms at Ascalon beginning in regnal year 3 (see nos. 940–942) proves that the type was in use from 220/19, even while it strongly connects the two gods with the defense of Egypt. The main Alexandrian issue of Sarapis and Isis tetradrachms, those marked  (no. 892), can be understood as the financial basis for the rebuilding of the Lagid army between 219 and 217. With these tetradrachms Svoronos associated other tetradrachms with the traditional type of Ptolemy I (Svoronos 1121–1122), but the latter do not share the coarse lettering that characterizes the Alexandrian  issue and they also differ in other reverse details. They are probably products of two different provincial mints (see nos. 899 and 901 below). The use of Alexandrian controls on provincial coinage is a notable feature of the mint policy of Ptolemy IV. On bronze coinage, the control  occurred contemporaneously on issues of Alexandria and at Tyre after the victory at Raphia (see Vol. 2, B495–B496, B542–B543).

888. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Bust of Ptolemy III r., crowned with radiate diadem and wearing aegis like a chlamys, ornate trident over shoulder, its middle prong ornamented with a lotus bud, dotted border/P  on l., SS on r., cornucopiae bound with radiate royal diadem, looped so that the rays appear above the top of the horn which contains grain ear, pyramidal cake, and pomegranate, grape cluster hanging from left side of rim,  below, dotted border. Reference: Svoronos 1117, pl. xxxvi, 6–7 [28 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 196; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 1–263 (7 obverse dies). Hoards: Probably Antalya, 1974 (CH I, 69); Benha, 1936 (IGCH 1694), Brett (1952), 27–28, pl. iv; 136+ in commerce, 2007.

889. Gold pentekontadrachmon or 50-drachm piece (gold tetradrachm): Types as preceding, with . Reference: Svoronos 1118, pl. xxxvi, 8 [3 listed]; Christie’s, 9 October 1984, lot 302.

890.

Gold eighth mnaieion or 12 ½ drachms (gold drachm): Types as preceding, with . Reference: Svoronos 1119, pl. xxxvi, 9 [1 listed, Paris].

891. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Veiled head of Arsinoe II r., rejuvenated and idealized, with ram’s horn, wearing diademed stephane, lotus scepter over far shoulder, dotted border/SS on l.,  on r., double cornucopiae containing pomegranates, pyramidal cakes, and round fruits, a grape cluster hanging from the rim of each horn, the horns bound with royal diadem,  in lower r. field, dotted border. Reference: Svoronos 1120, pl. xxxvi, 12 [2 listed].

Alexandria

892.



Ptolemy IV Philopator

433

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Jugate busts r. of Sarapis and Isis, both draped, the god laureate, with miniature atef crown above his forehead, the goddess crowned with grain, with miniature horned disc above forehead, dotted border/P  on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, head reverted, holding double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem over shoulder,  between legs, dotted border. Reference: Svoronos 1123, pl. xxxvi, 13 [5 listed], supposedly with single cornucopiae; Svoronos 1124, pl. Γ, 19 [18 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 197–198; Landvatter (2012), 1–73. Hoards: 2 in Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); Syria, 1971 (CH II, 81 = CH X, 289); 12 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 764‒775; 13 in Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 106–118; Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 111; 14 in Delta (IGCH 1690), Newell (1927b), p. 5, 7–20.

Tetradrachms of Sarapis and Isis Type, marked  Three tetradrachms of this type occurred in the Delta hoard (IGCH 1690). E. T. Newell (1927b) suggested a possible attribution to Cyrene and dated them to the reign of Ptolemy III, citing an early style and a control link to an Attic-weight silver 2 ½-drachm piece of Berenice II with the related control ‚ (no. 746). We might also note a bronze tetrobol of Ptolemy III with the control  (Vol. 2, B383). However Newell’s regnal attribution is extremely unlikely in view of Philopator’s promotion of the cult of Sarapis and Isis and the existence of specimens of this tetradrachm variety identical in style to those of the  issue. The control  and variants, including ‚, appear extensively on Philopator’s Alexandrian bronzes, as well as on bronzes of Cyprus, Tyre, and Cyrene (Vol. 2, B497–B513, B536–539, B545–B550, B555–B556). The proposed attribution to Cyrene must also be rejected, as no precious metal coinage was produced in Ptolemaic Cyrenaica after the reign of Magas.

893. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Jugate busts r. of Sarapis and Isis, both draped, the god laureate, with miniature atef crown above his forehead, the goddess crowned with grain, with miniature horned disc above her forehead, dotted border/ on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, head reverted, holding double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem over shoulder,  between legs, dotted border. Reference: Landvatter (2012), 74–75; ANS 1944.100.77211, ex Naville XIII (1928), lot 950. Hoards: Galatia, 1939 (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); Delta hoard (IGCH 1690), Newell (1927b), 4–6.

Mnaieion (Gold Octadrachm) with Portrait of Ptolemy IV, marked ; This mnaieion is control linked to bronzes of Ptolemy IV from Alexandria and Cyrenaica (see Vol. 2, B514, B557). Mnaieia depicting Ptolemy IV wearing the Macedonian military chlamys and using his cult name Philopator were struck at uncertain provincial mints as early as regnal year 3 (see nos. 902, 909) and at Sidon and Ptolemais (Ake) after the battle of Raphia (see nos. 917, 930). This, the only such issue of Alexandria, is also post-Raphian as indicated by its control link. The sequence of monetary controls on Alexandrian bronze coins suggests a date fairly late in the reign.

894. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Diademed bust of Ptolemy IV r., wearing Macedonian military chlamys, dotted border/P  on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing r. on thunderbolt, ; in r. field, dotted border. Reference: Svoronos 1139, pl. xxxvii, 1 [9 listed].

434

Ptolemy IV Philopator



Alexandria

Posthumous Gold Mnaieia (Octadrachms), Silver Decadrachms and Tetradrachms of Berenice II, Ptolemaic Standard, perhaps from 211/10 B.C. The following series honoring the king’s mother, Berenice II, duplicates the denominations of the Alexandrian coinage for Arsinoe Philadelphus issued under her widower, Ptolemy II. The parallel seems to suggest that this Berenice coinage might have followed soon after the end of Arsinoe’s coinage. But the Ptolemaic-weight coinage of Berenice was not represented in the Benha hoard (IGCH 1694), which closed with mnaieia with the posthumous portrait of Ptolemy III (no. 888). Ptolemaic-weight coinage of Berenice was similarly absent from the Delta hoard of 1922 (IGCH 1690; Newell 1927b), which contained Attic-weight silver coins of Berenice as well as Sarapis and Isis tetradrachms of Ptolemy IV, including three examples of no. 893. Based on these contents we can conclude that these two hoards closed almost contemporaneously. J. Olivier has drawn attention to a stylistic detail shared by the posthumous portrait gold of Ptolemy III and the Ptolemaic-weight Berenices, the small loop to the right of the cornucopiae, marking the tie in the diadem. These observations establish that the Ptolemaic-weight coinage of Berenice was a posthumous coinage, datable some time after the battle of Raphia. Very possibly it was struck in connection with the inauguration of a separate cult for Berenice in 211/10. The elimination of the stars and caps of the Dioscuri that had appeared on the reverse of her Attic-weight coinage is consistent with this interpretation, as her divinity was no longer closely associated with the prayers that ensured her husband’s safe return from his Syrian campaign.

Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Diademed and veiled bust of Berenice II r., with necklace, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., cornucopiae containing grain ear, pyramidal cake, and pomegranate, grape cluster hanging from left side of rim, the horn bound with royal diadem, dotted border. Silver decadrachm: Types as preceding. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Types as preceding. 895. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): No controls. Reference: Svoronos 1113, pl. xxxv, 1, 12, 17 [15 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 169. Obverse die link with no. 898 below. Hoards: 3+ in Antalya, 1974 (CH I, 69); unknown findspot, 1986 (CH VIII, 350).

896.

Silver decadrachm: No controls. Reference: Svoronos 1114, pl. xxxv, 18 and 20 [5 listed].

897.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): No controls. Reference: Svoronos 1115, pl. xxxv, 19 [5 listed].

898. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm)  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 1116, pl. xxxv, 11 [1 listed, Athens]. Obverse die link with no. 895 above.

Soli • Uncertain Mint 34



Ptolemy IV Philopator

435

CILICIA Soli Silver Tetradrachms of Sarapis and Isis Type A short series of Sarapis and Isis tetradrachms with an owl symbol was attributed to Soli by C. C. Lorber and F. L. Kovacs (1997). Despite the very strong association of the Sarapis and Isis typology with Ptolemy IV, the series is attributed to his successor on the basis of a double control link to the Solian coinage of Antiochus III, who captured the city in 197.

CYPRUS Silver Minors with Dionysiac and Royal Portrait Types The Cypriote series of Dionysiac didrachms and drachms, with royal portrait triobols, includes a group with a thunderbolt held over the shoulder of the obverse bust. Some specialists have identified the portrait as that of Ptolemy IV and have suggested attribution to his reign. In fact, neither the obverse type nor hoard evidence assures this attribution. More likely this coinage began under Ptolemy V, in the late 190s, when Salamis, Citium, and Paphos also initiated a regular production of tetradrachms supplemented with occasional mnaieia.

PERHAPS CYPRUS Uncertain Mint 34 Silver Tetradrachms of Ptolemy I Type with Alexandrian Controls Svoronos included no. 899 in the Alexandrian coinage of Ptolemy IV marked , but a common origin is precluded by the quality of the lettering and the style of the eagle. In addition, the control is placed between the legs of the eagle on the Alexandrian Sarapis and Isis tetradrachms, but in the left field here. The obverse of no. 899 links it to a second tetradrachm, unknown to Svoronos, which shares the control of an Alexandrian mnaieion of Berenice II (no. 898). Under the reign of Ptolemy IV various Alexandrian controls were replicated in the provinces, but most of this linkage involves bronze coins. This is the only link involving the monogram , which appeared at Alexandria exclusively on the mnaieion of Berenice II.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border 899.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 1122, pl. xxxvi, 10 [2 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 900 below. Hoards: Perhaps Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), though the piece may have been an example of no. 901 below, information courtesy of J. Olivier; Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 778; Mit Ya-Ish (EH I, 200).

900.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  in l. field. Reference: Hess-Divo 310, 22 October 2008, lot 207. Obverse die link with no. 899 above, die possibly in earlier state here.

436

Ptolemy IV Philopator

Uncertain Mint 35 • Uncertain Mint 36

Uncertain Mint 35 Silver Tetradrachms of Ptolemy I Type with Alexandrian Control  The following tetradrachm, like no. 899, was associated by Svoronos in the Alexandrian coinage of Ptolemy IV marked , but once again the styles and epigraphy are different. This tetradrachm is also distinguished from no. 899 by portrait style and by its use of the Soter legend. The Cypriote provenance(s) suggest that Uncertain Mint 35 may have been located on Cyprus.

901.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt,  in l. field, dotted border. Reference: Svoronos 1121, pl. xxxvi, 11 [2 listed]. Hoards: Perhaps Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), though the piece may have been an example of no. 899 above, information courtesy of J. Olivier; Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); Mit Ya-Ish (EH I, 200).

Uncertain Mint 36 Dated Mnaieion (Gold Octadrachm) with Portrait of Ptolemy IV, 220/19 B.C. Svoronos associated this mnaieion, dated to regnal year 3, with a tetradrachm dated to regnal year 4 and with bronzes dated to both years, and assigned the resulting series to Cyprus under Ptolemy IV. His attribution was approved by A. Davesne (1994a), p. 15 with n.17. O. Mørkholm (1983, p. 248) added tetradrachms of years 3 and 5, noted their late style, and reported that unspecified examples had appeared in the Syria, 1981 hoard (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105) buried at the end of the Fifth Syrian War. He concluded that the regnal dates of the tetradrachms, and perhaps those of the bronzes, must be those of Ptolemy V. The bronzes have since been dated to the late second century, see T. Faucher and M. Shahin (2006). Mørkholm did not include the dated mnaieion in his discussion. It is provisionally retained here as an issue of Ptolemy IV because the eagle appears a bit earlier in style than the eagles of the tetradrachms. A possible argument against assigning the mnaieion to the reign of Ptolemy IV is the presence of his epithet Philopator. The fourth Ptolemy was not added to the eponymous dynastic cult until autumn of 216, at the beginning of his seventh regnal year. However he apparently bore the epithet Philopator before his father’s death, see E. Lanciers (1988), pp. 27–28. Lanciers further showed that the apotheosis of Ptolemy Philopator can be documented as early as his third regnal year; the Gods Who Love Their Father are named in the title of an Egyptian priest in a demotic papyrus of October/November 220 (P. dem. Vatic. 2037B). Some private Greek dedications to the Theoi Philopatores from Coele Syria have been dated to the period 219–217 by W. Huß (1976), pp. 71–74. The year sign  is a standard abbreviation in Ptolemaic papyri but it found its way more slowly into epigraphy. It first appears in a Cypriote inscription from Kafizin dated to regnal year 23 of Ptolemy Euergetes, see T. B. Mitford (1980), p. 101, no. 133b. Of special interest in the Kafizin material is the double date regnal year 2 of Ptolemy Philopator and year 90 of the era of Citium, i.e., the year 221/0, see Mitford (1950), pp. 100–101. The dating practices at Kafizin do not necessarily support an attribution of the dated mnaieion to Cyprus. The display of regnal dates on coinage (but without the  sign) was common in Syria and Phoenicia since c. 260, whereas dated coins securely attributable to Cyprus are unknown before the late 190s. The occasion for so unusual a gold issue must have been either the invasion of Syria and Phoenicia by Antiochus III in 219, or the threat of it, and most likely the mint was located either in eastern Cyprus or in the Syro-Phoenician region. Tetradrachms dated to regnal years 3 to 5 were also struck at Ascalon (nos. 940–942) and in that case the dated coinage is clearly related to the period of the Seleucid occupation.

Uncertain Mint 36 • Uncertain Mint 37

Ptolemy IV Philopator

437

Year G (3) = 220/19 B.C. 902. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Diademed bust of Ptolemy IV r., wearing chlamys, dotted border/ on l., PooS on r., eagle with closed wings standing r. on thunderbolt,  in r. field, dotted border. Reference: Svoronos 1189, pl. xliii, 15 [3 listed].

Perhaps Uncertain Mint 36 Dated Tetradrachm of Ptolemy I Type The following is one of the dated tetradrachm varieties attributed to Ptolemy V by O. Mørkholm (1983), p. 248 n.30. It differs from the other dated tetradrachms cited by Mørkholm in that the date appears in the left rather than the right field. (An exception is Svoronos 1192, a unique coin of year 4 with the date in the left field, but it is of rather barbarous obverse style and may be an imitation.) In addition, no. 903 below appears somewhat different and perhaps earlier in style than the rest of the series with which Mørkholm associated it; note especially the treatment of the scales of the aegis and the rendering of the eagle’s legs as a series of short horizontal bars, a mannerism also seen on the dated mnaieion no. 902 above, but far from exclusive to these two pieces. This variety was represented in the Chios hoard of 1965, which contained thirteen silver coins certainly of Ptolemy V and only one undoubted issue of Ptolemy IV. The evidence is inconclusive and this tetradrachm could in fact belong under the reign of Ptolemy V. On the other hand, two examples in the Syria, 1981 hoard, also deposited in 198, show wear arguably consistent with more than five years’ circulation.

Year G (3) = 220/19 B.C. 903.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt,  in l. field, dotted border. Reference: SNG Lockett 3429; Hosking 59; Ratto sale, Lugano, 4 April 1927, lot 2903; Glendining sale, 21–23 February 1961, lot 2815; BJ Coins and Antiquities on NumisMall, 25 April 2012, G0004. Hoards: Chios, 1965, Grigoriakis (2010), 5; Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 911‒912.

Uncertain Mint 37, probably in Syria or Phoenicia Dynastic Series in Precious Metal, marked, X, probably from 217 B.C. The following short series comprises gold mnaieia of Ptolemy III and Berenice II and a silver tetradrachm with the portrait of Ptolemy IV. These coins belong to at least two successive emissions. The mnaieia depicting Ptolemy III (nos. 904–905) were struck from the same die pair, with the reverse die reengraved to change the monogram on the right. The controls of the later of these mnaieia link it to the mnaieion of Berenice II and the tetradrachm of Ptolemy IV. But the tetradrachm reverse die shows another recut monogram in the right field that implies an earlier emission, probably with different controls from no. 904. The attribution of this series to a provincial mint seems required by the anomalous contents of the cornucopiae of nos. 904–905. These coins also feature a distinctive portrait of Ptolemy III, with a delicate aquiline nose, long sideburn, and a pronounced anastole (an arching lock of hair above the forehead). This last is characteristic of the iconography of Alexander the Great and helps to identify the deified Ptolemy, conqueror of Syria, as a new Alexander. None of these features is especially prominent in the portraiture of Ptolemy III on coins undoubtedly from Alexandria. The image of Ptolemy Philopator on the tetradrachm is more conventional, but it is not die linked either to his other lifetime portrait coins (nos. 894, 902, 909,

438

Ptolemy IV Philopator



Uncertain Mint 37

917–919, 921–925, 930) or to his posthumous portraits in Phoenicia during the Fifth Syrian War. The principle we have derived from the practice of earlier Ptolemies, that the reigning king could be portrayed on tetradrachms only in newly acquired or recovered territory, would support attribution of this series to Ptolemaic Syria after the failed invasion of Antiochus III in 221, or to the province of Syria and Phoenicia after the battle of Raphia. The latter date seems far more likely, because the main Alexandrian issue of mnaieia depicting the deified Ptolemy III was struck for the Raphia donative and the occasion certainly called for similar rewards throughout recovered province and perhaps even throughout the Ptolemaic empire. The inclusion of Berenice II in a later emission of the series is consistent with the sequence at Alexandria, where her Phoenician-weight coinage was not introduced until some time after the Raphia donative. The Syro-Phoenician mints normally identified their coins by means of mintmarks but the practice may not have applied to every city of the region. The monogram X, a consistent feature of this series, resolves as Pas… and obviously cannot refer to any major Syro-Phoenician city. Almost certainly it is the signature of a moneyer.

Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Bust of Ptolemy III r., crowned with radiate diadem and wearing aegis like a chlamys, holding trident over shoulder, its middle prong ornamented with a lotus blossom or bud, dotted border/P  on l., SS on r., radiate cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing two pomegranates, round fruits, and pyramidal cake, two grape clusters hanging from rim, dotted border. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Diademed and veiled bust of Berenice II r., with necklace, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., cornucopiae containing grain ear, pyramidal cake, and pomegranate, grape cluster hanging from left side of rim, the horn bound with royal diadem, its ends hanging straight, dotted border. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed bust of Ptolemy IV r., wearing chlamys, dotted border/P  on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing r. on thunderbolt, dotted border. 904. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm) (Ptolemy III): X in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 1133, pl. xxxvi, 1 [3 listed]. Same dies as no. 905 below, reverse die in first state here.

905. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm) (Ptolemy III): X in l. field, Y in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 1134, pl. xxxvi, 2 [1 listed, Athens]. Same dies as no. 904 above, reverse die recut to alter right control.

906. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm) (Berenice II):  and  in l. field. Reference: MMAG, 5–6 June 1959, lot 585.

907.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy IV): Y in l. field, and X in r. field. Reference: Leu 77, 11–12 May 2000, lot 392 (where the issue is attributed to Cyrene, without explanation). Right monogram apparently recut over an earlier control.

Uncertain Mint 38 • Unattributed Tetradrachm

Ptolemy IV

439

Uncertain Mint 38 Mnaieia (Gold Octadrachms) of Ptolemy III and IV, marked B, probably 217 B.C. The following mnaieia are associated by their shared control, the letter . This control does not link to the Alexandrian coinage of this reign, and a provincial origin is further supported by the anomalous contents of the cornucopiae of Ptolemy III and by the style of both portraits. The hair of Ptolemy IV is rendered in a unique manner, with short, wavy locks rather than the tight round curls that characterize all of his other coin portraits. This detail suggests an origin at a somewhat isolated mint. The letter  is unlikely to represent a regnal date, since Ptolemy IV otherwise used the sign  to designate regnal years on his coinage, and the practice is attested in Cypriote epigraphy for regnal year 2 (see commentary preceding no. 902). If the letter does nevertheless represent a regnal year, it would date these mnaieia to 221/0, so that the evocative depiction of Ptolemy III as a new Alexander would be a response to the first, unsuccessful invasion of Syria and Phoenicia by Antiochus III in 221. But the most plausible occasion for the minting of gold mnaieia, and for the use of a portrait type of Ptolemy III strongly associated with the Raphia donative in Egypt, would be for a post-Raphian donative in a provincial city. If the letter  refers to an era, it might associate these mnaieia with tetradrachms bearing the letter  (nos. 943, 945, 947), which are interpreted below as introducing a new era after Raphia; according to this hypothesis, the mnaieia could be dated either 217/16 or 216/15.

908. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Bust of Ptolemy III r., crowned with radiate diadem and wearing aegis like a chlamys, ornate trident over far shoulder, its middle prong ornamented with lotus blossom or bud, dotted border/ on l., SS on r., radiate cornucopiae bound with royal diadem, containing pyramidal cake, two pomegranates, and two round fruits, grape cluster hanging from left side of rim,  below to r., dotted border. Reference: Svoronos 1132, pl. xxxvi, 5 [2 listed].

909. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Diademed bust of Ptolemy IV r., wearing Macedonian military chlamys, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle standing r. on thunderbolt,  in r. field, dotted border. Reference: Triton XIII, 5 January 2010, lot 239.

Unattributed Sarapis and Isis Tetradrachm C. C. Lorber and F. L. Kovacs (1997) included this tetradrachm among the issues of Soli under Ptolemy V. Its inclusion does not seem warranted, since it is not control linked to undoubted Solian issues. T. P. Landvatter (2012) listed it as unattributable. A new specimen in commerce revealed a second monogram. The two monograms do not occur together on other coins.  appears on an issue of Ioppe (no. 913) and  appears at Ptolemais under Ptolemy III, perhaps suggesting an origin in Syria and Phoenicia.

910.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Jugate busts r. of Sarapis and Isis, both draped, the god laureate, with miniature atef crown above his forehead, the goddess crowned with grain, with miniature horned disc above her forehead, dotted border/ on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, head reverted, holding cornucopiae bound with royal diadem over shoulder,  in l. field,  in r. field, dotted border. Reference: Svoronos 1136a [1 listed, Dattari] = Paris, Z.2884, 304 (Dattari coll.); Lorber and Kovacs (1997), 4; Landvatter (2012), 105; Zurqieh on VCoins, 2 September 2016, SKU aa2427.

440

Ptolemy IV



Ptolemais (Ake) • Ioppe

SYRIA AND PHOENICIA Coordinated Issue of Tetradrachms of Ptolemy I Type from Southern Phoenician and Palestinian Cities, before the Seleucid occupation of 219 B.C. and/ or after the battle of Raphia The following varieties were associated by Lorber (1996), p. 260. If correctly associated, they comprise a series that seems to reflect a regional control system similar to that exercised by the magistrate ‰ in SyroPhoenicia in 225/4 B.C. (see nos. 824–826, 850–854, 864–866, 882–883, 885–886), and also to that of SW in Phoenicia after the victory at Raphia (see nos. 915–932 below). In this case the coordinated coinage involves a relatively southerly group of mints, including Ptolemais (Ake). The tetradrachms of Ptolemais employ an obverse die transferred from Sidon, where it was used for the issue of 225/4, and no. 911 also reuses a reverse die from the issue of 225/4. The Sidonian obverse was used at Ptolemais both for the present series, marked , and for the  coinage (see nos. 930A‒932). Study of the die’s deterioration by E. Carlen (2014, pp. 52‒56) showed that the two controls were employed contemporaneously, in alternation. The coinage in question may have been produced either before the Seleucid occupation of Ptolemais (219‒217) or after the battle of Raphia or in both periods. The die links to the issue of 225/4 may support the earlier date, without excluding the possibility that part of the coinage belongs to the later period. If the Ptolemais mint reopened before the Seleucid occupation, the most likely occasion for its reactivation was the attempted invasion of Syria and Phoenicia by Antiochus III in 221.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/ on l. SS (or SS) on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border.

Ptolemais (Ake) 911.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (with cult name Soter): Ptolemais monogram  in l. field, h between eagle’s legs. Reference: London, Mørkholm (1979), pl. 23, 18. Obverse die link with nos. 825‒826 of Sidon and nos. 912 and 930–932, die in second and third states. Hoard: Balatah (ancient Shechem), 1960 (IGCH 1588), Carlen (2014),19. This variety was overstruck with types of Ptolemy V’s main military coinage. The London specimen, Paris Z.2884, 239 (Dattari coll.), and a specimen in the A. D. Philippidis coll., Hicksville, N.Y., were all struck from the same reverse die which shows traces of an erased control ‰ in the right field. Evidently this issue was struck from an altered reverse die originally prepared for the special issue of 225/4, similar but not identical to no. 866.

912.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (with cult name Soter): Ptolemais monogram  in l. field, i in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 787, pl. xxv, 4 [1 listed, Six cast]. Obverse die link with nos. 825‒826 of Sidon and nos. 911 and 930–932, die here in third state; reverse die link with no. 931, die in first state here.

Ioppe 913.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (with royal title):  above  above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 1295, pl. xliii, 7 [1 listed, Paris]. Attributed by Svoronos to Sidon.

Uncertain Mint • Sidon





Ptolemy IV Philopator

441

Uncertain Mint, Probably Palestinian 914.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (with royal title):  in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 1135, pl. xxxvi, 3 [2 listed].

Precious Metal Coinage, marked , after the battle of Raphia O. Mørkholm (1979, p. 207 n.14) dated the  series to the early reign of Ptolemy V, while allowing the possibility that it began late in the reign of Ptolemy IV. However this important outpouring of precious metal coinage, echoing the types of the Alexandrian issues celebrating the victory at Raphia, represents the equivalent coinage from the recovered Syro-Phoenician province, struck as the victorious Ptolemy visited its principal cities. Such a dating is supported by the Delta hoard of 1922 (IGCH 1690), which closed with 14 examples of the Alexandrian Sarapis and Isis tetradrachms (no. 892), nearly all uncirculated, and one Sidonian Sarapis and Isis tetradrachm of the  series (no. 920), practically uncirculated. Mørkholm (1979, p. 206) reported a die link between a Sidonian tetradrachm of the  series (no. 919) and coins belonging to the Fifth Syrian War coinage of Ptolemy V. Mørkholm’s description of the die states shows that die A13 was used earlier at Sidon and later in the main Phoenician series of the Fifth Syrian War. Our dating of the  series to the period immediately following Raphia implies that this obverse die was preserved at Sidon for approximately fifteen years. The reuse of both obverse and reverse dies is a salient feature of the intermittent coin issues of Syria and Phoenicia from 225/4 to the Fifth Syrian War (see nos. 911‒912, 926, 930‒932 , 933–934, 937, 938). The appearance of the signature , in various configurations, indicates that a single official supervised the mints of Sidon, Tyre, and Ptolemais (Ake) at this point, just as the Syro-Phoenician issue of 225/4 had borne a single signature on coins produced at the five regional mints (see nos. 824–826, 850–854, 864–866, 882–883, 885–886). The control h also occurs on bronzes dated to regnal years 3 and 4. Mørkholm (1979, p. 207 n.14 and 1983b, p. 248) associated these bronzes with the Syro-Phoenician precious metal coinage listed here and dated them to the reign of Ptolemy V. The style of the h bronzes precludes such an early date, however, and they have now been shown to be Alexandrian issues of Cleopatra III and Ptolemy IX, see Faucher and Shahin (2006).

Sidon The concentration of gold issues at Sidon may reflect the fact that Sidon remained loyal to Ptolemy IV whereas the garrisons of Tyre and Ptolemais defected to Antiochus III. The iconographic program for this celebratory coinage was most fully developed at Sidon, where the types honored Ptolemy III (on gold), Ptolemy IV (on gold and silver), and Sarapis and Isis (on silver). One or more Sidonian mnaieia were associated with one or more mnaieia of Berenice in a 1986 hoard of unknown provenance (CH VIII, 350).

Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Bust of Ptolemy III r., crowned with radiate diadem and wearing aegis like a chlamys, ornate trident over far shoulder, its middle prong ornamented with lotus bud, dotted border/ on l., SS on r., cornucopiae bound with radiate royal diadem, looped so that the rays appear above the top of the horn which contains two round fruits, two grain ears(?), and pyramidal cake, grape cluster hanging from left side of rim, dotted border. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Diademed bust of Ptolemy IV r., wearing Macedonian military chlamys, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing r. on thunderbolt, dotted border.

442

Ptolemy IV Philopator

Sidon • Tyre

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed bust of Ptolemy IV r., wearing Macedonian military chlamys, dotted border/  on l.,  (or , as noted) on r., eagle with closed wings standing r. or l. (as noted) on thunderbolt, dotted border. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Jugate busts r. of Sarapis and Isis, both draped, the god laureate, with miniature atef crown above his forehead, the goddess crowned with grain with miniature horned disk above her forehead, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, head reverted, double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem over shoulder, dotted border. 915. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm) (Ptolemy III): h in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 1184, pl. xliii, 9 [2 listed]. Obverse die link with no. 916 below. Hoard: Benha, 1936 (IGCH 1694), Brett (1952), 29, pl. iv.

916. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm) (Ptolemy III): h in r. field,  in lower r. field between horn and end of diadem. Reference: Sotheby’s, Zurich, 28 October 1993, lot 942. Obverse die link with no. 915 above. Hoard(?): Seen in commerce after 2007.

917. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm) (Ptolemy IV, eagle r.):  above  in r. field. Reference: NFA XXV (1990), lot 285; Leu 52 (1991), lot 136.

918.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy IV, with cult name Philopator, eagle r.):  in l. field, h in r. field. Reference: ANS 1967.152.651; Morgenthau 342 (Burrage coll.), lot 175. Hoard: Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 804.

919.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy IV, with royal title, eagle l.):  in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 1185, pl. xliii, 10 [1 listed, London]. Obverse die link with tetradrachms of the Main Phoenician Series of Ptolemy V through Mørkholm (1979), die A13.

920.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Sarapis and Isis): h in l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 1186, pl. xliii, 11 [2 listed]; SNG Copenhagen Suppl. 1289; Landvatter (2012), 76–83. Obverse die link with nos. 933–934; a second obverse link to no. 934. Hoards: Cyprus, 1982 (CH VIII, 430 = CH IX, 296), Hazzard (1998), 5; Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6); Delta, 1922 (IGCH 1690), Newell (1927b), p. 5, 21.

Tyre The post-Raphian victory coinage at Tyre did not include gold, probably because the city’s Ptolemaic garrison had broken its oath of loyalty. The iconographic program, too, is different from that of Sidon: the coins portray only Ptolemy IV and Ptolemy I. The sheer number of tetradrachm varieties is impressive and may suggest that the disloyal garrison was replaced by a new one.

Tyre





Ptolemy IV Philopator

443

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed bust of Ptolemy IV r., wearing Macedonian military chlamys, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing r. or l. (as noted) on thunderbolt, dotted border. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/ on l.,  or  (as noted) on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. 921.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy IV, eagle r.): h in l. field, i in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 1177, pl. xliii, 1 [1 listed, Berlin]. Obverse die link with nos. 923–925 below (and probably also with no. 922, not illustrated by Seyrig).

922.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy IV, eagle r.): h in l. field, i in r. field.,  between eagle’s legs. Reference/hoard: Damour (south of Beirut), 1949 (IGCH 1589), Seyrig (1973), 41.3.

923. Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy IV, eagle l.): Club surmounted by i in l. field, h in r. field, c between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 1178, pl. xliii, 2 [1 listed, London]. Obverse die link with nos. 921 above and 924–925 below.

924. Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy IV, eagle l.): Club surmounted by i in l. field, h in r. field, and  or  between eagle’s legs. Reference: NFA XXV (1990), lot 287; Sotheby’s, 27–28 October 1993, lot 944. Obverse die link with nos. 921 and 923 above and 925 below. Hoards: Chios, 1965, Grigoriakis (2010), 1; Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 803.

925. Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy IV, eagle l.): Club surmounted by i in l. field, h in r. field, and d between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 1179, pl. xliii, 3 [1 listed, Paris]. Obverse die link with nos. 921 and 923–924 above.

926.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy I, with cult name Soter): Club surmounted by i in l. field, h in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 1180, pl. xliii, 4 [3 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 504; Newell (1937), pl. iii, 6 (of rather barbarous style). Obverse die link with nos. 927 and 937 below (through the Newell coin). The Copenhagen coin, though from an obverse die of good style, has an anomalous rendering of the eagle’s tail, whose end angles sharply upward from the thunderbolt. A specimen of this issue with the Tyre mintmark apparently recut over an earlier control was reported by A. Philippidis. Hoard: Balatah (ancient Shechem), 1960 (IGCH 1588), Carlen (2014), 21.

927.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy I, with cult name Soter): Club surmounted by i in l. field, h in r. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: SNG Copenhagen Suppl. 1290. Obverse die link with nos. 928 and 937 below. Hoard: Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 776.

444

Ptolemy IV Philopator

928.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy I, with royal title): Club surmounted by i in l. field, g in r. field,  between eagle’s legs.

Tyre • Ptolemais (Ake)

Reference: Svoronos 1181, pl. xliii, 5 [1 listed, Athens]. Obverse die link with nos. 927 above and 937 below. Hoard: Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6).

Ptolemais (Ake) Ptolemais was evidently somewhat remote from the main production and administration of this special issue. Although its mnaieion is suitably impressive, its tetradrachms are of much lower quality. They were struck from a damaged obverse die borrowed from Sidon. The characteristic issue marker is small and inconspicuous, and in one case (no. 930) it was rather clumsily added to an older reverse die. E. Carlen (2014, pp. 52‒56) showed through die study that the controls  and  were employed in alternation at Ptolemais. The disfigured state of the obverse die at the end of its career (see no. 932) raises serious doubt whether the  tetradrachms of Ptolemais were really part of the post-Raphian celebratory coinage.

Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm): Diademed bust of Ptolemy IV r., wearing Macedonian military chlamys, dotted border/ on l., Poo on r., eagle with closed wings standing r. on thunderbolt, dotted border. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/ on l., o on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. 929. Gold mnaieion or one-mina piece (octadrachm) (Ptolemy IV, with cult name Philopator, eagle r.):  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 1187, pl. xliii, 12 [1 listed, Glasgow].

930.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy I, with cult name Soter):  in l. field, ‰ in r. field, tiny h between eagle’s legs. Reference: Carlen coll., Princeton, N.J., ex Stack’s, 14 April 1999, 59. Obverse die link with nos. 825‒826 of Sidon and 931–932, die here in second state indicating probable contemporaneity with no. 911; reverse die link with no. 866, h added.

931.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy I, with cult name Soter): l in l. field, tiny f in r. field. Reference: Carlen coll., Princeton, N.J., ex Forum Ancient Coins on VCoins, 26 September 2013, SKU: SH64462. Obverse die link with nos. 825‒826 of Sidon and nos. 911–912 and 930 above, and with 932 below, die here in late state with large flaw on lower cheek; reverse die link with no. 912, die recut here.

932.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy I, with cult name Soter):  in l. field, e or h between eagle’s legs. Reference: a) with e: ANS 1986.78.1050; b) with h: Rosenblum MBS 37D, 15 November 2007, 154. Obverse die link with nos. 825‒826 of Sidon and nos. 911–912 and 930–931 above, die recut here. Hoards: Balatah (ancient Shechem), 1960 (IGCH 1588), Carlen (2014), 20; Phoenicia, 1983 (CH VIII, 344), now recognized as a portion of Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 777.

Sidon • Tyre



Ptolemy IV Philopator

445

Other Tetradrachms of Phoenician Mints Most of the following issues are apparently post-Raphian, as indicated by their use of the Sarapis and Isis obverse type, which seems to have been introduced only after Tyre and Ptolemais fell under the control of Antiochus III. These varieties do not bear the control letters , which marked the major regional emission celebrating the victory at Raphia (nos. 915–932 above). Nevertheless the two tetradrachm varieties of Sidon and the unmarked issue of Tyre are all linked to the  emission by their obverse dies, and it is this evidence that establishes the mint of the unmarked issues nos. 934 and 937.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Jugate busts r. of Sarapis and Isis, both draped, the god laureate, with miniature atef crown above his forehead, the goddess crowned with grain, with miniature horned disc above forehead, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, head reverted, holding double cornucopiae bound with royal diadem over shoulder, dotted border. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/ on l.,  or o (as noted) on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt.

Sidon 933.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Sarapis and Isis):  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Seyrig (1973), 41.4; MMAG XIX, lot 587; Landvatter (2012) 84–85. Obverse die link with nos. 920 and 934. Hoard: Damour (south of Beirut), 1949 (IGCH 1589), Seyrig (1973), 41.

934.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Sarapis and Isis): No controls. Reference: Abramowitz sale, Superior, 8 December 1993, lot 405; MMAG 61, 78 October 1982, lot 222; Auctiones 13, 23–24 June 1982, lot 438; Sotheby’s, 16 February 1972, lot 40; Allotte de la Füye sale, Ciani, Paris, 1925, lot 1705; Landvatter (2012), 86–93. Obverse die link with nos. 920 and 933; a second link with no. 920. Landvatter (2012) identified five obverse dies for this variety, making it the largest of the Sarapis and Isis tetradrachm issues apart from the Alexandrian  issue no. 892.

Tyre 935.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Sarapis and Isis): Club and bow in l. field. Reference: ANS 1944.100.77213; Collignon sale, 17–19 December 1919, lot 436; Landvatter (2012), 106–107. Landvatter proposed attribution to an unknown mint, rather than Tyre, on the grounds that the club was the usual mintmark of Tyre.

936.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy I, with royal title): Club in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 1267, pl. xli, 27 [2 listed]. This variety can be distinguished from no. 552 (Svoronos 626), which also features a club as its only control, by the later style of the portrait. A post-Raphian date is not assured, especially since there is no die link to the  group; possibly this issue is to be dated before Antiochus III got possession of Tyre in 219, or early in the reign of Ptolemy V.

446

Ptolemy IV Philopator

937.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy I, with cult name Soter): No controls.

Ptolemais (Ake) • Ascalon

Reference: CNG 78, 14 May 2008, lot 997. Obverse die link to nos. 927–928 above.

Ptolemais (Ake) 938.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy I, with cult name Soter):  in l. field. Reference: SNG Copenhagen Suppl. 1285 (from Paolo Girardi). Obverse die link (through SNG Copenhagen Suppl. 1288) with no. 866 above, a tetradrachm from the coordinated issue of 225/4 B.C. The die link probably implies that this issue should be dated before the Seleucid invasion, since other tetradrachms of Ptolemais were struck from a die transferred from Sidon (see nos. 911‒912, 930A‒932). The lack of a suitable older die from Ptolemais itself may have resulted from the failure of the present die and/or a disruption of the mint during the Seleucid occupation.

Ioppe 939.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy I, with cult name Soter): 8 in l. field. Reference/hoard: Tel Michal (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 45.

Ascalon Dated Tetradrachms of Sarapis-Isis Type, 220/19–218/17 B.C. Svoronos knew only one coin of this series, which he assigned to Ptolemy IV. The Khan el-Abde hoard (IGCH 1597) supports this regnal attribution. Its Ptolemaic component closed with thirteen specimens of the Alexandrian Sarapis and Isis tetradrachms marked  (no. 892). A year 3 Ascalon tetradrachm was the only other coin attributed to Ptolemy IV. Seyrig (1950, p. 6) noted that all the coins of Ptolemy IV were in near mint condition and he suggested that they represented a late addition. The dates of this brief series correspond to the occupation of Syria and Phoenicia by Antiochus III. Apparently a mint at Ascalon was opened to support defensive holding measures while the government at Alexandria trained a new army.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Jugate busts r. of Sarapis and Isis, both draped, the god laureate, with miniature atef crown above his forehead, the goddess crowned with grain, with miniature horned disc above her forehead, dotted border/ on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, head reverted, holding cornucopiae bound with royal diadem over shoulder, dotted border. Year G (3) = 220/19 B.C. 940.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Sarapis and Isis):  in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Berlin 1827784; Paris R.2676; Hess-Leu 28, 5 May 1965, lot 316 (= Leu 65, 21–22 May 1995, lot 272); NFA XIV, 29 November 1984, lot 217; Superior sale, 10–11 December 1993, lot 1773. Landvatter (2012), 97–100. Obverse die link with no. 941 below. Hoard: Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 105.

Year D (4) = 219/8 B.C. 941.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Sarapis and Isis):  in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 1188, pl. xxxvi, 16 [1 listed, Athens]; SNG Copenhagen Suppl. 1287; Paris R.2675. Landvatter (2012), 101–103. Obverse die links with nos. 940 above and 942 below.

Ascalon • Uncertain Mint 39

Ptolemy IV Philopator

447

Hoards: Cyprus, 1982 (CH VIII, 430 = CH IX, 296), Hazzard (1998), 4; Damour (south of Beirut), 1949 (IGCH 1589), Seyrig (1973), 41.2.

Year E (5) = 218/17 B.C. 942.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Sarapis and Isis):  in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Leu 52, 15 May 1991, lot 135; Landvatter (2012), 104. Obverse die link with no. 941 above.

Uncertain Mint 39 Silver Tetradrachms with Soter Legend, Dated according to an Abortive Era The following coins attest to a sequence of issue in which a letter , placed between the legs of the eagle, was replaced by an absence of controls; in the case of no. 946, this was accomplished through erasure. The existence of the same sequence at another mint or mints (see nos. 947–948) argues that the letter  was not a control in the usual sense of the word, that is, an administrative mark peculiar to the issuing mint. It is also unlikely to be a regnal date, since the mint of Ascalon used the sign  to designate regnal year 3 on its tetradrachms (see no. 940). In addition, there is no obvious reason why a regnal date should have been eradicated, rather than replaced by the next regnal year. Tetradrachms of the –unmarked sequence are associated with early examples of the Ptolemaic era coinage in the Khan el-Abde hoard (IGCH 1597), see Seyrig (1950), nos. 82–84 (with ), nos. 85–86 (with erasures), and nos. 77–81 (apparently unmarked examples of the era coinage, as no. 949, though in the absence of illustration it is possible that some or all of these specimens belonged to the present series). The association of the two series is assured in a second hoard, Lebanon, 1983 (CH VIII, 332), now known to be a part of the large Syria, 1981 hoard (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339= EH I, 105). Tetradrachms of the – unmarked sequence (nos. 943–944) also show stylistic affinities to the early era tetradrachms, at least on the reverse, and the dates of the earliest era tetradrachms usually appear between the legs of the eagle. All of these affinities suggest that the letter  was also an era date, while the transition to unmarked tetradrachms, sometimes through erasure, suggests that the era was cancelled during or immediately after its third year. The known provenances of these coins are all Syro-Phoenician. The only plausible occasion for the declaration of a new era in this region under the reign of Ptolemy IV is its restoration to the Ptolemaic kingdom by means of the victory at Raphia. In that case, year 1 of the era would correspond to 218/17 (or less likely, 217/16) and year 3 to 216/15 (or less likely, 215/4). The Julian year 215/14 corresponds to year 48 of the era coinage (no. 950 below), the first year attested. It rather looks as though the “era of Raphia” was cancelled in favor of a different era. In the Ptolemaic era coinage, the issue numbered year 48 was preceded by an unmarked issue (no. 949). The unmarked tetradrachms of the –unmarked sequence circulated alongside them and they were probably regarded as a single emission.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/P on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. Group 1 943.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Hosking 9. From same obverse die as no. 944 below. Hoards: 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 782‒783, one of which = Lebanon, 1983 (CH VIII, 332), pl. xliii, 3; up to 3 in Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 82‒84; probably Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 115.

448

Ptolemy IV Philopator

944.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): No controls.

Uncertain Mint 39 • Uncertain Mint 40

Reference: Leu 79, 31 October 2000, lot 782. Obverse die link with no. 943 above, die recut here to lengthen small curl behind ear so that it crosses edge of diadem. Hoards: Syria, 1989 (CH VIII, 462), pl. lxi, 8 (with obverse die not yet recut, but in later state than with no. 943); up to 5 in Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 77–81.

Group 2 945.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Paris, Z.2884, 265 (Dattari coll.). Obverse die link with no. 946 below.

946.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Erasure between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 853α, pl. xxvi, 1. Obverse die link with no. 945 above. Hoard: Probably 2 in Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig 85‒86 (with erasure between eagle’s legs).

Uncertain Mint 40 Silver Tetradrachms with Soter Legend, Dated according to an Abortive Era The following tetradrachms probably show a sequence from  to unmarked, parallel to the sequence at Uncertain Mint 39. These coins are distinct in style from those of Uncertain Mint 39 and must be products of a different mint or mints. A noteworthy feature of the portraits is an especially large and elaborate knot before the neck.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/P  on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. 947.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  between eagle's legs. Reference: Svoronos 1101β, pl. xxxiii, 11; Paris, Z.2884, 264 (Dattari coll.). Hoard: 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 780‒781; up to 3 in Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 82‒84. Svoronos described his no. 1101β as having a letter  between the eagle’s legs and listed it with the coins of an uncertain era. Mørkholm (1975–76), p. 30, excluded it from the series on the basis of its different style. He maintained that the control is blundered and cannot be read as , and pointed out that Svoronos had erroneously attributed the piece to the Alexandria Museum instead of the British Museum. The letters on the Paris and Syria, 1981 hoard specimens are clearly legible as .

948.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): No controls. Reference: CH VIII, 306, pl. xxxviii, 2; CNG 67, 22 September 2004, lot 950, with possible erasure between eagle’s legs. Hoards: 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 784–784A; up to 5 in Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950, 77–81). CH VIII, 306 is now known to be part of the Syria, 1981 hoard.

Uncertain Mint 40 • Uncertain Mint 42 (Era Coinage)

Ptolemy IV Philopator

449

Uncertain Mint 41 The following tetradrachm shares features with nos. 944, 946, and 948 above and is probably part of the same regional issue. Stylistic and epigraphic differences seem to require its attribution to a separate mint.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/P  on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. 948A. Silver stater (tetradrachm): No controls. Reference: Oxford (Balliol College), 13.78 g, ex Bodleian Library; Schulman 346, 14‒15 November 2014, 924. Hoard: Balatah (ancient Shechem), 1960 (IGCH 1588), Carlen 22.

Uncertain Mint 42 (Era Coinage) Ptolemy Soter Tetradrachms, Dated Acccording to an Era The following tetradrachms in the name of Ptolemy Soter bear a series of numbers beginning at 48. These have long been recognized as dates reckoned according to an era. To mention only a few of the most influential interpretations, R. S. Poole (1883, pp. lxxiv–lxxvi) hypothesized an era dated from the introduction of the cult of Ptolemy Soter in 261/0, while Svoronos argued for an era beginning in 311/10, at the death of Alexander IV. O. Mørkholm (1975–76) provided a corpus and die study of the era coinage. He tentatively identified it as a civic currency of Aradus employing pseudo-Ptolemaic types, dated according to the era of Aradian autonomy beginning in 259. Year 48 fell in 212/11 according to this reckoning, but Mørkholm included an undated issue which he assigned to the preceding two years. Aradian autonomy was revoked in 227 and restored again in 218 when the city was made an ally of Antiochus III (Strabo 16.2.12–15). It is a bit improbable that a Seleucid ally (in reality a Seleucid dependency) should have issued coins of Ptolemaic type, beginning just when Antiochus III was about to embark on his long eastern anabasis. F. Duyrat (2005, pp. 266–272) offered additional criticisms of Mørkholm’s interpretation from the perspective of an Aradian specialist. Among them are two conventions of the Aradian mint: Aradian coins always bear an Aradian mintmark, but there is no such mintmark on the era coins. And Aradus expressed its dates in Phoenician characters down to year 54, but the era coins bear Greek dates. In a series of publications Hazzard revived and defended Poole’s hypothesis of a Soter era, which he dated one year earlier, to 262/1. This restored the era coinage to its status as an official Ptolemaic currency. Hazzard’s suggested attribution to the frontier fortress of Pelusium is not well supported by the pattern of finds. Recorded finds of era coins are concentrated heavily in Phoenicia and Coele Syria, with a secondary distribution on Cyprus, but very few are reported from Egypt. Reviving an idea of Svoronos, C. C. Lorber (2007a) submitted that a mint on Cyprus would better match the findspots, and would be consistent with several of Mørkholm’s observations. J. Olivier (2012) emphasized the discontinuous character of the era coinage and the different provenances of its several phases. He divided the era coinage into three series and demonstrated through metallurgical analyses that they were struck at different mints. The first series, comprising the tetradrachms struck under Ptolemy IV, has a metallurgical profile matching that of Alexandrian coins. But because only two era coins of the first series were analyzed, Olivier declined to attribute them to the Egyptian capital and left open the possibility of a mint in Syria and Phoenicia. Hazzard’s chronology, if not his mint attribution, appears to be correct. It associates a marked increase in production of the era coins with the occupation of Coele Syria by Ptolemy VI in 148/7; it harmonizes the dates of the latest era coins with those of the latest Seleucid coins in the Dura and Tyre hoards (Spaer [1989]; Seyrig [1973], hoard 42); and it makes the era series end at the death of Ptolemy VI. A new die study of the era tetradrachms is in preparation by E. Carlen and C. J. Bennett. In addition to updating the die study, these authors intend to present a new hypothesis, that the era tetradrachms were dated according to an earlier era than the era didrachms of the second century.

450

Ptolemy IV Philopator

Uncertain Mint 42 (Era Coinage)

The identification of an abortive “era of Raphia” (see commentary preceding no. 943) allows us to add to the speculation. The replacement of the “era of Raphia” by a different era suggests that the preferred era was also relevant to the province of Syria and Phoenicia. It is difficult to overlook the close proximity of the apparent control date of that era, 262/1, to the beginning of a major coinage at the five principal Syro-Phoenician mints in 261/0. Perhaps some event of symbolic importance was associated with the new coinage regime. A corollary of this hypothesis is that the earliest era tetradrachms must have been produced by a mint located in the province of Syria and Phoenicia, as is indeed suggested by the provenances of the following coins. Mørkholm’s die study of the era coinage revealed a small anomaly, that tetradrachms bearing the date  (year 42) share the obverse die of other tetradrachms dated to years 52 and 55. He concluded that both  and  were engraver's errors for , and that coins with these “dates” in fact belonged to the issue of year 52. Later (1983b, p. 243 n.11) he reported the discovery of year 54 coins from the same obverse die, which validated the year 55 issue.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis, initially with furry texture, tied around neck, dotted border/P  on l., SS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. Inaugural issue, undated (c. 216 or perhaps 215/4 B.C.) 949.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): No controls. Reference: Svoronos 853β and γ, pl. xxvi, 2–3; SNG Copenhagen 539; Mørkholm (1975–76), 1–7 (dies A1, A2). Hoards: Ora, 1947 (IGCH 1473), information courtesy of J. Olivier; 3 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 785‒787; up to 5 in Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 77–81 (see commentary preceding no. 943); 3 in Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304 = EH I, 100), Meadows 112‒114; Jericho area, c. 1991 (CH VIII, 412 = EH 1, 111), Olivier and Meadows (2017), 17. Although this issue is undated, it is associated by style with the dated era coinage. Mørkholm considered this to be the inaugural issue of the series and dated it 214/3–213/2. If dated according to an era beginning in 262/1, it should fall shortly before 215/4.

Dated according to an era beginning in 262/1 B.C. Year MH (48) = 215/4 B.C. 950.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 849, pl. xxvi, 5 [5 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 540; Mørkholm (1975–76), 8–14 (die A3). Obverse die link with no. 952 below. Hoards: 2 in Dniyé (Aradian Peraea), 1952 (IGCH 1538), Seyrig (1973), 5.34–35; Lebanon, 1985 (CH VIII, 459 = EH I, 117), Meadows 27; 3 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 788‒790, the last of which was originally attributed to a hoard from Lebanon, 1983 (CH VIII, 332), pl. xli, 20; Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 39; Jericho area, c. 1991 (CH VIII, 412 = EH 1, 111), Olivier and Meadows (2017), 18. Other notable provenance: Svoronos 849γ, formerly in the Greco-Roman Museum, Alexandria, along with other era tetradrachms and didrachms in the collection, implies an Egyptian circulation for the era coinage.

951.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  in lower l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 850, pl. xxvi, 6 [1 listed]; Mørkholm (1975–76), 15 (die A4).

Uncertain Mint 42 (Era Coinage)

Ptolemy IV Philopator

451

Year MQ (49) = 214/13 B.C. 952.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  in lower l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Syria, 1981 hoard. From Mørkholm die A3. Obverse die link with no. 950 above. Hoard: Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 791, originally published as Lebanon, 1983 (CH VIII, 332), pl. xli, 19.

953.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 851, pl. xxvi, 7–8 [2 listed]; Mørkholm (1975–76), 16–19 (die A5). Obverse die link with nos. 954–955 below. Hoards: Cyprus, before 1916, Olivier (2015), 12; Ma’aret en-Nu’man, 1980 (CH VIII, 433); 2 in Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 792‒793; Dniye (Aradian Peraea), 1952 (IGCH 1538), Seyrig (1973), 5.36; Tel Michal, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498), Kindler (1978), 40. Other notable provenance: Svoronos 851β, formerly in the Greco-Roman Museum, Alexandria, along with other era tetradrachms and didrachms in the collection, implies an Egyptian circulation for the era coinage.

Year N (50) = 213/12 B.C. 954.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 852, pl. xxiv, 10 [3 listed, of which 2 identified by Mørkholm as barbarous imitations]; Mørkholm (1975–76), 20–23 (dies A5, A6). Obverse die links with nos. 953 above and 955–956 below. Hoard: Dniye (Aradian Peraea), 1952 (IGCH 1538), Seyrig (1973), 5.37.

Year NA (51) = 212/11 B.C. 955.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  in lower l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Mørkholm (1975–76), 24–25 (die A5). Obverse die link with nos. 953–954 above. Hoards: Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597); Dniye (Aradian Peraea), 1952 (IGCH 1538), Seyrig (1973), 5.38. Mørkholm’s report of a Khan el-Abde provenance is based on a notation in Seyrig’s hand on the back of a ticket accompanying the specimen in the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

956.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  between eagle’s legs,  under thunderbolt. Reference: Mørkholm (1975–76), 26–27 (die A6). Obverse die link with no. 954 above.

Year NB (52) = 211/10 B.C. 957.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  in lower l. field,  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Mørkholm (1975–76), 28–29 (die A7). Obverse die link with nos. 958–960 below. Hoard: Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105), Meadows 794.

958.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Svoronos 848, pl. xxvi, 4 [1 listed]; Mørkholm (1975–76), 30 (die A7). Obverse die link with nos. 957 above and 959–960 below. Because of the obverse die link, Mørkholm considered the date to be an error for  and assigned this specimen to year 52 of the era. Hoard: Galatia (IGCH 1474 = Olivier, CT 6).

452

Ptolemy IV Philopator

Uncertain Mint 42 (Era Coinage)

Year NG (53) = 210/09 B.C. A tetradrachm of year 53 was reported in the Lebanon, 1983 hoard (CH VIII, 332), but the specimen illustrated on pl. xliii, 3, has only G between the legs of the eagle and is an example of no. 943 above. Recent corpora of the era coinage, assembled by J. Olivier and by E. Carlen, failed to locate any specimens dated to year 53.

Year ND (54) = 209/8 B.C. 959.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Position of date  unknown. Reference: Reported by Mørkholm (1983), p. 243 n.11 (die A7). Obverse die link with nos. 957–958 above and 960 below.

Year N E (55) = 208/7 B.C. 960.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Mørkholm (1975–76), 31 (die A7). Obverse die link with nos. 957–959 above. Hoard: Madaba, c. 1919 (IGCH 1592).

Year N H (58) = 205/4 B.C. 961.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  between eagle’s legs. Reference: Seyrig (1962), p. 256, reporting an example in Oumm el ‘Amed excavations and a second in Paris. Provenanced find: Oumm el ’Amed excavations.

THIRD-CENTURY PROVINCIAL(?) TETRADRACHMS UNATTRIBUTABLE AS TO REIGN (PTOLEMY I–IV) Unattributed Tetradrachms with Royal Legend Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., wearing aegis around neck, dotted border/p  on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. 962.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 906, pl. xxvii, 1 [1 listed, London]. The same control appears on a heavy tetradrachm of Ptolemy I (no. 136). The present variety is distinguished by its weight and by its larger lettering and control. The isolated letter  also occurs on two portrait tetradrachms of Ptolemy III from Asia Minor (see nos. 759, 767). The context of these coins is the Third Syrian War and the letter is suspected to represent either a regnal date, perhaps reflecting a new regnal count for Euergetes’ kingship in Ionia or western Asia Minor, or else a new era celebrating his conquests. The present coin should perhaps be associated with these Third Syrian War issues, but it does differ from them in portraying the dynastic founder rather than Ptolemy Euergetes.

963. Silver stater (tetradrachm):  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 907, pl. xxvii, 2 [1 listed, Athens]. The somewhat idealizing style of the portrait suggests a date after 261/0, while the use of the royal title (as opposed to the epithet Soter) seems to point beyond the reign of Ptolemy II. On the other hand, the small lettering and the configuration of the legend, only slightly curving and set away from the edge of the coin, are features more often seen on tetradrachms struck prior to 261. Clearly, some of these features must be peculiarities of the mint, making it impossible to assess their chronological significance.

Unattributed Tetradrachms with Soter Legend Use of the Soter legend assures that these coins were struck no earlier than 261/0.

Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., wearing aegis around neck, dotted border/P  on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, dotted border. 964.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  in r. field. Reference/hoard: Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 87.

453

454

Ptolemy I Soter–Ptolemy IV Philopator

Unattributed Issues • Late Additions

965. Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  in r. field, (?) between eagle’s legs. Reference/hoard: Khan el-Abde, 1938 (IGCH 1597), Seyrig (1950), 88. The controls as reported by Seyrig are very reminiscent of those of a Sidonian tetradrachm of the emission of 225/4, see no. 826, and most of the differences could be explained by damage to the controls during inexpert removal of the thick layer of horn silver described by Seyrig (pp. 1‒2). Because the coin is not illustrated, it is impossible to confirm or refute the suspected relationship.

LATE ADDITIONS TO THE CATALOGUES Ptolemy I Barbarous Imitation of Alexandria 142A. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, � above � in l. field, dotted border. Reference: Commerce, 2016. This ancient counterfeit imitates cat. no. 142, an Alexandrian issue of c. 294. The date of the imitation may be considerably later, however, as the prototype was very common and remained in circulation in some regions, e.g., Syria and Phoenicia, until at least 198. The style of the eagle strongly recalls Uncertain Mint 23, which operated during the reigns of Ptolemy II and Ptolemy III and mainly imitated the dated tetradrachms of Ptolemais. An attribution to Uncertain Mint 23 is possible, but by no means certain.

Ptolemy II Alexandria 281A. Silver drachm: Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with spread wings standing l. on thunderbolt, Ï above Galatian shield in l. field, A between eagle’s legs, dotted border. Reference: A.D. Philippidis coll., Hicksville, N.Y. (P-2014-12-26.001).

Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus 445A. Silver triobol: Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt,  above ˚ in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field, dotted border(?). Reference: D. Doswell coll., Decatur, Illinois, ex Cederlind 178, March 2015, 76 (1.56 g). This is the only triobol attributable to Cyprus under Ptolemy II, and indeed the only Ptolemaic triobol of the third century apart from the Yehud series struck at Jerusalem.

Sidon Until the discovery of this specimen, it appeared that the parallel production of Sidon and Tyre broke down in 266/5, when Tyre began to issue dated tetradrachms on an annual basis from year 20 (266/5) to year 24

Unattributed Issues • Late Additions



Ptolemy I Soter–Ptolemy IV Philopator

455

(262/1), see cat. nos. 562–566. The Sidon mint was seemingly inactive in these years and only resumed striking coinage in year 25 (261/0), in tandem with the new Phoenician mints of Ptolemais, Ioppe, and Gaza. The new dated tetradrachm of Sidon may be evidence that in 266/5 financial officials envisioned further parallel production by Sidon and Tyre. However in that case Sidon would have been precocious in introducing the cult title of Ptolemy I in its coin legend. Tyre and the other Phoenician mints did not adopt the Soter legend until 261/0, and it is assumed that mints elsewhere in the Ptolemaic kingdom followed the same policy. On the whole, it may be safer to assume that the apparent date 20 is the result of careless engraving of an intended year 25.

Year  (20) = 266/5 B.C. 506A. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt,  above  in l. field,  in r. field, dotted border. Reference: Israel Museum 2013.34.33157, kindly reported by Héloïse Aumaître.

Tyre Year  (31) = 255/4 B.C. 585A. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed head of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/ on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, i above club in l. field,  above ¡ in r. field,  between eagle’s legs, dotted border(?). Reference: t02-0081 at tresors.cgb.fr/t02/fr/monnaies 355b, kindly reported by Héloïse Aumaître. Obverse die link with cat. no. 582. Hoard: Gaza hoard 2015, marketed by cgb (see Trésors 02).

Ptolemy III Ephesus (I) 768A. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed bust of young Ptolemy III r., lion skin tied around neck, dotted border/BASILEWS on l.,  on r., eagle with closed wings standing r. on thunderbolt, horizontal bee above  in r. field. Reference: Commerce, 2016. Obverse die link with no. 769, die here in earlier state.

Unattributed Issue of Asia Minor(?) 803A. Silver stater (tetradrachm): Diademed bust of Ptolemy I r., aegis tied around neck, dotted border/ on l., BASILEWS on r., eagle with closed wings standing l. on thunderbolt, large � in l. field. Reference: Commerce, 2016. Although the portrait is close to some depictions of the dynastic founder from Alexandria, the style of the eagle suggests an attribution to Asia Minor. The very large and prominent monogram is exceptional for this reign. Possibly it may be a mintmark. It could resolve as Myra or Myrina, or if the suggested attribution to Asia Minor is erroneous, to Myriandrus.

APPENDIX 1. PTOLEMAIC PRECIOUS METAL HOARDS Hoards from Egypt Demanhur (anc. Hermopolis Kato), 1905 (IGCH 1664 = CH VII, 49 = CH X, 446 = EH I, 140) Closure:1 319/8 B.C. Contents: 8000+ AR Early Hellenistic Egypt, including early satrapy of Ptolemy I Memphis: 175 Heracles/Zeus tetradrachms (Sv. 6[33], Zervos issue 2B[2], Price 3970A[4], 3971[134], 3972[2]; CPE 4[33], 18[2], 19[4], 20[125], 21[9], 23[2]) Ptolemy I as satrap Memphis: 44 Heracles/Zeus tetradrachms (Sv. 94[5], 12[39]; CPE 25[5], 30[39]) 10 Alexander/Zeus tetradrachms (varieties not recorded, but presumably Sv. 93, 24, and/or Zervos issue 12; CPE 26, 28, and/or 31) Other contents: Alexander III, Philip III Disposition: see Newell (1923a), pp. 2–5 Newell, Reattribution, pp. 34–62 illus. Newell (1923a) Zervos (1980) Duyrat (2005) Egypt, 1893 (IGCH 1665 = EH I, 141) = Zervos’ “Dutilh I” Closure: 318/17 B.C. Contents: 44 AR (a single hoard?) Early Hellenistic Egypt, including early satrapy of Ptolemy I Memphis: 3 Heracles/Zeus tetradrachms (Price 3972; CPE 23) Ptolemy I as satrap Memphis: 2 Heracles/Zeus tetradrachms (Sv. 12[2]; CPE 30[2]) Other contents: Alexander III: 41 lifetime and early posthumous tetradrachms Disposition: Unknown Dutilh, AN 1895 pp. 73–92 (esp. p. 73, Table A, with Muller numbers) Mit Ya-ish, 10 km. S of Mit Ghamr-Zifta, near ancient Leontopolis, 1954 (IGCH 1666 = EH I, 142) Closure: c. 315 B.C. Contents: 200 AR Early Hellenistic Egypt, including early satrapy of Ptolemy I Memphis: Heracles/Zeus tetradrachms (as Sv. 6; as CPE 4) Other contents: Alexander III, lifetime and early posthumous Disposition: Unknown Information from R. A. Hazzard, Toronto

1. The term closure refers to the latest datable coin in the hoard, but not necessarily to the date of the loss or abandonment of the hoard.

457

458

Appendix 1



Egypt, 1974 (CH I, 41 = EH I, 143) Closure: 312/11 B.C. Contents: Lot A, 120+ AR; Lot B, 20+ AR Lot A Alexander III: “several” tetradrachm (Babylon, Seleucia, Byblos, Sidon) Philip III: “some” tetradrachms Lot B Ptolemy I as satrap Memphis: 6+ Alexander/Zeus tetradrachms (Sv. 18, 22; CPE 33, 35) Alexandria: 5+ Alexander/Athena tetradrachms, Attic weight (Sv. 33[4+], 32; CPE 40[4+], 41[inscribed ALEXANDRE IoN PToLEMAIoU) Disposition: In commerce. Possibly two separate finds. CH I, 41, p. 16, fig. 7 illustrates 4 Ptolemaic tetradrachms Egypt, 1912 (IGCH 1668 = EH I, 144) = Zervos’ “Hassan I” Closure: c. 310 B.C. or earlier Contents: 20 AR (a single hoard?) Early Hellenistic Egypt, including early satrapy of Ptolemy I Memphis: 1 Heracles/Zeus tetradrachm (Price 3971; CPE 20) Other contents: Alexander III: 19 lifetime and early posthumous tetradrachms Macedonia (“Amphipolis”): 5 tetradrachms c. 336–c. 323; 2 tetradrachms (Price 6, 14) c. 323–c. 320: 2 tetradrachms (Price 115, 120) c. 320–317 (Newell: c. 316–312): 1 tetradrachm (Price 129) “Pella,” c. 325–c. 315: 1 tetradrachm (Price 241) Lampsacus, c. 328–c. 323: 2 tetradrachms (Price 1355[2]) Side?, c. 323–c. 320: 1 tetradrachm (Price 2949) Amathus, c. 323–c. 320: 1 tetradrachm (Price 3094) Citium, c. 325–c. 320: 3 tetradrachms (Price 3107[3]) Aradus, c. 328–c. 320: 2 tetradrachms (Price 3320 = Duyrat 303–358, Price 3332 = Duyrat 550–862) Byblus, c. 330–c. 320: 1 tetradrachm (Price 3424 or 3426) Sidon: 1 tetradrachm, dated 316/5 (Price 3504) Tyre (“Ake”): 1 tetradrachm, dated 316/5 (Price 3281) Babylon Waggoner Issue VIII, Series 1–3, c. 316–311/0 (Price c. 311–c. 305):1 tetradrachm (Price 3747) Disposition: New York 5 Note by E. T. Newell in ANS The burial is dated c. 310 in IGCH, but neither the Egyptian issue nor the other Alexanders require such a low date, unless Price’s chronology for Babylon is preferred to that of Waggoner. Lower Egypt, 1894 (IGCH 1669 = EH I, 145) = Zervos’ “Dutilh II” Closure: 306 B.C. Contents: 79+ AR Early Hellenistic Egypt, including early satrapy of Ptolemy I Memphis: 1 Heracles/Zeus tetradrachm (Sv. 6; CPE 4) 2 Alexander/Zeus tetradrachms (Sv. 22[2]; CPE 33[2]) Ptolemy I as satrap Alexandria: 8 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms, Attic weight (Sv. 33[2], 32, 42[2], 44, 48; CPE 40[2], 41[inscribed ALEXANDRE IoN PToLEMAIoU], 47[2], 50, 53)





Hoards

459

4 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms, of Attic or reduced weight (Sv. 37 and/or 110[4]; CPE 56 and/ or 57[4]) Uncertain Mint 4, perhaps Corinth: probably 1 Alexander/Athena tetradrachm, Attic weight (Sv. 39; CPE 203) Other contents: Alexander III[56], Philip III[9] Disposition: Cairo 14 (Ptolemy I, Alexandria 3) Dutilh, AN 1895, pp. 73–92 (esp. pp. 74–75) Svoronos (1908), Vol. IV, p. 401, nos. 6, 12 Commerce, early 1986 (EH I, 146) Closure: 306 B.C. Contents: 16 AR Ptolemy I Memphis: 1 Heracles/Zeus tetradrachm (Sv. 12; CPE 30) 3 Alexander/Zeus tetradrachms (Sv. 22[3]; CPE 33[3]) Alexandria: 11 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms, Attic weight (Sv. 33[3], 42[5], 44, 37[2]; CPE 40[3], 47[5], 50, 56[2]) Other contents: Philip III Babylon, Waggoner Issue V, 320/19–319/8: 1 tetradrachm (Price P182) Disposition: In trade; Kovacs Mail Bid Sale 7, June 1987, 131; Kovacs Price List, July 1987, 63 Recorded by Frank Kovacs Lorber (2012d) There is no way to know whether this was a complete hoard, or only a fragment of a larger hoard. The hoard record gives Attic weights for all but two of the Ptolemaic tetradrachms (both examples of Sv. 42/ CPE 45). However a weight of 15.72 g is associated with the Babylonian Philip. This last weight closely matches the weight of the reduced Ptolemaic tetradrachm but would be extremely light for a coin of Attic weight, suggesting a confusion in the data. Abu Hommos, 40 km SE of Alexandria, 1919 (IGCH 1667 = EH I, 147) Closure: c. 305 B.C. Contents: 1000 AR Early Hellenistic Egypt, including early satrapy of Ptolemy I Memphis: 11 Heracles/Zeus tetradrachms (Sv. 6, Price 3971[4], 3972[2]; CPE 4, 20[4], 23[2]) Ptolemy I as satrap Memphis: 10 Alexander Zeus tetradrachms (Sv. 24, 12[8], 20; CPE 28, 30[8], 35) Alexandria: 27 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms, Attic weight (including Sv. 33[6], 32, 42[12], 44[2], Zervos Issue 20B, Sv. 37[5]; CPE 40[6], 41[inscribed ALEXANDRE IoN PToLEMAIoU], 47[12], 50[2], 51[inscribed ALEXANDRE IoN], 56[5]) Soli (Cyprus): 2 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms, Attic weight, issued by King Eunostus (Zervos Issue 103[2]; CPE 216[2]) Sidon: 1 Alexander/Athena tetradrachm, Attic weight, dated year 20 = 312/11 B.C. (Zervos Issue 106; CPE 240) Ptolemy I as satrap and king Alexandria: 7 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms, reduced weight, Plain Series (Sv. 110, 154[2], 146[4]; CPE 57, 58[2], 59[4]) Other contents: Alexander III, Philip III Disposition: New York c. 250, King of Egypt 150, London 1? Newell (1923b), p. 10; Num 1924, p. 301 Brett (1938), p. 26, illus. Note by Newell in ANS The hoard reportedly included 250 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms, but weight standards were not specified.

460

Appendix 1



Demanhur, Egypt, 1896 (“Semenood”) (IGCH 1671 = CH II, 56 = EH I, 148) = Zervos’ “Vinga-Dutilh” Closure: c. 300 B.C. Contents: 2000 AR Ptolemy I as satrap and king Alexandria 25 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms of reduced weight, Plain Series (incl. Sv. 110[3], 154, 146[12], 108[8], 137; CPE 57[3], 58, 59[12], 61[8], 62) 89 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms of reduced weight, Helmet Series (Sv. 168[15], 170[10], 174[4], 165[4], 162 [27], 164[13], 179, 169[11], 177[3], 178; CPE 63[15], 65[10], 66[4], 67[4], 69[27], 70[13], 71, 72[11], 73[3], 75) Uncertain Mint 1, Egyptian, perhaps Pelusium: 11 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms, reduced weight (Sv. 166[2], 107[9]; CPE 76[2], 77[9]) Uncertain Mint 2, Egyptian, perhaps Naucratis: 14 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms, reduced weight (Sv. 145[3], 142[9], 143[2]; CPE 78[3], 79[9], 80[2]) Uncertain Mint 3, Egyptian, probably Memphis: 18 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms, reduced weight (Sv. 153[3], 159, 161, 139[13]; CPE 83[3], 86, 88, 89[13]) Disposition: London 13; Mme. Vinga 300; Vienna 14 Additional 88 tetradrachms of Ptolemy I discovered at ANS Dutilh (1898), describing 200 pieces, 142 of Helmet Series, 58 of the uncertain Egyptian mints Newell, unpublished manuscript in ANS, describes his purchase from Sivadjian of 59 tetradrachms of the Helmet Series and 33 of the uncertain Egyptian mints Zervos (1976) The above listing includes only the coins identified by Zervos. Egypt(?), before 1936 (IGCH 1676 = EH I, 149) = Zervos’ “Godefroy” Closure: c. 300–295 B.C. Contents: 11+ AR Ptolemy I as satrap Alexandria: 3 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms of Attic weight (Sv. 33[2], Zervos Issue 20B; CPE 40[2, one with D on obverse, one with K], 51[inscribed ALEXANDRE IoN]) Ptolemy I as king Alexandria: 5 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms of reduced weight, Helmet Series (Sv. 168, 164, 169, 177[2]; CPE 63, 70, 72, 73[2]) Uncertain Mint 3, Egyptian, probably Memphis: 1 Alexander/Athena tetradrachm of reduced weight (Sv. 139; CPE 89) Corinth: 1 Alexander/Athena drachm (Sv. 48A; CPE 195) Disposition: Unknown Godefroy (1936), pp. 281, 283 illus. Kuft, Egypt, 1874/5 (IGCH 1670 = CH II, 55 = EH I, 151) Closure: c. 295 B.C. Contents: 438+ AR tetradrachms Early Hellenistic Egypt, including early satrapy of Ptolemy I Memphis: 15 Heracles/Zeus tetradrachms (Demanhur 4748[4], 4614[6], 4820[3], Price 3962[2]; CPE 4[4], 20[6], 23[3], 27[2]) Ptolemy I as satrap Memphis: 14 Heracles/Zeus tetradrachms (Sv. 94[4], 12[9], Price 3979; CPE 25[4], 30[9], 32) 4 Alexander/Zeus tetradrachms (Sv. 22[2], 20[2]; CPE 33[2], 35[2]) Alexandria: 8 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms of Attic weight (Sv. 33[4], 42[2], 44[2]; CPE 40[4], 47[2], 50[2]) Sidon: 1 Alexander/Athena tetradrachm dated year 22 (CPE 240)





Hoards

461

Ptolemy I as satrap and king: Alexandria: 8 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms of reduced weight, Plain Series (Sv. 110, 154, 146[3], 146 var., 108[2]; CPE 57, 58, 59[3], 60, 61[2]) 17 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms of reduced weight, Helmet Series (Sv. 168[5], 170, 174[2], 165, 169, 164[5], 179[2]; CPE 63[5], 65, 66[2], 67, 69, 70[5], 71[2]) Uncertain Mint 1, Egyptian, perhaps Pelusium: 6 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms, reduced weight (Sv. 166, 107[5]; CPE 76, 77[5]) Uncertain Mint 2, Egyptian, perhaps Naucratis: 4–5 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms, reduced weight (Sv. 142[4–5]; CPE 79[4–5]) Uncertain Mint 3, Egyptian, probably Memphis: 8 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms, reduced weight (Sv. 153, 139[7]; CPE 83, 89[7]) Ptolemy I as king Alexandria: 2 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms, reduced weight, with corresponding gold (Sv. 117, 127; CPE 117, 126) Other contents: Alexander III and Philip III Alexander III Macedonia (“Amphipolis”): 70 tetradrachms c. 333–323: (Price 1, 5[2], 6, 13[3], 21, 23, 29, 32, 44, 48, 51, 71[2], 73, 76[2], 78[4], 79[5], 83[2], 84, 87, 89[2], 93[2], 103) c. 323–c. 320: Price 104[2], 105[2], 108[3], 109[2], 110, 111[3], 112[2], 113[2], 120, 121[2]) c. 320–c. 317: Price 122[2], 123[2], 124, 129[3], 131, 132[2], 133, 136) Aegeae(?),c. 333–323: 1 tetradrachm (Price 193) Amphipolis, c. 315–c. 294: 1 tetradrachm (Price 457) “Pella”: 11 tetradrachms c. 325–c. 315: 10 tetradrachms (Price 205, 213[4], 216, 217, 229, 231, 236) c. 315–c. 310: 1 tetradrachm (Price 248) Uncertain Greece or Macedonia, c. 310–c. 275: 1 tetradrachm (Price 843) Lampsacus, c. 328–323: 4 tetradrachms (Price 1355[4]) Abydus, c. 328–323: 1 tetradrachm (Price 1498) Miletus (or Caunus), c. 323–c. 319: 11 tetradrachms (Price 2105[2], 2108[3], 2120[6]) Sardes, c. 323–c. 319: 6 tetradrachms (Price 2610[2], 2622[4]) Uncertain of western Asia Minor: 1 tetradrachm (Price 2715) Side(?), c. 325–c. 320: 15 tetradrachms (Price 2948, 2949[5], 2951[2], 2952, 2955[4], 2960, 2964) Tarsus: 29 tetradrachms c. 333–c. 327: 5 tetradrachms (Price 2995[3], 3000[2]) c. 327–c. 323: 8 tetradrachms (Price 3011, 3016[2], 3019, SNG Ashmolean 2892[omitted from Price], Demanhur 2309[omitted from Price], Price 3027, 3033) c. 323–c. 317: 16 tetradrachms (Price 3036[2], 3037, 3039[4], 3042[2], 3047[2], 3050[2], 3053[2], 3054) Uncertain of Southern Asia Minor (probably Cilicia): 1 tetradrachm (Price 3077A) “Amathus,” c. 325–c. 320: 2 tetradrachms (Price 3094[2]) Citium, c. 325–c. 320: 6 tetradrachms (Price 3108[6]) Paphos, c. 325–c. 317: 2 tetradrachms (Price 3117?, 3123) Salamis, c. 332–c. 323: 3 tetradrachms (Price 3139[3]) Myriandrus, c. 325–c. 323: 5 tetradrachms (Price 3219, 3220[2], 3228, 3230) Aradus, c. 328–c. 320: 14 tetradrachms (Price 3303 = Duyrat 1–24, Price 3305 = Duyrat 30–33, Price 3320 = Duyrat 303–358, Price 3321 = Duyrat 359–411[2], Price 3322 = Duyrat 413–428, Price 3323 = Duyrat 429–445, Price 3324 = Duyrat 446–454, Price 3325 = Duyrat 456–519[2], Price 3332 = Duyrat 550–862[4]) Byblus, c. 330–c. 320: 5 tetradrachms (Price 3424, 3426[4]) Berytus, c. 323–c. 320: 1 tetradrachm (Price 3412)

462

Appendix 1



Sidon: 7 tetradrachms 333–305: 1 tetradrachm (Price 3479 = Newell 18) 324/3: 2 tetradrachms (Price 3491 = Newell 32[2]) 322/1: 1 tetradrachm (Price 3498 = Newell 36) 321/0: 2 tetradrachms (Price 3501 = Newell 39) 312/11: 1 tetradrachm (Price 3511 = Newell 57) Tyre (“Ake”): 17 tetradrachms (Newell 1, 6[2] [c. 330–c. 337], Newell 20 [326], Newell 22 [325], Newell 29[2] [322], Newell 31[2] [321], Newell 34 [319], Newell 35[3] [318], Newell 40 [315], Newell 41[2] [314], Newell 42 [313]) Tyre, c. 305–c. 290: 1 tetradrachm (Price 3938). Price questioned Nash’s inclusion of this coin in the Kuft hoard. Barbarous imitation of Tyre (“Ake”): 1 tetradrachm Damascus, c. 330–c. 320: 7 tetradrachms (Price 3203[2], 3204, 3208, 3210[2], 3215) Uncertain of Phoenicia or Syria: 1 tetradrachm (Price 3573) Carrhae, c. 315–c. 305: 5 tetradrachms (Price 3800, 3803, 3805[2], 3807) Babylon: 58 tetradrachms Waggoner Issue I, c. 331/30–329/8 3 tetradrachms (Price 3581[2], 3584) Waggoner Issue II, c. 329/8–323/2 24 tetradrachms (SNG Ashmolean 3036, with ILH monogram only; Price 3608, 3610, 3613[2], 3618, 3619[2], 3620[2]; SNG Ashmolean 3054; Price 3630, 3635, 3639, 3641, 3642, 3643, 3645, 3648, 3652, 3654, 3663[2], 3670) 4 tetradrachms with royal title (Price 3677, 3678, 3680, 3685) Waggoner Issue III, c. 323/2–321/0 2 tetradrachms (Price 3692[2]) Waggoner Issue VIII, to Series 4, c. 316–309/8 25 tetradrachms (Price 3701, 3704[8], 3708[2], 3723[2], 3725[3], 3746[3], 3747, 3752, 3753, 3756, 3761, 3763) Babylonia, c. 310: 1 tetradrachm (Price 3786) Babylon(?): 1 tetradrachm (Price 3773) Ecbatana, c. 323–c. 317: 1 tetradrachm (Price 3956) Philip III Salamis: 4 tetradrachms (Price P129[3], P129var. without royal title) Myriandrus: 2 tetradrachms (Price P133, P136) Sidon: 7 321/0: 1 tetradrachm (Price P169 = Newell 41) 319/8: 6 tetradrachms (Price P175 = Newell 45[6]) Uncertain Mint 6A, in Babylonia (formerly Marathus): 3 tetradrachms (Price P162[3] = Duyrat 1–16 = SC II, Ad39.3) Babylon: 20 tetradrachms Waggoner Issue III, 323/2–321/0 4 tetradrachms (Price P181[4]) Waggoner Issue IV, c. 321/0–320/19 4 tetradrachms (Price P186[4]) Waggoner Issue V, c. 320/19–319/8 2 tetradrachms (Price P182[2]) Waggoner Issue VI, c. 319/8–317 9 tetradrachms (Price P189[4], P194[3], P197, P200) Waggoner Issue VII, c. 317/6 1 tetradrachm (Price P205) Babylon, “Satrapal” Workshop (formerly Aradus): 3 tetradrachms (Price P144 = Duyrat 904–923 = SC II, Cad43.1, P147 = Duyrat 959–967 = SC II, Cad43.7, P158 = Duyrat 1032–1075 = SC II, Cad43.15) Susa: 3 tetradrachms (Price P208, P216, P218)





Hoards

463

Unattributed: 1 tetradrachm with  E and AR monograms Disposition: mainly Ashmolean and BM Nash (1974) Egypt, c. 1912 (IGCH 1675= EH I, 150) = Zervos’ “Hassan II” Closure: 295 B.C. Contents: 34 AR Ptolemy I as satrap and king Alexandria: 3 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms of reduced weight, Plain Series (Sv. 146[2], 108; CPE 59[2], 61) 20 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms of reduced weight, Helmet Series (Sv. 168[5], 170[4], 174, 162[7], 164[4]; CPE 63[5], 65[4], 66, 69[7], 70[4]) Uncertain Mint 1, Egyptian, perhaps Pelusium: 3 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms, reduced weight (Sv. 107[3]; CPE 77[3]) Uncertain Mint 2, Egyptian, perhaps Naucratis: 1 Alexander/Athena tetradrachm, reduced weight (Sv. 142; CPE 79) Uncertain Mint 3, Egyptian, probably Memphis: 1 Alexander/Athena tetradrachm, reduced weight (Sv. 153; CPE 83) Ptolemy I as king Alexandria: 5 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms, reduced weight, with corresponding gold staters (Sv. 125, 118, 148, 113, 127; CPE 109, 116, 118, 119, 126) Disposition: New York 31 Manuscript by E. T. Newell at ANS. Newell reported that the tetradrachms with corresponding gold are in a “brilliant” condition that clearly marks them as the latest varieties in the hoard. Toukh el Garmous, 20 km NE of Zagazig, 1905 (IGCH 1679 = EH I, 152) Closure: soon after 294 B.C. Contents: AR pot hoard from chamber 2 of temple treasury, with gold ornaments (cf. IGCH 1680, 1729) Ptolemy I: Alexander/Athena tetradrachms (bulk of hoard), a few portrait tetradrachms Disposition: Unknown Edgar, ASA 1906, pp. 205–211 Heraclion, 2004 (EH I, 153) Closure: soon after 294 B.C. Contents: 5 AV, scattered over unexcavated surface Ptolemy I Alexandria: 5 tetartai (Sv. 197[2], 223[2], 232; CPE 129[2], 139, 144[2]) Hawass and Goddio (2010), pp. 141‒142. Additional information from A. Meadows Delta, 1856 (IGCH 1684 = EH I, 154) = Zervos’ “Huber” Closure: soon after 294 B.C. Contents: AR Ptolemy I as satrap Memphis: 2 Alexander/Zeus tetradrachms (Sv. 22, 24; CPE 28, 33) Ptolemy I as satrap and king Alexandria: Alexander/Athena tetradrachm of reduced weight, Helmet Series (Sv. 168; CPE 63) Uncertain Mint 2, Egyptian, perhaps Naucratis: 2 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms of reduced weight (Sv. 144, 142; CPE 79, 82) Ptolemy I as king Alexandria: Alexander/Athena tetradrachms of reduced weight, with corresponding gold staters (Zervos Issue 40; CPE 112)

464

Appendix 1



Portrait tetradrachms: 7+ Other contents: Alexander III, Philip III Disposition: Huber (cf. Sotheby, June 4, 1862, lots 942–948, 995); Reichardt, Schledehaus parts Huber (1862), p. 163 Waddington, RN 1865, p. 18 = Mélanges (Paris, 1867), p. 50 Zervos (1980c) A mid-third century date is suggested in IGCH, no doubt because of the reported presence of tetradrachms of Arsinoe II. These were intrusive, as deduced by Newell in an unpublished manuscript at the American Numismatic Society and thoroughly discussed by Zervos (1980c). The contents otherwise suggest a burial date very shortly after the introduction of the portrait tetradrachms of Ptolemy I. Mit Rahineh (CH X, 447 = EH I, 155) Closure: c. 288–287 B.C. Contents: 101 tetradrachms Ptolemy I Alexandria 1 tetradrachm of 25 obols (Sv. 236; CPE 190) 89 standard tetradrachms (Sv. 247[4], 248[3], 252[8], 253[4], 254, 255[40], 256[8], 259[8], 263[4], 265[9]; CPE 132[8], 137[4], 142[9], 147[8], 151[4], 154[8], 157[4], 158[3], 168[40], 170) Uncertain Mint 7, provincial: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 341a; CPE 211) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 5 tetradrachms (Sv. 354, 362[4]; CPE 220, 222[4]) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 245; CPE 230) Unidentified: 4 tetradrachms Disposition: Egyptian Museum, Cairo, Coin Register 3, 2688 Faucher in EH I Egypt, uncertain date (CH V, 33 = EH I, 156) Closure: c. 288–287 B.C. Contents: 93 tetradrachms Ptolemy I Alexandria: Alexander/Athena tetradrachm of reduced weight, Helmet Series (Sv. 174; CPE 66) 3 portrait tetradrachms of 25 obols (Sv. 218, 201, new unmarked issue; CPE 146, 156, 185) 89 portrait tetradrachms (Sv. 247[6], 245–246[12], 259[2], 263, 256[7], 249, 255[49], illeg.; CPE 137[6], 142[12], 147[2], 151, 154[7], 163, 168[49], illeg.) Disposition: ANS, found among Newell coins Zervos (1979) Craven in EH I The lot also included four tetradrachms of Ptolemy XII which are clearly intrusive. Phacous, 30 km NE of Zagazig, 1956 (IGCH 1678 = EH I, 158) Closure: Pot A, c. 305 B.C., Pot B, c. 288‒287 B.C. Contents: 2400 AR in 2 pots Pot A (513 recorded) Early Hellenistic Egypt, including early satrapy of Ptolemy I Memphis: 16 Heracles/Zeus tetradrachms (Demanhur 4748[6], D 4614[9], Price 3962; CPE 4[6], 20[9], 27) Ptolemy I as satrap Memphis: 4 Heracles/Zeus tetradrachm (Sv. 94, 12[3]; CPE 25, 30[3]) 19 Alexander/Zeus tetradrachms (Sv. 93, 24[2], 22[8], 20[6], 21, plated imitation of Zervos Issue 12; CPE 26, 28[2], 31[subaeratum], 33[8], 35[6], 37)





Hoards

465

Alexandria: 2 Alexander/Zeus tetradrachms (Sv. 29[2]; CPE 39[2]) 33 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms of Attic weight (Sv. 33[14], 42[12], 44[5], Zervos Issue 20B, Sv. 37; CPE 40[14], 47[12], 50 [5], 51[inscribed ALEXANDRE IoN], 56) Soli (Cyprus): 1 Alexander/Athena tetradrachm of Attic weight, issued by King Eunostus (Zervos Issue 103; CPE 216]) Ptolemy I as satrap and king Alexandria 1 Alexander/Athena tetradrachm of reduced weight, Plain Series (Sv. 110; CPE 57) 1 Alexander/Athena tetradrachm of reduced weight, Helmet Series (Sv. 164; CPE 70) Uncertain Mint 3, Egyptian, probably Memphis: Alexander/Athena tetradrachm of reduced weight (Sv. 109; CPE 84) Probably Uncertain Mint 3: 1 Alexander/Athena tetradrachm of reduced weight, in name of Ptolemy (Sv. 96; CPE 90) Other contents: Alexander III and Philip III: Amphipolis[69], Pella[11], Lyttos[3], Propontis, Sardes[5], Miletus[10], Lycia-Pamphylia[21], Tarsus[15], Salamis[3], Citium[10], Amathus, Myriandrus[11], Damascus[17], Aradus[13], Byblus[14], uncertain Phoenicia, Sidon[11], Tyre (“Ake”)[46], Babylon[141], Babylon, “Satrapal” Workshop (formerly Aradus) [6], Mint 6A in Babylonia (formerly Marathus) [4], Susa[2], uncertain mints[20] Pot B (363 recorded) Ptolemy I as king Alexandria: 4 portrait octadrachms (Sv. 198, 233, Jenkins pl. v, 3, pl. vi, 1; CPE 130, 135, 140, 145) 90 portrait tetradrachms of 25 obols (Sv. 199, 183[5], 234[4], 231, 218[8], 224[5], 201[15], 203[12], 243, 240[5], 244, 268[2], 267, 266, 185[7], 190[6], 214[6], 236[3], 241[4], 242[2]; CPE 131, 136[5], 141[5], 146[13], 156[27], 178, 179[5], 181, 182[2], 183, 184, 186[7], 187[6], 190[6], 191[3], 192[4], 193[2]) 246 portrait tetradrachms (Sv. 252[47], 247[12], 265[15], 259[10], 263[9], 256[35], 253[8], 248[5], 260[2], 261[3], 249[4], 251[2], 250[4], 255[72], 254[7], 257, 205[10]; CPE 132[47], 137[12], 142[15], 147[10], 151[9], 154[35], 157[8], 158[5], 159[2], 160[3], 163[4], 164[2], 165[4], 168[72], 170[7], 173, 174[10]) Uncertain Mint 7, provincial: 3 portrait tetradrachms (Sv. 344[3]; CPE 210[3]) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 12 tetradrachms (Sv. 354[5], 362[6], 358; CPE 220[5], 222[6], 224) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 8 tetradrachms (Sv. 245[2], 246[3], 369, 366[2]; CPE 230[2], 231[3], 236, 239[2]) Disposition: Dispersed Jenkins (1960) Egypt, before 1908 (IGCH 1677 = EH I, 157) Closure: c. 288‒287 B.C. Contents: 491 tetradrachms Ptolemy I Alexandria: 61 tetradrachms of 25 obols (33 of plain series, 6 of Ù series, 20 of  series) (Sv. 183[5], 185[2], 201[5], 214[3], 218[8], 231[8], 236[2], 240[2], 241[3], 243[3], 266[5], 267[5], 268[10]; CPE 136[5], 141[8], 146[8], 156[5], 178[3], 179[2], 181[10], 182[5], 183[5], 185[2], 189[3], 190[2], 191[3]) 423 standard tetradrachms (Sv. 247[24], 248[3], 249[3], 250[4], 252[40], 253[10], 254[65], 255[140], 256[70], 257[4], 259[20], 263[10], 265[30]; CPE 132[40], 137[24], 142[30], 147[20], 151[10], 154[70], 157[10], 158[3], 163[3], 165[4], 168[140], 170[65], 173[4]) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 7 tetradrachms (Sv. 361[4], 362[3]; CPE 219[4], 222[3]) Disposition: Unknown Svoronos (1908), Vol. IV, addenda, pp. 404–409, nos. 183–363 passim (cited as “Egyptian find”)

466

Appendix 1



Svoronos’ citation of three specimens of 363, a bronze issue, is here corrected to the corresponding tetradrachm. The entry in IGCH titles this hoard “Egypt, c. 1904–1908?” reflecting an assumption that the hoard must have appeared between the publication of Svoronos Vols. I–III (1904) and that of Vol. IV (1908). But Svoronos did not include hoard coins in his original catalogue, and the addenda published in 1908 include the bronze coins from the Ramesseum hoard of 1896. We can only be certain that IGCH 1677 was found before 1908. A note at the end of the IGCH entry suggests it may have been part of the Abu Hommos hoard of 1905 (IGCH 1726), a hoard of 2,800 silver coins of which no details were recorded. Saqqara, near Memphis, 20 km S or Cairo, 1968 (IGCH 1681 = CH IX, 684 = EH I, 160) Closure: c. 274 B.C. Contents: 28 AR from excavations Ptolemy I as king Alexandria: 5 portrait tetradrachms (Sv. 247, 254[2], 205[2]; CPE 137, 170[2], 174[2]) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 1 portrait tetradrachm (Svor 245; CPE 230) Ptolemy II Alexandria: 21 tetradrachms (Sv. 548[12], 559, 567, 574[2], 574( ?), 579[2], 591[2]; CPE 277[12], 281, 283, 288[2], 288(?), 291[2], 299[2]) Unidentified: 1 tetradrachm Disposition: London 13; Cairo 15 Price (1981a), pp. 156–157 Toukh el Garmous, 20 km NE of Zagazig, 1905 (IGCH 1680 = EH I, 162) Closure: c. 274 B.C. Contents: 160 AV, unquantified AR, found in chamber 1 of temple treasury with gold ornaments and silver vessels (cf. IGCH 1679, 1729) Ptolemy I as king Alexandria: 31 trichrysa (Sv. 181[2], 196A[2], 204[6], 207[7], 208[2], 210[11], 222; CPE 128[2], 133[2], 143, 152[2], 166[11], 169[7], 171[6]) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 5 trichrysa (Sv. 357[3], 362a, 374; CPE 221, 223[3], 226) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 6 trichrysa (Sv. 367[5], 365a; CPE 234[5], 238) Sidon: 1 trichryson (Sv. 715A; CPE 241) Ptolemy II Alexandria: 57 trichrysa (Sv. 547[23], 551[7], 558, 566[6], 573[2], 583[7], 590[8], 595[3]; CPE 276[23], 280, 282[6], 287[2], 294[7], 298[8], 301[3], 304[7]) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 1 trichryson (Sv. 537; CPE 437) Sidon: 1 trichryson (Sv. 712; CPE 504) Tyre: 7 trichrysa (Sv. 630a, 633A[2], 639[4]; CPE 553[2], 557[4], 559) Ptolemy I–II: ? portrait tetradrachms Disposition: Alexandria 40; Cairo ornaments and vessels Edgar, ASA 1906, pp. 205–211 Svoronos (1908), Vol. IV, Addenda pp. 404–415, nos. 181–715A passim Milne (1941), pp. 135–137, giving Svoronos references for 108 specimens See IGCH for long list of other references Noeske (2006), p. 46 Zagazig (ancient Bubastis), 1894 (IGCH 1692 = EH I, 161) Closure: probably before 261/0 B.C. Contents: 100 AV Ptolemy II Alexandria: mnaieia in name of Theoi Adelphoi (Sv. 603[100]; CPE 313[100]) Disposition: Unknown Foucart, RecTravEgyptAssy 1898, p. 168 Foucart, Annales du Service d’Antiquités, Cairo 1901, pp. 53, 70–71





Hoards

467

Alexandria environs, 1908 (IGCH 1683 = EH I, 164) Closure: 255/4 B.C. Contents: 4 AR, Æ Ptolemy II Sidon: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 31 = 255/4 B.C. (CPE 522‒523) Tyre: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 30 = 256/5 B.C. (CPE 577‒583) Unspecified Æ Disposition: Eddé; Avierino Eddé (1909), p. 55 Regling, ZfN 1931, p. 28 Delta, before 1867 (EH I, 166) Closure: 249/8 B.C. Contents: 15+ AR Ptolemy II Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm in name of Arsinoe Philadelphus (Sv. 410β; CPE 384) Sidon: 6 tetradrachms, to year 37 = 249/8 B.C. (Sv. 732var., 730, 734, 741, 744, 751; CPE 501?, 517, 522, 528, 531, 539) Tyre: 8 tetradrachms, to year 34 = 252/1 B.C. (Sv. 649[3], 658, 660, as 663–670, as 671–678, 682?; CPE 566[3], 580, 582, as 588–593, as 596–602, 605?) Disposition: Huber Zervos (1980c), especially pp. 93–94 Zagazig (ancient Bubastis), 1905 (IGCH 1689 = EH I, 167) Closure: c. 250‒246 B.C. Contents: 200 AR decadrachms Ptolemy II Alexandria: 12 decadrachms in name of Arsinoe Philadelphus (Sv. 420, 444, 495, 508[2], 512, 938, 938a, 939, 944, 945, 947; CPE 321, 325, 334, 338[2], 339, 344, 345, 346, 351, 352, 354) Disposition: New York 5 Eddé (1905), p. 129; id. (1906), with illustrations Upper Egypt, before 1905 (IGCH 1687= EH I, 168) Closure: c. 245 B.C.? Contents: 112 AV Ptolemy II Alexandria: 112 mnaieia in name of Arsinoe Philadelphus Disposition: dispersed Eddé (1905), p. 129 Egypt, 1927? (IGCH 1682 = EH I, 170) Closure: c. 245 B.C. Contents: 6+ AV Ptolemy II Alexandria: 6 mnaieia in name of Arsinoe Philadelphus (Sv. 443, 459, 460, 471, 475, 489; CPE 383, 387, 388, 389, 390, 394) Disposition: Dispersed, cf. Naville sale, 3 Oct. 1934, lots 624–629 Noe 378 The date of closure derives from the hypothesis of annual issues proposed by C. Lorber in Olivier and Lorber (2013).

468

Appendix 1



Near Alexandria, Egypt, 1844 (CH VIII, 303 = EH I, 169) Closure: 245/4 B.C. Contents: 5 AV, 136 AR Ptolemy I Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 375, 376; CPE 227, 228) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 3 tetradrachms (Sv. 368, 369, 366; CPE 235, 236, 239) Ptolemy II Alexandria 1 trichryson (Sv. 590; CPE 298) 1 gold mnaieion in name of Theoi Adelphoi (Sv. 603; CPE 313), attributed to Ptolemy III by Price 6 tetradrachms in name of Ptolemy (Sv. 411, 548, 552, 567[2], 591; CPE 277, 283[2], 299, 305, 370) 21 decadrachms in name of Arsinoe Philadelphus (Sv. 409, 432, 444, 490, 496, 508, 517, 938, 940, 942, 943, 944, 945, 947, 948, 949, 950, 952, 953, 954, plus 4 unidentified; CPE 320, 323, 325, 332, 335, 338, 341, 344, 347, 349, 350, 351, 352, 354, 355, 356, 357, 359, 360, 361, plus 4 unidentified) Uncertain Mint 16, in Asia Minor: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 607; CPE 399) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 7 tetradrachms (Sv. 764, 525, 527, 528[2], 529, 527–533; CSE 415, 416[2], 417, 419, 421, 416–422 and/or 439–441) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 7 tetradrachms (Sv. 400, 401[2], 402, 405, 542, 544; CSE 441, 442, 455, 459[2], 460a, 462) Uncertain Mint 19, on Cyprus: 4 tetradrachms (Sv. 388, 390, 531, 535; CSE 466, 470, 472, 473) Uncertain Mint 21, perhaps on Cyprus: 1 trichryson (Sv. 370; CSE 496) Sidon: 12 tetradrachms, to year 34 = 252/1 B.C. (Sv. 713, 717, 723, 727, 730, 731[2], 732, 733, 734, 739, 744; CPE 505, 506, 510, 513, 517, 518[2], 520, 521, 522a, 524, 531) Tyre: 19 tetradrachms, to year 35 = 251/0 B.C. (Sv. 637, 640, 647, 649, 657, 658, 661, 664, 666, 668, 669, 675, 677, 681[2], 683[2], 684, 687; CSE 556, 558, 564, 566, 577, 580, 583, 589, 590, 591, 592, 599, 601, 606[2], 607[2], 608, 613) Ptolemais (Ake): 9 tetradrachms, to year 36 = 250/49 B.C. (Sv. 765[2], 766, 770, 772, 775, 777, 780, 782; CPE 637[2], 639, 645, 648, 649, 650, 653, 654) Ioppe: 3 tetradrachms, to year 36 = 250/49 B.C. (Sv. 795, 798, 810; CPE 659, 662, 672) Gaza: 2 tetradrachms, to year 37 = 249/8 B.C. (Sv. 828, 833; CPE 689a, 695) Unattributed: 37 tetradrachms Ptolemy III Ioppe: 1 mnaieion in name of Arsinoe Philadelphus, dated year 3 = 245/4 B.C. (Sv. 1040; CPE 870) Other contents: silver statuette of a boy with a goose Disposition: Most in British Museum E. A. Gardner, “A statuette representing a boy and goose,” JHS 6 (1885), pp. 1–15 Price (1991b), pp. 11–13 Noeske (2006), pp. 44–45 Rüppell, East Delta, before 1822 (EH I, 171) Closure: 242/1 B.C. Contents: 13 tetradrachms Ptolemy I Alexandria: 2 tetradrachms of 25 obols (Sv. 241, 244; CPE 180, 191) 4 standard tetradrachms (Sv. 251, 255, 257, 263; CPE 151, 164, 168, 173) Ptolemy II Alexandria: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 548, 574; CPE 277, 288) Sidon: 1 tetradrachm, dated 252/1 (Sv. 744; CPE 531) Tyre: 2 tetradrachms, one dated 256/5 (Sv. 640, 659; CPE 558, 578) Ptolemais (Ake): 1 tetradrachm, dated 251/0 (Sv. 780; CPE 653) Ptolemy III Sidon: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 6 = 242/1 (Sv. 1033; CPE 823)





Hoards

469

Disposition: Historisches Museum, Frankfurt Noeske (2006), p. 41 Tell Nebesheh (ancient Am), 1886 (IGCH 1688 = EH I, 176) Closure: 225/4 B.C. Contents: 25 AR from excavations Ptolemy I as king Alexandria: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 252, 256; CPE 132, 154) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 362, 355; CPE 222, 225) Ptolemy II Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 411; CPE 370) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 529; CPE 421) Uncertain Mint 19, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 389; CPE 474) Uncertain Mint 21, perhaps on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 371; CPE 497) Sidon: up to 8 tetradrachms (Sv. 713[up to 7], 719; CPE 503, 505[up to 7]) Tyre: 2 tetradrachms, one dated year 22 = 264/3 B.C. (Sv. 637, 647; CPE 556, 564) Ptolemy III Sidon: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 4 = 244/3 B.C. (Sv. 1029; CPE 819) Ptolemais (Ake): 4 tetradrachms, of year 23 = 225/4 B.C. (Sv. 786[4]; CPE 866[4]) Uncertain: 2 tetradrachms Disposition: Unknown Petrie, Tanis, pp. 25–26 Noeske (2006), p. 41 (listing only thirteen identifiable varieties; not included is Sv. 355) Suez Canal, 1860 (IGCH 1693 = EH I, 177) Closure: 222 B.C. or earlier Contents: 1 AV, 2 AR (not certainly a hoard) Ptolemy III Alexandria: 1 AV decadrachm in name of Berenice II (Sv. 972; CPE 744) 1 AR pentadrachm in name of Berenice II (Sv. 989; CPE 742) 1 AR 2.5 drachms in name of Berenice II (Sv. 990; CPE 743) Disposition: Dupré 2 (cf. Dupré sale, Hoffman, 24 April 1867, lots 351, 353); Gréau 1(?) (cf. lot 2834) Huber (1868), pp. 233, 242 Newell (1927b), p. 9 Benha (ancient Athribis), 50 km N of Cairo, 1936 (IGCH 1694 = EH I, 178) Closure: 217 B.C. Contents: 50+ AV Ptolemy II Alexandria: 2 mnaieia in name of Theoi Adelphoi (Brett 22–23; CPE 313[2]) 3 pentekontadrachma in name of Theoi Adelphoi (Brett 24–26; CPE 314[2], 316) 10 mnaieia in name of Arsinoe Philadelphus (Brett 1–10; CPE 369, 387, 388[2], 389, 390[2], 392, 394[2]) Salamis: 2 mnaieia in name of Arsinoe Philadelphus (Brett 11, 15; CPE 483, 487) Citium: 2 mnaieia in name of Arsinoe Philadelphus (Brett 12, 13; CPE 489, 491) Tyre: 1 trichryson (Sv. 636; CPE 555) 2 mnaieia in name of Arsinoe Philadelphus, to year 39 = 247/6 B.C. (Sv. 699; Brett 16; CPE 627, 635) Ptolemy III Ephesus (I): 1–2 mnaieia in name of Berenice II (Sv. 900; CPE 778) Uncertain Mint 33: 1 mnaieion in name of Arsinoe Philadelphus (Sv. 1062; CPE 810)

470

Appendix 1



Tyre: 1 mnaieion in name of Arsinoe Philadelphus, dated year 4 = 244/3 B.C. (Sv. 1018; CPE 841) Ioppe: 1 mnaieion in name of Arsinoe Philadelphus, dated year 1 = 246 B.C. (Brett 20; CPE 867) Ptolemy IV Alexandria: 2 mnaieia with posthumous portrait of Ptolemy III (Sv. 1117[2]; CPE 888[2]) Sidon: 1 mnaeion with posthumous portrait of Ptolemy III (Sv. 1184; CPE 915) Disposition: New York 2 (see http://nomisma.org/id/IGCH1694); Adda 17 Brett (1952), with illustrations Benha (ancient Athribis), 1922–1923 (IGCH 1695 = EH I, 181) Closure: 217 B.C. Contents: 14+ AV Ptolemy II Alexandria: 8 mnaieia in the name of Theoi Adelphoi (Sv. 603[8]; CPE 313[8]) ? pentekontadrachma in the name of Theoi Adelphoi (Sv. 604; CPE 314) Ptolemy IV Alexandria: 6 mnaieia with radiate portrait of Ptolemy III (Sv. 1131[6]; CPE 887[6]) Disposition: dispersed Newell, The Numismatist 1924, p. 301 Brett (1952), p. 7, note 3 Unknown findspot, 2007 (EH I, 182) Closure: 217 B.C. Contents: AV (hundreds) Ptolemy II Alexandria: 55+ mnaieia in name of Theoi Adelphoi (Sv. 613[2], 603[51+], with kerykeion[2]; CPE 307[2], 313[51+], 318[2]) 53+ pentekontadrachma in name of Theoi Adelphoi (Sv. 604[53+]; CPE 314[53+]) 138+ mnaieia in name of Arsinoe Philadelphus (Sv. 459?, 460[54+], 471[14+], 475[42+], 476[22+], 489[5+]; CPE 387?, 388[54+], 389[14+], 390[42+], 391[22+], 394[5+]) Ioppe: 1 mnaieion in name of Arsinoe Philadelphus, dated year 33 = 253/2 B.C. (CPE 667) Ptolemy III Alexandria: a few pentadrachms in name of Berenice II (Sv. 978, 973; CPE 737, 745) Ioppe: 1 mnaieion in name of Arsinoe Philadelphus, dated year 3 = 245/4 (CPE 870) Ptolemy IV Alexandria: 136+ mnaieia with portrait of Ptolemy III (Sv. 1117[136+]; CPE 888[136+]) Sidon: 1 mnaieion with portrait of Ptolemy III (CPE 916) Disposition: commerce Plentiful Ptolemaic gold on the numismatic market since 2007 is assumed to represent a hoard. Mit Ya-Ish, near ancient Leontopolis (EH I, 200) Closure: 217 B.C. Contents: 35 AR Ptolemy I Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 247; CPE 137) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 366; CPE 239) Ptolemy II Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 436; CPE 382) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 396; CPE 423) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 402; CPE 455) Uncertain Mint 19, on Cyprus: 4 tetradrachms (Sv. 389, 390, 403[2]; CPE 473, 474, 475[2]) Sidon: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 713; CPE 505)





Hoards

471

Tyre: 11 tetradrachms (Sv. 644[2], 649, 665, 676, 677, 691/693, 692, 697, 698, 700?; CPE 561[2], 566, 593, 600, 601, 624 or 626, 625, 633, 634, 636?) Ptolemais (Ake): 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 770, 777; CPE 645, 650) Gaza: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 833: CPE 695) Ptolemy III Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 1001; CPE 732) Uncertain Mint 30, near Ephesus: 2 tetradrachms (close to Sv. 905[2]; CPE 781[2]) Ptolemais (Ake): 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 1037[2]; CPE 859[2]) Ptolemy IV Uncertain Mint 34, perhaps on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 1122; CPE 899) Uncertain Mint 35, perhaps on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 1121; CPE 901) Unidentified: 1 tetradrachm Disposition: Egyptian Museum, Cairo Faucher in EH I Delta, 1922 (IGCH 1690 = EH I, 180) Closure: after 217 B.C. Contents: 21 AR Ptolemy II: 1 tetradrachm Ptolemy III Alexandria 1 silver pentadrachm in name of Berenice II (Sv. 989; CPE 742) 1 silver 2.5 drachms in name of Berenice II (Sv. 990; CPE 743) Ptolemy IV Alexandria: 17 Sarapis/Isis tetradrachms (Sv. 1124[14], with ΣΕ[3]; CPE 890[14], 893[3]) Sidon: 1 Sarapis/Isis tetradrachm (Sv. 1186; CPE 920) Disposition: New York 4; Ciani, 16 October 1923, lots 66–70; Naville X, lots 1626–1629; Naville XII, lots 2602–2607 Newell (1927b), pp. 1–13 illus. Delta, 1927–1928 (IGCH 1701 = CH VIII, 356 = IGCH 469) An erroneous listing in IGCH. The hoard was found in Macedonia or Greece and Newell’s notes do not record any Ptolemaic varieties. Asyut (ancient Lycopolis), 300 km S of Cairo, 1936 (IGCH 1702 = EH I, 202) Closure: 185/4 B.C. Contents: 4+ AR Ptolemy III Ephesus (I): 1 tetradrachm (ANS 1944.100.76252; CPE 772) Ioppe: 1 tetradrachm, dated 225/4 (Mørkholm [1980b], p. 6, 1–2; CPE 883) Other contents: 2 Salaminian tetradrachms of Ptolemy V Disposition: New York Unpublished; ANS file, reference “Mallawi hoard,” purchased from Khawan Bros. http://nomisma.org/id/IGCH1702 The chronological gap probably reflects the acute scarcity of coined silver in Egypt from the latter reign of Ptolemy III through that of Ptolemy V. Alternatively, this may be a fragment of a larger hoard. Egypt, before 1967 (IGCH 1722 = CH IX, 698 = EH I, 237) Closure: 49/8 B.C. Contents: 169 AR Ptolemy II Sidon: 1 tetradrachm, year 30 = 256/5 B.C. (Sv. 732; CPE 520) Other contents: tetradrachms of Ptolemy IX Soter II (2), Ptolemy X Alexander (1), Ptolemy XII Neos

472

Appendix 1



Dionysus (158), Cleopatra VII Thea Neotera (7), unidentified (21) Disposition: Dispersed Hazzard (1994), p. 59 Egypt, 1910 (IGCH 1732 = EH I, 249) Closure: c. A.D. 19 Contents: 198 AR Ptolemy II Sidon: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 713; CPE 505) Other contents: tetradrachms of Cleopatra VII Thea Neotera (61), Tiberius (126) Disposition: Oxford 15 (Roman) Milne (1910) (“Ptolemy XIII” = Cleopatra) The tetradrachms of Tiberius were the first silver coins struck after the Roman conquest of Egypt. The Roman administration never recalled the Ptolemaic silver coinage, which continued in use as late as the third century A.D.

Hoards from North Africa Tunis, 1955 (IGCH 2266 = EH I, 255) Closure: after 294 B.C. Contents: 16 AV, 1 EL Ptolemy I as king Alexandria: 1 tetarte (Sv. 232; CPE 139) Cyrene: 1 tetrobol, 2 triobols, 11 litrae Carthage: 1 fifth stater, 1 EL fifth stater Disposition: unknown Jenkins and Lewis (1963), p. 56, hoard IV Jenkins and Lewis dated burial of this hoard c. 300, referring to the coins of Cyrene and Egypt. This date was based on Jenkins’ high chronology for the coinage of Ptolemy I and is here revised to conform to the low chronology. They described the coin of Ptolemy I as a fifth stater. Hoard of scant informational value: Algeria, before 1949 (IGCH 2276 = EH I, 257)

Hoards from Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine Saida (anc. Sidon), Phoenicia, 1829, 1852, 1863 (IGCH 1508 = CH VIII, 190 = EH I, 76) Closure: c. 324/3 B.C. Contents: 7200+ AV in 3 separate pot hoards The list of contents in IGCH includes a Ptolemy I stater with prow reverse (CPE 38), almost certainly intrusive or reported in error, see Westermark (1980), pp. 32‒33. Sfiré, Cyrrhestica, 1932 (IGCH 1511 = EH I, 77) Closure: 321/0 B.C. Contents: 84 AR Early Hellenistic Egypt, including early satrapy of Ptolemy I Memphis: 2 tetradrachms (Demanhur 4614[2]; CPE 20[2]) Alexander III Amphipolis: 1 tetradrachm (Demanhur 579; Price 84) Side(?): 2 tetradrachms (Reattribution 251[2]; Price 2949[2]) Probably Side(?): 1 tetradrachm (Seyrig cited the control DI, but neither Demanhur or Reattribution; cf. Price 2948) Tarsus: 2 tetradrachms (Demanhur 2096[2]; Newell 4[2]; Price 3000[2]) Citium: 2 tetradrachms (Reattribution 122; Demanhur 2619; Price 3107, 3108)





Hoards

473

Myriandrus: 4 tetradrachms (Demanhur 2744[2], 2796, 2864; Newell 20[2], 25, 28; Price 3220[2], 3228, 3231A) Aradus: 11 tetradrachms (Demanhur 3380[3], 3439, 3467[6], illeg.; Price 3320[3], 3325, 3332[6], unident.; Duyrat Série 5[3], Série 10, Série 11[6], unident.) Byblus: 16 tetradrachms (Demanhur 3587/3624[16]; Price 3624/3626[16]) Sidon: 4 tetradrachms, to 321/0 (Demanhur 3753, 3755[2], 3757; Newell 34, 36[2], 39; Price 3495, 3498[2], 3501) Ptolemais (Ake): 3 tetradrachms, to 321/0 (Demanhur 3945, 3961, date illeg; Newell 20, 24, unident.; Price 3260, 3265, unident.) Babylon Waggoner Issue 2, c. 329/8–323/2: 13 tetradrachms (Demanhur 4058[2], 4117, 4192, 4289, 4325[2], 4425, 4448[with ear], 4454, 4456, 4458, 4466; Price 3599[2], 3613, 3620[2], 3642, 3650, 3667, 3680, 3681, 3684, 3686; for the variety with ear, not catalogued in Price, cf. Waggoner Series 4, 66d, 69j, Series 5, 72h, 77c, Series 6, 83h, 84j–k, 87f–g, 93f) Waggoner Issue 3, c. 32/23–321/0: 11 tetradrachms (Demanhur 4479[11]; Price 3692[11]) Unattributed: 1 tetradrachm with D and QE Philip III Sidon: 1 tetradrachm, dated 321/0 (Demanhur 3762; Newell 41; Price P169) Babylon: 9 tetradrachms (Demanhur 4526[9]; Price P181[9]) Barbarous imitations of Philip III: 2 tetradrachms from same dies, with retrograde G in l. field and blundered legend LPP ILc in r. field Disposition: Dispersed Note from H. Seyrig in ANS Byblus (mod. Jebail), Phoenicia, 1931 (IGCH 1515 = EH I, 78) Closure: 310/09 B.C. Contents: 141 AR from excavations Early Hellenistic Egypt, including early satrapy of Ptolemy I Memphis: 2 Heracles/Zeus tetradrachms (Price 3971[2]; CPE 20, 21) Ptolemy I as satrap Sidon: 1 Alexander/Athena tetradrachm of Attic weight, dated year 20 = 312/11 B.C. (Zervos Issue 106; CPE 240) Other contents: Alexander III, Philip III, Sidon Disposition: Beirut? Bellinger (1951), 140 spec., illustrated. Aleppo (ancient Beroea), Cyrrhestica, 1893 (IGCH 1516 = EH I, 79) Closure: 308/7 B.C. Contents: 3000+ AR (2930 Alexanders, 70 Philips) Early Hellenistic Egypt, including early satrapy of Ptolemy I Memphis: 14 Heracles/Zeus tetradrachms (Price 3962, 3970, 3971; Zervos Issue 2B; Sv. 94[2], 12[8]; CPE 17, 18, 20, 25[2], 27, 30[8]) Alexander III Macedonia (“Amphipolis”): 148 336–c. 323: Price 1(V), 4(CC), 5(V, CC), 6(V, CC[2], CD), 9(V), 10(V), 12(V, CC), 13(V, CC), 23(CC), 29(V), 32(V), 44(CC), 48(CC[2]), 51(V), 57(CC, CD), 59(V, CC), 66 (CC, CD), 70(V, CC), 73(CC), 75(V), 78(V, CC[4], CD[4]), 79(V, CC[2], CD[3]), 83(CC, CD[4]), 84(V, CC), 89(V, CC), 93(V, CC[3], CD[2]), 99(CC[2], CD[2]) c. 323–c. 320: Price 104(V, CC[3], CD), 105(V, CC[2]), 106(V, CC[2]); with royal title: Price 108(V, CC[2]), 109(V, CC[2]), 110(V), 111(CC[2]), 112(V, CC[4], CD[5]), 113(V, CC[3], CD[2]), 115(V), 118(V), 120(V, CC[2], CD), 121(V, CC[2]) c. 320–c. 317: with royal title: Price 122(V), 123(CC), 124(V, CC[2]); without royal title: Price 129(V, CC[5], CD[4]), 130(V), 132 (V, CC[4], CD), 133(V, CC[6], CD[5]), 136(V, CC), 138(V), 140(V)

474

Appendix 1



Aegeae(?): 2 336–323: Price 187(CC), 200(V) “Pella”: 24 c. 325–c. 315: Price 206(V), 210(V), 211(V, CC), 214(V), 216(V, CC), 220(V), 222var. with SA monogram above trident head(V), 226(V), 232(CC[2]), 239var. with club placed diagonally(V), 241(V, CC), 245(V) c. 315–c. 310: Price 248(V), 249(V, CC), 258(V), 261(V[2]), 265(V, CC) Amphipolis: 10 c. 320–c. 315: Price 422(V), 430(V), 432(V[2], CC) c. 315–c. 294: Price 438(V), 440(V), 460(V, CC), 461(V) Corinth: 2 c. 310–c. 290: Price 675(CC), 689(V) Greece: 1 c. 325–c. 310: Price 799(CC) Lampsacus: tetradrachms 4, drachms 9 c. 328–323: Price 1344(CC), 1355(3 specimens, but only CC, CD cited); drachm Price 1352(V) 323–317: drachms Price 1362(V), 1376(V), 1380(V) 310–301: drachms Price 1385(V), 1389(V), 1412(V), 1416(V), 1427(V) Abydus: tetradrachms 2, drachms 2 c. 328–323: Price 1507(V) c. 310–c. 301: Price 1549(V); drachm Price 1551(V) c. 301–297: drachm Price 1578(V) The date range in Price is c. 310–297, but this looks like a misprint for c. 301–297. In that case, either Price’s date is wrong, or the deposit of the Aleppo hoard should be dated later. “Teos”: drachm 1 c. 323–c. 319: drachm Price 2274 “Colophon”: drachms 10 c. 323–c. 319: drachms Price 1769(V), P46(V), P47(V) c. 319–c. 310: drachms Price 1781(V), 1782var. with different monogram under throne(V), 1792(V) c. 310–c. 301: drachms Price 1805(V), 1813(V), 1823(V), 1826(V) Magnesia: tetradrachms 1, drachms 4 c. 323–c. 319: drachms Price P56(V), 1945(V) c. 319–305: Price 1974(V); drachms Price 1965(V), 1970(V) Miletus (or perhaps Caunus): tetradrachms 3, drachms 2 c. 325–c. 323: drachms Price 2088var. with horizontal thunderbolt(V), 2090(V) c. 323–c. 319: Price 2099(CC), 2105(V), 2220(V) Sardes: tetradrachms 37, drachms 4 c. 334–c. 323: Price 2540(V); drachms Price 2559(V), 2565(V) c. 323–c. 319: Price 2610(V, CC, CD), 2622(V[2], CC[2]); drachms Price 2623(V), 2638(V) c. 319: Price — (rose in l. field, AQ monogram under throne, amphora in r. field) (V) c. 319–c. 315: Price — with only A under throne(CC[2], CD), 2645(V, CC), 2645A(CC), 2646 (V, CD[2]), 2646var. with FR monogram in l. field and AQ monogram under throne, rendered in dots(CC), 2647(V), 2647var. with G in l. field, AQ monogram under throne above star in ex.(CC), 2652var. with F in l. field, AQ monogram under throne, but no amphora(CC), 2654(CC), 2454var. with monogram as 2457 (V), 2656var. with amphora in l. field, A under throne, but no monogram(V), 2657(CC), 2664 “all mint state”(V, CC[4], CD[2]), 2665 “all mint state”(V, CC[3]) Uncertain of western Asia Minor: tetradrachm 1, drachm 1 c. 323–c. 280: Price 2713(V, CC) Drachm with circled lion head r. in l. field and grapes under throne: Price —, Newell ms. 937 (V). A circled lion head above a grape cluster is one of the controls of an unidentified mint imitating Chios, but the hoard context of the “Pseudo-Chios” issue suggests a date in the late third century.





Hoards

475

Side: 37 c. 325–c. 320: Price 2948(V), 2949(V, CC[7], CD[21]), 2951(V, CC), 2952(V), 2955(CD), 2960(V, CC) Tarsus: 25 c. 333–c. 327: Price 2993 with one as 2998(CC[3], CD[2]), 2995(CC[2]), 3000(V, CC[3], CD[2]), 3001(CC) c. 327–323: Price 3012(CC), 3016–3018(V, CC, CD), 3019(V, CC), 3023(V), 3033(V), 3038(V, CC), 3044(V) Uncertain of southern Asia Minor: 5 c. 320–c. 280: Price 3064(V), 3068(V), 3069(V), 3070(V), 3080var. with positions of monograms reversed(V) Paphos: 1 c. 325–c. 317: Price 3123(V) Amathus: 6 c. 325–c. 323: Price 3085var. without royal title(V) c. 323–c. 320: Price 3091(CC[2]), 3094(CC), 3097(CC), 3098(V) Citium: 23 c. 325–c. 320: Price 3107(CC[4], CD[3]), 3108(CC[3], CD), 3110(V, CC[5], CD[6]) Salamis: tetradrachms 12, drachm 1 c. 332–c. 323: Price 3139(V, CC[3], CD[2]), 3142(CC); drachm Price 3140(V) c. 323–c. 315: Price 3153(V), 3154(V), 3155(V) c. 315–c. 300: Price 3169(V), 3176(V) Myriandrus: 15 c. 325–c. 323: Price 3219var., with both controls in l. field(V, CC), 3223(CC, CD), 3228(V, CD[3]), 3229(V, CC), 3230(V, CC, CD[2]), 3235var. with MA monogram in l. field, MI monogram under throne(V) Damascus: 21 c. 330–c. 320: Price 3203(CC[2] CD[4]), 3204(CC[3]), 3207(CC[2], CD), 3211(V), 3215(CC), as 3202–3213, but number of globules indeterminate(CD[7]) Aradus: 42 c. 328–c. 320: Price 3303 = Duyrat 1–24(V), 3304 = Duyrat 34–48(CC[2]), 3309 = Duyrat 64– 127(CC[2], CD[2]), 3316 = Duyrat 166–271(V, CC, CD), 3320 = Duyrat 303–358(CC), 3322 = Duyrat 413–428(V, CC), 3332 = Duyrat 550–862(V, CC[6], CD[22]) Byblus: 33 c. 323–c. 320: Price 3424(V, CC, CD[7]), 3436 (CC[8], CD[15]), —with AR monogram under throne(CC) Berytus: 2 c. 323–c. 320: Price 3415(CC[2]) Sidon: 33 333–305: Price 3474(CC[2]), 3475(CC[3], CD[2]) 332/1: Price 3468(CC) 324/3: Price 3491(V), 3495(CC[3], CD[2]) 322/1: Price 3498(V, CC[2], CD) 321/0: Price 3501(V, CD) 316/5: Price 3504(V, CC, CD[3]) 311/0: Price 3514(V) 310/9: Price 3515(V) 309/8: Price 3519(V), 3520(V, CC) 308/7: Price 3523(V) Date illegible, SI under throne(CD[2]) Tyre (“Ake”): 82 c. 330–c. 327: Price 3240(CC), 3244(CC[2], CD), 3248(V)

476

Appendix 1



330/29: Price 3250(?)(CC) 327/6: Price 3256(V, CC) 326/5: Price 3260(V) 325/4: Price 3262(CC) 324/3: Price 3265(CC), 3267(CC) 322/1: Price 3272(CC) 321/0: Price 3274A(V, CC) 320/19: Price 3280(CC[3]) 319/8: Price 3281(CC, CD), 3282(CC) 318/7: Price 3283(V, CC[2]) 317/6: Price 3286(CC[2]) 316/5: Price 3287(V) 315/4: Price 3291(V, CC) 314/3: Price 3292(V, CC[4]) 313/2: Price 3293(V, CC[2]) 312/1: Price 3295var. with numerals configured as for 3297(V[2], CC[3], CD[3]) 311/0: Price 3297(V) 310/09: Price 3299(V) 309/8: Price 3301(CC) Date illegible: (CD[34]) Uncertain of Phoenicia or Syria: 12 c. 323–c. 317: Price 3569(V) c. 317–c. 300: Price 3573(V), 3575 “mint state”(V, CC[4], CD[5]) Carrhae(?): 3 c. 315–305: Price 3799(V), 3803var. with throne control only(V), 3805?(CC) Babylon: 245 Waggoner Issue I, c. 331–329/8: Price 3578(V, CC[2]) Waggoner Issue II, c. 329/8–323/2: Price 3599, perhaps including some with illegible symbol(V, CC[2], CD[6]), 3602(V), 3602var. with only FILH monogram under throne(CD[5]), 3610(V), 3612(CC[4]), 3613(V, CD), 3617(CC), 3618var. with ivy leaf above M in l. field(V), 3619(V, CC), 3619var. with bee above M in l. field and royal title(CC), 3620(V, CC), 3624var. with sickle facing l. above M in l. field(CC[2]), 3626var. with Nike flying r. in l. field, ILH monogram under throne, M under throne leg(no source), 3626(V), 3627(V), 3628(CC), 3631(CC[2]), 3636(V), 3637(CC), 3640(V, CC), 3641(V, CD), 3642(CC, CD), 3650(CC[2], CD), 3651(CC), 3654(V, CC), 3655(CC), 3656(V, CC), 3661(V), 3670(V, CC), 3673(CD), 3676(V), 3680(CC), 3682(V), 3683(V), 3684(CC), 3685(V), 3686(V) Waggoner Issue III, c. 323/2–321/0: Price 3692(V[2], CC[3], CD[27]) Waggoner Issue VII, c. 317/6: Price 3697(V) Waggoner Issue VIII, c. 316–306/5: Price 3704(V, CC[5], CD[9]), 3708(V, CC[3], CD[2]), 3713(V), 3719(V), 3723(V, CC[2], CD), 3725(V, CC[3], CD[3]), 3742(CC), 3747(V, CC[5], CD[40]), 3747var. with wreathed MHTR monogram in l. field, pellet above MI under throne(CC), 3752(V, CC[8], CD[25]), 3753(V), 3754(V, CC), 3755(CC), 3756(V, CC), 3758(V), 3759(V), 3760(V), 3761(V, CC), 3762var. with MI above horizontal thunderbolt in l. field, wreathed MHTR monogram under throne(V), 3764var. with MI above prow r. in l. field, wreathed MHTR monogram under throne(V), 3765(V), 3767(CC), 3768(V, CC[2]), 3768 or symbol possibly crescent with horns r.(V), 3771(CC), 3772(V), 3773(V), 3776(CC), MI above uncertain symbol(CD[5]) Barbarous imitation of Babylon: 1 Prototype of c. 325–323: As Price 3628 Babylon, “Satrapal” Workshop (Newell: Myriandrus?, Aradus): 2 c. 316–315: SC II, Cad44.2 = Price 3338 = Duyrat 1076–1086(V) c. 311–305: SC II, C94.7d = Price 3349(V)





Hoards

477

Susa: 4 c. 320–c. 316: Price cf. 3846, with royal title and only LA under throne(CC[2]), 3850(V, CC) Unidentified tetradrachm issues: PoR monogram in l. field, LAM monogram under throne: Newell ms. 574(CC). ANT monogram in l. field, VL under throne: Newell ms. 575(CC). Uncertain symbol in l. field: Newell ms. 576(V). A under throne, BASILEWS: Newell ms. 577(V). Cf. Price 428 (Amphipolis), but Newell would have recognized the style if this were an issue of Amphipolis. L under throne, BASILEWS: Newell ms. 578(V). Possible control in l. field, AB monogram under throne, BASILEWS: Newell ms. 580(CC). Cf. Price 4005 (Uncertain East), with no control in l. field and no evidence of royal title (but ex. largely off flan). Dolphin r. in l. field, BASILEWS: Newell ms. 606(V). Cf. Price 110A (“Amphipolis”), but Newell would have recognized the style if this issue belonged to one of the major Macedonian series. HUR monogram in l. field, MHTR monogram under throne: Newell ms. 912(V). Philip III Abydus: drachm 1 c. 328–323: drachm Price P25var. with AR monogram in l. field, horse leg under throne, grain ear in r. field(V) Sardes: drachm 1 Drachm Price P97(V) Uncertain of Western Asia Minor: 1 Drachm Price P113/P114 (V) Salamis: 8 c. 323–c. 315: Price P129 (Rudder style III, V, CD; Rudder style IV, CC[2], CD[4]) Myriandrus: 1 c. 323–c. 317: Price P137(V) Sidon: 5 321/0: Price P169(CC[2]) 319/8: Price P175(V, CC) 318/7: Price P177(V) Uncertain Mint 6A, in Babylonia (Newell: Marathus 1, Carne 7): 8 c. 321–315: SC II, Ad39.1 = Price P165(V), SC II, Ad39.2 = Price P164(V), SC II, Ad39.3 = Price P162(V, CC[2], CD), SC II, Ad39.5 = Price P225–226(V), SC II, Ad39.9 = Price P161 = Duyrat 40(V) Babylon: 31 Waggoner Issue III, c. 323/2–321/0: Price P181(V, CC[17]) Waggoner Issue IV, c. 321/0–320/19: Price P186(V, CC) Waggoner Issue V, c. 320/19–319/18: Price P182(V, CC[3]) Waggoner Issue VI, c. 319/8–317: Price P189var. with wheel above PUo monogram in l. field, MU monogram under throne(V), P197(V), P200(V, CC[3]) Waggoner Issue VII, c. 317/6: Price P205(V) Babylon, “Satrapal” Workshop (Newell: Aradus): 12 c. 321–315: SC II, CAd43.1 = Price P144 = Duyrat 904–923(V, CD), SC II, CAd43.3 = Price P139 = Duyrat 877(V), SC II, CAd43.5 = Duyrat 939–943(V, CC), SC II, CAd43.7 = Price P147 = Duyrat 959–967(V, CC), SC II, CAd43.8 = Price P142 = Duyrat 896–898(V), SC II, CAd43.9 = Price P141 = Duyrat 880–895(V, CC), SC II, CAd43.13 = Price P155–156 = Duyrat 986– 1014(V), SC II, CAd43.15 = Price P158 = Duyrat 1032–1075(V) Susa: 9 c. 320–c. 316: Price P208(CC[2]), P212(CC), P213(V), as P212–215(CC), P220(CC[3], CD) Ecbatana?: 1 c. 323–c. 317: Price P221(CC)

478

Appendix 1



Disposition: Istanbul 710?; Vienna c. 270 A manuscript account of this find by Voetter in Vienna; transcript of this ms. by E. T. Newell at ANS, collated with coins recorded in Constantinople (949 specimens) Newell (1916), p. 58; id. (1923b), p. 10 A note at the beginning of Newell’s manuscript states: “The following catalogue is made up to two lots. “I. Mss list drawn up by Col. Voetter now in Vienna Cabinet, together with a large selection of the coins themselves. “II. 710 coins in the Constantinople Collection which Dr. Regling found in a bag. The bag contained a ticket stating the hoard had been sent to Constantinople from Antioch. Halil Bey related to the writer (1922) that he well remembers a long legal process undertaken sometime in the 90s (“about twenty-five years ago”) to secure the coins. As the character of the two lots is absolutely identical it is probable they all came from the same find. 857 coins were secured by the Turkish authorities, only 710 of these remain. The other 147 probably had previously been incorporated in the collection (or were there drachms?)” Newell’s manuscript indicates where each variety was recorded: Vienna, Constantinople collection, Constantinople duplicates (here abbreviated V, CC, and CD). There is no explanation for the division of the Istanbul material. With respect to condition of the coins, Newell notes that the Amphipolis group with Po monogram (Price 129–140) are “all fine to mint state,” two Sardian tetradrachm issues (Price 2664 and 2665, dated c. 319–c. 315) are “all mint state,” and an unattributed tetradrachm issue of Phoenicia or Syria (Price 3573, dated c. 317–c. 300) is “mint state.” Beirut, 1964 (IGCH 1519 = EH I, 80) Closure: c. 300 B.C. Contents: 27+ AR Early Hellenistic Egypt: 1 tetradrachm Alexander III; 19 tetradrachms Philip III: 7 tetradrachms Seleucus I: 1 tetradrachm Disposition: dispersed Information from MMAG, Basel Hebron area, Israel, 1999 (CH IX, 484 = EH I, 81) Closure: 280–270 B.C. Contents: 25 AR Ptolemy I Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm of 25 obols (Sv. 267; CPE 183) Jerusalem: 2 quarter obols (TJC 32a[2]; CPE 252[2]) Ptolemy II Jerusalem: 2 quarter obols (TJC 32[2]; CPE 719[2]) Other contents: Yehud of Persian and Hellenistic eras (prior to c. 201) Disposition: Ashkelon Gitler, in Gitler and Lorber (2006), pp. 26‒27 Hüseyinli, 1986 (CH IX, 489 = EH I, 86) Closure: probably 274 B.C. Contents: 58 AV trichrysa, 1 Seleucid Æ Ptolemy I as king Alexandria: 12 trichrysa (Sv. 181[2], 232 var., 208[2], 210[4], 207[2], 204; CPE 133[2], 138, 152[2], 166[4], 169[2], 171) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 3 trichrysa (Sv. 362a, 357, 374; CPE 221, 223, 226) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 3 trichrysa (Sv. 367[3]; CPE 234[3]) Tyre: 1 trichryson (Sv. 631; CPE 244) Ptolemy II Alexandria: 2 trichrysa (Sv. 547, 590; CPE 276, 298)





Hoards

479

Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 2 trichrysa (Sv. 537[2]; CPE 437[2]) Uncertain Mint 21, perhaps on Cyprus: 1 trichryson (Sv. 370; CPE 496) Sidon: 6 trichrysa (Sv. 712[6]; CPE 504[6]) Tyre: 28 trichrysa (Sv. cf. 626[2], 633A, 636[15], 639, 643[9]; CPE 551[2], 553, 555[15], 557, 560[9]) Disposition: Hatay Museum. Davesne and Yenisoganci (1992) The Hüseyinli hoard was found close to Antioch, where it must have been introduced by a Ptolemaic army on campaign. Davense and Yenisoganci dated its deposit to the time of the Second Syrian War, specifically c. 259/8, reasoning that it was probably abandoned in the face of a counterattack by Antiochus II and that this counterattack could be coordinated with the grant of autonomy to Aradus in 259/8. The authors freely admitted the hypothetical character of their reconstruction. A review of the elements that might date the hoard is therefore in order. The absence of mnaieia or pentekontadrachma could imply that its closure should precede the reform of the Egyptian gold coinage in or before 272, in which case it should be associated with the First Syrian War, not the Second. The closing coins of the hoard are the latest trichrysa of Sidon and Tyre, belonging to extremely large issues that marked the final recall of Attic-weight gold and silver coinage in Syria and Phoenicia and its conversion into Ptolemaic currency. Davesne (1989), p. 267, dated these issues to the year 266/5. This is certainly a terminus ante quem, as Tyre began to inscribe regnal dates on its tetradrachms in the following year. But we may well ask why the recall and reminting of Attic-weight coinage was undertaken at this date, and not earlier during the First Syrian War when the need for coinage was probably acute. At Alexandria, the production of trichrysa probably ceased upon the introduction of the reformed gold coinage in or before 272, and it seems rather unlikely, though not impossible, that provincial mints continued to strike the trichryson after that date. According to this reasoning, the latest trichrysa in the hoard could have been minted in 274 or a bit earlier, for the purpose of financing a planned invasion of northern Syria, and the hoard abandoned when the Ptolemaic army withdrew before the Seleucid elephants. Alternatively, the absence of reformed gold coins from Alexandria could be due to the local formation of the hoard, see Davense and Yenisoganci (1992), pp. 30‒31. The provenances of Alexandrian mnaieia and pentekontadrachma do not attest their circulation in the Ptolemaic province of Syria and Phoenicia. Beirut commerce, 1987–88 (EH I, 85) Closure: c. 260 B.C. Contents: 14 tetradrachms Ptolemy I Alexandria: 6 tetradrachms (Sv. 252, 247, 259, 256, 255[2]; CPE 132, 137, 147, 154, 168[2]) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 353; CPE 229) Sidon: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 716; CPE 242) Ptolemy II Alexandria: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 567, 591; CPE 283, 299) Sidon: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 713; CPE 505) Tyre: 3 tetradrachms, one dated 262/1 (Sv. 644[2], 649; CPE 561[2], 566) Disposition: dispersed Polaroid photos in ANS card file Seleucia Pieria, Syria Seleucis, 1932–1939 (IGCH 1526 = EH I, 87) Closure: 256/5 B.C. Contents: 12 AR from excavations Ptolemy I Alexandria: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 255, 350; CPE 168, 175) Ptolemy II Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 399; CPE 461) Uncertain Mint 19, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 531; CPE 466) Sidon: 1 tetradrachm ( above  in l. field, controls in r. field illegible; as CPE 510, 512, 514‒515, 517, etc.)

480

Appendix 1



Tyre: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 644; CPE 561) Ioppe: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 27 = 259/8 B.C. (Sv. 796; CPE 660) Gaza: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 30 = 256/5 B.C. (Sv. 827 var.; CPE 687) Ptolemy I or II: 2 tetradrachms (controls illegible) Disposition: Antakya Waage (1952), p. 74, no. 788; p. 75, no. 789; p. 90, nos. 961, 964–965, 969–974 Despite the closure date, these coins were surely introduced into Seleucia at the time of its surrender to Ptolemy III (246) or during the ensuing Ptolemaic occupation. Nuba, near Hebron, Israel, 1975 (CH II, 69 = EH I, 88) Closure: 255/4 B.C. Contents: 5+ AR Alexander III: 1 tetradrachm, of Tarsus (possibly intrusive) Ptolemy II Sidon: 3 tetradrachms, dated year 30 = 256/5 B.C. (Sv. 732[2], 733; CPE 520[2], 521) Tyre: 3 tetradrachms, dated year 30 = 256/5 B.C. (Sv. 658[2], 660; CPE 580[2], 582) Ptolemais (Ake): 1 tetradrachm, dated year 31 = 255/4 B.C. (Sv. 774; CPE 647b) CH II, 69, pp. 22–23, with fig. 9 Hebron area, Israel, 1977 (CH IV, 40 = EH I, 89) Closure: 250/49 B.C. Contents: 5+ AR Ptolemy I as king Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm of 25 obols (Sv. 229; CPE 150) Ptolemy II Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 365[2]; CPE 414[2]) Tyre: 2 tetradrachms, to year 36 = 250/49 B.C. (Sv. 650, 693var.; CPE 567, 622) Disposition: In commerce Amman, 1979 (CH VII, 77 = EH I, 93) Burial: 249 B.C.2 Contents: 29 AR Ptolemy I: Alexandria 5 Ptolemy II: Alexandria 4, Sidon 7, Tyre 8, Ptolemais 2, Ioppe 3 Disposition: Amman 29 Beth-Shean (anc. Nysa-Scythopolis), 1921–1923 (IGCH 1585 = EH I, 94) Closure: before 246 B.C. Contents: 20+ AR from excavations Ptolemy II: tetradrachms Disposition: Philadelphia (University Museum) Fischer, Penn. Univ. Museum Journal 1923, p. 239 Fitzgerald, Beth-Shan Excavations 1921–12: The Arab and Byzantine Levels (Philadelphia, 1931), p. 33 Kadman, INCJ, hoard 9 Saida (anc. Sidon), Phoenicia, 1949 (IGCH 1586 = EH I, 95) Closure: 245/4 B.C. Contents: 39 AR Ptolemy I as king Alexandria: 7 portrait tetradrachms (Sv. 252 [with Byzantium c/m], 265, 256[4], 205 [with Byzantium c/m]; CPE 132[with Byzantium c/m], 142, 154[4], 174[with Byzantium countermark]) 2. Here and elsewhere burial dates have been retained from earlier literature when it was not possible to determine the date of the closing coin.





Hoards

481

Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Trésors 40.8; cf. CPE 218–220, 222, 229) Ptolemy II Alexandria: 3 tetradrachms (Sv. 548; Trésors 40.16–17; CPE 277, 279, 306) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 4 tetradrachms (Sv. 365[2], 529, 530; CPE 414[2], 418, 421) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 544; CPE 441) Uncertain Mint 19, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 531; CPE 466) Sidon: 8 tetradrachms, to year 31 = 255/4 B.C. (Sv. 713[5], 733[2], 736; CPE 505[5], 521[2], 523b) Tyre: 7 tetradrachms, to year 34 = 252/1 B.C. (Sv. 637, 644, 658, 659, 670, 681var; Trésors 40.24; CPE 556, 561, 578, 580, 593, 604, one with date omitted) Ptolemais (Ake): 2 tetradrachms, to year 35 = 251/0 B.C. (Sv. 770, 780; CPE 645, 653) Ioppe: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 27 = 259/8 B.C. (Trésors 40.35; CPE 660) Ptolemy III Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 1001; CPE 732) Ephesus (II): 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 904; CPE 779) Uncertain Mint 30, near Ephesus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 905; CPE 782) Ioppe: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 3 = 245/4 B.C. (Sv. 1041; CPE 872) Disposition: Dispersed Seyrig (1973), no. 40 Noeske (2006), p. 42 Commerce, 1995 Closure: 243/2 B.C. Contents: 7 mnaieia of Arsinoe Philadelphus Ptolemy II Sidon: 1 mnaieion, year 39 = 247/6 B.C. (CPE 547) Tyre: 1 mnaieion, year 33 = 253/2 B.C. (CPE 594) Ioppe, 2 mnaieia, year 33 = 253/2 B.C. (CPE 667[2]) Ptolemy III Tyre, 1 mnaieion, year 3 = 245/4 B.C. (CPE 837) Ptolemais, 2 mnaieia, year 5 = 243/2 B.C. (CPE 860[2]) Disposition: dispersed Spink 10, 4 October 1995, lots 63‒69 Beqaa Valley, 1964 (EH I, 97) Closure: 242/1 B.C. Contents: 25 AR tetradrachms Ptolemy I Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm of 25 obols (Sv. 185; CPE 185) 10 standard tetradrachms (Sv. 265, 259, 255[5], 254, 205[2]; CPE 142, 147, 168[5], 170, 174[2]) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 368[2]; CPE 235[2]) Ptolemy II Uncertain Mint 21, perhaps on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 371; CPE 497) Sidon: 5 tetradrachms, to year 32 = 254/3 B.C. (Sv. 719, 732, 733, 736, 739; CPE 503, 520, 521, 523b, 524) Tyre: 3 tetradrachms, to year 32 = 254/3 B.C. (Sv. 640, 646, 668; CPE 558, 563, 591) Ptolemais (Ake): 1 tetradrachm, dated year 37 = 249/8 B.C. (Sv. 783; CPE 655) Ptolemy III Sidon: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 1 = 246/5 B.C. (CPE 813) Ioppe: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 6 = 242/1 (Sv. 1044; CPE 880) Disposition: Paris, R.4465/1–24 (Seyrig collection) Twenty-five coins in the BnF are clearly labeled as belonging to this hoard.

482

Appendix 1



Iraq al-Amir, Jordan, 1993 (CH IX, 497 = CH X, 268 = EH I, 96) Closure: 242/1 B.C. Contents: 1100+ AR Ptolemy I as king Alexandria: 48 tetradrachms (Sv. 252[4], 247[3], 265[6], 259[2], 256[2], 253, 249, 251, 255[19], 254[4], 257[5]; CPE 132[4], 137[3], 142[6], 147[2], 154[2], 157, 163, 164, 168[19], 170[4], 173[5]) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 11 tetradrachms (Sv. 354, 362, 358[2], 375[2], 376[3], 353[2]; CPE 220, 222, 224[2], 227[2], 228[3], 229[2]) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 16 tetradrachms (Sv. 245, 246[2], 368[9], 378[2], 366[4]; CPE 230, 231[2], 235[9], 237[2], 239[4]) Sidon: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 716; CPE 242) Tyre : 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 632; CPE 245) Ptolemy II Alexandria: 14 tetradrachms (Sv. 548[6], 567, 574, 596, 552, 411[3]; Keen 55; CPE 277[6], 279, 283, 288, 302, 305, 370[3]) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 30 tetradrachms (Sv. 365[5], 764[7], 528, 530[3], 525, 529[2], 396, 395[2], 398, 407[2], 391, 404; Keen 66, 842, 843; Paris 1994/170; CPE 414[5], 415[7], 416, 418[3], 419, 420, 421[2], 423, 424, 425, 429, 430[2], 431, 432, 433, 436) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 23 tetradrachms (Sv. 399[2], 400[3], 401[8], 402[6], 405[2], 406, 546; CPE 440, 455[6], 459a[8], 460a[2], 460b, 461[2], 462[3]) Uncertain Mint 19, on Cyprus: 18 tetradrachms (Sv. 388[8], 389[4], 390[2], 403, 531[2]; Keen 796; CPE 466[2], 466B, 472[8], 473[2], 474[4], 475) Uncertain Mint 21, perhaps on Cyprus: 4 tetradrachms (Sv. 371[4]; CPE 497[4]) Uncertain Mint 22, perhaps on Cyprus, perhaps Ptolemais (Ake): 3 tetradrachms (Sv. 373[3]; CPE 500[3]) Sidon: 197+ tetradrachms (Sv. 719, 713[65], 717[8], 723[2], 724, 725, 727[2], 728[2], 730[4], 731[4], 732[10], 733[11], 734[4], 735, 726[2], 737[10], 739[9], 738[5], 740[10], 741, 744[2], 746, 745[5], 749[6], 751[3], 753[6], 755[4]; Keen 579, 587‒589, 675‒677, 687‒689, 694‒695, 696‒697, 698‒700; CPE 503, 505[65], 506[8], 507, 508, 510[2], 511, 513[2], 514[2], 516[3], 517[4], 518[4], 520[10], 521[11], 522a[4], 522b, 523a[10], 523b[2], 524[9], 525[5], 527[10], 528, 531[2], 533, 534[5], 537[6], 539[3], 540[3], 542[6], 543[3], 545[4], 546[2], 549[2], 550[3]) Tyre: 175+ tetradrachms (Sv. 637[11], 640, 644[36], 646[7], 647[2], 648[3], 649[9], 650[8], 651[6], 652, 654[3], 656[2], 657[5], 658[5], 659, 660, 661[3], 664, 668[4], 669[2], 670[3], 674[3], 675[2], 676[2], 677[7], 678, 681[2], 683, 684[2], 686[5], 688, 690[4], 691, 692, 695[2], 697[3], 698[5], 700[3]; Keen 377, 384‒385, 395–396, 397, 428, 434, 435, 437, 438, 440, 445‒447, 452; CPE 556[11], 558, 561[36], 563[7], 564[2], 565[3], 566[9], 567[8], 569[6], 570, 572a[3], 574a[2], 575, 577[5], 578, 579[2], 580[5], 582, 583[3], 584, 585[2], 590, 591[4], 592[2], 593[3], 598[3], 599[2], 600[2], 601[7], 602, 606[2], 607, 608[2], 609, 614, 615[5], 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, 622[3], 623[4], 624, 625, 630, 631[2], 633[3], 634[5], 636[3]) Ptolemais (Ake): 87+ tetradrachms (Sv. 765[2], 767, 770[17], 771[2], 773, 774[16], 775[7], 777[6], 778[9], 780[9], 782[6], 783[8]; Keen 186, 204, 270; CPE 637[2], 638, 640, 644, 645[17], 646a[2], 647a, 647b[16], 649[7], 650[6], 651[9], 653[9], 654[6], 655[8], 657) Ioppe: 48+ tetradrachms (Sv. 795, 796, 798[2], 799, 800, 802[2], 804[3], 807[3], 809[2], 810[5], 811[5], 813[3], 814[7], 815[5], 816[5], 817; Keen 156; CPE 659, 660, 662[2], 664[2], 666[2], 669[3], 671[3], 672[5], 673a[2], 674[5], 675a[3], 676a[5], 677[7], 678[5], 679, 680a) Gaza: 31 tetradrachms (Sv. 822, 825, 826[2], 827[2], 828[4], 829[4], 830[7], 833[9]; Keen 87; CPE 681, 685, 686[2], 688[2], 689a[4], 690[4], 691, 692[7], 695[9]) Uncertain Mint 23, imitating Ptolemais (Ake): 1 tetradrachm (CPE 701) Ptolemy III Alexandria: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 1001[2]; CPE 732[2]) Sidon: 44 tetradrachms, to year 6 = 242/1 B.C. (Sv. 1025[9], 1026[5], 1027[10], 1029[9], 1031[3]; Keen 710‒715, 743‒744; CPE 814[6], 815[9], 816[5], 817[10], 819[9], 821[3], 823[2]) Tyre: 39 tetradrachms, to year 5 = 243/2 B.C. (Sv. 1013[4], 1016[8], 1017[3], 1019[8], 1020[3], 1021[3];





Hoards

483

Keen 464, 469–473, 474, 475, 495–496; CPE 830, 832, 834, 835[4], 836[5], 839[8], 840[3], 842[8], 843[2], 844[3], 845[3]) Ptolemais (Ake): 20 tetradrachms, to year 6 = 242/1 B.C. (Sv. 1035[8], 1036[3], 1037[3], 1038[3]; Keen 267‒268, 286; CPE 855[2], 857[8], 858[3], 859[3], 861[3], 863) Ioppe: 24 tetradrachms, to year 5 = 243/2 B.C. (Sv. 1039[8], 1041[3], 1042[3], 1043[2]; Keen 165–170, 177, 180; CPE 868[8], 869, 871[2], 872[3], 873[2], 874, 876[3], 877[2], 878[2]) Gaza: 5 tetradrachms, dated year 2 = 246/5 B.C. (Sv. 1045[5]; CPE 883[5]) Illegible: 70 Augé (2001) Keen in EH I. Gaza (CH II, 37) Closure: 244/3 B.C. Ptolemy III Tyre: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 4 = 244/3 B.C. (CPE 843) Khan el-Abde (anc. Orthosia), c. 15 km N of Tripolis, Phoenicia, 1938 (IGCH 1597 = EH I, 101) Closure: c. 215 B.C. (Ptolemaic portion), 135/4 B.C. (Seleucid portion) Contents: 118+ AR Ptolemy I as king Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 4 portrait tetradrachms (Sv. 362, 375[3]; CPE 222, 227[3]) Ptolemy II Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm (Seyrig 50 = Sv. 555 with monogram erased; CPE 306) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 5 tetradrachms (Sv. 400, 401[3], 402; CPE 455, 459b[3], 462) Uncertain Mint 19, on Cyprus: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 531[2]; CPE 466[2]) Uncertain Mint 20, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Seyrig 42; CPE 482) Sidon: 11 tetradrachms, to year 39 = 247/6 B.C. (Sv. 713[3], 719?, 732, 738[2], 739[2]; Seyrig 73; unident.; CPE 501, 505[3], 520, 524[2], 525[2], 549, unident. as 501–502 with erasures) Tyre: 9 tetradrachms, to year 37 = 249/8 B.C. (Sv. 626[2], 668[2], 674, 677, 680 [an erroneous citation, referring to a mnaieion], 683?, 694?; CPE 552[2], perhaps 580, 591[2], 598, 601, 607, 628) Ptolemais (Ake): 1 tetradrachm, dated year 35 = 251/0 B.C. (Svor 780; CPE 653) Ptolemy III Sidon: 1 tetradrachm, of year 23 = 225/4 B.C. (Sv. 757; CPE 825) Tyre: 3 tetradrachms, of year 23 = 225/4 B.C. (Sv. 702, 703, 704; CPE 852, 853, 854) Ioppe: 2 tetradrachms, dated year 3 = 245/4 B.C. and year 23 = 225/4 B.C. (Sv. 1041(?); Seyrig 76; CPE 872(?), 883) Ptolemy IV Alexandria: 13 tetradrachms (Sv. 1124[13]; CPE 892[13]) Ascalon: 1 Sarapis and Isis tetradrachm, dated year 3 = 220/19 B.C. (Seyrig 105; CPE 940) Uncertain Mint 39 and/or 40: 3 tetradrachms marked G (Seyrig 82–84; CPE 943 or 947[3]) Uncertain Mint 39: 2 tetradrachms with erasures (Seyrig 85‒86; CPE 946[2]) Uncertain Mint 39 and/or 40 and/or 41 and/or 42 (era coinage): 5 tetradrachms, unmarked (Sv. 853[5]; CPE 944/948/948A/949[5]) Era coinage (Uncertain Mint 42): 1 tetradrachm, year 51 (Mørkholm 25; CPE 955) Unattributed tetradrachms with Soter legend: 2 tetradrachms (Seyrig 87–88; CPE 964–965) Unidentifiable: 17 tetradrachms (Seyrig 89–103) Tryphon: 20 Attic-weight tetradrachms of Antioch mint, 13 Phoenician-weight tetradrachms of Ptolemais mint Antiochus VII: 1 Tyre tetradrachm, 178 S.E. = 135/4 B.C. Disposition: New York (2 Tryphon) Seyrig (1950) Cavaignac, RN 1951, pp. 131ff. J. Olivier (2012), no. 14.

484

Appendix 1



As Seyrig recognized, the Khan el-Abde find was not a single hoard. He identified two Ptolemaic hoards, one assembled early in the reign of Ptolemy III and another deposited under Ptolemy IV, as well as a Seleucid hoard formed mainly during the usurpation of Tryphon. It is now apparent that there was only one Ptolemaic hoard and that the condition of the coins reflected the gap in monetary production after c. 240. Mørkholm (1975–76) listed an era tetradrachm of year 51 provenanced from Khan el-Abde, but it cannot be identified in Seyrig’s list. Hebron area, 1991 (CH VIII, 304= EH I, 100) Closure: c. 215 B.C. Contents: 112+ Ptolemaic tetradrachms Ptolemy I Alexandria: 19 tetradrachms (Sv. 247, 248, 250, 252, 253, 254, 255[8], 257, 259[2], 339[2]; CPE 132, 137, 147[2], 157, 158, 165, 168[8], 170, 173, 174[2]) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 358, 375; CPE 224, 227) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 4 tetradrachms (Sv. 368[3], 378; CPE 235[3], 237) Ptolemy II Alexandria: 5 tetradrachms (Sv. 436[2], 548, 574, 596; CPE 277, 288, 302, 382[2]) Unattributed provincial issues portraying Ptolemy II: 2 tetradrachms (CPE 406[2]) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 365, 764; CPE 414, 415) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 401, 402; CPE 455, 459) Uncertain Mint 19, on Cyprus: 3 tetradrachms (Sv. 388, 390, 531; CPE 466, 472, 473) Uncertain Mint 20, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (CPE 479) Sidon: 23 tetradrachms (Sv. 713[6], 717, 723, 727, 730[2], 731, 733[4], 736, 738, 739[2], 741, 745, LH (year 38); CPE 505[6], 506, 510, 512, 517[2], 518, 521[4], 523b, 524[2], 525, 528, 534, 546) Tyre: 20 tetradrachms, to year 35 = 251/0 B.C. (Sv. 637[2], 644[5], 649, 655, 656, 657[2], 667[2], 668, 675, 676, 687[2], 688; CPE 556[2], 561[5], 566, 573, 574, 577[2], 589[2], 591, 599, 600, 613[2], 614) Ptolemais (Ake): 9 tetradrachms, to year 37 = 249/8 B.C. (Sv. 770[3], 774, 775, 777, 780[2], 783; CPE 645[3], 647, 649, 650, 653[2], 655) Ioppe: 3 tetradrachms, to year 39 = 247/6 B.C. (Sv. 811, 813, 816, 817; CPE 674, 675a, 678, 680a) Gaza: 2 tetradrachms, to year 39 = 249/8 B.C. (Sv. 826, 833; CPE 686, 695) Syro-Phoenician tetradrachm of year 32 = 254/3 B.C., mintmark illegible Uncertain Mint 24, perhaps in Palestine: 1 tetradrachm (Meyd. 4010; CPE 704) Ptolemy III Uncertain Mint 31, perhaps in Cilicia Pedias: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 915a; CPE 799) Sidon: 3 tetradrachms, to year 3 = 245/4 B.C. (Sv. 1025[2], 1026; CPE 815[2], 816) Tyre: 2 tetradrachms, to year 5 = 243/2 B.C. (Sv. 1013, 1020; CPE 835, 844) Ptolemais (Ake): 3 tetradrachms of year 23 = 225/4 B.C. (Sv. 786[3]; CPE 866[3]) Ptolemy IV Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 1123; CPE 892) Uncertain Mint 39 or 40: 1 tetradrachm (CPE 943 or 947) Era coinage (Uncertain Mint 42): 3 tetradrachms (Sv. 853[3]; CPE 949[3]) Disposition: In commerce CH VIII, p. 36 and pl. xxxvii, 1–4; fully reconstructed from A. Spaer’s notes by A. Meadows in EH I, 100. Tel Michal, Sharon Plain, Israel, 1977 (CH VII, 85 = CH VIII, 307 = CH IX, 498 = EH I, 102) Closure: 213 B.C. or later Contents: 47 Ptolemaic AR Ptolemy I Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm of 25 obols (BMC p. 21, 70; CPE 146) 6 standard tetradrachms (Sv. 253[2], 254, 255, 256, 259; CPE 147, 154, 157[2], 168, 170) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 3 tetradrachms (Sv. 367[an error for 368, 3]; CPE 235[3]) Unidentified: 2 tetradrachms (Kindler 4, 5)





Hoards

485

Ptolemy II Alexandria: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 548, as 411 etc.; CPE 277, 370/374/377/379/382/385) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus : 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 365; CPE 414) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 538, 541; CPE 438, 448) Uncertain Mint 19, on Cyprus: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 389, 390; CPE 473, 474) Sidon: 6 tetradrachms (Sv. 713, 729 var., 732, 745, 751, 753; CPE 505, 516, 520, 534, 539, 542) Tyre: 9 tetradrachms (Sv. 637, 644[2], 649[2], 660, 662, 668, 677; CPE 556, 561[2], 566[2], 582, 587, 591, 601) Ioppe: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 815; CPE 676) Gaza: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 826, 829; CPE 686, 690) Ptolemy III Ephesus (I): 1 tetradrachm (Kindler 47; CPE 776) Uncertain Mint 30, near Ephesus: 1 tetradrachm (Kindler 46; CPE 784) Tyre: 2 tetradrachms, dated year 4 = 244/3 B.C. (Sv. 1019[2]; CPE 842[2]) Ptolemais (Ake): 1 tetradrachm, dated year 5 = 243/2 B.C. (Sv. 1038; CPE 861) Gaza: 2 tetradrachms, dated year 2 = 246/5 B.C. and year 23 = 225/4 B.C. (Sv. 1045 821; CPE 883, 885) Ptolemy IV Ioppe: 1 tetradrachm (Kindler 45; CPE 939) 2 era tetradrachms of years 48, 49 = 215/4 and 214/3 B.C. (Sv. 849, 851; CPE 950, 953) Expedition 20.4.1978, p. 47 Kindler (1978) Mørkholm (1980b), p. 5 The hoard was discovered during excavations in the campaign of 1977. Kindler dated closure of the hoard c. 240 (pp. 166–167). Damour, c. 20 km SW of Beirut, Phoenicia, 1949 (IGCH 1589 = EH I, 104) Closure: c. 204 B.C. Contents: 4 AR Ptolemy IV Sidon: 1 Sarapis and Isis tetradrachm (Sv. 1186 var.; CPE 933) Tyre: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 1177 var.; CPE 922) Ascalon: 1 Sarapis and Isis tetradrachm, dated regnal year 4 = 219/8 (Sv. 1188; CPE 941) Other contents: 1 Alexandrian tetradrachm of Ptolemy V Disposition: Dispersed Seyrig (1973), no. 41. Jordan, 1987 (CH VIII, 320 = EH I, 99) Closure: 244/3 B.C. Burial: probably 198 B.C. Contents: 9 AR tetradrachms Ptolemy I Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm of 25 obols (Sv. 266; CPE 184) 1 standard tetradrachm (Sv. 252; CPE 132) Ptolemy II Sidon: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 713, 749: CPE 505, 537) Tyre: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 644; CPE 561) Ptolemais (Ake): 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 780; CPE 653) Ioppe : 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 811; CPE 674) Ptolemy III Tyre: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 4 = 244/3 B.C. (Sv. 1019; CPE 842) Gaza: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 2 = 246/5 B.C. (Sv. 1045; CPE 883) Disposition: Commerce

486

Appendix 1



Reconstructed by A. Meadows from record of A. Spaer. Spaer observed that the coins were extremely worn, consistent with a date of deposit at the end of the third century, but that their patination was completely different from that of the Syria, 1981 hoard. Phoenicia (CH VIII, 306) = Aradus?, before 1981 (CH VIII, 311 = EH I, 68) Contents: 37? Ptolemaic AR Ptolemy I–Ptolemy III Disposition: in trade CH VIII, pl. xxxvii, 5–37; pl. xxxviii, 1–12 These are duplicative entries, based on the photos and written record submitted by P. Ilisch of Münster, which became separated at the British Museum. The lot he reported was a portion of the Syria, 1981 hoard (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105) and the contents are subsumed there. Lebanon, 1983 (CH VIII, 332) Contents: 8 Ptolemaic tetradrachms Ptolemies I, II, and IV CH VIII, pl. xli, 19–23; pl. xlii, 1–3 This is now considered to be a lot from the Syria, 1981 hoard (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105) and the contents are subsumed there. South Lebanon (CH VIII, 344) Contents: 133 AR Ptolemy I‒Ptolemy V Disposition: In commerce A. G. Malloy, Winter Catalogue (1983), pp. 3–7, pl. i–ii This is a portion of the Syria, 1981 hoard (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105) and the contents are incorporated there. Syria, 1981 (CH VII, 90 = CH VIII, 339 = EH I, 105) Closure: 198 B.C. Contents: 1000+ AR Ptolemy I Alexandria: 31 tetradrachms of 25 obols (Sv. 201, 244[2], 268, 266[16], 214[11]; CPE 156, 181[2], 182, 184[16], 190[11) 220 standard tetradrachms (Sv. 252[22], 247[25], 264[2], 265[15], 259[15], 263[15], 256[31], 253[10], 248[6], 261[2], 262, 249, 251, 250[2], 255[46], 254[8], 257[14], 205[3], 350; CPE 132[22], 137[25], 142a[15], 142b[2], 147[15], 151[15], 154[31], 157[10], 158[6], 160[2], 161, 163, 164, 165[2], 168[46], 170[8], 173[14], 174[3], 175) Uncertain Mint 7, provincial: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 344[2]; CPE 210[2]) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 16 tetradrachms (Sv. 354[2], 362[4], 358[7], 375, 376, 353; CPE 220[2], 222[4], 224[7], 227, 228, 229) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 30 tetradrachms (Sv. 245[6], 246[3], 368[14], 378[3], 366[4]; CPE 230[6], 231[3], 235[14], 237[3], 239[4]) Tyre: 3 tetradrachms (Meadows 301; Sv. 632[2]; CPE 243, 245[2]) Ptolemy I or II: 7 tetradrachms with illegible monograms Ptolemy II Alexandria: 10 tetradrachms (Sv. 548[3], 567, 596[3], 555, 436[2]; CPE 277[3], 283, 302[3], 306, 382[2]) 2 tetradrachms in name of Arsinoe Philadelphus (Sv. 429, 456; CPE 376, 386) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 21 tetradrachms (Sv. 349[3], 365[9], 764[4], 530, 396, 397; CPE 413[3], 414[9], 415[4], 418, 423, 427)





Hoards

487

Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 5 tetradrachms (Sv. 544[2], 542, 402; Meadows 354; CPE 441[2], 442, 455, 465) Uncertain Mint 19, on Cyprus: 14 tetradrachms (Sv. 531[3], 388[4], 390[7]; CPE 466[3], 472[4], 473[7]) Uncertain Mint 20, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Meadows 332; CPE 476) Illegible Cypriote: 1 tetradrachm (Meadows 364) Uncertain Mint 21, perhaps on Cyprus: 7 tetradrachms (Sv. 371[7]; CPE 497[7]) Uncertain Mint 22, perhaps on Cyprus, perhaps Ptolemais (Ake): 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 373[2]; CPE 500[2]) Sidon: 133 tetradrachms (Sv. 719[2], 713[78], 717, 722[2], 723[3], 728, 730[2], 731[3], 732[4], 733[5], 734, 736[5], 739[7], 738, 740[2], 741, 743, 744, 749[3], 751, 753, 755[4]; Meadows 670, unidentifiable[3]; CPE 503[2], 505[78], 506, 509[2], 510[3], 514, 517[2], 518[3], 520[4], 521[5], 522a, 523b[5], 524[7], 525, 527[2], 528, 530, 531, 537[3], 539, 542, 545[4], 546, unidentifiable[3]) Tyre: 177 tetradrachms (Sv. 626[2], 634[3], 637[20], 640[2], 644[76], 645[4], 646[4], 647[2], 648, 649[10], 654, 655, 656[3], 657[2], 659, 660[4], 662[2], 664[3], 668[2], 669, 670[3], 675[4], 676[2], 677[6], 687, 691, 692, 697, 700; CPE 552[2], 554[3], 556[20], 558[2], 561[76], 562[4], 563[4], 564[2], 565, 566[10], 572a, 573, 574a[3], 577[2], 578, 582[4], 587[2], 590[3], 591[2], 592, 593[3], 599[4], 600[2], 601[6], 613, 624, 625, 633, 636, plus unspecified varieties of year 30, year 32[2], year 33, year 34, and 6 illegible or unidentifiable) Ptolemais (Ake): 31 tetradrachms (Sv. 765, 770[2], 773[8], 774[3], 772, 775[2], 777[3], 780[2], 782[4], 783[2], 784[2]; Meadows 708; CPE 637, 645[2], 647a[8], 647b[3], 648, 649[2], 650[3], 653[2], 654[4], 655[2], 656[2], plus 1 illegible) Ptolemais (Ake) or Ioppe: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 780 or 808‒810 ; CPE 653 or 672‒673) Ioppe: 23 tetradrachms (Sv. 800[2], 803, 802[2], 807[2], 810[3], 813, 812 or 813, 815[2], 814[4], 816[2]; Meadows 716, 728, 733; CPE 664b[2], 665a, 665b, 666[2], 671[2], 672[3], 675a, 675a or b, 676a[2], 677a[4], 677b, 678[2], 680b, plus 1 unidentifiable) Gaza: 5 tetradrachms (Sv. 829, 830[2], 833[2]; CPE 690, 692[2], 695[2]) Uncertain Mint 23, imitating Ptolemais (Ake): 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 778β; Meadows 739; CPE 697, 701) Unidentified: 1 tetradrachm (Meadows 340) Ptolemy III Alexandria: 3 tetradrachms (Sv. 1001[3]; CPE 732[3]) Aenus: 1 tetradrachm (Meadows 742; CPE 754) Uncertain Mint 28, perhaps in northwest Asia Minor: 1‒2 tetradrachms (Sv. 894[1‒2]; CPE 760[1‒2]) Uncertain Mint 29, in Ionia, near Ephesus: 1‒2 tetradrachms (Sv. 917a[1‒2]; CPE 767[1‒2]) Ephesus (I): 2‒4 tetradrachms (Meadows 745[1‒2], 746[1‒2]; CPE 772[1‒2], 775[1‒2]) Perhaps Uncertain Mint 30: 1 tetradrachm (cf. Sv. 1001; CPE 786) Uncertain Mint 31, perhaps in Cilicia Pedias: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 914; CPE 798) Sidon: 8 tetradrachms, including year 23 = 225/4 B.C. (Sv. 1026[2], 1027[2], 1029, 1033[2], 757; CPE 816[2], 817[2], 819, 823[2], 825) Tyre: 5 tetradrachms, including year 23 = 225/4 B.C. (Sv. 1016, 1019[3], 703; CPE 839, 842[3], 853) Ptolemais (Ake): 1 tetradrachm, of year 23 = 225/4 B.C. (Sv. 786; CPE 866) Ioppe: 2 tetradrachms, dated year 2 = 246/5 B.C. (Sv. 1039[2]; CPE 868[2]) Ptolemy IV Alexandria: 12 Sarapis and Isis tetradrachms (Sv. 1123[12]; CPE 892[12]) Uncertain Mint 34: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 1122; CPE 899) Perhaps Uncertain Mint 36: 2 tetradrachms, dated year 3 = 220/19 (or 203/2) B.C. (Meadows 901‒902; CPE 903[2]) Sidon: 1 tetradrachm (Meadows 804; CPE 918) Tyre: 2 tetradrachms (Meadows 803; Sv. 1180; CPE 924, 926) Ptolemais (Ake): 1 tetradrachm (Meadows 777; CPE 932) Uncertain Mint 39: 2 tetradrachms, marked G (Meadows 782‒783; CPE 943[2]) Uncertain Mint 40: 4 tetradrachms, 2 marked G, 2 unmarked (CPE 947[2], 948[2]) Era coinage (Uncertain Mint 42): 10 tetradrachms, to year 52 (Sv. 853[3], 849[3], 851var., 851[2]; Mørkholm 28‒29; CPE 949[3], 950[3], 952, 953[2], 957)

488

Appendix 1



Other contents: 1 octadrachm and 150+ tetradrachms of Ptolemy V Some mnaieia reported, including at least 2 modern forgeries of Ptolemy V portrait mnaieia Disposition: Dispersed; some acquired by Danish Royal Cabinet and published in SNG Copenhagen Suppl. Reconstructed by A. Meadows from notes and photos filed with British Museum. Meadows discovered that several parcels of the hoard were listed as separate hoards in CH VIII. Phoenicia (CH VIII, 306) and Aradus?, before 1981 (CH VIII, 311) represent duplicate entries of a lot seen at Münster, resulting from an accidental separation of P. Ilisch’s photos and notes. Syria, 1985 (CH VIII, 323 = EH I, 90), Lebanon, 1983 (CH VIII, 332) and South Lebanon (CH VIII, 344) are also fragments of the Syria, 1981 hoard. Balatah (anc. Shechem), Samaria, 1960 (IGCH 1588 = EH I, 108) Closure: 198 B.C. Contents: 35 AR. Pot hoard from excavations Ptolemy I Alexandria: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 252, 255; CPE 132, 168) Imitative tetradrachm based on Sv. 256/CPE 154 Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 368, 366; CPE 235, 239) Ptolemy II Alexandria: 1 Ptolemy Soter tetradrachm of C series (Sv. 433; CPE 379) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 764; CPE 415) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 402; CPE 455) Sidon: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 713–715[2]; CPE 505[2]) Tyre: 3 tetradrachms, to year 32 = 254/3 B.C. (Sv. 644, 659, 664; CPE 561, 578, 590) Ptolemais (Ake): 3 tetradrachms, to year 31 = 255/4 B.C. (Sv. 769var., 770, 773 or 774; CPE 643, 645, 647) Gaza: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 827; CPE 688) Unidentified: 1 tetradrachm Ptolemy III Sidon: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 2 = 246/5 B.C. (Sv. 1025; CPE 815) Ptolemy IV Tyre: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 1180; CPE 926) Ptolemais (Ake): 2 tetradrachms (Sellers 19, 47; CPE 911, 932) Uncertain Mint 41: 1 tetradrachm (CPE 948A) Other contents: 12 tetradrachms of Ptolemy V Disposition: Unknown Campbell, BA 1960, pp. 104–105 illus. Sellers (1962), pp. 87–92 illus. Kadman (1967), hoard 7 Duyrat (2010), pp. 98–99 Carlen (2014) Madaba (anc. Madeba), c. 30 km S of Amman, c. 1919 (IGCH 1592 = EH I, 112) Closure: 198 B.C. Contents: 6+ AR Ptolemy I Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm of 25 obols (Sv. 185; CPE 186) Ptolemy II Sidon: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 33 = 253/2 B.C. (Sv. 740; CPE 527) Ptolemy IV Era coinage (Uncertain Mint 42): 1 tetradrachm, dated year 55 = 208/7 B.C. (Mørkholm 31; CPE 960) Other contents: 3 tetradrachms of Ptolemy V Disposition: London 6 Jenkins (1967), INCJ, p. 69, note 26 (claiming latest coin Ptolemy VI, not Ptolemy V as stated in IGCH) Syria, 1971 (CH II, 81 = CH X, 289 = EH I, 109)





Hoards

489

Closure: 195/4 B.C. Contents: 90 AR Ptolemy I Uncertain Mint 7, provincial: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 344; CPE 210) Ptolemy II Sidon: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 32 = 254/3 B.C. (Sv. 739; CPE 524) Ptolemy IV Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 1123; CPE 892) Other Ptolemaic contents : 4 tetradrachms of Ptolemy V Other contents: Antigonus Doson; Philip V; posthumous Alexanders of Megalopolis, Sinope, Heracleia Pontica, Pergamum, Miletus, Chios, Samos, Rhodes, Phaselis (to year 19), Aspendus (to year 18), Perge (to year 26), Aradus (to 195/4 B.C.), Gerrha; civic issues of Ephesus, Alabanda, Side; Seleucus I, Antiochus I, Antiochus Hierax, Antiochus III Le Rider (1998c) Meadows (2009), pp. 53–57 Dniyé, near Safita (Aradian Peraea), N. Phoenicia, 1952 (IGCH 1538 = EH I, 110) Closure: 189/8 B.C. Contents: 41 AR Ptolemy I Alexandria: 4 tetradrachms (Sv. 252, 247, 265, 254; CPE 132, 137, 142, 170) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 375; CPE 227) Ptolemy II Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 365, 530; CPE 414, 418) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 402; CPE 455) Sidon: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 29 = 257/6 B.C. (Sv. 731; CPE 518) Tyre: 2 tetradrachms, to year 33 = 253/2 B.C. (Sv. 675; Trésors 5.31; CPE 585, 599) Ptolemy III Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 1001; CPE 732) Ptolemy IV Era coinage (Uncertain Mint 42): 5 tetradrachms to year 51 = 212/1B.C. (Sv. 849[2], 851, 852; Trésors 5.28; CPE 950[2], 953, 954, 955) Other contents: Alexander III (incl. Aradus year 42, Phaselis year 26), Lysimachus, Antiochus II, Antiochus Hierax Disposition: Dispersed Seyrig (1973), no. 5 Seyrig believed this hoard was formed in two stages. The first was defined by coins of Aradus, struck close to the place of burial, of which the latest is dated year 42 (218/7 B.C.) The era coins (which Seyrig attributed doubtfully to Cyprus under Ptolemy II) run down to year 51 (212/1 B.C.) and probably represent a component that entered the hoard as a group. The closing coin is a tetradrachm of Phaselis dated year 26 (193 B.C., according to the chronology of C. Boehringer). According to the lower chronology proposed by A. R. Meadows (2009), the date would be 188/7 B.C. Jericho area, c. 1991 (CH VIII, 412 = EH I, 111) Closure: 171/0 B.C. Lot A Contents: 16 AR Ptolemy II Uncertain Mint 23, imitating Ptolemais (Ake): 1 tetradrachm (CPE 698A) Ptolemy III Ptolemais (Ake): 1 tetradrachm of year 23 = 225/4 B.C. (Sv. 786; CPE 866) Other contents: 2 era tetradrachms of Ptolemy V, 12 tetradrachms of Ptolemy VI (of which 10 are era

490

Appendix 1



tetradrachms) Disposition: A. Spaer Lot B Contents: 22+ AR Ptolemy IV Era coinage (Uncertain Mint 42): 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 853, 849; CPE 949, 950) Other contents: 20 era tetradrachms of Ptolemy VI Disposition: commerce (21), British Museum (1) Recorded by J. Olivier (2012), CT 52. The two lots to be published by A. Meadows Ma’aret en-Numan, Lebanon, 1980 (CH VIII, 433 = EH I, 114) Closure: c. 162 B.C. Contents: 536 AR Ptolemy IV Era coinage (Uncertain Mint 42): 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 851; CPE 953) Other contents: Seleucid to Antiochus V, Attalid, posthumous Alexanders, posthumous Lysimachi, Pergamum, Mytilene, Cos, Side, Ephesus, Aradus Disposition: In commerce Mattingly (1993) Lebanon, 1985? (CH VIII, 459 = EH I, 117) Closure: 147/6 B.C. Contents: AR Ptolemy IV Era coinage (Uncertain Mint 42): 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 849; CPE 949) Other Ptolemaic contents : 2 tetradrachms of Ptolemy VI Other contents: Macedon First Meris 1, Athens New Style 4, Myrina 4, Seleucid to Alexander I (11), Seleucid “eagles” of Berytus, Sidon (3), and Tyre (2), autonomous Tyre (intrusive) Disposition: In commerce J. Olivier (2012), no. 25. Syria, 1989 (CH VIII, 462 = EH I, 103) Closure and burial: 146/5 B.C. Contents: 3 Ptolemaic AV, 40 Ptolemaic AR Ptolemy I as king Alexandria: 3 tetradrachms (Sv. 247, 254[2]; CPE 137, 170[2]) Ptolemy II Alexandria: 2 gold mnaieia in name of Arsinoe Philadelphus (Sv. 460, 471; CPE 388, 389) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 764, 528; CPE 415, 416) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 544; CPE 441) Sidon: 5 tetradrachms, to year 25 = 261/0 B.C. (Sv. 713, 717[3], 723; CPE 505, 506[3], 510) Tyre: 4 tetradrachms, to year 24 = 262/1 B.C. (Sv. 644, 646, 649[2]; CPE 561, 563, 566[2]) Ptolemais (Ake): 1 tetradrachm, dated year 31 = 255/4 B.C. (Sv. 771; CPE 646a) Gaza: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 37 = 249/8 B.C. (Sv. 833; CPE 695) Ptolemy III Alexandria: 1 gold pentadrachm in name of Berenice II, Attic weight (Sv. 978; CPE 737) Ptolemy IV Uncertain Mint 39: 1 tetradrachm, unmarked (pl. lxi, 8; CPE 944) Other contents: 1 tetradrachm and c. 25 didrachms of Ptolemy VI (mainly era didrachms) Disposition: In trade CH VIII, pl. lx, 26–32; pl. lxi, 1–26; pl. lxii, 1–10 J. Olivier (2012), no. 28.





Hoards

491

Olivier in EH I Olivier noted the discrepant makeup of this hoard compared with others containing era didrachms and the surprisingly fresh condition of the third-century issues. He concluded that two separate hoards were confused in the report, one comprising coins of the first four Ptolemies, the other comprising coins of Ptolemy VI. Nablus (anc. Neapolis), Samaria, 1891? (IGCH 1601 = CH IX, 539 = EH I, 129) Closure: 104 B.C., burial probably in 102 B.C. Contents: 400 AR Ptolemy I Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 354; CPE 220) Other Ptolemaic contents: 1 tetradrachm of Ptolemy VI or coregency of Ptolemy VI and VIII, 1 tetradrachm of Ptolemy VIII Other contents: Antiochus VII (15, Tyre), Demetrius II second reign (16, Tyre), Tyre autonomous (2, to year 21) Disposition: Hamburger sale, 13 June 1892, lots 2105–2114 Hamburger, ZfN 1892, p. 329, note 1 L. Kadman (1967), hoard 15 The note in the Hamburger catalogue claims that the hoard also included 3 fourth-century double shekels of Sidon, but these coins are obviously intrusive.

Hoard from Persia Tarik Darreh (Kangavar), Hamadan province, 1974 (CH II, 70 = CH VIII, 312 = EH I, 98) Closure: c. 226–225 B.C. Contents: c. 62 AV Ptolemy II Alexandria: 1 mnaieion in name of Theoi Adelphoi (Sv. 603; CPE 313) Other contents: Alexander III 25+ staters; Seleucus I 2; Antiochus II 9; Seleucus II 25; Carthage 1; Cyrene 1 Houghton (1980) (Seleucid material only) Houghton and Lorber (2002), Vol. II, p. 116 (Seleucid material only)

Hoard from Afghanistan Ai Khanoum, 1973 (CH III, 53) Closure: 170–160 B.C. Contents: 63 tetradrachms Ptolemy I Memphis: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 12; CPE 30) Other contents: Seleucid (7), Graeco-Bactrian kings Petitot-Biehler (1975)

Hoards from Cyprus Aghios Ioannis, near Larnaca (ancient Citium), 1949 (IGCH 1470 = EH I, 59) Closure: c. 294 B.C. Contents: c. 58 AR Early Hellenistic Egypt, including early satrapy of Ptolemy I Memphis: 1 Heracles/Zeus tetradrachm (Price 3971; CPE 20) Ptolemy I as satrap Memphis: 1 Heracles/Zeus tetradrachm (Sv. 12; CPE 30) Other contents: Alexander III, Philip III Disposition: Nicosia

492

Appendix 1



Larnaca (ancient Citium), 1870 (IGCH 1472 = CH X, 259 = EH I, 58) Closure: c. 294 B.C. Contents: 1000+ AV in bronze vase Early Hellenistic Egypt, including early satrapy of Ptolemy I Memphis: 3–4 gold staters (Price 3965, 3966, 3967, perhaps 3968; CPE 7, 10, 14, perhaps 16) Ptolemy I as satrap Alexandria: 3 gold staters (Sv. 41[2], 36; CPE 45[2], 55) Uncertain Mint 4, perhaps Corinth: 1 gold stater (Sv. 38α; CPE 205) Other contents: Philip II, Alexander III, Philip III Disposition: London 96; Berlin 13 Lang, NC 1871, pp. 229–234 Wroth, NC 1903, p. 320 E. T. Newell (1923b), pp. 10‒11 M. J. Price (1969), pp. 4–8 V. Arena (2003), pp. 53–57, identified a further portion of this hoard in the F. Gilbertson collection, now in the British Museum Ora, district of Larnaca, c. 20 km N of anc. Amathus, 1947 (IGCH 1473 = EH I, 60) Closure: c. 215 B.C. Contents: 116 AR Ptolemy I Alexandria: Perhaps 2 tetradrachms of 25 obols (Sv. 211(?), 211var.(?); cf. CPE 167[2?]) 33 standard tetradrachms (Sv. 205[2], 247[2], 247?, 247 or 248, 248, 248?, 252, 253, 254[2], 255[11], 256?, 257, 259[4], 263[3], 265; CPE 132, 137[2‒4], 142, 147[4], 151[3], 154(?), 157, 158[1‒3], 168[11], 170[2], 173, 174[2]) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 3 tetradrachms (Sv. 362[2], 375[2]; CPE 222[2], 227[2]) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 5 tetradrachms (Sv. 245[2], 246[2], 368; CPE 230[2], 231[2], 235) Ptolemy I or II Probably Alexandria: 5 tetradrachm (illegible) Ptolemy II Alexandria: 6 tetradrachms (Sv. 548[2], 548?, 552, 555, 596?; CPE 277[2‒3], 302(?)305, 306) Tarsus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 911; CPE 402) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 4 tetradrachms (Sv. 528[3], 529, 530[2]; CPE 416[3], 418[2], 421) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 4 tetradrachms (Sv. 538[2], 541, 544; CPE 438[2], 441, 448) Uncertain Mint 19, on Cyprus: 4 tetradrachms (Sv. 388, 390, 531, 532; CPE 466, 467, 472, 473) Uncertain Mint 22, perhaps on Cyprus, perhaps Ptolemais (Ake): 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 373; CPE 500) Tyre: 16 tetradrachms (Sv. 637[3], 644[4], 649, 651[2], 652, 658, 659, 660, 663‒667[2]; CPE 556[3], 561[4], 566, 569[2], 570, 578, 580, 582, 588‒593[2]) Sidon: 15 tetradrachms (Sv. 713[9], 725, 728, 731, 732, 737, 738; CPE 505[9], 511, 514, 518, 520, 523a[2], 525) Ptolemais (Ake): 3 tetradrachms (Sv. 775, 777, 780; CPE 649, 650, 653) Gaza: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 833 ; CPE 695) Ptolemy III Sidon: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 1025[2]; CPE 815[2]) Ptolemy IV Uncertain Mint 34 or 35: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 1121 or 1122; CPE 899 or 901) Era coinage (Uncertain Mint 42): 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 853; CPE 949) Unc. king and mint: 6 tetradrachms (not found and not described in the museum register) Disposition: Archaeological Museum of Nicosia Vlamis (1974), p. 77 (no. 133) The hoard was reexamined and recorded by J. Olivier.





Hoards

493

Cyprus, before 1916 (Olivier, CT 51 = EH I, 61) Closure: c. 174 B.C. or shortly after (Olivier) Contents: 33 AR Ptolemy I Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm of 25 obols (subaeratum) (Sv. 266; CPE 184) 2 standard tetradrachms (Sv. 256, 259; CPE 147, 154) Ptolemy II Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 399, 544; CPE 441, 461) Tyre: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 644; CPE 561) Ioppe: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 802, 807; CPE 666, 671) Uncertain Mint 23, imitating Ptolemais (Ake): 2 tetradrachms (CPE 697, 699) Ptolemy III Uncertain Mint 23, imitating Ptolemais (Ake): 1 tetradrachm, dated year 2 = 246/5 B.C. (Sv. 1035var.; CPE 886A) Ptolemy IV Era coinage (Uncertain Mint 42): 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 851; CPE 953) Other contents : 10 tetradrachms of Ptolemy V, 12 tetradrachms of Ptolemy VI (first sole reign) Disposition: National Museum of Antiquities, Bucarest Poenaru Bordea (1969), pp. 221–224; Mørkholm and Kromann (1984); an additional 27 coins recorded by T. Faucher, with supplementary information provided by A. Vilcu, conservator of the museum. Olivier (2015) The actual findspot is unknown, but the contents leave little doubt that the hoard was formed on Cyprus. Cyprus, 1982 (CH VIII, 430 = CH VIII, 438 = CH X, 296 = EH I, 63) Closure: 172/1 B.C. Burial: 168 B.C. Contents: 25 AR Ptolemy I as king Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 259[with Byzantium c/m]; CPE 147[with Byzantium c/m]) Ptolemy II Uncertain Mint 22, perhaps on Cyprus, perhaps Ptolemais (Ake): 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 373; CPE 500) Ptolemais (Ake): 1 tetradrachm, dated year 25 = 261/0 B.C. (Sv. 765; CPE 637) Ptolemy IV Sidon: 1 Sarapis-Isis tetradrachm (Sv. 1186; CPE 920) Ascalon: 1 Sarapis-Isis tetradrachm dated year 4 = 219/8 B.C. (Sv. 1188; CPE 941) Other contents: 4 tetradrachms of Ptolemy V, 7 tetradrachms of Ptolemy VI, 11 Cypriote silver minors Disposition: Copenhagen Mørkholm (1987); Hazzard (1998) Olivier (2012), CT 5 Cyprus, 1981(?) (CH VIII, 438) is a duplicative entry for this hoard. Galatia, district of Famagusta, 1939 (IGCH 1474 = EH I, 64) Closure: 163/2 B.C. Contents: 123 AR, 1 AE Ptolemy I Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm of 25 obols (Sv. 190; CPE 186) 13 standard tetradrachms (Sv. 265[3], 263, 256[3], 255[4], 254, 205; CPE 142[3], 150, 154[3], 168[4], 170, 174) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 358; CPE 224) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 246, 368; CPE 231, 235)

494

Appendix 1



Unidentified: 4 tetradrachms Ptolemy II Alexandria: 4 tetradrachms (Sv. 548[3], 567; CPE 277[3], 283) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 4 tetradrachms (Sv. 764, 525, 393var.[2]; CPE 415, 419, 434[2]) Uncertain Mint 19, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 535; CPE 470) Sidon: 6 tetradrachms, to year 36 = 250/49 B.C. (Sv. 713[4], 731, 749; CPE 505[4], 518, 537) Tyre: 17 tetradrachms, to year 39 = 247/6 B.C. (Sv. 626[2], 637[3], 644[7], 646, 648, 677, 678, 700; CPE 552[2], 556[3], 561[7], 563, 565, 601, 602, 636) Ptolemais (Ake): 9 tetradrachms, to year 34 = 252/1 B.C. (Sv. 765[2], 770, 771, 777[3], 778[2]; CPE 637[2], 645, 646b, 650[3], 651[2]) Ptolemais or Ioppe: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 32 = 254/3 B.C. (Sv. 775 or 803; CPE 649 or 665) Ioppe: 3 tetradrachms, to year 32 = 254/3 B.C. (Sv. 798, 802, 803; CPE 662, 665, 666) Uncertain Mint 23, imitating Ptolemais (Ake): 1 tetradrachm (CPE 697) Unidentified: 1 bronze Ptolemy III Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 1001; CPE 732) Unattributed issue of Ionia: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 909β; CPE 801) Ptolemy IV Alexandria: 3 tetradrachms (Sv. 1123[2], 1124var. with ; CPE 892[2], 893) Uncertain Mint 35: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 1121; CPE 901) Perhaps Uncertain Mint 36: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 3 (CPE 903, possibly an issue of Ptolemy V) Sidon: 1 tetradrachm Sv. 1186; CPE 920) Tyre: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 1181; CPE 928) Era coinage (Uncertain Mint 42): 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 848var; CPE 957) Other contents: 20 tetradrachms of Ptolemy V, 11 tetradrachms of Ptolemy VI, 9 unattributed Disposition: Archaeological Museum, Nicosia Wilson, Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 1937–1939, pp. 204–205. “The bronze coin mentioned may be the core of a pl. tetradrachm” Olivier (2012), CT 6, identifying many of the specific varieties in the hoard. Olivier was unable to locate 15 of the hoard coins.

Hoards from Asia Minor Karadege Mevki, Turkey, unknown date (CH X, 245) Closure: Last quarter of the fourth century Contents: 190 AR of Alexandrine type Memphis: 2 Other contents: Alexander III tetradrachms of various mints Disposition: Gaziantep Museum F. Duyrat reports that the issues of Memphis cannot be identified. Akçakale, Osrhoene, Turkey, 1958 (CH X, 251) Closure: 318/7 B.C. Contents: 190 AR of Alexandrine type Satrapy of Ptolemy I Memphis: 1 tetradrachm (Zervos issue 1; CPE 27) Other contents: Alexander III tetradrachms of various mints Disposition: Istanbul Le Rider and Olçay (1988) Duyrat (2005a), pp. 132–133 Asia Minor, c. 1950 (IGCH 1442) Closure: c. 310 B.C.





Hoards

495

Contents: 24+ AV Early Hellenistic Egypt (Memphis): 1 gold stater (Price 3961; CPE 2) Other contents: Alexander III “Amphipolis,” c. 330–c. 320: 1 stater (Price 164) Miletus (or Caunus): 4 staters c. 325–c. 323: 2 staters (Price 2077, 2079) c. 323–c. 319: 2 staters (Price 2094, 2095) Sardes, c. 334–c. 323: 4 staters (Price 2531[4]) Tarsus, c. 327–c. 323: 1 stater (Price 3010) Citium, c. 325–c. 320: 1 stater (Price 3101) Salamis, c. 332–c. 323: 5 staters (Price 3128[3], 3129, 3133) Sidon, undated issues, 333–305: 4 staters (Price 3458, 3460, 3463[2]) Babylon, Waggoner Issue VIII, Series 1–3, 316–311/0: 1 stater (Price 3707var.) Disposition: New York 9, including SNG Berry 170 and 186 Record of varieties in ANS http://nomisma.org/id/IGCH1442 A date after 311 for the Babylon issue is suggested by Houghton and Lorber (2002), Part 1, p. 40, but the contents of this hoard seem to vindicate the date range given by Price, which followed Waggoner’s PhD. Asia Minor, c. 1970 Closure: c. 292–280 B.C. Contents: 298 AR Satrapy of Ptolemy I Memphis: 1 Heracles/Zeus tetradrachm (Price 3971; CPE 20) Other contents: Alexander III, Philip III, Seleucus I Disposition: recorded from commerce, then dispersed? M. Kampmann, “Un trésor d’Alexandres,” RN 1972, pp. 151–168 Manissa (anc. Magnesia ad Sipylum), Lydia, 1971 (IGCH 1293) Burial: c. 280 B.C. Contents: 24 AR Satrapy of Ptolemy I Memphis: 1 Heracles/Zeus tetradrachm (Sv. 12; CPE 30) Other contents: Alexander III, Philip III, Lysimachus, Seleucus I Disposition: dispersed H. Pfeiler, SM 21 (1971), pp. 61–67 Aydıncık, Cilicia, 1974 (CH VIII, 284 = CH IX, 486 = EH I, 51) Closure: c. 260 B.C. Ptolemy II Alexandria: 1 mnaieion in name of Theoi Adelphoi (Sv. 603; CPE 313) 15 pentekontadrachma in name of Theoi Adelphoi (Sv. 604[15]; CPE 314[15]) 1 mnaieion in name of Arsinoe Philadelphus (Sv. 408; CPE 369) Disposition: 17 pieces deposited in Ziraat Bankasi, remainder dispersed Davesne (1994b) The authorities recovered only a portion of the hoard after its discovery. If other varieties of Arsinoe mnaieia were originally present, the hoard’s closure would be later. Sögütlüdere, Fethiye, before 1989 (CH VIII, 246 = CH IX, 492 = EH I, 53) Closure: 257/6 B.C. Contents: 18 tetradrachms

496

Appendix 1



Ptolemy I as king Alexandria: 7 tetradrachms (Sv. 252[2], 265, 259[2], 256, 254; CPE 132[2], 142, 147[2], 154, 170) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 354[2]; CPE 220[2]) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 368; CPE 235) Ptolemy II Alexandria: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 548[2]; CPE 277[2]) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 365; CPE 414) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 544; CPE 441) Sidon: 3 tetradrachms, to year 29 = 257/6 B.C. (Sv. 713[2], 731; CPE 505[2], 518) Disposition: Fethiye Archaeological Museum Ashton, Arslan, and Dervişağaoğlu (1996) Usak (ancient Temenothyrae), Turkey, 1966 (CH II, 68 = CH VIII, 287 = EH I, 54) Closure: 256/5 B.C. Contents: 112+ AR Ptolemy I Alexandria: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 255, 257; CPE 168, 173) Ptolemy II Sidon: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 713–715; CPE 505) Tyre: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 22 = 264/3 B.C. (Sv. 647; CPE 564) Ptolemais (Ake): 1 tetradrachm, dated year 39 = 256/5 B.C. (Sv. 770; CPE 645) Other contents: Rhodes, 107 didrachms (latest as BMC 43f.) Disposition: In commerce Leschhorn (1986) R.H.J. Ashton, NC 1989, p. 13 Meydancıkkale, Cilicia Trachea, 1980 (CH VII, 80 = CH VIII, 308 = CH X, 269 = EH I, 55) Closure: 243/2 B.C. Ptolemy I as satrap Memphis: 4 tetradrachms (Meyd. 2208–2211; CPE 20[3], 30) Ptolemy I as king Alexandria: 3 portrait octadrachms (Sv. 198, 233, Meyd. 3058; CPE 130, 140, 145) 7 tetradrachms of 25 obols (Sv. 234[6], 267; CPE 141[6], 183) 487 standard tetradrachms (Sv. 252[58], 247[39], 265[94], 259[36], 263[25], 256[58], 253[20], 248[16], 260[2], 249[5], 250, 255[24], 254[24], 257[35], 205[42], 350[3], 348[5]; CPE 132[58], 137[39], 142[94], 147[36], 151[25], 154[58], 157[20], 158[16], 159[2], 163[5], 165, 168[24], 170[24], 173[35], 174[42], 175[3], 176[5]) Uncertain Mint 7, provincial: 3 tetradrachms (Sv. 344[3]; CPE 210[3]) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 132 tetradrachms (Meyd. 4744, Sv. 354[30], 362[17], 358[37], 355[13], 375[19], 376[10], 353[5]; CPE 217, 220[30], 222[17], 224[37], 225[13], 227[19], 228[10], 229[5]) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 168 tetradrachms (Sv. 245[11], 246[14], 368[60], 378[35], 366[48]; CPE 230[11], 231[14], 235[60], 237[35], 239[48]) Sidon: 6 tetradrachms (Sv. 716[6]; CPE 242[6]) Tyre: 3 tetradrachms (Sv. 632[3]; CPE 245[3]) Ptolemy II Alexandria: 168 tetradrachms in name of Ptolemy (Sv. 548[82], 559[9], 567[14], 574[7], 584[4], 591[7], 596[9], 552[16], 555[18], 411[2]; CPE 277[82], 281[9], 283[14], 288[7], 295[4], 299[7], 302[9], 305[16], 306[18], 377, 379) 12 decadrachms in name of Arsinoe Philadelphus (Sv. 434a, 477[2], 490, 502, 938, 939, 942, 944, 946[2], 950; CPE 324, 329[2], 332, 336, 344, 346, 349, 351, 353[2], 357) 2 tetradrachms in name in name of Arsinoe Philadelphus (Sv. 435, 456; CPE 381, 386)





Hoards

497

Uncertain Mint 15, in Asia Minor: 1 tetradrachm (Meyd. 5197; CPE 398) Uncertain Mint 16, in Asia Minor: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 607; CPE 399) Tarsus: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 911a[2]; CPE 400[2]) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 88 tetradrachms (Sv. 349, 365[17], 764[16], 528[17], 530[14], 515[15], 529[6], 398, 391[2]; CPE 413, 414[17], 415[16], 416[17], 418[14], 419[15], 421[6], 429, 431[2]) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 50 tetradrachms (Sv. 401[10], 402[6], 538[10], 539[2], 541[2], 542[7], 543[2], 544[9], 546[2]; CPE 438[10], 440[2], 441[9], 442[7], 446[2], 448[2], 449[2], 455[6], 459a[10]) Uncertain Mint 19, on Cyprus: 40 tetradrachms (Sv. 388[6], 389[8], 390[6], 524[4], 531[13], 534[2], 535; CPE 466[13], 469[2], 470, 471[4], 472[6], 473[6], 474[8]) Uncertain Mint 21, perhaps on Cyprus: 21 tetradrachms (Sv. 371[21]; CPE 497[21]) Uncertain Mint 22, perhaps on Cyprus, perhaps Ptolemais (Ake): 21 tetradrachms (Sv. 373[21]; CPE 500[21]) Sidon, 181 tetradrachms, to year 38 = 248/7 B.C. (Sv. 713[86], 714[9], 717[7], 719[8], 720, 722[5], 723[3], 724[5], 727[3], 728, 730[5], 731, 732[4], 733[4], 734[2], 736[4], 737[8], 738[4], 739[8], 740[2], 741[2], 743, 744, 745[3], 749, 751, 755; Meyd. 4688; CPE 503a[8], 503b, 505[186], 505b[9], 506[7], 508[5], 509[5], 510[3], 513[3], 514, 516, 517[5], 518, 520[4], 521[2], 522[2], 523a[8], 523b[4], 524[8], 525[4], 527[2], 528[2], 530, 531, 534[3], 537, 539, 545) Tyre, 244 tetradrachms, to year 39 = 247/6 B.C. (Sv. 626[13], 634[14], 637[67], 640[10], 644[49], 646[6], 647[7], 648, 649[13], 650[6], 651[7], 652[4], 657[4], 658[3], 659[4], 660[4], 661[5], 664[2], 668[2], 669[3], 670[3], 674, 676[2], 677[3], 682, 690, 693, 695, 700; Meyd. 4402, 4402, 4404, 4417, 4421, 4445; CPE 552[13], 554[14], 556[67], 558[10], 561[49], 563[6], 564[7], 565, 566[13], 567[6], 569[7], 570[4], 572b, 572c, 574b, 577[4], 578[4], 579, 580[3], 581, 582[4], 583[5], 590[2], 591[2], 592[3], 593a[3], 598, 599[2], 601 [3], 605, 620, 623, 626, 631, 636) Ptolemais (Ake): 38 tetradrachms, to year 37 = 249/8 B.C. (Sv. 765, 766[2], 770[7], 773[3], 774, 775[4], 777[4], 778[4], 780[4], 793[2]; Meyd. 4057–4059, 4067, 4068–4069; CPE 637, 639[2], 643a[3], 644, 645[7], 646b[2], 647a[3], 647b, 649[4], 650[4], 651[4], 653[4], 655[2]) Ioppe: 20 tetradrachms, to year 38 = 248/7 B.C. (Sv. 795[2], 796[5], 798[2], 799, 802[2], 807, 810, 813[2], 814[2], 815, 816; CPE 659[2], 660[5], 662[2], 664, 666[2], 671, 672, 675a[2], 676, 677[2], 678) Gaza: 18 tetradrachms, to year 37 = 249/8 B.C. (Sv. 824, 825, 826[3], 828, 829[5], 830[4], 832, 833; Meyd. 4011–4013; CPE 682, 684, 685, 686[3], 689a, 690[5], 692[4], 694, 695) Uncertain Mint 24, perhaps in Palestine: 1 tetradrachm (Meyd. 4010; CPE 704) Ptolemy III Uncertain Mint 27, probably provincial: 1 tetradrachm (cf. Sv. 1001; CPE 750) Uncertain Mint 30, near Ephesus: 1 tetradrachm (Meyd. 5199; CPE 781) Unattributed tetradrachm of Asia Minor (Meyd. 5201; CPE 800) Sidon: 2 tetradrachms, dated year 2 = 246/5 B.C. (Sv. 1025[2]; CPE 815[2]) Tyre: 4 tetradrachms, to year 4 = 244/3 B.C. (Sv. 1016[2], 1019[2]; CPE 839[2], 842[2]) Ptolemais (Ake): 1 tetradrachm, dated year 3 = 245/4 B.C. (Sv. 1036; CPE 858) Ioppe: 3 tetradrachms, to year 5 = 243/2 B.C. (Sv. 1042; Meyd. 4052–4053; CPE 876, 878[2]) Other contents: Alexander III, Demetrius Poliorcetes, Antigonus Gonatas, Lysimachi, Attalids, Seleucus I, Antiochus I, Antiochus II, Seleucus II Davesne, and Le Rider (1989) Callataÿ (2005b), for a reevaluation of the structure and chronology of early royal issues of Ptolemy I Turkey, 1984 (CH VIII, 305 = EH I, 56) Closure: c. 240 B.C. Contents: 83+ AR Ptolemaic: 40+ with Byzantium countermarks Other contents: Calchedon 3, Byzantium 38, Alexander III 5 (Macedonian with Callatis countermarks) Disposition: In commerce

498

Appendix 1



Antalya, 1974 (CH I, 69 = EH I, 57) Closure: 211/10 B.C.? (Olivier: end III) Contents: 37+ AV Ptolemy II Alexandria: 1 mnaieion in name of Theoi Adelphoi (Sv. 603; CPE 313) 18+ pentekontadrachma in name of Theoi Adelphoi (Sv. 614, 618[4], 604[13]; CPE 308, 310[4], 314[13]) Sidon: 1 mnaieion in name of Arsinoe Philadelphus, dated year 36 = 250/49 B.C. (Sv. 747; CPE 535) Ptolemy III Tyre: 3 mnaieia in name of Arsinoe Philadelphus, to year 4 = 244/3 B.C. (Sv. 1012, year 3, 1018; CPE 831, 837, 841) Ptolemy IV Alexandria: 1 mnaieion with radiate portrait of Ptolemy III (probably Sv. 1117; probably CPE 888) 3+ posthumous mnaieia in name of Berenice II (Sv. 1113[3+]; CPE 895[3+]) Disposition: In commerce Some photos on file in BM The entry in CH I indicates more than 4 mnaieia in name of Arsinoe Philadelphus but provides no further information as to their mints or dates. Gordium, 1961 (IGCH 1405) = “Gordion hoard V” Closure: c. 205 B.C. Contents: 100 AR. Pot hoard from excavations Early Hellenistic Egypt, including early satrapy of Ptolemy I Memphis: 1 Heracles/Alexander tetradrachm (Price 3971; CPE 21) Other contents: Alexander III, Philip III, Demetrius Poliorcetes, Antigonus Gonatas, Lysimachus, Nicomedes I, Prusias I, Eumenes I, Perge, Seleucus I, Antiochus I, Antiochus II, Seleucus II, Seleucus III, Antiochus III, Abyath’a Disposition: Ankara Cox (1965), pp. 33–51, illus. Mektepini, 1956 (IGCH 1410) Closure: c. 195 B.C. Contents : 752 AR Ptolemy I as satrap Memphis: 1 tetradrachm (Demanhur 4761; CPE 30) Other contents: Alexanders (mostly posthumous), Philip III, Antigonus Gonatas, Antigonus Doson, Philip V; Lysimachi; Prusias I; Alabanda; Side; Seleucus I, Antiochus I, Antiochus II, Seleucus II, Antiochus Hierax, Seleucus III, Antiochus III; Abyath’a Disposition : Istanbul 686; Paris Olcay and Seyrig (1965)

Hoards from the Aegean Keratokambos, Crete, 1992 (CH IX, 165 = EH I, 4) Closure: 270 B.C. Contents: 35 AR Ptolemy I: 1 tetradrachm (Alexandria, Sv. 255; CPE 168) Ptolemy II: 1 tetradrachm (Alexandria, as Meyd. 3682; CPE 299) Other contents: Leucas, Aegina, pseudo-Aeginetan, Corinth, Argos, Gortyna, Cydonia, Phalasarna, Ephesus, Cyrene Disposition: Dispersed





Hoards

499

Touratsoglou (1995), p. 50 Chryssanthaki (2005), p. 174, no. 2 Ios, Cyclades, 1936? (IGCH 204 = EH I, 22) Burial: late third century Contents: c. 35 AR Ptolemy I Other contents: Alexander III, Athens (4th century), Ios, Rhodes Disposition: Dispersed Information from W. Schwabacher Chryssanthaki (2005), p. 175, no. 27 Chios, 1965 (CH VI, 32 [there attributed to Cos] = CH VII, 82 = CH VIII, 340 = EH I, 34) Closure: 198 B.C. Contents: 14 recorded out of an uncertain number found Ptolemy IV Perhaps Uncertain Mint 36: 1 tetradrachm with Ptolemy I portrait, dated year 3 (CPE 903) Tyre: 1 portrait tetradrachm (Grigoriakis 1; CPE 924) Other contents: 2 octadrachms and 10 tetradrachms of Ptolemy V Disposition: Archaeological Museum, Chios A. Stefanou, Chiaca Chronica 1966 or Chiaki Epitheorisis (1965), pp. 130–131 Chryssanthaki (2005), p. 175, no. 24 Grigoriakis (2010) Attribution of the year 3 tetradrachm to Ptolemy IV is based on its style, but is tentative. The composition of the hoard favors attribution to Ptolemy V, as proposed by Grigoriakis.

Hoards from the Balkans, Thrace, and Southern Russia Malko Topolovo, c. 30 km SE of Plovdiv, Bulgaria, 1940 (IGCH 853) Closure: c. 285–275 B.C. Contents: 96+ AV. Pot hoard. Early Hellenistic Egypt, including early satrapy of Ptolemy I Memphis: 2 gold staters (Sv. 5, Price 3968; CPE 3, 16) Other contents: Philip II, Alexander III, Philip III, Demetrius Poliorcetes, Lysimachus, Seleucus I Disposition: Plovdiv 58, Sofia 7, New York 9 Gerassimov, BIAB 14 (1940–42), p. 283 Casts of 78 pieces in New York Jabukovac, 20 km NW of Negotin, Serbia, before 1920 (IGCH 447) Closure: c. 280 B.C. Contents: 29 AR Satrapy of Ptolemy I Memphis: 1 Heracles/Zeus tetradrachm (Price 3971; CPE 20) Other contents: Alexander III, imitations of Alexandr III, Athens, Antiochus I, Eastern Celts Disposition: Negotin Vučković-Todorović, Starinar 20 (1969), pp. 391–403. Prilepec, 5 km SW of Prilep (formerly S. Yugoslavia), 1950 (IGCH 448) Closure: c. 280 B.C. Contents: 208+ AR Satrapy of Ptolemy I Memphis: 1 Heracles/Zeus tetradrachm (Sv. 12; CPE 30) Other contents: Alexander III, Philip III, Demetrius Poliorcetes, Audoleon, Lysimachus, Athens, Seleucus I

500

Appendix 1



Disposition: Skopje 208; Belgrade some Vučković-Todorović, Glasnik Muz-KonsDruštMakedonja I.12 (1958), pp. 213–254, illus. Thrace, before 1999 (CH IX, 493 = EH I, 52) Closure: c. 274 B.C. Contents: 11+ AR Ptolemy I as king Alexandria: 5 tetradrachms (810–812, 814–815, first two with Byzantium countermark; CPE 147[4], 154) Uncertain Mint 7, provincial: 1 tetradrachm (813, with Byzantium countermark; CPE 211) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (820; CPE 231) Ptolemy II Sidon: 1 tetradrachm (819; CPE 505) Tyre: 3 tetradrachms (816–818; CPE 556, 561[2]) Disposition: Okray collection Arslan and Lightfoot (1999), p. 41, nos. 810–820 Anadol (now Domanskoe), Reni raion, Odessa Oblast, Ukraine, 1895 (IGCH 866) Closure: 228–220 B.C. Contents: c. 1200 AV in bronze vase Early Hellenistic Egypt Memphis: 2 gold staters (Sv. 5; CPE 3) Ptolemy I as satrap Uncertain Mint 4, perhaps Corinth: 1 gold stater, not certainly from this hoard (Zervos Issue 116; CPE 202) Other contents: Philip II, Alexander III, Philip III, Demetrius Poliorcetes, Lysimachus, Seleucus I Disposition: Leningrad 300–400; Odessa 1; New York 4; Schlessinger, 4 February 1935 (c. 60); Hess 15 October 1903 (230 staters almost certainly from this hd., but not included in above tabulation) Wheatley (2000), pp. 78–80. Büyükçekmece, c. 30 km W of Istanbul (anc. Byzantium), Thrace, 1952 (IGCH 867 = EH I, 27) Closure: c. 220 B.C. or later Contents: 184 AR Ptolemy II Tyre: 1 tetradrachm (cf. Sv. 629; cf. CPE 566) Other contents: Alexander III, Demetrius Poliorcetes, Lysimachus, Byzantium, Calchedon, Attalus I, Seleucus I, Antiochus I, Antiochus II, Seleucus II, Antiochus Hierax, Antiochus III, unc. Antiochus Disposition: New York 38; Seyrig 36; von Aulock 3 (SNG 491–493); Oxford 1 Thompson, ANSMN 6 (1954), pp. 11–34 illus. Additions to published record on file in ANS Thrace? (CH VIII, 331 = EH I, 33) Closure: c. 210 B.C. Contents: 10 AR Ptolemaic tetradrachms, latest of Ptolemy IV(?), one of the earliest pieces has the Byzantium countermark Disposition: Komotini Museum, on display (1988) Tvarditsa (2 miles south of town), Sliven region, Eastern Bulgaria, 1969 (CH IX, 190 = EH I, 9) Burial: second century B.C., perhaps second half of second century Contents: 53+ AR in pot Ptolemy I: 1 tetradrachm (very worn) Other contents: Alexander III (1), Alexander III “imitations” (3, including an issue of Cabyle, perhaps Price 883), Celtic imitations of Philip III (38, as Allen, CCCBM I, S199), Celtic imitations of “buckle” type (7) Disposition: Regional Museum of Sliven 18





Hoards

501

E. Batzova-Kostova, “Nouvelles trouvailles monétaires de la region de Sliven,” Musées et Monuments de la Culture 2 (1973), pp. 14, hoard IV, and 15, fig. 2; T. Gerassimov, BIAB 35 (1979), p. 139. I am grateful to Evgeni Paunov for providing fuller information about this hoard, including his own estimate of the burial date.

Hoards from Macedonia and Greece Greece, northern(?), before 1966 (IGCH 801) Closure: c. 310–300 B.C. Contents: c. 350 AV Early Hellenistic Egypt, including early satrapy of Ptolemy I Memphis: 2 gold staters (Price 3969; CPE 15) Uncertain Mint 4, perhaps Corinth: 1 gold stater (Zervos [1974], Issue 116; CPE 201) Philip II (posthumous, i.e., reign of Philip III): 23+ Macedonia: 13 staters (Cantharus[2], trident[4], fulmen, fulmen S, shield, wreath, helmet, bee, Le Rider 265) Lampsacus: 3 staters (Thompson 31, 32, 33) Abydus: 1 stater (Thompson 27) Mytilene(?): 1 stater (lyre) Teos: 1 stater (S and spear head, cf. Thompson 17) Colophon: 1 stater (Thompson 12) Magnesia: 3 staters (Thompson, 7[3]) Alexander III Macedonia: 15 staters (Price 164[4], 172/175, 176, 179[2], 180, 182, 608, plus 4 not identifiable from Thompson’s brief notes) Greece(?): 2 staters (Price 831, 860) Lampsacus: 9 staters (Price 1358[6], 1370/1371, 1374[2]) Abydus: 8 staters (Price 1524[2], 1525[2], 1559[2], 1571[2]) Teos: 2 staters (Price 2271/2272, 2278) Magnesia: 1 stater (Price 1969) Miletus: 3 staters (Thompson 6b, 10, 129) Sardes: 5 staters (Thompson 7b, 9a, 11b, 33, 35b) Side: 1 stater (Price 2957) Tarsus: 2 staters (Price 3046[2]) Byblus: 1 stater (Price 3422) Tyre (“Ake”): 2 staters (Price 3242/3243[undated], 3270[323]) Babylon: 29 staters Waggoner Issue II, c. 329/8–323/2 1 stater (perhaps Waggoner 16a) Waggoner Issue III, 323/2–321/0 5 staters (Waggoner 138b, 142e, 144c, 144d, 145d) Waggoner Issue VIII, Series 1–4, 316–309/8 17 staters (Waggoner 259a, 260c, 262c, 303b, 308b, 310f, 313b, 316a[3], 379b, 380b, 382a, 386b, 391a, 431e, 433d) Waggoner Issue X, c. 310/9–309/8 1 stater (Waggoner 462a) Philip III Abydus: 1 stater (Price P29/30) Babylon, “Satrapal” Workshop (formerly Aradus) (Price P154 = Duyrat 981–985 = SC II, Cad41.7) Disposition: dispersed Record of 100 varieties on file in ANS and Paris. Thompson’s list in ANS refers to Waggoner for the Babylonian examples, but these are not clearly identified in Waggoner’s PhD. A lot of c. 75 Philips and

502

Appendix 1



Alexanders seen in Greece by a European correspondent in the late 1960s may be part of this hoard. Photos of 8 pieces on file in the ANS add Tarsus to the mints of Alexander listed in IGCH. Chiliomodi (near Corinth), 1932 (IGCH 85 = EH I, 1) Closure: c. 303 B.C. Contents: 196 AR Ptolemy I, as satrap and king: 21 tetradrachms, 12 drachms Alexandria: 3 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms of reduced weight, Plain Series (Sv. 110, 146[2]; CPE 57, 59[2]) Alexander/Athena tetradrachms of reduced weight, Helmet Series (Sv. 168, 170, 162; CPE 63, 65, 69) Uncertain Mint 1, Egyptian, perhaps Pelusium: Alexander/Athena tetradrachms of reduced weight (Sv. 107; CPE 77) Uncertain Mint 2, Egyptian, perhaps Naucratis: Alexander/Athena tetradrachms of reduced weight (Sv. 145, 142; CPE 78, 79) Uncertain Mint 3, Egyptian, probably Memphis: Alexander/Athena tetradrachms of reduced weight (Sv. 153, 139; CPE 83, 89) Corinth: 12 Alexander/Athena drachms (Sv. 48A; CPE 194, 195[3], 196[2]) Other contents: Leucas, Corinth Disposition: Athens 17 (Leucas 2, Corinth 9, Ptolemy 6); New York 2 (Ptolemy dr.); Oxford 1 (Ptolemy dr.) BCH 1933, p. 238 Ravel, TINC, pp. 98–108, illus. Jenkins (1960), pp. 32–34 (Ptolemaic issues) Chryssanthaki (2005), p. 174, no. 1 Messene, 1922 or earlier (IGCH 95) Closure: c. 305–300 B.C. Contents: 31 AR Satrapy of Ptolemy I Memphis: Heracles/Zeus tetradrachm (Sv. 94; CPE 25) Alexander III “Amphipolis,” c. 323–c. 320: 1 tetradrachm (Price 121) Side(?),c. 325–c. 320: 1 tetradrachm (Price 2949) Tarsus, c. 333–c. 327: 1 tetradrachm (Price 2997) Salamis, c. 332–c. 323: 1 tetradrachm (Price 3139) Myriandrus or Issus, c. 325–c. 323: 1 tetradrachm (Price 3228) Aradus, c. 328–c. 320: 1 tetradrachm (Price 3332 = Duyrat 550–862) Byblus, c. 330–c. 320: 1 tetradrachm (Price 3424) Sidon: 2 tetradrachms, dated 321/0 and 316/5 (Price 3501, 3504) Tyre (“Ake”): 1 tetradrachm, dated 311 (Price 3298) Carrhae, c. 315–c. 305 : 1 tetradrachm (Price 3792) Babylon: 17 tetradrachms Waggoner Issue II, c, 329/8–323/2 4 tetradrachms (Price 3608, 3617, 3624, 3654) Waggoner Issue III, c. 323/2–321/0 1 tetradrachm (Price 3692) Waggoner Issue VIII, c. 315/4–306/5 12 tetradrachms (Price 3722, 3734[4], 3746[3], 3751[3], 3753) Philip III Babylon: 1 tetradrachm (Price P181) Susa: 1 tetradrachm (Price P208) Disposition: New York 27 casts Information on file at ANS Newell’s notes indicate that the specimens of Price 3734 (of Babylon) are the finest preserved in the hoard.





Hoards

503

Thorikos, near Laurium, Attica, 1969 (IGCH 134) Closure: c. 295/4 B.C. Contents: 5 AV, 287 AR Early Hellenistic Egypt: 1 gold stater (Zervos Issue 72, 279a; CPE 2) Alexander III Macedonia, 333–323: 1 tetradrachm (Price 9) Philip III Amphipolis, c. 323/2–c. 315: 1 gold stater (cf. Le Rider 361–363) Sardes, c. 320/19: 1 gold stater (Thompson 225d) Other contents: Gold staters of Athens in time of Lachares; Athenian tetradrachms (282) and triobols (4) Disposition: Athens J. Bingen, Thorikos VI 1969 (1973), pp. 7–59 All that Glitters: The Belgian Contribution to Greek Numismatics (Athens, 2010), pp. 58–65 Potidaea, 1984 Closure: c. 280 Contents: AV Early Hellenistic Egypt Memphis: 3 staters (Price 3961[2], 3968 or 3969; CPE 2[2], 15 or 16) Other contents: Philip II, Alexander III, Philip III, Lyismachus Le Rider (1991) Thessalonica, Macedonia, before 1897 (IGCH 444) Closure: c. 280 B.C. Contents: 157 AR Satrapy of Ptolemy I Memphis: 2 Heracles/Zeus tetradrachms (Sv. 12; CPE 30) Other contents: Alexander III, Philip III, Demetrius Poliorcetes, Audoleon, Lysimachus Disposition: F. Walla, Vienna, Cat. VI (1897–1898) Newell’s record on file at ANS Pontoleibade-Kilkis, Macedonia, 1961 (IGCH 445) Closure: c. 280 B.C. Contents: 114+ AR. Pot hoard Satrapy of Ptolemy I Memphis: 1 Heracles/Zeus tetradrachm (CPE 27) Other contents: Alexander III, Philip III, Demetrius Poliorcetes, Athens Disposition: Thessalonica 52; Athens 8 Varoucha (1962), pp. 418–421 (three hoards) “Although published as separate deposits (hds. 2, 3, and 4) in the BCH, the composition of the three lots, their provenances and dates of discovery are so similar that there seems to be no doubt of a common origin. The 52 coins of hd. 2, said to be in the Athens cabinet, were seen in the Thessalonica museum by M. Oeconomides.” Thessaly, 1993 (CH IX, 137 = EH I, 2) Burial: 300–250 B.C. Contents: 97+ AR Ptolemaic: 6 tetradrachms Other contents: Athens, Philip II, Alexander III, Larissa, Thebes, Locri Opuntii, Sicyon Disposition: Dispersed

504

Appendix 1



Mount Hymettus, near Athens, 1948 (EH I, 6) Closure: 262 B.C. or earlier Contents: 3 AV, many bronzes Ptolemy II Alexandria: 2 pentekontadrachma in name of Theoi Adelphoi (Sv. 618, 618 var.; CPE 311, 312) Bronze diobols, of which only one illustrated (B200) Other contents: Alexander III Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou (1965), p. 225, pl. xviii, 1‒3 Sounion, Greece (CH IV, 32 = EH I, 7) Closure: 265–262 B.C., during the Chremonidian War Contents: 20+ AR Ptolemy I as king Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm of 25 obols (Sv. 234; CPE 141) 10 standard tetradrachms (Sv. 247, 265[2], 255[6], 254; CPE 137, 142[2], 168[6], 170) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 358; CPE 224) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 366[2]; CPE 239[2]) Ptolemy II Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 548; CPE 277) Uncertain Mint 21, perhaps on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 371; CPE 497) Sidon: 3 tetradrachms (Sv. 713[3]; CPE 505[3]) Disposition: Dispersed Reported by A. Walker from an old record Chryssanthaki (2005), p. 174, no. 4 Dokimion (Malamata-Kyparissia), Acarnania, 1955 (IGCH 173 = EH I, 11) Closure: c. 250 B.C. Contents: 50 AR Ptolemy II Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 546; CPE 440) Other contents: Alexander III 2, Lysimachus, Aetolia, Locri Opuntii, Boeotia, Chalcis 8, Aegina 5, Sicyon 26, Hermione, Arcadian League Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou (1956), p. 227 illus. Warren, ANSMN 15 (1969), p. 33 (Arcadian coins) Chryssanthaki (2005), p. 174, no. 7 Naupactus, Locris, 1955 (IGCH 174 = EH I, 12) Closure: c. 250 B.C. Contents: 5+ AV Ptolemy II Alexandria: 1 pentekontadrachm in name of Theoi Adelphoi (Sv. 604; CPE 314) Other contents: Aetolian League 2, Seleucus I, Antiochus I Disposition: Athens Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou (1956), p. 227, illus. Hackens (1968), pp. 76–77 Chryssanthaki (2005), p. 174, no. 9 Epidaurus environs, 1979/80 (CH VII, 69 = CH VIII, 298 = CH IX, 179 = EH I, 10) Closure: c. 250 B.C. Contents: 543+ AR Ptolemy II: 39 tetradrachms, of which only 7 photographed





Hoards

505

Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 411; CPE 370) Uncertain Mint 19, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 531; CPE 466) Sidon: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 713[2]; CPE 505[2]) Tyre: 2 tetradrachms, to year 23 = 263/2 B.C. (Sv. 644, 648; CPE 561, 565) Ioppe: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 33 = 253/2 B.C. (Sv. 806; CPE 670) Other contents: Alexander III, Philip III, Lysimachus, Demetrius Poliorcetes, Athens, Antiochus I, Epidaurus Disposition: In commerce Requier (1993a); id. (1993b) Chryssanthaki (2005), p. 174, no. 6 Mycenae, Argolis, 1895 (IGCH 171 = EH I, 13) Closure: 250–240 B.C. Contents: 3786 AR in 3 pots Ptolemy II: 2 tetradrachms Other contents: Leucas, Corinth, Phlius, Argos Disposition: Athens Lambropoulous (1896), col. 200, pl. 10, 41‒42 Hackens (1968), pp. 91–92 Chryssanthaki (2005), p. 174, no. 8 Kozani, Macedonia, 1955 (IGCH 457 = EH I, 14) Closure: c. 245–240 B.C. Contents: 27 AR Ptolemy I Alexandria: 5 tetradrachms (Sv. 247, 250, 252, 255[2]; CPE 132, 137, 165, 168[2]) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 4 tetradrachms (Sv. 246[3], 368; CPE 231[3], 235) Ptolemy II Tyre: 3 tetradrachms (Sv. 637, 644[2]; CPE 556, 561[2]) Ptolemais (Ake): 2 tetradrachms, to year 32 = 254/3 B.C. (Sv. 770, 775; CPE 645, 649) Other contents: Chalcis (5), Athens (8), Aesillas (intrusive) Disposition: Detroit Money Museum Dodson and Wallace (1964), with illustrations. Chryssanthaki (2005), p. 174, no. 11 Dodson and Wallace considered more than half of the Ptolemaic pieces to be overstrikes, probable overstrikes, or possible overstrikes. Eretria, Euboea, 1937 (IGCH 175 = EH I, 15) Closure: c. 245 B.C. or slightly later Contents: 572+ AR Ptolemy I as king Alexandria: 43 tetradrachms (Sv. 252[5], 247[2], 265[6], 263, 256[7], 253, 248[3], 260, 255[12], 254[5], 257; CPE 132[5], 137[2], 142[6], 151, 154[7], 157, 158[3], 159, 168[12], 170[5], 173) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 3 tetradrachms (Sv. 375[3]; CPE 227[3]) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 9 tetradrachms (Sv. 368[7], 378, 366; CPE 235[7], 237, 239) Ptolemy II Alexandria: 19 tetradrachms (Sv. 548[6], 574, 584, 591[5], 596, 552[2], 555[3]; CPE 277[6], 288, 295, 299[5], 302, 305[2], 306[3]) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 10 tetradrachms (Sv. 349[3], 365[3], 528[2], 529, 530; CPE 413[3], 414[3], 416[2], 418, 421) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 6 tetradrachms (Sv. 401, 538, 544, 546[3]; CPE 438, 440[3], 441, 459a) Uncertain Mint 19, on Cyprus: 4 tetradrachms (Sv. 389, 403[2], 535; CPE 470, 474, 475[2]) Sidon: 18 tetradrachms, to year 30 = 256/5 B.C. (Sv. 719, 713[9], 724[4], 723, 733[3]; CPE 503, 505[9], 508[4], 510, 521[3])

506

Appendix 1



Tyre: 30 tetradrachms to year 35 = 251/0 B.C. (Sv. 637[5], 640, 644[13], 647[2], 649, 660[3], 661[3], 675, 686; CPE 556[5], 558, 561[13], 564[2], 566, 582[3], 583[3], 599, 615) Ptolemais (Ake): 5 tetradrachms, to year 32 = 254/3 B.C. (Sv. 770[3], 774, 775; CPE 645[3], 647b, 649) Ioppe: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 30 = 256/5 B.C. (Sv. 798; CPE 662) Ptolemy III Uncertain Mint 30, near Ephesus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 905; CPE 782) Perhaps Uncertain Mint 30: 1 tetradrachm (cf. Sv. 1001; CPE 786) Other contents: Philip II, Alexander III, Demerius Poliorcetes, Antigonus Gonatas, Lysimachus, Locri Opuntii, Phocis, Boeotia, Carystus, Chalcis, Euboean League, Histiaea, Athens, Paros, Attalid, Rhodes, Seleucid Disposition: Athens 476 Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou (1941), pp. 670–672 Wallace, NNM 134 (1956), pp. 47–49, no. 1 Merker, ANSMN 9 (1960), pp. 43–44 Picard (1979), pp. 153–163, pl. xxvii–xxix Chryssanthaki (2005), p. 174, no. 12 Photos on file at ANS Olympia, Elis, 1922 (IGCH 176 = EH I, 16) Closure: c. 235–225 B.C. Contents: 82 AR Ptolemy I Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 358, 376; CPE 224, 228) Ptolemy II Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 529; CPE 421) Tyre: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 637, 644; CPE 556, 561) Gaza: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 32 = 254/3 B.C. (Sv. 829; CPE 690) Other contents: Locri Opuntii (1), Boeotia (4), Chalcis (8), Athens (3), Aegina (5), Sicyon (2), Elis, Alexander III, Philip III, Lysimachus Disposition: New York 67 Newell (1929), illus. Chryssanthaki (2005), p. 174, no. 14 Thessaly, 1974 (CH II, 72 = CH III, 43 = EH I, 17) Closure: after 229/8 B.C. Contents: 38+ AR Ptolemy II Tyre: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 644; CPE 561) Gaza: 1 tetradrachm dated year 30 = 256/5 B.C. (Sv. 826; CPE 686) Other contents: Philip II tetradrachms 2, Alexander III drachms 3, Lysimachus tetradrachms 2, Larissa dr. 4, Phalanna dr. 1, Opuntii st. 1, Thebes st. 5 with magistrates’ names, Euboea dr. 2, Histaea dr. 1, Athens tetr. 8, Sicyon st. 2, Rhodes didr. 5 (one radiate) Disposition: In commerce Chryssanthaki (2005), p. 174, no. 15 Megalopolis, Arcadia, 1947 (IGCH 180 = CH I, 19) Closure: c. 225 B.C. Contents: 40 AR Ptolemy I Alexandria: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 247, 255; CPE 137, 168) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 3 tetradrachms (Sv. 368; CPE 233[2], 235) Ptolemy I or II Unattributable: 1 tetradrachm





Hoards

507

Ptolemy II Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 552; CPE 305) 2 decadrachms in name of Arsinoe Philadelphus (Sv. 940, 953; CPE 347, 360) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 2–3 tetradrachms (Sv. 528, 393(?); CPE 416[1–2], 435(?)) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 545; CPE 450) Tyre: 3 tetradrachms (Sv. 644[3]; CPE 561[3]) Other contents: Alexander III, Philip III, Lysimachus Disposition: D. M. Robinson Robinson (1950), with illustrations Noe (1962), pp. 39–41 Hackens (1968), pp. 74–75 Chryssanthaki (2005), p. 174, no. 16 Sophikon, near Epidaurus, Argolis, 1893 (IGCH 179 = EH I, 20) Burial: c. 225–200 B.C. Contents: c. 950 AR Ptolemy I as king Alexandria: 1 portrait tetradrachm (Sv. 254; CPE 170) Ptolemy II Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 548; CPE 277) Unattributed provincial tetradrachm portraying Ptolemy II (Sv. 996α; CPE 405) Sidon: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 719, 713; CPE 503, 505) Tyre: 3 tetradrachms (Sv. 644[3]; CPE 561[3]) Ioppe: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 36 = 250/49 B.C. (Sv. 813; CPE 675a) Gaza: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 37 = 249/8 B.C. (Sv. 833; CPE 695) Ptolemy III Alexandria: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 1001[2]; CPE 732[2]) Ptolemais (Ake): 1 tetradrachm, dated year 2 = 246/5 (Sv. 1035; CPE 857) Other contents: Alexander III, Philip III, Demetrius Poliorcetes, Antigonus Gonatas, Lysimachus, Aetolia, Boeotia, Athens, Sparta, Attalus I, Rhodes, Seleucus I, Antiochus I, Antiochus II, Seleucus II Disposition: Athens Svoronos, JIAN 1899, pp. 289–296; 1907, pp. 35–46 illus.; Athènes, pl. 28 Hackens (1968), pp. 71–72 Chryssanthaki (2005), p. 174, no. 17 Sparta, Laconia, 1908 (IGCH 181 = EH I, 24) Burial: c. 222 B.C. Contents: 86 AR from excavations Ptolemy I Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm of 25 obols (Sv. 183; CPE 136) 3 standard tetradrachms (Sv. 255[2], 259; CPE 147, 168[2]) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 358; CPE 224) Ptolemy II Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 548; CPE 277) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 544; CPE 441) Sidon: 4 tetradrachms, to year 32 = 254/3 B.C. (Sv. 713–715[3], 739; CPE 505[3], 524) Gaza: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 28 = 258/7 B.C. (CPE 682) Other contents: Alexander III, Demetrius Poliorcetes, Lysimachus, Athens, Sparta, Seleucus I, Antiochus I, Antiochus II, Antiochus Hierax Disposition: Athens Wace (1907–08), with illustrations

508

Appendix 1



Hackens (1968), pp. 72–73 Chryssanthaki (2005), p. 174, no. 18 Hackens associated the burial of the hoard with the battle of Sellasia (222). He observed that the Ptolemaic coins were the least worn of the hoard and suggested that they probably represented an urgent emission to meet the military needs of Sparta. But in fact the Ptolemaic coins were minted over a period of approximately half a century and must represent a separate hoard that was kept out of circulation for a decade or more before being contributed to the war effort. O’Neil (2008), p. 67, associated the flow of Ptolemaic coins to Sparta with the Chremonidean War and suggested that it ceased after the death of Areus in 265/4. That interpretation does not seem consistent with the dated Syro-Phoenician issues represented here. Eretria, Euboea, 1861 (IGCH 189 = EH I, 23) Burial: 220 B.C. Contents: 55+ AR Ptolemy I: 1 tetradrachm Ptolemy II: 1 tetradrachm Other contents: Philip II, Alexander III, Demetrius Poliorcetes, Lysimachus, Locri Opuntii, Phocis, Boeotia, Rhodes Disposition: Athens 12 (Philip II–Lysimachus, Ptolemy I, Locri 1, Boeotia 4, Rhodes 1) Information from M. Oeconomides Chryssanthaki (2005), p. 174, no. 21 Corinth environs, 1938 (IGCH 187 = EH I, 31) Burial: c. 215 B.C. Closure: c. 400 AR Ptolemy I as king Alexandria: 27 tetradrachms (Sv. 252[2], 247, 265, 259, 263, 256[5], 248, 255[7], 254[2], 257[4], 205[2]; CPE 132[2], 137, 142, 147, 151, 154[5], 158, 168[7], 170[2], 173[4], 174[2]) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 4 tetradrachms (Sv. 362, 358[2], 355; CPE 222, 224[2], 225) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 6 tetradrachms (Sv. 245, 368[2], 366[3]; CPE 230, 235[2], 239[3]) Ptolemy II Alexandria: 4 tetradrachms (Sv. 548[2], 552[2]; CPE 277[2], 305[2]) Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 11 tetradrachms (Sv. 365[2], 528[3], 527[2], 530[2], 525, 529; CPE 414[2], 416[3], 417[2], 418[2], 419, 421) Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 3 tetradrachms (Sv. 538, 542, 544; CPE 438, 441, 442) Uncertain Mint 21, perhaps on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 371; CPE 497) Uncertain Mint 22, perhaps on Cyprus, perhaps Ptolemais (Ake): 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 373; CPE 500) Sidon: 16 tetradrachms, to year 37 = 249/8 B.C. (Sv. 719, 713[9], 722, 723, 725, 732, 739, 751; CPE 503, 505[9], 509, 510, 511, 520, 524, 539) Tyre: 14 tetradrachms, to year 24 = 262/1 B.C. (Sv. 637[5], 640, 644[2], 646[3], 649[3]; CPE 556[5], 558, 561[2], 563[3], 566[3]) Gaza: 1 tetradrachm, dated year 31 = 255/4 B.C. (Sv. 828; CPE 689a) Other contents: Alexander III, Philip III, Antigonus Gonatas, Lysimachus, Aetolian League, Athens, Ephesus, Rhodes, Seleucus I, Antiochus I, Antiochus II, Seleucus II, Seleucus III Disposition: Athens c. 388 BCH 1938, p. 446 Noe (1962), pp. 9–39, illus. (to which should be added some or most of the 38 coins in BCH 1960, pp. 487–488) Chryssanthaki (2005), p. 174, no. 22





Hoards

509

Macedonia/Thessaly, 1992 (CH IX, 200 = EH I, 21) = “Thesprotia hoard” Burial: 225 B.C. or end of the third century Contents: 86 AR Ptolemy II Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 543, 544; CPE 441, 449) Sidon: 4 tetradrachms, to year 30 = 256/5 B.C. (Sv. 713[2], 722; CPE 505[2], 509, 521) Tyre: 2 tetradrachms, to year 21 = 265/4 B.C. (Sv. 644, 646; CPE 561, 563) Other contents: Alexander III (3), Demetrius Poliorcetes (3), Antigonus Gonatas (45), Antigonus Doson (5), Lysimachus (12), Eumenes I (5), Attalus I (1), Antiochus II (2), Seleucus II (1), Antiochus Hierax (1) Disposition: Athens Touratsoglou (1995), pp. 75–107 R. Ashton, NCirc 1996, pp. 9–10 F. de Callataÿ, RBN 142 (1996), pp. 296–299 Chryssanthaki (2005), p. 175, no. 26 This hoard was confiscated at Thesprotia by the Greek authorities. Its probable place of origin was deduced from the contents by Touratsoglou. Thebes, Boeotia, 1935 (IGCH 193 = EH I, 32) Burial: c. 225–200 B.C. Contents: 39 AR Ptolemy II Uncertain Mint 9, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 365; CPE 414) Sidon: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 713; CPE 505) Tyre: 2 tetradrachms (Sv. 626, 644; CPE 552, 561) 1 unidentifiable tetradrachm Other contents: 8 Alexander drachms, Lysimachus drachm, 11 Athens (7 tetradrachms of late third century style, 2 drachms, pentobol, tetrobol), 14 Rhodian didrachms (including Ashton 2001, 160[7], 163, 164, 168) Disposition: Unknown Hackens (1969) Chryssanthaki (2005), p. 174, no. 10 Macedonia or Greece, 1927–1928 (IGCH 469 = CH VIII, 356 = IGCH 1701) Burial: c. 200–180 B.C. Contents: 24 AR Allegedly Ptolemy I: 2 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms Allegedly Ptolemy V: 5 tetradrachms Other contents: Late posthumous Alexanders: 6 (Assus [Price 1599, c. 210], Temnus, Mytilene [Price 1699, c. 215– c. 200], Erythrae [Price 1902, c. 215–c. 190], unc. Asia Minor with bucranium symbol, Heracleia); Antigonus Gonatas: Helmet—KT (5), helmet—ΗΛ monogram (3), helmet—HP monogram (2), helmet—TI (3), helmet—EYM monogram, helmet—ΠΑΝΤ monogram, trident in l. field Philip V: c. 5 (all portrait/Athena with ΣΡ monogram—EP monogram) Lysimachus: 1 (Byzantium, with HAP monogram in l. field and pU mintmark in ex.) Disposition: New York 8 (Antigonus 2, Lysimachus 1, Alexander 5) Partial list by C. T. Seltman in ANS SAN XVI/2 (1985), p. 30, note This hoard is represented as an Egyptian hoard (Delta, 1927–1928) at IGCH 1701, where the listing includes 2 Alexander/Athena tetradrachms and 5 tetradrachms of Ptolemy V. The latter seems to be an error based on a misreading of 5 tetradrachms of Philip V. The survival of Alexander/Athena tetradrachms until the turn of the second century or even later seems extremely improbable.

510

Appendix 1



Koskina, Euboea, 1923 (IGCH 226 = EH I, 35) Burial: c. 200–180 B.C. Contents: c. 130 AR Ptolemy II: 1 tetradrachm Other contents: Alexander III, Thebes, Eretria, Histaea, Carystus, Chalcis, Arcadian League, Paris, Naxos, Rhodes Disposition: Athens 2 (Euboea), New York 1 (Euboea) Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou (1941), pp. 672–674 “The hd. is reported also to have contained dr. of Tenos and a tetradr. of Ptolemy I” Chryssanthaki (2005), p. 175, no. 28 (noting only a tetradrachm of Ptolemy I) Larissa (“Sitichoro”), Thessaly, 1968 (IGCH 237 = CH IX, 247 = EH I, 37) Closure: 168/7 B.C. Contents: 2500–3000 AR Ptolemy I as king Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 1 portrait tetradrachm (Sv. 378; CPE 237) Ptolemy II Tyre: 5 tetradrachms, to year 37 = 249/8 B.C. (Sv. 644[2], 658, 695, unident.; CPE 561[2], 580, 631, unident.) Other contents: 1 era tetradrachm of Ptolemy V, Alexander III, Antigonus Gonatas, Antigonus Doson, Philip V, Perseus, Macedonia 1st Region, Lysimachus, Aetolian League, Athens, Pharnaces, Pergamum, Rhodes (mostly imitations), Seleucus II, Antiochus II, Antiochus III Disposition: Volos 600; Thessalonica 103; London 18; New York 9; Hess-Leu sale, 12 May 1970, lot 189 Oeconomides, ArchEph 1970, pp. 13–26 illus. (Volos and Thessalonica lots) Price (1989), with illustrations Chryssanthaki (2005), p. 175, no. 30 Koniska, Aetolia, c. 1962 (IGCH 266 = EH I, 42) Burial: c. 150–140 B.C. Contents: 16+ AR Ptolemy I: 2 tetradrachms Other contents: Aenianes, Phocis, Locri Opuntii, Chalcis, Aegina, Sicyon, Achaean League, Aegae, Elis Disposition: Athens (coins and casts) Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou (1964), pp. 9–10 illus. Chryssanthaki (2005), p. 175, no. 31

Hoards from Sicily and South Italy Aisaros River, near Croton, Bruttium, 1879? (IGCH 1955 = EH I, 262) Closure: c. 290 B.C. Contents: 40+ AV Ptolemy I as king Alexandria: 8 staters (Sv. 147, 103, 121, 116, 150, 133, 131, 126; CPE 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 103, 105) Cyrene: 4 staters (Sv. 102, 151[2], 152; CPE 271, 272, 273[2]) Other contents: Alexander III, Philip III Disposition: Berlin (Alexander 26, Philip 3, Ptolemy 11), New York (Ptolemy 1, probably from this hoard) Friedländer, ZfN 1880, pp. 227–228 (Ptolemy, monograms on pl. 4); ZfN 1881, p. 6 (disposal of some Ptolemy staters)





Hoards

511

Syracuse, 1954 (IGCH 2234 = EH I, 270) Burial: 212 B.C. Contents: 8 AR Ptolemy I Uncertain Mint 10, on Cyprus: 1 tetradrachm (Sv. 245; CPE 230) Ptolemy III Unattributed tetradrachm of Asia Minor (Sv. 909α; CPE 800) Other contents: Hieronymus, Syracusan Democracy Disposition: Syracuse Gentili, AIIN 3 (1956), pp. 109–111; id. AIIN 5–6 (1958–59), p. 285 Carrò Pisanò (1964), pp. 230–231, 239 Enna, 1966 (IGCH 2232 = CH IX, 670 = EH I, 269) Burial: 211 B.C. Contents: 177 AR Ptolemy II Alexandria: 1 tetradrachm, worn (Sv. 567; CPE 283) Other contents: Acragas, Agathocles, Philistis, Gelon II, Hieronymus, Syracusan Democracy, Siceliotes, Punic, Antigonus Gonatas, Pyrrhus, Lysimachus, Aetolian League, Attalus I, Roman Republic Disposition: dispersed A. Burnett, “The Enna hoard and silver coinage of the Syracusan democracy,” SNR 62 (1983), pp. 5–26

Hoards of Unknown Origin Unknown findspot, 1993 (CH X, 247) Closure: no earlier than 320 B.C. Contents: 42 AV Early Hellenistic Egypt Memphis: 1 stater (Price 3961; CPE 2) Other contents: Philip II staters (Pella 12, Amphipolis 2, Lampsacus, Magnesia), Alexander III distaters (Macedonia 3) and staters (Macedonia 3, uncertain Greece or Macedonia, Lampsacus 2, Magnesia, Miletus 2, Sardes 3, Side, Tarsus, Salamis 3, Aradus, “Sidon,” Sidon, uncertain eastern 2, uncertain) Disposition: In commerce Troxell (1997), pp. 137–140 Unknown findspot, 1993 (CH X, 246) Closure: 315/4 B.C. or later Contents: 73 AR of Alexandrine type Satrapy of Ptolemy I Memphis: 1 tetradrachm (Price 3971; CPE 20) Other contents: Alexander III tetradrachms (Amphipolis 25, uncertain Greece or Macedonia 2, Lampsacus 19, Miletus 3, Tarsus 3, “Amathus” [Soli] 1, Citium 1, Paphos 1, Salamis 2, Damascus 3, Myriandrus [Issus?] 3, Tyre (“Ake”) 5 to 316/5 or 315/4, Aradus, Byblos, Babylon 2) Disposition: U.S. commerce Troxell (1997), pp. 129–133. Commerce (“Seleucus I”) hoard, 2005 (CH X, 265) Contents: 1721+ AR Closure: c. 280 Early Hellenistic Egypt Memphis: 3 Heracles/Zeus tetradrachms (Price 3971[2]; Sv. 94; CPE 19[2], 25) Other contents: Demetrius Poliorcetes, Seleucus I, Lysimachus, Boeotia, Athens Nelson (2010)

512

Appendix 1



Unknown findspot, 2008 Closure: c. 250 B.C. or a bit later Contents: 30 AR Ptolemy II Uncertain Mint 23, imitating Ptolemais : 30 tetradrachms (Sv. 776[29], 776var.; CPE 699, 700[29]) Disposition: Dispersed Lorber (2013a) Unknown findspot, 1986 (CH VIII, 350 = EH I, 274) Burial: c. 200 B.C. or later Contents: AV mnaieia Ptolemy IV Alexandria: in name of Berenice (Sv. 1113; CPE 895) Sidon (as CPE 915–917) mnaieion in name of Arsinoe “without K,” with “amphora” symbol [perhaps cantharus?] Disposition: In commerce The brief entry does not indicate quantities represented, except in the case of the Arsinoe mnaieion. No thirdcentury issue with an amphora symbol has been recorded. Possibly the reference was to dated Salaminian mnaieia of Ptolemy VI, as Sv. 1328 (regnal year 6) and NFA XXX, 8 December 1992, lot 175 (regnal year 2), which bear a cantharus symbol. In that case the closure of the hoard would be dated 176/5 or 169/8.

APPENDIX 2. ADDITIONAL PROVENANCES OF PRECIOUS METAL COINS Types of Ptolemy I Imitations of early Memphis coinage 19.

Silver tetradrachm (Alexandrine): Rose in l. field,  under throne and  behind rear throne leg. Reference: Price 3971; Zervos (1974), Issue 2C. Hoard: 2 in “Seleucus I” hoard (CH X, 265), Nelson (2010), 1669–1670.

25.

Silver tetradrachm (Heracles/Zeus): Pegasus rearing r. in l. field, Œ under throne. Reference: Svoronos 94, pl. i, 19; Price 3974; Zervos (1974), Issue 5. Hoard: “Seleucus I” hoard (CH X, 265), Nelson (2010), 1671.

30.

Silver tetradrachm (Heracles/Zeus): Thunderbolt in l. field,  under throne. Reference: Svoronos 12, pl. i, 11; Price 3976–3977; Zervos (1974), Issue 4. Hoard: Ai Khanoum, 1973 (CH III, 53).

63.

Silver tetradrachm (with ): Helmet above » and eagle on thunderbolt in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 168, pl. vi, 7; Zervos (1974), Issue 24. Provenanced find: Montreux, Switzerland, Cavagna (2015), 7.1.5.

69.

Silver tetradrachm (Alexander/Athena): Helmet above  and eagle on thunderbolt in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 162, pl. vi, 2; Zervos (1974), Issue 28. Notable provenance: Archaeological Museum of Iraklio, Crete, Stefanakis (2000b), 429.

132.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy/eagle):  above  or  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 252, pl. ix, 8 and pl. A, 29. Provenanced find: Koroni excavations, Vanderpool, McCredie, and Steinberg (1962), 101.

137.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy/eagle):  above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 247, pl. ix, 1. Provenanced find: Ilioupouli, Attica, Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou (1961), p. 324, no. 1.

513

514

Appendix 2

154.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy/eagle):  above  in l. field.



Reference: Svoronos 256, pl. ix, 12. Notable provenance: Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Aquileia, Cavagna (2015), 13.2.21.1.

167.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) of 25 obols (Ptolemy/eagle):  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 211. Hoard: Mycenae, 1895 (IGCH 171).

171. Gold trichryson (“pentadrachm”):  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 204, pl. vii, 5; Svoronos 338. Provenanced find: excavations at Dreros, Crete, Stefanakis (2000), 428.

192.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) of 25 obols (with ): ! above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 241, pl. viii, 22 [5 listed]; SNG Copenhagen 64. Notable provenance: Copenhagen specimen from Carthage.

229.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy/eagle):  above  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 353, pl. xi, 7. Notable provenance: Söke, Turkey, SNG Kayhan 1073.

235.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy/eagle):  above Z or  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 368, pl. viii, 27. Notable provenance: Regional Historical Museum of Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria, Cavagna (2015), 11.3.6.

314. Gold pentekontadrachmon or 50-drachm piece (jugate busts):  on obverse,  on reverse. Reference: Svoronos 604, pl. xiv, 18–21; Olivier and Lorber (2013), 194–384 (dies A7–A49). Notable provenance: Archaeological Museum of Chania (ancient Cydonia), Crete, Stefanakis (2000b), 433.

416. Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy/eagle): P above  in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 528, pl. xii, 2. Notable provenance: Museo Civico di Feltre, Veneto, Cavagna (2015), 13.2.1 (perhaps an example of no. 418 instead).

438.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy/eagle):  above Q above  in l. field, Galatian shield in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 538, pl. xii, 9. Notable provenance: Söke, Turkey, SNG Kayhan 1074.

505.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy/eagle):  in l. field. Reference: Svoronos 713, pl. xxi, 2 and pl. xxvii, 22; Svoronos 714; Svoronos 715, pl. xxi, 3–4. Hoard: Mycenae, 1895 (IGCH 171). Notable provenance: Archaeological Museum of Iraklio, Crete, Stefanakis (2000b), 434.



521.



Additional Provenances

515

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 733, pl. xxi. Provenanced find: Wels, Austria, Cavagna (2015), 7.2.3.

527.

Silver stater (tetradrachm):  above  in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 740. Provenanced find: Tonnay-Charente, France, Cavagna (2015), 3.4.2.

567.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy/eagle): i above club in l. field,  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 650, pl. xix, 20. Notable provenance: Braşov Museum, Romania, Cavagna (2015), 11.2.4.

653.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy/eagle): G above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 780, pl. xxv, 15. Notable provenance: Sant’Eufemia Vetere, Calabria, Cavagna (2015), 13.4.15/2.

669.

Silver stater (tetradrachm) (Ptolemy/eagle):  above  in l. field,  above  in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 804, pl. xxiii, 8. Notable provenance: Archaeological Museum of Iraklio, Crete, Stefanakis (2000b), 435.

714.

Silver didrachm (Ptolemy/eagle r.):  (retrograde) on l.,  on r., È in l. field, race torch in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 311, pl. iii, 22; Svoronos 313, pl. A, 39. Notable provenance: Archaeological Museum of Iraklio, Crete, Stefanakis (2000b), 431.

720.

Silver didrachm (Ptolemy/eagle l.):  on l.,  on r., race torch in l. field, silphium plant in r. field. Reference: Svoronos 305, pl. iii, 15. Notable provenance: Archaeological Museum of Iraklio, Crete, Stefanakis (2000b), 430.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Numismatic Works Alexopoulou, G. and D. Tsangari. 2003. “Deux trésors hellénistiques de Psélalonia de Patras.” Eulimene 4: 153–162. Alonso Troncoso, V. Forthcoming. “Para una zoologia de la realeza: Alejandro Magno y los elefantes.” In Mélanges Pierre Carlier, edited by M.-J. Werlings and J. Zurbach. Rennes. ___________ . 2013. “The Diadochi and the zoology of kingship: The elephants.” In After Alexander: The Time of the Diadochi, edited by V. Alonso Troncoso and E. Anson, pp. 254–270. Oxford. Amandry, M. 1998. “Monnaies isolées découvertes en fouilles à Tanis.” In Tanis: Travaux récents sur le Tell Sân el-Hagar. Mission française des fouilles de Tanis, 1987–1997, edited by P. Brissaud and C. Zivie-Coche, pp. 353–397. Paris. Anastasiades, A. 2009. “Two Ptolemaic queens and Cyprus: Iconographic issues.” CCEC 39: 259‒270. Apostolou, E. 1999. “Rhodian(?) stater with the types of Alexander the Great.” NomKhron 1999: 69–76. Arena, V. 2003. “New acquisitions at the British Museum: Additions to Price, Alexander, and to the 1870 Larnaca hoard.” NC 163: 49‒57. Ariel, D. T. 2002. “The coins from the survey and excavations of caves in the northern Judean desert.” ‘Atiqot 41.2: 281–304. Arslan, M., and C. Lightfoot. 1999. Greek Coin Hoards in Turkey: The Antalya Archaeological Museum and the C. S. Okray Collection. Ankara. Arslan, M., and A. Özen. 2000. “A hoard of unpublished bronze coins of Ptolemy Ceraunus.” AJN 12: 59–66. Ashton, R. H. J. 1986. “Rhodian bronze coinage and the earthquake of 229–226 B.C.” NC 146: 1–18. ___________ . 1997. Review of B. R. Brown, Royal Portraits in Sculpture and Coins: Pyrrhos and the Successors of Alexander the Great (New York, 1995). Classical Review 47: 226. ___________ . 1998. “Hellenistic bronze coins of Abdera with a male portrait.” In Studies in Greek Numismatics in Memory of Martin Jessop Price , edited by R. Ashton and S. Hurter, pp. 17–21. London. ___________ . 1999. “The Hellenistic hemidrachms of Caunus.” RBN 95: 141–154. ___________ . 2002. “Ptolemaic coins from Fethiye Museum.” NCirc 110.1 (February): 7–12. ___________ . 2003. “Opuscula Anatolica II: VI. Caunian notes.” NC 163: 36–39. ___________ . 2004a. “Kaunos, not Miletos or Mylasa.” NC 164: 33–46. ___________ . 2004b. “Appendix 1.” pp. 98–100, in R. Ashton and P. Kinns, “Opuscula Anatolica III.” NC 164: 71–107. 517

518

Bibliography



Ashton, R., M. Arslan, and A. Dervişağaoğlu. 1996. “A Ptolemaic hoard in Fethiye Museum.” NC 156: 269–272. Asolati, M. 2009. “A proposito di alcune questioni di numismatica cirenaica.” NAC 38: 179–203. ___________ . 2011. Nummi Aenei Cyrenaici: Struttura e cronologia della monetazione bronzea cirenaica di età greca e romana (325 A.C.–180 D.C.). Monografie di Archeologia Libica XXXII. Rome. Augé, C. 2000. “Les monnaies de Ras Ibn Hani près de Lattaquié et les guerres de Syrie.” RN 156: 59–69. ___________ . 2001. “Note sur le trésor de monnaies Ptolémaïques de Iraq al-Amir.” ADAJ 45: 483–485. Aupert, P. 2009. “Amathonte hellénistique et romaine: l’apport des travaux récents.” In Actes du colloque « Chypre à l’époque hellénistique et impériale » Recherches récentes et nouvelles découvertes, Nanterre-Paris 25‒26 septembre 2009, edited by A.-M. GuimierSorbet and D. Michaelides, pp. 25‒48. CCEC 39. Paris. Babelon, E. 1893. Les perses achéménides, les satrapes et les dynastes tributaires de leur empire, Chypre et Phénicie. Paris. Barag, D. 1999. “The coinage of Yehud and the Ptolemies.” INJ 13 (1994–99): 27–38. Barkay, R. 2000. “Chapter 11. The coins of Horvat ‘Eleq.” In Y. Hirschfeld, Ramat Ha Nadir Excavations, pp. 377–380. Jerusalem. ___________ . 2011. “The earliest Nabataean coins.” NC 171: 67–73. Bar-Kochva, B., and A. Kindler. 1996. “The Hezekiah coins.” In B. Bar-Kochva, PseudoHecataeus on the Jews: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora pp. 255–270 and 310–317. Berkeley/Los Angeles. Bellinger, A. R. 1951. “An Alexander hoard from Byblos.” Berytus 10 (1950‒1951): 27‒49. Bingen, J. 1973. “Le trésor monétaire de Thorikos.” In Thorikos VI 1969. Rapport préliminaire sur la sixième campagne de fouilles, pp. 7–59. Brussels. Bond, R. C., and J. M. Swales. 1965. “Surface finds of coins from the city of Euesperides.” Libya Antiqua 2: 91–101. Bosworth, A. B. 2007. “Rider in the chariot: Alexander, Ptolemy and the elephants.” In Alexander and the Hellenistic kingdoms: Coins, image and the creation of identity. The Westmoreland collection, edited by K. A. Sheedy, pp. 17–22. Ancient Coins in Australian Collections I. Sydney. Bouyon, B., G. Depeyrot, and J.-L. Desnier. 2000. Systèmes et technologie des monnaies de bronze (4e s. av. J.-C.—3e s. après J.-C.). Wetteren. Brett, A. B. 1938. “The aphlaston, symbol of naval victory or supremacy on Greek and Roman coins.” In Transactions of the International Numismatic Congress, 1936, edited by J. A. H. Mattingly and E. S. G. Robinson, pp. 23–32. London. ___________ . 1950. “Athena Alkidemos of Pella.” ANSMN 4: 55–72. ___________ . 1952. “The Benha hoard of Ptolemaic gold coins.” ANSMN 5: 1–8. ___________ . 1955. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Catalogue of Greek coins. Boston. Brown, B. R. 1984. “Art history in coins: Portrait issues of Ptolemy I.” In Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano: Studi in onore di Achille Adriani, edited by N. Bonacasa and A. di Vita, pp. 405–417. Rome.





Bibliography

519

Brugsch, H. 1889a. “Die Lösung der altägyptsichen Münzfrage.” ZÄS 27: 4‒28. ___________ . 1889b. Das altägyptische Goldgewicht.” ZÄS 27: 85‒96. Burkhalter, F. 2007. Comptes et monnaies en Égypte ptolémaïque d’après les papyrus. PhD diss., Université Paris IV (Sorbonne). Burkhalter, F., and O. Picard. 2005. “Le vocabulaire financier dans les papyrus et l’évolution des monnayages lagides en bronze.” In L’exception égyptienne? Production et échanges monétaires en Égypte hellénistique et romaine: Actes du Colloque d’Alexandrie, 13–15 avril 2002, edited by F. Duyrat and O. Picard, pp. 53–80. Études alexandrines 10. Cairo. Butcher, K. 2001–02. “Small Change in Ancient Beirut: Coins from BEY 006 and 045, Archaeology of the Beirut Souks I.” Berytus XLV–XLVI. Buttrey, T. V. 1980. “Numismatics," pp. 85–86, in J. H. Humphrey, “North African News Letter 2.” AJA 84.1: 75–87. ___________ . 1994. “Coins and coinage at Euesperides.” Libyan Studies 25: 137–145. ___________ . 1997. “Part I: The coins.” In The extramural sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya, Final Reports, Volume VI, edited by D. White. Philadelphia. Buttrey, T. V., K. T. Erim, T. D. Groves, and R. R. Holloway. 1989. Morgantina studies II: The coins. Princeton. Cahn, H. A. 1948. Frühhellenistische Münzkunst (Basel) = Kleine Schriften (Basel, 1975), pp. 115–131. Calabria, P., and P. Finocchi. 2003. “Le donne dei Tolemei come le donne dei Faraoni.” In Faraoni come dei, Tolemei come faraoni: Atti del V Congresso Internazionale ItaloEgiziano, Torino, Archivo di Stato 8–12 dicembre 2001, edited by N. Bonacasa, A. M. Donadoni Roveri, S. Aiosa, and P. Mina, pp. 179–193. Torino/Palermo. Callataÿ, F. de. 2005a. “L’Étude des monnaies et l’histoire économique du monde grec.” BAB 7.12: 539‒558. ___________ . 2005b. “L’instauration par Ptolémé Ier Sôter d’une économie monétaire fermée.” In L’exception égyptienne? Production et échanges monétaires en Égypte hellénistique et romaine: Actes du Colloque d’Alexandrie, 13–15 avril 2002, edited by F. Duyrat and O. Picard, pp. 117–133. Études alexandrines 10. Cairo. Callataÿ, F. de, G. Depeyrot, and L. Villaronga, L. 1993. L’argent monnayé d’Alexandre le Grand à Auguste. Travaux de Cercle d’études numismatiques 12. Brussels. Caltabiano, M. C. 1996. “Berenice II di Cirene, il primo basileus/donna dell’età ellenistica.” NAC 25: 177–195. ___________ . 1998. “Berenice II: il ruolo di una basilissa rivelato delle sue monete.” In La Cirenaica in antica. Atti del Convegno di Studi, pp. 97–112. Macerata. Campbell, F. E., Jr. 1960. “Excavations at Shechem 1960.” BA 23.4 (December): 102‒110. Carcasonne, C., and A. Davesne. 1987. “Le trésor de Gülnar: considérations sur le rythme de la production monétaire au IIIe s. av. J.-C.” In Rythmes de la production monétaire de l’Aniquité à nos jours. Actes du colloque international organisé à Paris du 10 au 12 janvier 1986, edited by G. Depeyrot, T. Hackens, and G. Moucharte, pp. 21–29. Numismatica Lovaniensia 7. Louvain-la-Neuve. Carlen, E.A. 2014. “A review of the Shechem hoard.” INR 9: 39‒59. Carrò Pisanò, M. T. 1964. “La consistenza del monetiere di Siracusa per quanto riguarda la monetazione greco-siciliota.” AIIN 9‒11 (1962‒1964): 217‒239.

520

Bibliography



Castiello, D., and S. Oliviero. 1997. “Il ripostiglio del Termopolio I, 8 8 di Pompei.” AIIN 44: 93–205. Cavagna, A. 2006. “Una moneta tolemaica in bronzo nella collezione Schledehaus del Kulturgeschichtliches Museum di Osnabrück.” Studi ellenistici XIX: 269–298. ___________ . 2007. “‘Un trou au milieu de la monnaie’: Un’indagine intorno alle cavità centrali sulle monete tolemaiche in bronzo.” RIN 108: 93–120. ___________ . 2008a. “L’oro dei Theoi Adelphoi.” In Nova Vestigia Antiquitatis, edited by G. Zannetto, S. Martinelli Tempesta, and M. Ornaghi, pp. 161–182. Quaderni di Acme 102. Milan. ___________ . 2008b. Review of G. Le Rider and F. de Callataÿ, Les Séleucides et les Ptolémées: L’héritage monétaire et financier d’Alexandre le Grand (Paris, 2006). RIN 109: 570–589. ___________ . 2010. La crisi dello stato tolemaico tra inflazione e svalutazione del denaro. Milan. Chauveau, M. 2000a. “La première mention du statere d’argent in Égypte.” Transeuphratène 20: 137–143. Cheshire, W. 1982. “Zur Deutung eines Szepters der Arsinoe II. Philadelphos.” ZPE 48: 105–111. Chryssanthaki, K. 2005. “Les monnaies lagides en Égée.” In L’exception égyptienne? Production et échanges monétaires en Égypte hellénistique et romaine, edited by F. Duyrat and O. Picard, pp. 159–173. Études alexandrines 10. Cairo. Colburn, H.P. Forthcoming. “The role of coinage in the political economy of fourth century Egypt.” In Ptolemy I Soter and the Transformation of Egypt, 404–323 BCE, edited by P. McKechnie and J. Cromwell. Leiden. Cox, D. H. 1959. Coins from the Excavations at Curium, 1932–1953. ANS NNM 145. New York. ___________ . 1965. “Gordion hoards III, IV, V, and VII.” ANSMN 12: 19–55. Cuvigny, H. 2003. “Les avatars du chrysous dans l’Égypte ptolémaïque et romaine.” BIFAO 103: 111–130. Dahmen, K. 2007. The Legend of Alexander the Great on Greek and Roman Coins. London/ New York. ___________ . 2012. “Alexander und das Diadem—Die archäologische und numismatische Perspektive.” In Das Diadem der hellenistischen Herrscher: Übernahme, Transformation oder Neuschöpfung eines Herrschaftzeichens? Kolloquium vom 30.‒31. Januar 2009 in Münster, edited by A. Lichtenberger, K. Martin, H.-Helge Nieswandt, and D. Salzmann, pp. 281‒292. Euros 1. Bonn. Davesne, A. 1987. “Une contremarque au trident sur certaines monnaies de Ptolémée II Philadelphe.” BSFN 42.2 (February): 145–149. ___________ . 1991. “Les monnaies ptolémaïques d’Ephèse.” In Erol Atalay Memorial, edited by H. Malay, pp. 21–31. Izmir. ___________ . 1994a. “Production et circulation des monnaies des premiers Ptolémées à Chypre.” CCEC 22: pp. 13–18. ___________ . 1994b. “Le trésor d’Aydincik 1974.” In Trésors et circulation monétaire en Anatolie antique, edited by M. Amandry and G. Le Rider, pp. 37–43. Paris. Davesne, A. 1998. “Réflexions sur la valeur des bronzes des premiers Ptolémées.” RN: 49– 60.





Bibliography

521

. 1999. “La deuxième guerre de Syrie (ca. 261–255 av. J.-C.) et les témoignages numismatiques.” In Travaux de numismatique offerts à Georges Le Rider, edited by M. Amandry and S. Hurter, pp. 123–134. London. ___________ . 2005. “Les monnaies des prémiers Ptolémées en Asie Mineure et à Chypre.” In L’exception égyptienne? Production et échanges monétaires en Égypte hellénistique et romaine, edited by F. Duyrat and O. Picard, pp. 177–187. Études alexandrines 10. Cairo. Davesne, A., and A. Lemaire. 1996. “Trésors hellénistiques en Proche-Orient.” RN: 51–76. Davesne, A., and G. Le Rider. 1989. Le trésor de Meydancıkkale (Cilicie Trachée, 1980), Gülnar II. Paris. Davesne, A., and V. Yenisoganci. 1992. “Les Ptolémées en Séleucide: Le trésor de Hüseyinli.” RN: 23–36. Davis, N., and C. M. Kraay. 1973. The Hellenistic Kingdoms: Portrait Coins and History. London. Destrooper-Georgiades, A. 1998. “Un bronze surfrappé de Ptolémée Ier/Démétrios Poliorcète trouvé dans les fouilles de l’université d’Arizona à Dali (Chypre).” In Stephanos Nomismatikos: Edith Schönert-Geiss zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by U. Peter, pp. 207–213. Berlin. Dieudonné, A. 1902. “Ptolemais-Lebedus.” JIAN 5: 45–60. Dodson, O. H., and W. P. Wallace. 1964. “The Kozani hoard of 1955.” ANSMN 11: 21–28. Dürr, N. 1974. “Neues aus Babylon.” SM 94 (May): 33–36. Dumke, G. 2011. “Gutes Gold. Überlegungen zum Sinnhorizont des nbw nfr-Prägungen des Nektanebos II.” In Geld als Medium in der Antike, edited by B. Eckhardt and K. Martin, pp. 57–90. Berlin. Dutilh, E. D. J. 1895. “Note sur les tétradrachms d’Alexandre III le Grand que l’on trouve en Égypte.” Annuaire de la Société française de numismatique: 73‒92. ___________ . 1898. “Monnaies de Side et d’Égypte.” JIAN 1: 148–156. Duyrat, F. 2002. “Les ateliers monétaires de Phénicie du Nord à l’époque hellénistique.” In Les monnayages syriens: Quel apport pour l’histoire grec et romain? Actes de la table ronde de Damas, edited by C. Augé and F. Duyrat, pp. 21–69. Beirut. ___________ . 2005a. Arados hellénistique: Étude historique et monétaire. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 173. Beirut. ___________ . 2005b. “Le trésor de Damanhour (IGCH 1664) et l’evolution de la circulation monétaire en Égypte hellénistique.” In L’exception égyptienne ? Production et échanges monétaires en Égypte hellénistique et romaine: Actes du colloque d’Alexandrie, 13–15 avril 2002, edited by F. Duyrat and O. Picard, pp. 17–51. Études alexandrines 10. Cairo. ___________ . 2011. “Guerre et thésaurisation en Syrie hellénistique, IVe–Ier s. av. J.-C.” In Nomisma : La circulation monétaire dans le monde grec antique. Actes du colloque international Athènes, 14–17 avril 2010, edited by T. Faucher, M.-C. Marcellesi, and O. Picard, pp. 417–431. BCH Supplement 53. Paris. ___________ . 2013. “La frontière entre les possessions lagides et séleucides en Syrie, IIIe–IIe siècle av. J.-C.” In Espace et territoire de l’Égypte gréco-romaine, École pratique des hautes études, 21 juin 2008, edited by G. Gorre and P. Kossmann, pp. 1–25. Geneva. Duyrat, F., and J. Olivier. 2010. “Deux politiques de l’or: Séleucides et lagides au IIIe siècle avant J.-C.” RN 166: 71–93. ___________

522

Bibliography



Eddé, J. 1905. “Les trouvailles des trésors monétaires en Égypte.” Bollettino di Numismatica 3: 128–129. ___________ . 1906. “Les Arsinoës d’Égypte.” Rassegna Numismatica 3.2: 31–35. ___________ . 1909. “Voyages d’autrefois.” Rassegna Numismatica 6.3: 55–56. Ehrhardt, C. 1990. “Greek and Roman coins in New Zealand collections.” New Zealand Numismatic Journal 68: 10–13. Emmons, B. 1954. “The overstruck coinage of Ptolemy I.” ANSMN 6: 69–84. Evans, J. D. 2006. The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima Excavation Reports, Volume VI: The Coins and the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Economy. Boston. Farhi, Y. 2009. “Coins.” In Y. Garfinkel and S. Ganor. Khirbet Qeiyafa, Volume 1: Excavation Report 2007–2008: 231–241. Jerusalem. ___________ . 2016. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 5: Excavation Report 2007–2013. The Numismatic Finds: Coins and Related Objects. Jerusalem. Farhi, Y., and C. Lorber. 2012. “Notes on two Ptolemaic coins from Israel.” AJN 24: 45‒51. Faucher, T. 2010. “Gravure et composition métallique des monnaies lagides.” RN 166: 95– 108. ___________ . 2011a. “La circulation monétaire dans le monde grec antique.” In Nomisma: La circulation monétaire dans le monde grec antique. Actes du colloque international Athènes, 14–17 avril 2010, edited by T. Faucher, M.-C. Marcellesi, and O. Picard, pp. 433–447. BCH Supplement 53. Paris. ___________ . 2011b. “Productivité des coins et taux de survie du monnayage grec.” In Quantifying Monetary Supplies in Greco-Roman Times, edited by F. de Callataÿ, pp. 113–126. Bari. ___________ . 2013. Frapper monnaie: La fabrication des monnaies de bronze à Alexandrie sous les Ptolémées. Études Alexandrines 27. Alexandria. Faucher, T., L., Coulon, E. Frangin, and C. Giorgi. 2011. “Un atelier monétaire à Karnak au IIe s. av. J.-C.” BIFAO 111: 143–165. Faucher, T., and C. Lorber. 2010. “Bronze coinage of Ptolemaic Egypt in the second century BC.” AJN 22: 35–80. Faucher, T., and Redon, B. 2014. “Le prix de l’entrée au bain en Égypte hellénistique et romaine d’après les données textuelles et numismatiques.” In 25 siècles de bain collectif en Orient (Proche-Orient, Égypte et péninsule Arabique), Actes du colloque de Damas, 2009, edited by M.-Fr. Boussac, S. Denoix, Th. Fournet, and B. Redon, pp. 835–855. Beirut. Faucher, T., and M. Shahin. 2006. “Le trésor de Gézéïr (lac Mariout, Alexandrie).” RN 163: 135–157. Faucher, T., F. Tereygeol, L. Brousseau, and A. Arles. 2009. “A la recherche des ateliers monétaires grecs: l’apport de la expérimentation.” RN 165: 43‒80. Fleischer, R. 1996. “Hellenistic royal iconography on coins.” In Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship, edited by P. Bilde, T. Engborg-Pedersen, L. Hannestad, and J. Zahle, pp. 28– 40. Aarhus. Foraboschi, D. 1987. “Arsinoe secunda Filadelfo e la monetazione romana.” NAC 16: 149– 159. Franke, P. R. 1961. Die antiken Münzen von Epirus. Wiesbaden.





Bibliography

523

Fulińska, A. 2010. “Iconography of the Ptolemaic queens on coins: Greek style, Egyptian ideas?” Studies in Ancient Art and Civilization 14: 73–92. ___________ . 2012b. “Divae Potentes Cypri? Remarks on the cult of the Ptolemaic queens as Aphrodite” Eos 99/2: 243–269. Gaebler, H. 1926. “Zur Münzkunde Makedoniens. VIII.” ZfN 36: 183–199. Gentili, G. V. 1956. “Tesoretti monetali rinvenuti a Siracusa.” AIIN 3: 101‒111. Giesecke, W. 1930. Das Ptolemäergeld. Berlin/Leipzig. Gill, D. W. J. 1997. “Coinage of Methana.” In A Rough and Rocky Place: The Landscape and Settlement History of the Methana Peninsula, Greece. Results of the Methana Survey Project Sponsored by the British School at Athens and the University of Liverpool, edited by C. Mee and H. Forbes, pp. 278–281. Liverpool. Gitler, H., and C. Lorber. 2002. “Small silver coins of Ptolemy I.” INJ 14 (2000–2002): 34–42. ___________ . 2006. “A new chronology for the Ptolemaic coins of Judah.” AJN 18: 1–41. ___________ . 2008. “A new chronology for the Yehizkiyah coins of Judah.” SNR 87: 61–82. Godefroy, P. 1936. “Tétradrachmes lagides au revers d’Athèna Promachos.” RN: 279–283. Gorini, G. 2002. “L’immagine del potere nelle emissioni delle regine ellenistiche.” RIN 103: 307–318. Gorre, G. 2010. “P. Berlin 13593: Nouvelle interpretation.” APF 56.1: 77–90. ___________ . 2012. “Les monnaies lagides et les papyrus démotiques.” In Les monnaies des fouilles du Centre d’Études Alexandrines: Les monnayages de bronze à Alexandrie de a conquête d’Alexandre à l’Égypte moderne, edited by O. Picard, C. Bresc, T. Faucher, G. Gorre, M.-C. Marcellesi, and C. Morrison, pp. 109–124. Études Alexandrines 25. Alexandria. ___________ . 2014. “La monnaie de bronze lagide et les temples égyptiens: La diffusion de la monnaie de bronze en Thebaïde au IIIème siècle av. J.-C.” Annales: Histoire, Sciences Sociales 49/1: 91–113. ___________ . 2016. “Le paiement de la capitation et le numéraire de bronze lagide d’après les ostraca thébains des règnes de Ptolémée II et Ptolémée III.” In La présence grecque dans la Vallée de Thèbes, edited by G. Gorre and A. Marangou, pp. 147–153. Rennes. Grandjean, C. 1998. “La valeur des monnaies de bronze du Péloponnèse à l’époque classique et hellénistique.” RN: 31–40. Gregory, T. 1993. “The ancient and Byzantine coins.” In The Fort at Dereagzi, edited by J. Morganstern, pp. 140–154. Istanbuler Forschungen 40. Tübingen. Grigoriakis, G. 2010. “«ΘΗΣΑΥΡΟΣ» Αργυρων Πτολεμαικων Νομισματων απο την Πολη της Χιου.” Obolos 9. Coins of the Aegean Islands: Mints, Circulation, Iconography, History. Proceedings of the Fifth Scientific Meeting, Mytilene 16–19 September 2006, Vol. I: Ancient Times, pp. 263–282. Athens. Guey, J. 1966. “Un rapport de M. Picon sur les grands bronzes lagides à cavité centrale.” BSFN 21: 104. ___________ . 1968. “Composition chimique de cinq bronzes lagides.” BSFN 23: 278. Guey, J., and M. Picon. 1968. “Quelques remarques sur la fabrication des grands bronzes lagides à cavités centrales.” BSFN 23: 240–241.

524

Bibliography



Guittet, P. 2012. “Arsinoe, Thespies et Orchomène en Béotie: Un type monétaire regional?” BSFN 67.4 (April): pp. 82‒87. Haatvedt, R. A., and E. E. Peterson. 1964. Coins from Karanis. The University of Michigan Excavations 1924‒1935. Ann Arbor. Hackens, T. 1968. “A propos de la circulation monétaire dans le Péloponnèse au IIIe s. av. J.-C.” In Antidorum W. Peremans Sexagenario ab Alumnis Oblatum, pp. 69–95. Studia Hellenistica 16. Louvain. ___________ . 1969. “Le trésor de Thèbes 1935 (Noe 1103).” BCH 93: 702–711. Hadley, R. A. 1964. Deified Kingship and Propaganda Coins in the Early Hellenistic Age. Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania. Hazzard, R.A. 1990. “The Composition of Ptolemaic Silver.” Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 20: 89–107. ___________ . 1995a. Ptolemaic Coins: An Introduction for Collectors. Toronto. ___________ . 1998. “A review of the Cyprus hoard, 1982.” NC 158, pp. 25–36. Hazzard, R. A., and S. M. Huston. 2015. “The surge of prices under Ptolemies IV and V.” CdÉ 90: 105–120. Head, B. V. 1886. “Coins discovered on the site of Naucratis.” NC 1886: 13–14. ___________ . 1911. Historia Numorum. Oxford. 2nd ed. Helly, B. 1970. “Les monnaies.” In Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis II, edited by V. Karageorghis, pp. 236–238. Salamis 4. Nicosia. Hersh, C. A. 1998. “Additions and corrections to Martin J. Price’s The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus.” In Studies in Greek Numismatics in Memory of Martin Jessop Price, edited by R. Ashton and S. Hurter, pp. 135–146. London. Hill, G. W. 1923. “Some coins of southern Asia Minor.” In Anatolian Studies Presented to Sir William Ramsey, pp. 207–224. Manchester. Hollstein, W. 1995. “Die Münzen des Ptolemaios Keraunos.” SNR 75: 13–24. ___________ . 2008. “Die Dioskuren und die Einführung des Denars.” JNG 58, pp. 41‒63. Holt, F. L. 2003. Alexander the Great and the Mystery of the Elephant Medallions. Berkeley/ Los Angeles. Hoover, O. D. 2002. “The identity of the helmeted head on the ‘Victory’ coinage of Susa.” SNR 81: 51–64. ___________ . 2010. “Northern Israel hoard, 2002.” In Coin Hoards. Volume X: Greek Hoards, edited by O. Hoover, A. Meadows, and U. Wartenberg, pp. 227–241. New York. ___________ . 2011. Handbook of Coins of the Peloponnesos. Lancaster/London. Hoover, O., and R. Barkay. 2010. “Important additions to the corpus of Nabataean coins since 1990.” In Coinage of the Caravan Kingdoms: Studies in Ancient Arabian Monetization, edited by M. Huth and P. van Alfen, pp. 197–212. ANS NS 25. New York. Houghton, A. 1980. “Tarik Darreh (Kangavar) hoard.” ANSMN 25: 31–44. ___________ . 1983. Coins of the Seleucid Empire from the Collection of Arthur Houghton. ACNAC 1. New York. Houghton, A., and C. Lorber. 2000–2002. “Antiochus III in Coele Syria and Phoenicia.” INJ 14: 44–58. ___________ . 2002. Seleucid Coins, A Comprehensive Catalogue. Part I: Seleucus I through Antiochus III. New York/Lancaster/London.





Bibliography

525

Huber, C. W. 1862. “Essay on the classification of ancient coins found in Egypt.” NC 1862: 160–188. ___________ . 1867. “Zur alten Numismatik Aegyptens II.” Wiener Numismatische Monatshefte 3: 1–30. ___________ . 1868. “Berenike II, Königin und Gemahlin des Ptolemaeus III. Euergetes I.” Wiener Numismatische Monatshefte 4: 224–246. Hultsch, F. 1903. Die ptolemaïschen Münz- und Rechnungswerte. Leipzig (reprint Amsterdam, 1967). Huß, W. 1976a. “Ptolemaios III. als Sarapis?” JNG 26: 31–36. Huston, S. M., and C. C. Lorber. 2001. “A hoard of Ptolemaic bronze coins in commerce, October 1992 (CH 8, 413).” NC 161: 11–40. Imhoof-Blumer, F. 1908. Zur griechischen und römischen Münzkunde. Geneva. Iossif, P. 2004. “Les monnaies de Suse frappées par Séleucos Ier: une nouvelle approche.” NAC 33: 249–271. Iossif, P. P., and C. C. Lorber. 2009. “Celestial imagery on the eastern coinage of Antiochus IV.” Mesopotamia 45: 129–146. ___________ . 2010. “The elephantarches bronze of Seleucos I Nicator.” Syria 87: 147–164. ___________ . 2012. “The Rays of the Ptolemies.” RN 169: 197‒224. Jähne, A. 1998. “Maroneia unter ptolemäischer Herrschaft.” In Stephanos Nomismatikos: Edith Schönert-Geiss zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by U. Peter, pp. 301–316. Berlin. Jenkins, G. K. 1960. “An early Ptolemaic hoard from Phacous.” ANSMN 9: 17–37. ___________ . 1967. “The monetary systems in the early Hellenistic time with special regard to the economic policy of the Ptolemaic kings.” In The Patterns of Monetary Development in Phoenicia and Palestine in Antiquity. International Numismatic Convention, Jerusalem, 27–31 December 1963, edited by A. Kindler, pp. 53–72. Tel Aviv. ___________ . 1977. “Coins of Punic Sicily, part 3.” SNR 56: 5–65. Jenkins, G. K., and R. B. Lewis. 1963. Carthaginian Gold and Electrum Coins. RNS Special Publication 2. London. Jungfleisch, M. 1948. “Réflexions de practicien sur les monnaies ptolémaïques en bronze.” Bulletin de l’Institut d’Égypte 30: 47–60. Kadman, L. 1967. “The monetary development of Palestine in the light of coin hoards.” In The Patterns of Monetary Development in Phoenicia and Palestine in Antiquity. International Numismatic Convention, Jerusalem, 27–31 December 1963, edited by A. Kindler, pp. 311–324. Tel Aviv. Kahrstedt, U. 1910. “Frauen auf antiken Münzen.” Klio 10: 261–314. Kellner, H.-J. 2000. “Eine Münze aus der Stoa von Kaunos.” In Studien zur Religion und Kultur und des ägäischen Bereiches. Festschrift für Baki Ögün zum 75 Geburtstag, edited by C. Isik, pp. 145–149. Asia Minor Studien 39. Bonn. Kessler, D. 2011. Die Oberbauten des Ibiotapheion von Tuna el-Gebel: Die Nachgrabungen der Joint Mission der Universitäten Kairo und München 1989–1996, Tuna el-Gebel 3, pp. 241–244 and pl. 156. Munich. Kindler, A. 1978. “A Ptolemaic coin hoard from Tel Michal.” Journal of the Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology 5: pp. 159–169.

526

Bibliography



Knapp, R. C., and J. D. Mac Isaac. 2005. Excavations at Nemea III: The Coins. Berkeley/ Los Angeles/London. Koch, W. 1923a. “Die ersten Ptolemäerinnen nach ihren Münzen.” ZfN 34: 67‒106. Kondis, S. 1978. “À propos des monnayages royaux Lagides en Cyrénaïque sous Ptolémée Ier et II.” RBN 124: 23–47. Konuk, K. 2001. “Les monnaies.” In Les hautes terres de Carie, edited by P. Debord and E. Varinlioğlu, pp. 77–79. Ausonius Publications 4. Bordeaux. ___________ . 2004. “The Ptolemaic coins in the Bodrum Underwater Archaeology Museum.” In The Salmakis Inscription and Hellenistic Halikarnassus, edited by S. Isager and P. Pederson, pp. 165–175. Halicarnassian Studies IV. Odense. Kremydi-Sicilianou, S. 2000. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. The Alpha Bank Collection, Macedonia I: Alexander I–Perseus. Athens. Kroll, J. H.. 2007. “The emergence of ruler portraiture on early Hellenistic coins: The importance of being divine.” In Early Hellenistic Portraiture: Image, Style, Content, edited by P. Schultz and R. von den Hoff, pp. 113–122. Cambridge. Kroll, J. H., and A. S. Walker. 1993. The Athenian Agora, Vol. XXVI: The Coins. Princeton. Kromann, A., and O. Mørkholm. 1977. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish National Museum. Egypt: The Ptolemies. Copenhagen. Kuschel, B. 1961. “Die neuen Münzbilder des Ptolemaios Soter.” JNG 11: 9–18. Kushnir-Stein, A., and H. Gitler. 1999. “On some inscribed lead weights from Palestine.” QT 28: 221–234. Kyrieleis, H. 1973b. “Die Porträtmünzen Ptolemaios’ V. und seiner Eltern: zur Datierung und historischen Interpretation.” JDAI 88: 213–246. Lagos, C. 1996. “A hoard of the Chremonidean War.” NC 156: 272–277. Lambropoulous, A. 1896. “ʾΑρχαῖα ἐλληνικὰ νομίσματα εὑεθένατα ἐν Μυκήναις.” ʾΑρχαιολογική ʾΕφημερὶς, cols. 137‒200, pls. 6‒10. Landvatter, T.P. 2012. “The Serapis and Isis coinage of Ptolemy IV.” AJN 24: 61–90. Lauffray, J., R. Sa’ad, and S. Sauneron. 1975. “Rapport sur les travaux de Karnak. Activités du Centre franco-égyptien en 1970–1972.” Cahiers de Karnak 5: 14. Lemaire, A. 1976. “Le monnayage de Tyr et celui dit d’Akko dans la deuxième moitié du IVe siècle av. J.-C.” RN: 11–24. Le Rider, G. 1969a. “Les arsinoéens de Crète.” In Essays in Greek Coinage Presented to Stanley Robinson, edited by C. M. Kraay and G. K. Jenkins, pp. 229–240. Oxford. ___________ . 1969b. “Monnaies trouvées à Mirgissa.” RN: 28–35. ___________ . 1977. Le monnayage d’argent et d’or de Philippe II frappé en Macédoine de 359 à 294. Paris. ___________ . 1986a. “Les alexandres d’argent en Asie Mineure et dans l’Orient séleucide au IIIe siècle av. J.-C. (c. 275–c. 225): Remarques sur le système monétaire des Séleucides et des Ptolémées.” JSav: 3–51. ___________ . 1986b. “L’atelier de Posideion et les monnaies de la fouille de Bassit en Syrie.” BCH 110: 393–408. ___________ . 1989. “À propos d’un passage des Poroi de Xénophon: La question du change et les monnaies incuses d’Italie du sud.” In Kraay-Mørkholm Essays: Numismatic Studies in Memory of C.M. Kraay and O. Mørkholm, edited by G. Le Rider, K. Jenkins, N.





Bibliography

527

Waggoner, and U. Westermark, pp. 159–172. Numismatica Lovaniensia 10. Louvain. . 1992. Review of M. J. Price, The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus, A British Museum Catalogue, 1991. SNR 71: 214–225. ___________ . 1994. “Antiochos IV (175‒164) et le monnayage de bronze séleucide.” BCH 118: 17‒34. ___________ . 1997. “Cléomène de Naucratis.” BCH 121: 71–93. ___________ . 1998a. “Histoire économique et monétaire de l’Orient hellénistique.” Annuaire du Collège de France 1997–1998, Résumé des cours, pp. 783–809. Paris. ___________ . 1998b. “Sur un passage du papyrus de Zénon 59021.” In Commerce et artisanat dans l’Alexandrie hellénistique et romaine: Actes du Colloque d’Athènes organisé par le CNRS, le Laboratoire de céramologie de Lyon et l’École française d’Athènes, 11–12 décembre 1988, edited by J.-Y. Empereur, pp. 403–407. BCH Supplément 33. Paris. ___________ . 1998c. “Un trésor de monnaies d’argent trouvé en Syrie en 1971 (CH II, 81).” Syria 75: 89–96. ___________ . 2003. Alexandre le Grand. Monnaie, finances et politique. Paris. ___________ . 2007. Alexander the Great. Coinage, Finance, and Policy. Tr. W. E. Higgins. Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society Vol. 261. Philadelphia. English translation of Le Rider 2003. Le Rider, G., and F. de Callataÿ. 2006. Les Séleucides et les Ptolémées: L’héritage monétaire et financier d’Alexandre le Grand. Paris. Le Rider, G., and N. Olçay. 1988. “Un trésor de tétradrachmes d’Alexandre trouvé a Akçakale en 1958.” RN: 42–54. Leschhorn, W. 1986. “Zu den rhodischen Didrachmen des 4. und 3. Jh. v. Chr.: Der Schatzfund von Uşak (Coin Hoards II, 68).” JNG 36: 67–94. Lichocka, B. 1986. “La statue d’Aphrodite sur les Monnaies de Ptolémée III.” In Iconographie classique et identities régionales: Paris, 26 et 27 mai 1983, edited by L. Kahil, Ch. Augé, and P. Linant de Bellefonds, pp. 311–330. BCH Suppl. 14, Colloques internationaux de Centre national de la recherche scientifique 619. Athens/Paris. ___________ . 2003. “Il ruolo delle monete nella propaganda dinastica dei Tolemei.” In Faraoni come dei, Tolemei come faraoni: Atti del V Congresso Internazionale Italo-Egiziano, Torino, 8–12 dicembre 2001, edited by N. Bonacasa, A. M. Donadoni Roveri S. Aiosa, and P. Minà, pp. 204–210. Torino/Palermo. Lichtenberger, A. 2006. “>Auf Adlerflügeln