The Beginning of Coinage in the Cimmerian Bosporus (A Hoard from Phanagoria) (Colloquia Antiqua, 34) 9042946172, 9789042946170

Citation preview

The Beginning of Coinage in the Cimmerian Bosporus (a Hoard from Phanagoria)

By Vladimir D. Kuznetsov and Mikhail G. Abramzon

PEETERS

THE BEGINNING OF COINAGE IN THE CIMMERIAN BOSPORUS (A HOARD FROM PHANAGORIA)

COLLOQUIA ANTIQUA Supplements to the Journal ANCIENT WEST & EAST

SERIES EDITOR

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE (UK) EDITORIAL BOARD

A. Avram (Romania/France), Sir John Boardman (UK), J. Hargrave (UK), M. Kazanski (France), A. Mehl (Germany), A. Podossinov (Russia), N. Theodossiev (Bulgaria), J. Wiesehöfer (Germany) ADVISORY BOARD

S. Atasoy (Turkey), L. Ballesteros Pastor (Spain), S. Burstein (USA), J. Carter (USA), B. d’Agostino (Italy), J. de Boer (The Netherlands), A. Domínguez (Spain), O. Doonan (USA), A. Kuhrt (UK), J.-P. Morel (France), M. Pearce (UK), D. Potts (USA), A. Rathje (Denmark), R. Rollinger (Austria), A. Snodgrass (UK), M. Sommer (Germany), M. Tiverios (Greece), C. Ulf (Austria), J. Vela Tejada (Spain)

Colloquia Antiqua is a refereed publication

For proposals and editorial and other matters, please contact the Series Editor: Prof. Gocha R. Tsetskhladze The Gallery Spa Road Llandrindod Wells Powys LD1 5ER UK E-mail: [email protected]

COLLOQUIA ANTIQUA ————— 34 —————

PHANAGORIA STUDIES 1 Edited by V.D. Kuznetsov and G.R. Tsetskhladze

THE BEGINNING OF COINAGE IN THE CIMMERIAN BOSPORUS (A HOARD FROM PHANAGORIA)

By

VLADIMIR D. KUZNETSOV and MIKHAIL G. ABRAMZON

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2021

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-90-429-4617-0 eISBN 978-90-429-4618-7 D/2021/0602/121 © 2021, Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage or retrieval devices or systems, without prior written permission from the publisher, except the quotation of brief passages for review purposes.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Series Editor’s Introduction – Gocha R. Tsetskhladze. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foreword – François de Callataÿ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Authors’ Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 1. Hoard Description and Early Bosporan Coinage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 2. The Beginning of Coinage in the Cimmerian Bosporus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catalogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix. XRF and Pb–Pb Isotopic Analyses of the Hoard Coins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VII IX XI XIII XV

1 5 33 47 53 59 79 87 91

SERIES EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

I am very pleased to be able to publish another numismatic volume with a Black Sea flavour. Once again, it is by Vladimir Kuznetsov and Mikhail Abramzon, and it follows hot on the heels of their previous contribution to the series (Colloquia Antiqua 32, 2021) on Greek coin hoards from the Cimmerian Bosporus (the Kerch Strait). The focus here is on a unique hoard from Phanagoria, the principal settlement of the Asiatic side of the strait, which allows to re-date the coinage of the Cimmerian Bosporus and where it was minted. Phanagoria is a site well known to me, not least from my time in the 1990s as co-director of the Anglo-Russian excavations at Phanagoria. Indeed one outcome was the publication of C. Morgan’s Attic Fine Pottery of the Archaic to Hellenistic Periods in Phanagoria as Colloquia Pontica 10 in 2004, not to mention other books and a series of articles. The excavation of Phangoria has advanced steadily under the direction of Prof. Kuznetsov. Nowadays, it is the most extensively excavated, studied and published classical site in Russia. Its excavation has yielded important and unique finds, among them the large quarter of the Archaic city with fortification walls, a temenos, evidence of the residence of Mithridates VI, the tombstone of his wife, shipwrecks of the Mithridatic era, extensive necropoleis, and much else besides. All of these achievements need to be better known to the Western academic world, and it is with this in mind that a new series, Phanagoria Studies, edited by Prof. Kuznetsov and myself, has been inaugurated within Colloquia Antiqua. Prof. Kuznetsov is Head of the Department of Classical Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Director of excavations at Phanagoria, and founding Director of the Phanagoria Research Centre and Historical-Archaeological Preserve. His specialisms are the initial stage of Greek colonisation of the Black Sea and the domestic architecture of the first Greek colonies there, and early coinage. Prof. Abramzon is Russia’s foremost classical numismatist, author of many books and articles. He has participate in excavations for many years, especially at Phanagoria. Currently, he is Leading Research Fellow of the Department of Classical Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, and Director of the Research Institute for Historical Anthropology and Philology, Nosov Magnitogorsk State Technical University. I repeat my plea from Colloquia Antiqua 32 for the better integration of numismatics into the mainstream of ancient history and classical archaeology. As usual, my thanks to our publisher, Peeters, and especially to Bert Verrept, for their skilled handling of this volume. Gocha R. Tsetskhladze Series Editor

FOREWORD

It is a great pleasure and honour for me to provide a small foreword to this important monograph about an exceptionally important hoard. Found in 2005 during the archaeological excavations of Phanagoria (Taman Peninsula, in front of Panticapaeum/Kerch), this hoard of 162 Late Archaic silver coins is a unique document for the area as it could be securely dated to 480 BC, when the Persians burnt the city as attested by modern excavations on more than 3000m². It has been found in a structure (house 205) of ca. 65 m² located in the eastern part of the Archaic city near the ramparts. As a furnace has been discovered in the courtyard, it prompts the rather loose hypothesis that the owner may have been a silversmith. The coins were found in a small Ionian jug (12 cm) concealed inside the wall. It is important to notice that several other sites of the Cimmerian Bosporus were burnt at the same time in what appears as a massive war destruction reinforcing the confidence we may have about the dating at Phanagoria as well. All the coins – 8 drachms and 154 triobols (the equivalent of 85 drachms) – belong to the same and rare coinage ‘Lion head facing | Four-part incuse square’ which also comprises three other small denominations (triobols, hemiobols and tetartemoria) absent here but not on the site. This hoard nearly doubles the number of hitherto known drachms and triobols for the area. For the 154 triobols, there are 20 obverses and 14 reverses (for 32 combinations), which is a not abnormal ratio considering that reverse dies were used extensively and to a point of deterioration not admitted for obverses. The original number of obverses is unlikely to have exceeded 30. With an average production of 20,000 coins per obverse die, this yields 600,000 triobols of ca. 3.00 g (ca. 1800 kg = ca. 70 Attic talents). But the actual number is likely to be below this estimate since 20.000 coins per obverse die is a high estimate for these small Late Archaic denominations. Dies are heavily interconnected. Looking with an exceptional care at the various stages of die deterioration, the authors propose a convincing relative chronological sequence. Interestingly and acting to some extent as a validation, the later obverses of the sequence are as expected also the most represented (just like in the classical case of the Lohe Hoard). Organised as they are, it is certainly hard to spread this coinage over several decades. In any case, it cannot have begun in the mid-6th century as postulated by several authors who were not embarrassed to make this coinage one of the very first of the entire Greek world. The authors argue for some 15 years of production (ca. 494–480 BC). Why not, but it may perfectly have been struck with just one hammer at work in less than a year. What is possibly missing here is an idea about the dies attested elsewhere. Does the Phanagoria hoard cover the entire coinage or just the first part of it? The big question is then of course to determine the purpose of the coinage. It should be underlined that the authors are mastering recent literature in different languages, in sharp contrast with most of what is produced now by Anglo-Saxon colleagues. Instead of favouring a single explanation, the authors argue for some general favourable context mixing various aspects. It cannot be taken for granted that this coinage was issued by the city of Panticapaeum despite iconographic parallels. They are more inclined to consider it as the product of some alliance. They recall the importance of the nearby sanctuary of Aphrodite Ourania at Apatouros. They evoke the trade with the Aegean world, especially since this hoard proves that coins were struck on the full Aeginetan standard (not a reduced one as guessed by past literature). They also take into consideration the Ionian revolt of 494 BC and the subsequent emigration of a substantial number of Ionians towards the Black Sea region. On the whole, the authors underline the economic and military necessity for people living in the Bosporus to join their efforts in order to produce some ‘cooperative coinage’ at the merging point of various needs: religious, economic and military. We don’t know, and this is a prudent enough scenario. But as always, we have to consider volumes and denominations. Triobols are by far the most

X

FOREWORD

common denomination. With 3 g of silver, it corresponds more or less to a one-day salary. Conversely, it seems too large for civic or cult participation and not shaped to go on the agora for petty transactions. As seen above, the volume of this coinage is likely to be no more than 70 talents of Attic silver. A large sum but which, put into perspective, allows to pay for just one (not too) big civic building or to pay the yearly salary of ca. 3000 people (and again this estimate should be taken more as a maximum). It would be nice to incorporate views about the demography of the area, but as such, this compact silver coinage is too small for any grand scale monetisation of the transactions. The book concludes with a strong chapter about metal composition. All coins have been submitted to XRF analysis, and 4 drachms and 31 triobols to lead isotopes analyses. In a detailed description of what we know about provenances, it is concluded that most coins have been struck with metal that is likely the result of some mix of Aegean provenances: Laurion, Maroneia, Pangeion, Rhodopes and Cyclades. But 2 coins strongly differ: no 13 (whose silver is likely to come from the Zagros) and no 17 (whose silver is likely to come from the Taurus). These results offer some confirmation to what has been recently detected: an early mix of silver through the Mediterranean Sea and beyond. This is clearly an important book which goes well beyond Phanagoria and the Cimmerian Bosporus, asking the good questions and solving some of them. The authors should be warmly congratulated. François de Callataÿ Secretary of the International Numismatic Council Member of the Academia Europaea Royal Academy of Belgium Institut de France Deutsches Archäologisches Institut

AUTHORS’ PREFACE

The 2005 Phanagorian hoard of the earliest silver coins of the Cimmerian Bosporus is truly unique to the Northern Black Sea region. Before its discovery, small hoards of coins of a somewhat later date had been found in Nymphaeum (1949),1 Panticapaeum (ca. 1955)2 and Patraeus (1998).3 In contrast to the Phanagorian find, these hoards, dating to ca. 475‒450 BC, represent the second phase of the early Bosporan coinage and include coins struck on the Persian standard. The date of the beginning of Bosporan coinage is one of the most important issues discussed in numismatic literature. The Phanagorian hoard offers new insights into this subject. Now we can confidently date the beginning of silver coinage to the 490s BC. The reconstruction of die-sequences of triobols, of which the hoard mainly consists, makes it possible to determine the chronology of their issues and the duration of coinage. Observations of the survival of quadrati incusi provide evidence for the die-life, which is important for establishing the period during which the triobols were issued. Taking into account the date of concealment (480 BC) and the number of obverse and reverse dies of the triobols in the hoard, we can state with a fair degree of certainty that the coins were minted within a period of 15 years – from the 490s to 480 BC. On the whole, the dating of the earliest Bosporan emissions is confirmed by analogies found among the synchronous coinages of Theos, Abdera, Aegina and other centres whose coins feature quadratum incusum of close pattern. The Phanagorian hoard also gives decisive evidence on the metrology of Late Archaic Bosporan silver coinage. The metrological analysis of the coins from the hoard allows us to clarify the weights of the early Bosporan drachm and triobol and refute the common opinion that early Bosporan silver coins were issued on the reduced Aeginetan standard. The hoard testifies that up to 480 BC the Bosporan drachm was minted in exact correspondence with the full Aeginetan standard. Natural science methods, primarily the X-ray and lead isotope analyses, have greatly contributed to the study of the hoard. This work was carried out by our colleagues – experts in archaeometry. We would especially like to thank Dr Irina Saprykina (Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy of Sciences), Dr Andrey Chugaev (Institute of Geology of Ore Deposits, Petrography, Mineralogy and Biochemistry, RAS), Dr Lyubov Pelgunova (Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, RAS, and Mrs Olga Gunchina (State Historical and Archaeological Museum-Reserve ‘Phanagoria’), who conducted research on the chemical composition of the coins from the hoard. It should be noted that all previous studies of Archaic Bosporan coinage metals had been limited to only small numbers of specimens,4 and the lead isotope analysis of Bosporan coins was performed for the first time. The results of the investigation of metal are published in the Appendix. We would like to express special gratitude to our colleague and friend Dr Alexey Zavoykin (Institute of Archaeology, RAS) for his scrupulous review of the manuscript, his invaluable advice and encouragement. It goes without saying that only the authors of the volume are responsible for all the shortcomings of the work. We are also grateful to all the members of the Phanagorian Mission of the Institute of Archaeology, as well as to the staff of the Museum-Reserve ‘Phanagoria’, who contribute daily to the research of the ancient city. 1 2 3 4

Skudnova 1950, 78‒79; Shelov 1951, 264–65; Golenko 1974, 68–70; IGCH 997; Abramzon and Frolova 2007‒08, 63‒64. ICCH 996. Abramov and Boldyrev 2001, 143‒44; Abramzon and Frolova 2007‒08, 62. Frolova 1997, 75, 146‒49; Smekalova and Dyukov 2001, 90‒104.

XII

AUTHORS’ PREFACE

Finally, the publication of this book would not have been possible without the help of our colleague and friend Prof. Gocha Tsetskhladze, who – with a team of his students – took part in the excavations at Phanagoria in the 1990s. We would especially like to thank him for editing the whole text and we hope that our collaboration will continue. We have used the form Berthier-Delagarde, the name by which he was generally known in English, rather than following strict transliteration from Russian. November 2020 Vladimir Kuznetsov Mikhail Abramzon

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACSS AJA AJN BCH BMC CAH CH VIII CNG DB FgrHist Hunt. Coll. IGCH JAS LGPN

LSJ NC NE RA RBN SA SEG SNG ANS

SNG BM SNG Cop.

SNG Delepierre SNG PSMFA

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia. American Journal of Archaeology. American Journal of Numismatics. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique. The British Museum Catalogue. The Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd ed. U. Wartenberg, M.J. Price and K.A. Gregor, Coin Hoards VIII: Greek Hoards (London 1994). Classical Numismatic Group. Drevnosti Bospora. F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Leiden). G. MacDonald, Catalogue of Greek Coins in the Hunterian Collection, University of Glasgow, vols. 1–2 (Glasgow 1899; 1901). M. Thompson, O. Mørkholm and C.M. Kraay, An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards (New York 1973). Journal of Archaeological Science. P.M. Fraser and E. Matthews (eds.), A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names 3A: The Peloponnese, Western Greece, Sicily and Magna Graecia (Oxford 1997). H.G. Liddel, R. Scott and H.S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon with a Supplement (Oxford 1996). The Numismatic Chronicle. Numismatika i Epigrafika. Rossiiskaya Arkheologiya. Revue Belge de Numismatique et de Sigillographie. Sovetskaya Arkheologiya. Supplementum Epigragicum Graecum. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum USA: The Collection of the American Numismatic Society. 1: Etruria – Calabria (New York 1969); 7.1: Macedonia: Cities, Thraco-Macedonian Tribes, Paeonian Kings (New York 1987). Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum Great Britain IX: British Museum. I: The Black Sea (London 1993). Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum Denmark: The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish National Museum, vols. 2–4 (West Milford 1982). Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum France: Collection Jean et Marie Delepierre (Paris 1983). Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum Russia: State Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts Coins of the Black Sea Region. 1: Ancient Coins from the Northern Black Sea Littoral (Colloquia Antiqua 3) (Leuven/Paris/ Walpole, 2011).

XIV

SNG Stancomb SNG von Aulock

SNR VDI

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum Great Britain XI: The William Stancomb Collection of the Black Sea Region (Oxford 2000). Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum Deutschland: Sammlung v. Aulock. Collection of Greek Coins from Asia Minor, vol. I (West Milford 1987). Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii.

LIST OF ILUSTRATIONS

Figures Fig. 1. Fig. 2. Fig. 3. Fig. 4. Fig. 5. Fig. 6. Fig. 7. Fig. 8. Fig. 9. Fig. 10.

Scheme of die-sequence for triobols of the Phanagorian 2005 hoard. Distribution of the numbers of coins struck by obverse dies (triobols). Distribution of the numbers of coins struck by reverse dies (triobols). Distribution of the numbers of coins struck by die-combinations (triobols). Example of Au and Bi peaks in the spectrum of a coin from the Phanagorian 2005 hoard. Histogram of the silver content in the metal of triobols of Group 1 (490s BC). Histogram of gold, bismuth, and lead content in the metal of triobols of Group 1 (490s BC). Histogram of the silver content in the metal of triobols of Group 2 (ca. 490–480 BC). Histogram of gold, bismuth, and lead content in the metal of coins of Group 2 (ca. 490–480 BC). Lead isotopes diagrams for coins from the Phanagorian hoard. The diagrams show the mean-order evolution curves of the Pb isotope composition, according to the Stacey–Kramers1 model, as well as the mixing trends (grey) of the Pb isotope composition identified for coins. Fig. 11. Lead isotopes diagram showing a comparison of the isotopic composition of Pb of coins from the Phanagoria hoard, as well as silver-polymetallic and polymetallic deposits of ore regions: 1 – Lavrion (Greece); 2 – Eastern Macedon and Thrace (Greece); 3 – The Rhodope Mountains (southern Bulgaria); 4 – Central and south-eastern Taurus Mountains (southern Turkey); 5 – Sanandaj-Sirjan zone, Zagros Mountain (western Iran); 6 – The Cyclades. Plates Pl. 1. Pl. 2. Pl. 3. Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

1

1 – location of Panticapaeum, Phanagoria and Apatouros; 2 – bird’s-eye view on the settlement of Phanagoria. The ‘Upper city’ site on the left. Phanagorian Museum photograph of 2019. 1 – plan of the ‘Upper city’ Trench, the 6th–first quarter of the 5th century BC; 2 – House 205. Phanagoria. The ‘Upper city’ site. House 205. 1 – Ionian pitcher with coins in situ; 2 – hiding place with a hoard of early silver. Ionian pitcher with coins. The hoard before cleaning. Phases of cleaning the hoard. Restoration of the hoard. Silver chloride (AgCl) on coins. Cleaning of triobols from silver corrosion products: a – coins before cleaning; b – after cleaning. Triobol no. 27 with indentations along the contour on the reverse applied with a punch. Find-spots of Late Archaic Bosporan coins (mainly to Garbuzov et al. 2011). Isolated Late Archaic coins from the destruction layer of ca. 480 BC: Bosporan triobols (1–3) and hemiobol (4), ca. 490–480 BC; obol (5) and tetartemorion (6) of unknown centers (Ionia?), ca. 510–480 BC. Phanagorian hoard. Drachms (× 3). Phanagorian hoard. Drachms (× 3). Phanagorian hoard. Triobols (× 3). Phanagorian hoard. Triobols (× 3). Phanagorian hoard. Triobols (× 3). Phanagorian hoard. Triobols (× 3). Phanagorian hoard. Triobols (× 3). Phanagorian hoard. Triobols (× 3). Phanagorian hoard. Triobols (× 3). Phanagorian hoard. Triobols (× 3). Phanagorian hoard. Triobols (× 3). Phanagorian hoard. Triobols (× 3).

Stacey and Kramers 1975.

XVI

Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl.

LIST OF ILUSTRATIONS

24. 25. 26. 27.

Phanagorian hoard. Triobols (× 3). Phanagorian hoard. Triobols (× 3). Triobols from the hoard weighing 3.00 to 3.19 g. Die-life. Reconstruction of the process of deterioration of R2 and R 4 dies: breaks at the sharp edges of a square-headed die. Pl. 28. Die-life. Reconstruction of the process of deterioration of the square-headed reverse die R6: a new die (Phase A – no. 79) is gradually crumbling (Phases B, C, D – nos. 67, 63, 65), then loses an entire segment (Phases D, E – nos. 70, 68). Pl. 29. Die-life. Reconstruction of the process of deterioration of the square-headed reverse dies R7/8 and 12: the die 7 breaks in half. Pl. 30. Die-life. Reconstruction of the process of deterioration of the square-headed reverse dies R13 and R14. Pl. 31. Die-life. Reconstruction of the process of deterioration of the square-headed reverse dies R6, R7/8, R12, R14. Pl. 32. Close forms of quadrati incusi on early Bosporan coins from the hoard and Teos. Pl. 33. Coinage on oblong blanks: a – Aegina stater, 495–480 BC (after Sear 1978, no. 1856); b – triobols from the hoard. Pl. 34. Close forms of the quadrati incusi on early Bosporan coins from the hoard, as well as Mende, Aegina, Theos, Abdera and Uncertain Macedonian Mint. Pl. 35. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols’ die-combinations nos. 1–8 (× 2). Pl. 36. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols’ die-combinations nos. 9–16 (× 2). Pl. 37. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols’ die-combinations nos. 17–24 (× 2). Pl. 38. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols’ die-combinations nos. 25–32 (× 2). Pl. 39. Triobols’ die-combinations. Group 1. ca. 490s BC. Pl. 40. Triobols’ die-combinations. Group 2. ca. 490–480 BC. Pl. 41. Phanagorian hoard. Drachms. Pl. 42. Phanagorian hoard. Drachms. Pl. 43. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols. Pl. 44. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols. Pl. 45. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols. Pl. 46. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols. Pl. 47. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols. Pl. 48. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols. Pl. 49. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols. Pl. 50. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols. Pl. 51. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols. Pl. 52. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols. Pl. 53. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols. Pl. 54. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols. Pl. 55. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols. Pl. 56. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols. Pl. 57. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols. Pl. 58. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols. Pl. 59. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols.

INTRODUCTION

Phanagoria was one of the largest ancient Greek poleis located on the northern Black Sea coast (see Pl. 1). The exact date of its founding is unknown. It was an apoikia set up by the Teians. As is well known from reports of ancient authors (Herodotus 1. 168; Strabo. 14. 1. 30), when the Persian warriors were climbing the walls of Teos all its inhabitants left the city and founded a new polis, Abdera. This event is usually believed to have happened in 545‒544 BC.1 Assuming that Phanagoria was not founded at the same time as Abdera, as the absence of its name in the accounts by Herodotus (1. 168) and Strabo (14 .1. 30) may indicate, a settlement on the Taman Peninsula could appear a little later than the date mentioned above.2 For example, its foundation may have happened ca. 540 BC. Initially, the city was founded on a hill, on the edge of a small plateau descending towards the coast of the sea gulf. On both sides it was bounded by the slopes of the hollows/ravines, which provided natural defence. It can be assumed that in the earliest period the area of the apoikia did not exceed 2 ha.3 From the very beginning, the city was built up with residential and small public buildings made of mud bricks. The city blocks were separated with narrow streets intersecting at right angles. Although the settlement was built according to a certain plan, it was not orthogonal.4 Already in the initial period of its life, the apoikia was protected by urban fortifications, also built of mud bricks.5 The thickness of the walls is 1.1 m. The fortifications are of an uncommon type: they consist of a series of rooms adjacent to each other, each of which extends slightly forward or backward from the building line of the facade (Pl. 2.1). This was done to facilitate defence, especially since each room served as a kind of tower. These premises had at least two floors with a total height of 5–6 m. In addition to defensive purposes, they could serve as barracks, workshops for the manufacture and repair of weapons, or warehouses. It is no coincidence that a square furnace used for metalworking was found adjoining one of the sections of the wall, on the inside.6 Besides, a sanctuary with a round hearth-hestia and a louterion standing nearby was discovered in one of the tower rooms, on the ground floor.7 Judging by the latest archaeological materials found on the surface of the destroyed walls (in the upper parts of the closed complex), the fortifications perished in a huge fire at the turn of the first and second quarters of the 5th century BC.8 Their ruins have been preserved only because the structures were located on the slope of the hill, where the cultural layer has not been destroyed by subsequent building activity. Still, a large number of brick courses are lost due to household pits dug in the Roman and Early Mediaeval times. After the destruction of the city walls, a mud-brick building – most likely, a residential house – was erected on their ruins. Only fragments of its two walls have survived. The house ceased to exist at the beginning of the second half of the 5th century BC. A fragment of a marble stele with a Persian cuneiform inscription was discovered inside the house.9 Based on the archaeological evidence, the date of the fire coincides with the time when the Archaeanactids came to power in

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Loukopoulou 2004, 873; Chryssanthaki 2004, 311. Kuznetsov 2019b. Kuznetsov and Zavoykin 2014. Kuznetsov 2018b. Kuznetsov 2018a. Zavoykin and Kuznetsov 2019, 88, fig. 19. Kuznetsov 2018a, 217, fig. 2.1. Kuznetsov 2019a. Kuznetsov and Nikitin 2019.

2

INTRODUCTION

the Cimmerian Bosporus, as reported by Diodorus Siculus (12. 31. 1). Taking into account synchronous destructions with traces of fires recorded in many other Pontic cities,10 as well as the coincidence of the archaeological dates, the information of the written source and the discovery of the unique Achaemenid royal inscription in the Bosporus, we have good grounds to claim that the Persians invaded the Pontus ca. 480, i.e. at about the same time as Xerxes organized the campaign against Athens. A very important fact is that traces of the fire have been revealed throughout the entire ‘Upper City’ excavation site in the historical core of Phanagoria. Currently, the area under archaeological examination exceeds 3000 m2 (Pl. 2.1). Many buildings, both residential and public, were destroyed during the disaster. One of those was house no. 205. It is located in the eastern part of the Archaic city, in close proximity to the fortifications (about 20 m to the west of them) (Pl. 2.2). Only the western part of the construction was uncovered. It consisted of at least two rooms: northern and southern. In total, their area is more than 65 m2 (excluding the part of the house that is located beyond the eastern wall of the excavation site). A furnace (0.84 × 0.4 m in size) built of mud bricks placed on edge was found in the southwestern corner of the northern room. Traces of a strong fire are visible on the walls. The functional purpose of the furnace is unclear; yet its connection with craft production is not ruled out. If this is the case, we can assume that the described room was actually a courtyard with an area of more than 42 m2. To a certain extent, this is confirmed by another find made in the centre of the courtyard – a craft furnace. It consisted of an upper part of an amphora (a neck with shoulders), turned upside-down and dug into the ground, and a pipe made of three amphora necks, which was attached to the furnace and evidently served for air injection.11 The whole structure was placed under a clay dome. It was fuelled from the eastern side, and at the top there was an opening – a chimney. The furnace was probably used for melting small portions of non-ferrous metal. Most likely, this metal was silver, the increased content of which is recorded in the surrounding soil. The house was in existence from the second half of the 6th century BC to the turn of the first and second quarters of the 5th century BC. This is evidenced by the associated finds: fragments of Ionian bowls with dot and stick patterns around handles, Attic little master cups, a blackfigured Attic skyphos, walls of painted Ionian amphorae/oinochoai, including ‘Clazomenian’ amphorae with scaly ornaments, and transport amphorae (Chian ‘funnel-necked’ and ‘bulbousnecked’, Clazomenian, Protothasian, Lesbian, etc.). It is important to note that a bronze arrowhead was found in the courtyard. Let us draw immediate attention to the fact that overall the investigations of the Late Archaic layers at the ‘Upper City’ excavation site yielded several dozen bronze arrowheads, as well as lead sling bullets. The hoard of silver coins under study was found at a distance of 3.15 m from the inner northwest corner of the courtyard, inside the northern wall (about 10 cm from its inner side). The coins had been put in a small (12 cm high) Ionian pitcher with strips of varnish on the body (Pls. 3‒4). In total, the hoard contained 162 coins of the Late Archaic period, all belonging to the same type ‘lion head facing / incuse square’. Thus, house no. 205, along with the other structures, including the city walls, was destroyed as a result of the catastrophe that befell Phanagoria. Archaeological materials allow us to link this event with similar cataclysms recorded in many other cities of the Cimmerian Bosporus. All the fires in the region chronologically coincide with the coming to power of the Archaeanactids, which is reported by Diodorus Siculus. Hence, the hoard of silver coins found at Phanagoria

10 Tolstikov 1984, 24‒47. Cf. Y.G. Vinogradov 1989, 86–87; Zavoykin 2006; 2013, 386‒88. For the destruction of Istria, see Alexandrescu 2005, 93‒94. 11 For more details, see Zavoykin and Kuznetsov 2019, 74–77.

INTRODUCTION

3

must have been concealed in 480 BC.12 It is difficult to overestimate the importance of this conclusion for solving a number of problems associated with the early coinage on the shores of the Kerch Strait, primarily – with the beginning of this coinage.

12

Two small coin assemblages (purses?), one of which contains nine early Bosporan coins and the other consists of three tiny fractions of cyzicenes and an early Panticapaeum hemiobol, also date from the time of the Persian invasion of the Asiatic Bosporus. Both ‘hoards’ were found at the city-site (supposedly Patraios), which is located on the shore of the Taman Gulf opposite Phanagoria. The authors of the preliminary report believe ‘that at the end of the first or the beginning of the second quarter of the 5th century BC Patraeos underwent the destruction associated with military events’ (Abramov and Boldyrev 2001, 143–45).

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

Early Bosporan Coinage: Brief Historiographical Overview The circumstances surrounding the appearance of Bosporan coinage have attracted scholarly attention since the 1870s. Without going into much detail (the existing opinions on this problem have already been presented by a number of researchers1), we will limit ourselves to a brief historiographical overview. The foundation for the modern views on the development of early Bosporan coinage was laid by the works of A.N. Zograf and D.B. Shelov.2 N.A. Frolova, in her turn,3 drew upon their proposed dating and systematisation. All these researchers based their conclusions on the observations of A.L. Berthier-Delagarde, who had divided Bosporan silver coins into six consecutive series, dating the earliest one – without any argumentation, though – to the turn of the 6th and 5th centuries BC. Apparently, Berthier-Delagarde followed A.M. Podshivalov, who had dated the appearance of coinage in Panticapaeum4 to the end of the 6th century BC – judging from the time when, in his view, the city itself had been founded.5 Berthier-Delagarde was the first who compiled a list of early Bosporan coin weight clusters, which many researchers later relied on – those who also believed that the coinage of the Cimmerian Bosporus was struck on the reduced Aeginetan standard.6 Zograf paid special attention to the dating of the first Panticapaean coins.7 According to the prevailing view at that time, which goes back to the opinion of E. Babelon, Panticapaeum started minting coins in the second half of the 6th century BC.8 Zograf accepted this dating of the first Panticapaean issues.9 He also assigned the cessation of anepigraphic coinage and the transition to coinage with legends to the second quarter of the 5th century BC.10 The views of A.N. Zograf were developed by D.B. Shelov, who modified Zograf’s scheme of type sequences and dated the beginning of coinage to the mid-6th century BC.11 Shelov addressed the questions as to when and why the Cimmerian Bosporus adopted the Aeginetan standard for early silver coinage. He also studied the system of denominations (we will consider his arguments below). N.A. Frolova, who in 1996 created the first catalogue of early Bosporan coins, and in 2004 the first corpus,12 fully adhered to the absolute chronology of the Bosporan silver postulated by A.N. Zograf and D.B. Shelov. Following the latter, Frolova confidently dated the beginning of Bosporan coinage to the mid-6th century BC. Her major work was the systematisation and die analysis of the coins, which allowed her to significantly expand the source base for early Bosporan numismatics. Unfortunately, she failed to avoid a number of inaccuracies and contradictions in dating.13 By now, the numismatic material available for study has increased many times 1

See Kovalenko and Tolstikov 2010a. Zograf 1951, 164–68; Shelov 1956, 13–30. 3 Frolova 1996; 2004. 4 All these scholars considered Panticapaeum to be the issuer of the early Bosporan silver. Our point of view on this subject will be given below. 5 Podschiwalow 1882, 5, Taf. 1, 2. 6 Berthier-Delagarde 2009, 72–80. 7 Zograf 1951, 164. 8 Babelon 1907, 401. 9 Zograf 1951, 244, pl. XXXIX.9–11. 10 Zograf 1951, 165, 167. 11 Shelov 1956, 14. 12 Frolova 1996, 34–69; 2004. 13 Kovalenko and Tolstikov 2010a, 38. 2

6

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

due to the appearance of the ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site,14 which also features numerous anepigraphic coins – stray finds, coins kept in private collections or sold at auctions. The Catalogue uses mainly the dating of V.A. Anokhin, less often by Shelov, Frolova and others. In his book, Anokhin made both valuable observations and controversial assumptions. Thus, he expressed reasonable doubt about the validity of the firmly entrenched opinion that Bosporan coinage began in the mid-6th century BC. He dated its appearance to 540–530 BC, calculating this date by simply dividing the proposed length of the early period of coinage by 16 (the number of series of Panticapaean silver which he identified for the 6th–5th centuries BC). Assuming that each series was produced for ten years, Anokhin counted 160 years back from the last P–16 series, the issue of which, in his opinion, was reliably tied to the capture of Theodosia by Leukon I in 390–380 BC – hence the abovementioned date.15 Elsewhere in the same book, Anokhin dated the beginning of coinage to ca. 530 BC, and the first series of silver in the catalogue to 530–520 BC.16 According to his classification, from that moment until the Archaeanactids came to power half a century later (in 480 BC) the first five silver series were issued, of which the first four were minted on the Aeginetan standard and the fifth one was produced on the Persian standard after 490 BC.17 In 2011, Anokhin published a new catalogue, in which the dates assigned to early Bosporan silver remained largely the same as those in the catalogue of 1986.18 In the detailed article by S.A. Kovalenko and V.P. Tolstikov,19 a much later date for the beginning of Bosporan coinage was suggested (the last quarter of the 6th or even the early 5th century BC). According to them, at that time the Panticapaean authorities implemented a large-scale programme of public and temple building, which completely changed the appearance of the city. To carry out the task, it was necessary to attract a mass of non-qualified workers whose wage labour was to be paid by local money (see below). Kovalenko and Tolstikov considered the initial date of Bosporan coinage in the context of the recent revision of the dating of Archaic coinages of a number of Greek cities and an analysis of trends in the development of Greek coinage and coin production techniques in the Archaic period. Assigning later dates to Archaic Bosporan coinage has been a traditional tendency in Western numismatic literature. For example, G. MacDonald dated an early triobol from the Hunterian Collection of the University of Glasgow, struck from the same dies as specimen no. 9 in the Phanagorian hoard, to the 5th century BC, considering it a drachm of the Phoenician weight standard.20 D. MacDonald supposed that coinage began in 480 BC, after the rise of the Archaeanactids and the Graeco-Persian Wars.21 M. Price went even further, dating the earliest issues of Bosporan coinage (drachms, etc.) to the time after the mid-5th century and ignoring the dates by Anokhin, whose catalogue he referred to for attributing the coins.22 It was rightly pointed out that the lack of early Bosporan coin finds in situ, in a carefully recorded archaeological context, made it difficult to determine their absolute chronology, and hoards could be of little help in this matter.23 In view of the above, the hoard of the early silver coins from Phanagoria, which can be securely dated, provides a unique opportunity to clarify the chronology of anepigraphic coins. Single coin finds are also very important. On the one hand, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

https://bosporan-kingdom.com/coins_catalog.html. Anokhin 1986, 17–18. Anokhin 1986, 18, 136. The Phanagorian hoard shows that the Aeginetan standard was replaced with the Persian one after 480 BC. See below. Anokhin 2011. Kovalenko and Tolstikov 2010a; 2010b. Hunt. Coll. I, 423, no. 1, pl. XXVIII.10. MacDonald 2005, 10. SNG BM I 836. Kovalenko and Tolstikov 2010b, 29.

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

7

they should be used to clarify the dating of the Archaic and Early Classical layers uncovered in the historical centre of Phanagoria (later – its acropolis), as well as of various architectural remains such as buildings and fortifications. On the other hand, the archaeological context of the coin finds can help to refine the chronology of the coins themselves. Certain work in this direction has already been done recently.24 Research Methods The die-analysis. The use of the die-analysis is required to ascertain the relative chronological sequence of the coins from the Phanagorian hoard. Over one and a half hundred triobols (32 combinations of 20 obverses with 14 reverses) make up the largest homogeneous assemblage of coins of this denomination (see below). This wealth of data made it possible to determine the chronological succession of the obverse dies, while the state of the reverses (the degree of degradation) suggested the correct sequence of all the reverse dies used in combination with one or more obverses. Natural science methods. X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy was used to determine the chemical composition of the metall. All 162 specimens from the hoard (see Appendix) were studied in the Laboratory of the State Historical and Archaeological Museum-Reserve ‘Phanagoria’ with the help of the M1 Mistral XRF-spectrometer (Bruker), which allows measuring the surface to a depth of 10μm, as well as performing an analysis for the presence of coating. The standard measurement time was 30–60 seconds under the 50 kV voltage. With a view to establishing the most likely sources of silver for early Bosporan coinage, the lead isotope analysis was performed in the Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry and Geochronology of the The Institute of Geology of Ore Deposits, Petrography, Mineralogy and Geochemistry, Russian Academy of Sciences using high-precision multi-collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (MC-ICP-MS) (for the details, see Appendix). Composition and General Characteristics of the Hoard The Phanagorian hoard is composed of anepigraphic silver coins of only two denominations: drachms (eight specimens – nos. 1–8) and triobols (154 specimens – nos. 9–162). However, at the time of the hoard’s concealment Bosporan coinage included five denominations: drachm, tetrobol, triobol, hemiobol and tetartemorion. The first series are believed to have been issued on the Aeginetan standard.25 Tetrobols, supposedly the oldest coins,26 are extremely rare. They are not present in the hoard, as well as the smaller fractions. At the same time, they definitely circulated in Phanagoria, as evidenced by the find of a hemiobol27 in the burnt layer of 480 BC (in Room 4 of the fortifications). The earliest coins in the hoard are obviously not drachms, but triobols with a rough diagonal division of the incuse square (nos. 9–15), as well as those with an incuse not divided into compartments (nos. 16–30). However, the shape of the incuse square is not always a reliable criterion for the chronology of issues. Thus, triobols of a later group in the hoard with the A15 obverse were struck from different reverse dies, some of which are of a very odd shape (nos. 83–93), others have a clear square pattern (nos. 82, 84–103). Only the reconstruction of the die-sequences allows dividing the coins into chronological groups (see below). The metrological

24 25 26 27

Abramzon et al. 2019. Anokhin 1986, 22. Anokhin 1986, 6. For the type, see Anokhin 1986, no. 9.

8

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

analysis of the coins from the hoard confirms that Bosporan coinage of the Archaic period (before 480 BC) was struck on the Aeginetan standard. Most of the hoard’s coins were found in similar condition and looked fairly well-preserved. At the time of discovery, the surface of the coins was covered with corrosion products – silver halides, primarily a loose grey layer of silver chloride (AgCl). All the coins were cleared from corrosion products and underwent restoration and conservation (Pls. 5–8). On the reverse of triobol no. 27, close to the edge of the blank, one can see depressions made with a triangular punch, as well as other traces of mechanical action (Pl. 9). The purpose of this operation is unclear; perhaps it is somehow linked with the profession of the owner of the house in which the hoard had been concealed. Evidently, this person was involved in metalworking (perhaps a jeweller). Quantity of Late Archaic Bosporan Coins When studying the Phanagorian hoard, it is necessary to estimate – at least approximately – the total number of synchronous Bosporan coins of the Archaic period recorded to date and consider the distribution of their find-spots, however scarce the evidence may be. Indeed, coins of the Aeginetan standard are rather seldom found both on the European and Asian sides of the Bosporus (Pl. 10). The Phanagorian hoard accounts for almost half of the total mass of all recorded coins issued before 480 BC. The collections of the Hermitage (St Petersburg), the State Historical Museum (Moscow), the Kerch Museum, the Hunterian and British Museums, etc. feature only single Archaic coins of the Cimmerian Bosporus. The largest corpus, the ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site, currently includes over 200 earliest coins of the Aeginetan standard, and their number is constantly increasing.28 Drachms and tetrobols are of exceptional rarity. The majority are triobols (hemidrachms); they are also discovered, though infrequently, at rural settlements on the chora. For example, triobols of the same die-combinations as in the Phanagorian hoard have been recorded at the sites around Phanagoria, on the Fontal Peninsula (Garkusha 1, Volna Revolutsii 1 and 2), at Tamanskii 4, Taman 3, Starotitarovskaya 5, Vyshesteblievskaya 11, etc. (see below). An early drachm comes from the village of Primorskii,29 a hemiobol from the settlement of Solenyi 3.30 The 1948 Tyramba (Peresyp) hoard included six hemiobols of the Aeginetan standard.31 In the European Bosporus, coins of the Aeginetan standard have been found at Panticapaeum (a tetrobol32 and a triobol33), at Myrmekion (a tetartemorion34), and on the outskirts of Kytaion (a triobol35). The following little-known facts can be added to this. In the 1970s, one of the authors of this book witnessed at least a dozen coins collected by children on the Taman Gulf coast near the village of Primorskii.36 In 1998, a grave robber, while searching with a metal detector the old spoil heap of the ‘Southern city’ excavation site at Phanagoria (this site had been under study in the 1980s), unearthed a ‘purse’ containing eight coins.37 One of them is an obol from an uncertain centre (‘lion head l./quadratum incusum’), seven others are early Bosporan triobols. Finally, in 1992, before the beginning of the field season, some people found a ‘small olpe’ at the ‘Upper 28

https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1001/1.html, etc. (as of April 2020). Rozov 1983, fig. 1.2; SNG SPMFA 756; Frolova 2004, no. 2. 30 Garbuzov et al. 2011, 138, fig. 10.2. 31 Abramzon, Frolova and Gorlov 1999, nos. 1–4, 7, 8; Abramzon and Frolova 2004, 42–43, nos. 1–4, 7, 8. 32 Kerch Museum. Inv. S–925, KN–5131. Weight 4.01 g. Diameter 16 mm. Abramzon and Ivanina 2010, 85, no. 122; table 80. 122. See The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1054/4.html. 33 Kerch Museum. Inv. KP–177936, KN–7077. Weight 1.98 g. Diameter 14 mm. Analogies: the 2005 Phanagorian hoard, no. 64 (A13–R6); cf. The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site, https://bosporan-kingdom.com/ 000-1058/16.html. 34 Y.A. Vinogradov 1992, 117, n. 3. Weight 0.45 g. 35 Kulikov 2007, 325–26. Weight 3.11 g. Diameter 16 mm. 36 Rozov 1983, 113. 37 Garbuzov et al. 2011, 133. 29

9

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

city’ excavation site (Phanagoria). It was discovered in the mud-brick wall of one of the houses built in the early 5th century BC.38 According to a witness from local residents, there were coins in the olpe. Apparently, it looked like the olpe containing the 2005 Phanagorian hoard and may therefore have held at least 150 early Bosporan coins. Thus, we can assume that overall three assemblages of Late Archaic coins have been uncovered at Phanagoria. As a result, there is reason to say that the territory of the Cimmerian Bosporus has yielded a total of several hundred early Bosporan coins, but hardly more than a thousand. A.A. Zavoykin and V.L. Strokin compiled a summary of the early coin finds on the Taman Peninsula and provided a detailed analysis of their chronological and territorial distribution over the settlements.39 They concluded that monetisation of the economic activity on the Taman Peninsula took place within the end of the 6th–the first quarter of the 5th century BC, as coins of the late 6th–early 5th centuries BC 40 seemed to be common finds at a number of settlements. Their painstaking work was supplemented with numerous illustrations, including about three dozen coins that are synchronous to those from the Phanagorian hoard. This made it possible to significantly expand our knowledge about the denominations of the recorded Archaic coins. Table 1. Finds of Late Archaic coins of the Aeginetan standard on the Bosporus41 Find-spots Panticapaeum Myrmekion Environs of Kytaion Garkusha 1 Volna Revolutsii 1 Volna Revolutsii 2 Phanagoria Primorskii Solenyi 3 Taman 3 Tamanskii 4 Strelka 2 Starotitarovskaya 5 Vyshesteblievskaya 11 Golubitskaya 2 Tyramba Uncertain (European and Asiatic Bosporus)42 Total:

Drachm

Tetrobol

Triobol

2

1

Hemiobol

Tetartemorion 1

1 1 2 1 154* + 4

8* 1

5 2 2 3 8 1

1 1 2

6*

Total 3 1 1 1 2 1 162*+5 1 1 7 2 2 3 8 1 6*

5

6

164

31

11

217

14

8

348

41

13

424

Note: coins from hoards appear in the table marked by an asterisk.

38

At that time the site was unprotected. Garbuzov et al. 2011, 125–63, figs. 10–17. 40 Garbuzov et al. 2011, 155–59. This dating should be revised in connection with the new data from the Phanagorian hoard. 41 We do not aim to take into account all recorded Late Archaic coins from museums, private collections, auction catalogues, etc. First, this quantifying does not change the general picture of the ratio of the denominations in this period: triobols predominate, hemiobols and tetartemorions are not numerous, tetrobols and drachms are especially rare. Secondly, the most informative source, the ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site is regularly updated, and the quantity of coins from recent finds, private collections and auctions is steadily increasing. However, the table covers most of the recent finds and shows the approximate amount of Archaic material and the quantitative distribution of denominations within it. 42 Cf. the ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1001/1.html, etc. 39

10

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

In addition to 168 coins from the hoards, 256 other single Late Archaic coins are recorded in this list (below we will specially consider the triobols from the Taman Peninsula – representatives of the same die-combinations as those present in the Phanagorian hoard). Thus, together with the specimens from the Phanagorian hoard, the number of recorded Bosporan coins of the Aeginetan standard exceeds 420, the majority of them being triobols (348). The rise of the Archaeanactids in 480 BC was followed by a shift to the Persian standard and an increase of silver coinage in the Bosporus: i.e. a higher intensity of issues and the development of a system of denominations (from drachm to tetartemorion). The total number of the recorded coins issued on the Persian standard is many times greater than the number of coins of the Aeginetan standard. For example, isolated finds from the excavations of the cultural layers at Phanagoria demonstrate a ratio of 1:4 – only five coins of the Aeginetan standard against 19 of the Persian one. Late Archaic Coins from the 480 BC Fire Layer The layer of the 480 BC fire at Phanagoria yielded several isolated coins – including four triobols – synchronous to the coins from the hoard.43 Two of the triobols were found on the floor of public building no. 294:44 one was struck from the A8–R4 die-combination (nos. 35–40) (Pl. 11.1), the other cannot be attributed due to its very poor preservation. The third triobol issued ca. 490–480 BC (Pl. 11.2) was found during the excavation of Room 1 of mud-brick building no. 847.45 The fourth specimen struck from the A19–R11 die-combination (nos. 124– 134) comes from the 19th-century trench (Pl. 11.3).46 A hemiobol was uncovered in Room 4 of the fortifications (Pl. 11.4).47 Apart from the pre-Archeanactid Bosporan coins, the numismatic material from Phanagoria includes smaller silver fractions of uncertain origin. Among the most important finds is an obol of an Ionian(?) centre with lion head l./quadripartite incuse square (Pl. 11.5).48 Such coins have already been recorded at Phanagoria. Thus, an obol was present in the abovementioned 1998 purse, together with Late Archaic Bosporan triobols.49 The latter have also been found at the settlements on the Taman Peninsula (for example, Golubitskaya 2).50 A trihemiobol51 and an obol52 of the same type, dated by their publishers to ca. 510–480 BC, have been recorded in the European Bosporus, as well as coins with the lion head r./incuse square.53 Sometimes these coins are unfoundedly attributed to an uncertain Bosporan mint or Hermonassa.54 Meanwhile, similar obols were part of the 1867 Auriol hoard, which contained early smaller silver denominations 43

Abramzon et al. 2019, 18–19, nos. 1–4. ‘Upper city’ excavation site, trench no. 50, object no. 294, Rooms 1 and 2. 1. Inv. Ph–14–7. See Anokhin 1986, no. 2.2; Frolova 2004, no. 17; 2. Inv. Ph–13–139. Weight 1.45 g. 45 ‘Upper city’ excavation site, object no. 847, Room 1. Inv. Ph–19–103. Weight 2.415 g. Diameter 14 mm. See the ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000–1090/7.html (CNG. Electronic Auction 376, lot 119). This die-combination is absent from the hoard. 46 ‘Upper city’ excavation site, Locus XI, Trench of the 19th century. Inv. Ph–90–5. Weight 1.79 g. Diameter 13 mm. See the ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000–1043/8.html. 47 ‘Upper city’ excavation site, object no. 679, Room 4. Inv. Ph–16–136. Weight 0.31 g. Diameter 7 mm. See Anokhin 1986, no. 9; Frolova 2004, Taf. 4.90–94. A similar hemiobol is also recorded on the chora of Phanagoria, at the site of Solenyi 3: Garbuzov et al. 2011, 138, fig. 10.2. 48 ‘Upper city’ excavation site, square no. 32/33. Inv. Ph–05–3. Weight 0.78 g. Diameter 9 mm. 49 Garbuzov et al. 2011, 133, 138, fig. 10.1. Weight 0.75 g. 50 Abramzon 2010, 488, table II.4; Strokin 2010, 452, fig. 2.2. 51 The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1207/1.html. 52 The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000–1136/1.html. 53 The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1136/1.html; https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1217/1.html; etc. Identical coins are attributed to uncertain Thraco-Macedonian mints of the early 5th century. See CNG Mail bid sale 58, 18 Sept 2001. Lot 346. Also, trihemiobols with the head of roaring lion r./quadripartite incuse square with pellet are ascribed to an uncertain centre of Ionia and dated to ca. 510-480 BC. See https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin. aspx?CoinID=89957. 54 Garbuzov et al. 2011, 133. 44

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

11

(mostly obols but also some drachms, tetrobols and smaller fractions) of Massalia, Velia, Phocaea, Aegina, Mytilene and uncertain Ionian centres.55 Babelon dated such obols to ca. 480– 470 BC, the authors of IGCH to ca. 470–460 BC.56 Recently an attempt was made to ascribe an obol from the Hermitage collection (similar to the Phanagorian ones) to the mint of Massalia of the late 6th–early 5th centuries BC.57 As proof, the author of the publication cited the attribution of Zograf and his reference to coin no. 2409 from the Auriol hoard.58 However, neither Zograf, nor Babelon, nor A. Furtwängler attributed this type to the mint of Massalia.59 The finds of such coins in the Bosporus, at Phanagoria in particular, may be viewed as evidence for the Ionian provenance of this group of coins, which could make their way into the region together with Ionian colonists and traders. Coins with a lion head r./quadripartite incuse square may also have arrived from the Thraco-Macedonian region.60 On the other hand, there is a clear similarity between them and hemiobols of Miletus issued in 490–470 BC.61 Hence, they could get to the Bosporus via the Ionians after the Ionian Revolt. It is important to note that the elemental composition of silver used for producing coins with a lion head to the left or right differs markedly from that of the Bosporan issues.62 Another important Phanagorian find is a hemitetartemorion of the type ‘lion (griffin?) head r./ incuse square with two pellets in quarters’ (Pl. 11.6).63 Unfortunately, the stratigraphy of the find does not allow us to clarify its date.64 The publishers of the ‘Coins of Bosporus’ CatalogueArchive web-site date a coin struck from the same obverse die as the Phanagorian specimen to ca. 490–470 BC, attributing it presumably to the mint of Nymphaeum.65 Anokhin, also without any arguments, ascribes this type to the mint of Hermonassa and dates it to ca. 480–470 BC.66 As yet, the issuer of the hemitetartemorion remains uncertain. We have not been able to find exact analogies among the coinages of Ionia, Mysia or Thrace. In any case, for the first time both of these coin types were found in situ, in the reported archaeological context. Moreover, the obol was discovered in association with the early Bosporan triobols dating from ca. 490s–480 BC – just as in the 1998 Phanagorian purse mentioned above. Value of the Hoard How large is the sum of money – 8 drachms and 154 triobols of the Aeginetan standard – hoarded by a citizen of Phanagoria? The answer to this question is important, given the lack of information on this subject for the Late Archaic period. Since two triobols (hemidrachms) are the

55

IGCH 2352 (with references). Babelon 1907, II.1, no. 2434; LXXXI.31–34. 57 Kuvshinova 2016, 6–7, figs. 1–2. 58 Kuvshinova 2016, 6–7, figs. 1–2. 59 Furtwängler 1978. 60 Numerous coins of this type appear at auctions as coins from uncertain mints of the Thraco-Macedonian region. See, for example: 1. http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/thraco_macedonian_tribes/Tzamalis_52cf.jpg; 2. http://www.wildwinds.com/ coins/greece/thraco_macedonian_tribes/tetartemorion.jpg; 3. http://www.deamoneta.com/auctions/view/140/28; 4. https://www. coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=304592. 61 Furtwängler 1978, no. T12, pl. 30; Ta11, pl. 31. 62 For the chemical composition of silver of the Phanagorian specimen, see Abramzon et al. 2019, 24, no. 22. 63 ‘Upper city’ excavation site, square no. 126, under a mud-brick wall, in the fire layer. Inv. Ph–19–85. Weight 0.063 g. Diameter 6 mm. The same die-combination see https://bosporankingdom.com/000–2124/4.html. 64 Most likely, it must have a close date to tetartemoria with four pellets, which are ascribed to uncertain mints of western Asia Minor and dated to ca. 500–480 BC. See Leu Numismatik Web Auction 2, lot 303; Numismatik Naumann 56, lot 52; Roma E-Sale 44, lots 187–188 (https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?p=lot&sid=3176&lot=87); Leu Web Auction 2, 303; Gitbud & Naumann 6, 90. Weight 0.12 g, Diameter 6 mm (https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?p=lot&sid=2419&lot=187), etc. 65 https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-2124/4.html. 66 Anokhin 2011, no. 1160. 56

12

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

equivalent of a drachm, and two drachms make up a stater,67 then the amount of money in the hoard is: 8 + 154 × 0.5 = 85 drachms (= 42.5 Aeginetan staters). It is a fact of common knowledge that 100 drachms (or 50 staters) is the equivalent of a mina.68 Therefore, the hoard equals 0.85 of a mina. Since the ratio between a Bosporan drachm and a Cyzicene corresponds to the ratio between an Aeginetan drachm and a Cyzicene stater, it is interesting to recalculate roughly the value of the hoard at the exchange rate between an Aeginetan drachm and a Cyzicene stater. In the 5th century BC the latter served as an international currency everywhere, including the Bosporus, as evidenced by both the Patraios hoard, in which Cyzicene smaller fractions were found together with the Bosporan silver of the early second quarter of the 5th century BC,69 and epigraphic sources (graffiti on small objects). The only financial document of the Archaic period recorded in the Bosporus so far is a graffito on an Attic kylix from excavations at Panticapaeum. The inscription dates from the second half of the 6th–the beginning of the 5th century BC and reports a significant sum of money (50 staters) received by a certain Epicrates. According to the publishers of the document, this may be a reference either to withdrawing the owner’s money from his account or to allocating money to perform some contract. Whichever the case, the currency implied is undoubtedly Cyzicene staters.70 A graffito from Phanagoria dating from the first half of the 5th century BC mentions a trihemihecta, certainly a fraction of a Cyzicene stater.71 A lead letter from Patraios written in the second half (or even in the last quarter) of the 5th century BC reports that a certain Aristonimos collected the amount from his debtors – a Cyzicene stater and a hemistater, as well as 3⁄4 and 1⁄3 of a silver (Panticapaean) drachm.72 How much was a Cyzicene stater worth in Archaic silver coins is not known exactly.73 The absence of inscriptions presents certain difficulties. The exchange rate of a Cyzicene stater varied with time: thus, in the mid-5th century BC, the ratio of gold to silver was about 14:1.74 Later, in the 4th century BC, in Olbia one Cyzicene stater was exchanged for 10½ local staters, which equalled 21 Aeginetan drachms; in Panticapaeum the value of a Cyzicene stater was equated to 28 Attic drachms (Demosthenes Phormio 34. 23) = 21 Aeginetan drachms. Thus, the ratio between gold and silver was 12:1 or 10:1.75 It was B. Head who made an attempt to determine the exchange rate of a Cyzicene stater to various silver currencies, including Aeginetan staters up to 492 BC. According to his calculations, one Cyzicene stater weighing 14.9 g was equal to nine Aeginetan staters weighing 12.44 g.76 These calculations can be applied to assessing the value of the Phanagorian hoard in Cyzicene electrum. In this case, the value of the hoard equal to 85 Bosporan drachms or 42.5 Aeginetan staters will correspond to approximately 4.72 Cyzicene staters. It is also interesting to compare the value of the Phanagorian hoard with that of other synchronous hoards from the area where the Aeginetan standard was adopted and Ionian trade was 67

Since silver staters were not issued in the Archaic Bosporus, it is not a physical coin, but a unit of account. The weight of the Aeginetan mina is 628.56 g. See BMC Attica, lxvi. During the 1952 excavations of Panticapaeum, in the layer of the late 6th century BC, a weight of 205.16 g was found. This, in the opinion of V.D. Blavatskii, was the equivalent of ½ Panticapaean mina (1955, 202–03). However, now we can state with confidence that this weight corresponds to ⅓ of an Aeginetan mina. 69 Abramov and Boldyrev 2001, 143–44; Abramzon and Frolova 2007–08, 62. 70 Tolstikov, Zhuravlev and Lomtadze 2004, 348–49; Kovalenko and Tolstikov 2010b, 45. 71 Y.G. Vinogradov 1971. 72 Zavoykina and Pavlichenko 2016. 73 For the exchange rate of a cyzicene in the Archaic and Classical periods, see Bogaert 1963; Bresson 2009. 74 Figueira 1998, 511; Bresson 2009, 79. 75 Bogaert 1963, 104. 76 BMC Ionia, xxix. 68

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

13

spread. Hoards concealed ca. 500–480 BC form a rather small group. For example, only a few hoards in which Aeginetan staters are mixed with silver coins of Ionian and other centres have been discovered in the Peloponnese, the Aegean, western Asia Minor and Egypt.77 The following table lists hoards of various sizes, including those containing small amounts. Most likely, the Phanagorian hoard is comparable in size with the synchronous hoard of silver coins found in southern Asia Minor, on the Cilician-Pamphylian border (No. 13). Table 2. Hoards from the region of spread of the Aeginetan standard and Ionian trade ca. 500–480 (Aegean, Thrace, the Peloponnese, the Black Sea, western and southern Anatolia)

1

Cyclades?, ca. 1889

ca. 500 BC

Number of coins 145+ AR

2

Asia Minor?, 1989

ca. 500 BC

68+ AR

3

ca. 500 BC

70+ AR

ca. 500 BC

15 AR

Miletus: 15 obols (CH VIII 22)

5

Aegina, 1986/1987 Near Izmir, Turkey, 1982 Santorin, 1821

Aegina: 114; Andros: 4; Paros: 2; Siphnos: 4; Thera?: 11; Miletus: 2; Chios: 2; Cos: 4; uncertain coins (IGCH 6) Abdera: 1 octodrachm; Phasos: 4; Aegina: 6+; Macedonia: 1; Naxos: 1; ‘Andros’: 1; Lindos; 1; Lycia: 12; Lydia (Croesus): 1; Cyprus: 6+; Salamis: 14; etc. (CH VIII 19) Aegina: 70+ (pre-skew) (CH VIII 20)

ca. 500‒490 BC

760 AR

6

Melos, 1825?

ca. 500‒490 BC

AR

7

Kardzhali, Bulgaria, 1938 Western Asia Minor, 1979 Yerakini, Chalkidiki, Greece 1982 Isthmia, near Corinth, 1954

ca. 490‒480 BC

5+ AR

Aegina: 541 staters; the others are staters of Naxos, Andros, Siphnos, Cyzicus, uncertain Caria, uncertain mint: 1 stater; and 82 Aeginetan tetroobols (IGCH 7) Coins of same type as Santorin 1821 (no. 5 above), but of more recent date (IGCH 8) Abdera: a few octodrachms (IGCH 694)

ca. 490 BC

75 AR

Miletus: obols (CH VIII 36)

ca. 485 BC

54+ AR

Thraco-Macedonian uncertain: tetradrachms, drachms, obols (CH VIII 37)

ca. 480 BC

Phanagoria, Cimmerian Bosporus, 2005 Kisebükü, Caria, Turkey, 1955 Southern Asia Minor, on Cilician-Pamphylian border, before 1961

ca. 480 BC

135 staters, drachms and fractions 162 AR

Aegina: 43 staters, 18 drachms and fractions. Also coins of Corinth, Eretria, Sicyon, Argos, Naxos, Tegea (IGCH 11) The Bosporus: 8 drachms, 154 triobols (= 42.5 staters)

ca. 480 BC

6+ AR

ca. 480 BC

38 AR

Mylasa(?): 6 hemidrachms (IGCH 1170 = CH VIII 38) Aegina: 10 didrachms; Athens: 19 tetradrachms; Zancle: 1 tetradrachm; Acanthus: 1 tetradrachm; Abdera: 1 octadrachm; Parium: 1 drachm; Chios: 1 didrachm; Corinth: 1 stater; Pseudoaeginetica: 1 didrachm; Persia: 1 siglos (IGCH 1177)

No.

4

8 9

10

11

12 13

77

Find-spot

Date

See IGCH 6, 7, 11, 694, 1177; CH VIII 19–22, 35–41.

Content and references

14

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

Metrology, Minting Technique, Dating The Aeginetan Standard in the Cimmerian Bosporus It is generally accepted that early Bosporan silver was issued on the Aeginetan standard. Presumably, the Bosporus chose the Aeginetan weight system in the wake of its wide spread in the Peloponnese, the south-eastern Aegean (the Cyclades and Crete), Northern and Western Asia Minor (Caria) before the establishment of Persian hegemony.78 Early Aeginetan staters are usually a little over 12.20 g in weight (minor variations are caused by the oxidation of coins, cleaning or lack of it, the degree of wear, etc.). An Aeginetan stater was subdivided into two drachms, each consisting of six obols or two triobols, with a nominal weight of an obol being a little over a gram.79 Staters of the Aeginetan standard were not issued in the Bosporus. In the Late Archaic period, the Bosporan system of denominations included a drachm, a tetrobol (both of these were minted very rarely), a triobol – the most common denomination, a hemiobol and a tetartemorion (occur less often). In the past, most scholars agreed that the weight of the early Bosporan drachm (minted in Panticapaeum, according to the traditional view) was lighter than that of the Aeginetan one.80 This opinion, i.e. that the Bosporus used a slightly reduced version of the Aeginetan standard, prevails in recent literature as well.81 However, the analysis of the Phanagorian hoard sheds a new light on the metrology of early Bosporan silver. It allows one to clarify the nominal weights of drachms and triobols issued in the 490s–480 BC and, therefore, to revisit the question as to what variant of the Aeginetan weight system (full or local reduced) was used at the initial phase of coinage in the Cimmerian Bosporus. To begin with, how did the opinion that the Bosporan drachm was more lightweight than the Aeginetan one become so firmly established in Bosporan numismatics? Originally, the conclusions regarding the early Bosporan weight system were based on the list of weight clusters compiled by Berthier-Delagarde, who believed that all early silver coinage (until the very end of the 5th century BC) was issued on the reduced Aeginetan standard. The data available to him consisted of only four drachms known at that time (including the heaviest example weighing 6.05 g and the lightest one of 5.13 g) and 33 triobols (this weight cluster contained a couple of ‘heavy’ examples, 3.04 and 3.02 g), which were dated to the late 6th–early 5th century BC. BerthierDelagarde added up all the weights and calculated the average for each denomination. However, he neglected such factors as coin wear, weight loss due to silver corrosion and cleaning. He also failed to take into account the weights of the heaviest examples, which do show a closer adherence to the Aeginetan standard. Whence stemmed a misconception that the nominal weight of the early Bosporan (‘Panticapaean’82) drachm was 5.61 g83 – the erroneous belief shared by the majority of numismatists in their further studies. Following Berthier-Delagarde, Zograf also held that early ‘Panticapaean’ coinage was based on the Aeginetan drachm with an average weight of slightly less than 6.00 g.84 Shelov noted that 78 For the area of spread of the Aeginetan standard, see Head 1911, xiiv–xlvi; Gardner 1918, 171; Rostovtzeff 1922, 229; Shelov 1956, 75–77; Kraay 1976, 329; Psoma 2015, 95–97. 79 Seltman 1955, 38, n. 1; Kraay 1976, 329; Gjongecaj and Nicolet-Pierre 1995, 284. 80 Berthier-Delagarde 2009, 161–70; Zograf 1951, 164, 174; Shelov 1956, 84; Rozov 1983, 110; Kazamanova 1969, 138; Anokhin 1986, 20; Frolova 1996, 34; 2004, 8; Karyshkovskii 2003, 52. Only Anokhin (1986, 22) considers there was the common Aeginetan weight standard. 81 Hourmouziadis 2011, 211–12; Psoma 2015, 97. Let us note that in his study Hourmouziadis repeats the conclusions of Berthier-Delagarde (2009), Frolova (2004), Anokhin (1986) and MacDonald (2005). 82 Here and further we are talking about the earliest Bosporan coins, which the listed researchers attributed to the mint of Panticapaeum. 83 Berthier-Delagarde 2009, 161, table I.54, 56; 176–77, table II; 181, table VII. According to Berthier Delagarde, the triobol weighed 2.48 g. 84 Zograf 1951, 164, 174.

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

15

the coinages of Panticapaeum and other Bosporan cities did not follow the Aeginetan standard accurately: while the weight of the Aeginetan drachm was 6.28 g,85 the ‘Panticapaean’ drachm initially weighed less – 5.61 g.86 It came as no surprise to him, since he assumed that the Bosporus borrowed the Aeginetan standard not directly from Aegina but through some other centre, where it had been slightly reduced. For example, upon the adoption of the Aeginetan standard Teos issued drachms weighing no more than 5.96 g87 (besides, we find the reduced Aeginetan standard at Cyme of Aeolis, Cnidus and Kamiros88). While giving credit to Berthier-Delagarde for his work, Shelov also pointed to his errors caused by the imperfection of the chosen method: calculating the nominal weight as an average of all the weights in the cluster. Meanwhile, in early Greek coinage, coins of the same denomination often varied in weight.89 Having rejected Berthier-Delagarde’s approach, Shelov drew attention to the fact that the majority of the triobols recorded by Berthier-Delagarde weighed about 2.70–2.80 g. This, in Shelov’s opinion, should be the normal weight of the earliest ‘Panticapaean’ triobols, no matter that it is impossible to calculate it arithmetically. The method of the weight scale (taking into account the most common weights) was not deemed as fully satisfactory either, for it also could not guarantee the accuracy in determining denominations and their weights90 (as we will see below). Judging from the numismatic material of the 4th century BC, Shelov concluded that the weight standard was most closely represented by the heaviest specimens.91 In our opinion, this is the right approach, which is also applicable to calculating the nominal weight of the earliest Bosporan coins. P.O. Karyshkovskii simply repeated the mistake of his predecessors (i.e. calculating the arithmetic average) and claimed that the weight of ‘Panticapaean’ drachms issued on the Aeginetan standard did not exceed 6.05 g, with the average being 5.61 g.92 As noted by Anokhin, the major disadvantage of both methods was that they were based on the weight of coins in their current condition, whence some scholars drew conclusions about the existence of a certain reduced version of the standard. Following Shelov in the idea that the first ‘Panticapaean’ issues were struck in accordance with the Aeginetan weight system, Anokhin also considered the heaviest coins to be the ones nearer to the weight standard. In his estimation, the nominal weight of the early ‘Panticapaean’ drachm was 6.10 g,93 which accurately corresponds to the common opinion about the full Aeginetan standard with a stater weighing from 12.20 g up to 12.40 g.94 Scholars once assumed that the reduced Aeginetan standard had been used in Panticapaeum until the end of the 4th century BC, when it was changed to the Attic standard.95 Some argued that it had lasted even longer – until the time of the monetary crisis in the Bosporus in the first half of the 3rd century BC, when any silver emissions were interrupted.96 Meanwhile, Anokhin suggested it was not that the Aeginetan weight system had been ‘lowered’ or ‘reduced’; rather, ca. 490 BC Panticapaeum accepted the Persian standard with a drachm weighing 5.45 g (equivalent to a siglos).97 He correctly noted that in determining the weight standard, priority should be given to the weights of coins of the larger denomination, as they could indicate a decrease in the

85

Here Shelov (1956, 83) follows Head (BMC Attica, lxvi). Based on the summary by Berthier-Delagarde (Shelov 1956, 61, 74). 87 Shelov 1956, 61, 84; Balcer 1968, 17–18. 88 Head 1911, xlv. For the area of spread of the reduced Aeginetan standard in the Aegean, see van Alfen 2015, 267–68. 89 Shelov 1956, 55–57, 59; Kraay 1976, 8. 90 Shelov 1956, 57, 59–60. 91 Shelov 1956, 119. This point of view is shared by V.A. Anokhin (1986, 21). 92 Karyshkovskii 2003, 52. 93 Anokhin 1986, 20–22. 94 Gjongecaj and Nicolet-Pierre 1995, 284; Nicolet-Pierre 2000, 17–18. Drachm no. 8 from the Phanagorian hoard (6.22 g) evidences for the weight of the stater being 12.44 g. 95 Berthier-Delagarde 2009, 161–70. 96 Shelov 1956, 75. 97 During the 5th century BC, the original weight of a siglos (5.35 g) went up to 5.55 g. See Kraay 1976, 330. 86

16

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

weight standard.98 In 2016, Anokhin’s idea was confirmed by the discovery of a Persian royal inscription at Phanagoria. This testifies to the establishment of a Persian hegemonic pressure in the Cimmerian Bosporus99 and thus proves the shift of Bosporan coinage to the Persian weight system. Only the date of this change needs to be specified. In 480 BC, when the Phanagorian hoard was concealed, Phanagoria (and the whole Bosporus) suffered a disaster associated with the Persian invasion. Therefore, both the date of the hoard and the metrological analysis of the coins indicate that the transition from the Aeginetan standard to the Persian one occurred not around 490 BC, as Anokhin proposed, but after 480 BC. Metrology of the Coins from the Hoard Let us now turn to the Phanagorian hoard. First of all, we shall note the difference in the condition of the coins, since the corrosion of silver is the main factor reducing their weight. The bulk of the coins in the hoard, as mentioned above, were approximately in the same condition. However, despite their well-preserved appearance, the state of the metal core in the majority of them was found to be unsatisfactory. The data on the chemical composition of the metal obtained from the XRF analysis (see Appendix) revealed that the average silver content of the alloy was 97–98%. Accordingly, the bulk of corrosion products was composed of silver halides. When the coins were submitted for restoration, their surface was covered with a loose grey layer of silver chloride (AgCl), up to 0.6 mm thick (Pls. 6 and 7). During the coin cleaning, silver corrosion products were removed. As a result, all the coins inevitably lost part of their weight; some of them crumbled along the edge, losing segments of the flan, and were subjected to restoration and conservation. At the same time, the hoard contains several well-preserved specimens of heavy weight, close to the nominal standards for a drachm and a triobol. Drachms (Pls. 12 and 13). Early drachms are very rare. Berthier-Delagarde recorded four examples weighing 6.05 g, 5.92 g, 5.33 g and 5.13 g.100 Five examples (their weights being 5.90 g,101 4.54 g, 6.70 (6.04) g, 5.07 g and 5.32 g102) are kept in museum collections. Two drachms were sold at auctions in Basel and Munich.103 One drachm was published by K. Welz.104 Four more drachms are recorded by the ‘Coins of Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: 5.07 g, 5.37 g, 6.50 g and 5.57 g.105 The Phanagorian hoard yielded eight more drachms of the following weights: Table 3. Weights of the Hoard drachms No. 1 2 3 4

Weight, г 5.62 5.92 5.47 5.74

No. 5 6 7 8

Weight, g 5.15 5.57 5.13 6.22

98 Anokhin 1986, 22, 24. Earlier C.M. Kraay (1976, 8) pointed out: ‘The largest normal denomination should be used as the basis of calculations, since the smaller pieces were not always struck to their full nominal weight.’ 99 Kuznetsov 2019a; Kuznetsov and Nikitin 2019. 100 Berthier-Delagarde 2009, table I.54. 101 The Hermitage (St Petersburg) specimen from Berthier-Delagarde’s list. Inv. SH No. 3/26356. 102 For the list, see Frolova 1996, 54–55; 2004, nos. 1, 2, 31.1–4. The weight of the specimen from the State Historical Museum (no. 2559) – 6.70 g – was given by Frolova by mistake (Frolova 1996, table I.2; 2004, no. 31.1). This drachm weighs 6.037 g. Perhaps this is a specimen from Berthier-Delagarde’s list (Rozov 1983, 111). 103 Münzen und Medallien A.G., Basel, Liste 184, Oktober 1958, 17 = Frolova 2004, no. 31.2; Auktion Hirsch, Munich, 3–4 XII, 1965 = Frolova 1996, 46, pl. XII.17. 104 Welz 1957, 26, Abb. 26–27. 105 1. https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1120/1.html; 2. https://bosporan-kingdom.com/003-2175/1.html; 3. https://bosporankingdom.com/003-2175/3.html; 4. https://bosporan-kingdom.com/003-2175/2.html.

17

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

Thus, four drachms weighing over 6.00 g have been recorded to date. The actual weight of early drachms may have been slightly lower than the nominal one: as is well known, some weight variations within the same denomination were quite common for early Greek coinage. Hence, given partial loss of their metal, the drachms weighing 5.92 g, 6.04 g and 6.05 g seem to be the closest to the normal weight of the Aeginetan drachm (no less than 6.10 g). Table 4. Nominal weight of the early Bosporan drachm (490s – 480 BC) BerthierDelagarde 2009106 5.61g

Zograf 1951107

Shelov 1956108

Anokhin 1986109

Karyshkovskii 2003110

Kuznetsov, Abramzon 2020

˃ 6.00g

5.61g

6.10g

5.61g

6.10–6.20g

Drachm no. 6 from the hoard deserves special attention. This coin has a smaller diameter (17 mm) than the others. A drachm of identical size, struck from the same die-combination as drachm no. 6 from the hoard, is kept at the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts.111 Anokhin placed this specimen in his P–5 Panticapaean series issued on the Persian standard around 490– 480 BC.112 Meanwhile, drachm no. 6 weighs more than a Persian siglos (5.45 g). Taking into account the inevitable weight loss, initially it must have been even heavier. Triobols (Pls. 14–25). The Phanagorian hoard contains 154 triobols that have different degrees of preservation and significantly vary in weight. They can be subdivided into eight weight groups. However, this division is more likely to reflect the current condition of the coins than anomalies in weight within the denomination, i.e. deviations from the full nominal weight of the Aeginetan triobol. Table 5. Metrology of the Hoard triobols Group

Weight, g

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3.00–3.19 2.90–2.99 2.80–2.89 2.70–2.79 2.60–2.69 2.50–2.59 2.41–2.48

Number of coins 15 22 31 21 33 10 14

However, as noted above, the weight scale method is not perfect for determining the standard. For example, while the weights of triobols nos. 17–23 struck from the A4–R2 die-combination range between 2.45 g and 2.85 g, the ‘Coins of Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site records a coin with the same die-combination weighing 3.15 g.113 Another triobol of exactly the same weight was found at the site of Taman 3.114 Triobol no. 80 struck from the A15–R6 diecombination weighs 2.86 g and should belong to the third group. However, there is a recorded 106

Berthier-Delagarde 2009, 161, table I.54. Zograf 1951, 164, 174. 108 Shelov 1956, 61, 74, 84. 109 Anokhin 1986, 22. This weight exactly corresponds to half the weight of the Aeginetan stater of 12.20 g (Kraay 1976, 329; Gjongecaj and Nicolet-Pierre 1995, 284). 110 Karyshkovskii 2003, 52. 111 Inv. 231935/115765. Weight 4.54 g. Diameter 17.5 mm. 112 Anokhin 1986, no. 7. 113 See https://bosporan-kingdom.com/002-1013/6.html. 114 Garbuzov et al. 2011, 140, fig. 12.1. 107

18

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

example of the same die-combination weighing 3.10 g.115 Triobols nos. 91–93 of the A15–R8 die-combination weigh 2.83 g, 2.80 g and 2.62 g, respectively; but the ‘Coins of Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site records a piece struck from the same die-combination weighing 3.01 g.116 Finally, the same catalogue includes a triobol of 3.27 g117 struck from the A5–R3 die-combination – just as piece no. 27 from the hoard weighing 2.60 g. Thus, as has been suggested, the weight standard of early Bosporan coinage should be determined judging from the heaviest coins. Among the triobols from the hoard, 15 heaviest specimens weighing over 3.00 g (Pl. 26) seem as close as possible to the nominal weight of this denomination in the Aeginetan system. This group itself is fairly large (a tenth of the total number of the triobols); yet there are 22 more coins in the hoard – currently weighing 2.90–2.99 g – which evidently lost much of their weight because of circulation and cleaning. Originally these must have also weighed over 3.00 g. Table 6. Heaviest triobols in the hoard No. 40 46 63 64 83

Weight, g 3.04 3.06 3.01 3.12 3.08

No. 100 118 126 127 133

Weight, g 3.06 3.19 3.04 3.04 3.06

No. 144 145 147 150 153

Weight, g 3.12 3.07 3.00 3.09 3.00

The nominal weight of the Aegina triobol, calculated by Head, is 3.11 g.118 The correctness of his calculations is confirmed by the current view of the Aeginetan standard, the weight of its stater being about 12.20 g (with deviations), and that of an obol a little over a gramme.119 Given the weight loss due to silver corrosion and coin cleaning, the entire weight cluster listed in Table 6 is close to the nominal weight of the Aeginetan triobol, and three pieces (nos. 64, 118, 144) exceed it, one of them (no. 118) significantly (3.19 g). Other heavy examples – 3.04 g, 3.02 g, 3.09 g and 3.04 g – are also known from Berthier-Delagarde’s list, as well as from the collections of the State Historical Museum (Moscow) and the Hunterian Museum (Glasgow).120 The ‘Coins of Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site recorded six more examples weighing 3.27 g, 3.15 g, 3.10 g, 3.08 g, 3.03 g and 3.02 g.121 A triobol of 3.11 g found in the district of Kytaion should be added to this list.122 Anokhin proposed that the first four ‘Panticapaean’ series (P–1 to P–4) were issued on the Aeginetan standard. Of these, triobols occur in the P–2 series (17 examples) and P–4 series (eleven examples); the heaviest one weighing 3.02 g.123 Our observation of the weight cluster composed of 15 heaviest triobols from the hoard gives a nominal weight of 3.06 g, which agrees well with the Aeginetan standard (stater – 12.20 g, drachm – 6.10 g).

115

See https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1058/8.html. See https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1058/6.html. 117 See https://bosporan-kingdom.com/002-1013/3.html. 118 BMC Attica, lxvi. 119 Gjongecaj and Nicolet-Pierre 1995, 284. 120 Berthier-Delagarde 2009, table I.56; Frolova 2004, nos. 8, 18. 121 https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1043/1-8.html; https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1058/8.html, etc. 122 Kulikov 2007, 325–26. Diameter 16 mm. 123 Anokhin 1986, 22. He dated the P–2 series to 520–510 BC, and the P–4 series to 500–490 BC. In his catalogue there are two triobols struck from dies represented in the given hoard. They really belong to different chronological groups, which we date to the 490s and 490–480 BC. 116

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

19

Table 7. Nominal weight of the early Bosporan triobol (490s–480 BC) BerthierDelagarde 2009124

Shelov 1956125

Anokhin 1986126

2.48g

2.75g

3.02g

Kuznetsov, Abramzon 2020 3.06g

Let us note that more than half of the heavy triobols (eight specimens out of 15) were struck from the A19 obverse die. The coins with this obverse make up the largest group in the hoard consisting of 32 specimens (nos. 124–155). Chronologically, this group is second-to-last. All these coins are new; many are uncirculated and have retained the ‘mint state’. A large number of the triobols weigh from 2.89 to 2.95 g, i.e. slightly less than the full nominal weight. This is due to the reasons stated above: partial loss of their weight through cleaning from corrosion products and weight variations within the denomination, characteristic of early Greek coinage. It is safe to say, therefore, that the coins of this series do show a close adherence to the standard of the Aeginetan triobol weighting 3.05 g. Finally, the group of the triobols in the hoard struck from the A20–R14 die-combination (nos. 156–162; Pl. 59.156–162) could seem to be slightly below the standard – in most cases their weights range from 2.78 to 2.87 g. Meanwhile, there are known examples of this issue weighing 3.00 g, 3.02 g and 3.10 g.127 These coins were minted synchronously with the latest coins of the previous A19 issue, as evidenced by the same reverse R14. Thus, the metrology of the triobols from the hoard also shows that up to 480 BC the earliest Bosporan silver coinage was issued not on the reduced version, but on the full Aeginetan standard. After the Archaeanactids, supported by the Persians, had come to power in Panticapaeum, the Aeginetan standard was changed to the Persian one, with a silver siglos weighing 5.43–5.50 g.128 Anokhin correctly calculated the weights of the Bosporan triobol and hemiobol (2.72 g and 0.45 g, respectively) issued under the Persian system. His P–5 Panticapaean series (a drachm, a triobol, a hemiobol and a tetartemorion) issued – as he believed – on the Persian standard in 490–480 BC129 does consist of the Bosporan coins of those years. However, they were minted on the Aeginetan standard: a drachm from the P–5 series has the same die-combination as one of the drachms from the Phanagorian hoard (drachm no. 7, A2–R2). Analogies to the Late Archaic triobol from the P–5 series are also known,130 and the average weight of the P–5 hemiobols is 0.50 g, which is close to the Aeginetan standard. Actually, it is Anokhin’s P–6 series – dated by him to the time after 480 BC – that should be considered the first series of Panticapaean silver issued on the Persian standard. The typology of these silver coins is remarkably different from that of the pre-Archaeanactid coinage: if the lion head facing is still depicted on the obverse, the triobols’ reverse starts to feature the incuse square of the clear ‘swastika’ pattern. Also, two or four points now appear on the reverse of hemiobols in the opposite quarters of the incuse square. The archaeological context of such

124

Berthier-Delagarde 2009, 161, table I.54. Shelov 1956, 61, 74, 84. 126 Anokhin 1986, 22. 127 Cf. https://bosporan-kingdom.com/004-1003/10.html; https://bosporan-kingdom.com/004-1003/14.html. The web-site records A20 coins, all of them struck from a different reverse die. 128 Alarm 2012, 64–65; Psoma 2015, 103. 129 Anokhin 1986, nos. 7–10. 130 See Frolova 2004, Taf. 1, 19. 125

20

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

coins found at Phanagoria in situ, in the Early Classical layer, allows us to date them to ca. 480–460 BC.131 Based on the assumption that until the end of the 5th century BC all Bosporan coins were minted under the Aeginetan system, Frolova in her book assigned specimens with the swastika pattern to Type II.132 In fact, these Panticapaean coins – just as triobols and diobols bearing fourray stars in two opposite quarters on their reverse133 – were issued on the Persian standard. Judging from the archaeological context of their in situ finds at Phanagoria, we date these coin types to ca. 460–440 BC.134 It is important to note that the change to the Persian standard was accompanied with plentiful issues of small fractions of silver. Drachms are absent from the first issues (with the swastika on the reverse); the largest denomination is a triobol. Following the Archaeanactids’ rise to power, monetisation of the Bosporan economy must have intensified, which is probably associated with the centralisation of the state and its inclusion in the Pax Persica. The situation in the Bosporan market is not unique. Small change generally prevailed in everyday transactions in 5th-century Greece. The 1867 Auriol hoard (IGCH 2352) concealed ca. 470– 460 BC offers clear evidence of this. The hoard contained 2130 Archaic anepigraphic coins of small denominations,135 among them 1928 obols and smaller fractions of uncertain Ionian mints, and only few drachms and tetrobols.136 There are other hoards of the first decades of the 5th century BC which consist entirely of small fractions, mostly obols and sometimes hemidrachms (Table 2, nos. 3, 4, 8, 12). The Pontic expedition of Pericles and the political upheaval in the Bosporus in 438 BC, during which power passed to Spartocus I, were certain to have a bearing on Bosporan coinage, as was the case under the Archaeanactids. The first of these changes was the appearance of the ethnic abbreviation – ПA, ПAN, ПANTI – on Panticapaean coins. Previously, silver coins had been anepigraphic.137 This means not just ‘the gradual development of the reverse type, as before’138, but that the Spartocids’ domain was then limited to only Panticapaeum and the surrounding area. Second, Panticapaean coinage shifted from the Persian standard to the Attic one. The choice of the latter may have been caused by two important factors: political control of the area (the Spartocids were the protégés and allies of Athens), and economic considerations – from that time special Bosporan-Athenian contacts began, primarily related to the grain trade. Since the weight of the Attic drachm is 4.29–4.32 g, the first Spartocid series undoubtedly included drachms, diobols, hemiobols and tetartemoria with П–A and stars in raised opposite quarters of the incuse square.139 The average weights of these coins are 4.33 g, 1.40 g, 0.35 g and 0.20 g, respectively, which corresponds to the Attic standard. Previously, some scholars dated this series to the mid-5th century BC,140 others to 450–438 BC141 or the beginning of the third quarter of the 5th century BC.142 However, their close adherence to the Attic weight system 131

Abramzon et al. 2019. Frolova 2004, 18–20, nos. 31–79. However, everything is mixed up here. Type II includes both coins of the Persian standard and those of the Aeginetan one. Among the latter are drachm no. 31 and triobols nos. 41, 47 and 48.2 struck from the same dies as the coins found in the Phanagorian hoard. 133 Frolova 2004, nos. 215–227 (diobols), 229 (triobol). 134 Abramzon et al. 2019, nos 12–19. 135 Furtwänger 1978. 136 See also Kim 2001b, 47. 137 Perhaps, the exceptions are triobols and hemiobols with a star on the reverse (Frolova 2004, nos. 204, 205–13), whose average weights (2.20 g and 0.36 g) correspond to the normal weights of such denominations issued on the Attic standard. 138 Anokhin 1986, 27. 139 Frolova 2004, nos. 293–297 (drachms), 298–300 (diobols); Anokhin 1986, nos. 29 (drachm), 30 (diobol), 31 (hemiobol), 32 (tetartemorion). 140 Frolova 2004, 27. 141 Anokhin 1986, nos. 29–32. 142 Shelov 1956, 64. 132

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

21

indicates that they were issued after 438 BC. Let us not forget didrachms with four raised squares and a star on the reverse,143 the heaviest of which weigh 8.54 and 8.50 g144 – also in accordance with the nominal weight of the Attic didrachm. So, the weights of the listed denominations attest to the change from the Persian system to the Attic one, which took place after the rise of the Spartocids under support of Athens. Thus, in the 5th-century Bosporus the standard changed twice, and each time its choice was caused by military, political and economic factors. In the 490s, the appearance of coinage on the Aeginetan standard followed the involvement of the Bosporus in the area of Aegina’s trade. After the rise of the Archaeanactids, who were apparently under Persia’s influence, Panticapaeum changed the Aeginetan standard to the Persian one. Finally, the Spartocids, upon seizing power in 438 BC with the support of Athens, started minting money on the Attic standard, which at that time was accepted internationally. From that moment Athens became one of the main trade partners of the Bosporus. It seems after 438 BC return to the Aeginetan standard was impossible (by that time Aegina had lost its leadership in the Pontic trade). The Persian standard was also doomed: Athens sought to impose the Attic standard on the mints of its allies). Early Bosporan Minting Technique and Die-life The formation of Archaic Bosporan coinage certainly followed common trends in the development of early Greek minting techniques. Scholars note that in early Bosporan minting a reverse die larger than a blank was used, which flattened the flan all around the type. Such shape of a typeless punch is called the ‘flat-nose trussel die’.145 This technique reduced the probability of the blank slipping when striking and extended the lifetime of the reverse die. Based on the evidence from the hoards, the appearance of this technique dates from 520–510 BC.146 In early Greek coinage, dies made of hardened bronze were used,147 and Bosporan minting, of course, was no exception. It is well known that the upper die (reverse) wore out much faster than the lower one (obverse). When comparing and counting the dies of both sides within a synchronous cluster (for example, a hoard), the reverses are usually found to be more numerous than the obverses. Evidently, during the life of one obverse die, two or three (sometimes more) reverse dies were replaced at the mint. However, some of the reverse dies, used at the moments when one obverse die was changed to another, capture the working time of both. Dies can be arranged in sequences judging by traces of their gradual deterioration: the appearance of flaws of different kinds, starting as tiny breaks, cracks, potholes, scuffs, ultimately leading to complete die breakage. Reconstruction of the die-sequences is necessary for chronological grouping of coins.148 The triobols from the hoard provide important evidence for the ratio between the obverse and reverse dies in early Bosporan minting. De Callataÿ noted that in the issues of Archaic and Classical time the number of obverse dies usually exceeds the number of reverses.149 The Phanagorian hoard confirms this observation, but only for the earliest group of the triobols (nos. 9–61), in which twelve obverse dies are combined with only five reverses (the R2, R3, R4 reverses are combined with three obverses each, and R5 with five obverses: A8, A9, A10, A11 and A12). Group 2 (nos. 62–162), on the contrary, shows the traditional proportion: eight obverse dies against nine reverses (of which the A15 and A19 obverse dies are combined with five and four reverse dies, respectively). 143 144 145 146 147 148 149

Frolova 2004, no. 311. Frolova 2004, no. 311.6; Berthier-Delagarde 2009, 164, no. 81. Kovalenko and Tolstikov 2010b, 26. Kovalenko and Tolstikov 2010b, 29 (with references). Vermeule 1954, 10–11; Kraay 1976, 13. Zograf 1951, 33; Kraay 1976, 18–19. De Callataÿ 2003, 254.

22

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

Greek dies were notoriously made of soft metal – bronze, so they quickly wore out and broke.150 The Phanagorian hoard also shows rapid wear of dies. In this connection, the questions arise regarding the die-life, the average number of coins struck per single die, and the rhythm of minting. Without dwelling in detail on these extremely difficult issues, which have become the subject of many publications,151 we shall note only that all existing opinions fit between two polar views: ‘optimistic’ and ‘pessimistic’. The first of them was proposed by de Callataÿ,152 the second by T.V. Buttrey. De Callataÿ emphasises that counting does not aim ‘to give any right number (which is unreachable but not inexistent)’; the challenge ‘is to circumscribe the uncertainty to an acceptable level’. For this reason, the author suggests, common sense should be used to solve the issue: ‘That demands to fix limits beyond which hypotheses would appear “unlikely” or “most unlikely” (which is less satisfying than “excluded”).’153 Buttrey believes that to calculate the number of coins produced in an issue it is not enough to count the dies used, nor to estimate a possible average number of coins struck per die. Here some third element is needed, i.e. independent evidence as to the size of the issue. Without this Third Element – literary and epigraphical sources that indicate the level of coin production – there is no way to move beyond counting dies to calculating die-life, i.e. the number of coins struck. Buttery concludes that with regard to ancient coin production ‘Quantification is impossible.’154 A. Brousseau, who was also among the contributors to the most recent book on the problem in question, calculates the number of dies used at different mints of Magna Graecia and arrives at the average values close to five to seven dies per year.155 At the same time, he agrees with the other scholars that while Greek mints may give the impression that they produced coins constantly and regularly, the reality looked different: the rhythm of coin production was subject to parameters that in most cases elude modern researchers. In addition, the reasons for which coins were minted, and, in particular, the size of minting, remain unknown. Coin production at Greek mints was irregular.156 Let us conclude this brief overview with an important quotation from T. Hackens: D’ailleurs, même en temps de paix, un rythme de production régulier dans un atelier monétaire est chose illusoire, imaginée par un exercice scolaire de moyenne arithmétique qui veut répartir les monnayages disponibles et connus sur un nombre d’années hypothétique. Pareille quantification distributive peut aider à réfléchir, à rendre l’expression de notre ignorance plus nuancée, mais la réalité d’un atelier est toute différente: une émission peut durer un mois ou une semaine et alimenter la circulation pendant des années.

150

Gardner 1883, 20. Let us list just a few of the most important contributions: Hackens 1975; Esty 1984; 1986; 2006; 2011; Esty and Carter 1992, 165–86; Carter and Nord 1992; Buttrey 1993; 1994; de Callataÿ 1995; 2011b. 152 De Callataÿ once tried to determine the total number of coins minted in the ancient times. He drew upon their number known from sales and museum and private collections, which in 1997 he estimated at 1,416,350 (de Callataÿ 1997, 69). As a result, the ratio of coins preserved to the present day and issued in antiquity was found to be 1:6,427. T. Faucher, warning that such estimations cannot be considered precise calculations, nevertheless gives on their basis the average number of coins struck per single die: 15,000 to 30,000 pieces (Faucher 2011, 124–25). 153 De Callataÿ (2011a, 9) writes: ‘It is in this sense that I proposed to use the number of 20,000 coins per obverse die for silver coinages, with the idea that it may be multiplied or divided by two (10,000 to 40,000 coins) but most unlikely by three (6,666 to 60,000 coins) and, let say, quasi-excluded by four (5,000 to 80,000 coins), with only possible exceptions for samples of one or very few dies… We should not be afraid by an estimate which goes from 10,000 to 40,000 coins per obverse die.’ 154 Buttrey 2011, 106, 111. 155 Brousseau 2011, 166–74. 156 Brousseau 2011, 163. The duration of die-life depended on the frequency of its use: where coins were minted often, a die could serve for 3–5 months (or even less); where only a few coins were produced, a die could serve up to five years. If a die was rarely used, it could be stored between ‘sessions’ of minting in a special storage. This makes us cautious in concluding that coins struck per single die are synchronous (Howgego 1995, 31). 151

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

23

With regard to quantitative methods: Hypothèses fondées sur des hypothèses, voilà le danger qui nous guette si nous nous laissons griser par les études quantitatives, même rigoureuses et critiques, sans nous rendre compte de l’état très lacunaire des études préalables qui doivent éclairer à la fois notre problématique et notre interprétation.157

The Phanagorian hoard offers a unique opportunity to study the lives of the reverse dies of the triobols. The degree of damage of the incuse square clearly demonstrates the phases of working life of the reverse die up to its complete breakage. Most of the triobols were minted from a square-headed reverse punch divided into three, four or five prongs. First, minor breaks at the sharp edges of a square-headed reverse die occurred;158 then the whole prongs crumbled (Pls. 27–31). However, not all damages of the die led to its replacement. Dies were evidently valuable objects which were costly to replace; hence their lives were sometimes prolonged by patching or recutting.159 Sometimes minters could use a die which had lost one of the four prongs on the protruding lower square head (R6), or even half of the striking part (R7/8160). The Phanagorian hoard testifies that the reverse die did not remain intact for long: for example, out of 21 coins struck from the R6 reverse die (nos. 62–82), only three pieces (nos. 69, 78, 79) show the original condition of the die, while 18 coins bear traces of increasing die deterioration. It is impossible to determine exactly how long the die may have served at the Bosporan mint. Kovalenko, counting the obverse dies of the early hemiobols, suggests that one up to several dies were used per year.161 Applied to the triobols from the Phanagorian hoard, struck from 20 obverse dies, such estimation will mean that their issue lasted for about a decade or a little more. Since the hoard was concealed in 480 BC (the latest coins without traces of circulation are close to this date), it must contain issues of the 490s and 480s BC. Taking into account the recorded triobols struck from die-combinations (5–7 obverse dies) which are not represented in the given hoard,162 it is possible to extend the duration of the coinage: from not earlier than the middle of the 490s to 480 BC. In general, this dating fits into the chronological framework of those issues of Aegina, Teos, Abdera, Mende (and other cities) that are close to the coins from the Phanagorian assemblage in the shape of the incuse square, style and technique, and also coincides with the beginning of coinage in other Black Sea centres (for example, Sinope163). Finally, the number of the obverse and reverse dies of the triobols from the Phanagorian hoard allows us to estimate roughly the size of the issues and the intensity of coinage. Simple counting may give some insight as to the duration of emission, but not the initial date of Bosporan coinage. Attempts to count all the known dies were made earlier, but the researchers judged from the volume of numismatic material available at a particular time.164 Meanwhile, it has lately increased several times, and previously unknown dies have been recorded.165 This also applies to the Phanagorian hoard, which contains 154 triobols struck from 20 obverse and 14 reverse dies. Almost all of them have become known only recently thanks to the ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site, which is currently the most complete database for early Bosporan numismatics.166 A lot of work in this direction was done before by Frolova,167 who collected all 157

Hackens 1987, 5. Kraay 1976, 13. 159 Kraay 1976, 13. 160 The R8 die is a fragment of R7. 161 Kovalenko 2005, 362. 162 See the ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site. 163 For the beginning of Sinope coinage, see SNG BM 1359–1365 (490 BC); de Callataÿ 2003, 177, no. 209 (480 BC). 164 For this approach, see Kovalenko 2005. 165 See the ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1001/1.html, etc. 166 We do not discuss here controversial questions such as the sequence of issues, composition of series, dating, attribution of some anepigraphic coins, or other disputable aspects. The web-site clearly fulfils the stated goals of its curators: to create a continuously updated electronic catalogue, the most complete archive of the Bosporan coins, dies and die-combinations. 167 Frolova 2004. 158

24

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

the coins available to her at that time and grouped them into successive issues based on gradual complication of the reverse type – from a rough amorphous quadratum incusum to a clearly formed quadripartite square.168 Relative Chronological Sequence of the Issues Drachms The hoard contains eight drachms struck from four obverse dies and the same number of reverses. Based on the date of the hoard’s concealment and taking into account the number of the dies of the triobols (see below), we believe that all the drachms were issued within about a decade and a half (presumably, after 494 and up to 480 BC). In addition, this dating is indirectly confirmed by parallels to the shape of the incuse square found in the coinages of Teos, Thasos, Abdera, Aegina, etc. Drachms nos. 1–5 are all struck from the same A1–R1 die-combination (pl. 41.1–4; 42.5). The analogy is known.169 The rough contoured Σ-shaped quadratum incusum is divided into four compartments, resembling the ‘mill-sail pattern’. The incuse square of similar shape occurs in the coinages of Teos of 480–470 BC170 (Pl. 32.1), Abdera (the end of Period I),171 Thasos (ca. 510–490 and 480 BC), Erythrai (ca. 480–450 BC). The R1 die is very similar to the R4 reverse of triobols nos. 16–23 (Pl. 32.3); however, those may have been issued a little earlier (see below). Drachm no. 6 with the quadripartite incuse square, as noted above, differs from the other pieces by a smaller diameter of the blank (17 mm). A similar specimen is kept at the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts.172 V.N. Rozov, its first publisher, noting poor preservation of the piece and its significant weight loss during cleaning, dated it to the third quarter of the 6th century BC.173 Frolova assigned this specimen to ca. 550–500 BC,174 Kovalenko to the end of the 6th–first quarter of the 5th century BC,175 and Anokhin to 490–480 BC, attributing it to the Persian standard.176 Meanwhile, the piece from the hoard weighs more than the Persian siglos, but less than the Aeginetan drachm (one should take into account the significant weight loss noted above). Drachm no. 7. Previously, four pieces struck from this die-combination were known.177 The is a variant of the mill-sail or Union Jack reverse.178 Frolova dated shape of the incuse square similar drachms to the end of the 6th–first quarter of the 5th century BC.179 Aeginetan silver staters with the same reverse pattern date from ca. 500 to 480 BC,180 staters of Neapolis from 510 to 480 BC181 and tetradrachms of Mende from ca. 480 BC182 (Pl. 34). The same type of the incuse is also present on staters of Thasos dating from 490 BC.183

168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183

Kovalenko and Tolstikov 2010b, 29. See https://bosporan-kingdom.com/003-2175/3.html. Weight 6.50 g. SNG Cop. 1433. May 1966, pl. II.19, 22. Inv. 231935/115765. Weight 4.54 g; diameter 17.5 mm. Rozov 1983, fig. 1.2. Frolova 2004, no. 2. SNG PSMFA 756. Anokhin 1986, no. 7. Frolova 2004, no. 31.1–4. Kraay 1976, 44. Frolova 2004. SNG Cop. 501; SNG Delepierre 1513. SNG ANS 405. SNG ANS 293. Naster 1975, pl. II.18.

25

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

Drachm no. 8. The incuse square, roughly divided into four compartments, is similar in shape to the reverse of drachm no. 6. This shape is close to the incuse squares which are present, for example, on Abdera’s coins of Period II.184 Stylistically, all the drachms are close; the lion head without a mane is engraved in high relief, the nose is depicted with a forked line. Triobols The triobols (Pls. 43–59) make up 95% of the coins in the hoard, which reflects the features of the Bosporan money market in the early 5th century BC. The same picture emerges from the record of single Archaic coin finds in the Bosporus: out of 256 such coins, 194 are triobols (hemidrachms) (see table 1). Triobols with the same die-combinations as in the Phanagorian hoard discovered at the rural settlements on the Taman Peninsula mark the area of their circulation in the Asiatic Bosporus. The pattern of their finds indicates that this denomination was by far the most common before the Archaeanactid time. After 480 BC, triobols were produced much less frequently, and the money market came to be dominated by diobols and smaller fractions, i.e. hemiobols and tetartemoria.

A2–R1 A4–R2 A6–R4 A8–R4 A8–R5 A9–R5 A10–R5 A15–R6 A15–R7 A15–R9 A19–R11 A19–R12 A19–R14 A20186

Golubitskaya 2

Vyshesteblievskaya 11

Starotitarovskaya 5

Strelka 2

Tamanskii 4

Taman 3

Volna Revolutsii 2

Volna Revolutsii 1

Die-combinations in the Phanagorian hoard

Phanagoria

Table 8. Single finds of triobols struck from same die-combinations as in the Phanagorian hoard at the Taman sites185

X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X

X

X X

Thus, the topography of the isolated finds of the triobols indicates a certain level of monetisation of the Taman Peninsula during the Archaic period. This is also attested by the hoard itself, which is a snapshot of the monetary circulation at that time.

184 185 186

May 1966, pl. III.36–39. According to A.A. Zavoykin and V.L. Strokina (Garbuzov et al. 2011, figs. 10–17). Combined with a new reverse die.

26

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

154 triobols from the hoard represent 32 die pairs (see the Catalogue of the Triobol Dies (Pls. 35–38). Reconstruction of the die-sequences (see Pls. 39–40) allows us to subdivide all the triobols into two chronological groups that are not linked by any common reverses or obverses (Fig. 1). The first group contains 53 pieces (nos. 9–61), the second one 101 (nos. 62–162). The number of the dies and die-combinations shows the dynamics of the coinage (see Table 9).

Table 9. Distribution of the number of the Hoard triobols by die-combinations

Obverse die

Number of coins

Reverse die

Number of coins

Diecombinations

Number of coins

Ratio between obverses and reverses A/R

Group 1. 490s BC A1 A2 A3 A4

2 5 1 10

A5 A6

1 5

A7 A8

2 7

R1

7

R2

10

R3

5

R4

R5 A9 A10 A11 A12

10

21

16 2 1 1

A1–R1 A2–R1 A3–R2 A4–R2 A4–R3 A5–R3 A6–R2 A6–R3 A6–R4 A7–R4 A8–R4 A8–R5 A9–R5 A10–R5 A11–R5 A12–R5

2 5 1 7 3 1 2 1 2 2 6 1 16 2 1 1

1/1 1/1 1/1 1/2

7 11 3 8 3 10 4 1 9 4 2 11 11 4 6 7

1/1 1/1 1/5

1/1 1/3

1/1 1/2 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1

Group 2. ca. 490–480 BC A13 A14 A15

7 11 28

A16 A17

1 13

A18 A19

2 32

R6

21

R7 R8 R9 R10

8 3 10 14

R11

R12 R13 R14 A20

7

17

11 4 13

A13–R6 A14–R6 A15–R6 A15–R7 A15–R8 A15–R9 A15–R10 A16–R10 A17–R10 A17–R11 A18–R11 A19–R11 A19–R12 A19–R13 A19–R14 A20–R14

1/1 1/2 1/1 1/4

1/1

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

27

Fig. 1. Scheme of die-sequence for triobols of the Phanagorian 2005 hoard.

In Group 1 (early), the triobols struck from the A9–R5 die-combination are the most numerous (16 pieces): they make up almost a third of the coins in this group. The R5 reverse die was used most actively (21 out of 53 coins were minted with it, in combination with five obverses). Then follow the R2 and R4 dies (each represented by ten coins, combined with three different obverses). As for the obverses from the hoard, the dies A4 and A9 prevail (ten coins and 16 coins, respectively). In Group 2 (late), the leading die-combinations are A14–R6, A19–R11, A19–R12 (eleven coins each) and A15–R9 (ten coins). At the same time, as noted above, the triobols struck from the A19 die (32 pieces) are the most common not only among the specimens of this group but also of the hoard coins in general. The A19 die was found to have been used in combination with four reverses: R11, R12, R13 and R14. Nearly as numerous are the triobols struck from the A15 obverse die (28 pieces), combined with five reverses: R6, R7, R8, R9 and R10. Both clusters – A15 and A19 – may reflect the apogee of the emission of triobols on the Aeginetan standard. In any case, the evidence points to the intensification of coinage from the early issues to the later ones (Figs. 2–4). Relative Dating of the Triobol Issues Group 1. 490s BC The period of about half a decade of coinage (after 494 BC187) comprises twelve obverses and five reverses, which do not occur in the second group. The first group includes earlier types of the incuse square, primarily with diagonal division. 1. Subgroup with the R1 reverse (nos. 9–15) is undoubtedly the earliest one in the hoard: the incuse square is divided with diagonal lines. For example, staters of Dikaia with a similar incuse 187

For this date, which we associate with the beginning of coinage in the Cimmerian Bosporus, see below.

28

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

Fig. 2. Distribution of the numbers of coins struck by obverse dies (triobols).

Fig. 3. Distribution of the numbers of coins struck by reverse dies (triobols).

square date from ca. 515–490 BC,188 Macedonian trihemiobols (Pl. 34) from ca. 530–480 BC,189 obols of Erythrai ca. 500–480 BC and tetradrachms of Potidaea ca. 500 BC.190 The R1 die is combined with two obverses: A1 and A2 (nos. 11–15). A piece struck from the A2–R1 die-combination is also recorded at the site of Tamanskii 4.191 188 189 190 191

De Callataÿ 2003, no. 126. SNG ANS 972; SNG Cop. 186. Kraay 1976, pl. 26, 471. Garbuzov et al. 2011, 143, fig. 15.1. Weight 2.82 g.

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

29

Fig. 4. Distribution of the numbers of coins struck by die-combinations (triobols).

2. Subgroup with the R2 reverse (nos. 16–23). The reverse bears a rough incuse with one open side. This Σ-shaped incuse resembles that on drachms nos. 1–5 and finds analogies among the drachms of Teos of ca. 490–478 BC.192 A triobol of the A4–R2 die-combination is recorded at the site of Taman 3.193 3. Subgroup with the R3 reverse (nos. 24–27, 30). The incuse square is divided into four rough triangular compartments (two convex and two depressed), with their vertices facing the centre. For example, the incuse squares of Menda’s tetrobols dating from ca. 500–480 BC have a similar, but only a clearer pattern194 (Pl. 34). 4. Subgroup with the R4 reverse (nos. 31–40). The incuse square is divided into four compartments, two of which are convex, protrude above the other two and almost merge into one rectangle. A triobol struck from the A6–R4 die-combination (nos. 31, 32) is recorded at the site of Volna Revolutsii 1.195 A piece minted with the A8–R4 dies (nos. 35–40) was found at Phanagoria – in one of the rooms of public building no. 294 in the same layer as the hoard196 (Pl. 11.1). Another example of the A8–R4 die-combination is recorded at the settlement of Vyshesteblievskaya 11.197 One more A8–R4 example is kept at the British Museum;198 J. Hind attributes it to the beginning of Bosporan coinage in 500/480 BC.199 5. Subgroup with the R5 reverse (nos. 41–61). The reverse is a quadripartite incuse square with a raised granulated mound in each quarter. The staters of Abdera issued ca. 500–480 or 492–492 BC (Period II, according to J. May) have a similar reverse200 (Pl. 34). The R5 reverse 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200

Balcer 1968, 20, pl. XIV, 45. Garbuzov et al. 2011, 140, fig. 12.1. Weight 3.15 g. De Callataÿ 2003, no. 161. Garbuzov et al. 2011, 139, fig. 11.3. Weight 2.99 g. ‘Upper city’ excavation site, square no. 50, building no. 294, Rooms 1 and 2.1. Inv. Ph–14–7. Garbuzov et al. 2011, 145, fig. 17.1. SNG BM 836. Hind 2008, 1, pl. 1.1. Ashton et al. 1998, pl. 15.2; May 1966, pls. II.30, III.37.

30

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

is combined with five obverses: A8, A9, A10, A11 and A12. Several sites on the Taman Peninsula have also yielded finds of the triobols struck from the R5 die in the following combinations: A8–R5 (no. 41) was recorded at Starotitarovskaya 5;201 A9–R5 (nos. 42–57) at Taman 3; A10– R5 (nos. 58, 59) at Taman 4.202 Group 2. ca. 490–480 BC The second group comprises the triobols struck from eight different obverse and reverse dies within a period of about ten years. 6. Subgroup with the A15 obverse is the second most numerous cluster (28 pieces) after that with the A19 obverse (see below). The obverse A15 is combined with five reverses: R6, R7, R8, R9 and R10. The shape of the R9 incuse square is close to the reverse pattern on Abdera’s octodrachms203 issued ca. 500–480 BC. A triobol struck from the A15–R6 die-combination (nos. 80–82) was found at the site of Strelka 2;204 A15–R7 (nos. 83–90) at Volna Revolutsii 2;205 A15–R9 (nos. 94–103) at Golubitskaya 2.206 7. Subgroup with the R10 reverse. A similar quadratum incusum occurs on drachms of Teos dated to ca. 510–490 BC.207 The next two subgroups – A19 and A20 – are certainly the final issues of the pre-Archaeanactid triobols. They were minted shortly before the time of the hoard’s concealment in 480 BC. This is evidenced by the image of the lion head depicted in the best traditions of the coin art of the Archaic period. Carefully elaborated details of the mane, eyes (especially in the A19 pieces) noticeably distinguish these coins from the triobols of all the other issues, on which the lion head is rendered more schematically (the nose as a forked line, the eyes as dots, the mane as separate hairs). 8. Subgroup with the A19 obverse. This is the largest group of coins in the hoard (32 pieces).208 All the triobols were struck from one obverse die combined with four reverses. Almost all of them are new coins – uncirculated, sometimes of the ‘mint state’. The image of the lion head was carved by a highly skilled engraver, in the best traditions of Greek Archaic art. The incuse (R12) square is either divided into five compartments – one triangular and four quadrilateral (R13), or is a clear quadripartite incuse (R11). An or two rectangular and three quadrilateral analogy to R11 can be found, for example, among Abdera’s triobols of Period II.209 Apparently, the A19 die was used for coin production very intensively and longer than the others dies. There is no doubt that this late subgroup is penultimate in the hoard. The shape of the R12 incuse square divided into five compartments (nos. 135–145) is close to the quadratum incusum on silver Aeginetan ‘large-skew’ triobols minted ca. 520–480 BC.210 Hence, the R12 Bosporan triobols must have also been issued before 480 BC. The finds of single A19 triobols at the rural settlements of the Taman Peninsula include: the A19–R11 specimen from

201

Garbuzov et al. 2011, 144, fig. 16.3. Weight 3.08 g. Garbuzov et al. 2011, 143, fig. 15.3. 203 Triton VIII (10 January, 2005), lot 232; May 1966, pl. III. 39. 204 Garbuzov et al. 2011, 144, fig. 16.1. Weight 2.47 g. 205 Garbuzov et al. 2011, 139, fig. 11.1. Weight 2.60 g. 206 Strokin 2010, 452, fig. 1.1. Weight 2.81 g. 207 See SNG von Aulock 2254. 208 At present, the ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site includes ten more coins of this group. See https:// bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1043/1.html, etc. 209 May 1966, pl. IV.55, 56. 210 SNG Cop. 510, 512. Aeginetan staters with a similar shape of the incuse square were found in a hoard from Isthmia (IGCH 11) dated to ca. 480 BC. Aeginetan staters of the ‘proto-skew’, ‘small skew’ and ‘large skew’ types are known to have been minted before 480 BC (Gjongecaj and Nicolet-Pierre 1995, 290). 202

CHAPTER 1: HOARD DESCRIPTION AND EARLY BOSPORAN COINAGE

31

Phanagoria211 (Pl. 11.3), the A19–R12 piece (nos. 136–145) from the site of Taman 3,212 and the A19–R14 specimen (nos. 150–155) from the site of Vyshesteblievskaya 11.213 On the other hand, the narrow oblong shape of the flans (17–19 mm) of triobols nos. 130, 132–134, 136 and 144 is close to that of Aeginetan staters issued ca. 495–480 BC214 (Pl. 33), or even more so to the shape of Abdera’s staters belonging to Period II (ca. 500–475 BC).215 For these Bosporan triobols struck from four reverse dies the date range can be narrowed, for example, to ca. 485–480 BC. At the same time, their weights of 3.05–3.11 g do show remarkably close adherence to the weight standard of this denomination in the Aeginetan system. 9. The A20-R14 die-combination is the latest one in the hoard. The only reverse R14 is present in the assemblage, yet other reverses that could be combined with the A20 obverse are also known.216 Most likely, this group was minted on the eve of 480 BC. Specimens struck from the A20 obverse die are recorded at the sites of Volna Revolutsii 1,217 Taman 3218 and Vyshesteblievskaya 11.219 Thus, there are two chronological groups of triobols in the hoard, in the first of which the obverse dies used are more numerous than the reverses. In the second group, however, the traditional situation is observed: one obverse die is combined with several reverses.

211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219

‘Upper city’ excavation site, trench of the 19th century. Garbuzov et al. 2011, 140, fig. 12.9. Weight 2.75 g. Garbuzov et al. 2011, 145, fig. 17.12. Weight 2.72 g. Sear 1978, no. 1856. Chryssanthaki-Nagle 2007, pl. 6.9, 10. See The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/004-1003/1.html, etc. Garbuzov et al. 2011, 139, fig. 11.4. Weight 2.63 g. Garbuzov et al. 2011, 140, fig. 12.6. Weight 2.89 g. Garbuzov et al. 2011, 145, fig. 17.10. Weight 2.71 g.

CHAPTER 2: THE BEGINNING OF COINAGE IN THE CIMMERIAN BOSPORUS

The study of the earliest coins traditionally attributed to Panticapaeum presents many challenges, the dating of the first issues being one of them. We shall not dwell in detail on the existing opinions, as this task has largely been done by other specialists.1 Let us just note that many numismatists dated the appearance of silver coinage in the Cimmerian Bosporus to the middle of the 6th century BC. Given that the most developed Greek poleis had just started minting coins at that time,2 such early dating looks extremely strange: it places the Bosporus among the first issuers of silver coins in the Greek world. This is already reason enough to reject the opinion that Bosporan coinage began in the 6th century BC, let alone in the middle of that century.3 The article by S.A. Kovalenko and V.P. Tolstikov should be considered the first serious attempt to solve the issue. With regard to the level of the previous works, the authors rightfully noted: Strange as it is, up to now early Bosporan numismatics has been viewed by the Russian researchers as some isolated phenomenon which existed outside the context of monetary circulation in Archaic and Classical Greece. Otherwise, it is hard to explain why our numismatists completely ignore that plenty of studies on the beginning of coinage in different Greek poleis which have appeared in western historiography over the last decades.4

In the end, based on the comprehensive analysis of ‘numismatic, archaeological and historical data’, the authors concluded that ‘coinage in Panticapaeum may have started in the early 5th century BC’. They link this event to ‘a large-scale programme of public and temple building, which required coined money to be paid as wages’.5 As will be shown below, we generally agree with the dating suggested by Kovalenko and Tolstikov. However, the idea that coinage was introduced as a method of payment for construction works seems highly dubious. Let us ask a simple question: how could workers, who had received their wages in ‘coined money’, exchange it for necessary goods (food, clothes, etc.) on the agora? If coins had not been recognised as legal tender, no one would have accepted them. For this to happen, certain measures had to be undertaken with regard not only to the beginning of coinage, but also to its free circulation in the country. This issue is currently given much attention in numismatic literature (see below).6 As of today, the reasons for the adoption of coinage remain largely unclear, with the proposed explanations being often little more than mere conjectures.7 Some researchers give priority to economic motivations, others – to social factors, yet there are others who search for the answer in the religious or political spheres.8 At the same time, a number of specialists are convinced that the beginning of coinage cannot be attributed to any single cause.9 Most likely, the appearance of coined money in Greece around the middle of the 6th century BC was related to the deep 1

Kovalenko and Tolstikov 2010a, 32–43. See Anokhin 1986, 17. Yet, the author himself did not go much farther and dated the first issues to 540–530 BC. On a side note, Anokhin’s absolute dating rested on the belief that one issue lasted for a period of ten years – an assumption that came under criticism from a number of specialists (Frolova 1988; Zavoykin 2013, 343–47). However, it was not Anokhin who ‘invented’ this decadology; such an approach appeared quite a while ago (Holloway 1987) and was justifiably criticised (Carrocio 2011, 83). 3 For the dating of the early coins to the first quarter of the 5th century BC, see SNG Stancomb 509–530; Hind 2008, 1. 4 Kovalenko and Tolstikov 2010a, 31. 5 Kovalenko and Tolstikov 2010b, 44. 6 Martin 1995, 268; Seaford 2004, 136; Kagan 2006, 53. In this connection, let us cite D. Schaps (2004, 98): ‘… would all the workers on a public building be willing to be paid in a small piece of metal that would be useful to them only insofar as they could give it back to the government that gave it?’ 7 Kurke 1999, 6; van Alfen 2012, 30–31. 8 Holloway 1971, 16; Kurke 1999, 6–23; von Reden 2002, 157; Schaps 2004, 98; Osborne 2007, 293; van Alfen 2012, 19, etc. 9 Von Reden 2002, 157. 2

34

CHAPTER 2: THE BEGINNING OF COINAGE IN THE CIMMERIAN BOSPORUS

transformations that had been happening in different aspects of Greek society during the 7th and 6th centuries BC. Aristocratic society of the Archaic period gradually changed due to the spread of market exchange.10 Barter and gift exchange disappeared,11 with newly acquired wealth increasingly becoming a distinguishing marker in the social structure. Eventually, the development of the polis form of government and the growing role of state authority led to the introduction of coined money. According to S. von Reden, if coinage is taken as ‘a universal equivalent used as a medium of exchange’, it should not be neglected that ‘the conditions for universal conventions were only emerging in the 6th century BC’.12 One of the first Greek centres that started minting coins ca. 550 BC13 was Aegina (along with Athens and Corinth).14 It is traditionally believed that the lack of fertile lands on the island forced its inhabitants to engage in trade.15 Thus, R.R. Holloway, being an advocate of the economic approach to uncovering the reasons behind the introduction of coins, emphasised that the appearance of Aeginetan coinage was a direct result of economic factors. It shows how closely the history of monetary circulation was connected with the development of trade.16 Within a short space of time (about half a century) coinage spread over the Greek world and was adopted in dozens of poleis.17 By the middle of the 5th century BC ‘market trade implied coins’, which indicates the emergence of thoroughly monetised economy.18 This rapid expansion of coinage was undoubtedly connected with the polis institutions.19 Unfortunately, the reasons for the adoption of coinage by the North Black Sea poleis hardly ever receive serious attention in Russian scholarly literature. The only exceptions are some blatantly amateurish works, which are not worth considering here. Let us now turn to the intricate question about the issuer of early Bosporan silver. The current scientific consensus is that these coins were struck in Panticapaeum. This conclusion is based on the supposed evolution of the Panticapaean coin types: from the first anepigraphic specimens to the coins with the legend ПAΝΤΙ. Special importance is attached to the image on the obverse – lion’s head facing – which is usually ascribed to the influence of Milesian tradition. Sometimes it is viewed as a borrowing from the coinages of Samos or other centres.20 First, we shall look at the image of a lion’s head. It has long been known that various wild and domestic animals, fantastic beasts, birds, fish and insects were frequent motifs that adorned the obverse of early coins – starting from the very first electrum issues.21 Such creatures (sirens, sphinxes, winged horses, boars, lions, bulls, dogs, dolphins, crabs, etc.) were often featured on gemstones and shields.22 Human and god depictions were also popular. In other words, there existed a whole repertoire of images – a database in a way – from which a polis could choose what to place on its coinage. Some images were selected because they could give a meaningful hint about certain events connected with the history of the city, its cult or legend, the most famous examples being Phocae with the type of a seal on its coins, and Rhodes with that of

10

Kurke 1999, 12–23. Von Reden 1995, 79–99; 2010, 63. 12 Von Reden 1997, 157. 13 Bresson 2016, 264. 14 Melitz 2016, 86. 15 Figueira 1981, 22, 230. 16 Holloway 1971, 16, where, on the importance of trade for Aegina (particularly with Naucratis), he writes: ‘Naucratis made Aegina’. 17 Kim 2001a, 11. For the list of poleis that struck coins, see Osborne 1996, 250–59. 18 Schaps 2004, 111. 19 Von Reden 2010, 25. 20 Zograf 1951, 164; Shelov 1951; Frolova 2004, 3. 21 Konuk 2012, 45. 22 Boardman 2001, 120–22. 11

CHAPTER 2: THE BEGINNING OF COINAGE IN THE CIMMERIAN BOSPORUS

35

a rose.23 However, in most cases the significance of this or that symbol eludes modern researchers. Thus, it remains unclear why a sphinx was chosen as an emblem of Chios, a winged boar of Clazomenae, etc. As noted by one of the scholars who examined the issue, ‘A major obstacle confronting the explication of Archaic Greek symbols is the absence of iconographical context.’24 P. van Alfen draws attention to the fact that many coin types are so common (such as lions, panthers, bulls, etc.) that they lack any individuality associated with polis coinage. ‘Within the context of a narrower network of users, each of these designs may have served the function of identifying the issuer, but this information would be easily lost as the coins migrated away from the group’25 (for example, a polis). This greatly complicates the attribution of coins by modern researchers. It is therefore no accident that a large number of coins remain catalogued under ‘an uncertain mint’. Another consequence is that the search for the prototype of a certain image may lead to inadequate conclusions, which does happen fairly often. The question then arises: is it possible – in the light of the aforesaid – to claim with confidence that the image of a lion on the early Bosporan silver was derived from Milesian coinage? The answer may well not be positive.26 Miletus indeed struck coins with the profile of a lion’s head turned back27 (non-identical to the Bosporan type). Yet, the image of a lion related to the cult of Apollo is not necessarily indicative of Milesian origin. If that was the case, we would find this motif on the coins of at least some other Milesian colonies, Olbia in the first place, where the cult of Apollo was firmly established.28 Reality, however, is different.29 To make matters worse, we do not have enough grounds to be sure that our coins were struck in Panticapaeum.30 Really, what was this city like at the end of the Archaic period? Why was it able to begin minting coins so early? As we know, the majority of poleis, including much bigger ones (not only in Pontus but also in the Mediterranean, for that matter) had not yet adopted coinage by that time. The idea that Panticapaeum needed coins to facilitate grain trade does not stand to reason.31 First of all, the Bosporus issued predominantly small denominations, the largest one being a drachm (very uncommon). Thus, Bosporan drachm cannot have been used for international trade. As A. Bresson rightly notes, it was intended only for local circulation.32 Secondly, in point of fact such trade did not require coined money at all, as follows from the existence of a whole system of cashless transactions.33 Besides, the role of international currency was

23 Head 1911, 587–88, 637–38; Pfeiler 1966, 5–16; Osborne 1996, 250. In the words of L. Lacroix, the types of Greek coins were always ‘parlants’ (Lacroix 1975, 155). 24 Spier 1990, 128. 25 Van Alfen 2012, 27. 26 For example, D.B. Shelov’s line of argument can illustrate very well such type of subjective reasoning: ‘… it can be presumed that the motif of a lion or a lion’s head on Panticapaean coins, just as on Milesian ones, is linked with this cult [of Apollo – VK, MA] and that it was borrowed from the metropolis together with the cult itself… Therefore, Milesian origin of the first Panticapaean coin types should be deemed established. This does not mean, however, that Panticapaean minters slavishly copied the Milesian types. The original motif of a lion (or its head) as a symbol of Apollo was apparently transformed by Bosporan masters, who did not resort to blind imitation – as the adherents of the theory about Samian origin usually believe … the development of the lion’s head type on Panticapaean coins shows a marked degree of independence, resembling only slightly the motifs on other city coinages’ (Shelov 1951, 48–49). Hence the question: what is the weight of the conclusion about Milesian influence on early Bosporan coinage? 27 Head 1911, 584–85. 28 Ehrhardt 1983, 139–40; Rusyaeva 1986. 29 Even a brief look at K. Kraay’s catalogue is enough to spot plenty of lion’s images on the coins of Samos, Rhegion, Zancle/ Messene, Cnidus, Cyzicus, Mylasa and several uncertain mints (Kraay 1976, nos. 17, 770, 771, 780, 782–784, 878–885, 944–948, 952, 988, 989, 993, 997, 998, 1100–1102. See Shelov 1951, 47; Kovalenko and Tolstikov 2010b, 26). 30 A. Bresson, while sharing the opinion that the origin of the lion image on Bosporan coins goes back to Miletus and the cult of Apollo, also notes that the reverse (‘mill-sail pattern’) points to the coinages of Corinth, or Aegina, or Cyzicus (Bresson 2007, 58). Does it mean that the reverse should be regarded as a borrowing as well? 31 Smekalova 2005, 248–49. For the criticism of this opinion, see Kovalenko and Tolstikov 2010a, 43. 32 Bresson 2007, 58. 33 Von Reden von 2010, 92–95. ‘Very often we tend to forget that large commercial operations of antiquity were conducted without any coin circulation’ (Hackens 1987, 5).

36

CHAPTER 2: THE BEGINNING OF COINAGE IN THE CIMMERIAN BOSPORUS

successfully performed by foreign coinages (Aeginetan and Cyzicene).34 In the Bosporus Cyzicenes were also used as a store of value.35 As concerns those Panticapaeum coin types with a lion’s head that were issued after 480 BC, even if they do continue the tradition of early Bosporan coins with the similar image (as commonly believed), it does not necessarily mean that this tradition was started in Panticapaeum. Early Bosporan silver coinage may have been issued on the Asian side of the strait. Since it also circulated in the European part of the Bosporus, the transfer of the mint to Panticapaeum after the stormy events of 480 BC would thus constitute a continuation of this coinage tradition. All in all, the evidence is insufficient to warrant the conclusion that Panticapaeum was actually in need of its own coinage. Then who may have issued the silver coins that circulated on both sides of the strait? First, however, we should consider the question of monetary authority, i.e. who made the decision to start minting coins in a polis? No definitive answer has been provided in the specialist literature so far.36 Unfortunately, Russian scholars almost completely ignore this important issue. Searching for a solution, one should keep in mind that the decision to initiate coinage implies power. Although some coins are known to have been issued by private individuals, these are exceptions rather than the rule and do not play any significant role in the history of coinage.37 A key factor in coin production is people’s trust in the coin: without it currency could never function. Coins are accepted not only due to their intrinsic worth38 but also because people believe it will be possible to save these little pieces of metal for future purchases, use them as a means of payment and a store of value. This is guaranteed both by an official mark stamped on the coin and by law which establishes its acceptability.39 Let us not forget that the very Greek word for ‘coin’ (νόμισμα) derives from the verb νομίζω meaning ‘to acknowledge’ (LSJ s.v.). Given these circumstances, it was the Greek state, the polis, that was better equipped to initiate coin production.40 The common notion is that coinage could – among other things – bring substantial income to the state.41 However, J. Melitz in his article has recently demonstrated that only the emission of high denominations yielded profit, while the lower ones must have been subsidised. The government alone could afford this, since its financial gain from the spread of coinage easily outweighed the associated production losses.42 According to M. Hansen, in the Archaic and Classical periods of Greek history ‘most coins were struck by poleis’.43 In the absence of additional information, it does not seem possible to understand what could motivate Panticapaeum to introduce coinage. General considerations regarding economic needs, trade, etc. will not help to clarify this point.44 Unfortunately, we do not have any clue whatsoever as to the political structure of Archaic Panticapaeum, or other Bosporan poleis for that matter.45 34

Psoma 2015, 96. Bresson 2007, 61. 36 Van Alfen 2014, 639–41. 37 See Howgego 1995, 3–4. 38 According to R. Bogaert, the coin has three different values: a) an intrinsic value which depends on the natural properties, weight and name of the metal – these can be calculated based on the prices imposed by market conditions or set by the mint; b) a nominal value which is determined by the issuing authority and includes production costs; c) a commercial value which operates outside the issuing city and its domain. It results from such factors as the intrinsic value of the coin (the floor of the commercial price), the balance of supply and demand, trade contacts of the issuer and reputation of its coinage (Bogaert 1968, 316). 39 Seaford 2004, 136, 140. ‘When a city decided to strike coinage (“nomismata”), at the same time it promulgated the laws which imposed its use…’ (Picard 2007, 114). 40 Melitz 2016, 84; Seaford 2004, 135; Howgego 1995, 17. 41 Van Alfen 2012, 21; von Reden 2002, 157; Martin 1995, 268. 42 Melitz 2016, 85, 99. 43 Hansen 2004, 144. 44 Let us adduce a couple of relevant comments by reputable specialists. Schaps 2004, 97: ‘… no early coinage seems to have circulated far from its place of issue until the end of the sixth century, a certain indication that the earlier coins not only were not invented for international trade but were not even used for it when available’; Mackil 2013, 26: ‘The purposes for which the coinage was initially created are unclear, but the usual guess is that coins were produced to meet military needs and the state pay, as well as to facilitate exchange in those cases in which small denominations appear early.’ 45 Ehrhardt 1983, 199. 35

CHAPTER 2: THE BEGINNING OF COINAGE IN THE CIMMERIAN BOSPORUS

37

However, there is strong reason to think that the coinage in question was issued not by a single polis. It has long been suggested that in the face of the Scythian (supposedly) threat the Greek poleis of the Cimmerian Bosporus may have created a military alliance, which later, after the rise of the Archaeanactids, started minting coins with the legend ΑΠΟΛ.46 Not all the specialists share this opinion.47 Now it may well be argued that the Scythians were not involved in the events that unfolded on both sides of the Kerch Strait in 480 BC. However, the possibility of the existence of some alliance in the Cimmerian Bosporus is an issue that requires special attention. Let us start with the theoretical background. Various unions, confederations and other forms of political cooperation have recently become the subject of vigorous debate in scholarly literature. Since the publication of the classic book by J. Larsen, a wealth of studies on ancient Greek federalism has appeared.48 Yet, the controversy about the nature of federal states persists, especially when it comes to the Archaic49 and Classical periods, for the majority of the available sources date from later times. The Greek lexicon of federalism was fairly large. The most widespread technical term for a federal state was κοινόν.50 Another frequent term – ἔθνη – is usually translated as ‘tribe’.51 However, their exact meaning and application remain ambiguous and cause difficulties for those who attempt to determine the status of this or that political association. Moreover, the suggested translations often carry different connotations in modern languages. H. Beck and P. Funke give the following example: the German word Bund is equivalent to the French fédération, but the commonly used English terms ‘league’ and ‘confederacy’ do not fully match either of them. The semantic gap between ‘federal’, ‘fédéral’ and ‘föderal’ is also rather wide.52 The current state of research into federalism is not due to any problems with the interpretation of sources. Rather, it is explained by the fact that Greek unions themselves were dynamic, without clear-cut distinctions between categories of various organisations. As a result, no modern classification can be universally viable. In the words of J. Rzepka, ‘Any typology of Greek federal states (as well as of the Greek states in general) is fragile.’53 Let us cite one example. A. Giovannini suggests the following classification of the Greek political unions (les systèmes d’États de nature politique): 1) military leagues (symmachiai) – agreements between states to fight together against a common enemy; 2) hegemonies in which a stronger state exercises power and leadership over weaker ones; 3) common peace (κοινὴ εἰρήνη) as a way to end conflicts; 4) territorial states (ἔθνη) whose participants retained certain autonomy but surrendered control of foreign relations to a common assembly.54 Could any form of association (one of those listed above or of a different type) exist in the Cimmerian Bosporus? Theoretically, such possibility is not ruled out. As emphasised by E. Mackil, almost half of Greek poleis participated in κοινά for a certain period of time. And each κοινόν of the classical Greek world united the poleis that belonged to one ethnic group.55 We should not let the author’s phrasing ‘classical Greek world’ mislead us: in the Late Archaic period the situation must have been essentially the same, it is just that evidence relating to that time is insufficient. K. Raaflaub rightly regarded well-known Herodotean account (1. 170. 3) of 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

Y.G. Vinogradov 1983, 394–406; see Tolstikov 1984; Frolova 1996, 49–50. Saprykin 2003, 17; 2013, 27–33. Larsen 1968. For the most recent literature on the subject, see Beck and Funke 2015b. Beck and Funke (2015a, 22–23) note that the earliest federal states in Greece appeared at the end of the Archaic period. See Beck 1997, 10. Rzepka 2002, 226; Beck 2003, 181. Beck and Funke 2015a, 13–14. Rzepka 2002, 238. Giovannini 2007, 360. Mackil 2013, 400–41.

38

CHAPTER 2: THE BEGINNING OF COINAGE IN THE CIMMERIAN BOSPORUS

the advice given by Thales to the Ionians (to form a common council with the centre in Teos) as indicative that already in the early period Greek political theory anticipated the idea of federal state.56 Two points are worthy of note here: first of all, that Thales’ suggestion was made in the face of the Persian (i.e. military) threat; and second, that the other cities were to keep independence but change their status and be considered no more than demes.57 Poleis could unite for plenty of reasons, which are too difficult to exhaustively classify. We shall now emphasise just a few of the most important things. First of all, such integration usually occurred within the members of the same ethnic group (for example, the Ionians), the strongest expression of ethnic togetherness being “the adherence to a set of common cults and sanctuaries”.58 Moreover, specialists in this area point out that the very ‘sense of community of the Greeks as a whole arose out of their shared activities at major sanctuaries’.59 Returning to the Ionians, their confederation – the Ionian League – centred on the sanctuary of Poseidon Helikonios (Herodotus 1. 148), where the delegates of the league gathered to celebrate their festivals.60 Agreements on collaboration among neighbours of important sanctuaries were aimed at protecting ‘the integrity of shrines, cults and festivals’.61 Such associations are known as amphictyonies. Their structure was rather loose. Judging by the evidence from later sources, amphictyonies were ruled by a council of delegates responsible for various affairs related to the sanctuary, such as construction and repair, organisation of festivals, including musical contests and athletic competitions.62 Just as other ethnic groups inhabiting a particular territory (Sikeliotai, Chalkidians, Peloponnesians, etc.63), the Ionians can be regarded as a sub-ethnic (sub-Hellenic) category with collective regional identity.64 Numerous forces drew the poleis of a certain region together. Not in the last place – economic motivations: self-sufficiency was an ideal unattainable in real life.65 Cities constantly needed different goods and resources lacking on their territory, which inevitably prompted some forms of interaction and cooperation. Such contacts enhanced mutual desire to join efforts in addressing urgent issues. A large and famous sanctuary could actually facilitate integration based on shared religious practices. However, this tendency was hardly universal. For a fully-fledged union to emerge, other factors had to play a crucial role. Many researchers consider the presence of the military situation and wartime expenditures as the key reasons behind the creation of polis alliances and cooperative coinages.66 Such conditions arose when either a polis was under threat of an enemy attack or when an alliance itself planned to go to war.67 One of these forms of collaboration is known as a symmachia – an agreement between two or more states. A symmachia was a true military union with its own command – either joint or transferred to one of the allies.68 At the same time, all these associations were not necessarily rigid, unresponsive to change. Take for instance the Ionian League, just mentioned above. Its formation reflected the ethnic and 56

Raaflaub 2015, 451. … τὰς δὲ ἄλλας πόλιας οἰκεομένας μηδὲν ἧσσον νομίζεσθαι κατά περ εἶ δῆμοι εἶεν (for the commentary, see Asheri, Lloyd and Corcella 2007, 191). 58 Beck and Ganter 2015, 135. See Demetriou 2012, 234; Funke 2013; Rizakis 2013, 13–14. 59 Mitchell 2015, 50. 60 Mac Sweeney 2013, 173–77. 61 Raaflaub 2015, 448. 62 Giovannini 2007, 358; Iddeng 2012, 24. 63 For example, see Thucydides 6. 44. 3. 64 See Antonaccio 2001, 120; Malkin 2011, 177–78, 219–21. 65 Mackil 2013, 244. See Horden and Purcell 2000, 112–15; Reger 1994, 3–4. 66 Bresson 2016, 274. 67 Dreher 2003, 27. See Buraselis 2003. 68 Giovannini 2007, 361. 57

CHAPTER 2: THE BEGINNING OF COINAGE IN THE CIMMERIAN BOSPORUS

39

cultural unity of the Ionians.69 However, as noted by V. Gorman, during the Ionian Revolt this league acted as an organised and professional unit – a military alliance in effect.70 Let us now assess the likelihood of the emergence of any association within the historical context of the Cimmerian Bosporus in the early 5th century BC. This issue has engaged the interest of researchers for several decades. We shall not dwell on the existing points of view since all of them are fairly well known and have been repeatedly discussed.71 Recent works do not offer any fresh perspective on the matter before us, perhaps with the exception of an article by N. Gourova.72 First, however, let us refer to the opinion of T.V. Blavatskaya, whose cautious approach, though more than half a century old, seems quite appropriate given the almost complete silence of written sources on the Bosporan history. Regarding the political situation in the late 6th–early 5th centuries BC, Blavatskaya argued for the existence of a territorial state, which had emerged in the Cimmerian Bosporus at the end of the 6th century BC as a reflection of the common Ionian trend towards consolidation. This union, Panticapaeum being its principal polis, comprised both sides of the Kerch Strait, as is evident from the spread of Pantacapaean silver coinage. At first, Archaeanax or another member of his dynasty was the archon of this union. In 480 BC he seized power and became a tyrant. The existence of the Archaeanactid state was considered by Blavatskaya beyond doubt.73 As has been mentioned above, some interesting findings were recently published by N. Gourova. She disagrees with those who believe that in antiquity the name Bosporus was applied equally to Panticapaeum and the Bosporan state. In her opinion, there existed two Bosporuses: one denoted Panticapaeum as a polis, together with some small neighbouring towns; the other referred to the Bosporus known from the inscriptions as the Greek part of the state. Regarding the term Cimmerian Bosporus as used by Diodorus, Gourova writes that it ‘signifies a concrete state unit which transcends a single city’ (Panticapaeum). Her conclusion is that by the late 6th century BC, the polis of Panticapaeum emerged as a ‘multinuclear state’, which may already at that time have been called ‘Bosporus’, both officially and unofficially. Of note here is that this Bosporus ‘was not the same as the later Bosporan state of the Spartocids’, since most apoikiai of the region retained independence not only in the 6th but also in the 5th century BC. The name Bosporus, used initially as a geographical term, was gradually acquiring political meaning.74 We generally agree with Gourova’s position. Our only doubt is whether Panticapaeum was at all times the leader of the Greek poleis in the Cimmerian Bosporus. Returning to the subject matter, we must admit that any direct evidence for the existence of an association (union) in the Cimmerian Bosporus in the given period is lacking. However, the formation of such union – by analogy with the Ionian League – can be reasonably presumed: the Cimmerian Bosporus was inhabited by the same Ionians, whose collective identity cannot have disappeared all at once. There obviously were other strong reasons for unification, since the small Bosporan region was home to a fairly large number of poleis with many shared interests. In connection with the above, one passage from Strabo calls for special attention (11. 2. 10): ‘There is also in Phanagoreia a notable (ἐπίσημον) temple of Aphrodite Apaturus’ (translated by

69 Herodotus writes (1. 147. 2), ‘… and all are Ionians who are of Athenian decent and keep the feast Apaturia’ (translated by A.D. Godley). See McInerney 2001, 58. 70 Gorman 2001, 124, 139. 71 Kallistov 1949, 181–89; Zhebelev 1953, 165–66; Blavatskaya 1959, 8–16; Y.G. Vinogradov 1983; Tolstikov 1984; Shelov-Kovedyaev 1985, 63–70; Vasiliev 1992; Hind 1994, 486; Zavoykin 2006; 2013, 286–88; Gourova 2014, 41–44. 72 Gourova 2014. 73 Blavatskaya 1959, 12–20. 74 Gourova 2014, 35–37.

40

CHAPTER 2: THE BEGINNING OF COINAGE IN THE CIMMERIAN BOSPORUS

H.L. Jones).75 The choice of the word (ἐπίσημον) (‘notable’, ‘remarkable’) attests to a special status of this sanctuary, at least on a regional scale. References to Apatouros in other written sources, however scarce, span the period from the late 6th century BC till the beginning of the present era (FrGrHist. 1 F 211; Pliny NH 6. 18). Literary evidence is confirmed with epigraphic materials. Particularly important has been the discovery of a large marble building block with a dedicatory inscription of a Bosporan king Aspourgous to Aphrodite Ourania, the Mistress of Apatouros.76 The block (apparently a segment of the wall) indicates that the temple of Aphrodite was built entirely of marble. The costs associated with its purchase and – especially – shipment, let alone construction, must have been huge. All this implies grandeur and wealth. To all appearance, the sanctuary was located at a distance of about 2 km from Phanagoria’s western gate. Today its ruins are buried under the houses of Primorsky village and partly covered by the waters of the Taman Gulf. Various ancient artefacts (coins, including the earliest ones, inscriptions, pieces of pottery, etc.) are occasionally found at that site.77 All these facts testify to the long life of the sanctuary of Aphrodite (over 500 years), its riches and renown. Taking into account the aforementioned role of sanctuaries in consolidation of the neighbouring poleis and the Ionian experience of unification, it seems fairly likely that Apatouros could be that ‘centre of gravity’ for the colonists. All the more so, as it was the festival of the Apatouria, mentioned by Herodotus (1. 147), that united the Ionians. Membership in such association did not have to be limited to the citizens of the poleis in immediate proximity (Phanagoria, Hermonassa, Kepoi, Patraios). The inhabitants of the cities on the opposite side of the strait could easily cross it to take part in common activities at the sanctuary. The location of Apatouros at Phanagoria gives us ground to presume Phanagoria’s leading role in the association (supposedly an amphictyony). As yet, this hypothesis cannot be verified.78 In support, we can adduce two words of Strabo (11. 2. 10) used with regard to Phanagoria – ἀξιόλογος and μητρόπολις.79 The former characterises Phanagoria as a large and well-known city; the latter reflects its superior position (apparently gained long before Diodorus’ time80) among the poleis on the Asian side of the strait. Over the centuries Phanagoria retained its rank of the second most important city in the Bosporus. Therefore, the existence of a certain association that clustered around the sanctuary of Aphrodite Ourania at Apatouros and included the poleis of Ionian descent in the Asiatic (to say the least) Bosporus seems quite possible. Whether this association could issue its own coinage is another question, however. Hansen lists amphiktyoniai among the other coin producers of the Greek world.81 Yet, as regards Apatouros, an immediate answer would most likely be negative. We lack grounds for such supposition; the coinage under study offers us no supporting evidence in this respect. Any religious association centred on Apatouros (whether formally an amphictyony or not) did not constitute a political alliance with a stable internal structure to be labelled as κοινόν. Hence, it is reasonable to look more carefully into the political situation that existed in the Greek world at that time. The burial date of the Phanagorian hoard also calls for such investigation.

75

Kuznetsov 2014; Braund 2018, 187–242. Kuznetsov 2014, 123–24. 77 Rozov 1983, 112–13; Y.G. Vinogradov 1991, 15 (the author mistakenly located the find-spot on the coast of the Kerch Strait; the inscription was actually discovered in the eroded cliff of the Taman Gulf shore in the village of Primorsky); see Kolesnikov 2010. 78 As has been said above, such amphictyonies could be ruled by delegates appointed by each member-city. 79 ‘Sailing into Lake Corocondamitis one comes to Phanagoreia, a noteworthy city … and Panticapaeum is the metropolis of the European Bosporians, while Phanagoreium (for the name of the city is also spelled thus) is the metropolis of the Asiatic Bosporians’ (translated by H.L. Jones). 80 Following its incorporation into the Bosporan state, Phanagoria may have lost a considerable part of its influence. 81 Hansen 2004, 145. 76

CHAPTER 2: THE BEGINNING OF COINAGE IN THE CIMMERIAN BOSPORUS

41

The major event that happened in East Greece in the early 5th century BC was the Ionian Revolt (499–494 BC),82 usually regarded as an attempt to overthrow the Persian-backed tyrants.83 Some researchers ascribe the coinage dating from that time to the military needs, others disagree.84 Whatever the case, the Ionians suffered a catastrophic defeat in the Battle of Lade, followed by the massive destruction of Ionia (Herodotus 6. 14–22).85 Miletus, the leader of the revolt, was captured and completely sacked: Μίλητος μέν νυν Μιλησίων ἠρήμωτο (Herodotus 6. 22). As a result, many Ionians had to flee their motherland, which is also attested by Herodotus. We can ask ourselves a question: is there any probability that the Ionian apoikiai in the Cimmerian Bosporus were somehow involved in that revolt? The answer will of course be a mere conjecture. However, in light of the fact that in 480 BC, during the decisive campaign of the GraecoPersian Wars, Phanagoria and many other Black Sea poleis were destroyed, why not to suppose that the military operation of the Persians was no accident? In retrospect, after the defeat of the Ionian Revolt the Bosporan Hellenes might have had good reasons to take precautions and prepare themselves to the growing military threat.86 The influx of refugees that reached the shores of the Cimmerian Bosporus could prompt coinage, necessary in the preparation for war. One scholar points out in this connection that ‘the rapidity of the spread of coinage was allowed by the diaspora of East Greeks in the face of Persian expansion’.87 Military threat and a state of war are generally considered among the key factors that necessitated coinage.88 Confronted with extraordinary circumstances, the government had to provide everything needed for defence: weapons, equipment, ships, supplies and materials, payments for various services. Let us recall the words of two ancient authors which emphasise the crucial importance of money in war: 1) Thucydides 1. 83. 2: … καὶ ἔστιν ὁ πόλεμος οὐχ ὅπλων τὸ πλέον, ἀλλὰ δαπάνης (‘… war is a matter not so much of arms as of money’, translated by C.F. Smith); 2) Cicero Phil. 5. 5: Nervi belli pecunia infinita (‘The sinews of war are limitless money’).89 Such tense military situation may indeed have induced the issue of coins, which were to be used in economic, political and other spheres of life. Once the local coinage had been declared legal tender, it could serve for settling financial obligations (such as taxes), paying salaries to various officials, buying goods, funding construction and repair works, etc. Mackil and van Alfen suggested that coins issued by a group of poleis be referred to as ‘cooperative coinage’.90 S. Psoma and D. Tsangari call it ‘common money’.91 Such coins, produced by several independent poleis, were struck on a common weight standard and featured the same image type. According to the authors, cooperative coinage appeared in the Late Archaic period as a result of economic collaboration at a regional level. First and foremost, it was ‘an economic instrument for the facilitation of trade and the payment of financial obligations’. At the same time, the relation between the production of cooperative coinage and ‘the emergence of political

82

Lateiner 1982; Murray 1988, 480–90; Georges 2000; Gorman 2001, 129–45. Austin 1990, 289; Gorman 2001, 129. This view was challenged by D. Graf (1985), who argued that Persia had not followed any special policy of supporting tyrants in Greek cities. 84 See Kraay 1976, 30; Murray 1988, 482; Gorman 2001, 138; Mac Sweeney 2013, 175; Konuk 2012, 55. 85 Murray 1988, 488–90. Let us cite Herodotus’ account (6. 31–32) of the Persian actions after the suppression of the revolt: ‘The Persian fleet wintered at Miletus, and putting out to sea in the next year easily subdued the islands that lie off the mainland, Chios and Lesbos and Tenedos. Whenever they took an island, the foreigners would “net” the people. This is the manner of their doing it: the men link hands and make a line reaching from the northern sea to the southern, and then advance over the whole island hunting the people down. They also captured the Ionian cities of the mainland in the same way, but not by netting the people; for that was not possible … and they burnt the cities with their temples’ (translated by A.D. Godley). 86 See Nieling 2010, 134. 87 Howgego 1995, 16. 88 See Mackil and van Alfen 2006, 223–24; Psoma 2015, 106; Mackil 2015, 226; Bresson 2016, 274. 89 For more information on the role of money in war, see Garlan 1989, 57–73. 90 Mackil and van Alfen 2006; Mackil 2015, 489–90. 91 Psoma and Tsangari 2003. 83

42

CHAPTER 2: THE BEGINNING OF COINAGE IN THE CIMMERIAN BOSPORUS

structures beyond the polis’ remains unclear.92 Another important observation made by Mackil concerns the absence of any sturdy link between coinage and political sovereignty.93 To draw preliminary conclusions, the adoption of coinage by the Ionian colonists in the Cimmerian Bosporus had its roots in their strong sense of unity based on shared ancestry, religious practices, economic and politic activities. The conditions of the region which had become their new home called for joining efforts. The association, initially cemented by celebrations of common festivals at Apatouros, may at a certain time (when danger arose) have transformed into a tighter military and political union, which began coin production. Whatever the case, we have no reasons to think that Panticapaeum was the only issuer of the coins in question. There was nothing special about the city that would enable it to stand on a par with the most developed Greek poleis of the late 6th–early 5th centuries BC. Let us repeat that economic motivations, particularly relating to foreign trade, cannot have been the sole and decisive factor behind the introduction of coinage.94 Greek traders, having bought or sold goods in a certain place, preferred to carry new goods, not money, on board the ships.95 At best, they could use foreign coins, which served as international currency (Cyzicenes in the Bosporus).96 Even such adept merchants as Phoenicians, the citizens of Carthage in particular, did not employ money in their commercial operations up to the middle of the 5th century BC.97 Minting of coins was a costly enterprise. Due to this very circumstance small poleis chose to utilise coinages of other more developed centres.98 This alone is reason enough to regard the emission of coins in the Cimmerian Bosporus as an extraordinary event. Another question is whether Panticapaeum – the largest polis in the region – could lead the association of the Bosporan cities, be it a κοίνον, ἔθνη, symmachia, or anything else. The following remark made by von Reden seems relevant here: ‘Monetary networks were created regionally as a result of political alliances and the hegemony of one state.’99 The 5th century BC indeed saw a marked increase in the political influence of Panticapaeum. However, it became apparent only after 480 BC, when the future capital of the Bosporan kingdom became the seat of the Archaeanactids and started minting its own coinage. As concerns the period before this date – the question remains open. This said, the hypothesis about the key role played by the sanctuary at Apatouros in consolidating the Ionian poleis of the Cimmerian Bosporus remains viable. It cannot be pure chance that among the Bosporan inscriptions known to date there are about twice as many dedications to Aphrodite as to Apollo.100 The provenance of silver used for minting the coins under study is yet another important issue we need to examine. The city which intended to start coinage had to provide itself with the sufficient amount of metal. Access to precious metal deposits not only facilitated the emission of coins but also paved the way for the economic prosperity of the polis in general. Besides Athens, one of the vivid examples in this respect is Abdera – also a Teian apoikia, as was Phanagoria.

92

Mackil 2013, 247. Mackil 2013, 248. 94 See Osborne 2007, 292–93. 95 E. Will rightly noted (1975b, 234) that when, for example, olive oil from Piraeus had been exchanged for grain from Pontos or Sicily, money in the background of such barter had determined the cost of the goods at a certain exchange rate. With regard to grain trade in Egypt (in the Hellenistic period though), S. von Reden writes: ‘There was a fixed conversion rate between units of coin and grain independent of the fluctuating market price of the latter.’ It should be added that there existed a whole system of cashless payments ‘ranging from a simple setting off of obligations against each other to the use of written debt claims…’ (von Reden 2010, 46, 93). 96 See Mackil and van Alfen 2006, 218. 97 Schaps 2004, 106; Melitz 2016, 85. 98 Bresson 2016, 275. 99 Von Reden 2010, 72. 100 Ustinova 1999, 53; Kuznetsov 2006, 156–61. 93

CHAPTER 2: THE BEGINNING OF COINAGE IN THE CIMMERIAN BOSPORUS

43

This polis struck large denominations (octodrachms and tetradrachms), which was possible due to the nearness of ore deposits in western Thrace.101 The most important mines of the given period were located in Laurion, on Siphnos, and in the Pangaios Mountains.102 Bosporan cities did not have access to silver as its deposits are simply absent in the nearby area. The chemical composition of the coins from the Phanagorian hoard points to several possible sources of the metal. It does not mean, however, that the silver was directly imported from those territories. Along with metal from the mines, various other gold and silver things could be used for coin production: dishes and drinking vessels, statues, spoils of war, foreign coins, etc.103 Even a visual analysis of the coins from the Phanagorian hoard can reveal differences in their silver composition. Logic dictates that a large part of metal necessary for this coinage was obtained through remelting of different silver artefacts. The amount cannot have been huge: for example, the minting of 10,000 triobols required a little over 300 kg of silver. Several hundred kilograms of metal – part of it imported as ingots, another part recast – may have been enough to strike all the early Bosporan coins. Apparently, it is the re-melting of Achaemenid tableware that accounts for the West Iranian origin of silver used for the production of specimens nos. 13 and 17 from the hoard (see Appendix). Let us now get back to the question already discussed above. Early Bosporan silver coinage was struck on the Aeginetan standard.104 Based on the loss of coin weight due to circulation wear and metal corrosion105, researchers often come to the conclusion that in the Bosporus this standard had been reduced.106 H. Cahn ascribed deviations from the norm to the fact that in silver coinages (in contrast with gold and electrum issues) the weight of a certain etalon unit (for example, a mina) was supposed to equal the total weight of all the coins struck from it.107 It means that certain weight fluctuations within a fixed number of coins were allowable. We would like to emphasise once again that the coins from the Phanagorian hoard were evidently struck on the full Aeginetan standard, with the weight of a drachm being 6.10 g. As to the reasons why Bosporan coinage was minted on the Aeginetan standard, some clue can be found in Herodotus’ account of how king Xerxes, while at Abydos, saw ships with grain sailing out of the Pontus to Aegina and Peloponnese (Herodotus 7. 147. 2).108 Though no reference to the exact point of departure is made by the historian, there can hardly be any doubt that the ships were sailing from the Cimmerian Bosporus.109 This conclusion rests on the following grounds. First of all, while the Bosporan grain trade is well-attested in Classical written sources, evidence of corn exports from other Pontic cities is lacking. This is quite revealing: if Olbia, with its large chora, had indeed conducted such trade,110 its traces would have been preserved in the

101 May 1966, 2. For the most recent comprehensive study of Abdera’s coinage (with refined chronology), see ChryssanthakiNagle 2007. 102 Gale et al. 1980, 11–12, 48–49; Bresson 2016, 265. The wealth and prosperity of Siphnos and Thasos are attested by Herodotus (3. 57, 6. 46), who reports that the revenue of the islanders came from the gold and silver mines. 103 Pericles lists a variety of precious objects that the Athenians could (as implied in the text) utilise for coinage if the need arose (Thucydides 2. 13. 4–5). See Will 1975a, 99–102; Howgego 1990, 5–6. 104 Shelov 1956, 73–77; Frolova 1996, 34. 105 See Anokhin 1986, 20–23; Nicolet-Pierre 2000, 12–13. 106 Berthier-Delagarde 2009, 161–70; Zograf 1951, 164, 174; Shelov 1956, 84; Rozov 1983, 110; Kazamanova 1969, 138; Anokhin 1986, 20; Frolova 1996, 34; 2004, 8; Karyshkovskii 2003, 52; Psoma 2015, 97. 107 Cahn 1975, 86. 108 … πλοῖα ἐκ τοῦ Πόντου σιταγωγὰ διεκπλέοντα τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον, ἔς τε Αἴγιναν καὶ Πελοπόννησον κομιζόμενα (‘This was like that other saying of Xerxes when he was at Abydos and saw ships laden with corn sailing out of the Pontus through the Hellespont on their way to Aegina and the Peloponnese’, translated by A.D. Godley). In 6. 5 and 6 Herodotus mentions ships sailing out of the Euxine. This report relates to the final stage of the Ionian Revolt. See Bresson 2007, 55–56. 109 Kuznetsov 2000a, 28. Later authors sometimes refer to the Cimerian Bosporus as Pontus (for example, Diodorus 16. 52. 10): Σπάρτακος ὁ τοῦ Πόντου βασιλεῦς. See Zavoykin 1994, 67. 110 A. Bresson considers Olbia as one of the suppliers of grain to Greece (Bresson 2007, 56). See Bravo 1983, 20.

44

CHAPTER 2: THE BEGINNING OF COINAGE IN THE CIMMERIAN BOSPORUS

rich epigraphic heritage of the polis. Besides, Attic orators also mention only Bosporan grain trade.111 Second, as reported by Herodotus, the king’s counsellors (πάρεδροι) believed those were enemy ships sailing to Aegina and Peloponnese (πολέμια εἶναι τὰ πλοῖα). Given this, the ships had hardly set off from Persian-friendly territories. To all appearance, at the time when king Xerxes was at Abydos (the spring of 480 BC112), Pontic cities – at least those located on the northern coast – had not yet been conquered by the Persians. This must have happened by the end of 480 BC.113 Another important thing is that other Pontic centres, unlike the Cimmerian Bosporus, struck their early coinages not on the Aeginetan standard.114 As is well-known, a common weight system facilitated commercial exchange. Otherwise, difficulties arose connected with the conversion between coins of different standards, which involved high transaction costs.115 If the earliest coinage of the Cimmerian Bosporus was minted on the Aeginetan standard, it must have been done to facilitate trade with merchants from Aegina116 and, supposedly, some Peloponnesian cities.117 In light of the aforesaid, the question may arise again whether the beginning of Bosporan coinage was connected with commerce, particularly with grain trade. The absence of direct link between commercial operations and monetary circulation, especially in that early period of time, has already been noted above.118 Now we would like to emphasise once again the following features of Bosporan coinage: lack of large denominations (such as staters), rarity of drachms and limited volume of early issues. It has been repeatedly suggested by the researchers that in the early times the cities of northern Pontus could not possibly produce grain in the amount large enough to allow its voluminous export.119 Another point is that the demand of Greek poleis for imported grain as one of staple commodities should not be exaggerated.120 For example, L. Foxhall draws attention to the fact that high-quality wheat was considered a delicacy in the regions where barley bread was normally eaten.121 Therefore, any serious shortage of grain in everyday life of the Greeks is out of question. To all appearance, the beginning of coinage in the Cimmerian Bosporus cannot be attributed to any single, simple cause (trade contacts, construction works, paying salaries to magistrates, etc.) Rather, it stemmed from a mix of reasons, with some kind of association (confederacy) in the background.122 As it is said in such cases, ‘conditions were ripe’. This association, glued together by the sense of Ionian unity,123 was created to deal with emerging issues (political, 111

Kuznetsov 2000b; Moreno 2007, 211–308. Hammond 1988, 537. 113 At the end of 480 BC the Persians already dominated the Aegean (Hammond 1988, 588). 114 Zaginailo 1974, 60; see Zaginailo and Grebenkin 1984; Hind 2007, 12. For the discussion about the monetary standards adopted by these cities, see Psoma 2016, 95 and n. 73. 115 Bresson 2009, 77. 116 It is probably no accident that during the first two decades of the 5th century BC – the very time which Herodotus writes about – the coinage of Aegina was extremely intensive (Kroll and Waggoner 1984, 338). 117 In addition to Herodotus’ phrase about Peloponnesse cited above, evidence for this comes from the epitaph on a tombstone discovered at Gorgippia: Φιλόξενος Κέλωνος ἐ Πελοποννάσο ἐξ Ἑλίκης (‘Philoxenos, the son of Kelonos, from Peloponnese, from Helike’). The publisher of the inscription dated it to the 480s BC (Boltunova 1986, 60–61. See LGPN IIIA, 459; SEG XXXVI, 718). 118 Bresson 2007, 57. Let us give an example: the Ionians brought wool and other goods to Thrace, traded them for silver coins and then sailed to Egypt, where they exchanged the coins for grain. The Egyptians, in their turn, did not use coined money for internal trade; silver coinage served them as a source of metal. Of note is that grain belonged to the pharaoh and the local elite (Möller 2000, 209–10). 119 Sčeglov 1990, 157–59; Odrin 2004; Garbuzov 2006, 43; Moreno 2007, 161–65; Tsetskhladze 2008, 58. See Foxhall 1998, 301–03; Braund 2007, 39–42. As to trade in the Archaic period, A. Möller (2000, 39) noted: ‘Any attempt at commenting on trade in Archaic Greece seems a risky undertaking in that the result depend wholly on the approach applied and the question asked.’ 120 Arafat and Morgan 1994, 128–29; Braund 2007, 40. 121 Foxhall 1998, 302–03. 122 See Larsen 1968, xviii–xix, 1–11; Mackil 2015, 489–90. 123 Beck and Funke 2015a, 25. 112

CHAPTER 2: THE BEGINNING OF COINAGE IN THE CIMMERIAN BOSPORUS

45

economic, religious, military and whatever). It had to choose the weight standard124 which would be practical and suit various needs, including those of trade.125 The other contributing factors could be the Ionian Revolt and the Persian threat, as well as hostilities with the local tribes, who lived in close proximity to Greek cities (especially in the Asiatic Bosporus) and did not always maintain a friendly attitude.

124

Let us remember that Teos, the metropolis of Phanagoria, struck coins on the Aeginetan standard (Balcer 1968, 7). E. Will writes in this regard that even though specialists in ancient Greece may think coinage was not invented to facilitate trade, contrary to what Aristotle says (Pol. 1257 a–b), soon after its introduction coinage was used in trade operations as a standard of value and a means of exchange. It is very likely that this notion determined the adoption of coinage by the majority of ancient cities (Will 1975b, 233). 125

CONCLUSION

The reasons for the adoption of coinage by Greek poleis remain the subject of heated discussion. So far no general agreement has been reached in this respect. It should be noted here that limiting the search to only one particular sphere – be it economic, political, religious or social – actually means looking for the immediate causes behind the introduction of coinage, not for the underlying factors.1 To achieve a deeper understanding of how early coinages came about, P. van Alfen suggested that new methodologies should be used focusing on the decision processes that initiated and administered coin production. In his opinion, current approaches in the study of archaic coinage do not go far enough to shed light on these processes: they tend towards polarised systems of interpretation, generally positing either economic or political motivations; and they employ methodologies that are either heavily descriptive but theoretically under-informed, or are theoretically astute but weak on the numismatic evidence.

As an alternative, he proposed a different, synthetic method: ‘close study of the coinage (bottom up) and appropriate theoretical applications (top down)’.2 It is difficult not to agree with these words, though they hardly come as a revelation: any scientific study should seek to combine theoretical and empirical elements. It is yet more difficult to achieve such a goal. Many obstacles await researchers on this way, the most serious of them being lack of information. L. Breglia, an Italian numismatist, once said: ‘Numismatics’ feet are in Archaeology, and its head is in History.’3 Detachment of purely numismatic studies from investigations into the ancient economy (based on the numismatic evidence) is similar to what has long been happening between archaeologists and historians. R. Osborne rightly noted in this connection (using Archaic Athens as an example): ‘Archaeologists have tended to concentrate on artefacts, occasionally raiding Greek texts for possibly relevant snippets. Historians have immersed themselves in texts and raided the work of archaeologists for certain items of archaeological interpretation (such as population growth).’4 As regards the Cimmerian Bosporus, scholars have to derive information on all aspects of its early coinage almost exclusively from analysis of the coins themselves. Additional historical and archaeological evidence is very scant and not directly relevant. Hence, suppositions of varying degrees of reasonableness are inevitable; the task is just not to venture too far into the realm of speculation and conjecture. Returning to early coinage, its primary cause can most likely be found in the deep changes that took place in Archaic Greek society, especially in the 6th century BC. These transformations laid the foundation for speedy development in all spheres of the nascent Greek polis. This is, of course, a general statement; the beginning of coinage in each particular polis is a context-specific case that requires its own analysis. The adoption of coinage in the Cimmerian Bosporus was no ordinary development for the Pontic region: only a few of its coastal cities (Sinope, Apollonia, Istria)5 struck coins in Late Archaic times. As has just been said, each case is individual. In respect of the Bosporus, it should

1 ‘Because coins are both economic material and political symbol, their production, distribution and consumption can be both economically and politically motivated, thus the interpretation of individual series of coins, or coinage qua coinage, is a complex matter, one that requires careful consideration of interrelated motives’ (van Alfen 2012, 14–15). 2 Van Alfen 2012, 30–31. 3 As cited in Carrocio 2011, 100. 4 Osborne 1994, 143. 5 Following N.A. Frolova, A. Bresson assigns earlier dates to the coinage of the northern Pontus (Panticapaeum – ca. 525 BC) and concludes that this region was relatively developed in comparison with the rest of the Greek world (Bresson 2007, 58, 60).

48

CONCLUSION

be kept in mind that a relatively small territory along the shores of the strait (the Kerch and Taman Peninsulas) was home to a large number of Hellenic communities. Several dozen cities and rural settlements existed here at the end of the Archaic period. Various reasons drew them together: political, economic and social factors, military needs, family ties, shared religious activities. It was not only possible but also practical to join efforts in addressing emerging issues. Clearly, economic autarky of the poleis was unattainable; hence the need for cooperation, which arose from the lack of certain goods and commodities in one place and their surplus in another. Common religious festivals and other events (processions, musical and athletic competitions, etc.) united the colonists spiritually. The threat from the local tribes called for the organisation of joint defence. Coexistence on a limited territory and constant interaction of various kinds created the conditions for the unification of the neighbouring poleis. Already in the late 6th century BC, different associations were a widespread phenomenon in many parts of the Hellenic world.6 A big number of poleis participated in such unions. Depending on the type of the association, poleis could either partially surrender their autonomy or stay completely independent. A key role in the consolidation process was played by famous sanctuaries. Several types of unions created around a sanctuary are very well known.7 One of the largest sanctuaries in the Cimmerian Bosporus was Apatouros (Strabo 11. 2. 10; FrGrHist 1 F 211).8 It came into being no later than the turn of the 5th century BC. This sanctuary may well have served as a unifying element for those Ionians who had relocated to the shores of the Kerch Strait. The distribution of the early silver coins over almost the entire area of the Cimmerian Bosporus can offer an important insight about the motivations behind the beginning of this coinage and the identity of its issuer. In light of the aforesaid, these coins may have been struck by not just one but several poleis, which had joined their forces to deal with various rising challenges. Due to this very reason the coinage in question circulated on the whole territory of the future Bosporan kingdom. The Greeks poleis of the Cimmerian Bosporus evidently kept tight contact with the Ionian cities, some of which (Miletus in the first place) were their metropoleis. There can hardly be any doubt that the Bosporan Hellenes were to a certain degree involved in the life of East Greece – including the stormy events of the 490s BC, which culminated in the Ionian Revolt against Persian domination. It is not ruled out that the poleis of the Cimmerian Bosporus somehow took part in that rebellion.9 The defeat of the revolt in 494 BC delivered a heavy blow on Ionia10 and presumably caused part of its citizens to relocate to the apoikiai on the shores of the Kerch Strait. Their arrival may have spurred the process of unification and stimulated the introduction of coinage. We must admit, however, that all this remains a conjecture and cannot be proven at our present level of knowledge. Let us now return once again to the information provided by Herodotus about the ships laden with grain and sailing out of the Pontus. We discussed this narrative in connection with the choice of the weight standard. Now we would like to draw attention to its other aspects. For example, could this grain trade, along with other indirect evidence, implicate the existence of some polis association, which – unlike any single city – was empowered to regulate corn exports for the benefit of the whole union? Perhaps with the help of various taxes, as was the case in the

6

Mackil 2013, 400. See Tausend 1992. 8 Ustinova 1999, 29–53; Koshelenko 2010, 360–62. 9 Such a possibility – for example, dispatching warships – is acknowledged by J. Nieling (2010, 127). Let us remember that Miletus and Teos – the metropoleis of the Bosporan cities – fought in the Battle of Lade with 80 and 17 ships, respectively (Herodotus 6. 8). 10 Murray 1988, 490. 7

CONCLUSION

49

later times, when the Bosporan kingdom sold grain to the Aegean and – especially – to Athens.11 Such supposition, i.e. that corn exports may have been controlled by some association of the poleis, seems fairly reasonable. Another point worthy of consideration is why Diodorus Siculus mentions the rule of the Archaeanactids and Spartocus among other important events of world history – those which took place in Greece, Egypt, Italy, Athens, Persia and other major states and territories. The historian hardly did it by chance or purely on a whim. More likely, this indicates that at the beginning of the 5th century BC the Cimmerian Bosporus was not anything amorphous, consisting of separate small cities at the periphery of the oikoumene. Rather, it had already emerged as a unified entity with some weight in the world arena, which is why the events that unfolded there were of interest within the framework of Mediterranean history. This association of the poleis could start producing coins to satisfy its needs. In support of such conclusion we can adduce the words used by Diodorus in regard to the transfer of power from the Archaeanactids to Spartocus – διεδέξατο δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν Σπάρτακος. Thus, Spartocus succeeded to the kingship.12 Logic dictates he ruled over some state. It is hard not to agree with N. Gourova that it must have been the Bosporan state, surely non-identical to the Bosporan kingdom of the later times.13 Since the Archaeanactids were a group of people (usually referred to in specialist literature as tyrants or an aristocratic dynasty14), the transition of power was hardly peaceful (for example, due to someone’s death, etc.). In view of the fact that Spartocus ruled in Panticapaeum, we can confidently say that the Archaeanactids lost power in that particular city. Thus, the history of Bosporan federalism in brief appears as follows: 1) the merging of the Greek poleis into some association, which existed up to 480 BC and, most probably, was not dominated by Panticapaeum. This association may well have comprised the poleis on both sides of the Kerch Strait and issued cooperative coinage; 2) the rule of the Archaeanactids, who came to power in Panticapaeum with the support of the Persians. The appearance of Panticapaean coinage minted on the Persian standard. Given that Theodosia and the cities on the Taman Peninsula were not among Spartocus’ subjects, the Archaeanactids must have ruled only over Panticapaeum and the nearby territories; 3) the forcible transfer of power to Spartocus as a result of Pericles’ naval expedition to the Black Sea, followed by the creation of the Bosporan kingdom by Spartocus’ successors.15 The change of Panticapaean coinage to the Attic standard. All things considered, the formation of some polis association in the Cimmerian Bosporus no later than the beginning of the 5th century BC seems very likely. In the absence of additional

11

Kuznetsov 2000b. LSJ s.v.: receive one from another, succeed to. 13 Gourova 2014, 41. See Zavoykin 1994, 64–70; Y.G. Vinogradov 1983, 397–98. In his time, A.N. Vasiliev argued against the identification of the Cimmerian Bosporus as a state. In our opinion, his reasoning rests on shaky ground. He wrote: ‘Researchers unanimously agree that Diodorus modernised the past when he referred to the Archaeanactids and the first Spartocids as “kings”, whereas in reality they were not…’ (Vasiliev 1992, 121–25). Based on this cursory observation, he jumps to the wrong conclusion: if the ancient author modernised the term, he must have done the same with the name of the state. However, βασιλεύς, as used by Diodorus and other authors, is equivalent to the word τύραννος, so modernisation is out of question (see Giovannini 2007, 125–30; Parker 2007, 32). It was D.P. Kallistov who noted that the terms ‘basileus’ and ‘tyrant’ could be interchangeable (Kallistov 1949, 182; see Y.G. Vinogradov 1983, 396). This casts considerable doubt on Vasiliev’s conviction that the evidence from Diodorus cannot constitute a valid argument for the emergence of an association of the Greek poleis on the shores of the Bosporus in 480 BC. Besides, this view is refuted by the following fact: after the rise of the Archaeanactids a new coin type was introduced, minted not on the Aeginetan but on the Persian weight standard (Anokhin 1986, 24). For the assessment of the quality of Diodorus’ work, see Muntz 2017, especially 14–21. 14 See Zavoykin 2011, 291–99 with bibliography. For the formation of the names ending in -ides/-ades, see Duplouy 2010, especially 317–27, 341. The author has defined six categories with these endings, only one of which (lignage) may be linked to aristocracy (with the exception of names unknown to ancient authors). In his opinion (p. 321), we cannot say that names ending in -ides and -ades are predominantly connected with the aristocratic structure of society. See Roussel 1976, 51. 15 Kuznetsov 2019a, 28–33. 12

50

CONCLUSION

information, however, the exact nature of this association is hard to determine.16 To all appearance, it was created by several neighbouring cities on the basis of their common interests.17 At the same time, we do not claim that this association was something of a state, with proper governing bodies and structure. It was not until the rise of the Archaeanactids that the evolution in this direction began. The member cities of this association may have undertook the issue of cooperative coinage intended to serve various purposes: economic, political, religious, military, etc. These coins circulated on the entire territory of the association. Among the main goals of the κοινόν type of unions were the defence of the territory and the facilitation of economic contacts among its different parts.18 The 5th century BC was the time of big changes in the life of the Greek poleis in the eastern Mediterranean. An event of crucial importance was the Ionian Revolt, which radically transformed the life of the eastern Hellenes. It could not but influence their apoikiai in Pontus, as the latter were definitely involved in the life of their mother-cities. Military events may have provided a stimulus for the issue of the first coins, which then came into use in all spheres of life. The beginning of coinage in the Cimmerian Bosporus can now be quite confidently dated to the 490s BC, most likely to the time after the end of the Ionian Revolt, i.e. after 494 BC.19 Given that only a small number of the earliest dies and silver coins are known today, this coinage must have been limited in volume and produced within a period of no more than fifteen years. The conclusion that the cities of the Cimmerian Bosporus issued cooperative coinage inevitably raises the question about the location of ‘the mint’. This word has been enclosed in quotation marks since its use is a kind of modernisation. Rather, we should speak about a minting workshop with a set of necessary tools.20 As concerns the minting authority as a ‘state institution’, it could be located in any of the ‘allied’ poleis. Besides, there was a possibility of die-sharing among the cities.21 In this connection, let us recall the archaeological context of the Phanagorian hoard. As has already been said, it was found in the house, whose court yielded evidence of metalworking (a furnace for melting non-ferrous metals). The analysis of the soil samples taken around the furnace revealed a high content of silver. To all appearance, the house belonged to a craftsman, perhaps a jeweller. In theory, he could also strike coins. This supposition cannot be proven, though, as the cultural layer in the court was largely destroyed by household pits of later times. Be that as it may, the owner of the house was able to earn a considerable income by practising his craft. To assess the monetary value of the hoard (equivalent to 85 drachms) is not an easy task: almost no evidence has preserved to inform us on the salaries of various categories of people and the costs of different goods in Archaic Greece.22 Such figures as, for example, 300 talents paid under the contract for the construction of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi (Herodotus 2. 180) will 16 Let us give one more example of the controversy concerning the identification of ancient associations. In one of the articles devoted to federalism, the authors cite a whole range of modern views on the nature of the Boeotian union: some scholars call it ‘a koinon or a prototype of such a league’, others speak of a symmachia, yet others consider it as ‘an exclusively cultic organisation’ (Beck and Ganter 2015, 137). 17 See Blavatskii 1954, 38–39. 18 Mackil 2015, 502. 19 In a recent article, to which both authors contributed, the beginning of coinage in the Cimmerian Bosporus was assigned to a slightly earlier date (the end of the 6th century BC) (Abramzon et al. 2019). By that time we had not finalised our position on this matter, which is why a wider date was provided. 20 Howgego 1995, 27. 21 Howgego 1995, 28. 22 One of the few surviving documents is the contract between a Cretan city and a scribe called Spensithios (ca. 500 BC), who was hired to write down public affairs and received a ‘wage’ – exemption from taxes and a fixed amount of goods – equivalent to 20 drachms per year (Jeffery and Morpurgo-Davies 1970, 124, 129; van Effenterre 1973, 32–33, 41–46).

CONCLUSION

51

be of no help here.23 Therefore, all we can say is that the owner of the Phanagorian hoard was not a poor man and could make a decent living with his craft. The adoption of coinage in the Cimmerian Bosporus in the early 5th century BC was an event not only extraordinary but with important consequences for the life of the poleis located in the region. Monetisation of the economy was one of the immediate results. Starting from around the middle of the 5th century BC, this phenomenon spread rapidly over the entire Hellenic world.24 Among other things, the reason can be found in the complex structure of the polis, which generated the need for coinage to pay various expenses: salaries of magistrates, maintenance of sanctuaries and their property, rents, financial obligations, infrastructure projects (construction and repair works), war-related costs, etc. With the emergence of the Bosporan kingdom of the Spartocids monetary circulation permeated all kinds of government activities and became an integral part of the everyday life in the state.

23 24

For other examples, see von Reden 2010, 36–38. Schaps 2004, 111.

CATALOGUE

Drachms ca. 490s (after 494? BC)–480 BC Obv. Lion head facing. Rev. Incuse square. 1.

5.62

19

A1–R1

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

5.92 5.47 5.74 5.15 5.572

19 19 19 19 17

A1–R1 A1–R1 A1–R1 A1–R1 A2–R2

7.

5.13

18

A3–R3

8.

6.22

19

A4–R4

Rev. ‘Mill-pattern’. Cf. The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/0032175/3.html.1 Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Rev. Cf. Rozov 1983, fig. 1.2; Anokhin 1986, no. 7; 2011, no. 960; Frolova 2004, no. 2; SNG SPMFA 756. Rev. ‘Union Jack’. Cf. Shelov 1956, no. 1; Frolova 1996, pl. I.2; XII.17; 2004, no. 31.3;3 Anokhin 1986, no. 3; 2011, no. 956.

Triobols ca. 490s BC (after 494? BC) Obv. Lion head facing. Rev. Incuse square. 9.

2.73

15

A1–R1

10. 11.

2.47 2.79

14 15

A1–R1 A2–R1

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

2.90 2.44 2.45 2.41 2.90 2.62

14 15 14 16 14 16

A2–R1 A2–R1 A2–R1 A2–R1 A3–R2 A4–R2

18. 19. 20. 21.

2.64 2.64 2.67 2.45

14 15 15 14

A4–R2 A4–R2 A4–R2 A4–R2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

O.c. Incuse square divided with diagonal lines. Cf. Hunt. Coll. I, 423, no. 1, pl. XXVIII.10;4 Frolova 2004, no. 18; Cf. The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https:// bosporan-kingdom.com/002-1046/8.html. Ditto. Cf. Frolova 2004, no. 6; Garbuzov et al. 2011, 143, fig. 15. 15; Cf. The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/002-1046/1.html; https:// bosporan-kingdom.com/002-1046/2.html; https://bosporan-kingdom.com/002-1046/3.html. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Rev. Sub-rectangular incuse with one open side. Cf. Burachkov 1884, pl. XIX.2; Garbuzov et al. 2011, 140, fig. 12.1;6 ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/002-1013/6.html.7 Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto.

Weight 6.50 g. V.A. Anokhin (1986, 22; 136, no. 7) attributed the same piece of 4.54 g in the Pushkin Museum to the Persian standard. Weight 6.037 g. Weight 3.04 g. Tamanskii 4. Weight 2.82 g. Taman 3. Weight 3.15 g. Weight 3.15 g.

54

CATALOGUE

22. 23. 24.

2.85 2.45 2.86

15 14 16

A4–R2 A4–R2 A4–R3

25. 26. 27.

2.00 2.52 2.60

14 15 16

A4–R3 A4–R3 A5–R3

28.

2.70

15

A6–R2

29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

2.71 2.84 2.61 2.67 2.64

14 15 14 14 16

A6–R2 A6–R3 A6–R4 A6–R4 A7–R4

34.

2.96

15

A7–R4

35.

2.90

14

A8–R4

36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

2.73 2.65 2.70 2.65 2.77 3.04 2.81

16 15 15 15 14 16 15

A8–R4 A8–R4 A8–R4 A8–R4 A8–R4 A8–R5 A9–R5

43. 44. 45. 46.

2.79 2.90 2.70 3.06

15 15 16 15

A9–R5 A9–R5 A9–R5 A9–R5

Ditto. Ditto. Rev. Quadratum incusum is divided into four rough triangles (two raised and two depressed) with their vertices facing the center. Ditto. Ditto. Cf. The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/002-1013/3.html.8 Rev. On the edge of the blank depressions are made with a triangular punch; in field other traces of mechanical action. Cf. The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1041/2.html. Ditto. Rev. As nos. 24-27. Cf. Garbuzov et al. 2011, 139, fig. 11.3.9 Ditto. Cf. The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/002-1017/4.html. Cf. The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/002-1046/20.html. Cf. Anokhin 1986, no. 2.2; Frolova 2004, no. 17; SNG BM 836 = Hind 2008, pl. 1.1; Garbuzov et al. 2011 145, fig. 17.1;10 The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https:// bosporan-kingdom.com/002-1017/1.html; https://bosporan-kingdom.com/002-1017/9.html; https://bosporan-kingdom. com/002-1017/19.html; Phanagoria, 2014.11 Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Cf. Garbuzov et al. 2011, 144, fig. 16.3.12 Cf. Garbuzov et al. 2011, fig. 12.3; 143, fig. 15.3; The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1089/1.html. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto.

47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

2.62 2.87 2.79 2.69 2.99 2.93 2.72 2.51 2.87

15 15 16 15 15 15 16 15 14

A9–R5 A9–R5 A9–R5 A9–R5 A9–R5 A9–R5 A9–R5 A9–R5 A9–R5

Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto.

8

Weight 3.27 g. Volna Revolutsii 1. Weight 2.99 g. 10 Vyshesteblievskaya 11. Weight 2.54 g. 11 ‘Upper city’ site, Trench 50, basket 19, object 294, Rooms 1 and 2. 1. Inv. Ph–14–7. Weight 2.47 g. 12 Starotitarovskaya 5. Weight 3.08 g. 9

CATALOGUE

56. 57. 58.

2.34 2.38 2.80

14 15 14

A9–R5 A9–R5 A10–R5

59. 60. 61.

2.92 2.51 2.69

14 13 14

A10–R5 A11–R5 A12–R5

55

Ditto. Ditto. Cf. Garbuzov et al. 2011, 143, fig. 15.3;13 The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1041/4.html; https://bosporan-kingdom. com/000-1069/2.html. Ditto. Ditto. The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https:// bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1089/6.html.

ca. 490–480 BC 62.

2.85

15

A13–R6

63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69.

3.01 3.12 2.90 2.62 2.84 2.85 2.86

16 15 15 15 15 15 15

A13–R6 A13–R6 A13–R6 A13–R6 A13–R6 A13–R6 A14–R6

70.

2.55

15

A14–R6

71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76.

2.42 2.91 2.65 2.52 2.68 2.61

16 16 15 15 14 15

A14–R6 A14–R6 A14–R6 A14–R6 A14–R6 A14–R6

77.

2.44

14

A14–R6

78.

2.74

15

A14–R6

79. 80.

2.86 2.86

16 14

A14–R6 A15–R6

81. 82. 83.

2.64 2.52 3.08

15 14 15

A15–R6 A15–R6 A15–R7

13 14 15 16 17

Tamanskii 4. Weight 2.82 g. Weight 1.98 g. Strelka 2. Weight 2.47 g. Weight 3.10 g. Volna Revolutsii 2. Weight 2.60 g.

Rev. Incuse is bordered by a flat frame. Cf. Kerch Museum. Inv. KP–177936, КN–7077;14 The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom. com/000-1058/31.html. Cf. Garbuzov et al. 2011, 144, fig. 16.1.15 Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Cf. The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1058/18.html. Cf. The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1058/16.html. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Cf. The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1058/18.html. Cf. The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1058/16.html. Cf. The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1058/14.html; https:// bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1058/18.html; Numismatik Lanz: http://www.ebay.com Ended: Jan 12, 2012. Obv. Double impact. Cf. The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1058/8.html.16 Ditto. Ditto. Cf. The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1058/1.html; Garbuzov et al. 2011, 139, fig. 11.1.17

56

CATALOGUE

84.

2.76

14

A15–R7

Ditto.

85. 86. 87. 88. 89.

2.97 2.67 2.63 2.65 2.03

14 14 14 14 14

A15–R7 A15–R7 A15–R7 A15–R7 A15–R7

Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto.

90. 91.

2.60 2.83

14 19

A15–R7 A15–R8

92. 93. 94.

2.80 2.62 2.84

16 14 14

A15–R8 A15–R8 A15–R9

95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104.

2.66 2.60 2.95 2.57 2.29 3.06 2.50 2.26 2.84 2.65

14 14 15 14 14 16 14 14 14 15

A15–R9 A15–R9 A15–R9 A15–R9 A15–R9 A15–R9 A15–R9 A15–R9 A15–R9 A15–R10

105. 106. 107. 108.

2.42 2.91 2.44 2.50

14 14 14 13

A15–R10 A15–R10 A15–R10 A16–R10

109.

2.99

15

A17–R10

110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118.

2.81 2.95 2.59 2.72 2.94 2.82 2.64 2.63 3.19

15 14 15 14 14 17 14 13 15

A17–R10 A17–R10 A17–R10 A17–R10 A17–R10 A17–R10 A17–R10 A17–R10 A17–R11

119. 120. 121. 122.

2.86 2.95 2.77 2.68

14 14 14 14

A17–R11 A17–R11 A17–R11 A18–R11

123.

2.44

14

A18–R11

Ditto. Rev. R8 die is a fragment of R7. Cf. The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom. com/000-1058/6.html.18 Ditto. Ditto. Cf. Frolova 2004, no. 19; Strokin 2010, 452, fig. 1.1;19 The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https:// bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1058/24.html. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Cf. The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1124/6.html. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Cf. The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1058/21.html. Cf. SNG PSMFA 755; The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ CatalogueArchive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1124/4. html. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Cf. The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1124/2.html. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Cf. The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1061/1.html. Ditto.

18 19

Weight 3.01 g. Golubitskaya 2. Weight 2.81 g.

CATALOGUE

124.

2.89

14

A19–R11

125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135.

2.91 3.04 3.04 2.47 2.73 2.83 2.81 2.82 3.06 2.64 2.86

14 14 14 14 15 16 13 16 16 15 13

A19–R11 A19–R11 A19–R11 A19–R11 A19–R11 A19–R11 A19–R11 A19–R11 A19–R11 A19–R11 A19–R12

136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146.

2.92 2.77 2.73 2.96 2.29 2.67 2.68 2.89 3.12 3.07 2.83

18 14 14 14 14 13 14 13 16 14 14

A19–R12 A19–R12 A19–R12 A19–R12 A19–R12 A19–R12 A19–R12 A19–R12 A19–R12 A19–R12 A19–R13

147. 148. 149. 150.

3.00 2.82 2.71 3.09

15 13 13 15

A19–R13 A19–R13 A19–R13 A19–R14

151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162.

2.96 2.95 3.00 2.38 2.43 2.82 2.87 2.88 2.78 2.79 2.65 2.48

14 13 14 15 13 15 15 15 14 14 17 15

A19–R14 A19–R14 A19–R14 A19–R14 A19–R14 A20–R14 A20–R14 A20–R14 A20–R14 A20–R14 A20–R14 A20–R14

57

The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https:// bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1043/8.html. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Cf. The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1043/1.html. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Cf. The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1043/14.html. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Obv. Cf. Garbuzov et al. 2011, 145? fig. 17.12; The ‘Coins of the Bosporus’ Catalogue-Archive web-site: https://bosporan-kingdom.com/000-1043/3.html. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Obv. Cf. Anokhin 1986, no. 4; 2011, no. 957. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto.

XRF AND PB–PB ISOTOPIC ANALYSES OF THE HOARD COINS I.A. SAPRYKINA, A.V. CHUGAEV, O.L. GUNCHINA and L.A. PELGUNOVA

Introduction XRF analysis of the coins from the 2005 Phanagorian hoard was conducted as a means to obtain data on the chemical composition of the metal (the percentage of silver, the main alloy additives and admixture elements). Lead isotopic analysis was performed to determine the origin of the silver used for the coin production. XRF analysis of the coin metal was carried out at the laboratory of the ‘Phanagoria’ State Historical and Archaeological Museum-Reserve. The analytical database included 162 coins. Preliminarily, all the coins had undergone cleaning so as to remove corrosion products from their surfaces. Pb isotopic analysis was done at the Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry and Geochronology of the The Institute of Geology of Ore Deposits, Petrography, Mineralogy and Geochemistry, Russian Academy of Sciences, using the high-precision method of multicollector inductively coupled plasma mass-spectrometry (MC–ICP–MS). Pb isotopic analysis of metal artefacts is one of the most efficient approaches aimed at identifying the provenance of the metal and revealing cultural and trade ties between various ancient communities. Its application is based on the idea that metal archaeological objects inherit the Pb isotopic composition of the ore from which the metal was extracted. The presence of admixture Pb in metals and alloys is due to a natural contamination process of the final products of ore processing. This element, which occurs in the ores as various mineral phases (mainly galena and sulfosalts of lead), is widely known in many types of deposit that served as sources of metal in ancient times. In particular, these include epithermal Au–Ag deposits, polymetallic deposits of different genesis, as well as the oxidation zones of volcanogenic massive sulphide ore deposits. A very important condition for the successful application of the Pb–Pb method is immutability of the Pb isotopic composition of an archaeological object throughout its existence. In nature, the Pb isotopic composition changes mainly due to a radioactive decay of mother isotopes: 238U, 235U and 232Th. However, their half-lives equal to 4.47, 0.704 and 14.01 billion years, respectively, greatly exceeding the possible life span of any artefact. Thus, the influence of this factor is insignificant and can be neglected. Another reason for possible changes in the Pb isotopic composition of the object may be contamination by outside Pb, which penetrates from the surrounding environment (ground water, soils). In most cases, this process is accompanied by chemical oxidation reactions resulting in the appearance of secondary films on the surface of the objects or the complete oxidation of the metal (or alloy) and the formation of new chemical compounds. The impact of this factor can be considerably alleviated provided that artefacts are subjected to preliminary study by means of optical microscopy and SEM. The results of such examinations give an opportunity to select only objects with good metal (or alloy) preservation. Yet another important issue which has a direct bearing on the metal source attribution of an artefact is possible alteration of the original Pb isotopic signature of the ore as a result of isotope fractionation during the metallurgical process. This problem has been widely discussed in scientific literature.1 However, recent experimental studies have not revealed any significant fractionation in ancient ore processing (i.e. exceeding analytical errors of measuring Pb isotopic ratios),2 which confirms the applicability of the Pb–Pb method to solving archaeological tasks. The Pb–Pb method was first used by R.H. Brill and J.M. Wampler for the study of various glass, ceramic, lead and bronze artefacts representing different cultural centres and epochs in Europe and Asia,3 Later, their approach was developed by other researchers.4

1 2 3 4

Barnes et al. 1978; Tite 1996; Pollard and Heron 2008, 311–39; Stos-Gale and Gale 2009. Stos-Gale and Gale 2009. Brill and Wampler 1967. Gale 1979; Yener et al. 1991; Baron et al. 2011; Chugaev and Chernyshev 2012; Saprykina et al. 2017, 41–52.

60

XRF AND PB–PB ISOTOPIC ANALYSES OF THE HOARD COINS

1. Materials and methods The Pb isotopic composition of the coins was measured using inductive coupled plasma multicollector mass-spectrometry (MC–ICP–MS). Due to its high precision, this method of measuring Pb isotopic ratios is widely used in modern studies whose goal is to identify the sources of metal, ceramic raw materials and glass exploited in different historical epochs.5 The weights of silver samples taken for the analysis ranged from 0.003 to 0.01 g. To exclude lead contamination, the surface of the coins at the place of probe selection was cleaned from the secondary films with the 3% solution of nitric acid. The mass-spectrometry analysis was performed on Pb fractions obtained after chemical preparation of the samples. The preparation included the dissolution of the samples in the mixtures of HCl+HNO3 acids (1:3) and a stage of ion exchange chromatography. Chromatographic separation of Pb from silver and the accompanying matrix elements was performed in the HBr medium on the PFA micro-columns filled with anion exchange resin Bio–Rad AG–1X8 (0.1 cm3).6 The total procedure ‘blank’ for the applied methods did not exceed 0.10 ng. The mass-spectrometric measurements of Pb isotopic ratios were carried out with the NEPTUNE mass-spectrometer (ThermoFinnigan, Germany). Mass-bias correction was performed on the reference thallium ratio (205Tl/203Tl = 2.3889±1) in spike. Tl–spike was admixed into the sample solutions just before measuring.7 The total error (±2SD) for 206 Pb/204Pb, 207Pb/204Pb and 208Pb/204Pb ratios estimated from long-term repeatability of the SRM 981 (n=44, the years 2017–18), as well as from the AGV–1 and BCR–1 standard samples of rocks (n=7, the years 2017–18), did not exceed ±0.03%. The chemical analysis of the coinage metal composition was conducted with the M1 Mistral XRF-spectrometer (Bruker). The measuring methods have been published.8 The results are presented in Table 10. Spectrum verification (in particular, the spectra of such elements as Au and Bi) was performed by means of the software for M4 Tornado (Bruker) at the Laboratory for Ecological Monitoring of the APS regions and Bio–indication at the Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution.9 Recalculations of the spectra have shown that both gold and bismuth are present in the coinage silver in quantities large enough to allow us regarding them as elements from ‘the main group’ of ore admixtures important for the interpretation of the Pb isotopic analysis results (Fig. 5). 2. Chemical composition of the coinage metal All the coins from the hoard have been subjected to XRF analysis. These coins fall into three chronological groups: Group 1 – triobols of the 490s BC (53 specimens; Table 10, nos. 9–61); Group 2 – triobols of ca. 490–480 BC (101 specimens; Table 10, nos. 62–162); Group 3 – drachms dated more widely: from the 490s till 480 BC (8 specimens; Table 10, nos. 1–8). Group 1. Triobols of the 490s BC. The silver content of the triobols dated to the 490s BC is quite high: it varies between 95.3 and 99.55% (Fig. 6). The main alloy additives of the silver (‘mother’ group) are as follows: copper (from the lowest detection limit of the method to 2.23%), lead (from 0 to 0.86%), gold (from 0.21 to 2.6%) and bismuth (from 0 to 1.17%). Other registered elements also belonging to the group of ‘mother’ impurities include zinc and tin10 (?) (Table 10). The obtained data for each chronological group were compared mainly on the basis of the gold, lead and bismuth contents. These elements are the main impurities distinguishing various types of silver ore deposits.11 The histogram (Fig. 6) clearly shows that the average silver content of the triobols dating from the 490s BC is 96–97.5%.12 A small number of the coins in this group differ in that their silver content is either 5

Baker et al. 2008; Stos-Gale and Gale 2009; Baron et al. 2011; Chugaev and Chernyshev 2012; Saprykina et al. 2017. Chugaev et al. 2013b. 7 Chernyshev et al. 2007. 8 Saprykina and Gunchina 2017, 272–74. 9 Saprykina and Pelgunova 2013. 10 Most likely, they can also be paired not only with copper: Tămaş and Andrii 2020. In our case, the tin content in the coinage silver was not verified by recalculation of the spectra using the software for M4 (Table 11). 11 Flament and Marchetti 2004; Skarpelis and Argyraki 2009. 12 Verification of the data on the cutting sections along the edge of the coins showed the absence of significant variation in the silver content on the surface and in the bulk of the coins from this database. 6

XRF AND PB–PB ISOTOPIC ANALYSES OF THE HOARD COINS

Fig. 5. Example of Au and Bi peaks in the spectrum of a coin from the Phanagorian 2005 hoard.

Fig. 6. Histogram of the silver content in the metal of triobols of Group 1 (490s BC).

61

62

XRF AND PB–PB ISOTOPIC ANALYSES OF THE HOARD COINS

Fig. 7. Histogram of gold, bismuth, and lead content in the metal of triobols of Group 1 (490s BC).

Fig. 8. Histogram of the silver content in the metal of triobols of Group 2 (ca. 490–480 BC).

XRF AND PB–PB ISOTOPIC ANALYSES OF THE HOARD COINS

63

Fig. 9. Histogram of gold, bismuth, and lead content in the metal of coins of Group 2 (ca. 490–480 BC).

lower or higher than the average values. If we look at the ‘mother’ impurity concentration (Cu, Pb, Au, Bi), it is possible to see some variability in the percentages of gold, lead and bismuth (Fig. 7). However, no clear correlation between the gold and bismuth contents has been found.13 For the group under study it is possible to speak only about a rather low average content of lead in the coin metal and a relatively stable average percentage of gold (0.5–0.7%) (Fig. 7). Some of the coins from this cluster (about 20%) are characterised by an increased gold content (from 1 to 2.5%), compared with the average values obtained for the group as a whole. Group 2. Triobols of ca. 490–480 BC. The triobols of this group, which make up the bulk of the hoard coins, have the average silver content of 97–98% (Fig. 8). In general, the values were found to be slightly higher than those for the coins from Group 1. However, these differences are insignificant and cannot serve as a reliable criterion to draw a distinction between these two coin clusters. It is also possible to note a higher gold content of the coinage metal used for the triobols of Group 2, the maximum percentage being 3.95% and the average values varying between 0.5 and 0.9% (Fig. 9). The bismuth and lead contents demonstrate similar variability. At the same time, as revealed by SEM–EDS and ToF–SIMS methods, wide variations in the contents of impurities (including gold, lead, bismuth, copper and other elements) were typical of ancient silver coins with established common provenance (common metal source).14 Group 3. Drachms. The Phanagorian hoard also contains eight drachms dated to the 490s – 480 BC (pl. 41–42, nos. 1–8). The silver content of their metal varies between 95.34 and 99.27% (with an average of 98%). This group does not differ from the other studied coin clusters in the contents of gold (0.7% on average), bismuth (about the same value) and lead (about 0.1%). Its only distinctive feature is that some of the drachms have a much higher content of bismuth (up to 2.67%). Results. The obtained data on the chemical composition of the silver coins from the Phanagorian hoard lead us to the following conclusions. All the coins are made of fine silver and contain significant concentrations of such elements as copper, gold, lead and bismuth. The gold content varies between 0.5 to 0.9%, 13 14

Gitler and Pontig 2007, 378; Butcher and Ponting 2009, 72; etc. Marjo et al. 2018, 99.

64

XRF AND PB–PB ISOTOPIC ANALYSES OF THE HOARD COINS

bismuth – within an average of 0.5% (average values). The maximum values for bismuth reach 2.67%, those for gold – 3.95%. The average content of copper is basically the same as of gold, with only a few samples exceeding the upper limit and reaching the maximum values of 2.44%. The presence of zinc in the silver coins was unexpected. The content of this element ranges from 0 to 0.55%; one piece was found to contain as much as 1.01% (Table. 10, no. 95a). The values for lead are from 0 to 0.86%, the average does not exceed 0.5%. Single samples yielded the values from 1.57 to 2.84% (Table 10, nos. 100, 140, 147, 157). The tin content is even less. Recalculations of the spectra obtained by means of the software for M4 Tornado have confirmed that the metal of the coins under study is marked by higher contents of gold and bismuth than of any other impurities, including zinc and lead (Table 11). To all appearance, the silver had been well refined in the melting process. Judging by the permanent presence of the elements mentioned above and their increased contents, the bulk of the silver must have been recovered from polymetallic ore deposits. 3. Pb isotopic composition of the coinage metal Pb isotopic analysis was performed on 35 coins representing all three chronological groups. The obtained Pb–Pb data are sufficient to draw conclusions about the triobols of Group 1 (the 490s BC, 14 pieces) and Group 2 (ca. 490–480 BC, 17 pieces). The less representative is the selected drachm group, which includes four coins of the 490s – 480 BC. In general, the Pb isotopic composition in the studied collection is not homogeneous. The measured values of the Pb isotopic ratios range in the following limits: for 206Pb/204Pb – from 18.40 up to 19.09; for 207Pb/204Pb – from 15.63 up to 15.70; and for 208Pb/204Pb – from 38.48 up to 38.93 (Table 12). The revealed variations in the Pb isotopic composition, traditionally estimated by the coefficient value of variations (ν,%), are rather significant. For the isotope ratios 206Pb/204Pb and 208Pb/204Pb, the values of the variation coefficient (ν6/4 = 0.5%, ν8/4 = 0.2%) far exceed the analytical error (±0.03%, SD); in the case of the 207Pb/204Pb ratio they appeared to be more than twice as large (ν7/4 = 0.07%). The wide scatter of the values is mostly due to the results obtained for coins nos. 13 and 17, which stand out for a very big difference in their Pb isotopic composition. When these coins are excluded, the variations in the Pb isotopic composition decrease, though still remaining statistically significant: 206Pb/204Pb = 18.69 – 18.90 (ν6/4 = 0.2%), 207Pb/204Pb = 15.66–15.69 (ν7/4 = 0.04%) and 208Pb/204Pb = 38.79–38.93 (ν8/4 = 0.08%). The obtained Pb–Pb data allowed a detailed comparison of the triobols from Groups 1 and 2. In doing so, we did not take into account the values for coins nos. 13 and 17 from Group 1 due to their ‘anomalous’ Pb isotopic composition. The mean values of the Pb isotopic ratios, as well as the variation scale of the Pb isotopic ratios, turned out to be identical for both groups of coins: the first group – (206Pb/204Pb)mean = 18.78 ± 0.04 (SD), ν6/4 = 0.2%, (207Pb/204Pb)mean = 15.678 ± 0.006 (SD), ν7/4 = 0.04%, (208Pb/204Pb)mean = 38.87 ± 0.02 (SD), ν6/4 = 0.06%; the second group – (206Pb/204Pb)mean = 18.77 ± 0.05 (SD), ν6/4 = 0.2%, (207Pb/204Pb)mean = 15.673 ± 0.007 (SD), ν7/4 = 0.04%, (208Pb/204Pb)mean = 38.85 ± 0.04 (SD), ν6/4 = 0.06%. The similarity in these characteristics leads to the assumption that the coins of these two groups had a common source (or sources) of raw silver. For the drachms we have also obtained the close mean values of the Pb isotopic ratios: (206Pb/204Pb)mean = 18.78 ± 0.04 (SD), (207Pb/204Pb)mean = 15.679 ± 0.008 (SD), (208Pb/204Pb)mean = 38.86 ± 0.03 (SD). Therefore, the silver of the same provenance may have been used for minting drachms as well. This conclusion is less justified, though, due to a limited amount of the Pb–Pb data for the drachm group. The scale of the Pb isotopic composition variations is one of the most important geochemical characteristics of ore districts. For Ag–polymetallic and epithermal Au–Ag deposits, which served as main sources of silver in ancient times, the values of the variation coefficient within one district are generally not large and reach about 0.1–0.3% for the ratios 206Pb/204Pb and 208Pb/204Pb. The values of ν for the analysed groups of the coins from the hoard fit into this narrow range. Thus, we can conclude that the metal came from the deposits belonging to the abovementioned genetic types and located within a common ore province. This assumption, i.e. that the metal was extracted through silver-polymetallic and/or epithermal gold-silver ore processing, is also in agreement with the results of studying the chemical composition of the coins. As follows from the findings presented above, the metal of most of the coins contains different concentrations of the main elements (Au and Bi are in increased quantities) characteristic of these particular types of ore deposits.

XRF AND PB–PB ISOTOPIC ANALYSES OF THE HOARD COINS

65

The values of the Pb isotopic ratios for coins nos. 13 and 17 are beyond the limits of the statistical dispersion and differ from the mean values for the triobols from Group 1. The revealed differences suggest that these coins were minted from the metal extracted from other ore districts. 4. Discussion In archaeological studies, Pb–Pb data are traditionally presented on Pb–Pb isotope diagrams. Until recently, researchers commonly used the diagrams with the following coordinates: 206Pb/207Pb and 208 Pb/206Pb, 206Pb/204Pb and 206Pb/207Pb, as well as 206Pb/204Pb and 208Pb/206Pb. However, their application was intended to meet mostly methodological needs rather than the requirements of geochemical reasonability. Up to the 2000s, thermal ionisation mass spectrometry (TIMS) remained the primary method for analysing lead isotope composition. The maximum precision (±0.1–0.2%, 2SD) in TIMS was reached for 206 Pb/204Pb, 206Pb/207Pb and 208Pb/206Pb ratios, whereas the precision of measuring 207Pb/204Pb and 208 Pb/204Pb ratios was 1.5–3 times lower. The development of the MC–ICP–MS method allowed specialists to significantly decrease the errors of measuring the most informative ratios, such as 206Pb/204Pb, 207 Pb/204Pb and 208Pb/204Pb. Moreover, the analytical errors for these ratios appeared to be close and equal to ±0.02-0.03% (2SD). All this made for the introduction of Pb–Pb diagrams which show the relationship between the ratios of radiogenic isotopes 206Pb, 207Pb and 208Pb to primordial isotope 204Pb. Such diagrams possess a higher geochemical ‘resolution’ ability and allow correct comparison of Pb–Pb data for different groups of objects. The Pb–Pb data obtained through our research are presented on the graphs with only the 206Pb/204Pb–207Pb/204Pb and 206Pb/204Pb–208Pb/204Pb coordinates (Fig. 10a, b). In the diagrams, most of the points displaying the Pb isotopic composition of the coins occupy a compact area. Only coins nos. 13 and 17 are the outliers. There are no distinct areas in the diagrams which would correspond to the Pb isotopic composition of the coins from any particular group. This fact allows us to conclude that the metal used for minting most of the studied coins of all three chronological groups came from the same ore district (districts). At the same time, in both graphs the points which refer to the Pb isotopic composition of 33 coins form two trends (short lines AB and AC with different slopes). The upper parts of these trend lines intersect (Fig. 10a, b). According to its position, each of these trends can be interpreted as result the mix of two types of lead with different isotopic composition. The presence of the intersection point suggests that one of the mixed components was common. Thus, the variations in the Pb isotopic ratios of the coinage metal may imply the mixture of its several components. To sum up, the revealed differences in the Pb isotopic composition of the coins result from not only the initial lead-isotope heterogeneity of the deposits – the sources of silver – but also from the mixing of this metal in different proportions during the melting process. So, as follows from the Pb–Pb data given above, the metal used for minting the studied coins may have been obtained both from different deposits and different ore districts. Judging from the historical and archaeological records, some of the oldest silver mines of antiquity were located in southern Attica, in Laurion. They were already in operation as early as the 8th century BC. Silver mining evidently started there in the 7th century BC,15 reaching its maximum two centuries later. About 20,000 tons of silver16 were extracted from the mines of Laurion annually by means of the multi-stage process. Already in the 5th century BC ancient metallurgists were forced to exploit the exhausted ore bodies.17 According to the modern classification, the ores of Laurion belong to the silver-polymetallic type. The ancient slag, its quantity estimated at 10 million tons, is characterised by the 7% content of Pb and 140 g/t Ag.18 The ores are also rich in zinc and iron. In the 19th century, the heaps of the old Greek slag at Laurion were reprocessed with a view to obtaining metallic zinc.19

15 16 17 18 19

Economopoulos 1996, 110. Economopoulos 1996, 110–14. Economopoulos 1996, 113–14. Skarpelis and Argyraki 2009, 1. Skarpelis and Argyraki 2009, 2.

66

XRF AND PB–PB ISOTOPIC ANALYSES OF THE HOARD COINS

Fig. 10. Lead isotopes diagrams for coins from the Phanagorian hoard. The diagrams show the mean-order evolution curves of the Pb isotope composition, according to the Stacey–Kramers20 model, as well as the mixing trends (grey) of the Pb isotope composition identified for coins.

20 Among the important markers that help to identify the sources of silver is the percentage of gold in the metal, as this element remains stable in the smelting process.21 It is known that the content of gold in silver ores from the Laurion deposits is very low (about 1:200). At the same time, the Au/Ag ratio varies within the boundaries of the southern Attic ore province. One more feature of the Laurion metal is its high content of lead, since silver was extracted mainly from polymetallic ores whose main mineral is galena (PbS).22 It is also known that during the 5th century BC there were at least two chronological periods when silver form a source other than Laurion was used for minting Athenian coins. Presumably the source was 20 21 22

Stacey and Kramers 1975. Flament and Marchetti 2004, 182. Flament and Marchetti 2004, 182; Tsaimou et al. 2015.

XRF AND PB–PB ISOTOPIC ANALYSES OF THE HOARD COINS

67

located in Thrace.23 It is as yet unclear which deposits yielded silver for these, most likely short-lived, coinages. There is certain evidence about silver deposits at the settlement of Maroneia (a Chian colony founded in the 7th century BC). In this area, silver mining began (continued?) in 483 BC. Perhaps the mining at Maroneia was due to the transfer(?) of the ore processing, flotation and silver smelting technologies from Laurion.24 The Au–Ag Maroneia deposits are part of the porphyry-epithermal systems. Besides Au and Ag, these deposits also contain considerable concentrations of trace elements (including bismuth and molybdenum).25 The deposits of this genetic type differ in the volume of mineralisation and the amount of silverin them (from hundreds up to tens of thousands of tons).26 The silver from deposits like those at Maroneia is characterised by a rather high content of gold and, especially, bismuth (it is known that in galena ores the ratio of gold to silver, as well as to bismuth, does not change after the process of cupellation).27 In general, this picture is similar to the findings resulting from the elemental analysis of the coins from the Phanagorian hoard. However, our samples yielded no evidence of such element as molybdenum, whose presence is also a distinctive feature of this type of ore. The mine of Maroneia is believed to have been worked in antiquity. Yet, researchers are not certain how long this deposit was exploited before and after the appearance of the Greeks there. It is highly probable that already at the beginning of the 5th century BC this territory became part of the Achaemenid empire. After the outbreak of the Graeco-Persian Wars, Mardonius’ troops marched through the area in 492 and 480 BC. From the first half of the 5th century BC, silver jewellery and, occasionally, dishes in the Achaemenid style started to appear in rich burials of Thracian aristocracy. The same types of artefacts are also found in the hoards of this period.28 Scholars have suggested that the presence of such objects in the first part of the 5th century BC may have been due to the exploitation of local silver ores and the emergence of associated workshops. The latter were discovered in the western Rhodope Mountains, in the Shumen region, in the area of Roşia Montană and Vratz, and other territories of Thrace.29 There is evidence that as early as the 5th century BC intensive mining activity began in Mt Pangaeus in the south and in the western Rhodope Mountains and Vitosha in the north. Inside the so-called ‘Golden quadrangle’ there are other deposits where mining for gold and silver is likely to have been carried out in ancient times.30 One more important source of silver in the considered chronological period was the Cyclades, mainly the islands of Siphnos and Syros, where mining of silver ores (of lead-antimony-silver type) stretched from the Bronze Age.31 According to Herodotus, whose evidence has been confirmed by modern research, mining for silver on the island of Siphnos was carried out in the Late Archaic period. Some scholars believe that these ores may have served as a source of silver for some issues of Archaic Greek coins.32 Unlike in the case with the Balkan and Mediterranean regions, the data relating to ancient mining on the territory of Turkey, Syria and Iran,33 as well as in other areas included into the Achaemenid empire by 500 BC, are not so plentiful. What is known, however, is that silver was widely used to satisfy the political, economic and other needs of the empire – the fact that enabled some researchers to speak about such phenomenon as the ‘silverisation’ of the Achaemenid economy.34 Considerable amounts of that silver may well have been extracted from the deposits located in Turkey, Syria and Iran. This supposition is indirectly confirmed by the fact that Achaemenid coins of the 6th and 5th centuries BC were minted in the western part of the empire.35

23

Flament and Marchetti 2004, 182. Economopoulos 1996, 10. 25 Voudouris et al. 2019, 9, table 1. 26 Sidorina 2016, 9. 27 Gale and Stos-Gale 1981, 175. 28 Stoyanov 2017, 9. 29 Domaradzki 2002; Lazov 2002; Baralis et al. 2015, cat. 172–178; Tonkova 1994, 183–90; 2015; Antonov 2007, 87, tables XIX, XX. 30 Tonkova 2017, 6–7; Volkov et al. 2014, 128–29, fig. 3.2. 31 Gale and Stos-Gale 1981, 174, 185. 32 Gale and Stos-Gale 1981, 202. 33 Nezafati and Pernicka 2012. 34 Tamerus 2016, 241–64. 35 Tuplin 2014. 24

68

XRF AND PB–PB ISOTOPIC ANALYSES OF THE HOARD COINS

Thus, the data mentioned above allow us to shorten the list of ore districts which may have yielded the silver for the coins from the 2005 Phanagorian hoard. To arrive at a definite conclusion, it seems relevant to compare the Pb isotopic composition of the coins with that of the deposits from which the metal had supposedly come from. It is necessary to emphasise that the deposits close in age, belonging to one genetic type and located within a common geological structure, usually possess similar Pb isotopic compositions.36 This geochemical fact allows the comparison between the Pb–Pb data obtained for ore districts exploited in antiquity and in modern times. The diagram (Fig. 11) demonstrates the comparison of the Pb–Pb data for the coins from the Phanagorian hoard with the Pb isotopic compositions of the ores from the silver-polymetallic and polymetallic deposits of Laurion, the Cyclades, the Rhodope Mountains (southern Bulgaria), eastern Macedonia and Thrace, the central and eastern Taurus Mountains (southern Turkey) and the Zagros range (western Iran). First of all, let us analyse in detail the location of Pb isotopic composition fields of the deposits mentioned above. The fields corresponding to the deposits of Laurion (field 1), Eastern Macedonia and Thrace (field 2), the Rhodope Mountains (field 3), as well as of the Cyclades (field 6) are close to each other and located in the central part of the diagram. The largest of them is the field of silver deposits of the Cyclades. The fields of other deposits in Greece and southern Bulgaria are partially or totally located within its boundaries. In their turn, the fields of the deposits in the Rhodope Mountains, eastern Macedonia and Thrace are totally overlapping, which is in agreement with the geological data confirming that the deposits of these territories belong to the common ore province. The peculiarity of the Pb–Pb data for the ore regions of Greece and southern Bulgaria is the closeness of the variation scales of the isotopic ratios 206 Pb/204Pb (ν6/4 = 0.12–0.16%) and 207Pb/204Pb (ν7/4 = 0.11–0.16%). In the diagram, the fields corresponding to the deposits of these regions are stretched along the Y-axis. It is necessary to note that the 207Pb/204Pb ratio is generally less variable in comparison with 206Pb/204Pb and 208Pb/204Pb. As a rule, for silver-polymetallic deposits in one ore district the 207Pb/204Pb variation is several times less than that of 206Pb/204Pb.37 The increased scatter of the values of the 207Pb/204Pb ratio for the ore deposits of Laurion, the Cyclades, Eastern Macedonia and Thrace is most likely due to analytical reasons, as the values of the variation coefficient appear to be close to the error (~0.15%) of measuring the 207Pb/204Pb ratio by means of thermoionisation mass-spectrometry (used in the 1980s–1990s to obtain Pb–Pb data for the ore regions in question). This fact somewhat reduces the applicability of these results for characterising the abovementioned regions and places certain limitations on their use in locating potential sources of metal for the coins from the Phanagorian hoard. The territory of southern Turkey belongs to the most ancient mining regions of the world. In particular, this is confirmed by the results which emerged from the study of a lead artefact found in the north of the Negev desert (Israel). This object is dated to the late Eneolithic period.38 Based on the Pb–Pb data, it has been determined that the metal came from the Taurus ore deposits of Anatolia. In its turn, the Pb–Pb isotope analysis of Achaemenid silver artefacts from the burials of early nomads in the southern Urals has also revealed that some of the objects were made of the metal extracted on the territory of Asia Minor (southern Turkey) and Iran.39 In our diagram (Fig. 11) the field of the Pb isotopic composition of silver-polymetallic ore deposits in the central and south-eastern Taurus Mountains (field 5) occupies a wide area and partially overlaps with the fields of the deposits of Laurion and the Cyclades. The mining district of Iran – a multi-metal (Cu, Au, Pb, Zn, Ag) ore province with polymetallic deposits – is situated within the Zagros mountain range (western Iran). This district, belonging to the Sanandaj-Sirjan zone, demonstrates the least values of the 207Pb/204Pb ratio among all the considered ore regions, which is why its field is located in the lower left part of the diagram (field 4). As can be seen from the Pb–Pb data shown in the diagram (Fig. 11), most of the points displaying the Pb isotopic composition of the coins from the hoard are located either within the boundaries of the united area of the deposits in the Rhodope Mountains (southern Bulgaria), eastern Macedonia and Thrace (Greece) or fit into the field of the deposits on the Cyclades Islands. Only three points in the lower part of the short AB trend are located in the field of the Laurion deposits (Greece). Therefore, the deposits of 36 37 38 39

Zartman et al. 1974; Chugaev et al. 2013a. Chugaev et al. 2013a; Chernyshev et al. 2018. Yahalom-Mack et al. 2015, 1–2. Chugaev and Chernyshev 2012.

XRF AND PB–PB ISOTOPIC ANALYSES OF THE HOARD COINS

69

Fig. 11. Lead isotopes diagram showing a comparison of the isotopic composition of Pb of coins from the Phanagoria hoard, as well as silver-polymetallic and polymetallic deposits of ore regions: 1 – Lavrion (Greece); 2 – Eastern Macedon and Thrace (Greece); 3 – The Rhodope Mountains (southern Bulgaria); 4 – Central and south-eastern Taurus Mountains (southern Turkey); 5 – SanandajSirjan zone, Zagros Mountain (western Iran); 6 – The Cyclades.

the Cyclades, the Rhodope Mountains (southern Bulgaria), eastern Macedonia, Thrace and Laurion appear as the most likely sources of the silver for the Phanagorian hoard coins, with the deposits of the Rhodope ore province and the Cyclades being the main ones. The revealed heterogeneity of the 206Pb/204Pb ratio of the coinage metal most probably reflects the mixing of different proportions of silver extracted from the deposits of these large ore regions. The presence of the short trend for coins 7, 16, 137 and 160 may imply that some part of their metal came from the deposits of Laurion. In its turn, the variation of the 207Pb/204Pb ratio in the studied group of coins (except for coins nos. 13 and 17) is several times less than it could be expected judging from the Pb–Pb data for the ore deposits on the Cyclades, in eastern Macedonia, Thrace and Laurion. This peculiarity of the coin lead may be due to the levelling of its isotopic composition during the fusion of silver from different metal sources. It is more probable, however, that our Pb–Pb data reflect primary variations of this ratio in the ores more precisely, since the analytical error of MC–ICP– MS is much smaller than that of TIMS. As has been mentioned above, two of the examined coins (nos. 13 and 17) differ significantly from the others in the content of radiogenic Pb isotopes. The Pb isotopic composition of one of these coins (no. 13) turned out to be close to that of lead from the polymetallic ore deposit in the Zagros Mountains in Iran. In its turn, the point of coin no. 17 – marked by the maximum values of the 206Pb/204Pb and 207Pb/204Pb ratios – lies within the field of silver-polymetallic ore deposits in the central and south-eastern Taurus Mountains. It seems unlikely that the metal (in the form of ingots) was delivered directly from these territories. At the same time, it is well known that in antiquity coins were often produced from re-melted silver artefacts. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the metal for the coins in question was obtained through re-melting of some Achaemenid pieces made from silver which had been extracted in southern Turkey and Iran.

70

XRF AND PB–PB ISOTOPIC ANALYSES OF THE HOARD COINS

Conclusion The Pb–Pb analysis of the silver coins from the 2005 Phanagorian hoard dated to ca. the 490s–480 BC has shown that the Pb isotopic ratios vary in wide ranges: 206Pb/204Pb = 18.40–19.09, 207Pb/204Pb = 15.63– 15.70, 208Pb/204Pb = 38.48–38.93. The revealed peculiarities of variations in the Pb isotopic composition, as well as the comparison of the obtained Pb–Pb data with the lead-isotope characteristics of the deposits in ancient ore regions, have enabled us to identify the probable sources of the raw metal. Among these, the primary place must have belonged to the lead-antimony-silver ores from the Cyclades (the islands of Syros, Thera, Siphnos and others). Siphnos is particularly well known for its mines of the Archaic and even earlier periods.40 An opinion shared by many researchers is that only two regions – Siphnos (the Cyclades) and Laurion (Attica) – were the main centres of silver mining in the Archaic period. Some coins from the Phanagorian hoard were found to be made of silver whose isotopic characteristics correspond to the isotope features of the Laurion ores. These specimens make up the third-largest group of the coins selected for the analysis. Yet another big group of the coins can be related to the ore deposits of the major metal province in the Rhodope Mountains (the mine of Maroneia in particular) located on the territory of ancient Thrace. The values of the Pb isotopic ratios determined for the most part of the coins, as well as the revealed patterns in their variations, are explained by the mixing of different proportions of the metal from these regions. At the same time, the silver for some coins from the 2005 Phanagorian hoard (nos. 13 and 17 of those which were subjected to the isotopic analysis) had evidently been mined in Asia Minor, namely in southern Turkey and Iran. There are as yet no reliable Pb–Pb data for the deposits of this region relating to the silver mining activity of the Achaemenid empire in the 5th century BC, which is why the exact sources of silver for part of the coins from the 2005 Phanagorian hoard remain uncertain. Table 10. XRF-Analysis of the Hoard coins Catalogue No. 1

2

3

4

5

6

40

Sample No. 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3a 3b 3c 3d 4a 4b 4c 4d 5a 5b 5c 5d 6a 6b 6c 6d

Obverse /reverse obverse obverse reverse reverse obverse obverse reverse reverse obverse obverse reverse reverse obverse obverse reverse reverse obverse obverse reverse reverse obverse obverse reverse reverse

Gale and Stos-Gale 1981, 217.

Ag

Cu

Au

Zn

Sn

Pb

Bi

97.75 97.81 97.00 97.56 98.94 99.18 99.18 99.20 98.71 98.83 98.49 99.04 98.15 98.02 95.91 97.65 96.57 95.34 97.31 98.01 99.20 99.08 99.18 99.17

1.01 1.00 1.16 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.4 0.13 0.18 0.13 0.16 0.23 0.08 0.07 0.11 0.12 0.09 0.18

0.88 0.86 1.31 1.24 0.97 0.76 0.61 0.59 0.67 0.75 0.91 0.66 0.77 0.71 0.86 0.89 1.27 1.55 1.20 1.11 0.37 0.29 0.40 0.32

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.23 0.26 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.99 0.24 0.04 0.12 0.22 0.14 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.03 0.09 0.13 0.05 0.11

0.18 0.21 0.22 0.18 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.19 0.25 0.26 0.17 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.11

0.18 0.09 0.24 0.18 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.13 0.16 0.17 0.74 0.83 2.67 1.01 0.92 1.74 0.66 1.02 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.11

71

XRF AND PB–PB ISOTOPIC ANALYSES OF THE HOARD COINS

Catalogue No. 7

8

9

10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Sample No. 7a 7b 7c 7d 8a 8b 8c 8d 9a 9b 9c 9d 10a 10b 10c 10d 11a 11r 12a 12r 13a 13r 14a 14r 15a 15r 16a 16r 17a 17r 18a 18r 19a 19r 20a 20r 21a 21r 22a 22r 23a 23r 24a 24r 25a 25r 26a 26r 27a 27r 28a 28r 29a 29r

Obverse /reverse obverse obverse reverse reverse obverse obverse reverse reverse obverse obverse reverse reverse obverse obverse reverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse

Ag

Cu

Au

Zn

Sn

Pb

Bi

99.27 99.11 99.23 98.83 97.14 97.83 97.91 97.66 98.22 98.41 98.63 98.62 96.81 97.30 97.12 96.72 98.60 98.83 99.00 98.88 98.69 98.16 95.82 96.67 96.53 96.41 97.73 96.70 99.45 99.51 97.85 97.99 98.27 98.22 97.33 98.28 97.96 98.39 97.66 97.21 97.39 97.71 99.25 98.85 98.01 96.83 98.41 98.71 99.05 99.55 97.33 97.86 97.55 97.30

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.65 0.74 0.82 1.02 0.65 0.55 0.34 0.60 0.59 0.45 0.42 0.46 0.26 0.21 0.36 0.52 0.87 1.73 1.60 0.73 0.72 1.00 1.95 0.00 0.00 1.04 0.75 0.69 0.50 0.59 0.41 0.83 0.44 0.81 1.50 1.46 1.07 0.09 0.13 0.81 2.44 0.30 0.15 0.47 0.06 1.08 0.57 0.66 1.11

0.32 0.23 0.23 0.32 0.78 0.84 0.89 0.87 0.56 0.72 0.53 0.67 1.75 1.45 1.53 1.90 0.27 0.39 0.24 0.25 0.34 0.41 1.32 1.02 1.38 1.60 0.92 1.09 0.21 0.17 0.74 0.86 0.54 0.59 0.65 0.80 0.49 0.51 0.86 0.59 0.71 0.80 0.39 0.55 0.48 0.43 0.33 0.48 0.16 0.21 1.24 1.11 0.57 0.55

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.20 0.08 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.10 0.14 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.08 0.00 0.12 0.27 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.61 0.00 0.12 0.08 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.17 0.23

0.08 0.15 0.07 0.07 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.13 0.14 0.11 0.16 0.18 0.07 0.20 0.11 0.08 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.18 0.09 0.16 0.15 0.07 0.15 0.02 0.09 0.09 0.22 0.21 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.25 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.12 0.04 0.00 0.10 0.19 0.13 0.10

0.02 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.21 0.17 0.14 0.18 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.13 0.09 0.08 0.18 0.21 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.19 0.09 0.14 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.16 0.19 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.16 0.22 0.15 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.03 0.26 0.08 0.17 0.04 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.06

0.31 0.43 0.42 0.70 0.44 0.21 0.15 0.11 0.12 0.18 0.13 0.21 0.61 0.41 0.44 0.72 0.19 0.08 0.31 0.16 0.27 0.36 0.81 0.44 1.14 0.96 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.07 0.15 0.33 0.57 0.25 0.36 0.35 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.17 0.14 0.21 0.43 0.15 0.53 0.46 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.20 0.87 0.64

72

XRF AND PB–PB ISOTOPIC ANALYSES OF THE HOARD COINS

Catalogue No. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

52 53 54 55

Sample No. 30a 30r 31a 31r 32a 32r 33a 33r 34a 34r 35a 35r 36a 36r 37a 37r 38a 38r 39a 39r 40a 40b 40r 41a 41r 42a 42r 43a 43 44a 44r 45a 45r 46a 46r 47a 47r 48a 48r 49a 49r 50a 50r 51a 51b 51r 52a 52r 53a 53r 54a 54r 55a 55b 55r

Obverse /reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse obverse reverse

Ag

Cu

Au

Zn

Sn

Pb

Bi

97.06 97.38 97.45 97.16 96.80 96.91 98.21 98.50 97.32 96.88 97.16 96.45 99.05 98.32 98.35 98.13 97.14 97.17 96.91 95.30 97.44 97.86 96.93 98.53 98.67 97.79 98.08 96.68 96.88 98.09 97.78 98.18 98.13 96.86 97.08 98.63 98.84 97.65 97.80 97.80 97.62 97.07 97.17 98.03 97.98 97.26 98.15 99.25 97.19 97.16 98.50 98.97 98.46 98.13 97.29

1.49 1.54 0.59 0.44 0.56 1.25 0.55 0.63 1.57 1.87 1.64 2.23 0.55 0.99 0.81 0.36 1.62 1.15 1.24 1.40 1.14 0.91 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.87 1.89 1.77 0.90 0.81 0.91 0.88 0.99 1.09 0.38 0.19 0.86 0.83 1.13 1.14 0.48 0.55 0.84 0.84 1.55 1.32 0.38 0.80 0.75 0.76 0.39 0.62 1.01 1.76

0.90 0.69 0.67 0.88 1.30 1.17 0.63 0.52 0.83 0.91 1.07 1.19 0.35 0.63 0.39 0.65 0.47 0.61 0.78 1.34 0.77 0.51 0.68 1.37 1.24 0.92 0.80 1.12 1.13 0.68 0.99 0.61 0.67 1.80 1.43 0.70 0.72 1.00 0.93 0.77 0.81 0.99 0.97 0.81 0.84 0.62 0.02 0.04 0.72 0.89 0.33 0.36 0.69 0.12 0.63

0.00 0.00 0.41 0.07 0.89 0.25 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.73 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.08 0.00 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.21 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.00

0.07 0.15 0.06 0.08 0.17 0.12 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.15 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.10 0.16 0.03 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.55 0.86 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.22 0.17 0.09 0.09 0.17 0.15 0.07 0.07 0.18 0.20 0.04 0.02 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.47 0.31 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.34 0.20 0.07 0.09 0.20

0.34 0.18 0.79 1.35 0.19 0.13 0.43 0.23 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.23 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.81 1.17 0.20 0.52 0.90 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.21 0.16 0.17 0.11 0.14 0.18 0.14 0.31 0.30 0.19 0.13 0.21 0.91 0.21 0.21 0.10 0.02 0.05 1.10 0.99 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.13

73

XRF AND PB–PB ISOTOPIC ANALYSES OF THE HOARD COINS

Catalogue No. 56 57 58 59 60 61

62 63 64 65

66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73

74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81

Sample No. 56a 56r 57a 57r 58a 58r 59a 59r 60a 60r 61a 61b 61r 62a 62r 63a 63r 64a 64r 65a 65b 65r 66a 66r 67a 67r 68a 68r 69a 69r 70a 70r 71a 71r 72a 72r 73a 73b 73r 74a 74r 75a 75r 76a 76r 77a 77r 78a 78r 79a 79r 80a 80r 81a 81r

Obverse /reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse

Ag

Cu

Au

Zn

Sn

Pb

Bi

98.59 98.58 99.08 98.83 97.05 96.93 97.07 96.52 96.30 95.66 94.74 95.32 96.35 97.16 96.79 96.80 97.16 97.94 97.73 97.07 97.07 98.42 97.84 97.56 97.71 97.79 96.53 97.35 98.20 97.99 98.82 98.48 98.10 98.29 98.34 98.59 98.18 98.29 97.60 99.15 98.08 97.88 97.83 99.10 99.14 94.48 95.57 97.85 98.54 98.55 98.55 97.60 98.10 98.90 99.04

0.66 0.75 0.42 0.57 1.04 1.21 1.05 1.99 1.27 1.95 1.34 1.39 0.73 1.76 1.56 1.65 1.01 1.01 1.30 1.30 1.35 0.65 1.16 1.27 1.08 0.73 1.74 1.38 0.62 0.71 0.26 0.31 0.96 0.63 0.28 0.47 0.43 0.51 0.62 0.36 1.30 0.55 0.37 0.55 0.57 2.07 1.84 0.88 0.48 0.19 0.21 1.59 1.00 0.00 0.00

0.46 0.31 0.29 0.28 0.70 0.74 1.77 1.27 1.32 1.54 3.02 2.40 2.40 0.83 1.13 0.99 1.25 0.84 0.70 1.16 1.11 0.73 0.71 0.87 0.79 0.84 1.26 0.98 0.65 0.79 0.53 0.59 0.63 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.91 1.03 1.55 0.43 0.36 0.69 0.79 0.00 0.00 2.61 1.74 1.03 0.69 0.97 0.92 0.63 0.70 0.77 0.79

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.05 0.16 0.11 0.00 0.25 0.04 0.04 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.15 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.14 0.00

0.03 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.11 0.12 0.03 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.00 0.11 0.07 0.06

0.16 0.17 0.21 0.29 0.07 0.08 0.05 0.13 0.10 0.33 0.76 0.56 0.43 0.15 0.20 0.14 0.10 0.11 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.11 0.15 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.12 0.28 0.02 0.03 0.17 0.17 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.05 0.24 0.09 0.08 0.31 0.29 0.33 0.37 0.17 0.14 0.12 0.13 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.02

0.12 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.95 0.03 0.04 0.57 0.52 0.14 0.12 0.09 0.10 0.27 0.39 0.36 0.11 0.10 0.30 0.26 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.15 0.30 0.18 0.15 0.14 0.25 0.32 0.39 0.15 0.23 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.10 0.11 0.02 0.02 0.62 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.35 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.09

74

XRF AND PB–PB ISOTOPIC ANALYSES OF THE HOARD COINS

Catalogue No. 82 83 84

85

86 87 88 89 90 91

92

93 94 95 96

97 98 99 100 101

102 103 104 105

Sample No. 82a 82r 83a 83r 84a 84b 84r 85a 85b 85r 86a 86r 87a 87r 88a 88r 89a 89r 90a 90r 91a 91b 91r 92a 92b 92r 93a 93r 94a 94r 95a 95r 96a 96b 96r 97a 97r 98a 98r 99a 99r 100a 100r 101a 101b 101r 102a 102r 103a 103r 104a 104r 105a 105r

Obverse /reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse obverse reverse obverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse obverse reverse obverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse

Ag

Cu

Au

Zn

Sn

Pb

Bi

99.52 99.36 96.23 97.41 98.06 98.81 98.30 97.95 97.90 97.03 98.18 97.73 98.51 98.07 98.20 98.11 97.06 97.80 98.52 98.75 96.20 96.76 96.55 98.34 97.98 98.84 98.02 98.31 95.50 96.63 96.38 95.13 98.23 98.41 97.73 98.17 98.46 98.01 98.66 98.40 98.91 94.72 94.46 96.72 96.51 98.29 99.13 99.39 99.35 99.14 97.28 97.22 98.74 98.24

0.08 0.06 1.32 1.37 1.15 0.29 0.55 0.68 0.95 1.98 0.37 0.83 0.65 1.01 0.44 0.44 0.47 0.53 0.61 0.58 2.60 1.99 1.50 1.02 1.38 0.48 0.82 0.66 0.42 0.32 0.14 0.12 0.47 0.34 1.17 0.20 0.11 0.63 0.16 0.35 0.14 0.22 0.25 1.16 0.71 0.47 0.23 0.06 0.07 0.00 1.38 1.09 0.24 0.73

0.27 0.25 0.91 0.60 0.48 0.64 0.88 0.51 0.36 0.34 0.35 0.29 0.42 0.41 0.67 0.66 0.50 0.31 0.17 0.22 0.66 0.46 1.16 0.21 0.28 0.42 0.49 0.43 3.45 2.46 0.64 0.76 0.70 0.81 0.41 1.17 0.98 0.48 0.71 0.25 0.24 2.37 2.02 0.75 0.94 0.81 0.31 0.33 0.15 0.22 0.46 0.67 0.64 0.45

0.00 0.09 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.09 0.22 0.00 0.14 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.16 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.05 0.15 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.17 0.08 0.29 0.06 1.01 0.95 0.06 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.16 0.29 0.08 0.41 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.19 0.00 0.15 0.16 0.25 0.31 0.09 0.07 0.14 0.32

0.07 0.09 0.11 0.05 0.12 0.09 0.15 0.07 0.05 0.12 0.04 0.10 0.13 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.00 0.10 0.08 0.15 0.18 0.03 0.08 0.06 0.15 0.07 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.13 0.00 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.08 0.17 0.14 0.09 0.15 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.11 0.05 0.05 0.13 0.16

0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.18 0.07 0.09 0.19 0.22 0.35 0.10 0.20 0.19 0.35 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.20 0.19 0.39 0.30 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.21 0.39 0.19 0.32 0.24 0.20 0.50 0.21 0.14 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.12 2.38 2.84 0.65 0.60 0.32 0.08 0.02 0.08 0.18 0.03 0.07 0.00 0.40

0.02 0.11 1.29 0.57 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.51 0.30 0.18 0.84 0.77 0.02 0.03 0.33 0.27 1.78 1.19 0.28 0.26 0.17 0.11 0.31 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.32 0.27 0.07 0.04 1.56 2.65 0.17 0.16 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.37 0.26 0.10 0.15 0.23 0.28 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.83 0.10 0.06

75

XRF AND PB–PB ISOTOPIC ANALYSES OF THE HOARD COINS

Catalogue No. 106 107 108 109 110 111 112

113 114 115

116 117 118 119 120 121 122

123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131

Sample No. 106a 106r 107a 107r 108a 108r 109a 109r 110a 110r 111a 111r 112a 112b 112r 113a 113r 114a 114r 115a 115b 115r 116a 116r 117a 117r 118a 118r 119a 119r 120a 120r 121a 121r 122a 122b 122r 123a 123r 124a 124r 125a 125r 126a 126r 127a 127r 128a 128r 129a 129r 130a 130r 131a 131r

Obverse /reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse

Ag

Cu

Au

Zn

Sn

Pb

Bi

98.32 98.50 98.92 98.93 97.70 97.38 97.24 97.48 97.28 97.04 97.40 97.20 97.57 98.22 97.99 97.88 97.93 97.69 97.45 98.01 98.41 97.44 98.72 98.88 98.21 97.66 97.34 97.43 98.54 97.20 96.68 96.98 99.47 99.56 96.68 96.60 96.55 98.31 98.25 97.49 96.76 98.19 98.56 98.42 98.05 98.59 98.44 97.76 98.43 97.62 98.54 97.94 99.05 97.57 97.40

0.81 0.61 0.25 0.26 0.51 0.59 0.99 0.58 1.31 1.35 0.99 1.39 1.22 0.57 0.65 0.17 0.12 0.55 0.70 0.05 0.00 0.20 0.23 0.26 0.81 1.21 1.13 0.96 0.30 0.84 0.90 1.19 0.07 0.00 0.84 1.96 1.80 0.11 0.05 0.25 0.24 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.06 0.26 0.32 0.16 0.07 0.25 0.10 0.89 0.11 0.09 0.15

0.27 0.26 0.28 0.39 0.53 0.44 0.64 0.74 0.77 0.86 0.95 0.90 0.64 0.63 0.71 0.78 0.85 0.39 0.34 0.52 0.46 0.87 0.43 0.29 0.52 0.62 0.91 0.89 0.80 1.08 1.43 1.14 0.18 0.22 0.95 0.82 1.03 0.63 0.76 1.77 2.30 0.98 0.65 0.59 0.78 0.99 0.94 0.85 0.79 0.67 0.50 0.75 0.60 1.70 1.57

0.00 0.13 0.20 0.00 0.15 0.16 0.06 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.11 0.15 0.17 0.28 0.10 0.08 0.34 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.29 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.07 0.06 0.31 0.41 0.09 0.14 0.05 0.19 0.23 0.17 0.00 0.07 0.28 0.40 0.22 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.08

0.19 0.15 0.10 0.04 0.12 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.13 0.09 0.15 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.05 0.14 0.04 0.14 0.17 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00

0.27 0.22 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.48 0.74 0.62 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.20 0.13 0.14 0.29 0.24 0.47 0.73 0.11 0.07 0.58 0.11 0.27 0.13 0.21 0.40 0.43 0.24 0.45 0.48 0.59 0.10 0.05 0.17 0.34 0.34 0.38 0.16 0.12 0.22 0.26 0.25 0.07 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.29

0.14 0.13 0.20 0.30 0.87 0.86 0.28 0.27 0.48 0.58 0.39 0.30 0.21 0.35 0.37 0.58 0.69 0.67 0.49 0.98 0.81 0.78 0.04 0.03 0.24 0.20 0.09 0.13 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.18 0.17 0.38 0.21 0.18 0.20 0.23 0.28 0.35 0.32 0.18 0.53 0.81 0.06 0.00 0.70 0.31 1.20 0.77 0.35 0.24 0.37 0.52

76

XRF AND PB–PB ISOTOPIC ANALYSES OF THE HOARD COINS

Catalogue No. 132 133 134 135 136 137 138

139 140 141 142 143

144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153

154 155 156

Sample No. 132a 132r 133a 133r 134a 134r 135a 135r 136a 136r 137a 137r 138 138b 138r 139a 139r 140a 140r 141a 141r 142a 142r 143a 143r 143r2 144a 144r 145a 145r 146a 146r 147a 147r 148a 148r 149a 149r 150a 150r 151a 151r 152a 152r 153a 153b 153r 154a 154r 155a 155r 156a 156b 156r

Obverse /reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse obverse reverse

Ag

Cu

Au

Zn

Sn

Pb

Bi

99.00 99.07 99.17 99.08 98.00 98.41 97.74 98.21 98.65 97.63 97.85 97.72 97.65 97.88 98.44 98.02 98.26 94.98 98.27 97.14 96.87 97.49 97.96 95.57 97.62 97.46 98.16 98.38 98.79 98.48 98.42 98.42 93.63 94.01 97.44 97.85 98.68 99.00 98.77 97.58 98.43 98.13 98.28 98.28 99.00 96.92 96.40 97.87 97.97 97.88 98.30 95.93 96.11 95.88

0.10 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.26 0.12 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.27 0.23 0.27 0.22 0.39 0.08 0.24 0.11 0.13 0.09 0.33 0.23 0.27 0.54 0.45 0.15 0.21 0.14 0.20 0.38 0.29 0.17 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.06 0.12 0.63 0.50 0.31 0.22 0.11 1.40 1.52 0.19 0.13 0.15 0.07 0.94 1.10 2.10

0.65 0.76 0.04 0.04 0.68 0.70 0.83 0.80 0.79 1.02 1.03 1.27 1.36 1.13 0.90 0.74 0.76 1.61 0.61 1.10 1.20 1.36 1.11 1.48 0.75 0.77 0.74 0.69 0.44 0.44 0.60 0.63 3.95 3.46 0.75 0.76 0.20 0.12 0.54 0.96 0.50 0.90 0.88 0.65 0.12 0.93 1.10 1.24 1.34 0.43 0.37 1.96 1.78 1.26

0.10 0.00 0.28 0.63 0.21 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.18 0.31 0.09 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.09 0.20 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.37 0.35 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.23 0.13 0.22 0.00 0.29 0.46 0.62 0.28 0.13 0.16 0.10 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.19 0.19 0.23 0.05

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.03 0.20 0.05 0.14 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.13 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.11 0.55 0.21 0.06 0.15 0.08 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.10 0.08 0.15 0.10 0.12 0.18 0.16 0.11 0.14 0.13 0.02 0.04

0.06 0.01 0.51 0.22 0.23 0.34 0.76 0.55 0.16 0.22 0.22 0.16 0.20 0.18 0.19 0.55 0.50 1.71 0.48 0.07 0.04 0.53 0.49 0.19 0.30 0.32 0.28 0.27 0.30 0.50 0.04 0.05 1.57 1.98 0.17 0.12 0.27 0.30 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.23 0.02 0.03 0.30 0.46 0.49 0.14 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.19 0.23 0.35

0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.46 0.14 0.11 0.23 0.72 0.69 0.45 0.38 0.34 0.22 0.04 0.12 0.72 0.42 1.16 1.37 0.30 0.23 2.11 0.69 0.78 0.10 0.16 0.26 0.20 0.44 0.44 0.15 0.15 0.64 0.51 0.07 0.05 0.41 1.13 0.15 0.10 0.42 0.23 0.05 0.19 0.28 0.38 0.22 1.10 0.86 0.65 0.50 0.32

77

XRF AND PB–PB ISOTOPIC ANALYSES OF THE HOARD COINS

Catalogue No. 157 158 159 160 161 162

Sample No. 157a 157r 158a 158r 159a 159r 160a 160r 161a 161r 162a 162r

Obverse /reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse obverse reverse

Ag

Cu

Au

Zn

Sn

Pb

Bi

98.63 97.09 98.28 97.88 97.95 98.14 98.65 98.89 99.46 99.36 99.20 99.11

0.00 0.07 0.10 0.14 0.26 0.12 0.22 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.07

0.62 0.71 0.94 1.10 1.00 0.88 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.36 0.27 0.27

0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.11

0.10 0.09 0.16 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.05 0.09 0.11 0.06 0.08 0.17

0.62 1.89 0.33 0.36 0.23 0.17 0.25 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.06

0.03 0.07 0.19 0.41 0.38 0.54 0.51 0.35 0.06 0.07 0.13 0.21

Table 11. Results of recalculation of X-ray fluorescence spectra of the Hoard coins Catalogue Sample No. No. 5 5a 5b 10 10a 10b 14 14a 14b 23 23a 23b 25 25a 25b 29 29a 29b 32 32a 32b 37 37a 37b 40 40a 40b

Fe

Ag

Cu

Au

Zn

Sn

Pb

Bi

As

Ni

0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02

98.49 97.87 98.58 98.82 98.28 98.70 99.00 99.10 99.21 98.85 98.98 98.93 98.68 98.77 99.29 98.75 98.97 98.69

0.07 0.10 0.21 0.20 0.57 0.53 0.47 0.35 0.27 0.79 0.22 0.37 0.19 0.41 0.25 0.36 0.38 0.22

0.66 0.82 0.87 0.72 0.66 0.51 0.35 0.40 0.25 0.23 0.30 0.29 0.66 0.58 0.24 0.34 0.40 0.35

0.34 0.38 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.09 0.32 0.10 0.01 0.08 0.06 0.27

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.02 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.01

0.41 0.79 0.27 0.18 0.37 0.19 0.09 0.07 0.20 0.03 0.39 0.28 0.08 0.06 0.16 0.41 0.15 0.43

0 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0 0.01

78

XRF AND PB–PB ISOTOPIC ANALYSES OF THE HOARD COINS

Table 12. MC–ICP–MS analysis of the isotopic composition of lead in the Hoard silver coins41 Sample No. 1 4 5 7 11 12 13 14 16 23 25 27 39 45 54 56 57 60 67 71 74 76 82 89 99 102 105 114 116 137 143 150 154 160 162

41

206

Pb/204Pb

18.7545 18.7600 18.7670 18.8440

207

Pb/204Pb

Drachms 15.6682 15.6845 15.6846 15.6796

208

Pb/204Pb

38.8374 38.8344 38.8936 38.8858

Triobols. Group 1. 490s BC 18.7540 15.6771 18.7573 15.6783 18.3951 15.6300 18.7198 15.6781 18.8901 15.6714 18.7689 15.6714 18.7526 15.6780 19.0925 15.7007 18.8023 15.6736 18.7776 15.6788 18.7655 15.6911 18.7665 15.6873 18.7549 15.6783 18.7967 15.6748

38.8442 38.8560 38.4809 38.8408 38.9046 38.8604 38.8922 38.8785 38.9099 38.8685 38.8867 38.8773 38.8454 38.8674

Triobols. Group 2. 490–480 BC 18.7613 15.6763 18.7970 15.6853 18.7483 15.6723 18.7917 15.6802 18.7529 15.6730 18.7787 15.6667 18.7358 15.6652 18.6927 15.6730 18.7560 15.6661 18.7649 15.6668 18.7273 15.6691 18.9021 15.6632 18.7496 15.6736 18.7539 15.6747 18.7735 15.6691 18.8296 15.6831 18.8055 15.6819

38.8436 38.9338 38.8479 38.9163 38.8337 38.8671 38.8172 38.7940 38.8421 38.8238 38.8175 38.8451 38.8489 38.8453 38.8687 38.8893 38.8974

The measurement error of the isotope ratios of Pb does not exceed 0.03% (±2SD).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abramov, A.P. and Boldyrev, S.I. 2001: ‘“Klady” 1998 g. iz Patreya’. In Zuev, V.Y. (ed.), Bosporskii fenomen: Kolonizatsiya regiona, formirovanie polisov, obrazovanie gosudarstva, pt 1 (St Petersburg), 143–46. Abramzon, M.G. 2003: ‘The Hoard of Silver Coins of the 6th–4th Centuries B.C. from Tyramba (the Taman Peninsula)’. In XIII Congreso Internacional de Numismatica. Abstracts of Papers (Madrid), 25. Abramzon, M. and Frolova, N. 2004: ‘The Hoard of Silver Coins of the 6th–4th Centuries BC from the Taman Peninsula’. Revue Numismatique 160, 27–48. —. 2007–2008: Korpus bosporskikh kladov antichnykh monet I: 1834–2005 gg. (Bosporskie Issledovaniya Suppl. 2) (Simferopol/Kerch). Abramzon, M.G., Frolova, N.A. and Gorlov Y.V. 1999: ‘Tamanskii klad serebryanykh monet VI–IV vv. do n.e.’. VDI 3, 39–51. Abramzon, M.G. and Ivanina, O.A. 2010: Antichnye monety. Iz sobraniya Kerchenskogo istoriko-kul’turnogo zapovednika (Numizmaticheskaya kollektsiya II) (Kiev). Abramzon, M.G., Zavoykin, A.A., Kuznetsov, V.D. and Saprykina, I.A. 2019: ‘Monety pozdnearkhaicheskogo i ranneklassicheskogo vremeni iz raskopok Fanagorii’. In Kuznetsov, V.D. and Zavoykin, A.A. (eds.), Hypanis 1 (Moscow), 5–27. Alarm, M. 2012: ‘The Coinage of the Persian Empire’. In Metcalf, W.E. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage (Oxford), 61–87. Alexandrescu, P. 2005: La zone sacrée d’époque grecque (fouilles 1915–1989) (Histria VII) (Bucharest). Anokhin, V.A. 1986: Monetnoe delo Bospora (Kiev). —. 2011: Antichnye monety Severnogo Prichernomor’ya: Katalog (Kiev). Antonaccio, K.M. 2001: ‘Ethnicity and Colonization’. In Malkin, I. (ed.), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity (Center for Hellenic Studies, Colloquia 5) (Washington, DC/London), 113–57. Antonov, D. 2007: Izdeliyata ot blagoroden metal v Severna Trakiya. Tekhnologichen analiz i lokalizatsiya na mestni atelieta za proizvodstvo (VI v. pr. Khr.–I v.) (Vratsa). Arafat, K. and Morgan, C. 1994: ‘Athens, Etruria and the Heuneburg: Mutual Misconceptions in the Study of Greek– Barbarian Relations’. In Morris. I. (ed.), Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies (Cambridge), 108–34. Asheri, D., Lloyd, A. and Corcella, A. 2007: A Commentary on Herodotus, Books I–IV, ed. O. Murray and A. Moreno (Oxford). Ashton, R., Meadows, A., Sheedy, K. and Wartenberg, U. 1998: ‘Some Greek Coins in the British Museum’. NC 158, 37–51. Austin, M.M. 1990: ‘Greek Tyrants and the Persians, 546–479 B.C.’. Classical Quarterly 40, 289–306. Babelon, E. 1907: Traité de monnaies grecques et romaines. Pt 2: Description historique. 1 : Comprenant les monnaies grecques depuis les origines jusqu’aux guerres médiques (Paris). Baker, J., Stos, S. and Waight, T. 2006: ‘Lead Isotope Analysis of Archaeological Metals by Multiple-Collector Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass-Spectrometry’. Archaeometry 48.1, 45–56. Balcer, J.M. 1968: ‘The Early Silver Coins of Teos’. SNR 47, 5–50. Baralis, A., Martinez, J.-L., Mathieux, N., Stoyanov, T. and Tonkova, M. (eds.) 2015: L’Épopée des rois thraces, des guerres médiques aux invasions celtes (479–278 av. J.-C.). Découvertes archéologiques en Bulgarie (Exhibition Catalogue) (Paris). Barnes, I., Gramlich, J., Diaz, M. and Brill, R. 1978: ‘The Possible Change of Lead Isotope Ratios in the Manufacture of Pigments: A Fractionation Experiment’. Archaeological Chemistry II (Advances in Chemistry Series) 171, 273–77. Baron, S., Tamasë, C., Cauuet, B. and Munoz, M. 2011: ‘Lead Isotope Analyses of Gold-silver Ores from Rosëia Montana (Romania): A First Step of a Metal Provenance Study of Roman Mining Activity in Alburnus Maior (Roman Dacia)’. JAS 38.5, 1090–1100. Beck, H. 1997: Polis und Koinon: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Struktur der griechischen Bundesstaaten im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Historia Einzelschriften 114) (Stuttgart). —. 2003: ‘New Approaches to Federalism in Ancient Greece’. In Buraselis and Zoumboulakis 2003, 177–90. Beck, H. and Funke, P. 2015a: ‘An Introduction to Federalism in Greek Antiquity’. In Beck and Funke 2015b, 1–19. —. (eds.) 2015b: Federalism in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge). Beck, H. and Ganter, A. 2015: ‘Boiotia and the Boiotian Leagues’. In Beck and Funke 2015b, 132–57. Berthier-Delagarde, A.L. 2009: ‘Materialy dlya vesovykh issledovanii monetnykh sistem drevnegrecheskikh gorodov i tsarei Sarmatii i Tavridy’. In Berthier-Delagarde, A.L. 2009. Avtobiografiya. Izbrannye trudy po numizmatike (Simferopol; reprint, first published 1913). Blavatskaya, T.V. 1959: Ocherki politicheskoi istorii Bospora v V–IV vv. do nashei ery (Moscow). Blavatskii, V.D. 1954: ‘Arkhaicheskii Bospor’. In Kobylina, M.M. (ed.), Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii Severnogo Prichernomor’ya v antichnuyu epokhu (Materialy i Issledovaniya po Arkheologii SSSR 33) (Moscow), 7–44. —. 1955: ‘O pantikapeiskoi vesovoi sisteme’. SA 23, 201–05. Boardman, J. 2001: Greek Gems and Finger Rings: Early Bronze Age to Late Classical (London).

80

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bogaert, R. 1963: ‘Le cours du statère de Cyzique aux Ve et IVe siècles avant J.C.’. L’Antiquité Classique 32.1, 85–119. —. 1968: Banques et banquiers dans les cités grecques (Leyde). Boltunova, A.I. 1986: ‘Nadpisi Gorgippii (Iz nakhodok 1971–1981 gg.)’. VDI 1, 43–61. Braund, D. 2007: ‘Black Sea Grain for Athens? From Herodotus to Demosthenes’. In Gabrielsen, V. and Lund, J. (eds.), The Black Sea in Antiquity. Regional and Interregional Economic Exchanges (Black Sea Studies 6) (Aarhus), 39–68. —. 2018: Greek Religion and Cults in the Black Sea Region. Goddesses in the Bosporan Kingdom from the Archaic Period to the Byzantine Era (Cambridge). Bravo, B. 1983: ‘Le commerce des céréales chez les Grecs de l’époque archaïque’. In Garnsey, P. and Wittaker, C.R. (eds.), Trade and Famine in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge), 17–29. Bresson, A. 2007: La construction d’un espace d’approvisionnement: les sités égéennes et le grain de mer Noire’. In Bresson, A., Ivantchik, A. and Ferrary J.-L. (eds.), Une koinè pontique: Cités grecques, sociétés indigènes et empires mondiaux sur le littoral nord de la mer Noire (VIIe s. a. C.–IIIe s. p. C.) (Mémoires 18) (Bordeaux), 49–68. —. 2009: ‘Electrum Coins, Currency Exchange and Transaction Costs in Archaic and Classical Greece’. RBN 155, 71–80. —. 2016: The Making of the Ancient Greek Economy. Institutions, Markets, and Growth in the City-States (Princeton/ Oxford). Brill, R. and Wampler, J. 1967: ‘Isotope Studies of Ancient lead’. AJA 71, 63–77. Brousseau, L. 2011: ‘Les productions monétaires des ateliers grecs de Grande Grèce du VIe au IVe siècle av. J.-C. Essai de quantification comparée’. In de Callataÿ 2011b, 163–79. Buraselis, K. 2003: ‘Considerations on Symmachia and Sympoliteia in the Hellenistic Period’. In Buraselis and Zoumboulakis 2003, 38–50. Buraselis, K. and Zoumboulakis, K. (eds.) 2003: The Idea of European Community in History II: Aspects of Connecting Poleis and Ethne in Ancient Greece (Athens). Buttrey, T.V. 1993: ‘Calculating Ancient Coin Production: Facts and Fantasies’. NC 153, 334–51. —. 1994: ‘Calculating Ancient Coin Production II: Why it Cannot be Done’. NC 154, 341–52. —. 2011: ‘Quantification of Ancient Coin Production: The Third Element’. In de Callataÿ 2011b, 105–12. Cahn, H.A. 1975: ‘Étalons monétaires en Asie Mineure jusqu’au Ve siècle’. In Cahn, H.A. Kleine Schriften zur Münzkunde und Archäologie (Basel), 66–69 (= Congresso Internazionale di numismatica II. 1961 [Rome], 19–23). Carrocio, B. 2011: ‘Parallel Striking Reconstruction and Chronological Numismatic Interpretation’. In de Callataÿ 2011b, 81–103. Carter, G.F. and Nord, R.S. 1992: ‘Circulation of the Average Lifetimes and the Number of Anvils for Coinage in Antiquity’. AJN, ser. 2, 3–4, 147–64. Ceyhan, N. 2003: Lead Isotope Geochemistry of Pb-Zn Deposits from Eastern Taurides, Turkey (Dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara). Chernyshev, I.V., Chugaev, A.V. and Shatagin, K.N. 2007: ‘High-precision Pb isotope analysis by multicollector-ICP-mass-spectrometry using 205Tl/ 203Tl normalization: Optimization and calibration of the method for the studies of Pb isotope variations’. Geochemistry International 45.11, 1065–76. Chernyshev, I.V., Chugaev, A.V., Bortnikov, N.S., Gamyanin, G.N. and Prokopiev, A.V. 2018: ‘Pb Isotopic composition and metal sources of Au and Ag deposits of the South Verkhoyansk region (Yakutia, Russia) according to high-precision MC-ICP-MS’. Data. Geology of Ore Deposits 60.5, 398–417. Chryssanthaki[-Nagle], K. 2004: ‘Reconsidering the History of Abdera’. In Moustaka, A., Skarlatidou, E., Tzannes, M.-C. and Ersoy, Y. (eds.), Klazomenai, Teos and Abdera: Metropoleis and Colony (Proceedings of the international symposium held at the Archaeological Museum of Abdera, 20–21 October 2001) (Salonica), 311–18. —. 2007: L’histoire monétaire d’Abdère en Thrace (VIe s. avant J.-C.–IIe s. après J.-C.) (Athens). Chugaev, A.V. and Chernyshev, I.V. 2012: ‘Istochniki postupleniya serebra dlya izdelii iz pogrebenii rannikh kochevnikov Yuzhnogo Priuralya po rezul’tatam izucheniya izotopnogo sostava Pb vysokotochnym metodom MC-ICP-MS’. In Treister, M.Y. and Yablonskii, L.T. (eds.), Vliyaniya akhemenidskoi kul’tury v Yuzhnom Priuralye (V–III vv. do n.e.), vol. 1 (Moscow), 239–46. Chugaev, A.V., Chernyshev, I.V., Bortnikov, N.S., Kovalenker, V.A., Kiseleva, G.D. and Prokofev, V.Y. 2013a: ‘Lead isotope ore provinces of eastern Transbaikalia and their relationships to regional structures: results of high-precision MC-ICP-MS study of Pb isotopes’. Geology of Ore Deposits 55.4, 245–55. Chugaev, A.V., Chernyshev, I.V., Lebedev, V.A. and Eremina, A.V. 2013b: ‘Lead isotope composition and origin of the quaternary lavas of Elbrus volcano, the Greater Caucasus: high-precision MC-ICP-MS data’. Petrology 21.1, 16–27. de Callataÿ, F. 1995: ‘Calculating Ancient Coin Production: Seeking a Balance’. NC 155, 289–311. —. 1997: ‘Quelques estimations relatives au nombre de monnaies grecques: les collections publiques et privées, le commerce et les trésors’. RBN 143, 21–94. —. 2003: Recueil quantitatif des émissions monétaires archaïques et classiques (Wetteren). —. 2011a: ‘Quantifying Monetary Production in Greco-Roman Times: A General Frame’. In de Callataÿ 2011b, 7–29. —. (ed.) 2011b: Quantifying Monetary Supplies in Greco-Roman Times (Pragmateiai 19) (Bari). Demetriou, D. 2012: Negotiating Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean: The Archaic and Classical Greek Multiethnic Emporia (Cambridge). Dentzer, J.-M., Gauthier, P. and Hackens, T. (eds.) 1975: Numismatique antique: Problèmes et méthodes (Actes du colloque organisé à Nancy du 27 septembre au 2 octobre 1971) (Études d’archéologie classique 4; Annales de l’Est, Mémoire 44) (Louvain).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

81

Depeyrot, G., Hackens, T. and Moucharte, G. (eds.) 1987: Rythmes de la production monétaire, de l’antiquité à nos jours (Actes du colloque international organisé à Paris du 10 au 12 janvier 1986) (Publications d’histoire de l’art et d’archéologie de l’Université catholique de Louvain 50; Numismatica Lovaniensia 7) (Louvain-la-Neuve). Domaradzki, M. 2002: ‘La production de fibules à Pistiros’. In Bouzek, J. and Domaradzka, L. and Archibald, Z. (eds.), Pistiros II: Excavations and Studies (Prague), 249–54. Dreher, M. 2003: ‘Symmachia und Sympoliteia in der griechischen Welt bis 323 v. Chr.’. In Buraselis and Zoumboulakis 2003, 26–38. Duplouy, A. 2010: ‘Observations sur les noms en -ίδης et en -άδης aux époques archaïque et classique’. In Capdetrey, L. and Lafond, Y. (eds.), La cité et ses élites: Pratiques et représentation des formes de domination et de contrôle social dans les cités grecques (Actes du colloque de Poitiers, 19 –20 octobre 2006) (Études 25) (Bordeaux), 307–41. Economopoulos, J.N. 1996: ‘Mining Activities in Ancient Greece from the 7th to the 1st Centuries BC’. The Mining History Journal 3, 109–14. Ehrhardt, N. 1983: Milet und seine Kolonien: Vergleichende Untersuchung der kultischen und politischen Einrichtungen (Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe III, Geschichte und ihre Hilfswissenschaften 206) (Frankfurt/Bern/ New York). Esty, W.W. 1984: ‘Estimating the Size of a Coinage’. NC 144, 180–83. —. 1986: ‘Estimation of the Size of a Coinage: a Survey and Comparison of Methods’. NC 146, 185–215. —. 2006: ‘How to Estimate the Original Number of Dies and the Coverage of Sample’. NC 166, 359–64. —. 2011: ‘Geometric Model for Estimating the Number of Dies’. In de Callataÿ 2011b, 8–29. Esty, W.W. and Carter, G.F. 1992: ‘The Distribution of the Numbers of Coins Struck by Dies’. AJN, ser. 2, 3–4, 165–86. Faucher, T. 2011: ‘Productivité des coins et taux de survie du monnayage grec’. In de Callataÿ 2011b, 113–26. Figueira, T.J. 1981: Aegina: Society and Politics (Salem, NH). —. 1998: The Power of Money: Coinage and Politics in the Athenian Empire (Philadelphia). Flament, C. and Matchetti, P. 2004: ‘Analysis of Ancient Silver Coins’. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 226, 179–84. Foxhall, L. 1998: ‘Cargoes of the Heart’s Desire. The Character of Trade in the Archaic Mediterranean World’. In Fisher, N. and van Wees, H. (eds.), Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence (London), 295–309. Frolova, N.A. 1988: ‘Problemy monetnoi chekanki Bospora VI–II vv. do n.e.’. VDI 2, 122–42. —. 1996: ‘Monetnoe delo Bospora serediny VI–V vv. do n.e.’. RA 2, 34–69. —. 2004: Die frühe Münzprägung vom Kimmerischen Bosporos (Mitte 6. bis Anfang 4. Jh. v. Chr.): Die Münzen der Städte Pantikapaion, Theodosia, Nymphaion und Phanagoria sowie der Sinder (Berlin). Funke, P. 2013: ‘Greek Federal States and Their Sanctuaries: Identity and Integration. Some Introductory Remarks’. In Funke, P. and Haake, V. (eds.), Greek Federal States and Their Sanctuaries: Identity and Integration (Proceedings of an International Conference of the Cluster of Excellence ‘Religion and Politics’ held in Münster, 17.06.–19.06.2010) (Stuttgart), 9–12. Furtwängler, A.E. 1978: Monnaies grecques en Gaule. Le trésor d’Auriol et le monnayage de Massalia 525/520–460 av. J.-C. (Typos 3) (Fribourg). Gale, N.H. 1979: ‘Lead Isotopes and Archaic Greek Silver Coins’. In Proceedings of the 18th International symposium on archaeometry and archaeological prospection, Bonn, 14–17 March 1978 (Archaeo-physika 10) (Cologne), 194–208. Gale, N.H., Gentner, W. and Wagner, G.A. 1980: ‘Mineralogical and Geographical Sources of Archaic Greek Coinage’. In Metcalf, D.M. and Oddy, W.A. (eds.), Metallurgy in Numismatics, vol. 1 (London), 3–49. Gale, N.H. and Stos-Gale, Z.A. 1981: ‘Cycladic Lead and Silver Metallurgy’. Annual of the British School at Athens 76, 169–224. Garbuzov, G.P. 2006: ‘Drevnee zemleustroistvo nelineinogo tipa i kharakteristiki sovremennogo landshafta Tamanskogo poluostrova’. DB 9, 36–66. Garbuzov, G.P., Zavoykin, A.A., Strokin, V.L. and Sudarev, N.I. 2011: ‘Osvoenie grekami Tamanskogo poluostrova v VI–V vv. do n.e.’. DB 15, 90–172. Gardner, P. 1883: Archaeology and the Types of Greek Coins (Chicago). —. 1918: A History of Ancient Coinage, 700–300 B.C. (Oxford). Garlan, Y. 1989: Guerre et économie en Grèce ancienne (Paris). Georges, P. 2000: ‘Persian Ionia under Darius: The Revolt Reconsidered’. Historia 49, 1–39. Giovannini, A. 2007: Les relations entre États dans la Grèce antique du temps d’Homère à l’intervention romaine (ca. 700–200 av. J.-C.) (Historia Einzelschriften 193) (Stuttgart). Gjongecaj, S. and Nicolet-Pierre, H. 1995: ‘Le monnayage d’argent d’Égine et le trésor de Hollm 1991’. BCH 119.1, 283–338. Golenko, K.V. 1974: ‘Monety iz raskopok Nimfeya 1939–1970 gg.’. NE 11, 61–95. Gorman, V.B. 2001: Miletos, the Ornament of Ionia: A History of the City to 400 B.C.E. (Ann Arbor). Gourova, N. 2014: ‘What did Ancient Greeks Mean by the “Cimmerian Bosporus”?’. AWE 13, 29–48. Graf, D.F. 1985: ‘Greek Tyrants and Achaemenid Politics’. Eadie, J.W. and Ober, J. (eds.), The Craft of the Ancient Historian: Essays in Honor of C.G. Starr (Lanham, MD), 79–123. Hackens, T. 1975: ‘Le rythme de la production monétaire dans l’Antiquité’. In Dentzer et al. 1975, 189–96. —. 1987: ‘Rythmes de la production monétaire: les monnayages archaïques et classiques de Grèce’. In Depeyrot et al. 1987, 1–10. Hammond, N.G.L. 1988: ‘The Expedition of Xerxes’. CAH IV2, 518–91.

82

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hansen, M.H. 2004: ‘Introduction. Coins as Evidence for Polis Identity’. In Hansen, M.H. and Nielsen, T.H. (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (Oxford), 144–49. Head, B.V. 1911: Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek Numismatics, new ed. (Oxford). Hind, J.G.F. 1994: ‘The Bosporan Kingdom’. CAH VI2, 476–511. —. 2007: ‘City Heads/Personifications and Omens from Zeus (the Coins of Sinope, Istria and Olbia in the V–IV Centuries BC)’. NC 167, 9–22. —. 2008: ‘Two Notes on Early Coin Types of Pantikapaion and Phanagoreia’. NC 168, 1–8. Holloway, R.R. 1971: ‘An Archaic Hoard from Crete and the Early Aeginetan Coinage’. Museum Notes 17, 1–21. —. 1987: ‘The Coinage Production of the Sicilian Greek Mints of the Sixth and Fifth Centuries B.C.’. In Depeyrot et al. 1987, 11–20. Horden, P. and Purcell, N. 2000: The Corrupting Sea. A Study of Mediterranean History (Oxford). Hourmouziadis, Y. 2011: ‘Silver Denominations and Standards of the Bosporan Cities’. In Holmes, N. (ed.), Proceedings of the XIVth International Numismatic Congress (Glasgow), 203–12. Howgego, C. 1990: ‘Why Did Ancient States Strike Coins?’. NC 150, 1–25. —. 1995: Ancient History from Coins (London/New York). Hultsch, F. 1882: Griechische und römische Metrologie (Berlin). Iddeng, J.W. 2012: ‘What is a Graeco-Roman Festival?’. In Brandt, J.R. and Iddeng, J.W. (eds.), Greek and Roman Festivals: Content, Meaning, and Practice (Oxford), 11–37. Jeffery, L.H. and Morpurgo-Davies, A. 1970: ‘Ποινικαστάς and ποινικάζειν: BM 1969. 4–21, a New Archaic Inscription from Crete’. Kadmos 9, 118–54. Kagan, J.H. 2006: ‘Small Change and the Beginning of Coinage at Abdera’. In van Alfen, P.G. (ed.), Agoranomia: Studies in Money and Exchange Presented to J.H. Kroll (New York), 49–60. Kallistov, D.P. 1949: Ocherki po istorii Severnogo Prichernomor’ya antichnoi epokhi (Leningrad). Kallithrakas-Kontos, N., Katsanos, A.A. and Touratsoglou, J. 2000: ‘Trace Element Analysis of Alexander the Great’s Silver Tetradrachms Minted in Macedonia’. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 171, 342– 49. Kantarelou, V., Jose Ager, F., Eugenidou, D., Chaves, F., Andreou, A., Kontou, E., Katsikosta, N., Respaldiza, M.A., Serafin, P., Sokaras, D., Zarkadas, C., Polikreti, K. and Karydas, A.G. 2011: ‘X-ray Fluorescence Analytical Criteria to Assess the Fineness of Ancient Silver Coins: Application on Ptolemaic Coinage’. Spectrochimica Acta Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy 66.9–10, 681–90. Karyshkovskii, P.O. 2003: Monetnoe delo i denezhnoe obrashchenie Ol’vii (VI v. do n.e.–IV v. n.e.) (Odessa). Kazamanova, L.R. 1969: Vvedenie v antichnuyu numizmatiku (Moscow). Kim, H.S. 2001a: ‘Archaic Coinage as Evidence for the Use of Money’. In Meadows, A. and Shipton, K. (eds.), Money and Its Uses in the Ancient Greek World (Oxford), 7–21. —. 2001b: ‘Small Change and the Moneyed Economy’. In Cartledge, P., Cohen, E.E. and Foxhall, L. (eds.), Money, Labour and Land: Approaches to the Economies of Ancient Greece (London/New York), 44–51. Kolesnikov, A.B. 2010: ‘Raskopki poseleniya Primorskii 23 v 1992 g.’. In Maslennikov, A.A., Gavrilyuk, N.A. and Zavoykin, A.A. (eds.), ΣΥΜΒΟΛΑ. Antichnyi mir Severnogo Prichernomor’ya. Noveishie nakhodki i otkrytiya (Moscow/Kiev), 101–07. Konuk, K. 2012: ‘Asia Minor to the Ionian Revolt’. In Metcalf, W.E. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage (Oxford), 43–60. Koshelenko, G.A. 2010: ‘Religiya i kul’ty’. In Bongard-Levin, G.M. and Kuznetsov, V.D. (eds.), Antichnoe nasledie Kubani, vol. 2 (Moscow), 355–416. Kovalenko, S.A. 2005: ‘O nachale monetnoi chekanki na Bospore’. Zuev, V.Y. (ed.), Bosporskii fenomen: Problema sootnosheniya pis’mennykh i arkheologicheskikh istochnikov (St Petersburg), 361–65. Kovalenko, S.A. and Tolstikov, V.P. 2010a: ‘O nachale monetnoi chekanki na Bospore. I’. VDI 3, 31–59. —. 2010b: ‘O nachale monetnoi chekanki na Bospore. II’. VDI 4, 23–50. Kraay, C.M. 1976: Archaic and Classical Greek Coins (London). Kroll, J.H. and Waggoner, N.M. 1984: ‘Dating the Earliest Coins of Athens, Corinth and Aegina’. AJA 88, 325–40. Kulikov, A.V. 2007: ‘K nakhodke arkhaicheskoi pantikapeiskoi monety na poselenii Chatr-Tau (o meste vozniknoveniya bosporskogo goroda Kiteya)’. In Zuev, V.Y. (ed.), Bosporskii fenomen: Sakral’nyi smysl regiona, pamyatnikov, nakhodok (St Petersburg), 325–31. Kurke, L. 1999: Coins, Bodies, Games, and Gold: The Politics of Meaning in Archaic Greece (Princeton). Kuvshinova, E.A. 2016: ‘Monety Massalii iz Oreolskogo klada (IGCH 2352) v sobranii ON GE’. In Zakharov, E.A. (ed.), Numizmaticheskie chteniya Gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo muzeya 2016 goda. Moskva, 22 i 23 noyabrya 2016 g. Materialy dokladov i soobshchenii (Moscow), 5–8. Kuznetsov, V.D. 2000a: ‘Nekotorye problemy torgovli v Severnom Prichernomor’ye v arkhaicheskii period’. VDI 1, 16–40. —. 2000b: ‘Afiny i Bospor: khlebnaya torgovlya’. RA 1, 107–20. —. 2006: ‘Novye nadpisi iz Fanagorii’. VDI 1, 155–72. —. 2007: ‘Fanagoriya: istoriya issledovanii i novye nakhodki’. RA 2, 5–15. —. 2014: ‘Apatouros’. In Povalahev, N. (ed.), Phanagoreia und darüber hinaus… Festschrift für Vladimir Kuznetsov (Altertümer Phanagoreias 3) (Göttingen), 111–29. —. 2018a: ‘Oboronitel‘nye sooruzheniya Fanagorii’. Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Arkheologii RAN 250, 215–19. —. 2018b: ‘Domostroitel’stvo Severnogo Ponta (epokha arkhaiki)’. In Kuznetsov, V.D. and Zavoykin, A.A. (eds.), Materialy po arkheologii i istorii Fanagorii 4 (Fanagoriya: Rezul’taty arkheologicheskikh issledovanii 7) (Moscow), 117–35.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

83

—. 2019a: ‘The Cimmerian Bosporus in the 5th Century BC (an Old Persian Inscription from Phanagoria)’. ACSS 25, 8–43. —. 2019b: ‘Drevneishaya Fanagoriya: nekotorye problemy’. DB 24, 398–416. Kuznetsov, V.D. and Nikitin, A.B. 2019: ‘An Old Persian Inscription from Phanagoria’. ACSS 25, 1–7. Kuznetsov, V.D. and Zavoykin, A.A. 2010: ‘O masterskikh fanagoriiskikh yuvelirov (?) vtoroi poloviny VI v. do n.e.’. In Zinko, V.N. (ed.), Bospor Kimmeriiskii i varvarskii mir v period antichnosti i srednevekov’ya. Remesla i promysly (Bosporskie Chteniya 11) (Kerch), 256–65. —. 2014: ‘On the Archaeological Topography of Phanagoria’. In Povalahev, N. (ed.), Phanogoreia und darüber hinaus… Festschrift für Vladimir Kuznetsov (Altertümer Phanagoreias 3) (Göttingen), 29–52. Lacroix, L. 1975: ‘Les types des monnaies grecques’. In Dentzer et al. 1975, 153–63. Larsen, J.A.O. 1968: Greek Federal States: Their Institutions and History (Oxford). Lateiner, D. 1982: ‘The Failure of the Ionian Revolt’. Historia 31, 129–60. Lazov, G. 2002: ‘Toreutic Production from Pistiros’. In Bouzek, J., Domaradzka, L. and Archibald, Z. (eds.), Pistiros II: Excavations and Studies (Prague), 243–48. Loukopoulou, L. 2004: ‘Thrace from Nestos to Hebros’. In Hansen, M.H. and Nielsen, T.H. (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (Oxford), 870–84. MacDonald, D. 2005: An Introduction to the History and Coinage of the Kingdom of the Bosporus: Including the Coinage of Panticapaeum (with Apollonia and Myrmecium), Phanagoria, Gorgippia, Sindicus Limen or the Sindoi, Nymphaeum, Theodosia and the Kings of the Cimmerian Bosporus (Classical Numismatic Studies 5) (Lancaster, PA/London). McInerney, J. 2001: ‘Ethnos and Ethnicity in Early Greece’. In Malkin, I. (ed.), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity (Center for Hellenic Studies, Colloquia 5) (Washington, DC/London), 51–73. Mackil, E. 2013: Creating a Common Polity: Religion, Economy, and Politics in the Making of the Greek Koinon (Hellenistic Culture and Society 55) (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London). —. 2015: ‘The Economics of Federation in the Ancient Greek World’. In Beck and Funke 2015b, 487–502. Mackil, E. and van Alfen, P.G. 2006: ‘Cooperative Coinage’. In van Alfen, P.G. (ed.), Agoranomia: Studies in Money and Exchange Presented to J.H. Kroll (New York), 201–46. Mac Sweeney, N. 2013: Foundation Myths and Politics in Ancient Ionia (Cambridge). Malkin, I. 2011: A Small Greek World: Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean (Oxford). Marjo, C.E., Davis, G., Gong. B. and Gore, D.B. 2018: ‘Spatial Variability of Elements in Ancient Greek (ca. 600–250 BC) Silver Coins Using Scanning Electron Microscopy with Energy Dispersive Spectrometry (SEM-EDS) and Time of Flight-secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (ToF-SIMS)’. Powder Diffraction 32 (S2), 95–100. Martin, T.R. 1995: ‘Coins, Mints, and the Polis’. In Hansen, M.H. (ed.), Sources for the Ancient Greek City-State (Acts of Copenhagen Polis Centre 2) (Copenhagen), 257–91. May, J.M.F 1966: The Coinage of Abdera (540–345 B.C.) (London). Melitz, J. 2016: ‘A Model of the Beginnings of Coinage in Antiquity’. European Review of Economic History 21, 83–103. Mitchell, L.G. 2015: ‘The Community of the Hellenes’. In Beck and Funke 2015b, 49–65. Möller, A. 2000: Naukratis: Trade in Archaic Greece (Oxford). Moreno, A. 2007: Feeding the Democracy: The Athenian Grain Supply in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC (Oxford). Muntz, C.E. 2017: Diodorus Siculus and the World of the Late Roman Republic (Oxford). Murray, O. 1988: ‘The Ionian Revolt’. CAH IV2, 461–90. Nadooshan, F.K. and Khazaie, M. 2011: ‘Probable Sources and Refining Technology of Parthian and Sasanian Silver Coins, Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica’. Natural Sciences in Archaeology 2.2, 89–95. Naster, P. 1975: ‘Le carré creux en numismatique grecque’. In Dentzer et al. 1975, 17–22. Nicolet-Pierre, H. 2000: ‘Métrologie des monnaies grecques. La Grèce Centrale et l’Égée aux époques archaïque et classique (VIe–IVe s.)’. Annali Istituto Italiano di Numismatica 47, 11–75. Nieling, J. 2010: ‘Persian Imperial Policy Behind the Rise and Fall of the Cimmerian Bosporus in the Last Quarter of the Sixth to the Beginning of the Fifth Century BC’. In Nieling, J. and Rehm, E. (eds.), Achaemenid Impact in the Black Sea: Communication of Power (Black Sea Studies 11) (Aarhus), 123–36. Odrin, A.V. 2004: ‘Zemel’nye resursy i zernovoe khozyaistvo Bospora VI–IV vv. do n.e.’. In Zuev, V.Y. (ed.), Bosporskii fenomen: Problemy akhronologii i datirovki pamyatnikov, vol. 1 (St Petersburg), 51–55. Osborne, R. 1994: ‘Archaeology, the Salaminioi, and the Politics of Sacred Space in Archaic Attica’. In Alcock, S.E. and Osborne, R. (eds.), Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece (Oxford), 143–60. —. 1996: Greece in the Making, 1200–479 BC (London/New York). —. 2007: ‘Archaic Greece’. In Scheidel, W., Morris, I. and Saller, R. (eds.), The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World (Cambridge), 277–301. Parker, V. 2007: ‘Tyrants and Lawgivers’. In Shapiro, H.A. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Archaic Greece (Cambridge), 13–39. Pfeiler, B. 1966: ‘Die Silberprägungen von Milet im 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr.’. SNR 45, 5–25. Picard, O. 2007: ‘Monnaie et circulation monétaire à l’époque classique’. In Brun, P. (éd.), Économies et sociétés en Grèce classique et hellénistique (Pallas 74) (Toulouse), 113–28. Podschiwalow, A. 1882: Beschreibung der unedierte und wenig bekannten Münzen von Sarmatia Europaea, Chersonesus Taurica und Bosphorus Cimmerius aus der Sammlung A.M. Podschiwalow (Moscow). Pollard, A. and Heron, C. 2008: Archaeological Chemistry, 2nd ed. (Cambridge). Preda, C. 1975: ‘Über die Silbermünzen der Stadt Istros’. Dacia 19, 77–85.

84

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Psoma, S.E. 2015: ‘Choosing and Changing Monetary Standards in the Greek World During the Archaic and the Classical Periods’. In Harris, E.M., Lewis, D.M. and Woolmer, M. (eds.), The Ancient Greek Economy: Markets, Household and City-States (Cambridge), 99–116. Psoma, S. and Tsangari, D. 2003: ‘Monnaie commune et états fédéraux. La circulation des monnayages frappés par les états fédéraux du monde grec’. In Buraselis and Zoumboulakis 2003, 111–41. Raaflaub, K.A. 2015: ‘Forerunners of Federal States: Collaboration and Integration through Alliance in Archaic and Classical Greece’. In Beck and Funke 2015b, 434–51. von Reden, S. 1995: Exchange in Ancient Greece (London). —. 1997: ‘Money, Law and Exchange: Coinage in the Greek Polis’. Journal of Hellenic Studies 117, 154–76. —. 2002: ‘Money in the Ancient Economy: A Survey of Recent Research’. Klio 84, 141–74. —. 2010: Money in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge). Reger, G. 1994: Regionalism and Change in the Economy of Independent Delos, 314–167 B.C. (Hellenistic Culture and Society 14) (Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oxford). Rehren, T. 2000: ‘Roads to Riches: Making Good the Silver Ore at Lavrion in Greece’. Archaeology International 4, 31–34. Rizakis, A.D. 2013: ‘États fédéraux et sanctuaires: Zeus Homarios et la construction de l’identité achéenne’. In Funke, P. and Haake, V. (eds.), Greek Federal States and Their Sanctuaries: Identity and Integration (Proceedings of an International Conference of the Cluster of Excellence ‘Religion and Politics’ held in Münster, 17.06.–19.06.2010) (Stuttgart), 13–47. Rostovtzeff, M.I. 1922: Iranians and Greeks in South Russia (Oxford). Roussel, D. 1976: Tribu et cité: Études sur les groupes sociaux dans les cités grecques aux époques archaïque et classique (Centre de recherches d’histoire ancienne 23; Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 193) (Paris). Rozov, V.N. 1983: ‘Bosporskie monety VI–V vv. do n.e. iz sluchainykh nakhodok na Tamanskom poluostrove (1975– 1980 gg.)’. SA 2, 109–16. Rusyaeva, A.S. 1986: ‘Milet–Didimy–Borisfen–Ol’viya. Problemy kolonizatsii Nizhnego Pobuzh’ya’. VDI 2, 25–64. Rzepka, J. 2002: ‘Ethnos, Koinon, Sympoliteia, and Greek Federal States’. In Derda, T., Urbanik, J. and Węcowski, M. (eds.), ΕΥΕΡΓΕΣΙΑΣ ΧΑΡΙΝ. Studies Presented to B. Bravo and E. Wipszycka (Journal of Juristic Papyrology Suppl. 1) (Warsaw), 225–47. Saprykin, S.Y. 2003: ‘Bosporskoe tsarstvo: ot tiranii k ellinisticheskoi monarkhii’. VDI 1, 11–35. —. 2013: ‘Arkheanaktidy i gradostroitel’stvo’. Bosporskie Issledovaniya 28, 21–46. Saprykina, I.A., Chugaev, A.V., Pelgunova, L.A., Rodinkova, V.E. and Stolyarova, D.A. 2017: ‘K probleme istochnikov postupleniya serebra na territoriyu Podneprovya v rannesrednevekovoe vremya (po materialam klada iz Sudzhi-Zamost’ya)’. Stratum Plus 5, 41–56. Saprykina, I.A. and Gunchina, O.L. 2017: ‘Khimicheskii sostav metalla bosporskikh staterov Fanagoriiskogo klada 2011 g.’. In Abramzon, M.G. and Kuznetsov, V.D. 2017: Klad pozdnebosporskikh staterov iz Fanagorii (Fanagoriya: Rezul’taty arkheologicheskikh issledovanii 5) (Moscow), 272–48. Saprykina, I.A. and Pelgunova, L.A. 2013: ‘Perspektivy issledovaniya arkheologicheskikh predmetov s pomoshch’yu RFA-spektrometrii (na primere M4 Tornado, Bruker, Germaniya)’. Fotografiya. Izobrazhenie 4.4, 80–87. Sčeglov, A.N. 1990: ‘Le commerce du blé dans le Pont Septentrional (seconde moitié du VIIème–Vème siècle)’. In Lordkipanidzé, O. and Lévêque, P. (eds.), Le Pont-Euxin vu par les Grecs  : Sources écrites et archéologie (Symposium de Vani, Colchide, septembre–octobre 1987) (Centre de recherches d’histoire ancienne 100; Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 427) (Besançon/Paris), 141–59. Schaps, D.V. 2004: The Invention of Coinage and the Monetization of Ancient Greece (Ann Arbor). Seaford, R. 2004: Money and the Early Greek Mind. Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy (Cambridge). Sear, D. 1978: Greek Coins and Their Values I: Europe (London). Seltman, C.T. 1955: Greek Coins: A History of Metallic Currency and Coinage down the Fall of Hellenistic Kingdom (London). Shelov, D.B. 1951: ‘K voprosu ob izobrazhenii l’vinoi golovy na rannikh bosporskikh monetakh’. Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Istorii Material’noi Kul’tury AN SSSR 39, 45–52. —. 1956: Monetnoe delo Bospora VI–II vv. do n.e. (Moscow) (= Coinage of the Bosporus VI–II Centuries B.C. [BAR International Series 46] [Oxford]). Sidorina, Y.N. 2016: Geokhimicheskie kriterii vyyavleniya i otsenki medno-porfirovogo orudeneniya v Baimskoi mednorudnoi zone (Zapadnaya Chukotka) (Dissertation, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow). Skarpelis, N. and Argyraki, A. 2009: ‘Geology and Origin of Supergene Ore at the Lavrion Pb-Ag-Zn Deposit, Attica, Greece’. Resource Geology 59.1, 1–14. Skudnova, V.M. 1950: ‘Dva klada monet iz Nimfeya’. VDI 4, 78–81. Smekalova, T.N. 2005: ‘Mezhdunarodnaya torgovlya zernom i poyavlenie pervykh monet na Bospore’. In Zinko, V.N. (ed.), Bospor Kimmeriiskii i varvarskii mir v period antichnosti i srednevekov’ya. Periody destabilizatsii, katastrof’ (Bosporskie Chteniya 6) (Kerch), 248–56. Smekalova, T.N. and Dyukov, Y.L. 2001: Monetnye splavy gosudarstv Prichernomor’ya. Bospor, Olviya, Tira (St Petersburg). Spier, J. 1990: ‘Emblems in Archaic Greece’. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 37, 107–29. Stacey, J.S. and Kramers, I.D. 1975: ‘Approximation of Terrestrial Lead Isotope Evolution by a Two-stage Model’. Earth Planet (Sci. Lett.) 26.2, 207–21. Stos-Gale, Z. and Gale, N. 2009: ‘Metal Provenancing Using Isotopes and the Oxford Archaeological Lead Isotope Database (OXALID)’. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 1, 195–213.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

85

Stoyanov, T. 2017: ‘Silver in the Drinking Sets in Thrace’. In The Silver of the Thracians (Exhibition Catalogue) (Sofia), 8–15. Strokin, V.L. 2010: ‘Monety s poseleniya Golubitskaya 2’. DB 14, 451–67. Tamerus, M. 2016: ‘Elusive Silver in the Achaemenid Heartland: Thoughts on the Presence and Use of Silver According to the Persepolis Fortification and Treasury Archives’. In Kleber, K. and Pirngrube, R. (eds.), Silver, Money and Credit: A Tribute to Robartus J. van der Spek (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden 128) (Leiden), 241–94. Tausend, K. 1992: Amphiktyonie und Symmachie: Formen zwischenstaatlicher Beziehungen in archaischen Griechenland (Historia Einzelschrift 73) (Stuttgart). Tite, M. 1996: ‘In Defense of Lead Isotope Analysis’. Antiquity 70, 959–62. Tolstikov, V.P. 1984: ‘K probleme obrazovaniya Bosporskogo gosudarstva’. VDI 3, 24–47. Tolstikov, V.P., Zhravlev, D.V. and Lomtadze, G.A. 2004: ‘Novye materialy k khronologii i istorii rannego Pantikapeya’. DB 7, 344–65. Tonkova, M. 1994: ‘Vestiges d’ateliers d’orfèvrerie thrace des Ve–IIIe s.av. J.-C. (sur le territoire de la Bulgarie)’. Helis 3, 175–214. —. 2015: ‘Adornments’. In Valeva, J., Graninger, D. and Nankov, E. (eds.), A Companion to Ancient Thrace (Malden, MA/Oxford), 212–28. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2008: ‘“Grain for Athens”. The View from the Black Sea’. In Alston, R. and van Nijf, O.M. (eds.), Feeding the Ancient Greek City (Groningen-Royal Holloway Studies on the Greek City after the Classical Age 1) (Leuven/Paris/Dudley, MA), 47–62. Tuplin, C.J. 2014: ‘The Changing Pattern of Achaemenid Persian Royal Coinage’. In Bernholz, P. and Vaubel, R. (eds.), Explaining Monetary and Financial Innovation: A Historical Analysis (Financial and Monetary Policy Studies 39) (Berlin), 127–68. Ustinova, Y. 1999: The Supreme Gods of the Bosporan Kingdom: Celestial Aphrodite and the Most High God (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 135) (Leiden/Boston/Cologne). Uzonyi, I., Bugoi, R., Sasianu, A., Kiss A.Z., Constantinescu, B. and Torbagyi, M. 2000: ‘Characterization of Dyrrhachium Silver Coins by Micro-PIXE Method’. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Section B 161, 748–52. van Alfen, P. 2012: ‘Problems in the Political Economy of the Archaic Greek Coinage’. Notae Numismaticae VII, 13–36. —. 2014: ‘Metoikêsis and Archaic Monetary Coordination: Teos-Abdera and Phokaia-Velia’. In Dörtlük, K., Tekin, O. and Boyraz Seyhan, R. (eds.), Proceedings: First International Congress of the Anatolian Monetary History and Numismatics (Antalya), 631–52. —. 2015: ‘The Chalkid(ik)ian Beginnings of Euboian Coinage’. In Wartenberg, U. and Amandry, M. (eds.), KAIPOΣ. Contributions to Numismatics in Honor of Basil Demetriadi (New York), 255–84. van Effenterre, H. 1973: ‘Le contrat de travail du scribe Spensithios’. BCH 97, 31–46. Vasiliev A.N. 1992: ‘K voprosu o vremeni obrazovaniya Bosporskogo gosudarstva’. In Gavrilov, A.K. (ed.), Etyudy po antichnoi istorii i kul’ture Severnogo Prichernomor’ya (St Petersburg), 111–28. Vermeule, C.C. 1954: Some Notes on Ancient Dies and Coining Methods (London). Vinogradov, Y.A. 1992: ‘Mirmekii’. In Kuznetsov, V.D., Maslennikov, A.A. and Usacheva, O.N. (eds.), Ocherki arkheologii i istorii Bospora (Moscow), 99–120. Vinogradov, Y.G. 1971: ‘Novye materialy po rannegrecheskoi ekonomike’. VDI 1, 64–76. —. 1983: ‘Polis v Severnom Prichernomor’ye’. In Golubtsova, E.S., Marinovich, L.P., Pavlovskaya, A.I. and Frolov, E.D. (eds.), Antichnaya Gretsiya 1: Stanovlenie i razvitie polisa (Moscow), 366–420. —. 1989: Politicheskaya istoriya Ol’viiskogo polisa VII–I vv. do n.e. Istoriko-epigraficheskoe issledovanie (Moscow). —. 1991: ‘Fanagoriiskie naemniki’. VDI 4, 14–33. Volkov, A.V., Sidorov, A.A. and Starostina, V.I. 2014: Metallogeniya vulkanogennykh poyasov i zon aktivizatsii (Moscow). Voudouris, P., Spry, P.G., Melfos, V., Haase, K., Klemd, R., Mavrogonatos, C., Repstock, A. and Alfieris, D. 2019: ‘Gold Deposits in Greece: Hepogene Ore Mineralogy as a Guide Precious and Critical Metal Exploration’. In Proceedings of the 1st International Electronic Conference on Mineral Science, 16–31 July 2018, 1–14 (https:// sciforum.net/paper/view/conference/5452). Will, É. 1975a: ‘Les sources des métaux monnayés dans le monde grec’. In Dentzer et al. 1975, 97–102. —. 1975b: ‘Fonctions de la monnaie dans les cités grecques de l’époque classique’. In Dentzer et al. 1975, 233–46. Yahalom-Mack, N., Langgut, D., Dvir, O., Tirosh, O., Eliyahu-Behar, A., Erel, Y., Langford, B., Frumkin, A., Ullman, M. and Davidovich, U. 2015: ‘The Earliest Lead Object in the Levant’. PLOS ONE 10 (12): e0142948 (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0142948). Yener, A.K. 1986: ‘The Archaeometry of Silver in Anatolia: The Bolkardağ Mining District’. AJA 90.4, 469–72. Yener, K., Sayre, E., Joel, E., Özbal, H., Barnes, I. and Brill, R. 1991: ‘Stable Lead Isotope Studies of Central Taurus Ore Sources and Related Artifacts from Eastern Mediterranean Chalcolithic and Bronze Age Sites’. JAS 18, 541–77. Zaginailo, A.G. 1974: ‘K voprosu o monetno-vesovykh sistemakh antichnykh gorodov Zapadnogo i Severo-Zapadnogo Prichernomor’ya v V–IV vv. do n e.’. NE 11, 48–60. Zaginailo, A.G. and Grebenkin, V.N. 1984: ‘Klassifikatsiya rannikh serebryanykh monet Istrii’. NE 14, 23–39. Zartman, R. 1974: ‘Lead Isotopic Provinces in the Cordillera of the Western United States’. Economic Geology 69, 792–805.

86

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Zavoykin, A.A. 1994: ‘«Βόσπορος Κιμμέριος?» – «Βόσπορος» – Diod., XII. 31. 1 (Opyt istochnikovedcheskogo analiza)’. Problemy Istorii, Filologii, Kul’tury 1, 64–70. —. 2006: ‘Krizis “pervoi poloviny” V v. do n.e. i problema obrazovaniya Bosporskogo gosudarstva’. RA 4, 103–11. —. 2011: ‘Byli li Arkheanaktidy “tsaryami Kimmeriiskogo Bospora” (Diod. XII. 31. 1)? K periodizatsii stanovleniya Bosporskogo gosudarstva’. In Embaterion: sbornik statei po iskusstvoznaniyu, filologii, istorii (Moscow), 291–99. —. 2013: Obrazovanie Bosporskogo gosudarstva. Arkheologiya i khronologiya stanovleniya derzhavy Spartokidov (Bosporskie Issledovaniya Suppl. 10) (Simferopol/Kerch). Zavoykin, A.A. and Kuznetsov, V.D. 2019: ‘Zametki o vtorichnom ispol’zovanii amfor v Fanagorii v arkhaicheskii period’. In Kuznetsov, V.D. (ed.), Hypanis 1 (Moscow), 73–97. Zavoykina, N.V. and Pavlichenko, N.A. 2016: ‘Pis’mo na svintsovoi plastine iz Patreya’. In Zavoykin, A.A. (ed.), Materialy po arkheologii i istorii Fanagorii 2 (Fanagoriya: Rezul’taty arkheologicheskikh issledovanii 4) (Moscow), 230–49. Zhebelev, S.A. 1953: Severnoe Prichernomor’ye (Moscow/Leningrad). Zograf, A.N. 1951: Antichnye monety (Materialy i Issledovaniya po Arkheologii SSSR 16) (Moscow/Leningrad).

INDEX

Abdera 1, 13, 23‒25, 29, 42, 43 Abydos 43, 44 Achaemenid empire 67, 69, 70 Aegean 13‒15, 44, 49 Aegina 11, 13, 15, 18, 21, 23, 24, 34, 35, 43, 44, 49 Aeginetan standard 5‒11, 13‒16, 18, 19, 21, 27, 43‒45 Aeolis 15 agora 33 amphictiony 38, 40 Anatolia 13, 68 Anokhin, V.A. 6, 11, 15‒19, 24, 33, 53 Apatouria (festival) 40 Apatouros 40, 42, 48 Aphrodite Apatouros, Ourania 39, 40 apoikia 1, 39, 41, 42, 48, 50 Apollo 35, 42, 50 Apollonia 47 Archaeanactids 1, 2, 10, 19‒21, 25, 30, 37, 49, 50 Aristonimos 12 Asia 59 Minor 11, 13, 14, 68, 70 Aspourgous 40 Athens 2, 13, 20, 21, 34, 42, 47, 49 Attic standard 15, 20, 21, 49 Attica 66, 71 Auriol 10, 11, 20 Babelon, E. 5, 11 Balkans 67 barter 34, 42 Beck, H. 37 Berthier-Delagarde, A.L. 5, 14‒16, 18 Black Sea/region 1, 13, 23, 41, 49 northern 1, 34 Pericles’ naval expedition to 49 Blavatskaya, T.V. 39 Boeotian union 50 Bosporus Asiatic 3, 8, 9, 25, 40, 45 Cimmerian 2, 5, 8‒16, 20, 21, 25, 27, 33, 35‒37, 39, 40‒44, 47‒51 European 8, 10, 36 Bresson, A. 35, 43, 47 Brill, R.H. 59 building 1, 6, 33 Bulgaria 13, 68‒70 Buttrey, T.V. 22 Caria 13, 14 Chios 13, 35, 41 Cilician-Pamphylian border 13 Clazomenae 35 Cnidus 15 Corinth 13, 34, 35 Crete 14 currency 12, 35, 36, 42 Cyclades 13, 14, 68‒70 Cyme 15 Cyzicene, coin 3, 12, 36 de Callataÿ, F. 21, 22

Delphi 50 didrachm 13 dies 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17‒19, 21‒31, 50 die-life 21, 22 Dikaia 27 diobols 20, 25 Diodorus Siculus 2, 39, 40, 49 drachms 6‒9, 11‒20, 24, 25, 29, 30, 35, 43, 44, 50, 53, 60, 63, 64, 78 Egypt 13, 44, 49 emblem, on coins 35 Epicrates 12 epigraphy 12, 40, 44 Erythrai 24, 28 ethnic abbreviation, on coins 20 Europe 59 federalism/federation 37 Fontal Peninsula 8 Frolova, N.A. 5, 6, 16, 20, 23, 24, 47 Funke, P. 37 Garkusha 8, 9 Giovannini, A. 37, 49 Golubitskaya 9, 10, 25, 30 Gorgippia 44 Gorman, V.B. 39 Gourova, N. 39 graffiti 12 Greece 13, 20, 41, 43‒45, 48‒50, 68 Graeco-Persian Wars 6, 41, 67 Hackens, T. 22 Hansen, M.H. 36, 40 Head, B.V. 12, 15, 18 Helike 44 Hellespont 43 hemidrachms 8, 11, 13, 20, 25 hemiobols 3, 7‒11, 14, 19, 20, 23, 25 hemistaters 12 Hermonassa 10, 11, 40 Herodotus 1, 38‒41, 43, 44, 48, 50, 67 Hind, J.G.F. 29 Holloway, R.R. 34 inscriptions 1, 12, 16, 40, 42 Ionia(n) 10, 11 League 38, 39 Revolt 11, 39, 41, 43, 45, 48, 50 Iran See Persia Israel 70 Isthmia 13, 30 Istria 3, 47 Italy 49 jewellers (silversmiths) 8, 50 Kamiros 15 Karyshkovskii, P.O. 15 Kepoi 40

88 Kerch Museum 8 Peninsula 48 Strait 3, 37, 39, 40, 48, 49 Kovalenko, S.A. 6, 23, 24, 33 Kraay, C.M. 16, 35 Kytaion 9, 8, 18 Lade 41 Larsen, J.A.O. 37 Laurion 43, 65‒70 lead isotope analysis 7, 59‒70 Lesbos 41 Leukon I 6 MacDonald, D. 6 MacDonald, G. 6 Macedonia 13, 68, 69 Mackil, E. 36, 37, 41, 42 Magna Graecia 22 Mardonius 67 Maroneia 67, 70 Massalia 11 May, J.M.F. 29 Mediterranean 23, 35, 50, 67 Melitz, J. 36 Mende 23, 24 metal sources 69 Miletus 11, 13, 35, 41 mina 12, 43 Möller, A. 44 monetisation 9, 20, 25, 51 Myrmekion 8, 9 Mysia 11 Mytilene 11 Naucratis 34 Neapolis 24 Nieling, J. 48 Nymphaeum 11 obols 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 20, 28 octodrachms 13, 30, 43 oinochoai 2 Olbia 12, 35, 43 Pangaios Mountains 43 Panticapaeum 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 19, 21, 33, 34, 36, 39, 40, 42, 47 Patraeos 3 Peloponnese 13, 14, 43, 44 Peresyp 8 Pericles 20, 43 Naval expedition to the Black Sea 20, 49 Persia 13, 41, 49, 67‒70 Graeco-Persian Wars 67 Persian standard 6, 10, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24, 49, 53 Phanagoria passim Philoxenos, son of Kelonos 44 Phocae 11, 34 Piraeus 42 poleis 1, 33‒44, 47‒51 Pontos 42 Poseidon Helikonios 38 Potidaea 28

INDEX

Primorskii 8, 9 Psoma, S.E. 41 punches 8, 21, 23 Raaflaub, K.A. 37 von Reden, S. 34, 35, 42 Rhegion 35 Rhodes 34 Rhodope Mountains 67‒70 Roşia Montană 67 Rzepka, J. 37 Samos 34, 35 Sanandaj 68, 69 sanctuaries 1, 38, 40, 42, 48 Schaps, D.V. 33, 36 Shelov, D.B. 5, 6, 14, 15 sigloi 13, 15, 17, 19, 24 Sinope 23, 47 Siphnos 13, 67, 70 skyphoi 1 Solenyi 8‒10 Spartocus I/Spartocids 20, 21, 39, 49, 51 Spensithios 50 Starotitarovskaya 8, 9, 25, 30, 54 staters 12‒15, 17, 18, 24, 27, 29‒31, 44 Strabo 1, 48 Strelka 9, 25, 30, 55 symmachia 37, 38, 42 Syria 68 Syros 67, 70 talents 50 Taman 8, 9, 18, 29‒31, 53 Gulf 3, 8, 10, 40 Peninsula 1, 9, 10, 25, 30, 48, 49 Tamanskii 8, 9, 25, 28, 53, 55 Taurus Mountains 68, 69 Tenedos 41 Teos 15, 23, 24, 29, 30, 38, 45 tetartemorions 7‒10, 14, 19, 20 tetradrachms 13, 24, 43 tetrobols 7‒9, 11, 14, 20, 29 Thales 38 Thasos 24, 43 Theodosia 6 Thera 13, 70 Thrace 11, 13, 43, 44, 67‒70 Tolstikov, V.P. 33 trade 12, 13, 20, 21, 43‒45, 48, 59 trihemihecta 12 trihemiobols 10, 28 triobols 6‒10, 14, 16‒20, 26, 27‒31, 53‒57, 60‒65, 78 Tsangari, D. 41 Turkey 13, 67‒70 Tyramba 8, 9 Urals 68 van Alfen, P. 35, 41 Velia 11 Vitosha, Bulgaria 68 Volna Revolutsii 8, 9, 25, 29‒31, 54, 56 Vratz 67 Vyshesteblievskaya 8, 9, 25, 29, 31, 54

89

INDEX

Wampler, J. 59 Welz, K. 16 Will, É. 42, 45 workshops 1, 50, 67 Xerxes 2, 43, 44

XRF-analysis 59–70 Zagros Mountains 68, 69 Zancle (Messene) 13, 35 Zavoykin, A.A. 9, 25 Zograf, A.N. 5, 11, 14

PLATES PLATES

Pl. 1. 1 – location of Panticapaeum, Phanagoria and Apatouros; 2 – bird’s-eye view on the settlement of Phanagoria. The ‘Upper city’ site on the left. Phanagorian Museum photograph of 2019.

91

92

PLATES

Pl. 2. 1 – plan of the ‘Upper city’ Trench, the 6th–first quarter of the 5th century BC; 2 – House 205.

PLATES

Pl. 3. Phanagoria. The ‘Upper city’ site. House 205. 1 – Ionian pitcher with coins in situ; 2 – hiding place with a hoard of early silver.

93

94

PLATES

Pl. 4. Ionian pitcher with coins.

Pl. 5. The hoard before cleaning.

PLATES

95

Pl. 6. Phases of cleaning the hoard.

96 PLATES

PLATES

Pl. 7. Restoration of the hoard. Silver chloride (AgCl) on coins.

97

98

PLATES

Pl. 8. Cleaning of triobols from silver corrosion products: a – coins before cleaning; b – after cleaning.

Pl. 9. Triobol no. 27 with indentations along the contour on the reverse applied with a punch.

PLATES

Pl. 10. Find-spots of Late Archaic Bosporan coins (mainly to Garbuzov et al. 2011)

Pl. 11. Isolated Late Archaic coins from the destruction layer of ca. 480 BC: Bosporan triobols (1–3) and hemiobol (4), ca. 490–480 BC; obol (5) and tetartemorion (6) of unknown centers (Ionia?), ca. 510–480 BC.

99

100

PLATES

Pl. 12. Phanagorian hoard. Drachms (× 3).

PLATES

Pl. 13. Phanagorian hoard. Drachms (× 3).

101

102

PLATES

Pl. 14. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols (× 3).

PLATES

Pl. 15. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols (× 3).

103

104

PLATES

Pl. 16. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols (× 3).

PLATES

Pl. 17. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols (× 3).

105

106

PLATES

Pl. 18. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols (× 3).

PLATES

Pl. 19. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols (× 3).

107

108

PLATES

Pl. 20. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols (× 3).

PLATES

Pl. 21. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols (× 3).

109

110

PLATES

Pl. 22. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols (× 3).

PLATES

Pl. 23. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols (× 3).

111

112

PLATES

Pl. 24. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols (× 3).

PLATES

Pl. 25. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols (× 3).

113

114

PLATES

Pl. 26. Triobols from the hoard weighing 3.00 to 3.19 g.

PLATES

Pl. 27. Die-life. Reconstruction of the process of deterioration of R2 and R 4 dies: breaks at the sharp edges of a square-headed die.

115

116

PLATES

Pl. 28. Die-life. Reconstruction of the process of deterioration of the square-headed reverse die R6: a new die (Phase A – no. 79) is gradually crumbling (Phases B, C, D – nos. 67, 63, 65), then loses an entire segment (Phases D, E – nos. 70, 68).

PLATES

117

Pl. 29. Die-life. Reconstruction of the process of deterioration of the square-headed reverse dies R7/8 and 12: the die 7 breaks in half.

118

PLATES

Pl. 30. Die-life. Reconstruction of the process of deterioration of the square-headed reverse dies R13 and R14.

PLATES

Pl. 31. Die-life. Reconstruction of the process of deterioration of the square-headed reverse dies R6, R7/8, R12, R14.

119

120

PLATES

Pl. 32. Close forms of quadrati incusi on early Bosporan coins from the hoard and Teos.

Pl. 33. Coinage on oblong blanks: a – Aegina stater, 495–480 BC (after Sear 1978, no. 1856); b – triobols from the hoard.

PLATES

Pl. 34. Close forms of the quadrati incusi on early Bosporan coins from the hoard, as well as Mende, Aegina, Theos, Abdera and Uncertain Macedonian Mint.

121

122

PLATES

Pl. 35. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols’ die-combinations nos. 1–8 (× 2).

PLATES

Pl. 36. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols’ die-combinations nos. 9–16 (× 2).

123

124

PLATES

Pl. 37. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols’ die-combinations nos. 17–24 (× 2).

PLATES

Pl. 38. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols’ die-combinations nos. 25–32 (× 2).

125

126

PLATES

Pl. 39. Triobols’ die-combinations. Group 1. ca. 490s BC.

PLATES

Pl. 40. Triobols’ die-combinations. Group 2. ca. 490–480 BC.

127

128

PLATES

Pl. 41. Phanagorian hoard. Drachms.

PLATES

Pl. 42. Phanagorian hoard. Drachms.

129

130

PLATES

Pl. 43. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols.

PLATES

Pl. 44. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols.

131

132

PLATES

Pl. 45. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols.

PLATES

Pl. 46. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols.

133

134

PLATES

Pl. 47. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols.

PLATES

Pl. 48. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols.

135

136

PLATES

Pl. 49. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols.

PLATES

Pl. 50. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols.

137

138

PLATES

Pl. 51. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols.

PLATES

Pl. 52. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols.

139

140

PLATES

Pl. 53. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols.

PLATES

Pl. 54. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols.

141

142

PLATES

Pl. 55. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols.

PLATES

Pl. 56. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols.

143

144

PLATES

Pl. 57. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols.

PLATES

Pl. 58. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols.

145

146

PLATES

Pl. 59. Phanagorian hoard. Triobols.

COLLOQUIA ANTIQUA 1. G.R. TSETSKHLADZE (ed.), The Black Sea, Greece, Anatolia and Europe in the First Millennium BC. 2. H. GENZ and D.P. MIELKE (eds.), Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology. 3. S.A. KOVALENKO, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. State Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts. Coins of the Black Sea Region. Part I: Ancient Coins from the Northern Black Sea Littoral. 4. A. HERMARY and G.R. TSETSKHLADZE (eds.), From the Pillars of Hercules to the Footsteps of the Argonauts. 5. L. MIHAILESCU-BÎRLIBA, Ex Toto Orbe Romano: Immigration into Roman Dacia. With Prosopographical Observations on the Population of Dacia. 6. P.-A. KREUZ, Die Grabreliefs aus dem Bosporanischen Reich. 7. F. DE ANGELIS (ed.), Regionalism and Globalism in Antiquity: Exploring Their Limits. 8. A. AVRAM, Prosopographia Ponti Euxini Externa. 9. Y.N. YOUSSEF and S. MOAWAD (eds.), From Old Cairo to the New World. Coptic Studies Presented to Gawdat Gabra on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. 10. R. ROLLINGER and K. SCHNEGG (eds.), Kulturkontakte in antiken Welten: vom Denkmodell zum Fallbeispiel. 11. S.A. KOVALENKO, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. State Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts. Coins of the Black Sea Region. Part II: Ancient Coins of the Black Sea Littoral. 12. A.V. PODOSSINOV (ed.), The Periphery of the Classical World in Ancient Geography and Cartography. 13. A.M. MADDEN, Corpus of Byzantine Church Mosaic Pavements from Israel and the Palestinian Territories. 14. A. PETROVA, Funerary Reliefs from the West Pontic Area (6th–1st Centuries BC). 15. A. FANTALKIN and O. TAL, Tell Qudadi: An Iron Age IIB Fortress on the Central Mediterranean Coast of Israel (with References to Earlier and Later Periods). 16. C.M. DRAYCOTT and M. STAMATOPOULOU (eds.), Dining and Death: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the ‘Funerary Banquet’ in Ancient Art, Burial and Belief. 17. M.-P. DE HOZ, J.P. SÁNCHEZ HERNÁNDEZ and C. MOLINA VALERO (eds.), Between Tarhuntas and Zeus Polieus: Cultural Crossroads in the Temples and Cults of Graeco-Roman Anatolia. 18. M. MANOLEDAKIS, G.R. TSETSKHLADZE and I. XYDOPOULOS (eds.), Essays on the Archaeology and Ancient History of the Black Sea Littoral. 19. R.G. GÜRTEKIN DEMIR, H. CEVIZOĞLU, Y. POLAT and G. POLAT (eds.), Archaic and Classical Western Anatolia: New Perspectives in Ceramic Studies. 20. C. KÖRNER, Die zyprischen Königtümer im Schatten der Großreiche des Vorderen Orients. Studien zu den zyprischen Monarchien vom 8. bis zum 4. Jh. v. Chr. 21. G.R. TSETSKHLADZE (ed.), Pessinus and Its Regional Setting. Volume 1. 22. G.R. TSETSKHLADZE (ed.), Pessinus and Its Regional Setting. Volume 2: Work in 2009–2013. 23. I. MOGA, Religious Excitement in Ancient Anatolia. Cult and Devotional Forms for Solar and Lunar Gods. 24. G.R. TSETSKHLADZE (ed.), Phrygia in Antiquity: From the Bronze Age to the Byzantine Period. 25. L. MIHAILESCU-BÎRLIBA (ed.), Limes, Economy and Society in the Lower Danubian Roman Provinces. 26. M. COSTANZI and M. DANA (eds.), Une autre façon d’être grec: interactions et productions des Grecs en milieu colonial/Another Way of Being Greek: Interactions and Cultural Innovations of the Greeks in a Colonial Milieu. 27. G.R. TSETSKHLADZE (ed.), Ionians in the West and East. 28. G.R. TSETSKHLADZE (ed.), Archaeology and History of Urartu (Biainili). 29. M.-P. DE HOZ, J.L. GARCÍA ALONSO and L.A. GUICHARD ROMERO (eds.), Greek Paideia and Local Tradition in the Graeco-Roman East. 30. A.V. BELOUSOV, Defixiones Olbiae Ponticae (DefOlb).

31. J. PORUCZNIK, Cultural Identity within the Northern Black Sea Region in Antiquity. (De)constructing Past Identities. 32. M.G. ABRAMZON and V.D. KUZNETSOV, Coin Hoards Volume XI: Greek Hoards, The Cimmerian Bosporus. 33. A. COŞKUN (ed.), Galatian Victories and Other Studies into the Agency and Identity of the Galatians in the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods.

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706