Hidden Power: Late Cistophoric Production and the Organization of Provincia Asia (128–89 BC) 0897223632, 9780897223638

Citation preview

Hidden Power

Late Cistophoric Production and the Organization of Provincia Asia (128–89 BC)

Lucia Francesca Carbone

THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY NEW YORK 2019

00 Carbone frontmatter.indd 1

3/12/20 11:04 AM

© 2019 The American Numismatic Society

ISSN 051-7404-x ISBN 978-0-89722-363-8

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Carbone, Lucia Francesca, author. Title: The hidden power : late cistophoric production and the organization of provincia Asia (128-89 B.C.) / by Lucia Francesca Carbone. Other titles: Late cistophoric production and the organization of provincia Asia (128-89 B.C.) Description: New York, NY : American Numismatic Society, [2019] | Series: Numismatic studies, 0517-404X ; 42 | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “Can the study of a local coinage provide elements useful for a better understanding of Roman provincial economic policy as a whole? Using the production patterns of the Asian cistophorus as a case study, this book aims to prove such a connection and, at the same time, hopes to provide useful tools for better understanding Roman economic policy in the province of Asia between its establishment in the 120s BC and the beginning of the Mithridatic Wars”-- Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2019046054 | ISBN 9780897223638 (cloth) Subjects: LCSH: Cistophorus (Coin)--Catalogs. | Coinage--Asia (Roman province)--History. | Asia (Roman province)--Economic conditions--510-30 B.C. | Asia (Roman province)--Antiquities, Roman. Classification: LCC CJ851 .C37 2019 | DDC 737.4939/23--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019046054

Printed in Canada

00 Carbone frontmatter.indd 2

3/12/20 11:04 AM

Contents

Acknowledgments vii Introduction 1 The Bequest of Attalus III

4

The Revolt of Aristonicus

7

Cistophoric Production during the Revolt of Aristonicus

10

Provincia Asia and its Cistophoric Mints (128–89 BC)

14



Aquilius’s Provincial Road and the Geography of provincia Asia 15



Aquilius’s Road and the Institution of the διοκήσεις-Conventus System

24



Cistophoric Mints and διοκήσεις-Conventus Centers

27



The Evidence from Circulation

33

Chapter 1: The 2002 Hoard (90/89 BC): An Overview

35

The Historical Context for the Deposition of the Hoard

36

Hoard Composition

38

Metrology 45 Chapter 2: Cistophoric Production at Pergamum

49

Hoard Catalogue

49

Early Cistophoric Production in Context

76

Early Cistophori in the 2002 Hoard

78

Late Cistophoric Production in Context

80

Late Cistophori in the 2002 Hoard

83

Chapter 3: Cistophoric Production at Ephesus

89

Hoard Catalogue

00 Carbone frontmatter.indd 3

89

Early Cistophoric Production in Context

110

Early Cistophori in the 2002 Hoard

112

Late Cistophoric Production in Context

114

Late Cistophori in the 2002 Hoard

117

3/12/20 11:04 AM

Chapter 4: Cistophoric Production at Tralles

123

Catalogue 123 Early Cistophoric Production in Context

148

Early Cistophori in the 2002 Hoard

150

Late Cistophoric Production in Context

151

Late Cistophori in Hoards (105–90 BC)

152

Late Cistophori in the 2002 Hoard

156

Chapter 5: Cistophoric Production at Laodicea

161

Hoard Catalogue

161

Late Cistophoric Production in Context

161

Chapter 6: Cistophoric Production at Apamea

167

Hoard Catalogue

167

Early Cistophoric Production in Context

167

Late Cistophoric Production in Context

168

Chapter 7: Cistophoric Production at Adramyteum

173

Hoard Catalogue

173

Cistophoric Production in Context

173

Partial Die Study of Adramytean Late Cistophori with the Ethnic  177 Chapter 8: Cistophoric Production at Nysa

183

Hoard Catalogue

183

Late Cistophoric Production in Context

183

Chapter 9: Cistophoric Production at Smyrna

187

Catalogue 187 Late Cistophoric Production in Context Chapter 10: Conclusions The Mints

187 191 191

The Role of the Cistophorus 193 Quantitative Overview Appendix I: Late Cistophoric Production at Tralles after 89 BC

00 Carbone frontmatter.indd 4

194 197

Late Cistophoric Production in Context

197



200

The Hoards

3/12/20 11:04 AM



The Issues

206



Control Marks

207

Quantitative Overview

212



Analysis of the Issues

212



Trallian Production in Context

218

Appendix II: Cistophoric Production and the Impact of Roman Taxation (105–ca. 58 BC) 221 Introduction 221 Cistophoric Circulation (90/89–ca. 58 BC)

222

Cistophoric Production (90/89–ca. 58 BC)

226

Cistophoric Production and Roman Taxation

232

Conclusions

235

Bibliography 237 Indices 249 Plates

00 Carbone frontmatter.indd 5

3/12/20 11:04 AM

00 Carbone frontmatter.indd 6

3/12/20 11:04 AM

Acknowledgments It is a pleasure to thank the many people whose efforts and insights helped me write this book, which began as a project for the Summer Graduate Seminar at the American Numismatic Society in 2012. My sincere gratitude goes first of all to Rick Witschonke, who suggested I pursue a die study of the late cistophori of Tralles. With his usual generosity, he not only offered his expertise and granted me access to his marvelous collection of cistophori but also put me in touch with other scholars who proved significant for my scholarly career in the years that followed. With great unselfishness, Richard Ashton and François de Callataÿ put at my disposal their unfinished study of the late cistophori of Tralles. Moreover, Richard Ashton and Philip Kinns kindly shared with me their unpublished studies on late cistophori. They also provided very useful comments on the first draft of this manuscript. I am also indebted to Andy Meadows and Oliver Hoover, whose knowledge and careful editing contributed to making this book so much better than it would otherwise be. I have greatly benefitted from the advice and encouragement of all my colleagues at the American Numismatic Society. Their unwavering support have made the painstaking process of writing this book a joyful endeavor. I am also grateful to Alice Sharpless, who shouldered with me the burden of going over thousands of images and helped me with the indexes. This project would have been immeasurably more difficult without the support of my parents, my siblings, and my friends. Daniel, Solomon, Emmanuelle, Abigail, Sajid, Sara, and Elisheba have been a constant source of strength and have brought laughter and joy in the most unexpected circumstances. It is with profound gratitude that I dedicate the book to them.

vii

00 Carbone frontmatter.indd 7

3/12/20 11:04 AM

00 Carbone frontmatter.indd 8

3/12/20 11:04 AM

Introduction

Using the production patterns of the Asian cistophorus as a case study, the present volume seeks to develop a better understanding of Roman monetary policy in the province of Asia between its establishment in the 120s BC and the beginning of the Mithridatic Wars. As will become clear in pages that follow, peaks in the cistophoric production of several mints at the time of the Mithridatic Wars suggest a certain coordination at a provincial level, but the lack of a common date for the beginning and the end of this production hint at the complex interaction between civic autonomy—officially proclaimed in the bequest of Attalus III—and Roman provincial administration.1 The cistophorus should formally be considered a civic coinage, as the presence of the ethnics of the cities on its reverse seems to prove.2 The late cistophori of Ephesus, which feature dates of the so-called Era of Freedom (counting from 134 BC and predating the death of Attalus III), deny an unequivocal connection between Roman dominion and the late cistophori.3 A high level of involvement by civic magistrates is also shown by the appearance of the same magistrates’ names on both cistophoric and bronze issues, as in the case of Apamea at the end of the first century BC.4 On the other hand, the Romans initially chose not to introduce their currency directly, but instead to retain the former Attalid silver currency. Therefore, it might be expected that the cistophorus served as the silver currency of provincia Asia, and that the provincial administration was responsible for its continued supply. This expectation is supported by the presence of the names of

1. See infra, 191–195. 2. For the discussion of the civic nature of cistophori see Thonemann 2013b. 3. Rigsby 1979. 4. The magistrate KΩKOY is present both on the Apamean late cistophori (Kleiner 1979, IX) and on the contemporary bronze coinage (SNG Copenhagen 161–162; SNG von Aulock 3466–3467). Ashton 2016, Appendix I.

1

01a Carbone introd.indd 1

3/12/20 11:20 AM

2

Hidden Power

Roman magistrates on some cistophori of the second century BC, which suggests strong Roman involvement in cistophoric production. The first name of a Roman magistrate to appear on cistophori is that of C. Atinius Labeo at Ephesus in 122/1 BC, well before it became common practice on the later Republican cistophori in 58 BC.5 Later Republican cistophori, issued between 58 and 48 BC, are characterized by the presence on their reverses of the name of a Roman magistrate and another individual, sometimes identified as a civic magistrate by his title. 6 The side-by-side mention of an official of the Roman provincial administration and of another local individual involved in monetary production is a vivid representation of the complex interaction between provincial power and civic administration exemplified by the cistophori. Substantial continuity in the activity of Asian cistophoric mints between the second and the first century BC is suggested by a die shared between a late cistophorus of Apamea bearing the full patronymic of a Greek magistrate (ΜΑΝΤΙΘΕΟΣ ΜΑΝΤΙΘΕΟΥ) and the later Republican cistophori of C. Fannius.7 This coin, probably dateable to 50/49 BC, was apparently issued in a year when no other later Republican cistophori are attested, testifying to some “fluidity” in the mint of the city, with the possibility of alternating “old style” late cistophori with the names of civic magistrates and the later Republican ones.8 The same appears to be true for Laodicea, where the same magistrate, ΕΥΗΝΟΣ ΗΡΩΔΟΥ, appears on both late cistophori and later Republican issues in the year 57/6 BC.9 The existence of cistophori struck over coins of the Macedonian First Meris and of Thasos already in the 150s BC further suggests the possibility of Roman involvement in the provision of bullion, even before the establishment of the province of Asia in 129 BC. 10 Early Roman involvement suggests that cistophori might have served as a provincial coinage right from the establishment of the province, but ethnic legends identifying the mint cities and the use of local emblems illustrating the important civic character of the coinage—already evident on the Attalid cistophori—was retained. The initial preservation of the former Attalid appearance may be explained by both political and economic preoccupations with currency stability, but the high number of obverse dies of the cistophoric issues seems to imply Roman influence, as it does not compare with the size of other civic issues, but only with the Attalid cistophori and other royal Hellenistic coinages.11 Moreover, hoard evidence suggests that cistophori circulated unmixed within provincia Asia.12 While autonomous silver coinage was still being issued at Smyrna, Chios, and several Carian cities, its production steadily decreased after the establishment of provincia Asia.13 The overwhelming majority of the silver produced in the province was therefore cistophoric, with almost no presence of Roman currency until the 40s BC.14 Finally, all cistophoric hoards buried between the establishment of the Asian province and the beginning of the Mithridatic Wars are unmixed, fur5. Kleiner 1972, nos. 19, 25; Stumpf 1991, 5–12; French 1991 (for the presence of the same magistrate on a gold stater); de Callataÿ 1997a, 179. Also de Callataÿ 2011a. 6. For examples of local magistrates identified by their titles on later Republican cistophori: ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΣ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΗΦΟΡΟΣ (Metcalf 2017, Tralles X; Stumpf 1991, no. 33), ΑΡΙΣΤΟΒΟΥΛΟΣ ΙΕΡΕΥΣ (Metcalf 2017, Tralles XII; Stumpf 1991, no. 31), MENANΔΡΟC IEPEYC (Metcalf 2017, Tralles XVII; Stumpf 1991, no. 65). 7. Kleiner 1979, 130. Later Republican cistophorus of C. Fannius: Metcalf 2017, Apamea no. XII; Stumpf 1991, no. 57. 8. Metcalf 2017, 47. 9. Late cistophori: SNG Copenhagen, Phrygia, no. 491; Marinescu 1995, 327 (this issue is included in CH IX, 560, dated to ca. 70 BC). Later Republican cistophori: Stumpf 1991, no. 27; Metcalf 2017, Laodiceia V. 10. de Callataÿ 2011, 68–69. 11. de Callataÿ 2013, tables 6.12, 6.13. 12. See infra, 33–34 and 222–226. 13. Carbone 2014. 14. Carbone 2017; Carbone forthcoming.

01a Carbone introd.indd 2

3/12/20 11:20 AM

Introduction

3

ther suggesting that the cistophorus was the only silver coinage widely circulating in the province of Asia.15 The study of cistophoric coinage, at least, until the beginning of the Mithridatic Wars, therefore, represents a powerful tool for analyzing the monetary system of provincia Asia. As might be expected, there is a direct correlation between two peaks in the circulation of cistophori and Roman military campaigns: the Revolt of Aristonicus and the Mithridatic Wars.16 Increased production in relation to military campaigns, together with the almost exclusive circulation of cistophori within the province, implies the use of this coinage to pay for at least part of the military expenses incurred by Roman armies active in provincia Asia prior to the Roman civil wars. The cistophoric issue in the name of C. Flavius Fimbria strongly supports this interpretation.17 Independent of the function that these issues might have had, however, it is evident that periods of war corresponded with the opening of new mints and with increased production by those mints already issuing cistophori.18 In the course of Aristonicus’s rebellion, the new mints of Thyatira, Apollonis, and Stratonicea on the Caicus were opened by Aristonicus himself, while Ephesus greatly intensified its production.19 Likewise, during the Mithridatic Wars, Apamea (and probably Laodicea and Nysa) began to issue late cistophori and the mints of Pergamum and Tralles intensified their issues. Wars not only caused peaks in cistophoric production, but also a change in the relative importance of the mints, with Tralles and Apamea developing at the expense of Ephesus, which probably suffered financial troubles.20 The die study of the 2002 hoard, including 1,370 tetradrachms buried in 90/89 BC (the year in which the First Mithridatic War began) provides the tools for a better understanding of the production patterns outlined above.21 The production of each cistophoric mint has been analyzed separately here, as patterns specific to each city have come to light over the course of this study. Cistophoric coinage is therefore instrumental for understanding not only the monetary policy of the province as a whole but also the specific patterns of each city. Appendix I provides a discussion of the late cistophori of Tralles struck after 89 BC, showing not only the direct correlation between cistophori and Roman military campaigns but also to Roman taxation. This correlation is indicated by the use of Sullan Era dates on these cistophori and by increased production following the Peace of Dardanus (85 BC), which severely penalized the Lydian city for its friendly relationship with Mithridates VI.22 In Appendix II, the circulation data have been combined with data derived from the Tralles die study in order to calculate cistophoric production for the entirety of provincia Asia until the end of the late cistophori in the very late 60s and early 50s BC. This estimate will provide a means to assess the financial impacts of Roman taxation and exploitation by Roman imperatores over the course of the first half of the first century BC. 15. Aydemir 1997 (CH IX, 535, ca. 120 BC); IGCH 1456 (unknown findspot, ca. 104 BC); IGCH 1458 (unknown findspot, ca. 104 BC); IGCH 1459 (unknown findspot, ca. 99 BC); IGCH 1460 (unknown findspot, ca. 95 BC); 2002 hoard (unknown findspot, 89 BC). 16. Revolt of Aristonicus: infra, 11–14. Mithridatic Wars: infra, 89–91 (Pergamum), 124–125 (Ephesus), 165–166 (Tralles). See also Appendix I, 225–226. 17. RRC II, 697; de Callataÿ 1997a, 281–282, 397–398; Witschonke and Amandry 2004/2005. 18. See infra, 161–166 (Laodicea), 167–172 (Apamea) and 183–186 (Nysa). 19. Thyatira, Apollonis, and Stratonicea on the Caicus: Robinson 1954; Jones 2004. Ephesus and Pergamum: de Callataÿ 2011, 70–3. 20. Backendorf 1999. 21. A brief note regarding the discovery of this hoard was published in NC 2004, 106, no. 129. 22. Sullan Era on Asian coinage: Leschhorn 1993, 421–423. For Sulla’s punishment of Tralles and its consequences on the monetary production of the city, see infra, 197–199, 200–201 (Sullan Era on Trallian coinage) and 215–218.

01a Carbone introd.indd 3

3/12/20 11:20 AM

4

Hidden Power

The Bequest of Attalus βασιλεύσας δὲ οὗτος ἔτη πέντε καὶ κληθεὶς Φιλομήτωρ ἐτελεύτα νόσῳ τὸν βίον, κατέλιπε δὲ κληρονόμους Ῥωμαίους· οἱ δ’ ἐπαρχίαν ἀπέδειξαν τὴν χώραν Ἀσίαν προσαγορεύσαντες ὁμώνυμον τῇ ἠπείρῳ. Attalus, surnamed Philometor, reigned five years, died of disease, and left the Romans his heirs. The Romans proclaimed the country a province, calling it Asia, by the same name as the continent. (Strabo 13.4.2, 37–42; trans. H. L. Jones) Ancient historians are unanimous in recounting that Attalus III bequeathed his territory, which later became provincia Asia, to the Roman people. 23 Strabo adds that the “Romans proclaimed the territory a province,” but he does not provide any detail regarding the years of transition between the end of Attalid rule and the establishment of provincia Asia. While the treatment of these momentous years lies outside the limits of this study, it is necessary to provide at least a general overview of the scholarship on this matter, as this will provide the premise for our specific topic, the monetary system of provincia Asia. It is generally acknowledged that Attalus III’ died in the late spring or early summer of 133 BC, and the testament through which he bequeathed his kingdom to the Romans was an actual document published in several copies around the territory of the future province.24 A Pergamene decree dated to August 133 (OGIS 338) refers to the testament and the free status of Pergamum, while also mentioning the necessity of the ratification of the document by the Romans.25 The status of other Asian cities and of the rest of the province is not specified in the decree, but Livy’s epitomator declares that the whole province of Asia had been freed by Attalus.26 Livy’s Periochae reports that Asia was declared libera et legata, a seemingly contradictory statement because the institution of a province would appear to be at odds with the freedom of the same territory. As hypothesized by G. Merola, Livy’s epitomator must have confused the (future) province as a whole, which was entrusted to Roman people (legata), with the individual cities of Asia, which were free (libera).27 At the same time, the lex portorii Asiae confirms that several cities, in spite of their free juridical status, were considered part of the territory of the province.28 The 23. Strab. 13.4.2; Livy, Per. 59; Vell. Pat. 2.4.1; Plut., Tib. Gracch. 14.1; App. Mithr. 9.62; Flor. 35.2–3; Just. 36.4.5; Eutr. 4.18. 24. Among others: Daubner 2006, 19–33; Merola 2001, 14–18; Kallet-Marx 1995, 99 (with bibliography); Gruen 1984, 595, n. 100. The most important evidence is the arrival of the news and the will in Rome before Ti. Gracchus’s death in the summer of 133 (esp. Plut. Ti. Gracch. 13.1, 14.1; Livy Per. 59. For the season, see App. BC 1.14) and the Ephesian (“Asian”) Era beginning in the year 134/3 (pace Sherwin-White 1984, 83, no. 17; cf. Rigsby 1979, 41, nos. 8–9, who alsoe recognized that the era is Ephesian rather than “provincial”). 25. IvP I 249 = OGIS 338, ll. 4–9: ἐπε]ὶ βασιλεὺς Ἄτταλος φιλομήτωρ καὶ εὐεργέτη[ς μεθισ]τάμενος ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέλοιπεν τὴμ̣ [πατρ]ίδα ἡμῶν ἐλευθέραμ̣, προσορίσας αὐτῆι καὶ πολεμ̣[ία]γ̣ χώραν, ἣν ἔκριν[εν ], δεῖ δὲ ἐπικυρωθῆναι τὴν διαθήκ̣[η]ν̣ ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων. “Because the King Attalus Philometor and Euergetes, dying, left our fatherland free but, having added a territory that he deemed should be part of the chora of the city, it is necessary that the testament is ratified by the Romans.” Wörrle 2000, 563–564; Merola 2001, 18–24; Daubner 2006, 81–95. 26. Livy, Per. 59: Aristonicus, Eumenis regis filius, Asiam occupauit, cum testamento Attali regis legata populo Romano libera esse deberet. “Aristonicus, the son of king Eumenes [in fact Attalus II Philadelphus], occupied Asia, which had been bequeathed to the Roman people and was supposed to be free.” 27. Merola 2001, 21–24. 28. Mitchell 2008, 185–187. For the juridical status of the free Asian cities, see Bernhardt 1971; Ferrary 1991; Dmtriev 2011, 226–282.

01a Carbone introd.indd 4

3/12/20 11:20 AM

Introduction

5

imprecision in Livy’s Periochae is then limited to the use of these terms to describe the province as a whole, but the cities of Asia apparently could be liberae and legatae at the same time.29 On the other hand, the existence of specific clauses regarding the freedom of the cities of Asia is suggested by Plutarch in his account of Tiberius Gracchus’s proposal for the allotment of the wealth of Asia. Here, a clear distinction is made between “Attalus’s riches” (τὰ βασιλικὰ χρήματα) and the cities that were “included in Attalus’s kingdom” (ὅσαι τῆς Ἀττάλου βασιλείας ἦσαν).30 In spite of the lack of specification of the status of the cities, the distinction per se could serve to further support the hypothesis that cities enjoyed a different—if not privileged—condition. The numismatic evidence concurs, hinting that Attalus III must have recognized the free status of Ephesus before his death since that city appears to have produced cistophori dated to an Era of Freedom already in 134–133 BC.31 Pergamum and Ephesus must have been granted similar privileges (the status of civitates liberae, evidently). Their condition was ratified by the SC Popillianum, probably in 132 BC.32 Indeed, this inscription states that the Senate ratified Attalus’s legacy in toto, but only up to the moment of Attalus’s death (i.e., before the beginning of the Revolt of Aristonicus).33 Among the several elements of interest related to this inscription, two are of outstanding relevance for the creation of the province. In the first place, another copy of this Pergamene decree was found in Phrygia. This underscores the decree’s importance, since it was apparently valid throughout former Attalid territory.34 The later date of the Phrygian inscription (119/116 BC) enhances the value of the SC Popillianum, because it implies that its importance was acknowledged even years after its original publication and all over the province.35 At the same time, it shows that 29. See the division of the territory in the Lex portorii Asiae, ll. 30–125, which followed the Attalid taxonomy: ager antea regius (Cic., De Lege agr. II, 50); ethne, as Mysians, Phrygians and Galatians (App. BC 5.4); demoi: municipalities with land (Syll3 760); civitates liberae. 30. Tib. Gracch. 14.1–2: Ἐπεὶ δὲ τοῦ Φιλομήτορος Ἀττάλου τελευτήσαντος Εὔδημος ὁ Περγαμηνὸς ἀνήνεγκε διαθήκην, ἐν ᾗ κληρονόμος ἐγέγραπτο τοῦ βασιλέως ὁ Ῥωμαίων δῆμος, εὐθὺς ὁ Τιβέριος δημαγωγῶν εἰσήνεγκε νόμον, ὅπως τὰ βασιλικὰ χρήματα κομισθέντα τοῖς τὴν χώραν διαλαγχάνουσι τῶν πολιτῶν ὑπάρχοι πρὸς κατασκευὴν καὶ γεωργίας ἀφορμήν. περὶ δὲ τῶν πόλεων ὅσαι τῆς Ἀττάλου βασιλείας ἦσαν, οὐδὲν ἔφη τῇ συγκλήτῳ βουλεύεσθαι προσήκειν, ἀλλὰ τῷ δήμῳ γνώμην αὐτὸς προθήσειν. “And now Attalus Philometor died, and Eudemus of Pergamum brought to Rome the king’s last will and testament, by which the Roman people was made his heir. At once Tiberius courted popular favour by bringing in a bill which provided that the money of King Attalus, when brought to Rome, should be given to the citizens who received a parcel of the public land, to aid them in stocking and tilling their farms. And as regarded the cities which were included in the kingdom of Attalus, he said it did not belong to the senate to deliberate about them, but he himself would submit a pertinent resolution to the people” (trans. J. W. Cohoon). Kay 2014, 59–82; Hodgson 2017, 66–80; Tan 2017, 144–170, esp. 158–159; Merola 2001, 34–40 (with bibliography). Relationship between Gracchi and Attalids in the second century BC: Gruen 1984, 599, no. 112; Daubner 2006, 35–40. 31. Rigsby 1979; Adams 1980. Relationship between freedom and monetary issues: Carbone 2016, 38–48 (with bibliography). 32. OGIS 435= IGRP IV, 301= RGDE no. 11. The text is known in three copies: see OGIS 435 and 436, and SEG 28.1208. The chronology of this document has been much debated. Kallet-Marx 1995, 353–355 offers an overview of the scholarly positions until then, while opting for a very late date of 126 BC. For a dating of 132 BC see Daubner 2006, 112–119 (with bibliography). Wörrle 2000, 566–568. Contra Merola 2001, 25–26, who dates it to the end of 133 BC. 33. For the ratification of Attalus’s acts, see OGIS 435, ll. 6–10:ὅ[σα ἐν Ἀσίαι ἕω]ς τῆς Ἀττάλου τελευτῆς ὑπὸ τῶν [βασιλέων δι]ωρθώθη ἐδωρήθη ἀφέθη ἐζημιώ[θη ὅπως ταῦτα ἦι κύ]ρια. For the chronological limitation of the ratification to the day prior to Attalus’s death, see OGIS 435, ll. 15–19: ὅ]σα τούτων ἐγένετο πρὸ μιᾶς [ἡμέρας πρὶν ἢ] [Ἄττ]αλον τελευτῆσαι, ὅπως ταῦτ[α κύρια ἦι στρατηγο]ί τε οἱ εἰς Ἀσίαν πορευόμεν[οι μηδὲν κινῶσι τὴν διαθήκ(?)]ην, ἀλλὰ ἐῶσι κύρια μένειν. “Regarding this question it seemed proper: among the matters that the king Attalus and the other kings settled, condemned, acquitted or donated, only the ones which were (taken) up to the day before Attalus died are valid.” 34. Drew-Bear 1972. 35. Drew-Bear 1978, 5.2.

01a Carbone introd.indd 5

3/12/20 11:20 AM

6

Hidden Power

Phrygia was part of provincia Asia by that time, after having been a protectorate of the Pontic king Mithridates V Euergetes.36 Secondly, the mention of στρατηγοί οἱ εἰς Ἀσίαν πορευόμενοι in the SC Popillianum is worth further analysis.37 As B. Schlüssner suggested, these magistrates may be identified as legati cum imperio. Their presence could indicate that the Romans were planning a new administrative organization for Asia as early as late 133 BC.38 On the other hand, the senatorial embassy, headed by P. Scipio Nasica and sent to Asia immediately after this decree was promulgated, was composed only of πρέσβεις, which should be understood as legati sine imperio.39 Instead of the magistrates cum imperio mentioned in the SC Popillianum, the Roman Senate sent only five legati, which seems to imply that the actual provincialization of the area must have then been postponed. Indeed, the provincialization of the former Attalid kingdom most likely took place only in 129/126 BC with the arrival of Manius Aquilius and his delegation of ten legati, who “organized the province into the scheme which it retained in these [i.e., Strabo’s] days[i.e., the early first century AD].”40 The upheaval caused by the Revolt of Aristonicus may have been a decisive element in postponing the provincialization envisaged in the SC Popillianum, but reasons related to contemporary domestic policy should not be underestimated.41 As already stated, the redistribution of the wealth and land of the former Attalid kingdom had been part of the program of Tiberius Gracchus, even if Attalus’s treasure arrived in Rome only in 130 BC.42 After the death of Tiberius Gracchus, Scipio Nasica, who may have been sent to Asia to escape the people’s wrath after the death of the tribune, was definitely not in a position to enforce the annexation of the former Attalid kingdom to Rome, one of the main points of the program of his political archenemy.43 His embassy, however, could be considered, along with the SC Popillianum, as one of Rome’s first steps into the area after Attalus’ death.

36. Phrygia: App. Mithr. 8.57: Φρυγίαν δέ σοι Μάνιος ἔδωκεν ἐπὶ δωροδοκίᾳ (Sulla to Mithridates VI). Manius gave you Phrygia for a bribe (trans. H. White). As McGing 1980 p. 38 rightly notices, Appian made confusion between Mithridates VI and his father Mithridates V who was the one who acquired Phrygia. For the discussion of the identity of the Mithridates to whom Phrygia was bestowed see Daubner 2006, 232–240. For the annexation of Phrygia to the Provincia Asia see infra, 19–20. 37. OGIS 435, ll. 18–19. 38. Schlüsser 1976, 107–108. Same meaning in IPriene 111, l. 135: τοὺ[ς] εἰς Ἀσίαν ἐ̣[στ]α̣[λμένους στ]ρα̣[τ]ηγ̣ούς (inscription concerning publicani); OGIS 339 = IK Sestos 1, l.22 : πρός τε τοὺς στρατηγοὺς τοὺς ἀποστελλομένους ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων εἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν. For the date of the embassy: Jones 2004, 482, no. 33 (with bibliography). For the dating of Scipio Nasica’s embassy to the winter 133/2 BC see Santangelo 2007, 108, no. 8. Contra, Coarelli 2005, 215, dating the arrival of the Roman envoys to Pergamum to mid-132 BC. The debate on the exact date of the embassy is summarized in Dmitriev 2005a, 7 and Dmtriev 2005b. 39. For the presence of P. Scipio Nasica see Val. Max. 5.3.2 e: sub titulo legationis Pergamum secessit; Plut. Ti. Gracch. 21.4: δείσασα περὶ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἡ βουλὴ ψηφίζεται μηδὲν δεομένη πέμπειν αὐτὸν εἰς Ἀσίαν; Vir. Ill. 64.9: per speciem legationis in Asiam oblegatus est. Scipio Nasica’s epitaph in Pergamum: MDAI(A) 35 (1910), 483, 77 (132 BC): [P. Cornelius P. f. Scipio] Nasica, l[egatus, pontifex maximus]/ [Πόπλιος Κορνήλιος Σκιπίων] Ποπλίου Νασίκας, πρεσβευτὴς, ἀρ[χιερεὺς μέγιστος]. For the interpretation of πρέσβεις as legati sine imperio see Schlüsser 1976, 105. For the presence of only five ambassadors see Strabo 14.1.38: ἔπειτα πρέσβεις Ῥωμαίων πέντε ἧκον. Kallet-Marx 1995, 105–107; Daubner 2006, 43–46. 40. Strabo 14.1.38, 19–22: Μάνιος δ’ Ἀκύλλιος ἐπελθὼν ὕπατος μετὰ δέκα πρεσβευτῶν διέταξε τὴν ἐπαρχίαν εἰς τὸ νῦν ἔτι συμμένον τῆς πολιτείας σχῆμα. See infra, 15–33. 41. Schlüsser 1976, 102 (with bibliography). Jones 2004, 482–483. 42. Plut. Tib. Gracch. 14.1. Livy, Per. 59. For Attalus’s treasure in Rome see Just. 36.4.9; Kay 2014, 63. 43. For the relationship between his role in Ti. Gracchus’s murder and his embassy to Asia: Plut. Tib. Gracc. 21; Daubner 2006, 43–45. Scipio Nasica’s political agenda: Tan 2016.

01a Carbone introd.indd 6

3/12/20 11:20 AM

Introduction

7

The Revolt of Aristonicus The ratification of Attalus’s legacy through the SC Popillianum was good news for the Greek cities of Asia that had been declared free and formed the basis for their support against Aristonicus.44 Greek cities such as Ephesus, Pergamum, Colophon, Cyzicus, and Metropolis (among others) were favored by the testament of Attalus and therefore aided the Romans, who recognized their privileged status as free cities.45 Several of them even sent embassies to Rome in order to prevent the victory of Aristonicus.46 The social claims of the rebel were possibly another reason for the cities to fight against him, as he could appeal to slaves and lower-class individuals.47 The social upheaval caused by the Revolt of Aristonicus is evident even in cities that would have benefited from the transition to Roman power. In spite of their free status, Pergamum and Ephesus reacted in different ways to the rebel. The capital of the former Attalid kingdom struggled with unrest during these years.48 Epigraphic evidence clearly shows the extreme measures that the civic administration had to take in order to avoid a mass defection to Aristonicus. In the Pergamene decree of 133 BC (OGIS 338) citizenship was granted to the paroikoi, to Mysian and Macedonian colonists, and to any free man residing in the city and its χώρα.49 Moreover, the sons of freedmen and the royal slaves who had not been bought by the last two Attalid kings (not so many, then) received the status of paroikoi.50 The existence of a stasis in the city between the supporters of this ἐλευθερία granted by the Romans and Aristonicus’s supporters is proven by the ἀτιμία and by the confiscation of the property of the latter, who are defined only as “those who had abandoned Pergamum after the death of the king.”51 The clause regarding slaves is certainly a reaction to Aristonicus’s liberation of slaves. In his description of the rebellion, Strabo is mainly interested in showing its socially subversive character and total illegitimacy.52 This argument is emphasized by C. Mileta and F. Coarelli, 44. Broughton 1951–1952, 507; Magie 1950, 149; Bernhardt 1985, 28–33; Strabo 14.1.39; Just. 36.4; Florus I. 35. 4; I Metropolis 1A. 45. Colophon: SEG 39, 1244 (decree in honor of Menippos, 120/119 BC), ll. 37–48. Cyzicus: IGRR IV, 34 (on a citizen who fought against Aristonicus on behalf of the communal good). Cf. I Metropolis 1 A, l. 25: τὴν τε πρὸς τὴν πατρίδα καὶ Ῥωμαίους εὔνοιαν φανεφὰν [...] ποιῆσαι. 46. Eudemus from Pergamum: Plut. Ti. Gracch. 14.1–2; Menippus and Polemaeus of Colophon: Robert and Robert 1989; Claros I, Menippus, I, ll. 17–22; Claros I, Polemaeus, II, ll. 19–33. Relationship between Colophon and the civitates liberae: Ferrary 1991; Sánchez 2010. Cf. Tacitus. Ann. 4.55 (regarding the possible neocorate of Asian cities based on their loyalty to Rome). 47. Strabo 14.1.39: ἤθροισε διὰ ταχέων πλῆθος ἀπόρων τε ἀνθρώπων καὶ δούλων ἐπ’ ἐλευθερίᾳ κατακεκλημένων. “[Aristonicus] quickly assembled a large number of resourceless people, and also of slaves, invited with a promise of freedom.” Mileta 1998; Coarelli 2005, 220–221. Contra Daubner 2006, 66–67. 48. Mileta 1998. Coarelli 2005, 220–221. 49. For the specific value of the term paroikoi: Papazoglou 1997, 167–168, 220–222. OGIS 338, ll. 10–19: ἀγαθῆ[ι τύχηι δεδό]/χθαι τῶι δήμωι δεδόσθαι πολιτείαν [τ]οῖς ὑπογ̣[εγραμμέ]/νοις· τοῖς ἀναφερομένοις ἐν ταῖς τῶ[ν] παροί[κων ἀπο]γραφαῖς καὶ τῶν στρατιωτῶν τοῖς κατ̣ο̣ικοῦσι̣ν [τὴμ πό]/λιγ καὶ τὴγ χώραν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Μακεδόσ̣ι̣ν καὶ Μυσ̣[οῖς] καὶ τοῖς ἀναφερομένοις ἐν τῶι φρουρίωι καὶ [τῆι πόλει τῆι] ἀρχαίαι κατοίκοις καὶ Μασδυηνοῖς κα̣[ὶ — — —]/ καὶ παραφυλακίταις καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐ[μφρού]ροις τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἢ ἐνεκτημένοις ἐν τῆ̣[ι πόλει] ἢ τῆι χώραι, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ γυναιξὶγ καὶ παισ[ίν]. 50. OGIS 338, ll. 20–26: εἰς δὲ τοὺς παροίκους μετατεθῆναι τοὺς ἐκ τ̣ἐξελευθέρων καὶ βασιλικοὺς τούς τε ἐν ἡλικα καὶ τοὺς νεωτέρους, κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ δὲ καὶ τὰς γυνα/κας πλὴν τῶν ἠγορασμένων ἐπὶ τοῦ φιλαδέλφου καὶ φιλομήτορος βασιλέων καὶ τῶν ἀνειλημμένω ἐκ τῶν οὐσιῶν τῶγ γεγενημένωμ βασιλικῶν, κατὰ τα/τὰ δὲ καὶ τοὺς δημοσίους. 51. OGIS 338, ll. 26–30: ὅσοι δὲ̣ τῶν κατοικούντων ἢ ὅσαι ἐγλελοίπασιν ὑπὸ τὸν καιρ̣ὸν τῆς τοῦ βασιλέω̣ς̣ ἢ ἐγλίπωσιν τὴμ πόλιν ἢ τὴγ χώραν, εἶναι αὐτοὺς κα/αὐτὰς ἀτίμους τε καὶ τὰ ἑκατέρων ὑπάρχοντα τῆς πόλεως. 52. Strabo 14. 1.38. Collins 1980; Sánchez León 1985–1987.

01a Carbone introd.indd 7

3/12/20 11:20 AM

8

Hidden Power

who defend the plausibility and the historical validity of Strabo’s narrative.53 On the other hand, E. Gruen argues that the social claims of the rebel and his liberation of slaves would have been an afterthought in Aristonicus’s program, as they are mentioned by Strabo only after his defeat at the hands of the Ephesians.54 In spite of these discordant opinions, epigraphic evidence suggests that social issues played a role in the rebellion, given the measures enacted at Pergamum in favor of slaves and paroikoi.55 A major element of interest lies in Aristonicus’s apparent support from the upper strata of the population as well as the Strabonian crowd of desperados. This is suggested by the fact that at Pergamum, the punishment for those who followed Aristonicus included not only ἀτιμία, but also the expropriation of their possessions by the civic administration (τὰ ἑκατέρων ὑπάρχοντα τῆς πόλεως). Without going so far as to suggest that the upper class of Pergamum was proAristonicus, it seems certain that at least some of the followers of the rebel were landowners or had other possessions of which the city could take advantage.56 A description of the turbulent years following Attalus’s death, so central to the previous decree, is completely absent from a Pergamene inscription honoring Μηνόδωρος Μητροδώρου, a very important member of the Pergamene elite who played a major role in the city during the Revolt of Aristonicus.57 This inscription, probably dateable to the 120s BC, does not explicitly mention Attalus’s death, and the choice of democracy appears to have been effortless.58 Here there is no preoccupation for κοινὴ ἀσφἀλεια, one of the leitmotifs of OGIS 338, where it is used as a justification for the ἀτιμία and the confiscation of property. The differences in the descriptions of the events immediately following Aristonicus’s rebellion are connected with the very different ends toward which the honorary decree for Μηνόδωρος and OGIS 338 aim. While OGIS 338 is contemporary with the rebellion and enumerates a series of measures taken to counteract it, the aim of the honorary decree is to show how loyal Μηνόδωρος (and with him, the city as a whole) had been to the Romans, with the result that Roman authority (Ῥωμαικὴν νομοθεσίαν) seems to have been immediately recognized.59 The total absence of any direct reference to Aristonicus in both inscriptions, however, indirectly suggests how very torn the civic community must have been. Even if from different angles, both decrees show how confused the situation was in Pergamum, with part of the population fleeing to join Aristonicus’s army while the civic authorities immediately endorsed Attalus’s testament and, consequently, Roman authority. Another perspective on the attitude of the free cities of Asia toward Aristonicus is offered by an inscription from the Ionian city of Metropolis, a decree honoring Ἀπολλώνιος Ἀττἀλου, who died fighting against Aristonicus in Thyatira.60 The decree, probably dateable to 130 BC, proves the early reception of the SC Popillianum, as line 16 clearly acknowledges τὴν ἀποδεδομένην ἡμῖν ἐλευθερίαν ὑπὸ τῆς συγκλήτου (“the freedom given to us by the Senate”). This element is a direct reference to the SC Popillianum that had recognized the privileged status of the Greek cities. 53. Mileta 1998, 57–58. Coarelli 2005, 220–221 54. Gruen 1984, 597, esp. no. 105. Contra Vogt (1974, 98 no. 18) who noted that the verb κατακεκλημένων used by Strabo regarding Aristonicus’s call to the poor and slaves, describes an act of the past, implying that the social contest of the revolt already existed from the early phases, before the naval battle of Ephesus. 55. OGIS 338, ll. 26–31. 56. Gruen 1984, 597, no. 106. 57. Wörrle 2000; Daubner 2006, 98–103. 58. Wörrle 2000, l. 11: μεταπεσὀντων τε τῶν πραγμάτων εἰς δημοκρατἰαν. 59. Ibid., ll. 12–13: μετὰ ταῦτα ἐν τῶι κατὰ τὴν Ῥωμαικὴν νομοθεσίαν βουλευτηρίωι γεωόμενος. 60. Dreyer-Engelmann 2003; I Metropolis 1A, esp. ll. 9–24; Jones 2004, 480–481.

01a Carbone introd.indd 8

3/12/20 11:20 AM

Introduction

9

The ἐλευθερία bestowed by the Romans is mentioned several times in the inscription (ll. 15, 16, 19, 21–22, 33), and represents the background and the justification for the resistance offered by Metropolis to Aristonicus.61 While important cities as Ephesus and Pergamum could have regarded their freedom as deriving from Attalus’s testament, minor cities like Metropolis regarded their freedom as mostly due to Roman intervention.62 Therefore, the Romans are recognized as οἱ εὐεργέται τε καὶ σωτήρες, titles previously attributed to Eumenes II of Pergamum and the Seleucid king Antiochus III.63 The loyalty to the Roman cause—which corresponds here with the fight for the ἐλευθερία—is also made evident by the presence of a priest of Roma in the praescript.64 Complete adherence to the Roman cause is also shown by the fact that Ἀπολλώνιος Ἀττάλου, the leader of Metropolis’s army of νεανίσκοι, died while fighting under the Roman leadership of Πόπλιος, Γάϊον, and Πάπιος, who are probably identifiable with the consul of 131 BC, Publius Licinius Crassus Mucianus, and two of his legati.65 Thus, while the epigraphic record shows that Pergamum struggled with internal dissent and Metropolis embraced the Roman cause with enthusiasm, numismatic evidence and literary sources show that Ephesus took a clear position in favor of ἐλευθερία and, consequently, against Aristonicus’s attempts to claim legitimacy. As previously mentioned, it is generally acknowledged that after 134 BC Ephesian cistophori are dated according to the so-called Era of Freedom.66 This era, previously thought to be a provincial era, has since been recognized as peculiar to Ephesus.67 The freedom celebrated on the Ephesian cistophori is the one that had been bestowed by Attalus III in his testament to the cities of Asia and ratified by the Romans through the SC Popillianum of 133 BC.68 In order to defend its own freedom, the city fought and defeated the rebel, who had initially succeeded in conquering several cities in the coastal region of the former Attalid kingdom.69 After suffering defeat at the hands of the Ephesians, Aristonicus was forced to flee inland to Lydia: first to Thyatira, then Apollonis, and finally to Stratonicea, where he was defeated by Perperna in 130 BC.70 61. Dreyer-Engelmann 2003, 28–34. 62. Ibid., 31. 63. Ibid.; I Metropolis 1A, ll. 13–14; ll. 18: τῶν κοινῶν εὐεργετῶν. For the use of this formula, see Wehrli 1978; Ferrary 1988; Erskine 1994. For the title of εὐεργέτης καὶ σωτήρ attributed to Hellenistic kings: Eumenes II (Allen 1983, Appendix IV, nos. 7–8, 211–212); Antiochus III (OGIS 763) 64. Dreyer-Engelmann 2003; I Metropolis 1A, 1–2: τ]οῦ δὲ τῆς Ῥώμης […..τοῦ] [Δ]εοννῦδ[ος]. The cult of the goddess Roma, though already present in Smyrna since 195 BC, could be considered a loyalty-cult in the region, as shown by its widespread diffusion after 167 BC in Lycia and Caria, and after 133 BC in the former Attalid kingdom. For the cult in Smyrna: Tac. Ann. 4.56.1. For the cult of Roma deriving from gratitude: Errington 1987, esp. 112–114; Bernhardt 1998, 41–42. 65. Dreyer-Engelmann 2003; I Metropolis 1A, l.26: λαβὼν τοὺς ὑποταγέντας ἑαυτῶι νεανίσκους καὶ ἀφικόμενος πρὸς Πόπλιον καὶ Γάϊον καὶ Πάπον. Identity of the three Roman commanders: Dreyer-Engelmann 2003, 73–74. “Poplios” as Publius Licinius Crassus Mucianus: Broughton, MRR II, 492–506. The other two seem to be unknown officials under the command of Mucianus (as the preeminent position of “Poplios” seem to suggest). For the monetary production of the city of Metropolis (entirely in bronze), tightly linked to the types adopted by the nearby city of Smyrna, see Kinns 2004, 85–88. 66. Adams 1980, 311–314; Rigsby 1979, 39–47. 67. Leschhorn 1993, 204–208; Ephesian freedom: Gürber 1995, 388–394. 68. A dedicatory inscription from the Capitoline Hill (ILLRP 176), mentioning the freedom of the Ephesians and previously dated to the 160s BC, had been intrepreted by Magie as a sign that Ephesus was already free before Attalus’s testament (1950, 955, no. 67). The date of this inscription has now been lowered to 130 BC (Daubner 2006, 152). 69. Florus I.35.4: Aristonicus urbis regibus parere consuetas partim facile sollicitat, paucas resistentis, Myndon, Samon, Colophona vi recepit. “Aristonicus […] easily won over some of the cities which had been accustomed to obey the kings, and compelled a few others—Myndos, Samos and Colophon—which refused to join him” (trans. E. S. Forster). 70. Strabo 14.1.38: μετὰ δὲ Σμύρναν αἱ Λεῦκαι πολίχνιον, ὃ ἀπέστησεν Ἀριστόνικος μετὰ τὴν Ἀττάλου τοῦ φιλομήτορος τελευτήν, δοκῶν τοῦ γένους εἶναι τοῦ τῶν βασιλέων καὶ διανοούμενος εἰς ἑαυτὸν ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ἀρχήν• ἐντεῦθεν μὲν οὖν ἐξέπεσεν ἡττηθεὶς ναυμαχίᾳ περὶ τὴν Κυμαίαν ὑπὸ Ἐφεσίων, εἰς δὲ τὴν μεσόγαιαν

01a Carbone introd.indd 9

3/12/20 11:20 AM

10

Hidden Power

Indeed, C. Delplace rightly spells out that Aristonicus’s rebellion reflected a clear dichotomy in the future province.71 Greek cities such as Ephesus, Pergamum, Colophon, Cyzicus, and Metropolis (among others) were favorable to the testament of Attalus and therefore to the Romans, since the Senate, through the SC Popillianum, recognized their privileged status as free cities.72 On the other hand, the hinterland, mainly composed of military colonies and royal domains, did not enjoy any of the privileges bestowed on the cities.73 Therefore, Aristonicus could find some support there.

Cistophoric Production During the Revolt of Aristonicus Aristonicus’s four-year presence in the Lydian interior and his access to silver bullion suggest the degree of support he enjoyed there. Most of the Lydian region consisted of large chunks of βασιλεία χώρα in the area around Philadelphia, and its population, mainly scattered in rural villages, was mostly composed of Macedonian colonists.74 The difference in political organization is mirrored by that in monetary production. A survey of monetary issues of the area reveals a complete lack of silver coinage, with the partial exception of Sardis, which was responsible for very rare, late cistophoric issues, dated according to an unknown era.75 The city had already issued cistophori under the Attalids even if, as in the case of Synnada, they were actually produced at Pergamum.76 Sardis also issued bronze coinage based on the contemporary Pergamene denomination system. The close relationship between the two cities is shown by the overwhelming presence of Pergamene bronze coins in archaeological excavations.77 With the exception of Sardis, the other cities in the Lydian region were relatively recent foundations, as in the case of Blaundus, a colony of Macedonian soldiers probably established by the ἀνιὼν ἤθροισε διὰ ταχέων πλῆθος ἀπόρων τε ἀνθρώπων καὶ δούλων ἐπ’ ἐλευθερίᾳ κατακεκλημένων, οὓς Ἡλιοπολίτας ἐκάλεσε. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν παρεισέπεσεν εἰς Θυάτειρα, εἶτ’ Ἀπολλωνίδα ἔσχεν, εἶτ’ ἄλλων ἐφίετο φρουρίων. “After Smyrna one comes to Leucae, a small town, which after the death of Attalus Philometor was caused to revolt by Aristonicus, who was reputed to belong to the royal family and intended to usurp the kingdom. Now he was banished from Smyrna, after being defeated in a naval battle near the Cymaean territory by the Ephesians, but he went up into the interior and quickly assembled a large number of resourceless people, and also of slaves, invited with a promise of freedom, whom he called Heliopolitae. Now he first fell upon Thyateira unexpectedly, and then got possession of Apollonis, and then set his efforts against other fortresses” (trans. H. L. Jones). Eutr. 4.20: Postea Perperna, consul Romanus, qui successor Crasso veniebat, audita belli fortuna ad Asiam celeravit et acie victum Aristonicum apud Stratonicen civitatem, quo confugerat, fame ad deditionem conpulit. Aristonicus iussu senatus Romae in carcere strangulatus est. “Soon after Perperna, the Roman consul, who was appointed successor to Grassus, hearing of the event of the war, hastened to Asia; and defeating Aristonicus in battle, near the city Stratonice to which he had fled, reduced him by famine to surrender. Aristonicus, by command of the senate, was strangled in prison at Rome” (trans. J. Selby Watson). Roman campaign against Aristonicus: most recently, Daubner 2006, 107–137. 71. Delplace 1978, 35–53. 72. See n. 45. 73. Daubner 2006, 162–170. 74. Jones 1971, 80–81. For a definition of βασιλεία χώρα, see Mitchell 2008, 187. 75. SNG von Aulock 3124; BMC Lydia, 238, nos. 7–9. The late cistophori of Sardis bear letters (𐅝, K, and KB) that have been tentatively connected to the Ephesian Era of Freedom, even though it is difficult to find a reasonable justification for the use of this dating era at Sardis. Based on this era, the Sardian cistophori of year 𐅝 (6) would be dated to 128 BC, those of year K (20) to 112 BC, and those of year KB (22) to 112 BC. We know of a treaty of alliance between Sardis and Ephesus made under the auspices of the governor Mucius Scaevola in 98 BC. This treaty guaranteed freedom to the cities involved (IGR IV.297), but this seems too feeble a connection to explain the supposed use of the Ephesian Era of Freedom in Sardis as well. Indeed, Leschhorn is convinced that the letters refer to a local and unknown era (Leschorn 1993, 213–214). For a survey of Lydian monetary issues in the second and first century BC, see Carbone 2016, 96–102, esp. figs. 1–2. 76. ECC, 78–85, esp. 80. 77. Bell 1914, I, 14.

01a Carbone introd.indd 10

3/12/20 11:20 AM

Introduction

11

Seleucid kings.78 The interior of Lydia was then a substantially undermonetized region, with an almost total lack of locally-produced silver coinage. Therefore, while fleeing the coastal part of the former Attalid kingdom, Aristonicus established new cistophoric mints. This development followed an earlier monetary policy of the Attalids, who had struck cistophori at cities that had never produced coinage before, such as the Phrygian cities of Dionysopolis, Lysias, and perhaps Diospolis or Dioskome.79 In this regard, Aristonicus proved to be a real heir of the Attalids, as he was the first and the last to strike cistophori in this part of Lydia. After the defeat of Aristonicus, Lydia did not witness a surge in monetary production until the start of the first century BC, when there was an increase (or a new beginning altogether) in the output of bronze coinage, probably simultaneously with an increase in the bronze output of Phrygia.80 The study of cistophoric production in the years of the Revolt of Aristonicus is important, as almost the totality of the hoards dated to this period are composed only of cistophori, suggesting an unmixed circulation pattern for the cistophorus.81 In the years 133–129 BC, cistophori were issued in larger quantities than during the reign of Eumenes II.82 Since Roman currencies were substantially absent from the circulation pool, cistophoric production in these years accounts for almost all the silver coinage produced in the province.83 For this reason, Aristonicus was compelled to establish cistophoric mints in the cities of the Mysian and Lydian interior. The place where Aristonicus spent the first two years of war, Thyatira, the “last city of the Mysians,” had come under Attalid rule only in 189 BC.84 A “foundation of the Macedonians,” it was in a crucial position because it lay on the route from Pergamum to Sardis.85 In this city Aristonicus struck cistophori dated to regnal years A (1) and B (2), with only three obverse dies.86 Apollonis, the city where he spent the third year of his rebellion, was located in the very fertile valley at the foot of Mount Sakarkaya. It had been founded through the synoecism of pre-existing rural villages during the reign of Eumenes II.87 Like Thyatira, its population had a very strong Macedonian component, as indicated by the Macedonian names in its ephebic lists.88 The Macedonians were quite sensitive to Aristonicus’s attempt at an Attalid restoration, since the city had been founded by Aristonicus’s supposed father.89 Apollonis, which was part of Lydia but very close to 78. Magie 1950, 132, with notes. 79. Le Rider 1990. 80. Magie 1950, 1009, n. 51. Blaundus: SNG Copenhagen, Lydia, nos. 59–73; SNG von Aulock 2919; BMC Lydia, 42–44, nos. 1–29 (133–27 BC); Philadelphia: SNG Copenhagen, Lydia, nos. 337–51; SNG von Aulock 3057–60; BMC Lydia, 179, nos. 17–23 (145–17 BC?); Tripolis: BMC Lydia, 363, nos. 1–5 (100–27 BC). 81. IGCH 1326 (Balıkesir, 135–130 BC); IGCH 1327 (Yeşilhisar, 130 BC); IGCH 1455 (unknown, 128 BC); IGCH 1328 (Şahnalı, 128 BC); CH II, 94 (“Ionia,” 130s BC?); CH VIII, 437 (unknown, 128 BC); CH VIII, 446 (Polatlı, 130 BC). For the circulation pattern of the cistophori in these years, see infra, 33–35. 82. Meadows 2013, 182, tab. 5.8b: average die use per year: 38.75 obverse dies (129–133 BC), to be compared with 16.78 obverse dies (167–150 BC). 83. Absence of Roman currencies: Carbone 2017; Carbone forthcoming. Estimate of the silver autonomous coinage issued in the province: de Callataÿ 2013 tab. 6.11. 84. Strabo 13.4.4: Μυσιῶν ἐσχάτην. Livy 37.8: the city was still under Seleucid rule during the war between Rome and Antiochus III. Ma 1999, 35; OGIS 211. 85. Strabo 13.4.4: ὑπερβᾶσι καὶ βαδίζουσιν ἐπὶ Σάρδεων πόλις ἐστὶν ἐν ἀριστερᾷ Θυάτειρα, κατοικία Μακεδόνων 86. Robinson 1954, 8 (regnal year B). 87. Strabo 13.4.4; Robert 1962, pl. XIV; Kampmann 1978 (a cistophorus in the name of King Eumenes and with the regnal year A was found at the Cabinet des Médailles de la Bibliothèque nationale de France). For the synoecism, see Thonemann 2013b, 28–29. 88. Robert 1962, 29–31, 246–247. 89. See OGIS 338, l. 13 (specifically mentioning the Macedonian colonists and bestowing privileges upon them). On the attitude of Macedonians toward Aristonicus, see Mileta 1998.

01a Carbone introd.indd 11

3/12/20 11:20 AM

12

Hidden Power

Mysian Thyatira, was 55 kilometers (300 stades) away from Pergamum and Sardis and dominated a fertile plain. 90 Given its favorable position, it is no wonder that Aristonicus spent regnal years Γ (3) and Δ (4) here, as shown by his cistophori.91 Stratonicea on the Caicus, the Lydian city in which Aristonicus spent the last year of his rebellion, was a foundation of Eumenes II in honor of his wife Stratonice, the daughter of the Cappadocian king Ariarathes IV Eusebes.92 Before he was finally besieged and captured by the consul Marcus Perperna, Aristonicus here issued the series of cistophori bearing the regnal year Δ (4).93 In spite of the “mobile” character of Aristonicus’s mint, his long presence in these cities shows their support for him.94 The issue of cistophori with his dynastic name (BA/EY) and the regular ethnic of a civic mint secured legitimacy for the rebel. On the other hand, the cities in which he resided—which had never before issued coinage—were given visibility throughout the area, permitting them to claim similar prestige to the main cistophoric mints of Asia in spite of the clear quantitative difference in the issues. The cistophori in the name of “King Eumenes” were the only cistophoric (and silver) coinage ever issued by the cities of Thyatira, Apollonis, and Stratonicea. The cistophoric production of these mints amounts to five observed tetradrachm obverse dies in total, of which two (A, B) are shared by Thyatira and Apollonis, while one (C) is shared by Apollonis year 3 and Apollonis year 4.95 Aristonicus behaved as a true heir to the Attalid policy of founding colonies in the rural parts of Lydia, thereby seeking shelter and legitimacy in these lands.96 As previously mentioned, Aristonicus pushed the traditional Attalid policy even further by making these three cities cistophoric mints, if admittedly partly out of necessity.97 At the same time, the presence of the dynastic name on his cistophori distinguishes him from the previous Attalid kings, who sought the legitimation of their kingdom, not of themselves. Cistophoric production at Pergamum, Ephesu, and Tralles also seems to be closely related to these cities’ political stance in regard to the rebel. Social unrest in Pergamum probably caused Pergamene cistophoric production to lose its predominance to Ephesus during the Revolt of Aristonicus.98 According to Kleiner and Noe, Pergamum and Ephesus had produced cistophori using 89 and 59.75 observed tetradrachm obverse dies, respectively, in the years 166–134 BC.99 In 134–128 BC, the proportions are inverted, with Pergamum using only 18 observed tetradrachm 90. Strabo 13.4.4: ἐν δεξιᾷ δ’ Ἀπολλωνίς, διέχουσα Περγάμου τριακοσίους σταδίους, τοὺς δὲ ἴσους καὶ τῶν Σάρδεων· ἐπώνυμος δ’ ἐστὶ τῆς Κυζικηνῆς Ἀπολλωνίδος· “On the right is Apollonis, which is three hundred stadia distant from Pergamum, and the same distance from Sardeis, and it is named after the Cyzicene Apollonis” (trans. H. L. Jones). 91. Robinson 1954, 8 (regnal years Γ and Δ). 92. Livy 38.39. 93. Eutr. 4.20: Postea Perperna, consul Romanus, qui successor Crasso veniebat, audita belli fortuna ad Asiam celeravit et acie victum Aristonicum apud Stratonicen civitatem, quo confugerat, fame ad deditionem conpulit. “Soon after Perperna, the Roman consul, who was appointed successor to Crassus, hearing of the event of the war, hastened to Asia; and defeating Aristonicus in battle, near the city Stratonice to which he had fled, reduced him by famine to surrender” (trans. H. G. Bohn). Contra Robert 1962, 47–48; Robinson 1954, 8 (regnal year Δ). 94. Robinson 1954, 3; ECC, 106. 95. Estimated 7.1 annual obverse drachm dies; see de Callataÿ 2013, 228. 96. Thonemann 2013b. 97. Hopp (1977, 122–124) suggests the possibility that Aristonicus could have been active well before the death of Attalus III, and this would have been suggested by the presence in Synnada of cistophori with the name ΒΑΣΥ ΑΡ. Contra ECC, 103–106; Mørkholm 1979, 47–61, esp. 52–53 (both suggesting a higher date for these cistophori, around 166 BC). 98. See supra, 7–10. 99. 166–134 BC: ECC, Pergamum series 1a–26. ECC, Ephesus series 1–39. 134–128 BC: ECC, Pergamum series 27– 31b. The decimals account for the didrachm and drachm dies.

01a Carbone introd.indd 12

3/12/20 11:20 AM

Introduction

13

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 166–134 BC Pergamum

133–128 BC Ephesus

Tralles

Figure 0.1 Cistophoric production in the Attalid kingdom according to ECC (166–128 BC).

obverse dies, compared to 44.75 at Ephesus. Tralles followed the Pergamene trend, plummeting from the use of 87.5 observed tetradrachm obverse dies in 166–134 BC to 20 during the Revolt of Aristonicus (Fig. 0.1).100 Ephesus then produced cistophori at a much higher rate in order to support the military effort against Aristonicus, while political paralysis simultaneously brought cistophoric production to a standstill at Pergamum. In the same years, the city of Tralles issued cistophori with the monogram 5, which, together with stylistic similarities to the cistophori issued by Aristonicus at Apollonis and Stratonicea, could suggest that the city sided with the rebel.101 The argument is not conclusive, however, since minting could have been imposed on the city.102 The production patterns of cistophori during Aristonicus’s rebellion confirm the previously mentioned dichotomy of the former Attalid kingdom. On one hand, Ephesus—through its fullswing issue of cistophori—highlighted its legitimacy as minting center and free city after the Roman ratification of Attalus’s testament. Pergamum and Tralles did the same, at least to a certain extent. On the other hand, Aristonicus and his host cities (possibly including Tralles) sought “royal” legitimacy through the issue of the same kind of coinage. The manifold ideological use of the cistophorus is thus quite remarkable. P. Thonemann rightly notes that in the Attalid period, the ethnic of the minting cities and the name of the magistrates allowed the coinage to have a civic aspect, while at the same time the coinage, for mere quantitative reasons, was issued under Attalid control and—at least partly—out of royal bullion.103 The anomaly of Aristonicus is made evident by his use of his dynastic name on cistophori, a unique occurrence among the Attalids. However, it was precisely the double nature of the cistophorus that allowed its use for apparently antithetical purposes, even in the years of Aristonicus’s rebellion, namely the legitimation of the claims of freedom for some cities as well as Aristonicus’s claim to the kingship.

100. 166–134 BC: ECC, Tralles series 1–41. 101. ECC, Tralles series 45–47. 102. ECC, 74–75, 106. Cistophori of Aristonicus: Robinson 1954. 103. Thonemann 2013b, 29–32.

01a Carbone introd.indd 13

3/12/20 11:20 AM

14

Hidden Power

As already noted, the prolonged success of the rebellion revealed to the Romans the existence of a manifold reality, composed of free cities jealous of their privileges as well as areas with much younger and less developed civic traditions, over which the kings of the surrounding states could lay their claims.104 The reasons for Roman intervention (to be dated to 131 BC, when the province of Asia was assigned to one of the consuls) should probably be found in the fact that the resistance against Aristonicus was led by Greek cities together with ambitious monarchs, who sought to gain part of the former Attalid kingdom.105 However, it was not only the necessity of compensating loyal allies but also the dichotomy revealed by this war that might have led Manius Aquilius to give away a great part of the spolia.106 Aquilius bestowed several rural and less-urbanized areas of the province of Asia to client kings, showing no intention of exerting any direct dominion over them.107 The Thracian Chersonese was annexed to the province of Macedonia, Telmessus was returned to the Lycians, Lycaonia, and Cilicia were given to the heirs of Ariarathes V Eusebes of Cappadocia, while so-called Greater Phrygia was bestowed upon Mithridates V of Pontus.108 At the same time, Aquilius greatly favored Greek cities and by so doing enhanced de facto Roman authority over them, as is shown by the establishment of his cult at Pergamum and by the willing cooperation of the civic elite with Roman authorities.109 The production and circulation patterns of cistophoric coinage mirrored the administrative and geographical development of the newly established province.

Provincia Asia and Its Cistophoric Mints (128–89 BC) Because the cistophorus served as the only silver coinage circulating widely in provincia Asia, at least until the introduction of Roman currencies in the 40s BC, the relationship between late cistophoric issues and Roman power is worth examining.110 The late cistophori were issued between 134/3 and 58 BC, the period in which the administrative system was created for the province.111 There is a striking correspondence between the names of cities encompassed by Aquilius’s provincial road, the διοκήσεις-conventus centers, and the cistophoric mints. This correspondence suggests that cistophoric production was related to the administrative organization of the province.

104. Magie 1950, 134. 105. Kallet-Marx 1995, 107. For the rivalry between the consuls of 131 BC to obtain the military command in Asia, see Cic. Phil. 11.18. 106. M’ Aquilius’s policy found many opponents in Rome, famously including C. Gracchus (Gell. NA 11.10). 107. Strabo 14. 1.38; Eutr. 4. 20. Kallet-Marx 1995, 109–123. 108. For Thracian Chersonese, see Cic. In Pison. 35.86: Quod cum peraeque omnes, tum acerbissime Bottiaei, Byzantii, Cherronesus, Thessalonica sensit. For Telmessus, see Strabo 14.3.4: ἔλαβε δὲ τὸ χωρίον τοῦτο (Telmessus) παρὰ Ῥωμαίων Εὐμένης ἐν τῷ Ἀντιοχικῷ πολέμῳ, καταλυθείσης δὲ τῆς βασιλείας ἀπέλαβον πάλιν οἱ Λύκιοι. For Phrygia, see Just. 37.1.2: Post haec regibus, qui aduersus Aristonicum auxilia tulerant, praemia persoluta : Mithridati Pontico Phrygia maior, filiis Ariarathis, regis Cappadociae, qui eodem bello occiderat, Lycaonia et Cilicia datae. “Rewards were then bestowed on the princes who had given aid against Aristonicus; to Mithridates of Pontus was allotted Greater Phrygia; to the sons of Ariarathes, king of Cappadocia, who had fallen in that war, were assigned Lycaonia and Cilicia” (trans. J. Selby Watson). 109. Pergamum: RDGE 12; Ephesus: ILS 34. For the cult of M’ Aquilius: IGRR IV.292, 39; 293, II, 23. For the willing cooperation of the civic elites in Pergamum, see Wörrle 2000. 110. See infra, 33–34 and 222–226. See also Carbone 2017 and forthcoming. 111. Ephesus: Kleiner 1972; Pergamum: Kleiner 1978; Apamea: Kleiner 1979; Nysa: Metcalf 2015; Broughton 1937 placed the end of late cistophoric production in the province in 67 BC, but Backerdorf 1999 showed that cistophoric production continued in some cities (most notably Pergamum) after that date, possibly until 58 BC. See also infra 2, nn. 8–9, for the shared names and dies between late and later Republican cistophori in Apamea and Laodicea.

01a Carbone introd.indd 14

3/12/20 11:20 AM

Introduction

15

Aquilius’s Provincial Road and the Geography of provincia Asia In 129 BC, one year after the defeat of Aristonicus at the hands of Perperna, Strabo reports that Manius Aquilius organized the province.112 The organization (σχῆμα) to which the geographer refers cannot be the geographical boundaries of the province, as they changed considerably between the times of Aquilius and Strabo.113 However, it could refer to the administrative changes that led to the institution of provincia Asia. The previously mentioned Pergamene inscription in honor of Μηνόδωρος Μητροδὠρου specifically refers to a legal innovation at the hands of the Romans, (i.e., the Ῥωμαικὴ νομοθεσἰα).114 This Roman legislation mentioned could then possibly be identified with the institution of the province, as a growing consensus in scholarship seems to accept.115 The milestones of Aquilius’s provincial road, all reporting their distances from Ephesus and Pergamum and bearing the name of the proconsul, thus represent a powerful piece of evidence for the institution of provincia Asia in the years immediately following Aristonicus’s defeat:116 Aquillius was adopting and affirming an existing road-network within the boundaries inherited from the Attalid kingdom, perhaps for civil purposes, possibly also for military reasons. Whatever the purpose, the establishment of an official road net-work should be understood as an assertion—symbolized by the very massiveness of the road-markers—of Roman territorial possession in Asia Minor.117 The use of the verb restituit on the milestones suggests that Aquilius’s road in Asia represented the refurbishing of a previous road that the Attalids had already inherited from their Persian predecessors.118 As in the case of the Macedonian via Egnatia, the milestones have the very important ideological function of “Romanizing” a road already in existence.119 The province of Lycia provides a very compelling comparandum for the correlation between provincial roads and the establishment of a province. The so-called Miliarium Lyciae, an inscription listing the distances between the cities in Lycia from the capital, Patara, and dedicated to the emperor Claudius, is dated to AD 45, two years after the foundation of the province of Lycia.120 Road-building and the institution of provinces, then, would appear to be closely related.

112. Strabo 14.1.38, 19–22: Μάνιος δ’ Ἀκύλλιος ἐπελθὼν ὕπατος μετὰ δέκα πρεσβευτῶν διέταξε τὴν ἐπαρχίαν εἰς τὸ νῦν ἔτι συμμένον τῆς πολιτείας σχῆμα. “Manius Aquillius came over as consul with ten lieutenants and organised the province into the form of government that still now endures” (trans. H. L. Jones). 113. For an extensive discussion of the change in the borders of provincia Asia, see Mitchell 2008. 114. Wörrle 2000, ll. 12–13: μετὰ ταῦτα ἐν τῶι κατὰ τὴν Ῥωμαικὴν νομοθεσίαν βουλευτηρίωι γενόμενος. Commentary: Wörrle 2000, 565–571. 115. Most relevantly: Deininger 1965, 7–12; Habicht 1975; Gray 1978; Mileta 1988, 59–70; Mileta 1990; Ameling 1988; Daubner 2006, 202–208; Santangelo 2007, 109. 116. For the relationship between road-building and provincial territory: Mitchell 1999, 17–21, esp. 19, table 1. For the discussion of the external boundaries of the province and their implication for the dating of the lex portorii see Mitchell 2008, 169–183. Milestones of Aquilius’s provincial road: French 2012. 117. French 2012, 8. See also French 1991, 53–54. 118. For the Persian origins of the Roman road, see French 1997. 119. For the meaning of (viam) restituere on milestones, see French 1997, 181–187; French 2012, 31 (Sağlık), 34 (Tire), 37–38 (Aydın). For the presence of milestones on the via Egnatia, see Strabo 7.7.4: ἐκ δὲ τῆς Ἀπολλωνίας εἰς Μακεδονίαν ἡ Ἐγνατία ἐστὶν ὁδὸς πρὸς ἕω, βεβηματισμένη κατὰ μίλιον καὶ κατεστηλωμένη μέχρι Κυψέλων καὶ Ἕβρου ποταμοῦ: μιλίων δ᾽ ἐστὶ πεντακοσίων τριάκοντα πέντε. “From Apollonia to Macedonia one travels the Egnatian Road, towards the east; it has been measured by Roman miles and marked by pillars as far as Cypsela and the Hebrus River—a distance of five hundred and thirty-five miles” (trans. H. L. Jones). For the original extension of the via Egnatia, see French 1997, 179–181; Sayar 2011. 120. Işık et al. 2001; Şahin and Adak 2007.

01a Carbone introd.indd 15

3/12/20 11:20 AM

16

Hidden Power

Figure 0.2. Manius Aquilius’s road (after French 2012, 45).

If this is the case, the route followed by Aquilius’s road was pivotal in establishing the initial extent of the province, which included Troas, Aeolis, Lydia, and Ionia, with parts of Phrygia, Caria, Pisidia, and Pamphylia.121 The first paragraphs (§1–37) of the lex portorii Asiae, convincingly dated by S. Mitchell to those years, are also relevant to the establishment of the boundaries of provincia Asia in the 120s BC.122 The two caput viae were the cities of Ephesus and Pergamum. Ephesus is the caput viae on all the milestones restored by Florus in 70 BC, while distances are measured from Pergamum only on the original milestones, placed by Manius Aquilius in 129/126 BC. 123 The reference to Ephesus as caput viae on the restored milestones argues in favor of the role of Ephesus as capital city of the province already in the 70s BC, as the distances in the Miliarium Lyciae are also measured from the provincial capital, Patara.124 On the other hand, the original milestones of Manius Aquilius marked with distances from Pergamum were only retrieved on the road that connected Pergamum to Side.125 This element suggests that the Roman provincial road under Manius Aquilius originally followed the route of the previous Attalid one, as distances were measured from the old Attalid 121. Magie 1950, 154–158; Jones 1971, 59; Sherwin-White 1984, 88–92; Merola 1996, 274–276. 122. Mitchell 2008, 172–178. 123. French 2012, nos. 1, 3–6. See Fig. 0.2. 124. For Ephesus as capital of Asia in the mid-first century BC, see Haensch 1997, 298–307. Miliarium Lyciae: Işık et al. 2001; Şahin and Adak 2007. 125. French 2012, nos. 7–10.

01a Carbone introd.indd 16

3/12/20 11:20 AM

Introduction

17

capital city, which was also the capital city of provincia Asia, at least initially.126 Moreover, the circumstance that the milestones on the road to Side were the only ones not restored by Florus seems to indicate that by 70 BC, Side was no longer included in the province, and therefore the road leading to this city could not be restored by the governor of the Asian province.127 On the other hand, the milestones restored by Florus in 70 BC registered the changes in the boundaries of the province and the growing importance of Ephesus. Returning to the route followed by Aquilius’s road, it is possible to state that the two caput viae were linked by a coastal road possibly leading up to Lampsacus, marked by milestones in proximity to Kazıkbağları (near Elaea) and Sağlık (near Metropolis).128 In spite of the lack of milestones in the region north of Pergamum, the final destination of the road to Lampsacus has been postulated by D. French based on the final station of the via Egnatia in Callipolis, on the other side of the Bosphorus.129 As is shown clearly by the milestone from Tire, there was another road that directly connected Ephesus and Sardis.130 From Ephesus, there was also a road leading inland to Tralles. Thereafter, the road followed the Meander Valley down to Laodicea.131 Finally, as we can infer from Strabo, another road linked Pergamum to Sardis and Side, defined by Lentulus Sphinther, proquaestor of Asia, as extrema regio provinciae maeae (with Laodicea as midpoint).132 In the north, there was a road leading from Ephesus possibly up to Lampsacus, which represented the northernmost limit of the provincial road and, at the same time, the northern boundary of the province.133 The cities of Troas, Alexandria, Parium, Lampsacus, and Ilium— which had never been subject to the Attalids—retained their freedom, as did Cyzicus.134 As already seen, however, the presence of customs stations indicates that free cities were usually included in the provincial taxation system.135 As S. Mitchell rightly notes, the exemption of Alexandria Troas from the portorium is an exception to the usual inclusion of free cities in the province; and therefore, it is duly noted in the text of the customs law.136 The city of Adramyteum controlled the gulf that Strabo calls “Idaean” (from Mount Ida) or “Adramyttene.”137 Its harbor, Canae, had been the wintering abode of the Roman fleet during the 126. Kearsley 1994; Mitchell 1993, 132, 136; Mitchell 1999, 17–21. Parts of this road were included in the via Sebaste, constructed in 6 BC in order to link Pamphylia to central Anatolia: French 1997, 182–187. 127. Mitchell 2008, 188–192, esp. 190. See infra, 17–19 and 23–24. 128. Ephesus-Pergamum-Lampsacus: Sağlık, Kazıkbağları, Dikili: see Table 0.1. For the Attalid road leading from Pergamum to Cyzicus, see Kaye 2012, 127. Galen, De Simp. Med. XII.229.16–230.5. 129. French 2012, 12–26. 130. Ephesus-Sardis: Tire: see Table 0.1. 131.Ephesus-Tralles-Laodicea: Çamlık, Aydın: see Table 0.1. 132. Pergamum-Thyatira-Sardis-Laodicea-Side: 7. Alan 8. Harmanlı 9(A)-(B). Yarașlı 1-2 10. Selimiye (Side). Strabo 13.4.4 (concerning the fact that Thyatira was located directly on the road leading to Sardis, in between Sardis and Pergamum). Side: Cic. Fam. 12.15.4: classem fugientem persecuti sumus usque Sidam, quae extrema regio est provinciae meae. “I pursued the fleet in its flight as far as Side, which district forms the border of my province” (trans. D. R. Shackleton Bailey). 133. Mitchell 2008, 183–184. 134. Alexandria: Livy 35.42.2 (free after 189 BC); Parium, Dardanus: Strabo 13.1.14, 28 (free after 89 BC); Lampsacus: Livy 43.6.9; SIG 591 (uncertain status after 80 BC); Ilium: Livy 37.56.2, 38.39.10; RDGE 53. Cyzicus: Tac. Ann. 4.36; Suet. Tib. 37.3. 135. Lex portorii, ll. 23–24, §9: Πόντωι, Καλχήδονι, Δασκυλείωι, Ἀπολλωνίαι πρὸς τῶι Ῥυνδάκου στόματι, Κυζίκωι, Πριάπῳ, Παρίῳ, Λαμψάκῳ,[----] σωι, Γαργάρωι, Ποροσελήνηι, Ἀντάνδρωι, Ἀστυρίοις, Ἀδραμυτείωι. Commentary: Cottier 2008, 110–111. 136. Ibid., ll. 104–5, §44. Mitchell 2008, 184. 137. Gulf of Adramyteum: Strabo 13.1.6: καλοῦσι δ᾽ οἱ μὲν Ἰδαῖον κόλπον, οἱ δ᾽ Ἀδραμυττηνόν. “Some call it the Idaean Gulf, others the Adramyttene” (trans. H. L. Jones).

01a Carbone introd.indd 17

3/12/20 11:20 AM

18

Hidden Power

war against Antiochus III.138 Livy states that the plains around Adramyteum provided Antiochus’s troops with an enormous amount of plunder.139 The city, however, was defended by the Romans and therefore left largely untouched by the Seleucid king.140 Since it already formed part of the Attalid kingdom, Adramyteum was included in provincia Asia, as indicated by the presence of its name in the lex portorii.141 Like many other cities included in the province, it maintained its freedom until the end of the First Mithridatic War, when it was punished by Sulla for supporting Mithridates.142 The city was the center of an assize district that included parts of Troas and Mysia.143 Table 0.1. Milestones of Manius Aquilius’s road (after French 2012). No.

Findspot

Reference

Distance

Caput Viae

Date

1

Sağlık (near Metropolis)

French 2012, no. 1; French 1995, 99, no. 3, pl. 20.3; AE 1995. 1464; SEG 45. 1625

?

Ephesus

70 BC

2

Kazıkbağları (near Elea)

French 2012, no. 2; French 1988, no. 485; CIL 3.7184

γ/III

Pergamum

70 BC

3

Dikili (W of Ephesus)

French 2012, no. 3; French 1988, no. 474; CIL 3.7183

ρλα’/CXXXI

Ephesus

70 BC

4

Tire (near Metropolis)

French 2012, no. 4; French 1988, no. 499; CIL 3.14204

κδ’/[XXI]III

Ephesus

70 BC

5

Çamlık (near Ephesus)

French 2012, no. 5; French 1988, no. 472; CIL 3.7205

ε’

Ephesus

129–126 BC

6

Aydin (Tralles)

French 2012, no. 6; French 1988, no. 198; CIL 3.479

κθ‘

Ephesus

70 BC

7

Alan (SE of Laodicea)

French 2012, no. 7; French 1988, no. 266

σιδ‘/CCXIV

Pergamum

129–126 BC

8

Harmanli (SE of Laodicea)

French 2012, no. 8; French 1988, no. 279

σκα’/ CCXXI

Pergamum

129–126 BC

9A

Yarașlı (Takina)

French 2012, no. 9A; French 1988, no. 294; CIL 3.14199

σκγ’/CCXXIII

Pergamum

129–126 BC

9B

Yarașlı

French 2012, no. 9B; French 1988 no. 295

σκζ’/CCXXVII

Pergamum

129–126 BC

10

Selimiye (5 km W of Side)

Pergamum

129–126 BC

French 2012 no. 10; French 1991b, 53, τλα’/ CCCXXXI no. 3, pl. 6, b; IK 44 (ed. Nollé)

The distances indicated on the milestones placed between Laodicea and Side demonstrate that the Asian road, as renovated by Manius Aquilius, should not be reconstructed as a linear connection between Adramyteum in the northwest and Side in the southeast, following the coast south 138. Livy 36.45.8 (Roman fleet in the harbor of Canae, 191–190 BC), 37.8.6 (Roman fleet in Canae, 190 BC), 37.12.4.1 (presence of a Roman fleet in the harbor of Canae after the defeat of the Rhodians, 190 BC). 139. Livy 37.19.1. 140. Livy 37.21.4; Ma 1999, 87. 141. Adramyteum is attested as a portorium station in the section of the lex portorii, dated by Mitchell to the 120s BC (l. 24 §9). It is also included in the section of the lex portorii dated to 17 BC: at l. 90 §39, the name of Adramyteum is listed with other cities that were assize district centers. 142. Strabo 13.1.66: ἠτύχησε δὲ τὸ Ἀδραμύττιον ἐν τῷ Μιθριδατικῷ πολέμῳ: τὴν γὰρ βουλὴν ἀπέσφαξε τῶν πολιτῶν Διόδωρος στρατηγὸς χαριζόμενος τῷ βασιλεῖ, προσποιούμενος δ᾽ ἅμα τῶν τε ἐξ Ἀκαδημίας φιλοσόφων εἶναι καὶ δίκας λέγειν καὶ σοφιστεύειν τὰ ῥητορικά. “Misfortune befell Adramyttium in the Mithridatic War, for the members of the city council were slaughtered, to please the king, by Diodorus the general, who pretended at the same time to be a philosopher of the Academy, a dispenser of justice, and a teacher of rhetoric” (trans. H. L. Jones). 143. District of Adramyteum: Pliny, NH 5.122: in hoc tractu Ide mons et in ora, quae sinum cognominavit et conventum, Adramytteos. “In this district also is Mount Ida, and on the coast Adramytteos, which gives its name to the gulf and the jurisdiction so called” (trans. J. Bostock). Jones 1971, 85–87; Magie 1950, 236–237.

01a Carbone introd.indd 18

3/12/20 11:20 AM

Introduction

19

to Ephesus before striking inland. To the contrary, the road consisted of a central triangle, with corners at Pergamum, Ephesus, and Laodicea, and extensions from Pergamum to Adramyteum and from Laodicea to Side. Laodicea represented a focal point for the provincial road, which then split into a Lycaonian route, connecting Apamea, Synnada, and Philomelium, and a Pamphylian route, ending at Side. The route can provide us with evidence for the different stages in the formation of the province. Indeed, the cities encompassed by the road (Adramyteum, Pergamum, Smyrna, Sardis, Ephesus, Tralles, Laodicea) were all included in the province. However, the apparent lack of milestones for Apamea, Synnada, and Philomelium could be interpreted as an important clue that they were not part of the province in Aquilius’s time. Southeastern Phrygia, so-called Greater Phrygia, was not included in the original route of the road because Aquilius had given it to Mithridates V.144 As already stated, the redistribution of the wealth and land of the former Attalid kingdom had been part of the reform program of Tiberius Gracchus.145 In Gellius’s account, Tiberius’s brother Gaius Gracchus fought openly against the lex Aufeia, a law apparently intended to grant part of the former Attalid kingdom to neighboring kings, possibly in return for bribes, as suggested by the accusatory words of the tribune.146 According to the tribune, Manius Aquilius’s gift of the region to Mithridates V was dictated by personal interest.147 Whatever Aquilius’s motives, Phrygia was annexed to Asia upon the Pontic king’s death in 120 BC. Appian’s statement that Phrygia “was made free by the Romans” does not represent an impediment to its annexation to provincia Asia, since we have already seen that several free cities were part of the province anyway, and that the province itself had been defined as libera et legata.148 The date of the “restoration” of the region to Rome is based on the dating of the senatus consultum Licinnianum (OGIS 436), generally considered to concern the annexation of Phrygia.149 The inscription is probably datable to 119 BC, based on the presence of the name of Licinius Geta, the praetor for that year.150 It is impossible to know for certain the reasons that led Manius Aquilius to 144. App. Mithr. 8.57. 145. Plut. Tib. Gracch. 14.1. Livy, Per. 59. See infra, 5–6. 146. Aul. Gell. 11.10–11: Ego ipse, qui aput vos verba facio, uti vectigalia vestra augeatis, quo facilius vestra commoda et rem publicam administrare possitis, non gratis prodeo. Qui prodeunt dissuasuri, ne hanc legem (Aufeiam) accipiatis, petunt non honorem a vobis, verum a Nicomede pecuniam; qui suadent, ut accipiatis, hi quoque petunt non a vobis bonam existimationem, verum a Mithridate rei familiari suae pretium et praemium; qui autem ex eodem loco atque ordine tacent, hi vel acerrimi sunt; nam ab omnibus pretium accipiunt et omnis fallunt. “I myself, who am now recommending you to increase your taxes, in order that you may the more easily serve your own advantage and administer the government, do not come here for nothing; but I ask of you, not money, but honour and your good opinion. Those who come forward to persuade you not to accept this law, do not seek honour from you, but money from Nicomedes; those also who advise you to accept it are not seeking a good opinion from you, but from Mithridates a reward and an increase of their possessions; those, however, of the same rank and order who are silent are your very bitterest enemies, since they take money from all and are false to all. ” (trans. J. C. Rolfe). Gracchus’s speech, the so-called dissuasio legis Aufeiae, highlighted the opposition between the honor (honos) for the Roman people that lawmakers should be pursuing, as opposed to economic advantage (pecunia) for themselves. 147. Lo Cascio 1982, 94–95, no. 2; Millar 1986, 9; Kay 2014, 77. 148. App. Mithr. 8.57: ᾧ λόγῳ καὶ Φρυγίαν ἀδίκως σοι δοθεῖσαν οὐχ ἑαυτῇ συντελεῖν ἐπέταξεν ἐς τοὺς φόρους, ἀλλ᾿ αὐτόνομον μεθῆκεν (Sulla to Mithridates V). “For this reason they decided, not that Phrygia, which had been given to you wrongfully, should be made tributary to Rome, but that it should be free. (trans. H. White). For free cities annexed to Asia, see Mitchell 2008, 185–187. For the specific status of free Asian cities, see Bernhardt 1971; Ferrary 1991; Dmtriev 2011, 226–282. For the province of Asia as libera et legata, see Livy, Per. 59; Merola 2001, 21–24. For the discussion, see supra, 4–5. 149. RDGE 13; RGE 49; Drew-Bear 1971; Drew-Bear 1978; McGing 1980; Merola 2001, 44–48. 150. RDGE 13, ll. 6–7: περὶ ὧν Κόιντος Φάβιος — — υἱὸς Μάξιμος (?) Γ]άιος Λικίννιος Ποπλίου[υἱὸς Γέτας]. Ryan 2001. For the discussion of the dating of this inscription, see Daubner 2006, 235–240.

01a Carbone introd.indd 19

3/12/20 11:20 AM

20

Hidden Power

establish a protectorate and what brought Rome to annex the region just a few years later. A few hypotheses can be posited, however. While the presence of publicani in Asia before the 120s BC remains an open question, it is certain that by 119 BC, the lex Sempronia de provincia Asia or de vectigalibus Asiae, regarding the exploitation of the province through the publicani, was already in place.151 One would expect that the publicani of Asia, officially invested with the right to extract the decuma, would have pressured the Senate to annex Phrygia to the province in order to maximize their profits, as was argued by Gaius Gracchus in the dissuasio legis Aufeiae.152 The apparent eagerness of the publicani to exploit Phrygia provides an important argument for dating the senatus consultum regarding the annexation of the region to 119 BC, the year following the death of Mithridates V.153 Immediately after the annexation of Greater Phrygia (Synnada and Apamea), the province of Asia also incorporated Lycaonia, the region around Philomelium. This territory had been assigned by Manius Aquilius to Ariarathes VI Epiphanes Philopator, king of Cappadocia, possibly as a protectorate.154 By the end of the second century BC, however, the province of Asia included Lycaonia, as shown by the lex de praetoriis provinciis of 100 BC.155 According to this important inscription, found in two slightly different copies at Cnidus and Delphi, the governor of Asia exerted his power over the eparcheia Lycaonia.156 By the end of the second century BC, the Asian triangle had thus acquired an eastern arm, which embraced central and southeastern Phrygia. The provincial road did not include Caria, as is clearly shown by Figure 0.2. The correspondence between inclusion on the provincial road and annexation to the province strongly suggests that Caria was not yet part of provincia Asia under Aquilius.157 At any rate, the terminus ante quem for the absorption of Caria into the province is certainly represented by the end of the First Mithridatic War, when Sulla issued several decrees bestowing privileges on cities like Stratonicea and Tabae, 151. The law is generally attributed to C. Gracchus: App. BC 1.22; Badian 1968, 48–49; Sherwin-White, JRS 72 (1982), 18–31; Kallet-Marx 1995, 120–121 and 138; Merola 2001, 34–40; Kay 2014, 59–83. The argument in favor of an organized presence of publicani in the province before the lex Sempronia relies mainly on the dating of the SC de agro Pergameno, found in several copies in the assize district centers of the province: Abbot-Johnson 12 = IGRP IV, 262 (copy at Adramyteum); Passerini 1937; Petzl 1987, n. 589; Di Stefano 1998 (copy at Smyrna); RDGE 12; Tibiletti 1957; Sherk 1966; De Martino 1983; Petzl 1985 (copy at Ephesus). The inscription, which concerns itself with limiting the power of publicani in the chora of Pergamum, had been dated originally to 129 BC, but has now been persuasively redated to 101 rather than 129: Merola 2001, 27–34; Magie 1950, 1055–56, no. 25; Mattingly 1972; Mattingly 1985, 119; De Martino 1983; Gruen 1984, 606–7; Sherwin-White 1984, 96, no. 9; Badian 1986, 15–16; Petzl 1985, 58–60. For a summary of the argument: Kay 2014, 66–69. The late dating of the SC de agro Pergameno, now widely accepted, undermines the thesis of an organized presence of publicani in Asia before the lex Sempronia. 152. Aul. Gell. 11.10: Ego ipse, qui aput vos verba facio, uti vectigalia vestra augeatis, quo facilius vestra commoda et rem publicam administrare possitis, non gratis prodeo. “I myself, who am now recommending you to increase your taxes, in order that you may the more easily serve your own advantage and administer the government, do not come here for nothing” (trans. J. C. Rolfe). The date proposed for this speech by F. Daubner is 124 BC, upon Aquilius’s return from Asia and Gracchus’s from Sardinia: Daubner 2006, 239, no. 1177. 153. RDGE, 76–77. 154. Just. 37.1.2; Dmitriev 2000. 155. Hassall, Crawford, and Reynolds 1974; Lintott 1976; Ferrary 1977, 637–641; Martin and Badian 1979, 153–160; Geelhaar 2002. 156. IK 31, ll. 22–27: στρατηγὸς ἀνθύπατός τε ὁ{ς} τὴν Ἀσίαν ἐπαρχείαν διακατέχων, οὗτος ὧι ἔλασσον Λυκαονίαν διακατέχηι, ὧι τε ἔλασσον τούτου ἡ ἐπαρχεία Λυκαονία , καθὼς καὶ πρὸ τοῦ τοῦτον τὸν νόμον κυρωθῆναι ὑπῆρχεν, ἐν̣ τούτωι τῶι νόμωι οὐκ ἠρώτηται. “The praetor or proconsul who governs the province of Asia governs Lycaonia, and the province of Lycaonia is under his government, just as before the passage of this law, and he is not affected [in this matter] by this law.” 157. The dates discussed for this annexation vary from 129 BC to the end of the First Mithridatic War. Early annexation (129 BC): Bernhardt 1971, 105–108; Jones 1971, 160; Drew-Bear 1972, 471, no. 224; Christ 1971, 59; Macro 1980, 663; Will 1982, 421. Late annexation (after 85 BC): Liebmann-Frankfort 1969, 144; Sherwin-White 1984, 89–90; Reynolds 1982, 2–3; Marek 1988, 302–308; Baronowsky 1996, 242

01a Carbone introd.indd 20

3/12/20 11:20 AM

Introduction

21

thereby implying Rome’s imperium over them.158 Although the terminus ante quem is clear, the early stages of this annexation process are in need of further clarification. Caria may have been annexed in the 120s BC in response to the support that Aristonicus is presumed to have received from the Carian cities. This does not seem to be the case, however. The rebel conquered the Carian city of Myndus “by force” (vi), meaning that the city attempted to resist his siege.159 In 131 BC, Halicarnassus supplied a ship to the consul Licinius Crassus κατὰ τοὺς λύοντας τὴν εἰρήνην (“against the disturbers of the peace”), certainly referring to the rebel and his acolytes.160 Another Carian city, Bargylia, after suffering attack by Aristonicus, was used by Manius Aquilius as a base for his military operations, and sent a contingent to help him in his campaign in Mysia Abbaitis, as we know from a decree in honor of Ποσειδώνιος Μενάνδρ̣ου.161 Manius Aquilius left his legatus Cn. Domitius there with most of the auxiliaries, as further proof of the trusting relationship between Rome and the city.162 In another votive inscription proposed by the same Ποσειδώνιος Μενάνδρ̣ου, the preservation of the autonomy of the city is mentioned, in spite of “the impending dangers.”163 This means that the city was still autonomous at the beginning of the war against Aristonicus and, since it offered support to the Romans, there is no reason to suppose that it was annexed to the province immediately afterward. If Aristonicus did not receive great support from the Carian cities, the same could be said for Mithridates VI Eupator. The cities of Alabanda, Stratonicea, and Tabae all supported Rome against him.164 The siding of Stratonicea with the Romans is further confirmed by the adoption of a quinarius-based standard for its autonomous issues during the war.165 On the other hand, the striking of didrachms on the cistophoric standard in the city of Magnesia ad Maeandrum between 88 and 85 BC suggests that this city sided with Mithridates, since the type adopted for this issue—a grazing stag—finds parallels in the issue of gold staters and silver tetradrachms issued by Pergamum in the same years, during the Mithridatic occupation.166 A further argument in favor of the autonomy of Caria, at least until the end of the First Mithridatic War, is provided by Appian. The historian wrote that the Pontic king overran the rest of the province, consisting of Mysia, Phrygia, and the parts of Asia “which had been recently acquired by the Romans,” and then sent armies to conquer Lycia, Pamphylia, and “the rest of the regions up 158. Aphrodisias: Reynolds 1982, nos. 2 (decree regarding the embassy to be sent to Q. Oppius , proconsul of Asia, in 88 BC, during Mithridates’s siege of Laodicea) and 3 (letter of Q. Oppius to the city). Stratonicea: RGDE 18 (Senatus Consultum de Stratonicensibus); App. Mithr. 3.21: ἐπανιὼν δὲ ἐκ τῆς Ἰωνίας Στρατονίκειαν εἷλε καὶ ἐζημίωσε χρήμασι καὶ φρουρὰν ἐς τὴν πόλιν ἐσήγαγε. “On his return from Ionia he (Mithridates) took Stratonicea, imposed a monetary fine on it, and installed a garrison in the city” (trans. B. McGing). Tabae: RDGE 17; Crawford-Reynolds 1974. For the relationship between freedom of Greek cities and Roman imperium in Sulla’s age, see Bernhardt 1971, 110–115; Santangelo 2007, 50–66, 122–123 (with list of the cities). 159. Florus 1.35.4. 160. CIG 2501, ll. 1–5: οἱ παρακληθέντες ἐπηγγείλαντο δωρεὰν τῇ πόλει λήρωιν τῆς νεὼς ἀποστελλομένης πρὸς τὸν Πόπλιον Οὐαλ(έριον) Κράσσον ὕπατον καὶ τοὺς/πεμφθέντας πρὸς τοὺς τόπους τῆς Ἀσίας κατὰ τοὺς λύοντας τὴν εἰρήνην. 161. I Iasos 612, ll. 13–19: Μανίου τε Ἀκυλλίου τοῦ Ῥωμαίων στρατηγοῦ ἀναζεύξαντος ἐπ[ὶ] Μυσίας τῆς καλουμένης Ἀβ[β]αϊτίδος εἰς τοὺς ἄνω τόπους, ἀπολιπόντος δὲ ἐν τῆ[ι χώρ]α[ι] ἀντιστράτηγον Γναῖον Δομέτιον Γναίου, καί τινας τῶν δυνά[μεων ἀπ]οτάξαντος αὐτῶι καὶ τοὺς πλείστους τῶν συμμάχων, ἐ[ξαγαγόντος δὲ τοὺς ὑ]πὸ τοῦ/ δήμου ἀποσταλέντας κατὰ συμμαχίαν [στρατιώτας. 162. For historical comment, see Robert 1989, 30–31. 163. I Iasos 612, ll. 2–5: ἐν τῶι πολέμωι πολλῶν καὶ μεγάλων]/περιστάντων κινδύνων τήν τε πόλιν ἡμῶν καὶ [τὴν χώραν. ὁ δῆμος, διὰ τὴν τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος] ἐπιφάνειαν τήν τε πάτριον αὐτονομ[ίαν διέσωσε. 164. Stratonicea and Alabanda: Marek 1988, 293–296. Letter of Sulla bestowing privileges to Stratonicea: OGIS 441; RDGE 63. Tabae: RDGE 17. 165. Meadows 2002, 91–95 (Group 3), 109, 122. 166. de Callataÿ 1997, 4–5(die study of the gold staters of years B, Γ and Δ of the Pergamene era), 23 (die study of the tetradrachms of years Γ and Δ of the Pergamene era), 41–42 (commentary); Kinns 2006, 46–47; Ashton 2013, 250.

01a Carbone introd.indd 21

3/12/20 11:20 AM

22

Hidden Power

to Ionia.”167 Thus Mithridates adopted a different attitude toward regions that were already part of Asia and those that were not, such as Lycia, Pamphylia, and the region between Phrygia and Ionia, corresponding to Caria. Further evidence for the annexation of Caria to the province of Asia after the First Mithridatic War comes from the sudden change in standards employed for autonomous silver issues struck by the cities of the region. Before 85 BC, standards varied between Attic, cistophoric, plinthophoric, and reduced Rhodian, but after 84 BC, standards became increasingly Romanized and converged on the quinarius standard.168 The most straightforward explanation for this development is that the whole of Caria was not part of provincia Asia until after the end of the First Mithridatic War.169 Even if the greater portion of Caria was probably annexed to the province by L. Licinius Murena between 84 and 81 BC, with the incorporation of the area around Cibyra, several clues suggest an early Roman annexation of Attalid Caria, which corresponded to Caria Hydrela.170 After the battle of Magnesia, the Romans had bestowed this region, a district of northeastern Caria located between the rivers Meander and Lycus and opposite Phrygia, on Eumenes II.171 Laodicea, one of the Attalid cistophoric mints, was located on the south bank of the Lycus and was probably assigned by the Romans to Eumenes as an appendage of Caria Hydrela.172 Indeed, the city of Laodicea, though located in Phrygia, was considered a Carian city by Ptolemy and Philostratus, thereby indicating its connection to the Carian region.173 A further argument for the early absorption of Caria Hydrela into the province of Asia is the inclusion of this district, along with Laodicea and part of southern Phrygia, on the provincial road built by Manius Aquilius.174 The existence of the provincial road also shows that the Roman presence extended into Pisidia and Pamphylia, which represented the core of the future Cilician province. This new province was established in 102 BC in the propraetorship of M. Antonius and was included in the lex de prae167. App. Mithr. 3.20: ὃ μὲν δὴ καὶ Φρυγίας τὰ λοιπὰ καὶ Μυσίαν καὶ Ἀσίαν, ἃ Ῥωμαίοις νεόκτητα ἦν, ἐπέτρεχε καὶ ἐς τὰ περίοικα περιπέμπων ὑπηγάγετο Λυκίαν τε καὶ Παμφυλίαν καὶ τὰ μέχρις Ἰωνίας. “He overran the rest of Phrygia, together with Mysia and those parts of Asia which had been lately acquired by the Romans. Then he sent his officers to the adjoining provinces and subjugated Lycia, Pamphylia, and the adjoining country as far as Ionia” (trans. H. L. Jones). 168. Attic standard before the end of the First Mithridatic War: Euromos, mid-second century BC (Ashton 2003a, 35– 36. Ashton 2013, 252–253); Myndus, mid-second century BC (Göktürk 1996, 7–8. Zabel and Meadows 2002, 246–247). Cistophoric standard before the end of the First Mithridatic War: Alabanda, ca. 167–133 BC (Waggoner 1989, 283–290; Meadows 2008, 163–179; Ashton 2013, 252); Alinda, second half of the second century BC (Ashton 2013, 253–255); Magnesia ad Maeandrum, 88–85 BC (Kinns 2006, 41, 47; Ashton 2013, 250); Stratonicea, after 167 BC (Meadows 2002, 80, group 1, 120; Ashton 2013, 252). Plintophoric standard before the end of the First Mithridatic War: Caunus, after 167 BC (Ashton 1988, 67–70; Ashton 1999, 145–146, 150–151; Ashton 2013, 259); Ceramus, 167–129 BC (Spanu 1997, 32–34; Ashton 2013, 259–260); Stratonicea, 133–129 BC (Meadows 2002, 80–91, group 2 and 121; Ashton 2013, 259); Tabae, after 167 BC (Robert and Robert 1954, 124, groups A–B, and 132). Light Rhodian: Bargylia, mid-second century BC (Weiser 1985, 182–183; Zabel and Meadows 2002, 246–247). Roman standard after 84 BC: Attouda (Imhoof-Blumer 1901–1902, 123, nos. 1–2; RPC I, 468; Ashton and Weiss 1997, 37); Mylasa, after 39 BC? (Ashton 1990, 224–225; RPC I, 2783–2784); Plarasa-Aphrodisias, first century BC (MacDonald 1992, Types 1–26; Johnston 1995, 62; Ashton and Weiss 1997, 37); Stratonicea, 40–31 BC (RPC I, 2775–2776. Ashton and Weiss 1997, 37; Meadows 2002, 95, Group 4, Type A, 111 and 125; Ferriès and Delrieux 2011, 452–454); Tabae, after 84 BC (Robert and Robert 1954, 125 (Group D); Troxell and Waggoner 1978, 22). 169. Marek 1988, 302. 170. Baronowsky 1996, 246–248. 171. Livy 37.56: Cariam, quae Hydrela appellatur, agrumque Hydrelitanum ad Phrygiam uergentem, et castella uicosque ad Maeandrum amnem et oppida, [...]. haec omnia, quae supra sunt scripta, regi Eumeni iussa dari. “The Caria that is called Hydrela, and the territory of Hydrela on the Phrygian side [...] Orders were issued for all the aforementioned territories to be awarded to Eumenes” (trans. J. C. Yardley). 172. ECC, Laodiceia, 97–99. 173. Ptol. 2.18; Phil. Lives of the Sophists 1.25. 174. French 2012, nos. 7–8.

01a Carbone introd.indd 22

3/12/20 11:20 AM

Introduction

23

toriis provinciis of 100 BC.175 Initially, this presence was probably confined to the control of the route from Laodiceia into Pamphylia, but later the Romans seem to have brought other cities like Telmessus into the scope of the province, after the First Mithridatic War showed the importance of controlling the road connecting Phrygia to Pamphylia.176 Moving further south, the connection between Pamphylia and Asia is suggested by the lex portorii, where the four Pamphylian cities of Perge, Magydus, Phaselis, and Side (Coryphe, the harbor of the city) are mentioned among the maritime customs stations.177 The discovery of a milestone of Manius Aquilius’s provincial road measuring the distance between Side and Pergamum seems to point in the same direction.178 While scholars have doubted or denied that Pamphylia was attached to Asia, its inclusion on the provincial road and in the lex portorii argue for an integration of the city and of (at least a part of) Pamphylia with the province at an early date, which would be perfectly consistent with the dating of this part of the lex portorii to the 120s BC, as proposed by S. Mitchell.179 Furthermore, the monetary history of Side, the most important mint in Pamphylia, shows a significant break in the production of its full Attic-weight tetradrachms between the 120s BC (the years in which the province was established) and the mid-first century BC, when imitative Sidetan coinage began to be issued on a new, reduced Attic standard, probably under Roman influence.180 While there is no unequivocal correspondence between the change in juridical status and the issue of autonomous coinage, the end of the century-long production of Sidetan tetradrachms precisely around the years of the institution of provincia Asia, along with inclusion on Aquilius’s provincial road and in the lex portorii Asiae, suggests that a significant change must have occurred in the political milieu of the area.181

175. Roman presence in these regions: Magie 1950, 1042 n. 26; Sherwin-White 1984, 88–92, 152–157. Province of Cilicia first instituted under M. Antonius: Proconsul in Ciliciam proficiscens (Cic., de Or. 82). praetor in Ciliciam (Liv. Per. 68). in Cilicia (Cic. Br. 168). Cic. Verr. II, 1.38.95: Pro quaestore vero quo modo iste commune Milyadum vexarit, quo modo Lyciam, Pamphyliam, Pisidiam Phrygiamque totam frumento imperando, aestimando …. adflixerit, non est necesse demonstrare verbis. (speaking of Dolabella). “How, as acting quaestor, he harried the Milyada community, and the injuries he inflicted throughout Lycia and Pamphylia, Pisidia and Phrygia, by demanding corn and making them pay money instead …. This I need not expound in detail” (trans. L. H. G. Greenwood). Lex de praetoriis provinciis: Hassall, Crawford and Reynolds 1974; Lintott 1976; Ferrary 1977, 637–641; Martin–Badian 1979, 153–160; Geelhaar 2002. 176. The lex Antonia de Termessibus, regarding the status of the Pisidian city of Telmessus, provides substantial help in shedding some light on the extent of Roman power and of the province of Asia in the Pisidian region. The law is dated to 68 BC, but it was enacted to confirm the free status of the city as established by a treaty of 91 BC between the Romans and the city. The city was then formally separate from the province of Asia but associated with it. (Ferrary 1985; Leschhorn 1993, 392–395.) It is, however, only in 91 BC, right before the beginning of the First Mithridatic War, that these privileges had been actually sanctioned, since the city was located in an important strategic area on the border between Phrygia and Pamphylia. CIL I, 589 I, 14; II, 18–19, cf. 24–25 (referring to the status of free city that the city enjoyed ante Mithridatis bellum): leiberi amicei socieique populi Romani sunto eique legibus sueis ita utunto itaque ieis omnibus sueis legibus Thermensis Maioribus Pisideis utei liceto. 177. Ibid., l. 26, §9: Π̣έργηι, Μαγύδωι, Φασηλίδι, Σίδηι Κορυφῆι; Mitchell 2008, 188–192. 178. French 1991, 53–54. 179. For discussion of the dating of §§1–30 of the lex portorii to the time of the institution of provincia Asia: Mitchell 2008, 198–201. Inclusion of Pamphylia in the province: Mitchell 2008, 188–192 (contra Heil 1991, 13; Dreher 1996, 117; Spagnuolo Vigorita 1996, 23). 180. Meadows 2006, esp. 21–23, where Meadows rightly noted that the imitative coinage of Side was not necessarily issued in the city. For coinage of Pamphylia in the course of the first century BC, see Meadows 2014. 181. For the lack of correlation between sovereignty and monetary issues in the Greek world, see Martin 1985 and Meadows 2001. For the relationship between the decrease in autonomous silver issues in Asia and Roman power, see Carbone 2014.

01a Carbone introd.indd 23

3/12/20 11:20 AM

24

Hidden Power

All these elements combined suggest that Pamphylia was initially part of provincia Asia and was officially separated from it only in 102 BC, with the decision to create a new southern Anatolian command for M. Antonius.182 The provincial road built by Manius Aquilius thus delimited the boundaries of the province of Asia and of the areas of Roman control—if not of direct dominion—quite well.

Aquilius’s Road and the Institution of the διοκήσεις-conventus System Having argued that there is a correlation between the inclusion of certain cities on Aquilius’s road and their incorporation into provincia Asia, it will now be proposed that there is also a strong correspondence between the cities on Aquilius’s provincial road, the cistophoric mints active between the second and the first century BC ,and the institution of the διοκήσεις-conventus system. In his Naturalis Historia, Pliny the Elder was the first not only to provide the list of ten conventus centers, but also to describe the geographical boundaries of each district and the political entities included within it.183 Pliny’s source certainly dates to the Augustan age and, though not completely exhaustive, provides precious information for the administrative geography of the province.184 While only indirect evidence sheds any light on the pre-Plinian period, it is possible to gather copious amounts of data from very diverse sources, as Table 0.2 clearly shows. The date of the institution of the assize districts of Asia has been the subject of lengthy scholarly discussion.185 As already noted, a growing consensus argues that the restoration of the provincial road at the hands of Manius Aquilius should be put in relation to the institution of the διοκήσεις.186 Indeed, the construction of a provincial road was tightly connected to the institution of the province per se and was instrumental to its administration, as governors were expected to travel all over the province in order to hold court.187 Strabo defines the διοικήσεις as the places “where they [i.e., the inhabitants of the province] hold their popular gatherings and their courts” (ἐν αἷς τὰς ἀγοραίους ποιοῦνται καὶ τὰς δικαιοδοσίας).188

182. Travel of M. Antonius, governor of Cilicia, to Side: ILLRP I 342 (Corinth). Mitchell 2008, 190. 183. NH 5, 95–109: Adramyteum, Pergamum, Smyrna, Sardis, Ephesus, Alabanda, Cibyra, Apamea, Synnada, and Lycaonia (Philomelium). 184. Robert 1949. 185. Most relevantly: Gray 1978. Deininger 1965, 7–12; Habicht 1975; Mileta 1988, 59–70; Mileta 1990; Ameling 1988; Daubner 2006, 202–208; Santangelo 2007, 109. 186.Mitchell 1999; Merola 2001, 172–181; Daubner 2006, esp. 202–208. 187. The connection between Roman imperium and holding court is made clear in Kallet-Marx 1995, 126–138; Lintott 1993, 54–59, 65–69; Kunkel-Wittmann 1995, 354–363; Raggi 2001, 98–109. 188. Strabo 13.4.12: εἰς δὲ τὴν σύγχυσιν ταύτην οὐ μικρὰ συλλαμβάνει τὸ τοὺς Ῥωμαίους μὴ κατὰ φῦλα διελεῖν αὐτούς, ἀλλὰ ἕτερον τρόπον διατάξαι τὰς διοικήσεις, ἐν αἷς τὰς ἀγοραίους ποιοῦνται καὶ τὰς δικαιοδοσίας. “To this confusion no little has been contributed by the fact that the Romans did not divide them according to tribes, but in another way organized their jurisdictions, within which they hold their popular assemblies and their courts.” (trans. H. L. Jones). See supra, 16, for comparison with the province of Lycia.

01a Carbone introd.indd 24

3/12/20 11:20 AM

01a Carbone introd.indd 25

Table 0.2. The Asian conventus. Source and date

M’ Aquilius’s road (French 2012) 129–126 BC

Cistophoric Mints 133–58 BC

SC de agro Pergameno 101 BC

Cicero, Pro Flacco 28, 68 59 BC

RDGE 52 56–50 BC

Pliny NH V.95 ff. Early Augustan

1

lex portorii Asiae § 39 17 BC

I Didyma 148 AD 40

(Cyzicus?)189

Cyzicus

2

Adramyteum

Adramyteum

Adramyteum

3

Pergamum

Pergamum

Pergamum

4

Smyrna

Smyrna

Smyrna

Smyrna Sardis

Sardis

Sardis

Sardis

Ephesus

Ephesus

Ephesus

Ephesus

(Ephesus)190

Miletus

Miletus

5

Sardis

Sardis

6

Ephesus

Ephesus

Adramyteum

Adramyteum

Adramyteum

Adramyteum

Adramyteum

Pergamum

Pergamum

Pergamum

Pergamum

Pergamum

Smyrna

Smyrna

Smyrna

7 8

Miletus Tralles

Tralles

Tralles

Tralles

9

Alabanda

10

Mylasa

Sardis

Miletus

(Caesarea) Alabanda

(Alabanda)192

Halicarnassus

Halicarnassus

Laodicea193

Laodicea

(Laodicea)194

Laodicea195

Laodicea196

Laodicea

Apamea197

Apamea

(Apamea)

Apamea

Apamea

Apamea

14

(Synnada)

Synnada

Synnada

(Synnada)

15

(Philomelium)

Philomelium

13

Laodicea

189. Διοίκησις Ἑλλησποντία. 190. In reality the city was represented by Caesarea (Tralles). 191. The envoy represented Ephesus. 192. Represented by the envoy from Antioch on the Meander. 193. Only around 90 BC. 194. The Phrygian dioeceseis were separated from Asia between 56 and 50 BC. 195. Cibyratica iurisdictio. 196. Διοίκησις Κιβυρατική. 197. Only around 90 BC. 198. Represented by the envoy from Julia. 199. Διοίκησις Λυκαονική.

Pergamum

191

11 12

IvE 13 Flavian

Philomelium

199

198

Philomelium

Halicarnassus

Apamea

3/12/20 11:20 AM

26

Hidden Power

The geographic and administrative natures of the assize districts are also evident from Cicero and Pliny. In Cicero, the districts are defined dioeceseis, and they represent judicial districts.200 Like Strabo’s διοίκησις and Cicero’s dioeceseis, the Plinian conventus maintains the double meaning of both physical place and administrative district.201 The Zmyrnaeum conventus mentioned by Pliny is, first of all, a physical place where different populations meet (frequentat) to tend to administrative matters. The physical place, however, implies the presence of an administrative organization that also falls under the definition of conventus. Therefore, since the διοικήσεις, rather than being geographically limited spaces, represented the circuit within which governors’ duties were restricted, the choice of certain cities as διοικήσεις centers can then be explained by the phases of the building of the provincial road.202 Even if the full development of the conventus system was probably not complete before the end of the First Mithridatic War, it is difficult not to see a connection between an (at least) initial phase of the assize districts and the construction of the provincial road at the hands of M’ Aquilius.203 An early institution of διοικήσεις–conventus is also suggested by the presence in different cities of fragments of the SC de agro Pergameno, probably datable to 101 BC.204 First published in Pergamum, the inscription was then copied in other assize district centers, such as Smyrna, Adramyteum, and Ephesus. In the same vein, consider the partial identity of the SC Popillianum (OGIS 435), confirming Attalus’s dispensations for the province, with SC Licinnianum (OGIS 436), concerning the annexation of Phrygia and probably dated to 119 BC.205 As shown by T. DrewBear, OGIS 435, ll. 13–16, and OGIS 436,ll. 2–6, are identical, imposing respect for the status quo ante Aristonicus, i.e., Attalus’s will.206 Since the SC Licinnianium stated the annexation of Phrygia to provincia Asia, the ratification of Attalus’s testament was the sine qua non for the following annexation, as it provided the legal justification for the institution of the province. The annexation of Phrygia to the province implied the necessity of publishing the SC Popillianum even there, since 200. Ad Atticum 6.2.4 (50 BC): laetari te nostra moderatione et continentia video. tum id magis faceres, si adesses. atque hoc foro quod egi ex Idibus Februarus Laodiceae ad Kal. Maias omnium dioecesium praeter Ciliciae mirabilia quaedam effecimus. “I see that you are pleased with my moderation and disinterestedness. You would be even more so if you were on the spot. At this assize which I have been holding in Laodicea from the Ides of February to the Kalends of May for all my districts except those of Cilicia I have produced some astonishing results” (trans. D. R. Shackleton Bailey). 201. NH 5.120: Zmyrnaeum conventum magna pars et Aeoliae, quae mox dicetur, frequentat praeterque Macedones Hyrcani cognominati et Magnetes a Sipylo. “The jurisdiction of Smyrna is also the center resorted to by a large part of Aeolia which will now be described, and also by the Macedonians called Hyrcani and the Magnesians from Sipylus” (trans. J. Bostock); Habicht 1975, 67–69. 202. The connection between the presence of a road and the duties of the governor is made evident by Cicero in a letter to his brother Quintus (Q. fr. 1.1.17): ut ita se gerant in istis Asiaticis itineribus, ut si iter Appia via faceres; neve interesse quidquam putent, utrum Tralles an Formias venerint “[…] they should behave during your progresses in Asia as though you were travelling on the Appian way, and not suppose that it makes any difference whether they have arrived at Tralles or Formiae” (probably because Tralles was the first assize city a governor would reach as he set out east from Ephesus). (trans. E. Shuckburgh). 203. For the view that assize districts were not fully developed until 84 BC see, among others, Kallet Marx 1995, 136–138. Santangelo (2007, 107–133) expresses the opinion that Sulla reorganized the assize-district system, which was already in place, possibly from the time of Aquilius. 204. Abbot-Johnson 12 = IGRP IV, 262 (copy at Adramyteum); Passerini 1937; Petzl 1987, no. 589; Di Stefano 1998 (copy at Smyrna); RDGE 12; Tibiletti 1957; Sherk 1966; De Martino 1983; Petzl 1985 (copy at Ephesus). For the discussion of the dating of this inscription, see supra, 20, n. 151. 205. SC Popillianum: OGIS 435 = IGRP IV, 301= RGDE no. 11. The text is known in three copies: see OGIS 435 and 436, and SEG 28.1208. For the dating, see no. 30. SC Licinnianum: RDGE 13; RGE 49; Drew-Bear 1971; Drew-Bear 1978; McGing 1980. For the dating, see supra, 20, n. 150. 206. Drew-Bear 1972, 85–87. [ὅπω]ς ὅσα βασιλεὺς Ἄτταλος οἵ τε λο[ιποὶ βασιλεῖς] διώρθωσαν ἐζημίωσαν ἢ [ἀφῆκαν ἐδωρησαντο, ὅ]σα τούτων ἐγένετο πρὸ μιᾶς [ἡμέρας πρὶν ἢ Ἄττ]αλον τελευτῆσαι, ὅπως ταῦτ[α κύρια ἦι. See Liebmann-Frankfort 1969, 148–149.

01a Carbone introd.indd 26

3/12/20 11:20 AM

Introduction

27

it represented the recognition of the status of the entire Roman province. The same was true for the SC de agro Pergameno, which pertained to the relationship between the publicani and the city of Pergamum, but was valid throughout the province. Fragments of these inscriptions were found in cities that were assize district centers, where their legal importance could be fully appreciated, and which were also connected by Manius Aquilius’s road. Aquilius’s milestones and the above-mentioned inscriptions suggest, then, that the assize districts were established at the time of the institution of the province, proving Strabo’s statement that Aquilius “organized the province in the scheme that is retained still now” to have been fundamentally correct.207 This is further confirmed by the fact that the list of conventus centers provided by later sources and presented in Table 0.2 is perfectly comparable with the names suggested by these earlier attestations.208 It is therefore quite striking—but not surprising—to see a direct correspondence between the cities encompassed by the road (Adramyteum, Pergamum, Sardis, Ephesus, Tralles and Laodicea) and their function as conventus centers. This should not be considered a coincidence. To the contrary, the choice of the cities as assize centers can be explained through the phases of the construction of the provincial road, since the assize districts were important as the circuit within which governors’ duties were restricted much more than they were geographically limited spaces. Among the cities that became conventus centers in the course of the first century BC—tellingly enough—were the Phrygian cities of Apamea, Synnada and Philomelium, together with the Carian cities of Halicarnassus, Mylasa, and Alabanda. These were located in regions that were annexed to the provincia Asia only after the building of Aquilius’s road. On the other hand, while Side was initially part of the province, its name never figures among the conventus centers, as might be expected from the fact that the city became part of the province of Cilicia in 102 BC.

Cistophoric Mints and διοκήσεις-conventus Centers A conclusive argument for the establishment of the διοικήσεις–conventus system in Aquilius’s time is represented by the clear correspondence between διοικήσεις centers and the lists of cities that issued cistophori between the institution of the province and the end of late cistophoric production. The cistophoric mints active in these years were Pergamum, Ephesus, Tralles, Apamea, Laodicea,

207. Strabo 14.1.38, 19–22. 208. Cic. Flacc. 68 (59 BC): the point at stake here is that Flaccus had confiscated the gold in four assize centers, namely Apamea, Laodicea, Adramyteum and Pergamum. Josephus (AJ 16.166) informs us that the Jews residing in Asia gathered the monies for the Temple tax in Ephesus and Sardis, as well. Apparently, the Roman authorities sought to regulate and control the collection of the Jewish tax according to their administrative system. See Carbone 2016, 83–85; RDGE 52 (56–50 BC) is a letter of the proconsul of Asia to the κοινὸν τῶν Ἑλλήνων. The missive was addressed to the cities of Ephesus, Tralles, Alabanda, Mylasa, Smyrna, Pergamum, Sardis, Adramyteum and Miletus, certainly qua conventus centers. See I Priene 106; Abbott-Johnson 22; Carbone 2016, 85–87; the lex portorii Asiae § 39 (17 BC) provides a list of twelve administrative districts in the section dated to Augustan times: Ephesus, Miletus, Halicarnassus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Adramyteum, Sardis, Hellespontum, Cibyra, Apamea, Synnada and Lycaonia. See Merola 2001, 159–171; Mitchell 2008, 193–197 (for the dating of this section); I Didyma 148 (AD 40) consists of a the list of νεοποίοι dedicating a statue of Caligula in Apollo’s temple at Didyma. The envoys came from Cyzicus, Adramyteum, Pergamum, Smyrna, Sardis, Miletus, Halicarnassus, Laodicea, Apamea and Philomelium—all conventus centers. The cities of Ephesus, Alabanda, and Synnada were respectively represented by envoys from Caesarea-Tralles, Antiochon-the-Meander, and Julia. See Robert 1949, 226; Merola 2001, 163–167; Carbone 2016, 90–92; 5) I Eph 13 (Flavian Age), of which probably only one-fifth of the original length is preserved, bears the names of 66 cities, grouped in five conventi (Sardis, Miletus, Pergamum, Halicarnassus, and Apamea). Close to each city, named through its ethnic, there are figures expressed both in denarii and τετραχαλκία. See Habicht 1975; Knibbe 1987; Gschnitzer 1989; Bowersock 1991, 409–432; Merola 2001, 152–159.

01a Carbone introd.indd 27

3/12/20 11:20 AM

28

Hidden Power

Smyrna, Sardis, Synnada, Adramyteum, and Nysa.209 Some of these were already cistophoric mints under the Attalids, while others began to issue cistophori for the first time, as in the case of Smyrna and Nysa.210 Apart from those of Thyatira, Apollonis, and Stratonicea on the Caicus, which were ephemeral and directly connected to Aristonicus’s rebellion, and that of Nysa, whose production may have been related to the direct intervention of Chaeremon of Nysa, these other cistophoric issues could hint at the privileged condition of the minting cities and—since these cities were also served by the provincial road—to their status as διοικήσεις centers.211 For the Attalid period, a correlation between cistophoric issues and centers of political power was hypothesized by C. Mileta, who remarked on the fact that the cities issuing this coinage were each also district administrative and political centers.212 The connection between cistophoric mints, administrative centers, and roads was furthered by P. Thonemann, who interpreted the letters KOP, used both as a cistophoric countermark on Sidetan tetradrachms and as an ethnic on a cistophorus, as the abbreviated name of the Attalid mint of Kormasa, located on the road that connected Phrygian Apamea and Pamphylian Side.213 The site of Kormasa is also very close to one of the milestones on Manius Aquilius’s road, further strengthening the connection.214 With the addition of Adramyteum, as suggested by R. Bauslaugh, the cistophoric geography of Attalid mints appears very similar to that of the later provincia Asia.215 This provides further confirmation for D. French’s argument that Manius Aquilius merely renovated a preexisting Attalid road following the same route.216 Moreover, because the Attalid cistophorus, despite its federal appearance, was certainly a royal coinage, it is to be expected that it was related to the centers of Attalid political and administrative power.217 At the same time, it has been argued already that the civic appearance of the cistophorus allowed this coinage to advertise civic pride as well.218 During the years of Aristonicus’s rebellion, the different trends in cistophoric production at Pergamum, Ephesus, and Tralles may be explained by their civic political stances.219 The increased volume of Ephesian production, for example, could be connected to its pro-Roman choices, with

209. Ephesus: Kleiner 1972; Pergamum: Kleiner 1978; Apamea: Kleiner 1979; Laodicea: Callaghan forthcoming; Smyrna: BMC Ionia 237, nos. 1–2; SNG von Aulock 2160; Kleiner 1978, 90, no. 232 (presence of one late cistophorus of Smyrna in IGCH 1459, dated to 99/98 BC, now ANS 1944.100.37544); Sardis: SNG von Aulock 3124; BMC Lydia 8. Leschhorn 1993, 213. Synnada: SNG von Aulock 3933; BMC Phrygia, 392, no 1; Adramyteum: BMC Mysia, 3, nos. 5–6; SNG Copenhagen 9; SNG von Aulock 1053; Von Fritze 1913, nos. 54–72; Stauber 1990, II, nos. 95–116; Nysa: Metcalf 2015. 210. Attalid mints: ECC (Pergamum, Ephesus, Tralles, Sardis-Synnada, Apamea, and Laodicea); Le Rider 1990 (Dionysopolis, Blaundus, Lysias, and Dioskome); Bauslaugh 1990, 45 (Adramyteum). 211. For the cistophori issued under Aristonicus, see Robinson 1954 and supra, 11–14. For the punishment inflicted by Sulla on Nysa, see Syll3 741 (letter of C. Cassius, governor of Asia, urging Nysa’s civic magistrates to publish Mithridates’s letter concerning Chaeremon and his sons). See infra, 32–33, 183–185. 212. Mileta 1990, 431–432. 213. Thonemann 2008, 53–58, contra Drew-Bear and Le Rider (1991, 373–375), who identified the KOP ethnic with the Phrygian Corpeni. Cistophori with KOP: ECC, 100–101; Ireland 2004. 214. French 2012, no. 10. 215. Early cistophoric countermarks: Banslaugh 1990, 45. Early cistophorus: BNF 2600, die linked to ECC, Pergamum series 6, dies 8–c (pl. II, 3); Stauber 1996, no. 94. 216. French 1997. 217. Thonemann 2013b, 29–32. Comparison between the volume of Attalid cistophoric issues and other Hellenistic royal coinages: de Callataÿ 2013, table 6.12. 218. See supra, 13. 219. See supra, 10–14.

01a Carbone introd.indd 28

3/12/20 11:20 AM

Introduction

29

the very high possibility that the Romans provided at least part of the bullion.220 Cistophoric production, right from the very early years after Attalus III’s demise, reveals a very delicate balance between the political choices of certain cities—and their autonomy—and the level of Roman involvement in their monetary production. It is precisely the double nature of the cistophorus, a coinage with a civic appearance but issued with royal bullion under the Attalids, that enabled its ideological use in legitimating the Romangiven exogenous power of the Attalids and—at the same time—the importance of the issuing cities.221 At the time of the Revolt of Aristonicus, this coinage served both as a legitimizing and pro-Attalid currency at the hands of Aristonicus and as pro-Roman and pro-freedom coinage at the hands of cities like Ephesus. The same could be expected for provincia Asia. According to the SC Popillianum, the cities of Asia were free but they had to pay dues to the Romans, as shown by the lex portorii Asiae.222 In the same way, cities were free but also integrated in the Roman administrative system through the διοικήσεις–conventus system. Cistophoric production accommodates this apparent contradiction, as the cistophorus was a provincial coinage that was issued at different times and in different quantities by the cities according to their specific needs. The issuing cities were centers of provincial power, as shown by the correspondence between cistophoric mints and assize district centers, but mostly retained their civic independence, as suggested by the fact that production began at different times. Pergamum and Ephesus, the two caput viae of Aquilius’s road, minted cistophori from the Attalid period until at least the 60s BC.223 Tralles issued cistophori until 128 BC, but then, as hoard evidence suggests, its production was interrupted until 105 BC.224 After scant production under the Attalids, Adramyteum also began its late cistophoric production at the end of the second century BC.225 Sardis’s cistophoric mint seems to have been active in the years immediately after the institution of provincia Asia.226 Early cistophori had already been struck in the name of this city, probably at Pergamum.227 Concerning post-Aristonicus production, the presence of the same control mark (i.e., Zeus holding eagle in right hand) on Sardian cistophori included in IGCH 1455, a hoard dated to ca. 128 BC, and on a cistophorus from the same city dated to year 𐅝 (6), led Kleiner to believe that Sardis adopted the Ephesian Era of Freedom.228 The complete lack of specimens dated to the years before 128 BC, however, could suggest that production did not begin before that year, even if the rarity of these cistophori makes this argument inconclusive. Independently from the adoption of the Ephesian era, it is possible to state that the cistophoric production of the 220. For a slightly later period, Roman involvement in Ephesian production is suggested by the presence of the name of praetor C. Atinius on the Ephesian cistophori of 122–121 BC (de Callataÿ 2011, 61; infra, Ephesus XXIV). The data provided by the 2002 hoard show that the issue signed by the Roman magistrate preceded the regular one (infra, Ephesus XXV). 221. Thonemann 2013b, 31–35. For a summary of the vexata quaestio of the date of the introduction of the cistophorus, see Meadows 2013; Ashton 2013. 222. Mitchell 2008, 185–187. 223. Pergamum: ECC, Pergamum 22–40 (early cistophori); Kleiner 1978 (late cistophori); Ephesus: ECC, Ephesus 41–59; Kleiner 1972 (late cistophori). 224. Early cistophoric production: ECC, Tralles 60–77. The first late cistophorus of Tralles (SNG von Aulock 3261) in IGCH 1458 (105/4 BC): Kleiner 1978, 85, no. 37. 225. Von Fritze 1913, nos. 54–72; Stauber 1996, nos. 96–116. See infra, 175–184. 226. Leschhorn 1993, 213. 227. ECC, Sardes-Synnada 79–81. 228. Cistophori included in IGCH 1455 (ca. 128 BC): ECC, Sardes 17. ECC, 117, nos. 112–6. Late cistophorus dated to year 𐅝 (6 = 129/8 BC): ECC Sardes no. 17b. Ephesian Era of Freedom: ECC, 84 (described as a provincial era counting from 134/3 BC); Rigsby 1979.

01a Carbone introd.indd 29

3/12/20 11:20 AM

30

Hidden Power

city continued for at least twenty years, as shown by three specimens included in the Richard B. Witschonke Collection at the American Numismatic Society.229 Two of these specimens are dated to year ΙΘ (19) and share the same obverse die. The specimen dated to year K (20) has a different obverse die and suggests that Sardis’s production consumed at least one tetradrachm obverse die per year. According to D. Magie, the use of the same era at Sardis as at Ephesus could be explained by the fact that the city enjoyed the same privileges as Ephesus after Attalus’s death.230 On the other hand, several cities in Asia benefitted from the same privileges but did not adopt the Ephesian era, making Magie’s argument far from certain. The Lydian city certainly adopted a different dating system in the course of the first century BC, as proven by an inscription of year 𐅝 (6) and dated by L. Robert to 43/2 BC on the basis of a Caesarian Era beginning in 49/8 BC.231 As has already been argued, this date is far too late for the cistophoric issue of year 𐅝 (6), as it has the same control mark as the Sardian cistophori included in IGCH 1455 (ca. 128 BC).232 It is more likely, then, that the city began issuing cistophori dated according to an unknown era (possibly the Ephesian Era of Freedom) immediately after the institution of the province and then switched to the Caesarian Era in 49 BC. In contrast with Adramyteum and Sardis, Smyrna, another assize district center on Aquilius’s road and a cistophoric mint under the Romans, had never issued cistophori under the Attalids.233 Moreover, the city is not included among those named on “cistophoric countermarks.”234 This represents an almost unique case in the picture of continuity between Attalid and provincial cistophoric mints that has been outlined so far. Moreover, the city was subsequently the only one to mint cistophori and autonomous silver coinage on the Attic standard at the same time.235 Philip Kinns deems the presence of this contemporary issue of both cistophoric and autonomous silver as proof that this mint struck bullion for both local and Roman authorities.236 This was certainly the case at least for Apamea, as the same magistrates’ names are present both on cistophoric and bronze coinage struck there.237 The same correspondence between διοικήσεις centers and cistophoric mints in the first years of the province could explain the fact that Phrygian cities such as Apamea and Laodicea did not begin issuing cistophori until the 90s BC, since they were annexed to the province only around 119 BC.238 The same explanation could be hypothesized for the production of Synnada, the third Phrygian assize district center, that issued cistophori at some point in the course of the first century BC, possibly at the same time as Apamea and Laodicea.239 The rarity of the Synnadean late cistophori, known from only two specimens with different types and no die links, renders more precise dating difficult.240 The presence of the ethnic ΣΥΝ[NA], similar to the one on the autonomous bronze 229. Cistophori dated to year ΙΘ (19): 2015.20.1359 (ex NFA X, 9/17/81, 207); 2015.20.1775 (ex Spink, 9/26/06, 694). Cistophorus dated to year K (20): 2015.20.1358 (ex H. Berk 83, 10/26/94, 184). 230. Magie 1950, 156, 1046, no. 25. 231.Robert 1982, 361–367. 232. ECC, 117, nos. 112–116. 233. Smyrna: BMC Ionia 237, nos. 1–2; SNG von Aulock 2160; Kleiner 1978, 90, no.232 (presence of one late cistophorus of Smyrna in IGCH 1459, dated to 99/8 BC, now ANS 1944.100.37544). 234. Bauslaugh 1990; de Callataÿ 2013, table 6.6. 235. See infra, 187–190. 236. Kinns 1987, 101. 237. Apamea: the name ΚΕΛΑΙ appears on late cistophori (Kleiner 1979, Group VIII; Pinder 1856, no. 11) and on civic bronze coinage with the types Zeus / Athena Anaïtis (BMC Phrygia, 82, no. 72 var; SNG Copenhagen no. 178; Waddington 5663); Ashton 2016, Appendix 3. 238. See infra, 161–166 (Laodicea), 167–172 (Apamea). 239. SNG von Aulock 3933; BMC Phrygia, 392, no. 1; Thonemann 2011, 56. 240. The control mark on both the known specimens is an owl on amphora, but the names of the individuals placed

01a Carbone introd.indd 30

3/12/20 11:20 AM

Introduction

31

issues dated to the first century BC, confirms a post-Attalid dating, however.241 Cistophori in the name of the city had already been issued in the Attalid period, although they were produced in Pergamum, as proven by die-links.242 As for the issues of Sardis in the Roman period, the absence of die links to other mints suggests decentralized production. Therefore the cistophoric mints in Phrygia, after having been active under the Attalids, began production again in the early first century BC, possibly right before the beginning of the Mithridatic Wars, as suggested by the presence of very fresh, late cistophoric specimens in the 2002 hoard.243 The later annexation of Lycaonia to the Asian province, along with the lack of a cistophoric mint under the Attalids, explain the absence of cistophoric production at Philomelium, the assize district center of Lycaonia.244 As already stated, this region was annexed to provincia Asia only by the end of the second century BC, as shown by the lex de praetoriis provinciis of 100 BC.245 The same is true for the Carian cities, which were not included on Aquilius’s road and never issued cistophori, since Caria was annexed to the province only after the First Mithridatic War.246 Some of these Carian cities, such as Alabanda and Alinda, had issued coinage on the cistophoric standard over the course of the second century BC, but after the institution of provincia Asia this production came to an end.247 Only Magnesia ad Maeandrum produced autonomous silver coinage on the cistophoric standard during the First Mithridatic War, possibly to support Roman troops fighting the Pontic king.248 Cistophoric geography, therefore, seems directly connected with the first geographical development of the province, as delimited by Aquilius’s road. Additionally, there is a general correspondence between cistophoric mints under the Attalids and under the Romans, as there was between the route of Aquilius’s road and the preexisting Attalid route.249 There were, however, some noteworthy exceptions to this general continuity. As already discussed, Smyrna issued cistophori for the first time under the Romans, probably around the end of the second century BC.250 Moreover, cistophoric production seems to be more decentralized under the Romans than in Attalid times. The cities of Sardis and Synnada, whose cistophori were apparently minted in Pergamum under the Attalids, began their autonomous—though quite limited—production in the Roman period. Nysa represents the only apparent exception to the correlation between cistophoric mints, conventus centers, and the provincial road. Indeed, the city was neither a conventus center nor included on the provincial road. While its cistophori cannot be related to the administrative development of the province, it is difficult not to see a direct involvement of Roman provincial power in these issues. As the evidence provided by the 2002 hoard indicates, the city issued cistophori between the late 90s BC and the 60s BC, substantially in line with the production patterns suggested for the Phrygian cities of Apamea and Laodicea.251 The presence of a Nysan cistophorus in among the serpents’ heads differ. The specimen from the British Museum (also illustrated in ECC, pl. XXI, 11) has A, while the von Aulock specimen has EM. 241. Similar ethnic on SNG Copenhagen, Phrygia, nos. 705–707, 709 (bronze autonomous issues). 242. ECC, 80–81. 243. See note 238. 244. Dmitriev 2000, 363–366. 245. Hassall et al. 1974; Lintott 1976; Ferrary 1977, 637–641; Martin and Badian 1979, 153–160; Geelhaar 2002 See also supra, 20. 246. See supra, 20–21. 247. See note 168. 248. Kinns 2006, 41, 47; Ashton 2013, 250. 249. French 1991, 179–180. 250. BMC Ionia, 237, nos. 1–2; SNG von Aulock 2160; Kleiner 1978, 90, no. 232 (presence of one late cistophorus of Smyrna in IGCH 1459, dated to 99/98 BC, now ANS 1944.100.37544). 251. See n. 238.

01a Carbone introd.indd 31

3/12/20 11:20 AM

32

Hidden Power

this hoard precludes the former hypothesis of a dating system based on the year of the Peace of Dardanus, the so-called Sullan Era.252 The production of the cistophori of this city is certainly related to the beginning of the First Mithridatic War. It is known that one of the most preeminent families of this Lydian city, Chaeremon of Nysa and of his sons, took a very decisive pro-Roman stand. Chaeremon acquired fame for helping the troops of the proconsul C. Cassius in late 89 BC by providing them with 60,000 modii of wheat flour for free.253 Mithridates’s wrathful reaction is recorded in a letter in which he orders his satrap Leonippus to capture Chaeremon and his sons, Pythodoros and Pythion, dead or alive.254 As specifically requested by C. Cassius in a letter to the civic magistrates, Nysa honored Chaeremon and published Mithridates’s letter concerning him and his sons after 85/4 BC, in order to advertise their loyalty to Rome and express civic gratitude to the citizens who had served Rome so well.255 It is thus certainly tempting to infer a direct relationship between the pro-Roman activities of Chaeremon of Nysa and the beginning of the Nysan cistophoric issues. On the other hand, the publication of the inscriptions in honor of Chaeremon and his children has been interpreted as an attempt by Nysa to show its loyalty to Rome after first siding with Mithridates.256 The support of Nysa for Mithridates and the consequent punishment of the city could be argued on the basis of an inscription of 1 BC, in which the proconsul of Asia, L. Cornelius Lentulus, reinstates the inviolability (ἀσυλία), right of asylum to suppliants (ἱκεσία), and tax exemption (ἀτέλεια) to the Nysan sanctuary of Pluto and Kore.257 According to K. J. Rigsby, these rights had been denied to the Nysan sanctuary after the end of the First Mithridatic War due to assistance offered by the city to Mithridates.258 The cistophoric production of Nysa would have thus represented a means to support Mithridates and his troops, rather than the Roman army. Whether Nysan cistophoric production should be seen as a pro-Roman or pro-Mithridatic stance, it seems certain that it was closely related to the beginning of the Mithridatic Wars and the heightened presence of the Roman army in the area.259 Asian cistophoric production, in spite of its similarity to Attalid production in terms of iconography and—at least partly—geography, was therefore closely connected to the political administration of provincia Asia starting in the 120s BC. Along with the route of Aquilius’s provincial road, the location of cistophoric mints is instrumental in delineating the geographical boundaries of the province. Moreover, with the significant but short-lived exception of Nysa, cistophori were issued by the conventus centers of the province, thus becoming the de facto provincial coinage of Asia.

252. Leschhorn 1993, 220, 422; Metcalf 2015, 316–317. 253. RGDE 48, ll. 6–9: [ὡμ]ολόγησεν καταλογῆς τῆς [συν]κλήτου καὶ δ̣[ήμου] Ῥωμαίων ἐπὶ τοῦ στρατοπέ[δου] δώσειν δῶ[ρον ἀλ]εύρων μοδίους ἑξακισμυρί[ους·]. 254. Syll3 741 III, ll. 18–26: ἐπεὶ Χα̣[ιρ]ήμω[ν Πυ]θοδώρου ἐκχθρότατα κα[ὶ] πολεμιώτα[τα πρ]ὸς τὰ ἡμέτερα πράγματα δια[κείμε]νος ἀπ’ ἀρχ[ῆ]ς̣ τ̣ε̣ τοῖς ἐκχθίστοις πολεμίοις [συνῄ]ει, νῦν τε τὴ[ν] ἐ[μὴ]ν παρουσίαν ἐπιγνοὺς τούς [τε υἱ]οὺς Πυθόδω[ρ]ον καὶ Πυθίων[α] ἐξέθετο καὶ αὐ[τὸς πέ]φ̣ευγεν, κήρ[υ]γ̣[μα] ποιῆσαι ὅπως ἐάν τις ζῶντ[ας ἀ]γάγῃ Χαιρήμ̣[ο]να ἢ Πυθόδωρον ἢ Πυθίωνα, λάβῃ [τάλαν]τα τεσσαράκον̣τα, ἐὰν δέ τ[ι]ς τὴν κεφαλήν τινος [αὐτῶν] ἐνένκῃ, λάβῃ τάλαντα εἴκοσι. Also Syll3 741 (second letter of Mithridates to Leonippus regarding Chaeremon and his children). 255. RDGE, 260–262. 256. Campanile 1996, 163–164. For a similar attempt at the hands of Ephesus, see IK 11, 1 (86 BC), where is recalled “the benevolence of the whole population toward the Romans” (ibid., ll. 0–1). 257. CIG 2943. 258. Rigsby 1988, 133. 259. See infra, 183–185.

01a Carbone introd.indd 32

3/12/20 11:20 AM

Introduction

33

The Evidence from Circulation As previously argued, Attalid cistophori were a means to establish “a low-intensity royal ideology” and to provide a solid base of consensus for a monarchy whose power was entirely based on a Roman grant.260 The cistophorus apparently coexisted with different Attic-weight coinages, both royal and civic, and with autonomous civic issues struck to different standards.261 In A. Meadows’s words, the cistophorus “did not eject all other coinage from the Attalid kingdom, but is rather to be seen as part of a varied assemblage of coinages struck by the Attalid kings for specific purposes in specific places.”262 In contrast, the cistophori issued from 133 BC were a provincial coinage. They coexisted with autonomous silver limited to local circulation mainly in areas such as Caria, Chios, and Rhodes, which had been declared autonomous by the Romans and therefore enjoyed special privileges.263 Unlike to the Attic-weight wreathed coinages issued under the Attalids, Asian silver autonomous issues were fewer in number, and the mints issuing them steadily declined over the course of the first century BC. Moreover, these coinages were usually not exported, had a very limited circulation area, and were mainly issued on local standards down to the mid-first century BC.264 Furthermore, the nearly complete absence of Roman coinage from the circulation pool of provincia Asia until the 40s BC further strengthens the impression that the cistophorus overwhelmingly dominated circulation, to judge solely from the hoard evidence.265 All the hoards assigned to the time of Aristonicus are composed exclusively of cistophori, which suggests an unmixed circulation for this coinage.266 The same is true for the five cistophoric hoards dated to the years 129–90 BC, between the end of the Revolt of Aristonicus and the beginning of the First Mithridatic War.267 The exclusive presence of purely cistophoric hoards strongly suggests that before 89 BC, this currency circulated unmixed within the boundaries of the province of Asia. The non-inclusion of Caria in provincia Asia is further suggested by the absence of hoards containing cistophori there until 41 BC. The Halicarnassus hoard, dated to this year, is the first Carian hoard containing cistophori.268 This should be highlighted, as hitherto cistophori did not usually circulate in Caria, where autonomous silver issues were dominant at least up to the Augustan period.269 The evidence of circulation indicates that cistophori served as the regular provincial silver currency. The study of the late cistophoric issues is therefore instrumental to the study of the

260. Thonemann 2013b, 29–32 and supra, 13. 261. de Callataÿ 2013, 233–238. 262. Meadows 2013, 205. For a summary of the vexata quaestio of the date of the introduction of the cistophorus, which is outside the goals of this study, see Meadows 2013 and Ashton 2013. 263. App. Mithr. 9.61. Chios: Mavrogordato 1918; Lagos 1999. Rhodes: Jenkins 1989; Ashton 2001; Ashton and Weiss 1997, 32–37. Stratonicea: Meadows 2002. Tabae: Delrieux 2014, 200–202. For a comprehensive overview of the production and circulation patterns of autonomous Asian silver issues, see Carbone 2014 and Delrieux forthcoming. For a list of hoards containing autonomous silver issues, see Carbone 2014. 264. Delrieux forthcoming; Meadows forthcoming. 265. Carbone 2017; Carbone forthcoming. 266. IGCH 1326 (Balıkesir, 135–130 BC); IGCH 1327 (Yeşilhisar, 130 BC); IGCH 1455 (unknown, 128 BC); IGCH 1328 (Şahnalı, 128 BC); CH II 94 (“Ionia’,” possibly 130s BC); CH VIII 437 (unknown, 128 BC); CH VIII 446 (Polatlı, 130 BC). 267. Aydemir 1997 (CH IX 535, ca. 120 BC); IGCH 1456 (Unknown, ca. 104 BC); IGCH 1458 (unknown, ca. 104 BC); IGCH 1459 (unknown, ca. 99 BC); IGCH 1460 (Unknown, ca. 95 BC); 2002 (unknown, 89 BC). 268. Ephesus: Overbeck 1978, nos. 50–60. Asia Minor: nos 37–44. Rome: nos. 1–16, 19–22,29–34, 45–49, 61; Gallia: nos. 23–28; Sicily: no. 62; Greece: nos. 35–36. 269. Carbone 2014; Delrieux forthcoming.

01a Carbone introd.indd 33

3/12/20 11:20 AM

34

Hidden Power

monetary policy of provincia Asia as a whole.270 At the same time, civic authorities must have retained a certain degree of decision-making power over production, since late cistophoric issues varied in beginning and ending date according to the mint. Ephesus started its late cistophoric production already in 134 BC, but Pergamum possibly only a decade later.271 As already stated, Trallian late cistophoric issues began only in 105 BC and those of Adramyteum, Smyrna, and Sardis probably around the same time.272 However, Phrygian late cistophoric production started only in the 90s at the cities of Apamea, Laodicea, and Synnada, .273 In conclusion, late cistophori served as part of a complex institutional compromise between Roman provincial power and civic authorities. On the one hand, the monetary supply of the entire province relied on the production of this currency, which circulated unmixed in the province at least until the beginning of the First Mithridatic War, with no apparent relevance given to the issuing mints in terms of circulation.274 On the other hand, the issuing cities were ultimately responsible for the issues, as shown by the different starting and ending dates of the late cistophoric issues at the different cities. Local individuals were usually responsible both for cistophoric silver production and for the local bronze coinage. Moreover, Asian cities also retained their specific dating systems, even if in some cases they were related to Roman power.275 Each city also seems to have had a different production pattern, which ultimately could be related either to a stance in relation to a political event on the provincial level (e.g., the Revolt of Aristonicus), or to the financial situation of the specific city (e.g., the economic struggles of Ephesus in 67 BC that led to the interruption of the late cistophoric issues).276

270. See Appendix II. 271. Ephesus: Kleiner 1972; Pergamum: Kleiner 1978. 272. See supra, 27–32. 273. See supra, 30. 274. The situation changed slightly with the Mithridatic Wars, with the appearance of the first mixed cistophoric hoards: CH IX, 558 (Gridia, 75 BC); IGCH 1359 (Çeşme, ca. 70 BC). For discussion, see Carbone forthcoming. 275. For the absence of a provincial era on the cistophori of Ephesus: Rigsby 1979. The eras in the cities of Asia: Leschhorn 1993. Sullan Era on late cistophori: Leschhorn 1993, 208–211 (Tralles); Metcalf 2015 (Nysa, now outdated). 276. End of late cistophoric issues at Ephesus: Backendorf 1999.

01a Carbone introd.indd 34

3/12/20 11:20 AM

Chapter 1

The 2002 Hoard

Originally composed of 1,370 coins and now dispersed on the market, this hoard represents an important contribution to our knowledge of cistophoric production in provincia Asia down to 90 BC. The terminus post quem for the hoard is provided by the latest Ephesian cistophoric issue, dated to 90/89 BC, and represented by 62 specimens.1

Figure 1.1 The mints.

Late cistophoric issues of Pergamum, Ephesus, and Tralles constitute the bulk of the hoard, but specimens from Adramyteum, Apamea, and Laodicea are also included (Fig. 1.1). 1. Kleiner 1972, no. 46. See infra, Ephesus LXIII.

35

01b Hoard.indd 35

3/12/20 11:27 AM

36

Hidden Power

The presence of late cistophori of Apamea, Laodicea, Adramyteum, Nysa, and Smyrna allows us to chronologically place the inception of the late cistophoric issues of these cities in the years immediately preceding the burial date of the hoard.2 A considerable number of Trallian late cistophori in the hoard enables the establishment of a precise chronological division into pre-89 BC and post-89 BC issues.3 Furthermore, the 2002 hoard shows that eight cistophoric mints with different degrees of importance were already operational by 90 BC.

The Historical Context for the Deposition of the Hoard The importance of the 2002 hoard derives from the momentous period in which it was buried, as it represents a very accurate picture of the patterns of cistophoric production in the year that the First Mithridatic War officially began. In the last months of 91 BC, the Senate decided to send to Asia a delegation of legati headed by Manius Aquillius, probably the son of the proconsul of Asia of 129/126 BC and consul in 101 BC.4 Neither Justin nor Appian explicitly mentions the city of Ephesus in connection with this embassy, but it is probable that its meeting with C. Cassius, governor of provincia Asia, took place there.5 Regarding the administrative preeminence of Ephesus, there is certainly no evidence that Ephesus was, according to R. Haensch, “fester Amtssitz des Statthalters” (i.e., capital city of the Asian province), before the 40s BC.6 A few years later, however, Cicero wrote of an Ephesio praetori and that he met with the governor of Asia, Q. Minucius Thermus, in this city.7 Further on, he wrote that his brother Quintus Cicero could easily fulfill his duties as governor of the province quoniam Ephesi est. 8 Therefore, it seems extremely likely that the delegates arrived in Ephesus, where the Asian proconsul resided, certainly starting in the 60s BC and possibly much earlier. Pointing in the same direction is the increased cistophoric production of Ephesus in these years, already noted by F. de Callataÿ and further confirmed by the present hoard study.9 The declared goal of the Roman embassy was to restore to power Nicomedes IV Philopator and Ariobarzanes I Philoromaios, the deposed kings of Bithynia and Cappadocia, respectively. The real question at stake, however, was the growing power of Mithridates VI Eupator, the king of Pontus, who had already interfered in the internal matters of the neighboring kingdoms of Cappadocia and Bithynia in previous years.10 Ariobarzanes I had been driven out of Cappadocia in 94 BC by Tigranes II of Armenia, whose intervention was backed by Mithridates VI.11 On that occasion, Rome sent Sulla to aid Ariobarzanes, probably reinstating him on the throne in the same year.12 However, the unfortunate philoromaios king was expelled again in 92 BC by Mithraas and Bagoas, agents of Tigranes who 2. See infra, 161–191. 3. See infra, 123–160. 4. App. Mithr. 2.11; Just. 38.3.4: in quod tum missi M’ Aquillius et Mallius Malthinus legati. For a detailed discussion of this dating, see de Callataÿ 1997a, 277; Brennan 1992, 153; Kallet-Marx 1995, 250–260 (with further bibliography); Magie 1950, 199–210. 5. App. Mithr. 2.11 and 3.17 (Lucius Cassius); RDGE 48, l. 3 (Caius Cassius); cf. de Callataÿ 1997a, 278, no. 105. 6. Haensch 1997, 13. 7. Cic. Ad Att. 5.13.1.; 13.2; 20.10; Ad fam. 8. Cic., Ad Q. fr. 1.2.14. 9. de Callataÿ 1997a, 177, 277–279. 10. Sherwin-White 1977; McGing 1986, 66–88; Brennan 1992. 11. Just. 38.3.3–4. 12. Plut. Sulla 5.3; de Callataÿ 1997a, 275. Detailed bibliography on the chronology of Sullan intervention in Brennan 1992, 144–153.

01b Hoard.indd 36

3/12/20 11:27 AM

The 2002 Hoard

37

installed in his place Ariarathes IX, the infant son of Mithridates VI.13 As Mithridates’s longa manus was obviously behind this action, Rome intervened again the following year. The same seems true for Bithynia. Around 94 BC, the death of Nicomedes III Euergetes had left the kingdom without legitimate heirs, but the Roman Senate endorsed Nicomedes IV, the eldest of the king’s two illegitimate children.14 In 92 BC, Socrates Chrestos, the youngest brother of Nicomedes IV, expelled him again, with the aid of the Pontic king.15 As a consequence of this act, the Senate sent the above mentioned legatio to C. Cassius, the governor of provincia Asia, who was required to provide military support for the mission.16 Q. Oppius, the proconsul of Cilicia, was also asked to play a role if necessary.17 Furthermore, the Romans asked Mithridates VI to recall Socrates Chrestos and Ariarathes IX from Bithynia and requested his military help as well.18 Instead of complying, the Pontic king sent his own list of complaints back to Rome regarding the sums of money of which he had been deprived by the Senate or other Roman citizens.19 Appian is quite insistent that he did not cooperate in this regard, and that M’ Aquillius and C. Cassius then had to recruit a large force of auxiliaries in order to restore the two kings.20 In a speech attributed to him by Appian, Sulla is vocal in placing the ultimate responsibility for the war upon Mithridates, since he prevented the Romans from restoring Ariobarzanes to his throne.21 Despite Sulla’s allegations, however, Mithridates did not initiate the war. In the previously quoted passage by Dio, Mithridates apparently “did not create any disturbance” for the legates.22 In spite of the fact that he was forging anti-Roman alliances, the Pontic king did not precipitate the crisis.23 On the other hand, M’ Aquillius and C. Cassius did not stop with the restoration of the kings of Bithynia and Cappadocia, as Appian explicitly states. They instead urged the reinstated kings “to make incursions in his [i.e., Mithridates’s] territories and stir up a war,” assuring them that the 13. App. Mithr. 2.10; 12.8.57. Just. 38.1.10. The title philoromaios appeared on his coinage in the 90s BC, even if it is not clear whether it was before or after Sulla’s intervention to reinstate him. Ariobarzanes’s coinage: de Callataÿ 1997a, 209– 214. Appian does not explicitly mention the identity of Mithraas and Bagoas, who could have been either Cappadocian aristocrats or Pontic generals. De Callataÿ (1997a, 276, no. 94) thinks they were Pontic generals (contra Sherwin-White 1977, 174 and Sherwin-White 1984, 111, no. 54, who thinks that they were Armenian generals). 14. App. Mithr. 8.57; de Callataÿ 1986, 6; de Callayÿ 1997, 79–80. 15. App. Mithr. 8.57; Brennan 1992, 152; de Callataÿ 1986, 7–8. 16. See n. 4. 17. App. Mithr. 3.20 (Laodiceans delivering Oppius in the hands of Maecenas); Liv. Per. 78; Reynolds 1982, nos. 2–3. 18. Dio 31.99.2a: τῶν δὲ ἄλλων ὡς καὶ ἐπικουρίας τινὸς παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ δεομένων ἐπιμνησθείς. “But recalling the others as in need of some assistance from him [i.e., Mithridates VI]” (trans. E. Cary). de Callataÿ (1997a, 278, no. 106) (after the commentary by Glew 1977, 396, no. 61) argues that ἐπικουρία refers to military support. 19. Dio 30.99.1: ὅτι ὁ Μιθριδάτης πρέσβεων ἡκόντων 1 Ῥωμαίων οὐδὲν ἐκίνησεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀνταιτιασάμενός τινα, καὶ προσαποδείξας τοῖς πρέσβεσι τὸ πλῆθος τῶν χρημάτων ὧν τῷ τε κοινῷ καὶ ἰδίᾳ τισὶν ἀναλώκει, ἡσυχίαν ἔσχεν. “Mithridates, when the Roman envoys arrived, did not create any disturbance, but after bringing some countercharges and also exhibiting to the envoys the amount of the wealth which he had lavished on the state and on private individuals, he remained quiet”(trans. E. Cary). 20. App. Mithr. 2.11. 21. App. Mithr. 8.57: ἐκβαλὼν δ᾿ ἀνάγκην ἐπέθηκας τοῖς παροῦσι Ῥωμαίων κατάγειν αὐτόν, καὶ καταγόμενον κωλύων σὺ τὸν πόλεμον ἐξῆψας. “When you drove him out of his kingdom you imposed upon the Romans, who were there, the necessity of restoring him. By preventing them from doing so you brought on the war” (trans. H. White). 22. See n. 19. 23. Just. 38.2.5; App. Mithr. 3. 15: φίλοις δ᾿ ἐς πᾶν τὸ κελευόμενον ἑτοίμοις χρῆται Σκύθαις τε καὶ Ταύροις καὶ Βαστέρναις καὶ Θρᾳξὶ καὶ Σαρμάταις καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ἀμφὶ Τάναΐν τε καὶ Ἴστρον καὶ τὴν λίμνην ἔτι τὴν Μαιώτιδα. Τιγράνης δ᾿ ὁ Ἀρμένιος αὐτῷ κηδεστής ἐστι, καὶ Ἀρσάκης ὁ Παρθυαῖος φίλος. “He has allies also ready to obey his every command, Scythians, Taurians, Bastarnae, Thracians, Sarmatians, and all those who dwell in the region of the Don and Danube and the sea of Azof. Tigranes of Armenia is his son-in-law and Arsaces of Parthia his ally” (trans. H. White).

01b Hoard.indd 37

3/12/20 11:27 AM

38

Hidden Power

Romans would be by their side.24 Livy’s Periocha would seem to date the kings’ restoration to late 90 BC, as it is mentioned right after the outbreak of the Social War.25 Nicomedes IV, impelled by the debts he had contracted with Rome, reluctantly invaded Mithridates’s territory in 89 BC.26 Mithridates, who had retreated initially in order to provide “good and sufficient cause for war,” sent an embassy to the Romans.27 In Appian’s opinion, there is no doubt that Pelopidas, Mithridates’s ambassador, only served the purpose of strengthening Mithridates’s justification for going to war.28 After the failure of this specious attempt at diplomacy, the First Mithridatic War officially began in late 89 BC with Nicomedes’s defeat at the hands of the Pontic king.29 This is the moment at which the 2002 hoard was deposited. As the analysis of the hoard will elucidate, the copious presence of specimens issued in 90/89 BC and their survival in mint condition strongly suggest that the hoard was deposited in the last months of 89 BC. As will become clear from the following chapters, the cistophoric mints of the whole province—with the partial exception of Pergamum—entered into a production frenzy around 90 BC. It is difficult not to see a connection between the pre-war skirmishes and this enhanced production.

Hoard Composition In spite of the sheer number of specimens included in this hoard, the proportions between mints are comparable to those in cistophoric hoards dated to the same period (100–88 BC), as shown in Figures 1.2 and 1.3.30 It is notable that Pergamene cistophori are underrepresented in the 2002 hoard in comparison to earlier hoards. The relatively diminished importance of the Pergamene mint may be explained by the increased production of Ephesus and Tralles in the years immediately preceding the First Mithridatic War. According to F. de Callataÿ, production at Ephesus soared from the use of three tetradrachm obverse dies in 91/0 BC to seven obverse dies in 90/89 BC.31 The study of the 2002 24. App. Mithr. 2.11: εὐθύς τε ἀνέπειθον ἄμφω, γείτονας ὄντας Μιθριδάτου, τὴν γῆν τὴν Μιθριδάτου κατατρέχειν καὶ ἐς πόλεμον ἐρεθίζειν, ὡς Ῥωμαίων αὐτοῖς πολεμοῦσι συμμαχησόντων. “They urged them at the same time, as they were neighbours of Mithridates, to make incursions into his territory and stir up a war, promising them the assistance of the Romans.” (trans. H. White). 25. Per. 74 A. Plotius legatus Urnbros, L. Porcius Cato praetor Etruscos, cum uterque populus defecisset, proelio vicerunt. Nicomedes in Bitbyniae, Ariobarzanes in Cappadociae regnum reducti sunt. Cn. Pompeius cos. Marsos acie vicit. “Legate Aulus Plotius defeated the Umbrians and praetor Lucius Porcius the Etruscans. Both nations had revolted. In Bithynia Nicomedes was restored to the throne and Ariobarzanes in the kingdom of Cappadocia.Consul Gnaeus Pompeius defeated the Marsians in an open battle.” (trans. J. Lendering). For discussion of the chronology see Brennan 1992, 153, n. 151. 26. App. Mithr. 2.11: ἐγκειμένων δὲ τῶν πρέσβεων, ὁ Νικομήδης πολλὰ μὲν ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐπικουρίας τοῖς στρατηγοῖς καὶ τοῖς πρέσβεσιν ὡμολογηκὼς χρήματα δώσειν καὶ ἔτι ὀφείλων, πολλὰ δ᾿ ἄλλα παρὰ τῶν ἑπομένων Ῥωμαίων δεδανεισμένος καὶ ὀχλούμενος, ἄκων ἐσέβαλεν ἐς τὴν Μιθριδάτου γῆν καὶ ἐλεηλάτησεν ἐπὶ πόλιν Ἄμαστριν, οὐδενὸς οὔτε κωλύοντος αὐτὸν οὔτε ἀπαντῶντος. “When the ambassadors insisted, Nicomedes, who had agreed to pay a large sum of money to the generals and ambassadors for restoring him to power, which he still owed, together with other large sums which he had borrowed on interest from the Romans in their suites, and for which they were dunning him, reluctantly made an attack on the territory of Mithridates and plundered it as far as the city of Amastris, meeting no resistance” (trans. H. White). 27. App. Mithr. 2.11: ὁ γάρ τοι Μιθριδάτης ἑτοίμην ἔχων δύναμιν ὅμως ὑπεχώρει, πολλὰ καὶ δίκαια διδοὺς ἐγκλήματα τῷ πολέμῳ γενέσθαι. “For Mithridates, although he had his forces in readiness, retreated because he wanted to have good and sufficient cause for war” (trans. H. White). 28. App. Mithr. 2.12–16. 29. App. Mithr. 2.17–20. 30. The hoards used as comparanda are IGCH 1456 (Asia Minor, 105–100 BC), 1458 (Asia Minor, ca. 100 BC), 1459 (Asia Minor, ca. 95 BC), 1460 (Asia Minor, ca. 95–90 BC), 1461 (Asia Minor, ca. 88 BC). 31. de Callataÿ 1997a, 171–172, 176.

01b Hoard.indd 38

3/12/20 11:27 AM

The 2002 Hoard

39

Figure 1.2. Mint ratio in 2002 hoard.

Figure 1.3. Mint ratio in cistophoric hoards dated 100–88 BC (excluding 2002 hoard).

01b Hoard.indd 39

3/12/20 11:27 AM

40

Hidden Power

hoard substantially enhances de Callataÿ’s reconstruction, as it suggests that Ephesus produced cistophori in 91/0 BC using four tetradrachm obverse dies, and twelve obverse dies in the following year, 90/89 BC.32 This considerable increase in Ephesian production in 90/89 BC, must have caused the change in the proportions between Pergamene and Ephesian specimens in the 2002 hoard. According to the data derived from this study, ΑΣ/, the latest Pergamene issue included in this hoard and dated by F. Kleiner to 92–88 BC, was produced using eleven tetradrachm obverse dies, a slight increase from the previous issue, which was produced using eight tetradrachm obverse dies.33 A certain degree of imprecision due to the inability to date Pergamum’s production to the year should be taken into account, but the comparison between the relevance of the latest issues for Pergamum and Ephesus included in this hoard shows that Ephesian production greatly increased in 90/89 BC, while Pergamum’s remained substantially stable in absolute terms. At the same time Pegamene production shrank in terms of relative importance. The same could be said for Tralles’s production. In the years between 105 BC—when cistophoric production was resumed—and 90 BC, the city used about one tetradrachm obverse die per year. The latest Trallian issue included in this hoard, ΔΙΟΝ and lyre, was produced using twelve tetradrachm obverse dies, of which eleven are included in the 2002 hoard.34 As shown by Figures 1.4 and 1.5, the latest Trallian issue in the hoard seems to have been produced from the same number of observed tetradrachm obverse dies as the Ephesian one, while the latest Pergamene issue was the least abundant, with eleven observed tetradrachm obverse dies. In relative terms, however, the latest issues of Ephesus and Tralles represent, respectively, 13.5% and 60.6% of the total number of specimens from these mints included in this hoard, while those of Pergamum are only 5.6%. In terms of obverse dies, the latest issues of Ephesus and Tralles, respectively, represent 6.4% and 19.5% of the total, while those of Pergamum only 5.6%. Figure 1.6 illustrates the comparative growth in relative importance of the mints of Ephesus and Tralles at the expense of the Pergamum. The difference in relative importance of cistophoric mints between the 2002 hoard and the pre-90 BC hoards can therefore be accounted for by the increase of Ephesian and Trallian production in the first year of the Mithridatic War. The picture of cistophoric production in Asia offered by the 2002 hoard is thus relevant, since it accounts for the increased production of non-Pergamene mints.

32. Kleiner 1972, nos. 45–46. See infra, 123. 33. Kleiner 1978, nos. 3, 29 (latest issue). See infra, 156–159, esp. Fig. 4.11. 34. Latest Trallian issue: Pinder 151; SNG von Aulock 3259; SNG Copenhagen 57. See infra, 163–165, esp. Fig. 4.11.

01b Hoard.indd 40

3/12/20 11:27 AM

The 2002 Hoard

41

Figure 1.4. Numerical relevance of the latest issues of Ephesus and Pergamum included in the 2002 hoard (specimens).

Figure 1.5. Numerical relevance of the latest issues of Ephesus and Pergamum included in the 2002 hoard (obverse dies).

01b Hoard.indd 41

3/12/20 11:27 AM

42

Hidden Power

Figure 1.6. Late cistophoric production in terms of tetradrachm obverse dies per year (2002 hoard)

Figure 1.7. Chronological breakdown of the specimens included in the 2002 hoard.

01b Hoard.indd 42

3/12/20 11:27 AM

The 2002 Hoard

43

Figure 1.7 is a summary of the issues, divided by city and in chronological order. In this study, cistophori issued before 128 BC are considered early cistophori, partly following the classification in F. Kleiner and S. Noe’s study of this coinage. The two authors classified Pergamene cistophori as “early” until 123 BC, while Ephesian cistophori are classified as “early” only until 134/3 BC.35 For the previously discussed historical reasons and for the sake of preserving the possibility of comparing cistophoric issues produced in Asia in the same years, I have adopted the years immediately after the end of Aristonicus’s rebellion as the chronological watershed between early and late cistophori. As might be expected, post-128 cistophori represent 89.6% of the tetradrachms included in the hoard, with 1,232 specimens. The 2002 hoard, however, is not only reflective of late cistophoric production, but also represents a good proxy for the earlier one. While the percentage of pre-128 cistophori included in the hoard is relatively low (between 17% and 5%), the specimens included are still instrumental to illustrate some interesting production trends in the final years before the establishment of the provincia Asia.36 Figure 1.8 shows that Ephesus’s production is overrepresented in the hoard, with 44% of the total dies included in ECC. By comparison, Pergamum is represented only with 26% of the ECC dies and Tralles with 19%. The reason for this apparent anomaly may be found in the increase of the production of Ephesus in the years of Aristonicus’s rebellion. As has already been argued, in the course of Aristonicus’s rebellion the cistophoric mint of Ephesus surpassed the production of Pergamum.37 The data provided by the study of the 2002 hoard and presented in Figure 1.9 correspond to this picture, at least insofar as concerns Pergamum and Ephesus. The mint of Pergamum is represented with 24 tetradrachms obverse dies for the years 166–134 BC, but only 9 for the years 133–128 BC, which correspond to Aristonicus’s rebellion. On the other hand, the production of Ephesus is represented by 10 tetradrachm obverse dies for the years 166–134 BC and by 34 for the years of Aristonicus’s rebellion. The reasons for the enhanced Ephesian production in the course of Aristonicus’s rebellion have already been discussed, so it suffices here to state that the data provided by this hoard perfectly fit with the ones deriving from epigraphic sources and from Kleiner and Noe’s study. Tralles’s production is well represented for the years 166–134 BC, but only very partly for the following years. For what concerns the cistophoric production of later years, scarcely represented in the hoard are the cistophoric mints of Laodicea, Apamea, Smyrna, Nysa, and Adramyteum. In the case of the first two cities, this element could be explained with the limited production and the long inactivity of these mints, which did not strike cistophori between 133 BC and the 90s BC.38 In the case of Adramyteum, the specimen included in the 2002 hoard is the only cistophorus from this city included in a hoard. Smyrnean cistophori are very rare in hoards as well. For what concerns Nysa, this hoard shows for the first time that the cistophoric production of the city begun before 90 BC and not after the Peace of Dardanus of 85 BC, as previously thought.39

35. ECC, 35–36, 54. 36. Pergamum: 38 specimens out of 728 (5.2%); Ephesus: 75 out of 451 (16.6%); Tralles: 24 out of 161 (15%). 37. See supra, 10–14, esp. Fig. 0.1. 38. See infra, 161–166 (Laodicea) and 167–172 (Apamea). 39. Metcalf 2015 and infra, 183–186.

01b Hoard.indd 43

3/12/20 11:27 AM

44

Hidden Power

Figure 1.8. Early cistophoric issues in terms of observed tetradrachm obverse dies.

Figure 1.9. Cistophoric production as derived from the 2002 hoard.

01b Hoard.indd 44

3/12/20 11:27 AM

The 2002 Hoard

45

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Early cistophori

Late cistophori

Number of specimens

Obverse dies

New varieties

Figure 1.10. The 2002 hoard in numbers.

The study of this hoard provides 21 new varieties, subdivided between early and late cistophoric production, as illustrated by Figure 1.10. The invaluable contribution offered by this hoard to our knowledge of cistophoric production, especially between 133 and 89 BC, is further confirmed by Esty’s formula, which suggests that the coverage for Ephesus and Pergamum—while not complete—is fairly ample.40 Table 1.1 Calculation of the number of cistophoric issues (128–89 BC) according Esty 2006. n

d

Singletons

Coverage

s

Dest

Pergamum

691

178

40

0.94

12.47

210.16

Ephesus

377

143

59

0.84

27.8

239.47

Tralles

145

28

7

0.95

4.35

36.77

Mint

Therefore, the study of this hoard partly supersedes de Callataÿ and Kleiner’s conclusions regarding the lack of exhaustive studies for the cistophoric mints of Pergamum and Ephesus, even if limited only to 90/89 BC.41 For Pergamene late cistophoric production, the Esty coverage is around 94%, while for Ephesus it is about 84%. Tralles is the only late cistophoric mint that appears to have almost complete coverage in the hoard (i.e., up to 89 BC), with an Esty coverage of 95%. The study of this hoard thus provides not only an entirely new knowledge of Tralles’s late cistophoric issues and an updated starting date for the mints of Apamea, Laodicea, Nysa, and Smyrna, but also a better chronological and quantitative understanding of the production of the Pergamene and Ephesian mints between the end of the second and the beginning of the first century BC.

Metrology The study of the 2002 hoard also allows an update to Walker’s metrological data.42 The data deriving from the survey of the specimens included in the hoard are compared with Walker’s results in Table 1.2. 40. n = sample size. d = number of observed dies. s = standard deviation. 41. de Callataÿ 1997a, 176; Kleiner 1979, 78; Kleiner 1979, 122. 42. Walker 1976, 26–27.

01b Hoard.indd 45

3/12/20 11:27 AM

46

Hidden Power

Figure 1.11. Average weights of cistophoric specimens divided by mint.

While the cistophoric mints of Tralles, Apamea, Laodicea, Adramyteum, Nysa, and Smyrna are understandably absent from Walker’s study, he also underestimated the mean weight of Ephesian late cistophori. Figure 1.11 shows that the average weight of the Ephesian specimens included in the hoard was substantially lower than those from the other mints until 133 BC. The widest gap appears in 160–133 BC, with a difference of 0.24 grams between Ephesus and Pergamum. After the establishment of provincia Asia, the weights of the cistophoric issues from all the active mints in the region were substantially aligned, with a maximum difference of 0.13 grams for the years 128–105 BC, 0.1 grams for the years 105 and 90 BC, and 0.06 grams in 90–89 BC. While the heavier weight of the later specimens included in the 2002 hoard should probably be related to their better preservation state, the weight convergence between specimens dated to the same years but from different mints is significant. Table 1.2 Average weight of the specimens included in the 2002 hoard. Mint Ephesus (133–89 BC)

43

Walker 1976

2002 hoard

12.20

12.44

Pergamum (128–89 BC)

12.49

12.59

Tralles (105–89 BC)

_

12.53

Apamea

_

12.61

Laodicea

_

12.64

Adramyteum

–

12.52

Nysa

–

12.83

Smyrna

–

12.54

43. Walker (1976, 33) takes into account only the years 133–110 BC. On the contrary, I have decided to include the entire period between 133 BC and the burial date of the 2002 hoard. The mean weight of 2002 specimens issued between 133 and 110 BC is 12.38 g, however—much higher than the one calculated by Walker, who had a sample of four coins for this period.

01b Hoard.indd 46

3/12/20 11:27 AM

The 2002 Hoard

47

The data presented in Table 1.2 thus show that in provincia Asia, the patterns of cistophoric production became extremely coordinated not only in quantitative terms, but also in metrological ones. At the same time, the analysis of the single mints will show that the civic administrations were heavily involved in this production. Finally, the absence of die links between specimens produced in different mints seems indicate decentralized minting activity, in contrast with Attalid times.

01b Hoard.indd 47

3/12/20 11:27 AM

01b Hoard.indd 48

3/12/20 11:27 AM

Chapter 2

Cistophoric Production at Pergamum

The catalogue of the specimens included in the 2002 hoard has been divided by mint and organized in chronological order. After the catalogue of the specimens produced by a certain mint, each section briefly outlines the historical and numismatic contexts for the cistophoric issues presented in the catalogue, and finally discusses the varieties included in the hoard. To this catalogue have been added four specimens included in the CNG sale Triton VI, held on January 14, 2003, as they were quite certainly included in the 2002 hoard.1

Hoard Catalogue I.

Eagle (166–160 BC)



On l., A; on r., eagle l. (horizontal).



ECC Series 6; BMC 87. SNG Copenhagen 409; SNG von Aulock 1367–1368.



1.

II.

Caduceus (166–160 BC)



On l., A; on r. caduceus (horizontal).



ECC Series 7; BMC 86; SNG Copenhagen 412; SNG von Aulock 7462; SNG Cambridge 4215.

O1/R1

11.94

Same dies as ECC 8-c

1. O2/R2 12.26 Obverse: ECC 12. Reverse: CNG 57 (2003), 384 2. O3/R3 Same dies as ECC 14-m

1. Pergamum: lots 318–321.

49

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 49

3/12/20 11:56 AM

50

Hidden Power

III.

Race-torch (160–150 BC)



On l., A; on r., race-torch (horizontal).



ECC Series 11a; BMC Mysia, 123, no. 90; SNG Cambridge 4213.

1. O4/R4 Obverse ECC 23 IV.

Bunch of grapes (160–150 BC)



On l., A; on r., bunch of grapes.



ECC Series 13.

1. O5/R5 12.31 Same dies as ECC 31-a V.

Ear of grain (160–150 BC)



On l., A; on r., ear of grain.



ECC series 14.

1. O6/R6 12.35 Same dies as ECC 32-a. CNG 63 (2003), 416 VI.

Uncertain control mark (150–140 BC)



On l., A; on r., uncertain control mark.



ECC – (cf. ECC Series 21).

1. O7/R7 12.3 VII.

Ivy leaf (150–140 BC)



On l., A; on r., ivy leaf (vertical).



ECC Series 21.

1. O8/R8 12.33 Obverse ECC 38, identical to Apamea 17 VIII.

Cornucopiae (150–140 BC)



On l., A; on r., cornucopiae.



ECC Series 22. SNG Copenhagen, Mysia, nos. 404–405.

1. O9/R9 12.23 Obverse: ECC 44 2. O10/R10 12.33 Obverse: ECC 46 (Series 23a) IX.

Dolphin (150–140 BC)



On l., A; on r., dolphin.



ECC Series 23a; SNG Copenhagen, Mysia, no. 414; SNG von Aulock 7460; SNG Cambridge 7697.

1. O10/R11 12.35 Obverse: ECC 46 (identical to Apamea 24) 2. O11/R12 n.r.w. Obverse: ECC 48

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 50

3/12/20 11:56 AM

Cistophoric Production at Pergamum

X.

Dolphin and prow (150–140 BC)



On l., A; on r., dolphin; in left coil, prow.



ECC Series 23b.

51

1. O12/R13 12.25 Obverse: ECC 64 (Series 24a) XI.

Filleted thyrsus (150–140 BC)



On l., A; on r., filleted thyrsus.



ECC Series 24a; BMC 89; SNG Copenhagen 407–408; SNG von Aulock7457.

1. O13/R14 12.42 2. O14/R15 Obverse: ECC 72 3. O15/R16 Obverse: ECC 71 and Peus 380 (2004), 478 XII.

Filleted thyrsus (150–140 BC?)



On l., A; on r., filleted thyrsus.



ECC –.

1. O16/R17 12.64



XIII.

Filleted thyrsus and MA (150–140 BC)



On l., A; on r., filleted thyrsus above MA (vertical).



ECC - (cf. Series 24d).

1. O17/R18 12.53 Obverse: ECC 77 (series 24d); Peus 311 (2003), 241; reverse: CNG 57 (2003), 393 XIV.

Crested helmet (139–136 BC)



On l., A; on r., crested helmet.



ECC Series 25b.



1. O18/R19 12.64 Same dies as 81-c; CNG MBS 63 (2003), 417 (12.65 g) 2. O19/R20 12.84 Dies of ECC 83-g 3. O20/R21 12.23 Obverse ECC 85 4. O21/R22 12.32 5. O21/R23 12.47 6. O21/R24 12.6 7. O22/R25 12.37 8. O23/R26

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 51

3/12/20 11:56 AM

52

Hidden Power

XV.

NI (139–136 BC)



On l., A; on r., NI.



ECC Series 26.

1. O24/R27 12.56 Same dies as ECC 87-a XVI.

EI (139–136 BC)



On l., A; on r., EI.



ECC – (cf. ECC Series 26).

1. O24/R28 12.27 Obverse: ECC 87 (series 26) XVII. Uncertain control mark, possibly club entwined by serpent (135–128 BC)

On l., A; on r., uncertain control mark, possibly club entwined by serpent.



ECC Series 27?

1. O24/R29 12.38 2. O25/R30 12.51 XVIII. EP and fulmen (135–128 BC)

On l., A; above, EP; on r., fulmen (vertical).



ECC Series 28.

1. O26/R31 12.29 Obverse: ECC 91 2. O27/R32 12.42 Same dies as ECC 94-g 3. O28/R33 12.59 Obverse: ECC 95a. Reverse d. New combination e. O29/R34 XIX.

ΑΣ, ivy leaf, and bunch of grapes (135–128 BC)



On l., A; above, ΑΣ; on r., ivy leaf (vertical).



ECC Series 29.

1. O30/R35 Obverse: ECC 96 XX.

MH and club with lion’s skin (135–128 BC)



On l., A; above, MH; on r., club with lion’s skin; in l. coil, Δ; in r. coil, I.



ECC Series 31a.

1. O31/R36 Obverse: ECC 101 XXI.

MH and club with lion’s skin (135–128 BC)



On l., A; above, MH; on r., club with lion’s skin; in central coil :.



ECC Series 31b; SNG Cambridge 4216.

1. O31/R37 Obverse: ECC 101

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 52

3/12/20 11:56 AM

Cistophoric Production at Pergamum



2.

O32/R38



12.32

53

Obverse: ECC 102

XXII. B and gorgoneion (128–123 BC)

On l., A; above, B; on r., gorgoneion; in l. coil, Y; in r. coil, Λ.



ECC 32.

1. O33/R39 Obverse: EEC 106 2. O33/R40 Obverse: ECC 106? XXIII. B and caduceus-club (128–123 BC)

On l., A; above, B; on r., caduceus-club; in l. coil, Y; in r. coil, Λ.



ECC Series 33; BMC 93.

1. O34/R41 2. O34/R42 12.53 3. O35/R43 a. 12.61 Same dies as EEC 107-a b. 12.53 Same dies as EEC 107-a 4. O35/R44 a. 12.33 Obverse: ECC 107? b. 12.39 Obverse: ECC 107? XXIV.  and griffin-creasted helmet (128–123 BC)

On l., A; above, ; on r., griffin-crested helmet; in l. coil, Y; in r. coil, A.



ECC Series 34.

1. O36/R45 12.34 Obverse: EEC 108 2. O36/R46 12.3 Same dies as EEC 108-a XXV. D and ear of grain entwined by serpent (128–123 BC)

On l., A; above, D; on r., ear of grain entwined by serpent.



ECC Series 36.

1. O37/R47 Obverse: ECC 110 2. O38/R48 12.6 3. O38/R49 12.35 4. O38/R50 12.51 5. O38/R51 12.41 6. O39/R52 Obverse: ECC 111 XXVI. n and winged caduceus (128–123 BC)

On l., A; above, n; on r., winged caduceus.



ECC Series 37a; SNG Cambridge McClean 7698.

1. O40/R53 Obverse: ECC 115 2. O40/R54 Obverse: ECC 115

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 53

3/12/20 11:56 AM

54

Hidden Power

3. O40/R55 Obverse: ECC 115 4. O41/R56 Obverse: ECC 112 5. O41/R57 Obverse: ECC 112 6. O41/R58 Obverse: EEC 112 a. b. 7. O41/R59 Same dies as ECC 112-c a. b. 12.65 8. O41/R60 Obverse: ECC 112 9. O42/R61 Obverse: ECC 113 10. O42/R62 12.45 Obverse: ECC 113 11. O43/R63 12.64 Same dies as ECC 114-f XXVII. C and winged caduceus (128–123 BC)

On l., A; above, C; on r., winged caduceus.



ECC Series 37b.

1. O44/R64 12.61 Obverse: ECC 117 2. O44/R65 12.49 Obverse: ECC 117? 3. O45/R66 Same dies as ECC 118-h? a. 12.58 b. 12.75 4. O45/R67 Obverse: ECC 118 a. 12.54 b. 12.63 5. O45/R68 Obverse: ECC 118 6. O45/R69 12.56 Obverse: ECC 118? 7. O46/R70 12.44 Obverse: ECC 116? 8. O46/R71 12.61 Obverse: ECC 116. CNG 63 (2003), 419 9. O46/R72 12.53 Obverse: ECC 116 10. O46/R73 11. O46/R74 12.54 Obverse: ECC 116 12. O46/R75 Obverse: ECC 116 a. 12.51 b. 12.45 13. O47/R76 14. O48/R77 Variant in the monogram 15. O49/R78

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 54

3/12/20 11:56 AM

Cistophoric Production at Pergamum

55

XXVIII ΔΗ; and winged caduceus (128–123 BC)

On l., A; above, ΔΗ; on r., winged caduceus.



ECC Series 37c; SNG Copenhagen 416.

1. O50/R79 a. 12.57 b. 12.46 XXIX. AC and thyrsus entwined by serpent (123–104 BC)

On l., A; above, AC (vertical); on r., thyrsus entwined by serpent.



Kleiner 1978, no. 1.

1. O51/R80 2. O51/R81 12.62 3. O52/R82 4. O52/R83 12.4 5. O52/R84 12.51 6. O53/R85 XXX. AΣ and thyrsus entwined by serpent (123–104 BC)

On l., A; above, ΑΣ (vertical); on r., thyrsus entwined by serpent.



Kleiner 1978, no. 2.

1. O53/R86 2. O54/R87 12.6 3. O54/R88 12.66 4. O54/R89 5. O54/R90 12.56 6. O55/R91 12.06 7. O55/R92 8. O56/R93 12.47 9. O57/R94 10. O58/R95 11. O59/R96 12.67 12. O60/R97 12.61 13. O60/R98 12.45 CNG 63 (2003), 420 14. O60/R99 12.53 15. O61/R100 16. O61/R101

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 55

3/12/20 11:56 AM

56

Hidden Power

XXXI. AΣ and thyrsus entwined by serpent (123–104 BC)

On l., A; above, AΣ; on r., thyrsus entwined by serpent.



Kleiner 1978, no. 5.

1. O62/R102 a. 12.57 Reverse doublestruck b. 12.6 c. 12.66 2. O62/R103 a. 12.54 b. 12.56 3. O62/R104 12.64 4. O63/R105 a. 12.67 CNG 63(2003), 424. ΛΣ [ΑΣ] b. 12.61 5. O63/R106 12.51 6. O64/R107 a. b. 12.65 7. O64/R108 12.52 8. O64/R109 9. O64/R110 10. O65/R111 a. b. 12.48 11. O65/R112 12.46 12. O66/R113 13. O67/R114 14. O68/R115 12.63 15. O68/R116 12.5 16. O68/R117 12.52 17. O69/R118 12.57 18. O70/R119 12.51 19. O70/R120 a. 12.52 b. c. 12.47 20. O71/R121 12.56 21. O71/R122 12.51 22. O71/R123 12.65 23. O71/R124 12.54 24. O71/R125 a. b. 12.57 26. O71/R126 12.6

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 56

3/12/20 11:56 AM

Cistophoric Production at Pergamum

57

27. O71/R127 12.53 28. O72/R128 29. O72/R129 Obverse very worn XXXII. Y and thyrsus entwined by serpent (123–104 BC)

On l., A; above, Y; on r., thyrsus entwined by serpent.



Kleiner 1978, no. 7; SNG von Aulock 7465.

1. O73/R130 b. Obverse: Kleiner 1978, pl. 11, 7. a. b. 12.59 c. 2. O73/R131 12.65 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, pl. 11, 7. 3. O73/R132 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, pl. 11, 7. 4. O74/R133 a. b. 5. O74/R134 12.63 6. O75/R135 Obverse: SNG von Aulock 7465 7. O75/R136 12.51 Obverse: SNG von Aulock 7465 8. O75/R137 12.63 9. O76/R138 10. O76/R139 11. O76/R140 11.77 12. O77/R141 12.65 13. O77/R142 12.65 14. O77/R143 12.56 15. O77/R144 a. b. 12.51 16. O78/R145 a.

b.

17. O78/R146 12.54 c 18. O79/R147 a. b. 12.66 19. O79/R148 a. b. 20. O79/R149 a. 12.51 b. 12.59 21. O79/R150 12.48 22. O79/R151 b

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 57

3/12/20 11:56 AM

58

Hidden Power

a. 12.54 b. 12.67 23. O80/R152 24. O80/R153 12.56 Y 25. O80/R154 26. O81/R155 27. O81/R155 28. O81/R156 12.57 b. Ponterio 132 (2004), 217 29. O81/R158 12.64 c 30. O82/R159 12.63 Y. Obverse doublestruck 31. O83/R160 Y a. 12.42 b. 12.63 32. O83/R161 b a. b. 12.51 33. O83/R162 a. 12.62 b. 12.42 34. O83/R163 12.55 35. O83/R164 36. O84/R165 37. O84/R166 38. O84/R167 12.46 b 39. O85/R168 b 40. O85/R169 a. b. c. 41. O85/R170 12.58 CNG 64 (2003), 237. Obverse over struck on an earlier cistophorus 42. O85/R171 12.67 43. O85/R172 12.58 b 44. O86/R173 45. O87/R174 46. O87/R175 a. b. 47. O87/R176 48. O?/R177 12.6 49. O88/R178 50. O89/R179 51. O90/R180 a. 12.67 b. 12.48

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 58

3/12/20 11:56 AM

Cistophoric Production at Pergamum

59

52. O90/R181 53. O90/R182 a. b. 12.5 54. O90/R183 XXXIII.  and thyrsus entwined by serpent (123–104 BC)

On l., A; above, ; on r., thyrsus entwined by serpent.



Kleiner 1978, no. 8.

1. O90/R184 a. b. 12.55 2. O91/R185 12.52 3. O91/R186 12.53 4. O91/R187 a. b. c. 12.42 5. O92/R188 Obverse Kleiner 1978 plate 11 no. 8 6. O92/R189 12.62 Obverse Kleiner 1978 plate 11 no. 8 7. O93/R190 a. b. c. 12.51 d. 12.57 8. O94/R191 Same obverse die as Heritage World Coin Auctions CICF Signature Sale 3046 (2016), 3112 a. 12.51 b. c. 12.63 9. O94/R192 Same obverse die as Heritage World Coin Auctions CICF Signature Sale 3046 (2016), 3112 a. b. 9. O94/R193 Same obverse die as Heritage World Coin Auctions CICF Signature Sale 3046 (2016), 3112 10. O94/R194 Same obverse die as Heritage World Coin Auctions CICF Signature Sale 3046 (2016), 3112 a. 12.6 b. 12.58 c. 12.58

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 59

3/12/20 11:56 AM

60

Hidden Power



11. O95/R195 Same obverse die as CNG MBS 63 (2003), 421 12. O95/R196 12.65 CNG MBS 63 (2003), 421 13. O96/R297 a. b. c. 14. O96/R298 Obverse doublestruck 15. O96/R299 a. 12.42 b. 16. O96/R200 12.45 17. O96/R201 12.42 Very worn obverse die 18. O97/R202 12.52 XXXIV. D and thyrsus entwined by serpent (123–104 BC)

On l., A; above, D; on r., thyrsus entwined by serpent.



Kleiner 1978, no. 6. SNG Copenhagen 423.

1. O98/R203 a. 12.46 b. 12.49 2. O98/R204 3. O98/R205 a. b. c. 12.54 4. O98/R206 5. O98/R207 12.44 6. O99/R208 12.48 7. O99/R209 a. b. 12.5 8. O99/R210 12.42 9. O99/R211 10. O100/R212 12.62 Obverse: SNG Copenhagen 423 11. O100/R213 12.51 Same dies as SNG Copenhagen 423 12. O100/R214 13. O100/R215 12.49 14. O100/R216 12.44

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 60

3/12/20 11:56 AM

Cistophoric Production at Pergamum

61

XXXV. A and thyrsus entwined by serpent (123–104 BC)

On l., A; above, A; on r., thyrsus entwined by serpent.



Kleiner 1978, no. 14.

1. O101/R217 2. O102/R218 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 14 3. O102/R219 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 14 a. 12.51 b. 4. O102/R220 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 14 5. O102/R221 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 14 6. O102/R222 12.61 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 14; Heritage World Coin Auctions 3026 (2013), 26085 7. O102/R223 11.24 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 14 8. O102/R224 12.52 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 14 XXXVI. E and thyrsus entwined by serpent (123–104 BC)

On l., A; above, E; on r., thyrsus entwined by serpent.



Kleiner 1978, no. 20.

1. O103/R225 12.57 CNG MBS 63 (2004), 423 2. O104/R226 3. O104/R227 12.65 4. O104/R228 5. O104/R229 12.53 6. O104/R230 a. b. 12.49 7. O104/R231 12.57 8. O105/R232 12.41 9. O106/R233 XXXVII.@and thyrsus entwined by serpent (104 BC)

On l., A; above, @; on r., thyrsus entwined by serpent.



Kleiner 1978, no. 19.

1. O106/R234 12.52 2. O106/R235 12.66 3. O107/R236 12.45 4. O107/R237 12.58 5. O107/R238 12.41 6. O107/R239 12.51 7. O107/R240

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 61

Obverse Kleiner 1978, no. 19 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 19 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 19 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 19 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 19

3/12/20 11:56 AM

62

Hidden Power

8. O108/R241 12.41 9. O109/R242 XXXVIII. ME and thyrsus entwined by serpent (104 BC)

On l., A; above, ME; on r., thyrsus entwined by serpent.



Kleiner 1978, no. 18; SNG Copenhagen, 422.

1. O108/R243 12.47 Very worn obverse die 2. O109/R244 3. O110/R245 12.51 4. O110/R246 12.57 5. O111/R247 6. O111/R248 7. O111/R249 a. b. 12.4 8. O112/R250 12.37 9. O113/R251 10. O113/R252 12.52 11. O113/R253 12.56 Very worn obverse die 12. O114/R254 a. b. 13. O115/R255 a. 9.07 b. 12.54 14. O115/R256 12.52 15. O116/R257 Obverse: SNG Copenhagen 422 16. O116/R258 12.52 Obverse: SNG Copenhagen 422 17. O116/R259 12.49 Obverse: SNG Copenhagen 422 18. O117/R2602 12.47 XXXIX. IH and thyrsus entwined by serpent (104–98 BC)

On l., A; above, IH; on r., thyrsus entwined by serpent.



Kleiner 1978, no. 22.

1. O117/R261 12.49 2. O118/R262 a. 12.59 b. 12.58 3. O118/R263 12.56 4. O118/R264 12.51 5. O118/R265 12.54 2. The almost uncirculated condition of O117, which links this issue with Kleiner 1978, nos. 21 and 22, confirms the relative order between these two issues suggested by hoard evidence (Kleiner 1978, 99–102).

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 62

3/12/20 11:56 AM

Cistophoric Production at Pergamum

63

6. O119/R266 a. 12.45 b. 12.51 7. O119/R267 12.52 8. O119/R268 9. O119/R269 12.51 10. O119/R270 11. O119/R271 XL.

MH and thyrsus entwined by serpent (104–98 BC)



On l., A; above, MH; on r., thyrsus entwined by serpent.



Kleiner 1978, no. 21.

1. O117/R272 a. 12.67 b. 12.53 2. O117/R273 3. O120/R274 12.5 4. O121/R275 a. 12.54 b. 12.56 c. 5. O121/R276 6. O121/R277 12.58 7. O121/R278 12.66 8. O122/R279 a. 12.61 b. 12.62 c. 12.36 9. O122/R280 12.53 10. O122/R281 11. O122/R282 a. b. 12.59 12. O122/R283 12.59 13. O123/R284 12.45 14. O123/R285 15. O123/R286 a. b. 16. O124/R287 Obverse: CNG 63 (2003), 427 a. 12.5 b. 12.47 17. O124/R288 12.51 Obverse: CNG 63 (2003), 427

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 63

3/12/20 11:56 AM

64

Hidden Power

18. O124/R289 Obverse: CNG 63 (2003), 427 a. b. 12.68 19. O124/R290 12.58 20. O124/R291 12.57 21. O124/R292 12.54 22. O124/R293 12.64 23. O125/R294 24. O126/R295 12.58 25. O127/R296 12.58 CNG MBS 63 (2003), 428 XLI.

KA and thyrsus entwined by serpent (104–98 BC)



On l., A; above, KA; on r., thyrsus entwined by serpent.



Kleiner 1978, no. 15; Pinder 1856, no. 96.

1. O127/R297 2. O127/R298 11.53 3. O127/R299 12.59 4. O127/R300 a. 12.51 b. 12.68 5. O128/R301 a. 12.66 b. 12.43 c. 12.46 6. O128/R302 a. b. 12.64 7. O128/R303 12.51 8. O128/R304 12.63 9. O129/R305 12.46 10. O?/R306 Illegible obverse die 11. O130/R307 Barbarous XLII. ΔΙ and thyrsus entwined by serpent (104–98 BC)

On l., A; above, ΔI; on r., thyrsus entwined by serpent.



Kleiner 1978, no. 12; Pinder 1856, no. 95.

1. O131/R308 2. O131/R309 a. 12.54 b. 12.51 3. O131/R310 12.53 4. O131/R311 a. b. 12.53

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 64

3/12/20 11:56 AM

Cistophoric Production at Pergamum

65

5. O132/R312 a. 12.66 CNG 63 (2003), 426 b. c. 12.57 6. O132/R313 12.33 7. O132/R314 12.61 CNG 64 (2004), 238 8. O132/R315 12.6 9. O133/R316 a. b. 10. O133/R317 a. b. 11. O133/R318 12. O134/R319 a. 12.66 CNG Triton VI (2003), 318 b. Same dies as CNG Triton VI (2003), 318 c. 12.63 Same dies as CNG Triton VI (2003), 318 13. O134/R320 12.57 Obverse: CNG Triton VI (2003), 318 14. O134/R321 12.64 Obverse: CNG Triton VI (2003), 318 15. O134/R322 12.64 Obverse: CNG Triton VI (2003), 318 16. O135/R323 a. 12.54 b. 17. O135/R324 12.6 Ponterio 132 (2004), 2174 (12.61 g) 18. O135/R325 12.57 19. O136/R326 12.5 20. O136/R327 11.97 21. O136/R328 12.62 22. O136/R329 23. O137/R330 24. O137/R331 12.47 25. O137/R332 12.6 26. O137/R333 a. 12.4 b. 12.57 27. O137/R334 12.58 28. O137/R335 12.57 29. O137/R336 12.58 30. O137/R337 12.57 31. O137/R338 12.57 32. O138/R339 a. b. 33. O138/R340 11.85

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 65

3/12/20 11:56 AM

66

Hidden Power

34. O138/R341 35. O138/R342 12.54 36. O139/R343 a. b. c. 37. O140/R344 10.69 38. O141/R345 a. b. 39. O141/R346 40. O142/R347 a. b. 41. O142/R348 42. O142/R349 43. O142/R350 44. O142/R351 45. O142/R352 12.47 46. O142/R353 12.49 47. O?/R354 12.58 48. O143/R355 49. O143/R356 12.6 50. O143/R357 51. O143/R358 12.58 52. O143/R359 12.68 53. O144/R360 54. O144/R361 12.69 Ponterio 132 (2004), 2172 55. O144/R362 56. O144/R363 12.59 57. O144/R364 12.59 58. O145/R365 59. O145/R366 60. O145/R367 12.61 61. O145/R368 62. O145/R369 a. 12.5 b. 12.54 63. O145/R370 64. O146/R371 12.55 65. O147/R372 a. b. 12.59 c. 12.7

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 66

3/12/20 11:56 AM

Cistophoric Production at Pergamum

67

66. O147/R373 a. b. XLIII. ΔH and thyrsus entwined by serpent (104–98 BC)3

On l., A; above, ΔH; on r., thyrsus entwined by serpent.



Kleiner 1978, no. 11.

1. Ο147/R374 12.4 2. O147/R375 3. O147/R376 4. Ο147/R377 12.56 5. O148/R378 12.58 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 11 6. O148/R379 Obverse Kleiner 1978, no. 11 a. 12.5 b. 12.38 7. O148/R380 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 11 a. 12.58 b. c. 12.6 8. Ο149/R381 Obverse: ECC plate X,10 a. b. 12.56 9. Ο150/R382 a. b. 12.49 10. Ο150/R383 12.63 11. O150/R384 12.66 12. Ο151/R385 12.44 XLIV. NI and thyrsus entwined by serpent (104–98 BC)

On l., A; above, NI; on r., thyrsus entwined by serpent.



Kleiner 1978, no. 23.

1. O152/R386 12.51 2. O153/R387 3. O154/R388 a. b. 12.37 4. O154/R389 a. b. c. 12.53

CNG 63 (2003), 429. Possibly barbarous

3. This issue is tentatively placed by Kleiner 1978 in 104 BC. However, the lack of die links to issues XXXVI–XL, probably to be placed in that year, make a wider temporal range preferable. Kleiner identifies this issue as small, but the presence of five obverse dies suggests otherwise.

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 67

3/12/20 11:56 AM

68

Hidden Power

5. O154/R390 12.57 6. O154/R391 12.61 7. O154/R392 8. O154/R393 12.58 9. O155/R394 a. b. 10. O156/R395 12.63 11. O156/R396 a. b. 12.61 12. O156/R397 12.51 13. O157/R398 a. 12.53 b. 14. O157/R399 12.49 15. O158/R400 12.47 XLV.

AP and thyrsus entwined by serpent (100–98 BC?)4



On l., A; above, AP; on r., thyrsus entwined by serpent.



Kleiner 1978, no. 4.

1. O159/R401 2. O159/R402 3. O159/R403 a. 12.52 b. 12.43 4. O159/R404 5. O159/R405 12.61 6. O160/R406 12.58 7. O161/R407 12.55 8. O161/R408 12.49 9. O162/R409 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 4 10. O162/R410 12.49 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 4 12.57 11. O163/R411 XLVI. 5 and thyrsus entwined by serpent (100–98 BC?)

On l., A; above, 5; on r., thyrsus entwined by serpent.



Kleiner 1978, no. 9.

1. O164/R412 2. O164/R413 3. O164/R414 12.56 4. Kleiner 1978, 104 dates this issue to 104 BC. However, the absence of die links to issues XXXVI–XL, probably to be placed in that year, makes preferable the dating suggested by hoard evidence (i.e., 104–98 BC).

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 68

3/12/20 11:56 AM

Cistophoric Production at Pergamum

69

4. O164/R415 5. O164/R416 12.58 6. O165/R417 12.71 CNG 63 (2003), 425. Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 9 7. O165/R418 12.53 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 9 8. O165/R419 12.68 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 9 9. O165/R420 12.53 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 9 XLVII. EY and thyrsus entwined by serpent (100–98 BC?)

On l., A; above, EY; on r., thyrsus entwined by serpent.



Kleiner 1978, no. 13.

1. O165/R421 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 13 2. O165/R422 12.61 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 13 3. O165/R423 12.49 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 13. 4. O166/R424 12.54 5. O166/R425 a. 12.65 b. 12.64 6. O166/R426 12.62 XLVIII. ΛY and thyrsus entwined by serpent (98–95 BC)

On l., A; above, ΛY; on r., thyrsus entwined by serpent.



Kleiner 1978, no. 16.

1. O167/R427 12.57 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 16 2. O167/R428 12.59 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 16 3. O167/R429 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 16 a. 12.63 Künker 83 (2003), 323 b. 12.54 c. 4. O167/R430 Obverse Kleiner 1978, no. 16 5. O167/R431 Obverse Kleiner 1978, no. 16 a. 12.56 b. 12.57 6. O167/R432 12.59 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 16 7. O167/R433 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 16 8. O167/R434 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 16 9. O168/R435 12.56 10. O168/R436 11. O168/R437 12.59 CNG 63 (2003), 430 12. O169/R438 12.63 13. O169/R439 a. 12.54 b.

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 69

3/12/20 11:56 AM

70

Hidden Power

14. O169/R440 12.62 15. O170/R441 Same dies as CNG Triton VI (2003), 319 a. 12.64 CNG Triton VI (2003), 319 b. 16. O170/R442 12.57 Obverse: CNG Triton VI (2003), 319 17. O170/R443 12.62 Obverse: CNG Triton VI (2003), 319 18. O170/R444 Obverse: CNG Triton VI (2003), 319 a. 12.56 b. c. 19. O171/R445 12.58 20. O171/R446 12.65 21. O171/R447 a. 12.64 b. 12.61 22. O171/R448 12.63 23. O172/R449 XLIX. MA and thyrsus entwined by serpent (95–92 BC)

On l., A; above, MA; on r., thyrsus entwined by serpent.



Kleiner 1978, no. 17.



1. O173/R450 Obverse: Savoca Numismatik 5 (2015), 201; double struck 2. O173/R451 Obverse: Savoca Numismatik 5 (2015), 201 3. O173/R452 Obverse: Savoca Numismatik 5 (2015), 201 4. O173/R453 12.65 Obverse: Savoca Numismatik 5 (2015), 201 5. O174/R454 Obverse: SNG Copenhagen 421; same dies as VAuctions 254 (2010), 9 a. 12.68 b. 12.64 VAuctions 260 (2011), 21 (12.62 g) c. 12.61 d. 12.58 6. O174/R455 Obverse: SNG Copenhagen 421 a. b. 12.56 7. O174/R456 Obverse: SNG Copenhagen 421 a. 12.61 b. 12.63 8. O174/R457 12.63 Obverse: SNG Copenhagen 421; reverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 17

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 70

3/12/20 11:56 AM

Cistophoric Production at Pergamum

71

9. O174/R458 Obverse: SNG Copenhagen 421 a. b. 12.69 10. O175/R459 12.59 11. O175/R460 12.66 12. O175/R461 a. 12.63 b. c. 12.55 13. O175/R462 12.63 14. O176/R463 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 17 15. O176/R464 12.64 Berk 135 (2003), 113; obverse Kleiner 1978, no. 17 16. O176/R465 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 17 a. b. 12.65 CNG 64 (2004), 241 17. O176/R466 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 17 a. b. 18. O177/R467 19. O177/R468 a. b. c. 20. O177/R469 12.57 CNG E-Auction 110 (2005), 50. 21. O177/R470 12.53 22. O177/R471 12.67 Ponterio 132 (2004), 2173 23. O177/R472 12.64 24. O177/R473 12.63 25. O177/R474 26. O178/R475 a. b. 27. O179/R476 a. 12.74 CNG 63 (2003), 433 b. 28. O179/R477 12.55 L.

BO and thyrsus entwined by serpent (95–92 BC)



On l., A; above, BO; on r., thyrsus entwined by serpent.



Kleiner 1978, no. 10.

1. O1805/R478

12.63

5. There are evident stylistic similarities between O179 and O180.

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 71

3/12/20 11:56 AM

72

Hidden Power

2. O180/R479 a. 12.58 b. 12.6 3. O180/R480 12.68 Rauch MBS 7 (2004), 1025 (12.71 g) 4. O180/R481 5. O181/R482 12.72 6. O181/R483 a. b. 12.57 7. O181/R484 8. O182/R485 9. O182/R486 10. O182/R487 11. O183/R488 12.58 Gorny & Mosch 141 (2005), 139 12. O183/R489 12.72 13. O184/R490 12.64 Same dies as CNG 63 (2003), 432 14. O184/R491 Obverse: CNG 63 (2003), 432 a. 12.66 Obverse doublestruck b. 12.52 c. 12.73 15. O184/R492 16. O185/R493 12.7 17. O186/R494 12.45 Ponterio 132 (2004), 2169 18. O186/R495 12.45 19. O186/R496 12.67 20. O186/R497 21. O187/R498 a. 12.59 b. 12.61 22. O187/R499 12.64 23. O188/R500 a. b. 24. O189/R501 25. O190/R502 26. O191/R503 a. b. 27. O191/R504 28. O192/R505

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 72

3/12/20 11:56 AM

Cistophoric Production at Pergamum

LI.

AM and thyrsus entwined by serpent (95–92 BC)



On l., A; above, AM; on r., thyrsus entwined by serpent.



Kleiner 1978, no. 3.

73

1. O193/R506 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 3 a. 12.66 b. 12.58 c. 12.63 2. O193/R507 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 3 a. b. c. d. 12.63 e. 12.63 3. O193/R508 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 3 4. O193/R509 a. b. 12.66 5. O193/R510 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 3 a. b. 12.59 6. O193/R511 12.72 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 3 7. O193/R512 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 3 a. b. 12.64 CNG 63 (2003), 431 8. O193/R513 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 3 a. b. 12.57 c. 12.6 d. 12.65 e. 9. O193/R514 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 3 a. 12.56 b. 10. O193/R515 12.63 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 3 11. O193/R516 12.64 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 3 12. O193/R517 12.54 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 3 13. O193/R518 12.68 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 3 14. O193/R519 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 3 15. O193/R520 a. 12.53 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 3 b. 12.54 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 3 16. O193/R521 12.57 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 3 17. O193/R522 Obverse Kleiner 1978, no. 3

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 73

3/12/20 11:56 AM

74

Hidden Power

a. 12.61 b. 18. O193/R523 12.61 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 3 19. O194/R524 20. O195/R525 a. 12.6 Numismatica Ars Classica 100 (2017), 1116 b. 12.58 CNG Triton VI (2003), 320 21. O195/R526 12.61 22. O195/R527 a. 12.54 b. c. 23. O195/R528 24. O195/R529 25. O195/R530 a. b. 26. O195/R531 27. O196/R532 28. O197/R533 12.61 CNG E-Auction 86 (2004), 22 29. O197/R534 a. b. 12.7 Vico 109 (2005), 1237 30. O197/R535 a. 12.62 b. 12.62 CNG 64 (2004), 240 31. O197/R536 a. 12.53 b. 12.66 32. O197/R537 12.7 33. O197/R538 34. O197/R539 35. O197/R540 36. O198/R541 12.61 Ponterio 126 (2003), 850 37. O198/R542 12.56 38. O199/R543 39. O200/R544 12.39 40. O200/R545

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 74

3/12/20 11:56 AM

Cistophoric Production at Pergamum

LII.

AΣ/ and thyrsus entwined by serpent (92–88 BC)



On l., A; above, ΑΣ/; on r., thyrsus entwined by serpent.



Kleiner 1978, no. 29; Pinder 1856, -.

75

1. O200/R546 12.43 CNG 63 (2003), 434 2. O201/R547 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 29 a. 12.63 b. 3. O201/R548 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 29 a. 12.64 b. 12.68 4. O201/R549 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 29 5. O201/R550 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 29 a. 12.71 b. 6. O201/R551 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 29 a. b. 12.63 7. O201/R552 12.63 Obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 29 8. O201/R553 12.59 CNG 63 (2003), 435; obverse: Kleiner 1978, no. 29 9. O202/R554 12.62 10. O203/R555 11. O203/R556 12.64 CNG E-Auction 110 (2005), 51 (12.65 g.) 12. O203/R557 12.64 13. O203/R558 12.58 14. O204/R559 12.58 CNG Triton VI (2003), 321 15. O204/R560 Obverse: CNG Triton VI (2003), 321 16. O204/R561 Obverse: CNG Triton VI (2003), 321 a. b. 17. O204/R562 Obverse: CNG Triton VI (2003), 321 18. O204/R563 Obverse: CNG Triton VI (2003), 321. a. Obverse doublestruck b. 12.68 19. O204/R564 12.65 Obverse: CNG Triton VI (2003), 321 20. O204/R565 Obverse: CNG Triton VI (2003), 321 a. b. 12.66 21. O204/R566 Obverse: CNG Triton VI (2003), 321 22. O205/R567 23. O206/R568 24. O206/R569 12.75 Ponterio 132 (2004), 2170 25. O206/R570 12.63

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 75

3/12/20 11:56 AM

76

Hidden Power

26. O206/R571 a. 12.69 b. 12.62 27. O207/R572 12.67 28. O208/R573 29. O209/R574 30. O210/R575 Die linked to ΔΗ/ a. 12.6 b. 12.63

Early Cistophoric Production in Context Pergamum, the capital city of the Attalid kingdom, was the center of a copious and diverse production of silver and bronze coinages over the course of the second century BC. As A. Meadows rightly argues, “the reign of Eumenes II (197–158 BC) represents the most complex period of production of the Pergamene mint.”6 Together with cistophori, in those years the mint produced three different Attic-weight silver tetradrachms. The dynastic Attalid coinage, the Philetairoi, was issued until 160–150 BC, as the inclusion of specimens from the most recent series (Westermark Group VII) in hoards dated to the 150s BC seems to suggest (Fig. 2.1).7 While their precise dating is still debated, it is very likely that in the same years the mint of Pergamum also issued tetradrachms with the portrait of Eumenes II and the Kabeiroi on the reverse, now known in three specimens.8 The third variety of Attic-standard silver coinage, the so-called ΑΘΗΝΑΣ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ tetradrachms, were also almost certainly struck in Pergamum, despite the absence of the ethnic (Fig. 2.2).9 This coinage is now known from three specimens, two from the Larisa 1968 hoard (IGCH 237, 168–167 BC) and one from the Ma’Aret hoard (CH IX, 511, 162 BC).10 The dating for these coins, all in fresh conditions, is still object of debate, but a production range between 181 BC, the date of the institution of the Nikephoria in Pergamum, and 162 BC, the burial date for the Ma’Aret hoard, is certain.11 The cistophorus was probably introduced in the 160s BC, while the aforementioned Atticweight silver coinages were still being produced.12 The simultaneous production of Westermark’s Group VII Philetairoi and the early Pergamene cistophori is suggested by the similarities in the control marks of these two coinages.13 Hoard evidence further confirms the simultaneous production of Attic- and cistophoric-standard silver coinage at the mint of Pergamum.14 In Meadows’s words, the cistophorus “did not eject all other coinage from the Attalid kingdom, but is rather to

6. Meadows 2013, 164. 7. Meadows 2013, 164–166, esp. table 5.5. Marcellesi 2012, 122–123. 8. Marcellesi 2012, 123–125; Marcellesi (2017) suggests a date close to the accession to the throne of Eumenes II. For a date around 172: Bauslaugh 1982, 47–50. For a date after 166: Nicolet-Pierre 1989, 211. For the third specimen: Lanz 156 (2 Jun. 2018), lot 177. 9. For the Athena Nikephoros tetradrachms, see Marcellesi 2012, 125–127; Le Rider 1973, 66–79. For the function of these tetradrachms as panegyris coinage: Psoma 2008, 234. Contra Nollé 2014, 299–308. 10. For a date around 181 BC: Mørkholm 1984, 187–92. For a date around 165 BC: Price 1989, 239–240; Mattingly 1993, 83; Faita 2001, 163–179. 11. Meadows 2013, 175. 12. Meadows 2013, 176–182. For a summary of the arguments for an earlier starting date, see Ashton 2013. 13. Meadows 2013, table 5.6. 14. Meadows 2013, table 5.7.

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 76

3/12/20 11:56 AM

Cistophoric Production at Pergamum

77

Figure 2.1. Mysia, Pergamum. Silver tetradrachm of Eumenes II (197–159 BC). Laureate head of Philetaerus right/ΦΙΛΕΤΑΙΡΟΥ; Athena seated left on throne with lion’s leg, crowning royal name with right hand and resting left elbow on grounded shield, transverse spear in background; in outer left field, palm branch; in inner left field, ; in inner right field, bow. Westermark Group VII, cf. V.CXL-R.1 ( and torch) and V.CXLII (obverse die). Cf. SNG BNF 1628–1638. 16.37 g. Gemini IV (2008), 155.

Figure 2.2. Mysia, Pergamum. Silver tetradrachm of Athena Nikephoros (ca. 180–165 BC). Head of Medusa facing/ΑΘΗΝΑΣ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ; archaistic cult statue of Athena Nikephoros, facing and holding trophy and spear. 16.06 g. BM, 1975,0208.1. © Trustees of the British Museum.

Figure 2.3. Mysia, Pergamum. Bronze tetrachalkon (214–133 BC). Helmeted head of Athena right/[ΦΙ] ΛΕΤΑΙΡ[ΟΥ]; serpent coiled to right; in left field, monogram. Westermark, Bronze 14; cf. SNG France 1650–1660. 14 mm. 2.07 g. CNG 205 (2009), 154.

Figure 2.4. Mysia, Pergamum. Bronze dichalkon? (214–133 BC) Laureate head of Apollo right/Tripod. SNG Copenhagen 354; BMC Mysia, 120, no. 33; SNG von Aulock 7456; SNG BNF 1639–1642. 0.97 g. Rauch Summer Auction (2011),188.

be seen as part of a varied assemblage of coinages struck by the Attalid kings for specific purposes in specific places.”15 In addition to silver coinage of different standards, the Pergamene mint also issued a ΦΙΛΕΤΑΙΡΟΥ bronze series in two denominations with the types Athena/snake (tetrachalkon) and Athena/eight-rayed star (chalkous), which should be dated to the years 214–133 BC on the basis of hoard evidence (Fig. 2.3).16 To the same years should be dated the chalkoi with the laureate head of Apollo as an obverse type and tripod, filleted thyrsus, or bee as reverse types (Fig. 2.4).17 Dated 15. Meadows 2013, 205. 16. Chameroy 2012, 140–147, Series 2, nos. 20–21; Westermark 1991, nos. 14–15; BMC Mysia, 101–102, nos. 75–83 (tetrachalkon), 63–64 (chalkous). 17. Chameroy 2012, 140–147, Series 2, nos. 22–25; Westermark 1991, nos. 16–19; BMC Mysia 120–121, nos. 66

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 77

3/12/20 11:56 AM

78

Hidden Power

somewhat later, probably to 210–133 BC, is the ΦΙΛΕΤΑΙΡΟΥ series of three denominations with the types laureate head of Asclepius/ snake and temple key (tetrachalkon and dichalkon) and laureate head of Asclepius/ snake and grapes (chalkous).18 The wide circulation of these bronzes, which have been found as far afield as Delos, the Peloponnese, and Berytus, suggest their use as Attalid small-change currency, possibly in connection with troop movements.19 Bronze coinage thus fits into the picture of a complex and manifold monetary system at the service of the Attalid kingdom, in which Pergamum, as the capital of the kingdom, had a pivotal role.

Early Cistophori in the 2002 Hoard (Plates 1–8)

Pergamum is by far the most represented mint in this hoard, with a total of 728 specimens. Among these coins, 37 are part of the pre-128 BC early cistophoric series catalogued by Kleiner and Noe, with two unidentified specimens that cannot be connected to any specific series (Table 2.1).20 The 2002 hoard adds three otherwise unknown issues, two of them linked to previously known series.21 Out of a total of 32 obverse dies employed for the early series, this hoard adds seven new obverses to the 106 already known for these series, for a total of 113 tetradrachm obverse dies. The larger number of specimens has allowed the establishment of six new die links that confirm the sequence proposed by Kleiner and Noe.22 The Pergamene cistophoric mint maintained absolute supremacy during the Attalid period, but its production decreased in comparison to that of the Ephesian and Trallian mints over the course of the war against Aristonicus.23 The data derived from the 2002 hoard seem to confirm the picture sketched by Kleiner and Noe. As argued in the previous pages, the reason for the decrease in Pergamene cistophoric production during these years should be sought in the ambivalent attitude of the city toward the usurper, as shown by epigraphic and literary sources.24 The capital of the former Attalid kingdom struggled with social unrest during these years, as the social claims of the rebel appealed to upper- and lower-class citizens at the same time.25 The civic paralysis deriving from this turmoil must therefore be the cause behind the decrease in the cistophoric production in these years, of which the 2002 hoard gives a truthful, if partial, depiction confirming the data provided by Kleiner and Noe.

(Apollo/tripod), 67 (Apollo/filleted thyrsus), 68–69 (Apollo/arrow and quiver), 65 (Apollo/bee). 18. Chameroy 2012, 140–147, Series 2, nos. 26–28; Westermark 1991, nos. 20–22. BMC Mysia, 122, nos. 84– 85 (tetrachalkon). 19. Chameroy 2012, 158–159, 179 (map of stray finds). 20. As already mentioned in the Introduction, I have here considered only considered coins issued before 128 BC to be “early cistophori,” independently from their classification in ECC. This allows for easier comparisons between mints. 21. Linking obverse dies: ECC 77 (24d–MA vertical, 150–140 BC) and ECC 87 (Series 26–EI, 139–136 BC). 22. Obverse die links (ECC Pergamum series): 22–23a–23b–24a (150–140 BC); MA vertical (new)–24d (150–140 BC); EI (new)–26–27 (135–128 BC). 23. See infra, 10–14 and 44, Figs. 1.8–1.9. 24. See infra, 7–9. 25. Strabo 14.1.39; OGIS 338 (with the analysis of Mileta 1998 and Coarelli 2005).

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 78

3/12/20 11:56 AM

Cistophoric Production at Pergamum

79

Table 2.1 Early cistophoric issues of Pergamum included in the 2002 hoard. Years (BC)

Reference

Obverse dies

Specimens

Control mark

166–160

ECC 6

1

1

eagle (placed horizontally)

166–160

ECC 7

2

2

caduceus (placed horizontally)

160–150

ECC 11a

1

1

race-torch (placed horizontally)

160–150

ECC 13

1

1

bunch of grapes

160–150

ECC 14

1

1

ear of grain

150–140

ECC – (cf. ECC 21)

1

1

uncertain object

150–140

ECC 21

1

1

ivy leaf downward

150–140

ECC 22

2 (die link to ECC 23a)

2

cornucopiae

150–140

ECC 23a

2 (die link to ECC 22)

2

dolphin

150–140

ECC 23b

1 (die link to ECC 24a)

1

dolphin; in left coil, prow

150–140

ECC 24a

3 (die link to ECC 22)

3

filleted thyrsus

150–140

ECC – (cf. ECC 24d)

1 (die link to ECC 24d)

1

MA (vertical) and filleted thyrsus

139–136

ECC 25b

6

8

crested helmet

135–128

ECC 26

1 (die link to new issue and ECC 27)

1

NI

135–128

ECC – (cf. ECC 26)

1 (die link to ECC 26 and 27)

1

EI

135–128

ECC 27?

2 (die link to ECC 26 and new issue)

2

ME and club entwined by serpent

135–128

ECC 28

4

4

EP and fulmen (vertical)

135–128

ECC 29

1

1

ΑΣ, ivy leaf and bunch of grapes

135–128

ECC 31a

1 (die link to ECC 31b)

1

MH, club with lion’s skin, Δ and I

135–128

ECC 31b

2 (die link to 31a)

2

MH, club with lion’s skin and 

166–128

Uncertain

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 79

2

3/12/20 11:56 AM

80

Hidden Power

Late Cistophoric Production in Context The complexity of production at the Pergamene mint did not end with the establishment of provincia Asia. Small silver coins with the types of Athena/owl on palm and the legend ΑΘΗΝΑΣ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ, possibly hemidrachms on the cistophoric standard, previously dated to the reign of Eumenes II, should probably instead be dated to the last decades of the second century BC (Fig. 2.5).26 The function and precise dating of these cistophoric hemidrachms remains unclear. These very rare coins, known from only three specimens, were dated by Von Fritze to between 189 and 133 BC on the basis of the stylistic similarities to the bronze coins of the series ΑΘΗΝΑΣ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ, which are dated to the same years.27 J. Chameroy, however, has forcefully argued that these bronze issues could be dated as late as the beginning of the first century BC.28 The presence of the monogram A and of the initials NI on one of these small silver coins could connect it to a cistophoric issue dated by F. Kleiner to 104 BC.29 Moreover, the dating of these silver issues to the last years of the second century BC would put these fractions in line with the single cistophoric diobol known for Tralles, tentatively dated to the first century BC.30 In the same years, Adramyteum issued cistophori and autonomous silver coinage of cistophoric weight as well.31 The Pergamene fractions would, then, find a comparandum in the production of two other cistophoric mints. Concerning bronze coinage, archaeological finds suggest that production did not end with the establishment of the province, as a bronze coin of the series ΑΘΗΝΑΣ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ (head of Athena/trophy type) showing a little wear has been found in a sealed layer together with a Pergamene cistophorus dated between 123 and 104 BC (Figs. 2.6–2.7).32 This element vouchsafes the production of Pergamene bronze coinage at least up to 104 BC, but recent hoard finds argue for the continuation of Pergamene bronze issues until the time of Augustus.33 The coins still produced at Pergamum after the institution of provincia Asia were, according to the periodization offered by J. Chameroy, the so-called Tempelmünzen with the obverse legends of ΑΘΗΝΑΣ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ, ΑΣΚΛΗΠΙΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΥ, and the civic bronzes of the series ΠΕΡΓΑΜΗΝΩΝ.34 The dating of the bronze series in the name of ΑΘΗΝΑΣ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ is still a matter of scholarly debate. It has been variously dated from 181 BC (the date of the institution of the Nikephoria) to the end of the first century BC.35 This series involved a system of four denominations, with the weight of the highest denomination ranging from 9 to ca. 11 grams.36 These denominations have been interpreted by M. C. Marcellesi as obols, hemiobols, dichalka, and chalkoi.37 The two highest 26. Marcellesi 2012, 121–122. Le Rider 1973, 71. Von Fritze 1906, pl. II, no. 33. BMC Mysia, pl. XXVII, no. 14. 27. Von Fritze 1906, 56–61 (for the dating of ΑΘΗΝΑΣ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ bronze issues), 59 (for the similarities between the small silver issues and the bronze coinage). 28. Chameroy 2012, 154–155, 172. 29. Kleiner 1978, no. 23. The rare early cistophoric issue ECC 26, dated to 139–136 BC, has the same initials NI, but the ethnic is written , not E. 30. Meadows 2014, 19. 31. For the dating of the Adramytene cistophoric-weight drachms, see the inclusion of an Adramytene cistophoricweight drachm (Von Fritze 1913 no. 2) in CH VIII, 544, dated to the 30s or 20s BC. Ashton 1996. See infra, 148–155. 32. Chameroy 2012), 150–151. 33. Chameroy 2012, 160–167, Appendix 1–2. 34. Chameroy 2012, 133–136. 35. Marcellesi 2012, 157–161; Chameroy 2012, 172. 36. Marcellesi 2012, 157; Chameroy 2012, nos. 33–37. 37. Marcellesi 2012, 157.

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 80

3/12/20 11:56 AM

Cistophoric Production at Pergamum

81

Figure 2.5. Mysia, Pergamum. Silver hemidrachm of cistophoric standard? (130–110 BC). Helmeted head of Athena right/ΑΘΗΝΑΣ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ; owl with open wings on palm. Fritze, Corolla, pl. II, 33; BMC Mysia, pl. XXVII, no. 14. © Trustees of the British Museum.

Figure 2.6. Mysia, Pergamum. Bronze tetrachalkon (130–100 BC?). Helmeted head of Athena right/ ΑΘΗΝΑΣ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ; trophy with horned helmet and armor. BMC Mysia, 130–131, nos. 172–182; Chameroy 2012, no. 33. 6.08 g. ANS 1984.65.180.

Figure 2.7. Mysia, Pergamum. Bronze dichalkon (130–100 BC?). Helmeted head of Athena right/ΑΘΗΝΑΣ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ; owl in wreath standing on top of monogram. BMC Mysia, 131, nos. 183–184. Chameroy 2012, no.34. 15 mm. 1.56 g. ANS 1944.100.43271.

denominations of this series bear control marks that resemble the ethnics on cistophori for the cities of Ephesus, Sardis, Apamea, and Laodicea.38 This coinage also enjoyed a wide area of circulation comparable to that of the bronze Philetairoi, including Ionia, Caria, the Troad, Greece, and even Syria.39 The revised chronology for this series builds upon the aforementioned hoard evidence but also upon the use of brass for some denominations of this series, which should be seen as a sign of the influence of Pontic coinage in the course of the First Mithridatic War.40 The ethnic of cities other than Pergamum is not present on the brass specimens, which seems to hint at a later date for these latter issues, as has been argued by J. Chameroy.41 The ΑΘΗΝΑΣ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ series consisted, then, of two different phases: an earlier one characterized by the types head of Athena/trophy (larger denomination) and head of Athena/owl in wreath, probably issued between the end of the second century BC and the beginning of the first; and a later one, characterized by the use of brass and by the types head of Athena/owl and palm branch, probably dateable to the first half of the first century BC.42 38. Marcellesi 2012, 186–187, nos. 53–54. 39. Hoard finds: CH VIII, 520 (Didyma, beginning of first century BC); CH IX, 502 (Klepecka, first century BC); CH X, 333 (Burdur, first century BC); CH IX, 319 (Levac, mid-first century BC); IGCH 663 (Platania, after 51 BC); CH X, 171 (Lleshan, ca. 30 BC). For stray finds: Chameroy 2012, 179. For their use as panegyris coinage: Robert 1965, 116–118; Le Rider 1973; Psoma 2008, 234. Contra Nollé 2014, 308–312. 40. For the brass denominations see Chameroy 2012, nos. 36–37 (ΑΘΗΝΑΣ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ: head of Athena/owl and lightning; head of Athena/owl and palm branch). For the connection between brass coinage and Mithridates see Craddock, Burnett and Preston 1980. For Mithridates as the authority issuing Pergamene brass coinage see Smekalova 2009, 237–238; de Callataÿ 2007c. 41. Chameroy 2012, 172–173. 42. Earlier series: Chameroy 2012, nos. 33–35; BMC Mysia, 130–131, nos. 172–184. Later series: Chameroy 2012, nos. 36–37. BMC Mysia, 132–133, nos. 187–188, 190–204.

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 81

3/12/20 11:56 AM

82

Hidden Power

Figure 2.8. Mysia, Pergamum. Bronze tetrachalkon (133–100 BC). Laureate head of Asclepius right/ ΑΣΚΛΗΠΙΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ; serpent coiled around omphalos. BMC Mysia 158–162; Chameroy 2012, no. 30. 20 mm, 6.55 g. ANS 1944.100.43257.

Figure 2.9. Mysia, Pergamum. Brass tetrachalkon (first century BC). ΠΕΡΓΑΜΗΝ[ΩΝ]. Helmeted head of Athena right/ΠΕΡΓΑΜΗΝΩΝ; Nike advancing right, holding palm branch. BMC Mysia , 127, nos. 135–143; Chameroy 2012, no. 39. 20 mm. 9.54 g. ANS 1944.100.43245

The other Tempelmünzen bronze series, i.e., ΑΣΚΛΗΠΙΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΥ, was probably not minted after the beginning of first century BC, as also suggested by the absence of a brass denomination (Fig. 2.8).43 As for the civic bronze series inscribed ΠΕΡΓΑΜΗΝΩΝ, its three-denomination system includes a higher (brass) denomination of 9 grams, which finds no correspondence in the roughly contemporary ΑΘΗΝΑΣ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ and ΑΣΚΛΗΠΙΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΥ series (Fig. 2.9)44 As already mentioned, the denominational system of the ΑΘΗΝΑΣ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ series is the most complete, based on four denominations respectively weighing around 7, 4, 2, and 1 grams, while the ΑΣΚΛΗΠΙΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΥ has only two denominations around 7–8 and 4 grams. The ΠΕΡΓΑΜΗΝΩΝ series has three denominations weighing respectively around 9, 7, and 2 grams. These series are characterized by a significant difference in the circulation radius. While the ΠΕΡΓΑΜΗΝΩΝ ones are mainly found in the area around Pergamum, the ΑΘΗΝΑΣ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ coins circulated in a much larger radius.45 Regarding this specific point, J. Nollè argued that civic sanctuaries could integrate coinage issued in the name of the eponymous deity (the so-called Tempelmünzen) within the coinage circulation pool not only of that city but also those of the surrounding ones. This element, according to him, would explain the absence of the eponymous city from these coins, since they would have been issued directly by the sanctuary. These coinages were thus part of the “normal” circulation pool, and they therefore adopted a standard which was compatible with that adopted by other cities.46 While these coins did not need to be physically minted in civic sanctuaries, it is certainly likely that they fulfilled a complementary function to the bronze issues in the name of the ΠΕΡΓΑΜΗΝΩΝ. The already mentioned circulation radius of the Tempelmünzen, together with the presence of the ethnic with more than one city, suggest they were not only produced for strictly local use. They 43. Chameroy 2012, 154–156. 44. Marcellesi 2012, 157; Chameroy 2012, nos. 39–42; BMC Mysia, 127–128, nos. 129–149. 45. For individual coins from these three series found in archaeological excavations, see Chameroy 2012, Appendix 3 (with map). 46. Nollè 2014.

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 82

3/12/20 11:56 AM

Cistophoric Production at Pergamum

83

therefore represent the direct successors of the ΦΙΛΕΤΑΙΡΟΥ bronze series. On the other hand, the ΠΕΡΓΑΜΗΝΩΝ series, which was an eminently civic coinage due to the presence of the ethnic, had a very limited circulation.

Late Cistophori in the 2002 Hoard (Plates 8–60)

While still issuing autonomous bronze coinage, the Pergamene mint produced a huge amount of cistophoric coinage, confirming its primacy before Aristonicus. The study of the 704 specimens included in the hoard led to the identification of 178 obverse dies, of which only 68 had already been recorded by museums or by F. Kleiner in the only article concerning the topic.47 No new late cistophoric varieties have been identified, even if two new variants have been identified for the series b (Kleiner 1978, no. 7), dateable to the years 123–104 BC on the basis of hoard evidence.48 Table 2.2 summarizes the post-128 BC cistophoric issues included in the hoard. In his study of the late cistophori of Pergamum, F. Kleiner identified only two die links, those between issue nos. 9 and 13, and 15 and 22.49 The increased sample included in this study allowed obverse die links to be established between Kleiner 1978, nos. 1 and 2; 7 and 8; 20, 19, 18, 22, and 21; 21 and 15; 9 and 13; 11 and 12; 3 and 29. The chronological order suggested by Kleiner and based on hoard evidence seems to be substantially sound with a few adjustments needed on the basis of the new die links established by my new study, as shown in Table 2.3. The study of the 2002 hoard cannot confirm the order proposed by Kleiner and Noe for the cistophoric issues of the years 128–123 BC, as no die links have been identified between ECC 37a, 37b, and 37c. For the series issued in the following years, this study confirms the chronological succession of Kleiner 1978 nos. 1 and 2, without however confirming their position relative to no. 5 (ΑΣ) which, according to Kleiner’s hypothesis, should be put in succession.50 As a confirmation of the fact that both  (no. 8) and D(no. 6) represent variants of monogram Y of no. 7, this study adds two further variants of the same monogram, presented in Table 2.2. The die link between nos. 7 and 8 combined with the circumstance that all these issues represent a variant—whether common or less common—of the same monogram suggests that they were all produced in the same years and confirms the sequence proposed by F. Kleiner. 51 The chronological proximity of the issues E, @, and ME (nos. 20, 19, and 18) is confirmed by their die linkage and argues in favor of placing all these issues around 104 BC.52

47. Kleiner 1978 is the only specific publication on this topic. Concerning museum collections, the perusal of the catalogues was limited to the British Museum, Bibliothèque national de France, Vienna Kunsthistorisches Museum, Berlin Münzkabinett, Berlin Osten-Prokesch, SNG von Aulock, SNG Copenhagen, Istanbul Museum, and American Numismatic Society. However, the number of new dies must be considered provisional, since auction catalogues prior to 2002 have not been perused. 48. The monogram also appears as Y and . 49. Kleiner 1978, 100. 50. Kleiner 1978, 102. Nos. 1 and 2 are linked by the obverse die O53 51. Kleiner 1978, 102. 52. These issues are die linked through O106, O107, and O109.

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 83

3/12/20 11:56 AM

84

Hidden Power

Table 2.2. Post-128 BC cistophoric issues of Pergamum included in 2002 hoard. Year (BC)

Reference

Tetradrachm obverse dies

Number of specimens

128–123

ECC 32

1

2

 and gorgoneion. ΛY in serpent coils

128–123

ECC 33

2

6

 and caduceus-club. ΛY in serpent coils

128–123

ECC 34

1

2

 and griffin-crested helmet. YA in serpent coils

128–123

ECC 36

3

6

D and ear of grain entwined

Issue53

by serpent

128–123

ECC 37a

4

13

n

128–123

ECC 37b

6

18

C ΔΗ

128–123

ECC 37c

1

2

123–104

Kleiner 1978, no. 1

3 (die link to Kleiner 1978, no. 2)

6

123–104

Kleiner 1978, no. 2

9 (die link to Kleiner 1978, no. 1)

16

123–104

Kleiner 1978, no. 5

11

37

ΑΣ

123–104

Kleiner 1978, no. 7

18 (die link to Kleiner 1978, no. 8)

71

b

123–104

Kleiner 1978, no. 8

8 (die link to Kleiner 1978, no. 7)

33



123–104

Kleiner 1978, no. 6

3

18

D

123–104

Kleiner 1978, no. 14

2

9

A

ca. 104

Kleiner 1978, no. 20

4 (die link to Kleiner 1978, no. 19)

10

E

ca. 104

Kleiner 1978, no. 19

4 (die link to Kleiner 1978, nos. 18 and 20)

9

@

ca. 104

Kleiner 1978, no. 18

10 (die link to Kleiner 1978, no. 19, 22, and 21)

21

ME

104–98

Kleiner 1978, no. 22

3 (die link to Kleiner 1978, nos. 18 and 21)

13

IH

104–98

Kleiner 1978, no. 21

9 (die link to Kleiner 1978, nos. 18, 21, and 15)

34

MH

104–98

Kleiner 1978, no. 15

4 (die link to Kleiner 1978, no. 21)

15

KA

104–98

Kleiner 1978, no. 12

17 (die link to Kleiner 1978, no. 11)

85

ΔΙ

104–98

Kleiner 1978, no. 11

6 (die link to Kleiner 1978, no. 12)

17

ΔΗ

54

53. Control marks are only noted when different from winged caduceus, the standard control mark for late Pergamene cistophori. 54. The monogram also appears as Y and .

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 84

3/12/20 11:56 AM

Cistophoric Production at Pergamum

85

Table 2.2 (continued). Post-128 BC cistophoric issues of Pergamum included in 2002 hoard. Year (BC)

Reference

Tetradrachm obverse dies

Specimens

Issue

104–98

Kleiner 1978, no. 23

7

21

NI

100–98?

Kleiner 1978, no. 4

5

12

AP

100–98?

Kleiner 1978, no. 9.

2 (die link to Kleiner 1978, no. 13)

9

5

100–98?

Kleiner 1978, no. 13

2 (die link to Kleiner 1978, no. 9)

7

EY

98–95

Kleiner 1978, no. 16

6

31

ΛΥ

95–92

Kleiner 1978, no. 17

7

42

MA

95–92

Kleiner 1978, no. 10

13

35

BO

92–90

Kleiner 1978, no. 3

8 (die link to Kleiner 1978, no. 29)

63

AM

92–90

Kleiner 1978, no. 29

11 (die link to Kleiner 1978, no. 3)

39

ΑΣ/

Table 2.3. Comparison between the chronological order proposed by Kleiner 1978 and that provided by the 2002 hoard. Years (BC)

Kleiner 1978

2002 hoard

128–123

– ΛΥ( gorgoneion), – ΛΥ(caduceus-club), –ΥA (griffin-crested helmet), D (ear of grain entwined by serpent), n, C, ΔΗ

– ΛΥ( gorgoneion), – ΛΥ(caduceus-club), –ΥA (griffin-crested helmet), D (ear of grain entwined by serpent), n, C, ΔΗ

123–104

�, T, ΑΣ, Y, , D, A, ME, @, E

�, T,55 ΑΣ, Y, ,56 D, A

ca. 104

ΔΗ, ΑΡ

E, @, ME57

104–98

5, EY58, NI, ΔΙ, KA, IH, MH

IH, MH,59 KA,60 ΔΙ, ΔΗ,61 NI, AP, 5, EY62

98–95

ΛΥ

ΛΥ

95–92

ΑΜ, ΜΑ, ΒΟ

MA, BO

92–90

ΑΣ/

AM, ΑΣ/63

The issues ME (no. 18), IH (no. 22), and MH (no. 21) are linked by the obverse die O117; its different level of wear justifies the relative position of these issues. Kleiner dates issue nos. 21 and 22 to the years 104–98 BC on the basis of their presence in IGCH 1459, dated to 98 BC, and their absence from previous hoards, so they must have been issued in the years immediately following 104 BC.64 The issue KA (no. 15) has been placed right after IH (no. 22) and MH (no. 21) because of the absence of die links with no. 18. The issue KA (no. 15) has one die link with IH (no. 22) observed by Kleiner and one with MH (no. 21).65 55.� and T are die linked through O53. 56. Y and  share the obverse die O90. 57. These issues are die linked through O106 (E and @), O107, and O109 (@ and ME). 58. 5 and EY are die linked. 59. ME, IH, and MH share O117. 60. KA and MH are all die linked through O127. 61. ΔΙ and ΔΗ share the obverse of O147. 62. This study confirms the die link between 5 and EY already identified in Kleiner 1978 (O165). 63. AM and ΑΣ/ share O200. 64. Kleiner 1978, 89, nos. 121–183 (MH) and nos. 184–186 (IH). 65. Kleiner 1978, pls. 12–13, nos. 15 and 22 identified the shared die between KA (no. 15) and IH (no. 22), not included in this hoard. The shared die between MH (no. 21) and KA (no. 15) is O127.

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 85

3/12/20 11:56 AM

86

Hidden Power

Figure 2.10. Late cistophoric production in chronological order (2002 hoard).

Figure 2.11. Late cistophoric production in chronological order (2002 hoard).

ΔΙ and ΔH (nos. 12 and 11) are die linked through obverse O147. All these issues should probably be dated around the same years. This study also confirmed the die linkage between 5 and EY (nos. 9 and 13, respectively), also dated to the years 104–98 BC on the basis of the presence of 5 in IGCH 1459.66 The absence of shared dies between these two issues and to the ones produced in earlier years suggests a slightly later dating of 100–98 BC. Following Kleiner, the issue AP (no. 4) has been placed before 5 (no. 9), as it is possible that the latter is the monogrammatic form of the former.67 Although the relative position of these issues could be changed by the identification of further die links, the tight die linkage irrefutably shows that there was a cluster of issues that must have been produced around 104 BC and the years immediately thereafter. 66. Kleiner 1978, 89, nos. 57–68. The shared die between these two issues is O166. 67. Kleiner 1978, 102.

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 86

3/12/20 11:56 AM

Cistophoric Production at Pergamum

87

For the issue ΛΥ (no. 16) no die links were identified with either previous or later issues, and therefore it has been decided to maintain Kleiner’s dating of 98–95 BC. The latest issues included in the hoard, AM (no. 3) and ΑΣ/ (no. 29), share an obverse die.68 The dating of 92–90 BC suggested by Kleiner on the basis of hoard evidence should be retained for AM, as it is further confirmed by the shared die between this issue, possibly the latest issue of Kleiner’s group 2 late cistophori, and ΑΣ/, possibly the first issue of Kleiner’s group 3 late cistophori.69 Given their lack of die links to the two previous issues, it is more cautious to maintain a dating of 95–92 BC for MA (no. 17) and BO (no. 10). In sum, the present study mostly confirms the chronological sequence suggested by Kleiner but provides a much more precise relative sequence of issues based on newly identified die links. The relatively high characteroscopic index of 3.95, combined with a low number of singletons (40) indicates a coverage of 94% according to Esty’s formula, thus allowing the outline for a chronological pattern of Pergamene late cistophoric production for the first time with sufficient precision.70 Even taking into consideration the expected underrepresentation of earlier issues and of the possible overrepresentation of later ones, it is possible to discern some patterns in the cistophoric production of Pergamum. The first production peak is noticeable around 105/4 BC, when production soared from three annual observed tetradrachm obverse dies during the years 123–104 BC to 20 around 104 BC.71 Even if the issues attributed to 104 BC could not be dated to those precise years, hoard evidence and die links show that the dating is fairly accurate. The years immediately following, 104–98 BC, show a similarly accelerated production pattern, with a yearly average production of 9.3 observed tetradrachm obverse dies. This is comparable with the production patterns of the cistophoric mints of Ephesus and Tralles. Ephesus increased its production slightly to use nine observed tetradrachm obverse dies per year in 105/4 BC from two in the previous year 106/5 BC.72 The Ephesian mint maintained a high rate of production, using an average of 6.4 observed tetradrachm obverse dies until 99/98 BC, then stopped its production altogether for a year and resumed it with much more limited production until the beginning of the First Mithridatic War.73 Cistophoric production resumed at Tralles precisely around 105/4 BC, as can be inferred from the hoard evidence.74 Thus, there was a peak in the production of the three active cistophoric mints between 105/4 BC and 99/8 BC, showing a sort of coordination at the provincial level. The decrease in Pergamene production in 98–92 BC, when the mint produced cistophori using only 4.3 yearly observed tetradrachm obverse dies thus finds a similar pattern in Ephesus and in Tralles. Pergamene issues increase right around 90 BC, with 11 observed tetradrachms per year, a figure certainly comparable to the 12 at Ephesus and the 12 at Tralles.75 It is notable, however, that Pergamene production “only” doubled between the years 98–92 BC and 92–90 BC. While this 68. AM (no. 3) and ΑΣ/ (no. 29) share O200. 69. A definition of Group 2 and 3 late cistophori is provided in Kleiner 1978, 78: Group 2 cistophori are characterized by “changing initials or monograms between the serpents’ heads,” while Group 3 ones add  to the same changing elements of Group 2. 70. All data on the horizontal axis are Kleiner 1978 issues, unless otherwise noted. Number of singletons: 40. 71. See Figs. 2.10–2.11. 72. See infra, 117–121, esp. Fig. 3.13. 73. No Ephesian specimen for the years 98/7 and 97/6 BC was included in the 2002 hoard (see infra, 122, Table 3.3). For the years 96/5–91/0 BC, the average production was 2.75 observed tetradrachm obverse dies. 74. The earliest attestation of Trallian late cistophori is the specimen included in IGCH 1458, dated to 105/4 BC. See infra, 152–156. 75. See infra, 120, Fig. 3.13 (Ephesus), and 158, Fig. 4.11 (Tralles).

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 87

3/12/20 11:56 AM

88

Hidden Power

is certainly a significant increase in production, it is not comparable to the four-fold increase in Ephesian cistophoric production and the ten-fold Trallian increase. Ephesus and Tralles reached the production level of the Pergamene mint, showing once again the coordination between the cistophoric mints active in provincia Asia at the very beginning of the First Mithridatic War.

02 Carbone pergamum.indd 88

3/12/20 11:56 AM

Chapter 3

Cistophoric Production at Ephesus

Hoard Catalogue I.

Artemis Ephesia (160–150 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; on r., cult statue of Artemis Ephesia, facing.



ECC Series 13; BMC Ionia, 63, no. 143; SNG von Aulock 1852; SNG Copenhagen 325.

1. O1/R1 12.1 Obverse: ECC 12 (Series 12–13) II.

Temple key (160–150 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; on r., temple key.



ECC Series 16. SNG von Aulock 1854.

1. O2/R2 12.5 Obverse ECC 9 (Series 8–11) III.

Bee within wreath (160–150 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; on r., bee within wreath.



ECC Series 17; BMC Ionia, 65, no. 152; SNG von Aulock 7838; SNG Copenhagen 309.

1. O3/R3 12.36 Obverse ECC 18 (Series 14–17) 2. O3/R4 Same dies as ECC 18-b a. 12.26 b. 12.39 3. O3/R5 12.19 Same dies as ECC 18-c

89

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 89

3/12/20 12:02 PM

90

Hidden Power

IV.

Eagle with fillet (150–140 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; on r., eagle r., fillet in beak.



ECC Series 25; SNG Copenhagen no. 310.

1. O4/R6 12.03 Obverse ECC 31 (Series 25) V.

Star and filleted laurel branch (150–140 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., star. To r. filleted laurel branch.

ECC Series 27; BMC Ionia, 63, no. 146.

1. O5/R7 12.35 Obverse ECC 35 (Series 27) O6/R8

11.32

Same dies as ECC 37-k



2.

VI.

Serpent on cista (150–140 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., bee. To r. coiled serpent on cista.



ECC Series 28; SNG von Aulock 7837.

1. O7/R9 12.37 Obverse ECC 40 (Series 28) VII.

A/K and double cornucopiae (139/8 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., A; above r., K; on r., double cornucopiae.



ECC Series 34a; SNG von Aulock 1857.

1. O8/R10 12.34 Obverse ECC 47 (Series 34 a–b) VIII.

A, bee, and double cornucopiae (139/8 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., A; above center, bee; on r., double cornucopiae.

ECC Series 35. 1. O8/R11 12.27 Obverse ECC 47 (Series 34 a–b) IX.

B and Artemis Ephesia (138/7 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ, above r., B; on r., bust of Artemis Ephesia facing, with lofty headdress.



ECC Series 36; BMC Ionia, 63, no. 144; SNG von Aulock 1858.

1. O9/R12 12.49 2. O9/R13 12.37 3. O10/R14 12.49 Same dies as ECC 50-h 4. O10/R15 12.19 Obverse die ECC 50 X.

A, bee, and torch (134/3 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., A; above center, bee; on r., torch.



ECC Series 40. Kleiner 1972, no. 1. SNG von Aulock 7844.

1. O11/R16 12.46 Same dies as ECC 57-a

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 90

3/12/20 12:02 PM

Cistophoric Production at Ephesus

91

2. O11/R17 12.21 Obverse: ECC 57 3. O12/R18 12.4 Obverse: ECC 59 XI.

B, bee, and torch (133/2 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., B; above center, bee; on r., torch.



ECC Series 41; Kleiner 1972, no. 2; SNG Cambridge 4431.

1. O13/R19 Obverse: SNG Copenhagen no. 316 a. 12.5 CNG MBS 63 (2003), 472 b. 12.29 2. O13/R20 12.42 Obverse: SNG Copenhagen no. 316 3. O14/R21 12.44 4. O14/R22 12.32 5. O14/R23 12.4 XII.

Γ, bee, and torch (132/1 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., Γ; above center, bee; on r., torch.



ECC Series 42a; Kleiner 1972, no. 3; SNG von Aulock 7846.

1. O15/R24 12.4 Same dies as ECC 63-a 2. O16/R25 12.47 Same dies as ECC 64-b 3. O16/R26 12.43 Obverse: ECC 64 4. O17/R27 12.19 Obverse: ECC 65 5. O17/R28 12.45 Obverse: ECC 65 6. O18/R29 12.15 XIII.

Γ and torch (132/1 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., Γ; on r., torch.



ECC Series 42b; Kleiner 1972, no. 4; BMC Ionia, 64, no. 156; SNG Copenhagen 317; SNG von Aulock 7845.

1. O19/R30 12.5 Same dies as ECC 69-f 2. O19/R31 12.51 Obverse: ECC 69 3. O20/R32 12.22 Same dies as ECC 70-h 4. O21/R33 12.29 5. O22/R34 a. 12.27 Noble Numismatics 93 (2010), 4959 (12.29 g.) b. 12.34 6. O22/R35 12.36 7. O23/R36 12.59 8. O23/R37 12.39 9. O24/R38 12.54 Same dies as ECC 73-n 10. O25/R39 12.44 Obverse: ECC 74 11. O25/R40 12.5 Obverse: ECC 74

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 91

3/12/20 12:02 PM

92

Hidden Power

12. O25/R41 12.51 Obverse: ECC 74 13. O26/R42 12.25 XIV.

Δ, bee, and torch (132/1 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., Δ; above center, bee; on r., torch.



ECC Series 43a; Kleiner 1972, no. 5; SNG Copenhagen no. 319.

1.

O27/R43

12.6

XV.

Δ, bee, and torch (131/0 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., Δ; on r., torch.



ECC Series 43b. Kleiner 1972, no. 6.; SNG Copenhagen no. 318; SNG von Aulock 7847.

1. O28/R44 12.34 Obverse: ECC 80 2. O28/R45 12.42 Obverse: ECC 80 3. O29/R46 12.5 4. O29/R47 a. 12.45 b. 12.26 5. O29/R48 12.34 6. O30/R48 12.42 7. O31/R49 12.63 8. O31/R50 12.33 9. O32/R51 12.33 Same dies as ECC 78-d 10. O32/R52 12.48 Obverse: ECC 78 11. O33/R53 12.58 12. O33/R54 12.22 13. O33/R55 12.51 14. O33/R56 12.32 15. O34/R57 12.49 Obverse: ECC 77 16. O34/R58 12.44 Obverse: ECC 77 17. O35/R59 12.31 Obverse: ECC 85 18. O36/R60 12.46 Obverse: ECC 86 19. O37/R61 12.43 20. O38/R62 12.45 Same dies as ECC 84-j 21. O39/R63 12.44 Same dies as ECC 82-h 22. O39/R64 12.5 Obverse: ECC 82 XVI.

E and torch (130/29 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., E; on r., torch.



ECC Series 44a; Kleiner 1972, no. 7; BMC Ionia, 65, no. 157; SNG Copenhagen 320; SNG von Aulock 1860; Cambridge, McClean 8087.

1. O40/R65 12.53 Obverse: ECC 93 2. O40/R66 12.46 Obverse: ECC 93

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 92

3/12/20 12:02 PM

Cistophoric Production at Ephesus

93

3. O41/R67 12.55 Obverse: ECC 94 4. O42/R68 12.38 Obverse: ECC 96 5. O43/R69 12.41 XVII. E , stag, and torch (130/29 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., E; above center, stag r; on r., torch. ECC Series 44c. Kleiner 1972, no. 9.

1. O44/R70 12.38 Obverse ECC 100 and Kleiner 1972, pl. XII, 7 XVIII. 𐅝, stag, and torch (129/8 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., 𐅝; above center, stag r; on r., torch.



ECC Series 45. Kleiner 1972, no. 10.

1. O44/R71 12.52 Obverse: ECC 100; Kleiner 1972, pl. XII, 7 2. O44/R72 12.52 Obverse: ECC 100; Kleiner 1972, pl. XII, 7 XIX.

Z, Artemis Ephesia, and torch (128/7 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., Z; above center, Artemis Ephesia; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 11; BMC Ionia, 65, no. 158.

1. O45/R73 12.43 2. O45/R74 12.35 3. O45/R75 12.6 4. O45/R76 12.46 5. O45/R77 12.39 6. O46/R78 a. 12.39 b. 12.28 7. O47/R79 12.36

Noble Numismatics 113 (2016), 4354 Z retrograde

Z retrograde

XX.

H, stag, and torch (127/6 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., H; above center, stag; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 12; SNG von Aulock 1861.



1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 93

O47/R80 O48/R81 O49/R82 O49/R83 O49/R84

12.34 12.49 12.63 12.45 12.32

CNG MBS 63 (2003), 473 Noble Numismatics 94 (2010), 4768

3/12/20 12:02 PM

94

Hidden Power

XXI.

Θ, Artemis Ephesia, and torch (126/5 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., Θ; above center, Artemis Ephesia; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 13.

1. O50/R85 a. 12.39 b. 12.43 2. O50/R86 12.59 3. O51/R87 12.55

Ebay 3903500780 (antiquaria)

XXII. I, star, and torch (125/4 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., I; above center, star; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 15.

1. O52/R88 12.43 Possibly, N below right coil. Recut over Θ1 2. O52/R89 a. 12.54 b. 12.36 Above l., Y 3. O53/R90 12.28 4. O54/R91 12.27 5. O55/R92 Dies of Kleiner 1972, pl. XIII, 3 a. 12.51 b. 12.43 6. O55/R93 12.54 XXIII. IA, round shield, and torch (124/3 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., IA; above center, round shield; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 16.

1. O56/R94 12.36 IA 2. O57/R95 12.38 AI2 3. O58/R96 12.45 [I]A. Same obverse die as Kleiner 1972, pl. XIII, 4. XXIV. IΓ, caduceus, and torch (122/1 BC)3

On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., IΓ; above center, caduceus; on r., torch; below, C. ATI N C (monogram) and N C F.



Kleiner 1972, no. 19; Stumpf 1991, no. 1.

1. For commentary see infra, 123. 2. In Kleiner 1972, pl. XIII, no. 4, the combination of letter-numerals on the reverse is the same as this specimen (AI), even if the coin is used by Kleiner 1972 to illustrate Series no. 16, where the combination is described as IA. 3. The fresher condition of obverse die O59 in Kleiner 1972, no. 19 shows that this issue was anterior to no. 18. See infra, 123.

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 94

3/12/20 12:02 PM

Cistophoric Production at Ephesus

95

1. O59/R97 12.42 C. ATI N C F. Same obverse die as Kleiner 1972, pl. XIII, 5. Dies of Superior, 30 May 1995, 75; Metcalf 2017, 61, no. 704. 2. O59/R98 12.29 C[AT]I N C F. Same dies as Kleiner 1972, pl. XIII, 5; Lanz 30 (1984), 255; Metcalf 2017, 61, no. 703. XXV. IΓ, caduceus, and torch (122/1 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., IΓ; above center, caduceus; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 18.



1. 2.

O59/R99 O59/R100

12.5 12.59

Dies of Berlin Prokesch-Osten Obverse: Berlin Prokesch-Osten

XXVI. IΔ and torches (121/0 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., IΔ; above center, torch; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 20.



1. 2. 3.

O60/R101 O60/R102 O61/ R103

12.34 11.29 12.63

Obverse: Kleiner 1972, pl. XIII, 6 Obverse: Kleiner 1972, pl. XIII, 6 Dies of Emporium 30 (1993), 25

XXVII. IE and torches (120/19 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., IΕ; above center, torch; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 21; Cambridge, McClean 8088.

1. O61/R104 12.41 2. O61/R105 12.55 3. O61/R106 a. 12.48 b. 12.52 4. O61/R107 12.37 5. O61/R108 Dies of Vienna 35402 a. 12.41 b. 12.38 6. O61/R109 12.25 Dies of Berlin 1919/58 7. O61/R110 12.5 8. O62/R111 a. 12.48 b. 12.42 9. O63/R112 Dies of McClean 8088 a. 12.35 b. 11.6

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 95

3/12/20 12:02 PM

96

Hidden Power

XXVIII. IE, cornucopiae, and torch (120/19 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., IΕ; above center, cornucopiae; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972 -.

1. O64/R113 a. 12.43 b. 12.52 XXIX. I𐅝, cornucopiae, and torch (119/8 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., I𐅝; above center, cornucopiae; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 22; SNG Copenhagen no. 321.

1. O65/R114 12.43 2. O65/R115 12.3 3. O66/R116 12.31 4. O67/R117 a. 12.31 b. 12.44 5. O67/R118 12.46 6. O68/R119 Obverse: Kölner Münzkabinett, 29 (1982), 65 a. 12.53 b. 12.35 c. 12.41 7. O68/R120 Obverse: Kölner Münzkabinett, 29 (1982), 65 a. 12.35 b. 12.35 8. O68/R121 12.5 Dies of Kölner Münzkabinett, 29 (1982), 65 9. O69/R122 12.41 10. O70/R123 12.42 XXX. IZ (reversed), bunch of grapes, and torch (118/7 BC)

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 96



On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., IZ (reversed); above center, grapes; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 23.



1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

O71/R124 O71/R125 O71/R126 O72/R126 O72/R127 O72/R128 O72/R129 O72/R130

12.39 12.56 12.31 12.38 12.54 12.34 12.38 12.54

Obverse: Albuquerque 73 (1997), 3 Dies of Albuquerque 73 (1997), 3 Obverse: Albuquerque 73 (1997), 3 Obverse: Kleiner 1972, pl. XIII, 7 Dies of Kleiner 1972, pl. XIII, 7 Obverse: Kleiner 1972, pl. XIII, 7 Obverse: Kleiner 1972, pl. XIII, 7 Obverse: Kleiner 1972, pl. XIII, 7

3/12/20 12:02 PM

Cistophoric Production at Ephesus

97

9. O73/R130 12.42 10. O73/R131 a. 12.28 b. 12.35 XXXI. IΘ, bunch of grapes, and torch (116/5 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., IΘ; above center, cornucopiae; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 24.



1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

O73/R132 O73/R133 O73/R134 O74/R135 O75/R136

12.39 12.33 12.41 12.36 12.48

I]Θ I]Θ I]Θ. Obverse: Kleiner 1972, pl. XIV, 1 Obverse: Rauch 95 (2014), 129

XXXII. K, cornucopiae, and torch (115/4 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., K; above center, cornucopiae; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972 -.



1. 2.

O75/R137 O75/R138

12.38 11.2

Dies of Rauch 95 (2014), 129 Obverse: Rauch 95 (2014), 129

XXXIII. AK, ear of grain, and torch (114/3 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., AK; above center, ear of grain; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 25.



1.

O76/R139

12.43

Obverse: Kleiner 1972, pl. XIV, 2

XXXIV. KA, ear of grain, and torch (114/3 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., KA; above center, ear of grain; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 26; SNG Copenhagen 322. 114/3 BC.

1. O77/R140 12.27 Dies of SNG Copenhagen 322 2. O77/R141 12.41 Obverse: SNG Copenhagen 322 XXXV. BK, lyre, and torch (114/3 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., BK; above center, lyre; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 27; SNG von Aulock 1862.



1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 97

O78/R142 O78/R143 O78/R144 O78/R145 O79/R145 O80/R146 O80/R147

12.51 11.68 12.41 12.29 12.35 12.39 12.36

Ebay 3904878164 (Silenos)

3/12/20 12:02 PM

98

Hidden Power

8. O81/R148 a. 12.45 b. 12.4 9. O82/R149 12.45 10. O83/R150 12.43 Obverse: McClean 8089 11. O83/R151 12.49 Obverse: McClean 8089 12. O83/R152 11.02 Obverse: McClean 8089 13. O84/R152 Obverse: McClean 8090 (ΓΚ) a. 12.36 b. 12.43 14. O84/R153 12.2 Obverse: McClean 8090 (ΓΚ). Dies of SNG von Aulock 1862 15. O84/R154 12.36 Obverse: McClean 8090 (ΓΚ) 16. O84/R155 a. 12.59 b. 12.52 Rauch MBS 7(2004), 1030 17. O85/R155 a. 12.51 b. 12.54 18. O85/R156 12.49 19. O85/R157 a. 12.35 b. 12.37 c. 12.32 XXXVI. ΓK, Helios, and torch (112/1 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., ΓK; above center, Helios; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 28; Cambridge, McClean 8090-8091.

1. O86/R158 12.43 2. O86/R159 12.42 3. O87/R160 12.42 4. O88/R161 a. 12.48 b. 10.88 5. O88/R162 12.51

Γ]Κ. Obverse: Vienna 30696 Obverse: Vienna 30696

XXXVII. ΔK, gorgoneion, and torch (111/0 BC)

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 98



On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., ΔK; above center, gorgoneion; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 29.



1.

O89/R163

12.57

Obverse: Kleiner 1972, pl. XIV, 3

3/12/20 12:02 PM

Cistophoric Production at Ephesus

99

2. O89/R164 Obverse: Kleiner 1972, pl. XIV, 3 a. 12.5 b. 12.41 c. 12.35 3. O89/R165 12.4 Obverse: Kleiner 1972, pl. XIV, 3 4. O90/R166 a. 12.32 b. 12.47 5. O91/R167 12.32 6. O91/R168 a. 12.4 b. 12.52 7. O92/R169 12.54 8. O92/R170 12.5 XXXVIII. EK, caduceus, and torch (110/09 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., EK; above center, caduceus; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 30; Hague 5691a.

1. O93/R171 12.45 2. O94/R172 12.53 3. O94/R173 12.21 4. O94/R174 12.47 [EΚ] 5. O94/R175 12.27 Very worn 6. O95/R176 a. 12.28 Ebay 3906954668 b. 12.37 7. O95/R177 12.23 8. O96/R178 12.41 9. O97/R179 12.38 Obverse: Kleiner 1972, pl. XIV, 4 10. O97/R180 12.38 Obverse: Kleiner 1972, pl. XIV, 4 11. O98/R181 12.49 12. O99/R182 a. 12.39 b. 12.34 13. O100/R183 12.42 14. O101/R184 12.35 XXXIX. KE, caduceus, and torch (110/09 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., KE; above center, caduceus; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972 -.

1.

O102/R1854

12.56

Obverse: McClean 8092

4. The die link between KE and K𐅝 and the apparent absence of die linkage between EK and 𐅝K could suggest the possibility of the following sequence of issues: EK–KE–K𐅝–𐅝K.

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 99

3/12/20 12:02 PM

100

Hidden Power

XL.

𐅝K, caduceus, and torch (109/8 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., 𐅝K; above center, caduceus; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 31.



1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

XLI.

K𐅝, caduceus, and torch (109/8 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., K𐅝; above center, caduceus; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972 -.

O101/R186 O101/R187 O101/R188 O101/R189 O101/R190

12.64 12.5 10.28 12.36 12.47

1. O102/R191 12.61 Obverse: McClean 8092 2. O103/R192 12.23 XLII. ZK, pileus and star, and torch (108/7 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., ZK (the letter Z is written differently from the previous series); above center, pileus and star; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972 -; McClean 8093.

1. O104/R193 12.67 Obverse: Emporium 39 (1998), 69 2. O104/R194 a. 12.54 Noble Numismatics 80 (2005), 3209 b. 12.24 3. O104/R195 12.45 Obverse: Emporium 39 (1998), 69 4. O105/R196 12.44 5. O105/R197 12.45 6. O105/R198 a. 12.49 b. 12.25 7. O106/R199 12.33 8. O107/R200 Obverse: McClean 8093 a. 12.42 b. 12.43 9. O108/R201 12.55 10. O108/R202 12.36 11. O109/R203 12.57 12. O110/R204 12.43 13. O110/R205 12.37 14. O111/R206 12.36

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 100

3/12/20 12:02 PM

Cistophoric Production at Ephesus

101

XLIII. KH, palm branch, and torch (107/6 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., KH; above center, palm branch; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 32; SNG Copenhagen no. 323.

1. 2. 3.

O112/R207 12.56 O113/R208 12.61 O114/R209 12.38

CNG MBS 63 (2003), 474 Dies of SNG Copenhagen 323

XLIV. KΘ, trident, and torch (106/5 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., KΘ; above center, trident; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 33; SNG Copenhagen 324.

1. 2. 3.

O115/R210 12.35 O115/R211 12.59 O116/R212 12.35

Obverse: SNG Copenhagen 324 Same dies as SNG Copenhagen 324

XLV.

Λ, rose, and torch (105/4 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., Λ; above center, rose; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972 -.



1. 2. 3.

O117/R213 O118/R214 O118/R215

12.68 12.4 12.46

Obverse: ANS 1955.107.29 = de Callataÿ 1997a, D 3 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 1 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 1

XLVI. Λ, bunch of grapes, and torch (105/4 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., Λ; above center, bunch of grapes; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 34; Cambridge, McClean 8094–8095.

1. O118/R216 12.42 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 1 2. O119/R217 12.39 3. O119/R218 a. 12.36 b. 12.36 4. O119/R219 12.49 5. O120/R220 12.38 6. O120/R221 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 2 a. 12.45 b. 12.33 7. O121/R222 12.43 8. O122/R223 12.51 9. O122/R224 12.45 10. O122/R225 12.34 11. O123/R226 Obverse: ANS 1955.107.30–1955.107.31; de Callataÿ 1997a, D 4 a. 12.52 b. 12.55 Noble Numismatics 92 (2009), 5103

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 101

3/12/20 12:02 PM

102

Hidden Power

12. O123/R227 12.62 Obverse: ANS 1955.107.30–1955.107.31; de Callataÿ 1997a, D 4 13. O124/R228 12.38 14. O125/R229 12.34 XLVII. AΛ, bee, wreath, and torch (104/3 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ and bee above which AΛ; above center, wreath; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 35.

1. O126/R230 12.43 2. O126/R231 12.32 3. O126/R232 12.54 Noble Numismatics 97 (2011), 3310 4. O127/R233 12.43 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 5 5. O127/R234 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 5 a. 12.44 b. 12.52 6. O127/R235 12.44 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 5 7. O127/R236 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 5 a. 12.38 b. 12.28 Ebay 3044258123 8. O128/R237 12.38 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 6. Kleiner 1972, pl. XIV, 5 9. O128/R238 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 6. Kleiner 1972, pl. XIV, 5 a. 12.36 b. 12.42 10. O129/R238 12.48 11. O130/R239 12.37 12. O130/R240 12.38 13. O131/R241 a. 12.43 b. 12.42 XLVIII. AΛ, bee, wreath, and torch (104/3 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ and bee; above l., ΛA; above center, wreath; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972 -.

1. 2.

O132/R242 O132/R243

12.2 12.48

Obverse possibly recut

XLIX. ΛB, bucranium, and torch (103/2 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., ΛB; above center, bucranium; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 36; SNG Copenhagen 325.

1.

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 102

O133/R244

12.38

3/12/20 12:02 PM

Cistophoric Production at Ephesus

103

2. O134/R245 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 8 a. 12.41 b. 12.41 3. O134/R246 12.11 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 8 4. O134/R247 11.93 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 8. CNG E Auction 336 (2014), 87 5. O135/R248 12.39 Obverse de Callataÿ 1997a, D 9 6. O135/R249 12.5 Obverse de Callataÿ 1997a, D 9 7. O136/R250 12.6 8. O136/R251 a. 12.36 b. 12.68 9. O136/R252 12.38 10. O137/R253 12.27 Obverse de Callataÿ 1997a, D 10 11. O137/R254 12.37 Obverse de Callataÿ 1997a, D 10 12. O137/R255 12.37 Obverse de Callataÿ 1997a, D 10 L.

ΛΓ, owl, torch, and star (102/1 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ ; above l., ΛΓ; above center, owl; on r., torch; below r., star.



Kleiner 1972 -.

1. 2. 3.

O138/R256 O138/R257 O139/R258

12.35 12.5 12.55

Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 16

LI.

ΛΓ, owl, and torch (102/1 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., ΛΓ; above center, owl; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 37; Cambridge, McClean 8096.

1. O139/R259 12.54 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 16 2. O139/R260 12.55 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 16 3. O140/R261 a. 12.21 b. 12.42 4. O140/R262 12.62 5. O141/R263 12.52 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 12; Mc Clean 8096; Noble Numismatics 91 (2009), 3474 6. O141/R264 12.42 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 12; Mc Clean 8096 7. O142/R265 12.43 8. O143/R266 12.47 9. O143/R267 12.42 10. O144/R268 12.63 11. O145/R269 12.53

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 103

3/12/20 12:02 PM

104

Hidden Power

LII.

ΛΔ, tripod, and torch (101/0 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., ΛΔ; above center, tripod; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 38; BMC Ionia, 65, no. 159; SNG von Aulock 7848; SNG ANS-BYB 1059; Cambridge, McClean 8097.

1. O?/R270 12.54 Very worn obverse 2. O146/R271 12.55 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 17. Mc Clean 8097 3. O147/R272 12.53 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 22. Berk 66 (1984), 129 4. O147/R273 12.55 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 22. Berk 66 (1984), 129 5. O147/R274 12.48 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 22. Berk 66 (1984), 129 6. O147/R275 12.54 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 22. Berk 66 (1984), 129; CNG MBS 63 (2003), 475 7. O148/R276 12.56 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 18, NFA 2 (1984), 268; BNF 2663. 8. O149/R277 12.52 CNG MBS 64 (2003), 262 (12.53 g.) 9. O150/R278 12.49 Same dies as ANS 1951.5.138; de Callataÿ 1997a, D 23 R 8 10. O151/R279 12.4 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 21; same dies as SNG von Aulock 7848 11. O152/R280 12.4 Same dies as ANS 1944.100.37529; de Callataÿ 1997a, D19 R4 LIII.

ΛE, tripod, and torch (100/99 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., ΛE; above center, tripod; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 39.

1. O153/R281 a. 12.45 b. 12.66 2. O154/R282 a. 12.59 b. 12.48 3. O154/R283 12.52 4. O155/R284 12.58 5. O156/R285 12.57 CNG MBS 63 (2003), 476 6. O157/R286 12.27 LIV.

ΛE, lyre, and torch (100/99 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., ΛE; above center, lyre; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972 -; de Callatay 1997a -.

1. O158/R287 12.95 Barbarous?

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 104

3/12/20 12:02 PM

Cistophoric Production at Ephesus

LV.

ΛE, helmet, and torch (100/99 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., ΛE; above center, helmet; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972 -; de Callataÿ 1997a -.

1.

O159/R288

105

12.4

LVI.

Λ𐅝, helmet, and torch (99/8 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., Λ𐅝; above center, helmet; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 40.

1. O159/R289 a. 12.39 b. 12.57 2. O159/R290 12.49 CNG MBS 63 (2003), 477 3. O160/R291 12.62 4. O161/R292 12.57 5. O162/R293 12.56 LVII. ΛΘ, helmet, and torch (96/5 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ; above l., ΛΘ; above center, helmet; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 42.

1. O163/R294 a. 12.5 b. 12.53 c. 12.63 CNG MBS 63 (2003), 478; CNG EA 219 (2009), 273 2. O164/R295 12.55 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 28; Kleiner 1972, pl. XV, 3; ANS 1971.219.122 4. O164/R296 12.5 LVIII. M, candelabrum, and torch (95/4 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ, above l., M; above center, candelabrum; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 43; SNG von Aulock 7849; BMC Ionia, 65, no. 160.

1. O165 /R297 12.49 2. O166/R298 12.58 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 29; CNG MBS 63 (2003), 479; Elsen 87 (2006), 1208 LIX.

MA, bee, and torch (95/4 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ, above l., MA; above center, bee; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 44; SNG von Aulock 7850.

1. O167/R299 12.73 CNG MBS 63 (2003), 480; CNG EA 219 (2009), 274

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 105

3/12/20 12:02 PM

106

Hidden Power

2. O167/R300 12.64 3. O168/R301 12.55 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 30 4. O169/R302 12.66 5. O169/R303 12.52 6. O169/R304 a. 12.52 b. 12.6 7. O169/R305 12.43 LX.

MB, stag, and torch (93/2 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ, above l., MB; above center, stag; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972 -; de Callatay 1997a -.

1. O170/R306 a. 12.64 b. 12.55 c. 12.48 2. O170/R307 12.67 LXI.

MB, cock, and torch (93/2 BC)



On l., ΕΦΕ, above l., MB; above center, cock; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972 -; de Callatay 1997a -.

1. O170/R308 a. 12.51 b. 12.57 LXII. MΔ, fulmen, and torch (91/0 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ, above l., MΔ; above center, fulmen; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 45.

1. O171/R309 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 31. Kress 174, 440 a. 12.58 b. 12.71 2. O171/R310 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 31. Kress 174, 440 a. 12.57 b. 12.63 c. 12.61 d. 12.59 e. 12.58 Noble Numismatics 97 (2011), 3311 3. O171/R311 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 31. Kress 174, 440 a. 12.52 b. 12.63

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 106

3/12/20 12:02 PM

Cistophoric Production at Ephesus

107

4. O171/R312 a. 12.65 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 31; Kress 174, 440 5. O172/R312 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 33 a. 12.65 CNG EA 95 (2004), 41 b. 12.55 6. O172/R313 Obverse de Callataÿ 1997a, D 33 a. 12.54 b. 12.68 7. O172/R314 12.56 Dies BNF 2664 and de Callataÿ 1997a, D 33 R4 8. O173/R314 Obverse de Callataÿ 1997a, D 32 a. 12.65 b. 12.65 c. 12.67 9. O173/R315 Obverse de Callataÿ 1997a, D 32 a. 12.64 b. 12.54 10. O173/R316 Dies of Lanz 36 (1986), 354; de Callataÿ 1997a, D 32 R3 a. 12.53 CNG MBS 63 (2003), 481 b. 12.51 c. 12.72 11. O174/R317 12.59 CNG Triton VI (2003), 345 LXIII. ME, serpent staff, and torch (90/89 BC)

On l., ΕΦΕ, above l., ME; above center, serpent staff; on r., torch.



Kleiner 1972, no. 46; SNG Copenhagen no. 326.

1. O175/R318 12.59 2. O175/R319 12.68 3. O175/R320 12.59 4. O175/R321 12.7 5. O176/R322 12.62 Berries at the top of the obverse die. Same dies as Savoca Numismatik 25 (2018), 237 6. O177/R323 12.53 7. O178/R324 Dies of ANS 1951.5.141; de Callataÿ 1997a, D39 R9 a. 12.61 b. 12.49 Noble Numismatics 89 (2008), 3865. Noble Numismatics 93 (2010), 4960. Noble Numismatics 101 (2012), 3431 (12.52 g). c. 12.58 Dies of ANS 1951.5.141; de Callataÿ 1997a, D39 R9

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 107

3/12/20 12:02 PM

108

Hidden Power

8. O178/R325 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 39 a. 12.51 b. 12.59 c. 12.6 CNG EA 138 (2006), 77 d. 12.68 e. 12.56 CNG EA 86 (2004), 24 9. O179/R326 12.54 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 35 10. O179/R327 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 35 a. 12.58 b. 12.55 11. O179/R328 12.43 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 35 12. O179/R329 12.65 Dies of de Callataÿ 1997a, D 35 R4 13. O179/R330 12.55 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 35 14. O180/R331 Obverse: Istanbul 13455 a. 12.57 b. 12.48 CNG MBS 64 (2003), 263 15. O180/R332 12.68 Obverse: Istanbul 13455 16. O180/R333 Dies of Istanbul 13455 a. 12.49 b. 12.58 c. 12.66 d. 12.67 17. O180/R334 a. 12.65 b. 12.55 18. O181/R335 a. 12.67 b. 12.57 19. O181/R336 a. 12.51 b. 12.51 c. 12.68 20. O181/R337 12.67 21. O181/R338 a. 12.65 b. 12.63 c. 12.61 d. 12.61 e. 12.61 f. 12.72 CNG MBS 63 (2003), 482 g. 12.55 h. 12.55 i. 12.58 j. 12.67

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 108

3/12/20 12:02 PM

Cistophoric Production at Ephesus

109

22. O182/R339 Obverse: Lanz 42 (1987), 231; de Callataÿ 1997a, D 38 a. 12.51 b. 12.57 c. 12.64 23. O182/R340 Same dies as Lanz 42 (1987), 231; de Callataÿ 1997a, D38 R8 a. 12.62 b. 12.62 Noble Numismatics 81 (2006), 3268; Noble Numismatics 92 (2009), 5104 (12.65 g.) c. 12.72 24. O183/R341 12.61 25. O184/R342 Obverse de Callataÿ 1997a, D 34 a. 12.56 Marti Hervera 11 (2010), 59, ex Cayon 14 (Dec. 2005), 42; CNG EA 263 (2011), 105. b. 12.59 26. O184/R343 12.87 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 34 27. O184/R344 Obverse: de Callataÿ 1997a, D 34 a. 12.54 b. 12.55 Noble Numismatics 82 (2006), 3915 c. 12.58 28. O185/R345 12.16 29. O186/R346 12.49 Obverse: ANS 1951.5.140; Vienna 34558; de Callataÿ 1997a, D 40 30. O186/R347 12.47 31. O187/R348 12.6 CNG Triton VI (2003),346. Obverse: ANS 1951.5.139.

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 109

3/12/20 12:02 PM

110

Hidden Power

Early Cistophoric Production in Context Ephesus—the cistophoric mint with the second-highest volume of issues in the Attalid kingdom— issued Attic-weight drachms over the course of the second century BC.5 The types of these series consist of a bee within a border of dots and ΕΦ on the obverse, and on the reverse a stag standing right, in front of a palm tree with a magistrate’s name written vertically (Fig. 3.1). In his study of the coins, P. Kinns concluded that the available hoard evidence strongly points to a starting date of 202 BC and an end date of 150 BC.6 Stylistic considerations led him to identify the issues with ΕΦΕΣΙΩΝ on the reverse, and no magistrate’s name (obverses 69–70) as the latest series.7 The unusual form of the ethnic written in its entirety, however, corresponds to the Attic-weight gold staters that were probably issued by the city between 160 and 135 BC (Fig. 3.2).8 Therefore, the dating of these two issues, known only from one specimen for each obverse die and unaccounted for in hoards, cannot be fixed with absolute certainty.9 B. Head dated the bronze series with types shared with the silver drachms to the years 202–133 BC.10 Kinns, however, dated this series to the end of the second century and beginning of the first century BC. He also distinguished an early series (Types A–D) dated to the years ca. 200–190 BC and characterized by denominations ranging from ca. 4 grams to 1 gram (Fig. 3.3).11A later Series (Types E–F) should be dated to the years 190–150 BC, with two denominations of 3.5–4 and 1.5–2 grams (Fig. 3.4).12 To these series, three further contemporary types, representing smaller denominations, have been identified by Kinns, who labels them as Types G–I.13 G) Bee / forepart of stag kneeling right. Ten names, as Künker 133 (2007), 7551. Chalkous (Fig. 3.5). H) Bee in wreath / forepart of stag kneeling right. Six names, as H. Weber 5865 and SNG Munich 94. Chalkous (a successor to Type G).

5. The starting date for these series had been placed by G. Le Rider (Le Rider 1991, 204–5) between 202 (the date of the end of the Ptolemaic control over Ephesus) and 197 BC (the date of the beginning of Seleucid control over Ephesus). On the basis of hoard evidence, E. Özgen and A. Davesne (1994) showed that 197 BC was not a viable option, so the series must have begun before the end of the third century BC. The end date has been debated, with dates ranging from 133 BC (Head) to 110 BC (Le Rider). Significant for the latter date is the imitative coinage of the Phoenician city of Aradus, which closely resembles the Ephesian coins and circulated alongside them in Syrian and Phoenician hoards. All of these publications are superseded by Kinns 1999. 6. Kinns 1999, 78–83; Kinns reaches this conclusion on the basis that: 1. Obverses 19–59 predate the burial the Lebanon 1997a hoard (Hoard 5: Kinns 1999, 62–72); 2. Obverses 60–61 are included in IGCH 1552, buried around 150 BC (Hoard 6: Kinns 1999, 72–73); 3. Obverses 62–67, included in hoards dated between 145 and 130 BC, present a considerable degree of wear (Hoards 7–8: Kinns 1999, 74–78). 7. Kinns 1999, 82–83; Meadows 2013, 189. 8. Jenkins 1978/80, 185–186, pl. A, 1. The dating of these Ephesian gold staters is based on the connection tentatively established by G. K. Jenkins with Tralles’s gold staters. 9. Philip Kinns kindly told me that a second specimen of obverse 70 appeared in Stack’s Bowers (30 October 2014), lot 11013(part). Close examination suggests that the symbol on the reverse is a star, not a bee. 10. Obverse: bee, ΕΦ within a laurel wreath. Reverse: stag standing right before palm tree, magistrate’s name in exergue. BMC Ionia, 62, nos. 134–141; SNG Copenhagen 299–303. 11. Early series (Types A–D): Kinns 1999, 92–95. Larger denomination (Type A: diam. 16–18 mm). Smaller denomination (Type B: diam. 13–14 mm). Types C and D have lower weights and smaller diameters than B (Kinns 1999, 94). 12. Later series (Types E–F): Kinns 1999, 95–97; larger denomination (Type E: diam. 16–18 mm); smaller denomination (Type F: diam. 12.5–13.5 mm). 13. I am sincerely thankful to Philip Kinns, who kindly shared with me part of his unpublished work in progress (with Walter Holt) on the coinage of Ephesus.

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 110

3/12/20 12:02 PM

Cistophoric Production at Ephesus

111

Figure 3.1. Ionia, Ephesus. Silver drachm, 202–190 BC. Ε–Φ; bee with straight wings / ΠΥΘΕΑC; stag standing right before palm tree. Kinns 1999, 90, obverses 7 and 18; SNG von Aulock 1851. 17.5 mm. 4.18 g. ANS 1968.57.94.

Figure 3.2. Ionia, Ephesus. Silver drachm, 160–150 BC. Bee with straight wings / ΕΦΗΣΙΩΝ; stag standing right before palm tree with small bee below stag’s belly. Kinns 1999, 8, obverses 69–70. 4.02 g. BNF 511 ex Waddington 1577.

Figure 3.3. Ionia, Ephesus. Bronze tetrachalkon(?), 202–190 BC. Ε–Φ; bee with straight open wings / ΕΥΘΥΚΡΑΤ; stag standing right; behind, horizontal quiver of Artemis. Kinns 1999, 92, Type A; SNG Copenhagen 263; SNG von Aulock 7823a. 17 mm. 4.15 g. Nomos AG, Obolos 11 (2018), 269.

Figure 3.4. Ionia, Ephesus. Bronze tetrachalkon(?), 190–150 BC. Ε–Φ. Bee with straight open wings in laurel wreath / ΣΟΛΩΝ; stag feeding right; above, quiver. BMC Ionia, 58, no. 84; SNG von Aulock 1842; Kinns 1999, 95, Type F. 4.65 g. M & M 14 (2004), 424.

Figure 3.5. Ionia, Ephesus. Bronze chalkous, 190–150 BC. Ε–Φ; bee with straight wings; border of dots / (Κ)ΑΙΣΤΡΙ(ΟΣ). Forepart of stag kneeling right. 1.61 g. Künker 133 (2007), 7551.

Figure 3.6. Ionia, Ephesus. Bronze hemichalkon, 190–150 BC. Ε–Φ; bee with straight open wings in laurel wreath / ΗΡΑΙΣΚΟ(Σ); head and neck of stag right; behind, quiver. 0.97 g. Künker 133 (2007), 7552.

I) Bee in wreath / head and neck of stag right. Nineteen names, as Künker 133 (2007), 7552. Hemichalkon (Fig. 3.6). In the years after the Treaty of Apamea (i.e., under the Attalids), the production of the mint of Ephesus was characterized by very diverse issues of coinage, ranging from Attic-weight gold to silver coins issued on the Attic and cistophoric standards, to bronze.14 14. For the controversy regarding the date of the introduction of the cistophorus, see supra, 29, n. 221 and 76, n. 12.

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 111

3/12/20 12:02 PM

112

Hidden Power

Early Cistophori in the 2002 Hoard (Plates 61–62)

No new issues are included among the 77 early Ephesian cistophori in the 2002 hoard. One new die link has been identified between ECC Series 8–11 and Series 16.15 The poorer condition of the die suggests that ECC Series 16 immediately followed Series 8–11, in contrast with what had been noted by F. Kleiner and S. Noe.16 In addition, since ECC Series 12–13 do not appear to have shared any dies with Series 8–11, they could either be placed before Series 8–11 or after Series 17. The revised issue sequence for this group of issues is therefore as follows: Table 3.1. Comparison between the issue sequence proposed in ECC and the sequence suggested by the 2002 hoard. ECC series

2002 hoard

12

1617

13

14

14

15

18

15

17

16

1219

17

13

Another new die link has been found between Series 34a and 35, as might be expected, since these series are both dated to 139/8 BC, the year when Attalus III succeeded Attalus II.20 As already noted, ECC records a clear rise in Ephesian cistophoric production after 134 BC in terms of tetradrachm obverse dies, something further confirmed by this hoard.21 Sixteen Ephesian specimens antedating 134 BC employ ten obverse dies, while 61 post-134 BC issues use 34 obverse dies. The combination of the data from ECC and the 2002 hoard show that Ephesian production, both in absolute and relative terms, surpassed that of Pergamum between 134 and 128 BC.22 The reason for this increase in the cistophoric production of the city should be sought in the political stance taken by Ephesus during the Revolt of Aristonicus.23

15. O2 = Obverse ECC 9 (Series 8–11). 16. ECC, 43. 17. This issue shares O2 (ECC obverse 9) with Series 8–11. The relative order of the issues ECC 14–17, linked to ECC 16 through O3 (ECC obverse 18), has been retained. 18. ECC 14–17 share the obverse E18 (ECC, 45), which does not show any signs of wear. The sequence of issues is therefore arbitrary. 19. Since ECC Series 12–13 do not appear to have shared any dies with Series 8–11, the sequence of issues given here is once again only indicative. 20. ECC, 51. The shared die is O8. 21. ECC, 53–57 and supra, 14, Fig. 0.1. 22. See infra, 44, Figs. 1.8–1.9. 23. Ephesian Era of Freedom on cistophori: Adams 1980, 311–314; Rigsby 1979, 39–47. Ephesian freedom: Leschhorn 1993, 204–208; Gürber 1995, 388–394. For Aristonicus’s defeat at the hands of the Ephesians, see Eutr. 4.20. See supra, 1o–14.

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 112

3/12/20 12:02 PM

Cistophoric Production at Ephesus

113

Table 3.2. Ephesian early cistophoric issues included in 2002 hoard. Regnal/ Ephesian Era date

Year (BC)

Reference

Obverse dies

Specimens

Control mark(s)

160–150

ECC 13

1

1

Cult statue of Artemis Ephesia, facing

160–150

ECC 16

1 (die link to ECC 8–11)

1

Temple key24

160–150

ECC 17

1

4

Bee within wreath

150–140

ECC 25

1

1

Eagle r., fillet in beak

150–140

ECC 27

2

2

Star and filleted laurel branch

150–140

ECC 28

1

1

Bee and coiled serpent on cista

KA

139/8

ECC 34a

1 (die link to ECC 35)

1

Bee and double cornucopiae

A

139/8

ECC 35

1 (die link to ECC 34a)

1

Bee and double cornucopiae

B

138/7

ECC 36

2

4

Artemis Ephesia facing, with tall headdress

A

134/3

ECC 40; Kleiner 1972, no. 1

2

3

Bee25

B

133/2

ECC 41; Kleiner 1972, no. 2

2

6

Bee

Γ

132/1

ECC 42a; Kleiner 1972, no. 3

4

6

Bee

Γ

132/1

ECC 42b; Kleiner 1972, no. 4

8

14

Δ

131/0

ECC 43a; Kleiner 1972, no. 5

1

1

Δ

131/0

ECC 43b; Kleiner 1972, no. 6

12

23

Ε

130/129

ECC 44a; Kleiner 1972, no. 7

4

5

Ε

130/129

ECC 44c; Kleiner 1972, no. 9

1 (die link to ECC 45)

1

Stag r.

𐅝

129/8

ECC 45; Kleiner 1972, no. 10

1 (die link to ECC 44c)

2

Stag r.

Bee

24. The updated sequence of issues after ECC 11 should therefore be ECC 16–14–15–17. ECC 12 and 13 could have been issued before or after ECC 17. 25. The torch is not included here, as it could be considered a secondary type of the post-134 BC Ephesian cistophori rather than a control mark.

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 113

3/12/20 12:02 PM

114

Hidden Power

Late Cistophoric Production in Context The manifold production that characterized the previous century did not cease after the institution of provincia Asia. The production of gold staters continued over the course of the second and first centuries BC. A specimen in the Kayseri Museum bears the name of C. Atinius and the date IΓ (year 13 of the Ephesian Era of Freedom = 122/1 BC), also to be found on late cistophori.26 The Ephesian gold series continued until 79/8 BC (Fig. 3.7).27 Although the production of Attic-weight drachms ended around the 150s BC, the production of bronze coinage went on at least until the 50s BC.28 Post-133 BC bronze coinage may be divided into eight series, which P. Kinns and W. Holt term types J to Q, in order to mark their continuity with the series issued under the Attalids. The earlier series J–M were issued contemporaneously, possibly between the end of second and the beginning of the first century BC. They represented a denominational system composed of a large denomination (tetrachalkon) with a diameter of 16–18 mm and a weight of ca. 4 grams, a dichalkon with a diameter of 12–13 mm and a weight of 2.5–3 grams, and a chalkous with a weight of ca. 1 gram. These series are here summarized: J) Tetrachalkon: Bee in wreath / stag before palm tree. Nine names, as BMC Ionia, 62, nos. 134– 139, 141 and SNG Copenhagen 299–303. Early group: ΑΠΟΛΛΩΝΙΟΣ, ΑΡΚΑΣ, ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΣ, ΖΩΠΥΡΟΣ, ΝΙΚΑΔΑΣ, ΠΑΡΘΕΝΙΟΣ. Later group: ΑΙΝΗΑΣ, ΕΡΜΙΑΣ, ΠΟΣΙΔΩΝΙΟΣ. Contemporary with types K–M (Fig. 3.8). K) Dichalkon: Bee in wreath / stag before torch. Five names, as Waddington 1603, SNG Copenhagen 345–34,6 and SNG von Aulock 1873. Early group: ΑΠΟΛΛΩΝΙΟΣ, ΑΡΚΑΣ, ΖΩΠΥΡΟΣ (shared with early J). Later group: ΜΕΝΑΝΔ, ΠΥΘΩΝ (Fig. 3.9). L) Chalkous: Bee in wreath / stag before torch. Name ΘΕΩΝ. Unpublished. The later series (M–N) may be dated to the years of the Mithridatic Wars. Series M, a dichalkon, appears to be the successor to series K, possibly issued right before the Mithridatic Wars. It is characterized by the absence of the ethnic, rendered in the earlier Series as ΕΦ. M) Dichalkon (successor to K): Bee in wreath (without ethnic) / stag before torch. Four names (ΑΙΝΗΑΣ, ΕΡΜΙΑΣ, ΠΟΣΙΔΩΝ shared with later series J, ΙΑΣΩΝ with Series P, below), as BMC Ionia, 62, no. 140, and SNG Copenhagen 348–351. In the years of the Mithridatic Wars, the Ephesian mint introduced an even larger denomination with a diameter of 22.5–21 mm and a weight of 9–11 grams, probably representing an obol (series N–O). S. Karwiese suggests that the introduction of this heavier denomination could be seen as an attempt to make civic bronze production compatible with the Roman denominational system.29 However, the similarities in weight and diameter with Pontic bronze coinage should not be dismissed.30 Together with the new denomination, a significant change in the iconography takes place with the introduction of the bust of Artemis on the obverse. A safe terminus ante quem 26. Gold stater: Jenkins 1978/80, 184, and pl. B, 4; French 1991b. Late cistophorus: Kleiner 1972, no. 19; Stumpf 1991, no. 1; Metcalf 2017, 61. See supra, Issue XXV. 27. Jenkins 1978/80, 185 and pls. A, 2–3 and B, 6. 28. I am once again grateful to Philip Kinns and Walter Holt, who generously shared with me part of their unpublished work in progress on the Ephesian coinage. 29. Karwiese 2016, 9–13. 30. Especially the production of the mint of Amisos: SNG BM 1216; SNG Copenhagen 159. For Pontic influence over Asian bronze coinage during the Mithridatic Wars, see supra, 81, n. 41.

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 114

3/12/20 12:02 PM

Cistophoric Production at Ephesus

115

for series O is represented by the inclusion of two specimens from this series in the Antikythera Shipwreck, dated to ca. 75 BC.31 N) Obol (predecessor to O): Bust of Artemis right / stag feeding right. ΜΗΝΟΦΙΛΟΣ. Unpublished. O) Obol: Bust of Artemis right / forepart of stag right with torch. Two names (ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΣ, shared with early series J, and ΜΗΝΟΦΙΛΟΣ, shared with series N), as BMC Ionia, 69, nos. 179–181 and SNG Copenhagen 338–341 (Fig. 3.10). To the years immediately following 75 BC should be dated series P, presumably an obol again, characterized by a larger diameter of 24–26 mm. P) Obol: Artemis huntress right / cock right with palm, in wreath. Name ΙΑΣΩΝ (shared with series M), as BMC Ionia, 69, no. 185, and SNG Copenhagen 344 (Fig. 3.11). The final bronze issue of Ephesus struck before the beginning of the city’s Roman provincial coinage is an apparent tetrachalkon, probably dateable to 60–50 BC. ΣΩΠΑΤΡΟΣ, one of the magistrates appearing on this issue, is also present on the proconsular cistophori of C. Pulcher, dated to 55/4 BC.32 Q) Tetrachalkon: Bust of Artemis right / two stags confronted, torch between. BMC Ionia, 69, nos. 182–184; SNG Copenhagen 342–343 (Fig. 3.12).

31. Tselekas 2012, nos. 295–5 and 295–6. 32. Metcalf 2017, no. XVII; Stumpf 1991, no. 45.

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 115

3/12/20 12:02 PM

116

Hidden Power

Figure 3.7. Ionia, Ephesus. Gold stater, 133/2 BC. Draped bust of Artemis to right, wearing stephane, necklace of pearls and with her bow and quiver over her shoulder/ Ε–Φ; statue of Ephesian Artemis facing; to left, crested helmet; to right, Β (= year 2). de Callataÿ 1997a, pl. LI, k. Jenkins 1978/80, pl. A, 2. 22 mm. 8.57 g. Roma Numismatics 7 (2014), 539.

Figure 3.8. Ionia, Ephesus. Bronze tetrachalkon, 130–90 BC. Ε–Φ; bee with open wings in laurel wreath / stag before palm tree; in exergue, ΗΡΜΙΑΣ. BMC Ionia, 62, no. 140. 17 mm. 3.07 g. Naville Numismatics 9 (2014), 79.

Figure 3.9. Ionia, Ephesus. Bronze dichalkon, 130–90 BC. Ε–Φ; bee with open wings in laurel wreath / stag standing before torch, with head turning to left. In exergue, ΠΥΘΩΝ. SNG von Aulock 1873; SNG München 93. 3.71 g. M. & M. Deutschland 30 (2009), 1019.

Figure 3.10. Ionia, Ephesus. Bronze obol, 90–75 BC. Bust of Artemis right / Ε–Φ; forepart of stag, to left, torch and M; below, ΜΗΝΟ–ΦΙΛΟΥ. SNG Copenhagen 341. 21 mm. 8.99 g. CNG 46 (1998), 402.

Figure 3.11. Ionia, Ephesus. Bronze obol, 75–60 BC. Ε–Φ; Artemis, wearing chiton, hurrying right, holding bow in her outstretched left hand, drawing with her right hand arrow from quiver at her back; at her feet, dog running right. Border of dots / rooster standing right, palm branch over left shoulder; in exergue, ΙΑΣΩΝ; all within laurel wreath. 10.63 g. BMC Ionia, 69, no. 185; SNG Copenhagen 344. 26 mm. 10.63 g. M & M Basel 95 (2004), 49.

Figure 3.12. Ionia, Ephesus. Bronze tetrachalkon. 60–50 BC. Draped bust of Artemis right; across fields, [ΔHMHTPIOΣ] /KO-KOΣ /E-Φ / ΣΩΠΑΤΡΟΣ; two stags confronting, torch in between. BMC Ionia, 69, nos. 182–184; SNG Copenhagen 242–243; SNG München 88–89. 4.33 g. Lanz 149 (2010), 190.

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 116

3/12/20 12:02 PM

Cistophoric Production at Ephesus

117

Late Cistophori in the 2002 hoard (Plates 62–98)

The 377 post-128 BC cistophoric specimens included in the hoard supplement the 255 analyzed by F. de Callataÿ and the 79 included in Kleiner’s study.33 This study identifies 44 obverses not included in de Callataÿ’s study—the only published die study for this coinage. However, de Callataÿ’s study was limited to the years 105–67 BC.34 A review of auction catalogues and of the most important museum collections has led to the provisional identification of 48 new obverse dies for the years 128–105 BC.35 Table 3.3 summarizes the late cistophoric issues included in the hoard. Table 3.3. Late Ephesian cistophoric issues included in the 2002 hoard. Ephesian Era Date

Year (BC)

Reference

Number of obverse dies

Number of specimens

Control mark(s)

Z

128/7

Kleiner 1972, no. 11; BMC Ionia, 65, no. 158

3 (die link to H)

8

Artemis Ephesia

H

127/6

Kleiner 1972, no. 12

3 (die link to Z)

5

stag

Θ

126/5

Kleiner 1972, no. 13

2

4

Artemis Ephesia

I

125/4

Kleiner 1972, no. 15

4

8

star

IA

124/3

Kleiner 1972, no. 16

3

3

round shield

IΓ

122/1

Kleiner 1972, no. 19; Stumpf 1991, no. 1

1

2

caduceus and C. ATIN C. F

IΓ

122/1

Kleiner 1972, no. 18

1

2

caduceus

ΙΔ

121/0

Kleiner 1972, no. 20

2 (die link to IE)

3

torch

ΙΕ

120/119

Kleiner 1972, no. 21

3 (die link to ΙΔ)

13

torch

IE

120/119

Kleiner 1972 –

1

2

cornucopiae

I𐅝

119/8

Kleiner 1972, no. 22

6

14

cornucopiae

IZ (reversed)

118/7

Kleiner 1972, no. 23

3 (die link to ΙΘ)

11

grapes

ΙΘ

116/5

Kleiner 1972, no. 24

3 (die link to IZ and K)

5

cornucopiae

K

115/4

Kleiner 1972 –

1 (die link to ΙΘ)

2

cornucopiae

AK

114/3

Kleiner 1972, no. 25

1

1

ear of grain

KA

114/3

Kleiner 1972, no. 26

1

2

ear of grain

BK

113/2

Kleiner 1972, no. 27

8

25

lyre

ΓΚ

112/1

Kleiner 1972, no. 28

3

6

Helios

ΔΚ

111/0

Kleiner 1972, no. 29

4

12

gorgoneion

33. de Callataÿ 1997a, 169–179; Kleiner 1972. 34. Summary of late cistophoric issues: de Callataÿ 1997a, 171–172. 35. Auction catalogues as indicated. Museum collections consulted include the British Museum, the Bibliothèque nationale de France, the Vienna Kunsthistorisches Museum, the Berlin Münzkabinett, Berlin Prokesch-Osten, SNG von Aulock, SNG Copenhagen, the Istanbul Museum, and the American Numismatic Society.

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 117

3/12/20 12:02 PM

118

Hidden Power

Table 3.3 (continued). Late Ephesian cistophoric issues included in the 2002 hoard.

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 118

Ephesian Era Date

Year (BC)

Reference

Number of obverse dies

Number of specimens

Control mark(s)

EK

110/9

Kleiner 1972, no. 30

9 (die link to 𐅝K)

16

caduceus

KE

110/9

Kleiner 1972 –

1 (die link to K𐅝)

1

caduceus

𐅝K

109/8

Kleiner 1972, no. 31

1 (die link to EK)

5

caduceus

K𐅝

109/8

Kleiner 1972 –

2 (die link to KE)

2

caduceus

ZK

108/7

Kleiner 1972 –

9

17

pileus and star

KH

107/6

Kleiner 1972, no. 32

3

3

palm branch

KΘ

106/5

Kleiner 1972, no. 33

2

3

trident

Λ

105/4

Kleiner 1972 –; de Callataÿ 1997a–.

2 (die link to Λ and grapes)

3

rose

Λ

105/4

Kleiner 1972, no. 34

17

grapes

ΑΛ

104/3

Kleiner 1972, no. 35

6

17

wreath and bee

ΛA

104/3

Kleiner 1972 – . de Callataÿ 1997a– .

1

2

wreath and bee

ΛB

103/2

Kleiner 1972, no. 36

5

14

bucranium

ΛΓ

102/1

Kleiner 1972 – (cf. no. 37)

2 (die link to ΛΓ and owl)

3

owl and star

ΛΓ

102/1

Kleiner 1972, no. 37

7 (die link to ΛΓ, owl and star)

12

owl

ΛΔ

101/0

Kleiner 1972, no. 38

7

11

tripod

ΛE

100/99

Kleiner 1972, no. 39

5

8

tripod

ΛE

100/99

Kleiner 1972 –; de Callataÿ 1997a– .

1

1

lyre

ΛE

100/99

Kleiner 1972 –; de Callataÿ 1997a– .

1 (die link to Λ𐅝 and helmet)

1

helmet

Λ𐅝

99/8

Kleiner 1972, no. 40

4 (die link to ΛE and helmet)

6

helmet

ΛΘ

96/5

Kleiner 1972, no. 42

2

5

helmet

M

95/4

Kleiner 1972, no. 43

2

2

candelabrum

MA

94/3

Kleiner 1972, no. 44

3

8

bee

MB

93/2

Kleiner 1972 –; de Callataÿ 1997a– .

1 (die link to MB and rooster)

4

stag

MB

93/2

Kleiner 1972 –; de Callataÿ 1997a– .

1 (die link to MB and stag)

2

rooster

MΔ

91/0

Kleiner 1972, no. 45

4

24

fulmen

ME

90/89

Kleiner 1972, no. 46

13

62

caduceus

(die link to Λ and rose)

3/12/20 12:02 PM

Cistophoric Production at Ephesus

119

As expected, the obverse links between issues, support the order based on the Ephesian Era of Freedom proposed by Rigsby.36 The almost-certain presence of the letter N on a reverse of the year 10 (125/4 BC) raises the possibility that this issue adopted the letter system attested on the New Style Athenian tetradrachms, where it was used for the Athenian civil or festival calendar.37 In this system, the letter N indicated the intercalary month. 38 The presence of N on the recut reverse die of a year 10 coin further strengthens the possibility that this letter represents an intercalary month. However, the very rare occurrence of recut dies and the otherwise-unattested presence of other month letters on late Ephesian cistophori does not enable us to draw conclusions about the adoption of month letters by the Ephesian mint.39 The existence of a recut die for this year seems to suggest that the Ephesian mint must have experienced some sudden need for newly coined currency, while the intercalary month points toward an otherwise unattested necessity of lengthening the administrative year. Moreover, the specimens included in the 2002 hoard require us to invert the order of the issues Kleiner 1972, nos. 19 and 20, both dated to 122/1 BC.40 On the basis of the fresher condition of the shared obverse die O59, it is now possible to establish that the issue signed by the praetor C. Atinius preceded the “regular” Ephesian issue for the same year.41 The 2002 hoard adds eleven new varieties unknown to Kleiner 1972 and de Callataÿ 1997a: Table 3.4. Previously unpublished late cistophoric issues included in 2002 hoard. Ephesian Era date

Year (BC)

Obverse dies

Specimens

Control mark(s)

K

115/14

1 (die link to ΙΘ)

2

cornucopiae

KE

110/9

1 (die link to K𐅝)

1

caduceus

K𐅝

109/8

2 (die link to KE)

2

caduceus

ZK

108/7

9

17

pileus and star

Λ

105/4

2 (die link to Λ and cornucopiae)

3

rose

ΛA

104/3

1

2

wreath and bee

ΛΓ

102/1

2 (die link to ΛΓ and owl)

3

owl and star

ΛE

100/99

1

1

lyre

ΛE

100/99

1 (die link to Λ𐅝 and helmet)

1

helmet

MB

93/2

1 (die link to MB and rooster)

4

stag

MB

93/2

1 (die link to MB and stag)

2

rooster

36. New die links (all Kleiner 1972): 11–12; 19–18; 20–21; 23–24; 24–K (Kleiner 1972 –); KE (Kleiner 1972 –)–K𐅝 (Kleiner 1972 –); 30 (EK); 30–31; Λ and rose (Kleiner 1972 –; de Callataÿ 1997a–)–34; ΛΓ and owl and star (Kleiner 1972 –; de Callataÿ 1997a–) –37; ΛE and helmet (Kleiner 1972 ; de Callataÿ 1997a–) –40; MB and stag (Kleiner 1972 –; de Callataÿ 1997a–) –MB and rooster (Kleiner 1972 –; de Callataÿ 1997a–). 37. Kleiner 1972, no. 15. XXII.1 38. Thompson 1961, 608–613. 39. About a decade earlier, Tralles’s cistophoric Series (ECC Series 33–37) bore the initials of the Macedonian months (Ashton 2003, also for the discussion on the chronology of these issues). This element was used by R. Ashton to argue convincingly for the adoption of the Macedonian calendar in Tralles. See infra, 156, n. 23. 40. Issues XXIV–XXV. 41. Stumpf 1991, no. 1; de Callataÿ 2011, 61; Metcalf 2017, 61.

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 119

3/12/20 12:02 PM

120

Hidden Power

Figure 3.13. Cistophoric production at Ephesus (128–89 BC). Source: 2002 hoard.

The new varieties show that more than one control mark was used in the years they were issued. Since multiple control marks occur in years of limited as well as high levels of output, they do not seem to be connected to volume of production. For example, there are two different control marks for the year 105/4 BC, when cistophori were produced from nine tetradrachm obverse dies, but three control marks for year 100/99 BC, when production involved only six dies.42 The 2002 hoard also shows that the transposition of date letters was a fairly common phenomenon at Ephesus. Kleiner already illustrated it for year 21(114/3 BC), in which issue nos. 25 and 26 were marked AK and KA, respectively.43 For year 11 (IA, 124/3 BC), Kleiner illustrated the issue with a coin bearing AI as dating letter-numerals on its reverse.44 The specimens included in the 2002 hoard show that the date forms AI and IA were both used on the cistophori of this year.45 The same is true for years 25 (110/1o9 BC), 26 (109/8 BC) and 31 (104/3 BC), in which the specimens from the hoard show that the order of the letter-numerals was often transposed on different reverse dies of the same year.46 At the end of his analysis of the late cistophori of Ephesus, F. de Callataÿ lamented the very low characteroscopic index of this coinage, which in his case was 1.81.47 The larger number of specimens analyzed in this study raises the characteroscopic index for Ephesian late cistophori to 2.62 (Esty coverage 87.4%), showing a much improved but still partial coverage of the obverse dies produced at Ephesus. The latest issue included in the hoard, whose characteroscopic index is 5.08 (Esty coverage: 91.8%) represents only a slight improvement. At the same time, it is worth emphasizing that from year A to ME (and indeed through to NZ) there are now only three years (IH, ΛΖ, and ΜΓ) for which no cistophori have yet been recorded. This implies that the sample included in the 2002 hoard represents a very significant portion of the monetary production of the city. 42. 105/4 BC: Λ and rose (Kleiner 1972 –; de Callataÿ 1997a –), Λ and grapes (Kleiner 1972, no. 34). 100–99 BC: ΛE and tripod (Kleiner 1972, no. 39), ΛE and lyre (Kleiner 1972 –; de Callatay 1997a –) and ΛE and helmet (Kleiner 1972 –; de Callataÿ 1997a –). 43. Kleiner 1972, 25. 44. Kleiner 1972, no. 16, pl. XIII, 4. 45. IA: XXIII.1,3. AI: XXIII.2. 46. Year 25 (Kleiner 1972, no. 30): EK (XXXVIII) and KE (XXXIX); year 26 (Kleiner 1972, no. 31): 𐅝K (XL) and K𐅝 (XIL); year 31 (Kleiner 1972, no. 35): AΛ (XLVII) and ΛA (XLVIII). 47. de Callataÿ 1997a, 171.

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 120

3/12/20 12:02 PM

Cistophoric Production at Ephesus

121

The present study includes a much larger sample than that of any previous study and therefore an updated version of de Callataÿ’s iconic chart of Ephesian late cistophoric production is proposed here (Fig. 3.13).48 F. de Callataÿ’s conclusions are reinforced and confirmed by the production peaks identified in 105/4 BC and, in larger measure, in 90/89 BC.49 As already mentioned, the increase in Ephesian cistophoric production around 105/4 BC finds clear parallels at Pergamum, which spiked in the same years, and at Tralles, which resumed its production around the same time.50 The same is true for the year 90/89 BC, when the fourfold increase in Ephesus’s production compared to the previous years is very likely to be related to the aftermath of the arrival of Manius Aquilius and his legati in the city and to the beginning of the First Mithridatic War.51

48. de Callataÿ 1997a, 176. 49. de Callataÿ 1997a, 176–177. 50. See supra, 89, Fig. 2.10 (Pergamum) and 165, Fig. 4.11 (Tralles). 51. App. Mithr. 2.11 and 3.17; de Callatay 1997a, 278. See supra, 38–40. For the comparison to Pergamum and Tralles’s production in the same years see supra, 90–92.

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 121

3/12/20 12:02 PM

03 Carbone Ephesus.indd 122

3/12/20 12:02 PM

Chapter 4

Cistophoric Production at Tralles

The following catalogue includes not only the specimens in the 2002 hoard, but also 68 cistophoric tetradrachms from relevant museum collections and auction catalogues, as explicitly indicated. The weights of the specimens not included in the 2002 hoard are italicized. Trallian cistophori struck after 89 BC, and therefore not part of the 2002 hoard, are also catalogued here. The specimens are arranged in the following catalogue according to the chronological order provisionally provided by hoard evidence. In the absence of die links, the issues within the same time-frame have been ordered alphabetically. These are discussed in detail in Appendix I.

Catalogue

(Plates 99–132) Pre-89 BC Cistophori I.

Eagle (166–133 BC)



On l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., eagle.



ECC -.

1.

O1/R1

12.39

II.

Cornucopiae (155–145 BC)



On l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., cornucopiae.



ECC Series 13; BMC Lydia 18.



1.

O2/R2

12.21

Same dies as ECC 28-a

123

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 123

3/12/20 12:09 PM

124

Hidden Power

III.

Coiled serpent on cista (155–145 BC)



On l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., coiled serpent on cista.



ECC Series 14; SNG von Aulock 8280.

1. O3/R3 12.42 Same dies as ECC 29-a 2. O3/R4 12.5 Obverse: ECC 29 IV.

Draped female figure (155–145 BC)



On l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., draped female figure facing, possibly a herm.



ECC Series 16. 1. O4/R5 12.29 Obverse: ECC 32. Doublestruck

V.

Round shield (155–145 BC)



On l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., round shield.



ECC Series 19; SNG von Aulock 3248.

1. O5/R6 12.22 Obverse: ECC 36 VI.

Tripod (155–145 BC)



On l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., filleted tripod.



ECC Series 23; BMC Lydia, 327, no. 13; SNG von Aulock 3252.

1. O6/R7 12.22 Obverse: ECC 51 2. O6/R8 12.33 Obverse: ECC 51 3. O6/R9 12.28 Obverse: ECC 51 VII.

Spearhead (155–145 BC)



On l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., spearhead.



ECC -; cf. ECC 51 (series 23).



1. 2.

VIII.

Nike (155–145 BC)



On l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., Nike l., holding wreath.



ECC Series 24; SNG von Aulock 3250.

O7/R10 O7/R11

12.31 12.44

1. O8/R12 12.1 Obverse: ECC 52 IX.

Star and club (155–145 BC)



On l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., star, below which, club.



ECC Series 31.

1. O9/R13 Obverse: CNG MBS 10 (1990), 100 a. 12.27 b. 12.3

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 124

3/12/20 12:09 PM

Cistophoric Production at Tralles

X.

Star, fulmen, and É (155–145 BC)



On l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., star, below which, fulmen; below center, É.



ECC Series 32; SNG Copenhagen 651.

1. O10/R14 a. 12.49 b. 12.48

125

Same dies as ECC 61-a

XI.

Star, double cornucopiae, and Tyche (145–140 BC)



On l., ΤΡΑΛ; to l., star, below which, double cornucopiae; to r., Tyche holding cornucopiae in l., below which, initials of Macedonian months.



ECC Series 37; Ashton 2003; BMC Lydia, 327, no. 19. SNG von Aulock 3253.

1. O11/R15 12.16 Obverse: ECC 67. Uncertain month XII.

Fulmen, eagle, and ` (145–140 BC)



On l., ΤΡΑΛ; above center, fulmen, vertical; to r., eagle r.; below l., `.



ECC Series 40; BMC Lydia, 328, no. 28; SNG von Aulock 3256; SNG Copenhagen 650; SNG Cambridge 4898.

1. O12/R16 12.58 A. Obverse: ECC 72. New variant of ` 2. O13/R17 12.27 A. Same dies as ECC 76–k 3. O14/R18 12.57 Δ𐅝. Obverse: ECC 77. 4. O14/R19 12.51 Δ. Obverse: ECC 77. Reverse m (new combina tion). XIII.

5 and bust of Helios (134–128 BC)



On l., ΤΡΑΛ; above center, 5; to r., bust of Helios facing.



ECC Series 45; BMC Lydia, 328, no. 24; SNG von Aulock 3255.

1. 2. 3.

O15/R20 O16/R21 O17/R21a

12.39 12.56 12.37

Same dies as 89-g Obverse: ECC 91

XIV.

ΜΑΡΣ and owl on amphora (ca. 105–104 BC)



On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, ΜΑΡΣ; on r., owl on amphora.



SNG von Aulock 3261; Kleiner 1978, 85, no. 37

1. O18/R22 Dies of SNG von Aulock 3261 a. 12.5 b. 12.25 SNG von Aulock 3261 c. 12.22 ANS 2015.20.1447 (Witschonke) 2. O18/R23 Obverse: SNG von Aulock 3261 a. 12.27 b. 12.43 CNG MBS 41(1997), 583 3. O18/R24 12.4 Obverse: SNG von Aulock 3261

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 125

3/12/20 12:09 PM

126

Hidden Power

4. O18/R25 12.32 Obverse: SNG von Aulock 3261. Control mark off flan. 5. O18/R26 12.55 BNF 1965/984, ex H. Cahn 1955 XV.

ΔΙΟΝ and club (104–99 BC)



On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, ΔΙΟΝ; on r., club.



SNG Copenhagen 657. Kleiner 1978, 92, nos. 24–25 (IGCH 1460).

1. O18/R27 11.9 Obverse: SNG von Aulock 3261 2. O18/R28 12.6 Obverse: SNG von Aulock 3261 3. O18/R29 12.22 Obverse: SNG von Aulock 3261; BNF 2694 4. O18/R30 Obverse: SNG von Aulock 3261 a. 12.65 ANS 1960.33.29 b. 12.5 ANS 1955.107.39 c. 12.47 d. 12.36 5. O19/R31 12.6 ANS 2015.20.1443 (Witschonke) XVI.

ΑΘΗΝ and fulmen and caduceus (105–95 BC)



On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, ΑΘΗΝ; on r., fulmen and caduceus.



SNG von Aulock 8284; Kleiner 1978, 92, no. 21 (IGCH 1460)

1. O20/R32 a. 12.51 Obverse: SNG von Aulock 8284; CNG MBS 63 (2003), 525 b. 12.71 ANS 1971.219.25 2. O20/R33 Dies of SNG von Aulock 8284 a. 12.51 b. 12.54 Obverse and reverse doublestruck c. 12.44 d. 12.25 SNG von Aulock 8284 3. O20/R34 12.49 Obverse: SNG von Aulock 8284 4. O20/R35 12.48 Obverse: SNG von Aulock 8284 5. O20/R36 12.49 Obverse: SNG von Aulock 8284 6. O20/R37 Obverse: SNG von Aulock 8284 a. 11.62 Hirsch 203 (1999), 359 b. 11.68 ANS 2015.20.1439 (Witschonke) 7. O20/R38 12.58 ANS 2015.20.1438 (Witschonke) XVII. APTE and bust of Athena(105–95 BC)

On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, APTE; on r., bust of Athena.



BMC Lydia, 328, no. 23; Waddington 6994; Münsterberg 1927, 182; Kleiner 1978, 92, no. 22 (drachm, IGCH 1460)

1.

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 126

O21/R39

12.47

3/12/20 12:09 PM

Cistophoric Production at Tralles

127

2. O21/R40 a. 12.55 ANS 2015.20.1433 (Witschonke) b. 12.71 3. O21/R41 a. 12.28 BNF 2693 b. 12.57 Rauch 89 (2011), 1180 4. O21/R42 a. 12.63 CNG Triton VI (2003), 397; ANS 2015. 20.1436 (Witschonke) b. 12.63 c. 12.41 5. O21/R43 12.48 6. O21/R44 12.33 ANS 2015.20.1437 (Witschonke) 7. O22/R45 12.51 8. O22/R46 12.46 9. O22/R47 12.63 ANS 2015.20.1435 (Witschonke) XVIII. ΠΑΜΜ and trophy (105–95 BC)

On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, ΠΑΜΜ; to r., trophy. Kleiner 1978, 92, nos. 26–27 (IGCH 1460).

1. O23/R48 12.42 2. O23/R49 12.39 ANS 1971.217.1 3. O23/R50 a. 12.53 b. 12.42 4. O23/R51 12.64 ANS 1971.219.21 5. O23/R52 12.60 ANS 1971.219.22 6. O24/R53 12.49 M & M Deutschland 41 (1970), 251 XIX.

ΣΩΧΑ and female bust (105–95 BC)



On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, ΣΩΧΑ; to r., female bust.



Imhoof-Bloomer 1897, 172, no. 14; Münsterberg 1927, 182; BMC Lydia, 332, no. 41 (didrachm); Kleiner 1978, 92, no. 28 (drachm, IGCH 1460).

1. O25/R54 12.28 Obverse: Imhoof-Bloomer 1897, 172, no. 14 2. O25/R55 12.28 ANS 1984.5.36 3. O25/R56 12.22 Imhoof-Blumer 1897, 172, no. 14 XX.

ΑΠΟΛ and eagle (95–90 BC)



On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, ΑΠΟΛ; on r., eagle.



Pinder 1856, no. 149

1.

O26/R57

2.

O27/R58

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 127

12.51

3/12/20 12:09 PM

128

Hidden Power

a. 12.64 b. 12.16 BNF 2692. Neg. BNF 1993.6, 28–29 3. O27/R59 12.67 XXI.

ΑΡΠΑ and winged caduceus (95–90 BC)



On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, ΑΡΠΑ; on r., winged caduceus.



Münsterberg 1927, 182.

1. 2. 3.

O27/R60 O27/R61 O28/R62

12.58 11.70 12.49

Berlin 18560 (holed)

XXII. ΕΠAI and bust of Athena (95–90 BC)

On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, ΕΠAI; on r., bust of Athena.

1. O29/R63 a. 12.36 b. 11.97 XXIII. MENA and herm (95–90 BC)

On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, MENA; on r., herm.



BMC Lydia –; SNG von Aulock –; SNG Copenhagen –.

1. O30/R64 a. 12.73 ANS 2015.20.1453 (Witschonke) ex Triton VI (2003), 398 b. 12.27 ANS 1968.185.1 c. Hesperia 40 (1967), 108 XXIV. MENA and palm (95–90 BC)

On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, MENA; on r., filleted palm.



Pinder 1856, no. 154; Mionnet IV, 178, no. 1028.

1. O31/R65 12.11 ANS 2015.20.1448 (Witschonke) 2. O31/R66 12.65 ANS 2015.20.1449 (Witschonke) 3. O31/R67 12.51 Control mark off flan 4. O31/R67a 12.26 ANS 2015.20.1450 (Witschonke) 5. O32/R68 a. 12.72 b. 12.47 6. O32/R69 12.60 ANS 2015.20.1451 (Witschonke) 7. O32/R70 a. 12.64 b. 12.50 8. O32/R71 a. 12.56 Control mark off flan b. 11.86 BNF 2695

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 128

3/12/20 12:09 PM

Cistophoric Production at Tralles

129

XXV. MHTP and humped bull (95–90 BC)

On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, MHTP; on r., humped bull standing on a meander pattern; right.

1. 2.

O33/R72 O34/R73

12.39 12.55

ANS 2015.20.1454 (Witschonke)

XXVI. ΦΙΛΙ and bee (95–90 BC)

On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, ΦΙΛΙ; on r., bee.



Imhoof-Bloomer 1897, 172, no. 15; Münsterberg 1927, 182.

1. O35/R74 a. 12.61 b. 12.35 ANS 2015.20.1785 (Witschonke) 1. O35/R75 12.51 2. O36/R76 12.41 3. O36/R77 Obverse: Imhoof-Blumer 1897, 172, no. 15 a. 12.42 b. 12.57 Imhoof-Blumer 1897, 172, no. 15 XXVII. ΔΙΟΝ and lyre (90–89 BC)

On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, ΔΙΟΝ; on r., lyre.



Pinder 1856, no. 151; SNG von Aulock 3259; SNG Copenhagen 657.

1. O37/R78 12.58 CNG MBS 67 (2004), 723 2. O37/R79 12.73 3. O37/R80 12.51 Ira & Larry Goldberg 32 (2005), 3858 4. O37/R81 a. 12.61 b. 12.64 CNG MBS 64 (2003), 276 c. 12.64 5. O37/R82 12.58 Obverse: SNG von Aulock 3259, BNF 2694A, Berlin 12.32 6. O37/R83 a. 12.14 BNF 2694A b. 12.51 Sternberg 7 (1977), 140 7. O37/R84 12.32 Berlin 12559 8. O38/R85 Kress 137 (1966), 549 9. O38/R86 Hesperia 24 (1963), 32 10. O38/R87 12.15 CNG EA 107 (2005), 60 11. O38/R88 12.50 SNG von Aulock 3259 12. O38/R89 12.39 Künker EA 19 (2013), 227 13. O39/R90 a. 12.79

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 129

3/12/20 12:09 PM

130

Hidden Power

b. 12.26 SNG Copenhagen 657 c. 12.6 Gorny & Mosch 44 (1989), 417 d. 12.13 Compagnie des Monnaies anciennes, 23 Aug.1985, 190. BNF, Poindessault CPM Winter 1986–1987, 103 (12.14 g.) 14. O39/R91 a. 12.50 VAuctions 268 (2011), 59 b. 12.72 Auktionshaus Meister & Sonntag 17 (2013), 86 c. 12.60 Auctiones 20 (1993), 443 d. 12.76 Gorny & Mosch 225 (2014), 1576 (12.79 g) e. 12.50 Rauch 89 (2011), 1178 15. O39/R92 a. 12.53 M & M FPL 257 (1965), 17 b. 12.53 Nomos AG obolos 4 (2016), 363 16. O40/R93 12.33 Obverse: H. J. Knopek (1979), 216a 17. O40/R94 12.43 H. J. Knopek (1979), 216a 18. O40/R95 Hesperia 24 (1963), 31 19. O41/R96 12.66 CNG Triton VI (2003), 399 20. O41/R97 a. 12.56 V-Auctions, 9 Dec. 2010, 12 (12.55 g.) b. 12.59 Heritage World Coin Auctions CICF Signature Sale 3046 (2016), 29116 c. 12.49 Lanz 36, (1986 B), 426 d. 12.53 Roma Numismatics E-Sale 24 (2016), 166 e. 12.60 Dorotheum 253, (1962), 578. Ex Kollschek Coll 21. O41/R98 12.61 22. O41/R99 12.47 Savoca Numismatik Online Auction 25 (2018), 354 23. O41/R100 a. 12.54 b. 10.97 Berlin, Fox 1873 c. 12.60 Spink 4018 (2004), 125 24. O41/R101 12.35 25. O41/R102 12.58 Lanz 121(2004), 208 (12.61 g.) 26. O41/R103 27. O41/R104 12.13 SNG Copenhagen 658 (control mark off flan) 28. O41/R105 a. 12.43 CNG EA 95 (2004), 44 (12.42 g.) b. 12.41 Künker 89 (2004), 1417 29. O42/R106 a. 12.35

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 130

3/12/20 12:09 PM

Cistophoric Production at Tralles

131

b. 12.5 c. 12.64 d. 12.51 e. 12.66 f. 12.55 g. 12.64 h. 12.69 i. 12.55 30. O42/R107 12.55 31. O42/R108 12.35 32. O42/R109 a. 12.6 b. 12.54 33. O42/R110 a. 12.51 b. 12.49 34. O42/R111 a. 12.74 b. 12.52 c. 12.20 Oxford, AM. Ex J.G. Milne 1924 35. O42/R112 a. 12.6 b. 12.62 36. O42/R113 12.7 Grigoli 2 (1989), 4 37. O42/R114 a. 12.65 b. 12.66 c. 12.63 d. 12.65 Künker 83 (2003), 365 e. 12.57 f. 12.51 g. 12.57 Control mark off flan 38. O42/R115 12.71 CNG MBS 63 (2003), 529 39. O42/R116 a. 12.56 b. 12.66 c. 12.66 d. 12.7 e. 12.61 f. 12.57 CNG EA, 73 (12.58 g.) 40. O43/R116 a. 12.47 Hirsch 236 (2004), 1946 b. 12.66 c. 12.56 The New York Sale VII (2004), 202 (12.58 g.)

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 131

3/12/20 12:09 PM

132

Hidden Power

d. 12.58 e. 12.65 f. 12.7 g. 12.63 Ponterio 132 (2004), 2187 (12.64 g.) h. 12.57 i. 12.59 j. 12.67 k. 12.59 l. 12.44 m. 12.5 n. 12.47 o. 12.46 p. 12.56 q. 12.27 r. 12.62 s. 12.71 t. 12.54 u. 12.62 CNG MBS 79 (2008), 364 (12.65 g.) v. 12.57 w. 12.55 Control mark off flan x. 12.58 Reverse doublestruck. CNG EA 353 (2015), 160 (12.59 g.) y. 12.42 z. 12.55 aa. 12.64 Hirsch 240 (2005), 328 (12.65 g.); Künker 304(2018), 550 (12.66 g.) bb. 12.72 Vienna 31057 cc. 12.84 Gorny & Mosch 134 (2004), 1481 dd. 12.74 Ponterio 142 (CILF 2007), 1641 ee. 12.62 CNG Triton X (2007), 327 ff. 12.50 Stack’s (2007) 103; Stack’s 194 (2007); V Auctions 15 (2010), 15. gg. 12.59 Ira and Larry Goldberg Collections 37 (1996), 3412 hh. 12.46 Künker 257 (2014), 8235 ii. 12.71 Ira & Larry Goldberg 46—The Millennia Collection (2008), 42 jj. 12.59 Heritage World Coin Auctions Signature Sale 3044 (2016), 30004 41. O44/O117 12.98 42. O44/R118 12.71 43. O44/R119 12.54 Lanz 40 (1987), 317; Lanz 76 (1996), 248; Elsen 55 (1998), 261 44. O44/R120 12.57 Vico 109 (2005), 1245 (12.61 g.). Control mark off flan

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 132

3/12/20 12:09 PM

Cistophoric Production at Tralles

133

45. O45/R121 a. 12.54 b. 12.55 c. 12.47 46. O46/R122 a. 12.47 b. 12.62 47. O47/R123 a. 12.58 b. 12.55 48. Ο48/R124 a. 12.57 ANS 2015.20.1445 (Witschonke) b. SNG Tübingen 4897

Post-89 BC Cistophori XXVIII.

ΔΙΟΝ and herm (89–75 BC)

On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, ΔΙΟΝ; on r., herm. SNG von Aulock 3260; SNG Copenhagen 656; BMC Lydia, 331, no. 35. 1. O49/R125 a. 12.58 Lanz 60 (1992), 226 b. 12.39 CNG MBS 29 (1994), 200 2. O49/R126 12.52 Münz Zentrum Rheinland 70 (1990), 341 3. O49/R127 12.08 Berlin, Imhoof-Bloomer 1900 4. O50/R128 12.70 SNG Copenhagen 656 5. O50/R129 a. 12.53 Ponterio 70 (1994), 300. Ponterio 76 (1995), 298 b. 12.20 Berlin, Imhoof-Bloomer 1900 c. 12.64 Münz Zentrum Rheinland 172 (2015), 147 6. O50/R130 H. W. Müller 10 (1973), 49 7. O51/R131 a. 12.43 Vienna 31353 b. 12.42 Pegasi Numismatics 24 (2011), 186 8. O51/R132 Peter Morris (Bromley) FPL Ancient 5 (2005) Greek 7; Bloomsbury Coin Fair 5 Feb. 2005 9. O52/R132 12.16 Berlin, Prokesch–Osten 1895 10. O52/R133 a. 12.37 Leipziger MH 18 (1998), 26 b. 12.40 Hirsch 168 (1990), 299; Hirsch 196 (2007), 390 11. O52/R134 12.27 CNG MBS 27 (1993), 610

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 133

3/12/20 12:09 PM

134

Hidden Power

12. O52/R135 a. 12.41 SNG von Aulock 3260 b. 12.43 ANS 2015.20.1444 (Witschonke) 13. O53/R136 12.69 Savoca Numismatik 13 (2017), 249 14. O53/R137 12.62 Berlin, Löbbecke 1906 15. O54/R138 12.52 Savoca Numismatik 3 (2015), 161 XXIX. ΑΠΟΛ and hand holding caduceus (89–75 BC)

On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, ΑΠΟΛ; on r., hand holding a caduceus.



SNG von Aulock 3258; SNG Copenhagen 654; BMC Lydia, 330, no. 34; SNG Tübingen 5, no. 3864.

1. O55/R139 12.43 Roma Numismatics E-Sale 12 (2014), 946 2. O55/R140 12.45 ANS 2015.20.1427 (Witschonke) 3. O55/R141 a. 12.56 Vienna 32028 b. 12.20 SNG Tübingen 5, no. 3864 4. O55/R142 12.47 Rauch 40 (1988), 153. Obverse: very worn. 5. O56/R143 a. H. F. M. Schulman, H. D. Gibbs collec tion part 4 (1971), 307 b. 12.16 Empire Coins 9 (1988), 100 c. 11.88 ANS 1984.5.40 6. O57/R144 12.64 Berlin 28674/43, Sperling 7. O58/R145 a. 12.28 Berlin, Löbbecke 1906 b. 12.55 CNG EA 328 (2014), 188 8. O59/R146 a. 11.90 SNG Copenhagen 654 b. 12.29 Afyon 5741 9. O59/R147 a. 12.63 Kölner Münzkabinett 13 (2010), 69 b. 12.62 SNG von Aulock 3258 c. Antiquarius Russell, Jan. 1987, 15 d. Joos Charles, 28 Oct. 1977, 1 10. O59/R148 a. 12.30 Henzen FPL 165, 180; Henzen FPL 169, 182; Henzen FPL 177, 183 b. 12.14 ANS 1951.5.195 11. O60/R148 a. 12.57 Numismatik Naumann 54 (2017), 199

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 134

3/12/20 12:09 PM

Cistophoric Production at Tralles

135

b. 12.31 Stephen Album Rare Coins Auction 30 (2018), 7 11. O60/R149 12.43 Savoca Numismatik Online Auction 25 (2018), 349 12. O60/R150 a. 12.50 BNF 1965/982 b. 12.31 Kölner Münzkabinett 59 (1993), 50; Kölner Münzkabinett 62 (1995), 23 13. O61/R151 12.50 Forum Ancient Coins 81790 XXX. ΑΤΤΑ and Dionysus (89–75 BC)

On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, ΑΤΤΑ; on r., standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding grape bunch in his left hand; panther at his feet.



Imhoof-Bloomer 1897, 171, no. 13; SNG Copenhagen 655; SNG Tübingen 5, no. 3865.

1. O62/R152 a. 12.55 VAuction 254 (2010), 15 b. 12.18 Vienna 30000 2. O63/R153 a. Aes Rude 4 (1979), 146 b. 12.52 Monetarium, list, Dec. 1993, 46 c. 12.55 SNG Tübingen 5, 3865 d. 12.11 Nomos AG Obolos 10 (2018), 173; obverse very worn 3. O64/R154 12.36 Berlin, Löbbecke 1906

4.

O64/R155

12.15

Savoca Numismatik 1 (2015), 212



5.

O65/R156



SNG Copenhagen 655

6. O66/R157 a. 12.32 Künker 94 (2004), 1228; Künker 104 (2005), 277 b. Asta Internazionale del Titano ( Jan. 1979), 73 7.

c.

12.26

CNG EA 248 (2011), 153

O66/R158

a. 12.50 Kölner Münzkabinett 76 (1993), 180 b. Empire Coins list 35, 77 c. 12.54 ANS 2015.20.1440 (Witschonke). Obverse: very worn.

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 135

3/12/20 12:09 PM

136

Hidden Power

XXXI. ΘΕΟΔ and Dionysus (89–75 BC)

On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, ΘΕΟΔ; on r., standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his left hand.



SNG Copenhagen 659; BMC Lydia, 331, no. 37.

1. O67/R159 a. Hesperia 24 (1963), 28 b. 12.35 Hirsch 343 (2018), 2285 2. O68/R160 12.51 ANS 2015.20.1473 (Witschonke) 3. O68/R161 a. Saint-Malo, Barré, Gérard (1984), 61 b. 12.21 BMC Lydia, 331, no. 37 4. O68/R162 a. 12.41 Berlin, Löbbecke 1906 b. 12.75 M & M Lörrach 2 (1998), 87 c. 12.69 Lanz 40 (1987), 319 (12.65 g) d. SNG Copenhagen 659 5. O68/R163 a. 12.59 Rauch 89 (2011), 1179 b. 12.62 Gitbud & Naumann Auction 21 (2014), 296 6. O68/R164 a. 12.59 Rauch EA 16 (2014), 5087' Gorny & Mosch On-line Auction 251 (2017), 4484 b. 12.22 BNF Waddington 6988 XXXII. ΠΤΟΛ and Dionysus (85–84 BC)

On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, ΠΤΟΛ; on r., standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding grape bunch in his left hand.



SNG Copenhagen 662–663; BMC Lydia, 332, no. 44 (drachm: BMC Lydia, 333, no. 49).

1. O69/R165 a. Hesperia 24 (1963), 29 b. 12.15 SNG von Aulock 3262 c. 12.26 Lanz 40 (1987), 318 (12.65 g) d. Glendining & Co, 5 March 1970, 82 2. O69/R166 12.55 Rauch 89 (2011), 1177 3. O69/R167 a. 12.30 Dombrowski 63 (1975), 115; Dombrowski FPL 67 (1976), 231; Dombrowski FPL 69 (1976), 50 b. 12.50 Savoca Numismatik Online Auction 25 (2018), 352 4. O69/R168 12.52 Kölner Münzkabinett 106 (2017), 125 5. O70/R169 12.59 Sternberg 17 (1986), 165

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 136

3/12/20 12:09 PM

Cistophoric Production at Tralles

137

6. O70/R170 a. 12.76 Gorny & Mosch 225 (2014),1575 b. 12.54 Rauch Summer Auction (2011), 296 c. 12.56 Savoca Numismatik Online Auction 25, (2018), 350 7. O70/R171 12.53 Savoca Numismatik Online Auction 25 (2018), 351 8. O71/R172 12.35 BMC Lydia 44 9. O72/R173 a. 12.75 Gorny & Mosch 56 (1991), 278 b. Rauch 38 (1987), 66 10. O72/R174 12.45 SNG Copenhagen 662 11. O73/R175 12.60 SNG Copenhagen 663 12. O74/R176 a. Gorny & Mosch 22 (1982), 125 b. Kölner Münzkabinett 55 (1992), 231; CH VIII, 447; Meadows 2015, section A, no. 195 XXXIII. ΠΤΟΛ B and Dionysus (84–83 BC)

On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, ΠΤΟΛ B; on r., standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding Silenus mask in his left hand.



BMC Lydia, 332, no. 45; SNG von Aulock 3263.

1. O71/R177 a. 12.72 CNG EA 225 (2010), 143 b. 12.29 Rauch 41 (1989), 284 c. 12.53 Numismatik Naumann 44 (2016), 420 2. O71/R178 12.79 BMC Lydia, 332, no. 45 3. O72/R178 12.68 CNG EA 97 (2004), 46 4. O72/R179 Superior Stamp, 30 May 1995, 7572 5. O74?/R180 a. 12.61 CNG EA 214 (2009), 183 b. 12.20 Oxford AM; ex J. G. Milne (13 Sep. 1925) c. 12.60 ANS 1944.100.37575 6. O75/R181 a. 12.49 SNG von Aulock 3263 b. 11.88 Hirsch 170 (1991), 579 7. O75/R182 a. 12.57 Roberto Mayers (11–12 May 1972), 132; Myers-Adams 5 (1973), 212; CNG MBS 67 (2003), 722; ex G. R. Drewry Coll. b. Schulman (20–22 Sep. 1973,) 453

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 137

3/12/20 12:09 PM

138

Hidden Power

8. O76/R183 a. 12.61 CNG MBS 27 (1993), 609. CNG MBS 31 (1994), 339 b. 11.65 Savoca Numismatik Online Auction 25 (2018), 353 c. Sotheby—Wilkinson—Hodge (1 Dec. 1924), 189 9. O76/R184 12.13 Dix Noonan Webb, Auction 145 (2018), 799 (12.17 g) 10. O77/R185 12.23 BNF Waddington 6989 11. O77/R186 12.47 BNF 1965/985 12. O77/R187 12.55 ANS 2015.20.1461 (Witschonke). Obverse worn. 13. O78/R188 a. 12.47 CNG Triton 13 (2010), 1316 b. 12.51 Heritage World Coin Auctions—Long Beach Signature Sale 3015 (2011), 23134 14. O79/R189 12.37 CNG MBS 33 (1995), 299 15. O79/R190 12.47 Bourgey, (25 Mar. 1977), 75; Bourgey (29–30 Jun. 1976), 70 XXXIV. ΠΤΟΛ Γ and Dionysus (83–82 BC)

On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, ΠΤΟΛ Γ; on r., standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding ivy branch in his left hand.



BMC Lydia, 333, no. 46; SNG von Aulock 3264.

1. O72/R191 12.26 Pegasi Numismatics 22 (2010), 188 2. O80/R192 a. 12.31 BNF Waddington 6990 b. 12.54 Berlin, von Gansauge 1873 c. 12.43 Peus 372 (2002), 359 3. O80/R193 12.82 Lanz 36 (1986), 430 4. O80/R194 11.73 ANS 51.5.199, don. L. H. Schroeder. 5. O81/R195 12.43 ANS 1944.100.37576 6. O81/R196 12.22 BM 1852-9-2-232 7. O81/R197 12.66 CNG EA 224 (2009), 219 8. O82/R198 a. 12.38 Künker 236 (2013), 628 b. 12.30 London, BM, 1884-6-9-43 Lawson. c. 12.60 SNG von Aulock 3264 d. 12.48 A. S. Dewing Coll. 2432 e. 12.47 Hess-Vogel Coll. 22 (1929), 22, 364 f. 12.43 Aufhaüser 3 (1986), 84 g. Winkel 7 (1974), 1384 9. O83/R199 12.19 Davissons, EA 19 (2017), 19 10. O84/R200 11.65 Kress 130 (1964), 301

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 138

3/12/20 12:09 PM

Cistophoric Production at Tralles

139

XXXV. ΠΤΟΛ Δ and Dionysus (82–81 BC)

On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, ΠΤΟΛ Δ; on r., standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding Silenus mask in his left hand.

1. O80?/R201 a. 12.40 Gorny & Mosch 58 (1992), 424 b. 12.30 Gorny & Mosch 212 (2013), 2087 2. O80?/R202 12.67 ANS 2015.20.1466 (Witschonke) 3. O80?/R203 12.89 Lanz 155 (2012), 286 4. O84/R204 a. 12.23 BNF 2696 b. 12.16 Gorny & Mosch 204 (2012), 1558 c. 12.43 Gorny & Mosch 44 (1989), 418 d. Calgary Coin Gallery FPL 6 (1991), 9 e. 12.67 ANS 2015.20.1472 (Witschonke) 5. O84/R205 12.42 Gorny & Mosch 108 (2001), 1280 6. O84/R206 12.29 Berlin, Löbbecke 1900 7. O85/R207 12.57 CNG MBS 55 (2000), 561 8. O85/R208 12.26 Noble Numismatics 109 (2015), 3654 9. O85/R209 a. 12.50 ANS 1944.100.37577 b. 12.72 SNG Lewis 1002 10. O86/R210 12.56 CNG EA 224 (2009), 220; CNG EA 366 (2016), 561 11. O86/R211 12.93 Aureo, 17–18 October 1995 (B), 5 12. O87/R212 a. 12.38 BNF 2696bis b. 12.47 CNG MBS 31 (1994), 340 13. O87/R213 12.43 Forum Ancient Coins 81785 14. O87/R214 Mynthuset 5 (1984), 21; Ahlström, Auktion 32 (1985), 1985 15. O88/R215 a. 12.31 Emporium Hamburg 67 (2012), 128 b. 12.30 CNG Triton 13 (2010), 1317 16. O89/R216 512.33 CNG EA 249 (2011), 147 XXXVI. ΠΤΟΛ E and Dionysus (81–80 BC)

On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, ΠΤΟΛ E; on r., standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding Silenus mask in his left hand.



BMC Lydia, 333, no. 48.



1. 2. 3. 4.

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 139

O83?/R217 O89/R218 O90/R219 O90/R220

12.70 12.85 12.18 12.03

M & M Lörrach 1 (1997), 244 Lanz 125 (2005), 397 BNF 2697 (doublestruck) BMC Lydia 48

3/12/20 12:09 PM

140

Hidden Power

5. O90/R221 a. 12.54 Pegasi Numismatics 139 (2010), 122 b. 12.43 Lanz 36 (1985), 431 6. O90/R221 12.52 Roma Numismatics, E-Sale 29 (27 Aug. 2016), 196 7. O91/R222 12.63 ANS 2015.20.1468 (Witschonke) 8. O91/R224 12.91 Köln Münz Zentrum 71 (1991), 349 XXXVII. ΠΤΟΛ 𐅝 and Dionysus (80–79 BC)

On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, ΠΤΟΛ 𐅝; on r., standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding Silenus mask in his left hand.

1. O85/R225 12.66 Sotheby’s, 26–27 May 1976 (B), 112 2. O85/R226 12.42 Vienna 32029 3. O85/R227 12.17 Roma Numismatics E-Sale 20 (2015), 349 4. O91/R228 a. 12.56 Künker 46 (1999), 121 b. 12.91 Schulten (15–17 October 1990), 275; Münz Zentrum 71 (3–5 Jun. 1991), 349; Schenk 62 (4–6 Dec. 1991), 112 5. O92/R229 12.75 ANS 1951.5.202 don. L. Schroeder XXXVIII. ΠΤΟΛ Z and Dionysus (79–78 BC)

On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, ΠΤΟΛ Z; on r., standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding grape bunch in his left hand.



1. 2.

O93/R230 O94/R231 12.64

Athena 4 (1978), 41 Elsen 59 (1999), 142

XXXIX. ΠΤΟΛ H and Dionysus (78–77 BC)

On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, ΠΤΟΛ H; on r., standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding Silenus mask in his left hand.



1. 2. 3. 4.

XL.

ΠΡΥΤ and cornucopiae (75–60 BC)



On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, ΠΡΥΤ; on r., cornucopia.



SNG Copenhagen 660; BMC Lydia, 329, no. 29.

O95/R232 12.64 O95/R233 12.33 O96/R234 O96/R235 12.39 (holed)

CNG EA 225 (2010), 144 Pegasi Numismatics 26 (2012), 196 Wendt 13 (1976), 288 BNF 2699

1. O97/R236 12.22 ANS 1984.5.44 2. O97/R237 12.37 ANS 1984.5.46 3. O97/R238 12.07 BMC Lydia, 329, no. 29 4. O97/R239 Henzen FPL 163 (2005), 203; Henzen

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 140

3/12/20 12:09 PM

Cistophoric Production at Tralles

141

FPL 167, 20; Henzen 171 (2006), 202; Henzen 175 (2007), 205. Obverse: very worn 5. O98/R240 12.24 ANS 1944.100.37572 6. O98/R241 Buckland Dix & Wood 16 (1994), 23; CH VIII, 526, no. 7, pl. LXXXVII 7. O98/R242 a. 12.34 Forum Ancient Coins 33662 b. 12.16 ANS 2015.20.1456 (Witschonke) c. 12.29 Köln Münz Zentrum FPL 41 (1992), 537; CH VIII, 447; Meadows 2015, section A, no. 182 8. O99/R243 a. 12.42 Hirsch 231 (2003), 372 b. 12.13 SNG Copenhagen 668 c. 12.34 Rauch EA 16 (2014), 5086 XLI.

TIME (75–60 BC)



On l., ΤΡΑΛ; in center, TIME; on r., Artemis standing.



SNG von Aulock 8287; SNG Copenhagen 661; BMC Lydia, 330, no. 31

1. O100/R244 12.25 Emporium Hamburg 67 (2012), 127 2. O100/R245 a. 12.53 Rauch 46 (1991); 244; Rauch 47 (1991), 172; CH VIII, 447; Meadows 2015, section A, no. 189 b. 11.43 BNF 2700 c. CH VIII, 526, no. 1, pl. LXXXII 3. O101/R246 CH VIII, 526, no. 9, pl. LXXXVI 4. O101/R247 12.28 ANS 1951.5.191 5. O102/R248 Köln Münz Zentrum FPL 41, 538; CH VIII, 447; Meadows 2015, section A, no. 184 6. O102/R249 a. 12.31 Gorny & Mosch 58 (1992), 421 b. 12.26 Hirsch 176 (1992), 311; CH VIII, 447; Meadows 2015, section A, no. 187 7. O102/R250 a. SNG Copenhagen 661 b. 12.53 ANS 1951.5.194 8. O102/R251 CH VIII, 526, no. 11, pl. LXXXV 9. O102/R252 a. 12.26 Lanz 36 (1985), 427 b. 12.33 Künker 133 (2007), 8199 10. O102/R253 Köln Münz Zentrum FPL 41(1992), 539;

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 141

3/12/20 12:09 PM

142

Hidden Power

CH VIII, 447; Meadows 2015, section A, no. 185 11. O102/R254 11.96 Savoca Numismatik Blue Auction 5 (2018), 45. Obverse: very worn 12. O103/R255 a. 12.19 ANS 1951.5.192 b. 12.42 Lanz 36 (1985), 428 c. 11.55 CNG MBS 66 (2004), 470; Numismatik Naumann 55 (2017), 305 (11.66 g.) 13. O103/R256 a. 12.53 Rauch 47 (1991), 173 b. 12.17 Rauch 49 (1992), 207; CH VIII, 447; Meadows 2015, section A, no. 190 14. O104/R257 a. CH VIII, 526, no. 8, pl. LXXXV b. 12.16 Kölner Münzkabinett 55 (1992), 230; CH VIII, 447; Meadows 2015, section A, no. 186 15. O105/R258 a. 12.28 ANS 2015.20.1475 (Witschonke) b. CH VIII, 526, no. 3, pl. LXXXII 16. O105/R259 CH VIII, 526, no. 2, pl. LXXXII 17. O106/R260 a. Hesperia 19 (1962), 87 b. 12.50 Coins & Antiquities FPL (1971), 2 18. O106/R261 12.16 ANS 1984.5.39 19. O106/R262 a. 12.42 Lanz 36 (1985), 429 b. 12.14 M & M Deutschland 13 (2003), 332 20. O106/R263 a. 12.30 Müller 58 (1988), 83. Müller 60 (1989), 98 b. 12.26 ANS 2015.20.1480 (Witschonke) 21. O106/R264 11.84 ANS 1951.5.193. 22. O107/R265 12.14 M & M Deutschland 46 (2018), 222 23. O107/R266 12.10 K. Kress (5 Jul. 1971), 179 24. O107/R267 11.57 ANS 1984.5.30 25. O107/R268 11.08 CNG EA 325 (2014), 230 26. O108/R269 12.42 BMC Lydia, 330, no. 31 27. O108/R270 11.54 Roma Numismatics E-Sale 39 (2017), 264

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 142

3/12/20 12:09 PM

Cistophoric Production at Tralles

143

Didrachms (Plates 135–136) I.

ΜΑΡΣ and owl on amphora (ca. 105–104 BC)



Obv.: Club and lion skin surrounded by wreath. Rev.: Grape bunch on field of oak leaves; above, ΜΑΡΣ; on l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., owl on amphora.



SNG von Aulock 3270.

1. O1/R1 a. 6.29 Sternberg 7 (1977), 141 b. 6.28 SNG von Aulock 3270 c. SNG BYB 1149 d. 6.20 CNG EA 342 (2015), 295 II.

ΠΑΜΜ and trophy (105–95 BC)

Above, ΠΑΜΜ; on l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., trophy.

1.

O2/R2

III.

MENA and herm (95–90 BC)

6.24

Tkalec coins (April 2007), 88

Above, ΜENA; on l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., herm.

1.

O3/R3

5.70

IV.

ΜΕΝΑ and palm branch (95–90 BC)

CNG EA 81 (2004), 38

Above, ΜENA; on l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., filleted palm branch. 1. O3/R4 6.30 ANS 2015.20.1452 (Witschonke) V.

ΑΠΟΛ and hand holding caduceus(89–75 BC)

Above, ΑΠΟΛ; on l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., hand holding caduceus. 1. O4/R5 a. 5.93 CNG EA 107 (2005), 59 b. 5.93 Stack’s (1996), 318; ex G. R. Drewry Collection 2. O5/R6 5.90 Pecunem/Gitbud & Naumann 34 (2015), 438 3. O6/R7 a. 5.86 ANS 2015.20.1429 (Witschonke) b. 6.08 ANS 2015.20.1430 (Witschonke) c. Winkel 9–10 (1977), 2571 VI.

ΠΤΟΛ and Dionysus (85–84 BC)

Above, ΠΤΟΛ; on l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding grape bunch in his left hand.

BMC Lydia, 333, no. 49.



1.

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 143

O7/R8

6.09

ANS 1951.5. 203 don. L. H. Schroeder

3/12/20 12:09 PM

144

VII.

Hidden Power

ΠΤΟΛ B and Dionysus (84–83 BC)

Above, ΠΤΟΛ; on l., ΤΡΑΛ and B; on r., standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding Silenus mask in his left hand.

1.

O8/R9

6.29

VIII.

ΠΤΟΛ Γ and Dionysus (83–82 BC)

ANS 2015.20.1462 (Witschonke)

Above, ΠΤΟΛ; on l., ΤΡΑΛ and Γ; on r., standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding Silenus mask in his left hand. 1. O9/R10 a. Freeman & Sear MBS 13 (2006), 888 b. 6.01 ANS 2015.20.1464 (Witschonke) c. 6.01 ANS 2015.20.1465 (Witschonke) IX.

ΠΤΟΛ Δ and Dionysus (82–81 BC)

Above, ΠΤΟΛ; on l., ΤΡΑΛ and Δ; on r., standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding Silenus mask in his left hand.

BMC Lydia – (cf. 333, no. 49).

1. O10/R11 6.17 Numismatik Naumann 52 (2017), 1330 2. O10/R12 6.10 ANS 2015.20.1467 (Witschonke).Dou blestruck; obverse very worn. X.

ΠΤΟΛ 𐅝 and Dionysus (80–79 BC)

Above, ΠΤΟΛ; on l., ΤΡΑΛ and 𐅝; on r., standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding Silenus mask in his left hand.

BMC Lydia – (cf. 333, no. 49).

1. O11/R13 5.70 CNG EA 364 (2015), 293 XI.

ΠΤΟΛ Z and Dionysus (79–78 BC)

Above, ΠΤΟΛ; on l., ΤΡΑΛ and Z; on r., standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding Silenus mask in his left hand.

1.

O12/R14

6.17

XII.

ΠΤΟΛ H and Dionysus (78–77 BC)

ANS 2015.20.1469 (Witschonke)

Above, ΠΤΟΛ; on l., ΤΡΑΛ and H; on r., standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding Silenus mask in his left hand.

1.

O13/R15

6.05

Ira & Larry Goldberg 96 (2017), 1728

XIII.

ΔΗΜΗ (75–60 BC)



On l., ΤΡΑΛ; above, ΔΗΜΗ. Below on r., eagle on thunderbolt. SNG von Aulock 3268.

1. O14/R16 a. 6.06 ANS 2015.20.1441 (Witschonke)

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 144

3/12/20 12:09 PM

Cistophoric Production at Tralles

145

b. 6.25 Aufhäuser 7 (1990), 217 c. 6.07 Schweizerische Kreditanstalt FPL 25 (1978), 46 XIV.

ΠΡΥΤ and cornucopiae (75–60 BC)



On l., ΤΡΑΛ; above, ΠΡΥΤ; on r., cornucopia.



BMC Lydia 30.

1. O15/R17 a. 5.44 BNF 6992 b. 5.93 BMC Lydia 30 c. Winterthur 3568 2. O15/R18 a. 5.95 ANS 2015.20.1458 (Witschonke) b. 6.16 ANS 2015.20.1457 (Witschonke) 3. O16/R17 5.88 Gorny & Mosch 97 (1999), 413; Gorny & Mosch 26 (2003), 1394 4. O16/R18 Holleman Munten 63 (1985), 33; Holleman Munten 66 (1986), 28 XV.

TIME and Artemis (75–60 BC)



On l., ΤΡΑΛ; above, TIME; on r., Artemis standing.

1. O17/R19 a. 6.01 Gorny & Mosch 58 (1992), 422 b. 5.95 ANS 2015.20.1477 (Witschonke) 2. O18/R20 6.16 ANS 2015.20.1476 (Witschonke) 3. O18/R21 a. 5.55 ANS 2015.20.1478 (Witschonke) b. 6.00 Elsen FPL 239 (2007), 96 c. 6.00 Auktionshaus Meister & Sonntag 3, (2005), 55 d. 5.95 M & M Deutschland 30 (2009), 591 4. O19/R21 6.14 ANS 2015.20.1479 (Witschonke) XVI.

ΔΗΜΟ and headdress of Isis(75–60 BC)

Above, ΔΗΜΟ; on r., headdress of Isis on two crossed ears of grain.

BMC Lydia, 331, no. 38.

1.

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 145

Ο20/R22

5.63

BMC Lydia, 331, no. 38

3/12/20 12:09 PM

146

Hidden Power

Drachms (Plate 137) Obv.: Club and lion skin surrounded by wreath. Rev.: Grape bunch on field of oak leaves. I.

APTE and Athena (105–95 BC)

Above, ΑΡΤΕ; on l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., bust of Athena. 1. O1/R1 2.80 Berlin 18561 2. O2/R2 a. 2.72 (holed) BNF Waddington 6994 b. 3.13 ANS 1971.219.26 II.

ΒΡΙΘ and crab (105–95 BC)

Above, ΒΡΙΘ; on l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., crab.

Kleiner 1978 p. 92 no. 23.

1. O3/R3 3.07 ANS 1971.219.28 III.

ΠΑΜΜ and trophy (105–95 BC)

Above, ΠΑΜΜ; on l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., trophy. 1. O4/R4 3.20 BNF 2735 IV.

ΣΩΧΑ and bust of Artemis(?) (105–95 BC)

Above, ΣΩΧΑ; on l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., bust of Artemis(?).

Kleiner 1978, 92, no. 28.

1. O5/R5 2.98 ANS 1971.219.27 V.

ΑΠΟΛ and eagle (95–90 BC)

Above, ΑΠΟΛ; on l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., eagle. 1. O6/R6 a. 3.17 ANS 2015.20.1432 (Witschonke) b. 3.04 Monetarium 40 (1983), 53 VI.

ΑΡΠΑ and winged cduceus (95–90 BC)

Above, ΑΡΠΑ; on l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., ,winged caduceus. 1. O7/R7 2.85 Rhousopoulos Hirsch 13 (1905), 4075 (2.83 g) VII.

ΕΠΑ(Ι) and bust of Athena (95–90 BC)

Above, ΕΠΑ; on l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., bust of Athena. 1. O8/R8 a. 2.98 ANS 2015.20.1446 (Witschonke) b. 3.00 Numismatik Naumann 66 (2018), 191

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 146

3/12/20 12:09 PM

Cistophoric Production at Tralles

VIII.

147

ΑΠΟΛ and hand holding caduceus (89–75 BC)

Above, ΑΠΟΛ; on l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., hand holding caduceus. 1. O9/R9 3.19 ANS 2015.20.1431 (Witschonke) 2. O10/R9 2.97 BNF 6993 IX.

ΠΤΟΛ and Dionysus (85–84 BC)

Above, ΠΤΟΛ; on l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding grape bunch in his left hand.

BMC Lydia, 333, no. 49 (didrachm)

1. O11/R10 2.79 BNF 2706 2. O12/R11 a. 2.85 CNG EA 405 (2017), 184 b. 2.44 ANS 1963.43.2. Very worn. 3. Ο13/R12 2.70 London, BM 1900-4-4-105 4. O14/R12 a. 2.85 BNF Waddington 6995 b. 2.28 Imhoof-Bloomer 1897, 172, no. 16 X.

ΠΤΟΛ Γ and Dionysus (83–82 BC)

Above, ΠΤΟΛ; on l., ΤΡΑΛ and Γ; on r., standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding Silenus mask in his left hand.

1.

Ο14/R13

XI.

ΔΗΜΗ and eagle on thunderbolt (75–60 BC)

Hirsch 186 (1995), 421

Above, ΔΗΜΗ; on l., ΤΡΑΛ; below on r., eagle on thunderbolt.

SNG von Aulock 3269.

1. O15/R14 a. 3.11 SNG von Aulock 3269 b. 3.10 Bukowski (1983), 20 c. 3.11 ANS 2015.20.1442 (Witschonke) XII.

ΠΡΥΤ and cornucopiae (75–60 BC)

Above, ΠΡΥΤ; on l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., cornucopiae.

BMC Lydia, 330, no. 30 (didrachm)

1. O16/R15 2.90 Gorny & Mosch 58 (1992), 423; ex G. Terzian coll. XIII.

TIME and Artemis (75–60 BC)

Above, TIME; on l., ΤΡΑΛ; on r., Artemis standing.

BMC Lydia, 330, no. 33



1.

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 147

O17/R16

2.90

ANS 2015.20.1474 (Witschonke)

3/12/20 12:09 PM

148

Hidden Power

Early Cistophoric Production in Context According to Kleiner and Noe, the Lydian city of Tralles was the third cistophoric mint in order of importance in the Attalid kingdom.1 The city specialized in the production of small cistophoric denominations, as is evident from the number of drachm and didrachm obverse dies, which is disproportionately higher than in other cistophoric mints. ECC lists 16 drachm obverse dies and 20 didrachm obverse dies for Tralles.2 No other mint comes close to this number. Pergamum employed only four didrachm obverse dies and Ephesus only five didrachm and eight drachm obverse dies.3 Tralles’s specialization in cistophoric fractions is certainly of great historical relevance, as it was retained even under the Romans, after the Attalid kingdom had become provincia Asia.4 F. Kleiner rightly uses the peculiarity of Tralles’s cistophoric production to argue for the centralization of cistophoric production under the Attalids, a phenomenon that has been discussed further in more recent publications.5 He states that, “the striking of drachms and didrachms was concentrated in Tralles by royal design.” For Kleiner, the choice of Tralles as a mint for cistophoric fractions was arbitrary, as “it is unlikely that the silver currency needs of Tralles differed substantially from those of the other large Attalid cities.”6 According to this view, Tralles’s production of small cistophoric denominations was only a demonstration of the centralization of Attalid monetary policy, and there were no specific reasons for choosing the Lydian city. In the same vein, F. de Callataÿ writes that “the fact that the mint of Tralles was in charge of nearly all the fractions points in the direction of a general policy established at a higher level.”7 While this is certainly true, no specific reason for the choice of Tralles is provided. An explanation for the peculiar nature of Tralles’s cistophoric production that is closely related to its geographical location might be proposed, however. The city was the midpoint on the route between Ephesus and Caria, as Strabo states.8 Caria had been assigned to the Rhodians after the Peace of Apamea, and the introduction of the plinthophorus in the same period should probably be seen as a way to establish a closed currency zone comprising Rhodes and the Rhodian territories.9 As a consequence, Carian cities adopted different Rhodian standards, both pre-plinthophoric and plinthophoric ones.10 1. ECC, 60–77. 2. ECC, 60–75 (catalogue), 122 (discussion of the hoards); de Callataÿ 2013, table 6.8. 3. Pergamum: ECC, 22–40; Ephesus: ECC, 41–59. 4. See infra, 212–216. 5. Thonemann 2013a; especially Thonemann 2013b; Meadows 2013; de Callataÿ 2013. 6. ECC, 122. 7. de Callataÿ 2013, 230. 8. Strabo 14.2.29: ἀλλ’ ἡ εἰς Τράλλεις ἐστὶ διαβάντι τὸν Μαίανδρον κατὰ μέσην που τὴν ὁδὸν ὅπου τῆς Καρίας οἱ ὅροι· γίνονται δ’ οἱ πάντες ἀπὸ Φύσκου ἐπὶ τὸν Μαίανδρον κατὰ τὴν εἰς Ἔφεσον ὁδὸν χίλιοι ἑκατὸν ὀγδοήκοντα. “But one comes to the road that leads into Tralles after crossing the Maeander River, at about the middle of the journey, where are the boundaries of Caria. The distance all told from Physcus to the Maeander along the road to Ephesus amounts to one thousand one hundred and eighty stadia.” (trans. H. L. Jones). 9. Polyb. 21.46.8; Livy 37.56. Rhodian closed currency system: Bresson 1993; Bresson 1996. For the date of the introduction of the plintophorus in the 190s BC: Ashton 2005 (with reference to earlier debate). 10. Pre-plinthophoric standard with a “light Rhodian drachma” of 2.8–2.5 g (ἀργύριον Ῥόδιον λεπτόν): Mylasa (Ashton 1992, 21 and 32–34; Ashton and Reger 2006, 125; Ashton 2013, 256–257: the Mylasean Rhodian-type drachm was exceptionally light at an average weight of ca. 2.23 grams), Bargylia (Weiser 1985, 182–183; Zabel and Meadows 2002, 246–247), Hydisos (Delrieux 2007, 61, 73–76). Plinthophoric standard: Keramos (Spanu 1997, 32–34; Ashton 2013, 259–260), Stratonicea (Meadows 2002, Group 2, 80–91, 121; Ashton 2013, 259), Cos (Stefanaki 2012, 428–429, nos. 1685–1774, 1806–1808; Ashton 2013, 258–259).

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 148

3/12/20 12:09 PM

Cistophoric Production at Tralles

149

Figure 4.1. Lydia, Tralles. Gold stater. 160–140 BC. Head of Zeus right /ΤΡΑΛΛΙΑΝ(ΩΝ). Humped bull on meander pattern. In right field, wreath and thunderbolt. 8.31 g. BNF 1573.

Figure 4.2. Lydia, Tralles. Cistophoric tetradrachm. 160–155 BC. Cista mystica from which serpent emerges within ivy wreath/ Two coiled serpents between bow-case and bow; to left, ΤΡΑΛ; to right, wreath, below which, fulmen. ECC Series 9, 21a; SNG ANS-BYB 1144. 12.58 g. ANS 1959.254.52.

N. Kaye points out that “in monetary terms, Tralles was an interchange between, on the one hand, the Rhodian zone to the south, where Rhodian and pseudo-Rhodian coinages on epichoric standards dominated and, on the other, the cistophoric zone.”11 The plinthophoric drachm weighed about as much as the cistophoric drachm (3.05 grams), and the significance of the monetary exchange between these two zones is shown by the adoption of the cistophoric standard in several Carian cities during the second century BC.12 Tralles at that point became the Attalid outpost over the fertile valley of the Maeander, and its mint produced the means for the new monetary policy of the Pergamene rulers.13 Tralles’s issues of cistophoric drachms and didrachms should therefore be explained in the context of economic exchange with Caria. In the same period, the mint of Tralles also issued Attic-weight gold. The rare gold staters with the civic types of the head of Zeus / humped bull on meander pattern find parallels in contemporary cistophoric production (Fig. 4.1).14 The dating is suggested by the control marks on the two issues (wreath + thunderbolt, star + eagle), which find parallels in ECC Tralles nos. 9 and 41, respectively dated to the 160s BC and to the 140s BC (Fig. 4.2).15 A. Meadows argues that these gold issues should be seen as proof of the production and circulation of Attic-weight coinages in the Attalid kingdom after the introduction of the cistophorus.16 The coinage produced on the Attic standard by Tralles in these years finds clear parallels in the Attic-weight coinages issued after the opening of the cistophoric mint at Ephesus.17 Attic-weight coinages issued in the Attalid kingdom were probably used for transactions with the Seleucid kingdom.18 11. Kaye 2012, 94. 12. Alabanda: Waggoner 1989, 283–290; Meadows 2008, 163–179; Ashton 2013, 252. Alinda: Ashton 2013, 253–255. Stratonicea: Meadows 2002, Group 1, 80, 120; Ashton 2013, 252. 13. Political meaning of the cistophorus: Thonemann 2013b. Attalid monetary system: Meadows 2013. 14. Jenkins 1978/1980; Kinns 1999, 72–73; Thonemann 2011, 140–141; Meadows 2013, 189. 15. Series 9: ECC, 63. Series no. 41: ECC, 73. The latter series has the 140s BC as a terminus post quem, given its absence from IGCH 1453 (140 BC). 16. Meadows 2013, 190–192. 17. Kinns 1999, 77: “it certainly would not be justified to assume...that they must postdate 170 or 160.”; Meadows 2013, 189. 18. Psoma and F. de Callataÿ have convincingly related these issues to the support offered by Eumenes II to Alexander Balas in 153 BC against Demetrius I: Psoma 2013; de Callataÿ 2013, 233–236. The same idea was already put forward by Kinns (1987,107) and Hoover and MacDonald (1999–2000).

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 149

3/12/20 12:09 PM

150

Hidden Power

Tralles’s varied coin production might therefore be explained by its strategic position at the crossroads of areas dominated by different standards. On the one side were the Rhodian dominions with their cistophorus-compatible standards; on the other, the Seleucid kingdom with its Attic-weight coinage.

Early Cistophori in the 2002 Hoard (Plates 99–100)

The copious production of the Trallian early cistophoric mint does not find correspondence in the data provided by the 2002 hoard. Out of 164 Trallian specimens included in this hoard, early cistophori are represented by 24 specimens and 17 obverse dies, of which only three are not already listed in ECC or in other publications. This study adds two new series to the ones already known to Kleiner and Noe, but the absence of die links between the previously known issues makes it difficult to place them chronologically (Table 4.1).19 Table 4.1. Trallian early cistophoric issues in the 2002 hoard. Year (BC)

Reference

Obverse dies

Specimens

Control mark(s)20

166–133

ECC –

1

1

eagle

155–145

ECC 13

1

1

cornucopiae

155–145

ECC 14

1

2

coiled serpent on cista

155–145

ECC 16

1

1

draped female(?) figure facing, possibly a herm

155–145

ECC 19

1

1

round shield

155–145

ECC 23

1

3

filleted tripod

155–14521

ECC –

1

2

spearhead

155–145

ECC 24

1

1

Nike l., holding wreath

155–145

ECC 31

1

2

star r., below which, club

155–145

ECC 32

1

2

star, fulmen, É

145–140

ECC 37; Ashton 2003

1

1

star, double cornucopiae; Tyche holding cornucopiae; control not visible

145–140

ECC 40

3

4

fulmen (vertical), eagle, `23

134–128

ECC 45

3

3

5, bust of Helios, facing

22

Concerning the representativity of the sample, the characteroscopic index for the Trallian early cistophoric issues in this hoard is 1.3, substantially in line with the Pergamene and Ephesian issues, which have respective indices of 1.18 and 1.7. The ratio between the number of obverse dies included in the hoard and those identified in ECC is quite low, however, at roughly 19%.24 By comparison, the early cistophoric mints of Pergamum and Ephesus are represented by 26% and 44% of 19. New ECC varieties: A) eagle, head left (control mark identical to the late cistophoric series of the magistrate ΑΠΟΛ); B) spearhead (CNG MBS 60, 22 May 2002, lot 762). 20. All the control marks are placed to the right, unless otherwise noted. 21. The dating of this issue is suggested by the stylistic similarities to the obverse: ECC 51 (series no. 23). One specimen of this series is also included in a hoard dated to 132 BC and recorded by C. Pitchfork (2006). 22. In spite of the absence of readable letters on this specimen, the letters present on other examples of the same series have allowed R. Ashton (2003b) to prove that they represent months in the Macedonian calendar. Three specimens of this series in uncirculated condition were included in a hoard recorded by C. Pitchfork (2006) and dated to the 130s BC. This suggests that the series could be downdated, possibly to the mid-130s BC. For discussion of the dating of this issue, see Ashton 2003, 45. 23. Kleiner and Noe recorded only the variant ΔΙΟΓΕ for this series. The four specimens included in this hoard provide two further variants of the monogram. 24. See ECC Tralles, 60–77.

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 150

3/12/20 12:09 PM

Cistophoric Production at Tralles

151

the dies included in ECC, respectively. The underrepresentation of Trallian early cistophoric dies is all the more interesting, as the Trallian ratio between the number of specimens of early (pre128 BC) and late (post-128 BC) cistophori (16.5%) seems in line with that of Ephesus (20.4%) and much higher than Pergamene production (5.5%). The reasons for the relative underrepresentation of Trallian cistophoric dies in the 2002 hoard are probably to circumstances related to the burial of this specific hoard, and therefore, no general explanation can be provided.

Late Cistophoric Production in Context While the city became part of the new provincia Asia after Attalus’s death in 133 BC, it is not certain whether it enjoyed the privileged free status Attalus’s bequest bestowed upon the cities of Asia.25 As previously discussed, numismatic evidence seems to suggest that the city might have joined the Revolt of Aristonicus.26 Scholars have been divided over Tralles’s juridical status between the institution of provincia Asia and the First Mithridatic War. The massacre of Italians that took place in the city has been used as an argument in favor of the subject status of the city before the First Mithridatic War.27 Italians were also slaughtered in Ephesus and Pergamum, however, both free cities at the time, so no certainty can derive from this argument.28 Independently of its juridical status before the Mithridatic Wars, the city maintained the wealth that caused Strabo to declare that “it is as well peopled as any other city in Asia by people of means; and always some of its men hold the chief places in the province, being called Asiarchs.”29 The significance of the city can be inferred from the fact that Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus, the leader of the optimates exiled by the Marian tribune of the plebs, L. Appuleius Saturninus, chose to reside in the city during his exile; he received news of his political restoration in 99 BC while attending the theater in Tralles.30 At the beginning of the First Mithridatic War, Tralles was under the tyranny of the sons of Cratippus, who were responsible for the massacre of the Roman residents.31 The wealth of the city must have attracted a large number of negotiatores and also probably members of the societates publicanorum. Exploitation by the lat25. For the free status of Asian cities after Attalus’s bequest see supra, 4–7. 26. See infra, 13. ECC Tralles , nos. 45–47. 27. App. Mithr. 4.23: Τραλλιανοὶ δ᾿ αὐθένται τοῦ κακοῦ φυλαξάμενοι γενέσθαι, Παφλαγόνα Θεόφιλον, ἄγριον ἄνδρα, ἐς τὸ ἔργον ἐμισθώσαντο, καὶ ὁ Θεόφιλος αὐτοὺς συναγαγὼν ἐπὶ τὸν τῆς ὁμονοίας νεὼν ἥπτετο τοῦ φόνου, καὶ τινῶν τοῖς ἀγάλμασι συμπλεκομένων τὰς χεῖρας ἀπέκοπτεν. “The citizens of Tralles, in order to avoid the appearance of blood-guiltiness, hired a savage monster named Theophilus, of Paphlagonia, to do the work. He conducted the victims to the temple of Concord, and there murdered them, chopping off the hands of some who were embracing the sacred image” (trans. H. White). For the subject status of Tralles before the Mithidatic Wars see, among others, Ferrary 2002, 133; Santangelo 2007, 122, contra Kallet-Marx 1995, 156. 28. Pergamum and Ephesus: App. Mithr. 12.4.23: Ἐφέσιοι τοὺς ἐς τὸ Αρτεμίσιον καταφυγόντας, συμπλεκομένους τοῖς ἀγάλμασιν, ἐξέλκοντες ἔκτεινον. Περγαμηνοὶ τοὺς ἐς τὸ Ἀσκληπιεῖον συμφυγόντας, οὐκ ἀφισταμένους, ἐτόξευον τοῖς ξοάνοις συμπλεκομένους. “The Ephesians tore fugitives, who had taken refuge in the temple of Artemis, from the very images of the goddess and slew them. The Pergamenes shot with arrows those who had fled to the temple of Aesculapius, while they were still clinging to his statues” (trans. H. White). 29. Strabo 14.1.42: συνοικεῖται δὲ καλῶς εἴ τις ἄλλη τῶν κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν ὑπὸ εὐπόρων ἀνθρώπων, καὶ ἀεί τινες ἐξ αὐτῆς εἰσιν οἱ πρωτεύοντες κατὰ τὴν ἐπαρχίαν, οὓς Ἀσιάρχας καλοῦσιν. (trans. H. L. Jones) 30. Val. Max. 4.1.13: Numidicus autem Metellus populari factione patria pulsus in Asiam secessit. in qua cum ei forte ludos Trallibus spectanti litterae redditae essent, quibus scriptum erat maximo senatus et populi consensu reditum illi in urbem datum. “Numidicus Metellus, driven from his country by a democratic faction, retired to Asia. He happened to be watching games at Tralles when a letter was delivered to him containing the news that return to Rome had been granted him by an overwhelming consensus of senate and people” (trans. D. R. Shackleton Bailey). Metellus Numidicus’s exile: App. BC 1.29–31. Plut. Mar. 29. Liv. Per. 69. 31. Tyranny of Cratippus’s sons: Strabo 14.1.42.

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 151

3/12/20 12:09 PM

152

Hidden Power

ter no doubt provoked the violent reaction of the inhabitants of the city.32 Independently of the number of the Italians and Romans killed on the eve of the Mithridatic Wars, in 66 BC Cicero was still able to state that in Tralles, multi cives Romani sunt.33 Cicero refers to the wealth of the city and to the good relationship between the city and Mithridates as he recalls Laelius’s statement that the king of Pontus would have been “more anxious about adorning Tralles than plundering it.”34

Late Cistophori in Hoards (105–90 BC) While Tralles’s juridical status after 128 BC is difficult to determine, it is certain that its cistophoric production did not resume until the years immediately preceding 105 BC, when the first Trallian late cistophori appear in hoards.35 After the establishment of the Roman province of Asia, the mint of Tralles maintained the primacy in the production of small cistophoric fractions it had held in Attalid times, as shown clearly by hoard evidence. In the years between Attalus’s bequest and the end of the production of late cistophori in 58 BC only three mixed-denomination cistophoric hoards are known.36 Among these, IGCH 1328 is dated to 128 BC, well before the probable start date for late cistophoric production in Tralles. In this hoard, which includes nine tetradrachms and six fractions, there is a total of five Trallian coins.37 Trallian fractions not only outnumber the fractions from different mints but also the Trallian tetradrachms included in the same hoard. The city’s specialization in cistophoric fractions becomes even more evident once the Trallian late cistophoric series begins after 105 BC; all fractions in IGCH 1460 (95 BC) and in CH VIII, 447 = 525 (58/57 BC)—with a single exception—are from Tralles.38 Tralles also issued a diobol on the cistophoric standard with the types humped bull kneeling / eagle, very likely dated to the first century BC.39 This coin, which was the cistophoric equivalent of the Roman sestertius, is possibly to be interpreted in light of the progressive adaptation of the Asian monetary system to The Roman currency system in the same years40 Until the end of the First Mithridatic War, Trallian cistophoric fractions probably had the same function as those issued under the Attalids, namely facilitating interchange with Caria. As already stated, Caria remained independent of provincia Asia in this period and still employed Rhodian standards for its coinage.41 The presence of personal names is the main differentiating factor between Trallian late cistophori and previous cistophoric issues. Abbreviated names reduced to three or four letters are placed between the heads of the coiled serpents on the reverse, replacing the monogram. While individual names had been present on the civic bronze coinage of Tralles since its inception in the 32. J.-L. Ferrary (2002, 144) argues that the fact that the promagistri entrusted by the societates publicanorum were often of inferior social status (i.e., slaves or freedmen) was especially enraging for the municipal elites in Asia. 33. Pro Flacco 29.71. 34. Pro Flacco 59. 35. IGCH 1458 (around 105 BC) is the first hoard including an issue of Trallian late cistophori. 36. IGCH 1328 (128 BC); ECC, 118–119. IGCH 1460 (95 BC); Kleiner 1978, 90–92; CH VIII 447 = 525 (58/57 BC), Meadows 2015, 293, 309–310, section 4a. 37. Apameia: ECC, 118, nos. 1 (tetradrachm) and 2 (didrachm). Ephesus: nos. 3–6 (tetradrachms). Pergamum: nos. 7–8 (tetradrachms) and 9 (didrachm). Sardes: no. 10 (tetradrachm). Tralles: nos. 11–14 (didrachms) and 15 (tetradrachm). 38. IGCH 1460 (total of 30 coins, of which 16 are from Tralles. Cf. infra, 162); Kleiner 1978, 91–92, nos. 13, 17 (didrachms), 14, 16, 19, 22–23 and 28 (drachms); CH VIII 447 = 525 (total of 258 coins, of which 34 from Tralles. Cf. infra, 209–210); Meadows 2015, nos. 201–207. The only exception is represented by an underweight drachm from Apamea: Meadows 2015, Section A, no. 208. 39. Meadows 2014. 40. Meadows 2014, 19; Meadows forthcoming. The equivalence between diobol and sestertius derives from the assumption that there were three denarii to the cistophoric tetradrachm. See infra, 236, n. 43. 41. See supra, 20–21.

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 152

3/12/20 12:09 PM

Cistophoric Production at Tralles

153

Figure 4.3. Lydia, Tralles. Cistophoric tetradrachm. 155–145 BC. Cista mystica from which serpent emerges within ivy wreath/ Two coiled serpents between bowcase and bow; to left, ΤΡΑΛ; to right, humped bull on meander pattern. ECC 15.30a. 12.23 g. BNF 2690.

Figure 4.4. Lydia, Tralles. Cistophoric tetradrachm. 95–90 BC. Cista mystica from which serpent emerges within ivy wreath/ Two coiled serpents around bowcase; to left, ΤΡΑΛ; in center, MHTP; to right, humped bull on meander pattern. Issue XXV.1. 12.55 g. ANS 2015.20.1454 (Witschonke).

Figure 4.5. Lydia, Tralles. Cistophoric tetradrachm. 57–58 BC. Cista mystica from which serpent emerges within ivy wreath / C. FABI M F PRO COS; two coiled serpents around bowcase on which an eagle standing right, head turned to left; to left, humped bull on meander pattern and ΤΡΑΛ with cista below; to right, Apollo standing left holding bow; below, signature ΠΑΜΜΕΝΗΣ. Metcalf 2017 XI; Stumpf 32a. 12.24 g. ANS 1944.100.37578.

third century BC, they do not appear on cistophori until post-Attalid times.42 On the other hand, Tralles’s civic badge, a humped bull at the center of a meander circle, already appears on civic bronze issues and—with some modifications—on cistophoric ones in the second century BC (Fig. 4.3).43 The humped bull on a meander pattern, a type common to other cities in the Maeander Valley, is also present on the late cistophoric issue in the name of ΜΗΘΡ(όδωρος) prior to 90 BC (Fig. 4.4).44 It is still present on one Trallian issue of later Republican cistophori, but disappears from Tralles’s coinage over the course of the first century AD (Fig. 4.5).45 The presence of the 42. Inception of civic coinage in Tralles: Cohen 1995, 265–258; Thonemann 2011, 40–41. Five magistrates are known from the earliest bronze coinage of Tralles: Artemidorus (Imhoof-Blumer 1897, 169, no. 1; SNG München 695); Charinus (Imhoof-Blumer 1897, 169 no. 2); Apollonius (Imhoof-Blumer 1908a, 134, no. 1; Künker 133 [2007], 659); Athenodorus ? (Künker 133 [2007], 7660); Dion(?-ysius) (SNG München 696; perhaps also Imhoof-Blumer 1897, 169, commentary to no. 3, magistrate Διο[–]). 43. ECC, 61–4, Series 5 and 15. In ECC Tralles 5, only the meander is present, while in series 15 the bull and the meander are both present. The meander motif is shared by other cities in the Maeander Valley. 44. The only two specimens known for this issue were included in the 2002 hoard, therefore they pre-date 90 BC. One of them is now ANS 2015.20. 1784 (Witschonke). Humped bull and meander motifs on coinage from the Maeander Valley: Thonemann 2011, 31–48. 45. Metcalf 2017, XI; Stumpf 1991, no. 32. Disappearance of the meander motif from Trallian coinage: Thonemann 2011, 48–49.

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 153

3/12/20 12:09 PM

154

Hidden Power

Figure 4.6. Lydia, Tralles. Cistophoric tetradrachm. 57–56 BC. C.FA-BI M F/ PRO-COS; cista mystica from which serpent emerges within ivy wreath/ Two coiled serpents around bowcase on which an eagle standing right, head turned to left; to left, humped bull and ΤΡΑΛ; to right, ΣΤΕΦΑΝΕΦΟΡΟΣ; below, signature ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΣ. Metcalf 2017, X, 316a; Stumpf 1991, no. 33. 26.4 mm. 12.46 g. ANS 2015.20.54 (Witschonke).

Figure 4.7. Lydia, Tralles. Cistophoric tetradrachm. 155–145 BC. Cista mystica from which serpent emerges within ivy wreath/ Two coiled serpents around bowcase and bow; to left, ΤΡΑΛ; to right, star, below which, fulmen; below, É. ECC 32.61a. 12.27 g. ANS 1962.121.2.

highly local meander patterns on these cistophori again illustrates the civic character of cistophoric issues, despite their provincial nature. The relationship between civic organization and cistophoric issues is also suggested by the naming of civic magistrates’s offices. The explicit appearance of the term ΣΤΕΦΑΝΗΦΟΡΟΣ on a later Republican cistophoric issue makes their presence on at least some late cistophoric issues of the city seem very likely (Fig. 4.6).46 This office regularly enjoyed a position of prominence in the list of offices held by individuals.47 Its eponymous nature, which was still maintained after AD 127, provides further confirmation of the presence of these magistrates on at least some Trallian cistophoric issues.48 F. de Callataÿ tentatively proposed the identification of the magistrates on Trallian late cistophori as prytaneis.49 His hypothesis is based on the presence in IGCH 1462—a hoard dated to the 80s BC—of Group 3 Pergamene late cistophori of Pergamum (whose monogram he resolved as prytaneis) and Trallian ECC 32, which appears to have a similar monogram (Fig. 4.7).50 F. Kleiner, however, has made a strong case for the close relationship between ECC Tralles 32 and the contemporary series of Ephesus (ECC 25–28, dated to 145 BC) based on stylistic similarities.51 Moreover, the presence of a name on the series immediately following, ECC Tralles 33, abbreviated as ΥΠ, strongly suggests that the monogram of ECC Tralles 32 should be read as the magistrate 46. BMC Lydia, 334, no. 51 (dated to 57–56 BC, C. Fabius M.f. Hadrianus); Stumpf 1991, no. 33; Pinder 1856, no. 176; Metcalf 2017, 35–36, Tralles X. 47. I Tralleis und Nysa I, 69.6, 73.7–8, 88.12, 134.10, 145.1–2. 48. I Tralleis und Nysa I, 80.15. See also Sherk 1992, 252. 49. de Callataÿ 1997a, 290, no. 72. 50. Ibid. Kleiner’s group, Pergamum 3, dated to ca. 95 BC, differentiates itself from Pergamum 1 and 2 by “the presence of a serpent-entwined thyrsus in the rev. r. field and changing initials or monograms and prytaneis (ligature) between the serpents’ heads” (Kleiner 1978). While the chronological correlation between the Pergamene and Trallian series does not seem to work, the appearance of magistrates on Apamean late cistophori could be related to the Pergamum 3 cistophori, as their issues began around the same years. 51. ECC, 69–70: Ephesian and Trallian late cistophori share the dual symbol format.

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 154

3/12/20 12:09 PM

Cistophoric Production at Tralles

155

Figure 4.8. Lydia, Tralles. Cistophoric tetradrachm. 145–140 BC. Cista mystica from which serpent emerges within ivy wreath / Two coiled serpents around bowcase and bow; to left, eagle on thunderbolt and ΤΡΑΛ; to r., Tyche; below, ΥΠ. ECC 33. 12.63 g. CNG 57 (2001), 448.

Figure 4.9. Lydia, Tralles. Cistophoric tetradrachm, 75–60 BC. Cista mystica from which serpent emerges within ivy wreath / Two coiled serpents around bowcase and bow; to left, ΤΡΑΛ; above, ΠΡΥΤ; to right, cornucopiae. Issue XL.1. SNG Copenhagen, Lydia, no. 660; BMC Lydia, 329, no. 29. 12.22 g. ANS 1984.5.44

Figure 4.10. Phrygia, Apamea. Bronze obol, 95–48 BC. Head of Zeus right , wearing oak or laurel wreath / Cult-statue of Artemis Anaïtis; to left, ΚΑΝΚΑ[ΡΟΥ] / ΕΓΛΟΓ[ΙΣ]; to right, ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ. Ashton 2016, Appendix I, obverse A, 31–37. 21.9 mm. 7.28 g. ANS 1944.100.49964

name abbreviated as ΥΠ, not as prytaneis (Fig. 4.8). On the other hand, the presence of ΠΡΥΤ on the reverse of a late cistophoric issue makes de Callataÿ’s hypothesis more appealing (Fig. 4.9).52 It could, then, be hypothesized that different individuals, among whom figured stephanephoroi and prytaneis, were responsible for these issues. A comparandum for the institutional position of the individuals on Tralles’s cistophori may be provided by the roughly contemporary coinage of Apamea, which names the same individuals on both cistophoric and bronze coins.53 In the case of Apamea, the presence of the legend ΕΓΛΟΓΙΣΤ (or shorter versions) on some issues suggests that the office held by the individuals on the coins would be that of eklogistai (Fig. 4.10).54 The period of issue for the late cistophori of Tralles still needs to be defined.55 Trallian late cistophori probably began to be issued in the years immediately preceding 105/4 BC, as only one variety of Trallian late cistophorus is included in IGCH 1458, dated to the same year.56 The terminus post quem for IGCH 52. Pinder 1856, no. 155; BMC Lydia, 329–330, nos. 29–30; SNG Copenhagen 660. 53. Ashton 2016, Appendix 2. 54. Artemis/Marsyas coins: e.g., SNG Fitzwilliam Museum 4937 and Waddington 5678 = Paris BNF 454. Zeus/helmet coin: catalogue in Ashton 2016, Appendix 1, obverse dies A9 and A10. Zeus/Artemis Anaitis: Ashton 2016, Appendix I, 31–37, obverse A. 55. The starting date for their issue was originally placed by Head (1911) in 133 BC (contemporary with Ephesus) but with an abrupt stop in 126 BC. This periodization was based on the identification of the era on Tralles’s late cistophori as the so-called “Age of Provincia Asia.” However, the existence of this era has been convincingly disproved by Rigsby 1979, and Tralles’s era has been connected to Sulla by Regling 1932. 56. IGCH 1458 (around 105/4 BC): ΜΑΡΣ and owl on amphora.

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 155

3/12/20 12:09 PM

156

Hidden Power

1458, can be established on the basis of the latest Ephesian cistophorus included in the hoard, dated to 105/4 BC.57 Among the seven Trallian cistophoric varieties the only late one is ΜΑΡΣ and owl on amphora.58 The beginning of the late cistophoric issues should therefore be placed around this date, also taking into account the absence of late cistophoric varieties from IGCH 1456, which has been dated to 100 BC.59 IGCH 1460 is one of the very few mixed-denomination cistophoric hoards.60 The latest Ephesian piece is dated to 96/5 BC.61 The following late Trallian cistophoric issues are included in the hoard: ΑΘΗΝ and fulmen and caduceus; ΑΡΤΕ and uncertain symbol; ΒΡΙΘ and crab; ΔΙΟΝ and club; ΠΑΜΜ and trophy; ΣΩΧΑ and bust of Artemis.62

Late Cistophori in the 2002 Hoard (Plates 101–133)

This study offers the first detailed analysis of Trallian late cistophoric issues. The Trallian late cistophori included in this hoard can be divided in 14 different issues, only four of which R. Münsterberg identified in his classic work.63 Table 4.2 arranges the Trallian late cistophoric issues in approximate chronological order based on hoard evidence. The scant presence of die links between these issues prevents further precision. As only two of these issues appear to be die linked, intermittent production may be hypothesized.64 The late start of the Trallian cistophoric mint could explain the relatively low number of specimens and obverse dies included in this hoard (145 and 28, respectively). However, a high characteroscopic index of 5 and a very low number of singletons (Esty coverage 97%) shows that this hoard gives a good sense of the Trallian cistophoric coinage circulating at that time. This is further confirmed by the whole sample of 212 tetradrachms included in the catalogue, which adds 67 specimens from museum and recent auction catalogues to those included in the 2002 hoard. The characteroscopic index for this sample is 6.87 (Esty coverage 96.2%). Given the exceptional coverage provided by the specimens in the 2002 hoard, in museum collections, and in auction catalogues, it is possible to approximate the production patterns of the late cistophoric mint of Tralles between 105 BC, the approximate inception date of late cistophoric production, and 89 BC, the closure date of the 2002 hoard.

57. Ephesian cistophori included in the hoard: Kleiner 1978, 83–86, nos. 28–30. Dating: Kleiner 1972, 126, no. 34. 58. Tralles: Kleiner 1978, 85, nos. 31–37. Early cistophoric issues: no. 31 (ECC 16), no. 32 (ECC 19), no. 33 (ECC 20), no. 34 (ECC 30), no. 35 (ECC 40), no. 36 (ECC 44). Late cistophoric issue: no. 37 (SNG von Aulock 3261). 59. The only Trallian cistophoric variety included in this hoard is ECC 21 (155–145 BC). 60. The only other two examples of a mixed-denomination cistophoric hoard are: IGCH 1328, the first recorded hoard including fractional cistophori, dated to 128 BC (Tralles fractional cistophori: ECC, 119, nos. 11–15); and CH VIII, 447 = 525, dated to 58/7 BC (Tralles fractional cistophori: nos. 201–207). 61. Kleiner 1978, 91, no. 12. Dating: Kleiner 1972, 26, no. 42. 62. Kleiner 1978, 90–92. Tralles: nos. 13–28. Early cistophoric issues: ECC 3 (didrachm, no. 13); ECC 8 (drachm, no. 14); ECC 9 (tetradrachm, no. 15); ECC 12 (drachm, no. 16); ECC 15 (didrachm, no. 17); ECC 18 (tetradrachm, no. 18); ECC 39 (drachm, no. 19); ECC 45 (tetradrachm, no. 20). Late cistophoric issues: ΑΘΗΝ and fulmen and caduceus, crossed (tetradrachm, no. 21), ΑΡΤΕ and uncertain symbol (drachm, no. 22), ΒΡΙΘ and crab (drachm, no. 23), ΔΙΟΝ and club (tetradrachm, nos. 24–25), ΠΑΜΜ and trophy (tetradrachm, nos. 26–27), ΣΩΧΑ and bust of Artemis (drachm, no. 28). 63. Münsterberg 1927, 182: Ἀρπα, Ἀρτε, ΣΩΧΑ and ΦΙΛΙ. 64. The die-linked issues are: ΜΑΡΣ and owl on amphora (SNG von Aulock 3261) and ΔΙΟΝ and club (Pinder 1856, no. 152; SNG von Aulock 3259; SNG Copenhagen 657), which share O18; ΑΠΟΛ and eagle (Pinder1856, no. 149) and ΑΡΠΑ and winged caduceus (Münsterberg 1927, 182), which share O26.

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 156

3/12/20 12:09 PM

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 157

Table 4.2. Trallian late cistophoric issues until 90/89 BC. Control mark

References

Oldest hoard

Obverse dies in 2002 hoard

Total obverse dies

Specimens in 2002 hoard

Total specimens in sample

ΜΑΡΣ (oldest issue)

owl on amphora

SNG von Aulock 3261; Kleiner 1978, 85, no. 37

IGCH 1458 (105/4 BC)

1 (die link to ΔΙΟΝ and club)

1 (die link to ΔΙΟΝ and club)

5

8

ΔΙΟΝ

club

Pinder 152; BMC Lydia 36 (drachm); SNG von Aulock 3259; SNG Copenhagen 657; Kleiner 1978, 92, nos. 24–25

IGCH 1460 (95 BC)

2 (die link to ΜΑΡΣ)

2 (die link to ΜΑΡΣ)

6

8

ΑΘΗΝ

fulmen and caduceus

SNG von Aulock 8284; Kleiner 1978, 92, no. 21

IGCH 1460 (95 BC)

1

1

7

12

ΑΡΤΕ

bust of Athena

Pinder 150. BMC Lydia 23; Waddington 6994; Kleiner 1978, 92, no. 22 (drachm)

IGCH 1460 (95 BC)

2

2

11

13

ΠΑΜΜ

trophy

Kleiner 1978, 92, nos. 26–27

IGCH 1460 (95 BC)

1

2

3

7

ΣΩΧΑ

bust of Artemis

BMC Lydia, 332, no. 41(didrachm); Imhoof-Blumer 1897, 172, no. 14; Kleiner 1978, 92, no. 28 (drachm)

IGCH 1460 (95 BC)

1

1

1

3

ΑΠΟΛ65

eagle

Pinder 1856, no. 149

2002 (90/89 BC)

1

1

3

4

ΑΡΠΑ

winged caduceus

Münsterberg 1927, 182

2002 (90/89 BC)

2

2

2

3

ΕΠΑ

bust of Athena

2002 (90/89 BC)

1

1

2

2

ΜΕΝΑ66

herm

_

1

_

3

ΜΕΝΑ

filleted palm branch

2002 (90/89 BC)

2

2

10

11

ΜΗΤΡ

humped bull standing on meander pattern

2002 (90/89 BC)

2

2

2

2

ΦΙΛΙ

bee

Imhoof-Blumer 1897, 172, no. 15

2002 (90/89 BC)

2

2

5

6

ΔΙΟΝ (newest issue)

lyre

Pinder1856, no. 151; SNG von Aulock 3259; SNG Copenhagen 657

2002 (90/89 BC)

11

12

88

130

Pinder 1856, no. 154; Mionnet IV, 178, 1028

65. The die-linked issues are: ΜΑΡΣ and owl on amphora (SNG von Aulock 3261) and ΔΙΟΝ and club (Pinder 1856, no. 152; SNG von Aulock 3259; SNG Copenhagen, Ionia, no. 657), which share O18; ΑΠΟΛ and eagle (Pinder 1856, no. 149) and ΑΡΠΑ and winged caduceus (Münsterberg 1927, 182), which share O27. 66. The die links established between a didrachm of this issue with one from the issue MENA and filleted palm (see supra, 147 issues III–IV) suggest this chronological placement.

3/12/20 12:09 PM

158

Hidden Power

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 ΜΑΡΣ ΔΙΟΝ club (105–104 BC)

ΑΘΗΝ

ΑΡΤΕ

ΠΑΜΜ

ΣΩΧΑ

ΑΠΟΛ eagle

ΑΡΠΑ

ΕΠΑ

MENA herm

ΜΕΝΑ filleted palm

ΜΗΤΡ

Number of specimens in 2002 hoard

Number of obverse dies in 2002 hoard

Total number of specimens in sample

Total number of obverse dies (tetradrachms)

ΦΙΛΙ

ΔΙΟΝ lyre (90–89 BC)

Figure 4.11. Trallian late cistophoric issues in the 2002 hoard.

Figure 4.12. Number of observed tetradrachm dies in the 2002 hoard.

Figure 4.11 illustrates the data for the number of specimens and number of tetradrachm obverse dies in the 2002 hoard and integrates it with the same data from museum collections and auction catalogues. With a few exceptions—most notably the ΔΙΟΝ-and-lyre issue, the latest included in the 2002 hoard—the greater number of specimens did not substantially alter the number of observed tetradrachm obverse dies.67 As Figure 4.12 shows, the mint of Tralles produced cistophori for the years 105–90 BC using 1.2 tetradrachm obverse dies per year. Thus the ΔΙΟΝ and lyre issue represents almost a tenfold increase in production, using 11 tetradrachm obverse dies (44 drachm obverse dies).68 As already 67. The ΠΑΜΜ issue (Kleiner 1978, 92, nos. 26–27) is attested by one obverse die in the 2002 hoard, but the perusal of museum collections and auction catalogues adds one more. In the same way, the ΔΙΟΝ and lyre issue passes from 11 to 12 obverse dies (cf. Table 4.2). 68. These calculations are based on the whole sample, not only on the specimens included in the 2002 hoard.

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 158

3/12/20 12:09 PM

Cistophoric Production at Tralles

159

noted for Ephesus, it is difficult not to see in the accelerated production of Tralles an echo of the arrival of the Roman legati in Ephesus in 91/0 BC and the beginning of the First Mithridatic War.69 Additionally, the presence in this hoard of a significant number cistophori from Pergamum and Ephesus—the two most important cistophoric mints active between 128 and the 90s BC— makes it possible to estimate the relative importance of the Tralles’s production in provincia Asia.70 As far as it is possible to tell from the specimens included in the 2002 hoard, the pre-90 BC production of Tralles represented only 5.6% of the cistophoric production of the province. Even factoring in the later start of Trallian production, it is still apparent that Tralles’s cistophoric production was marginal until the beginning of the Mithridatic Wars.71 On the other hand, in 90–89 BC, the city accounted for 31.4% of all provincial production of cistophori.72 Between 128 and 90 BC, the 2002 hoard suggests that Pergamum and Ephesus issued late cistophori in the respective amounts of 5.26 and 4.6 yearly observed tetradrachm obverse dies. Even accounting for its fewer years of activity, the Trallian mint issued only 1.2 observed tetradrachm obverse dies per year. In 90/89 BC, however, the cistophoric production of Tralles (as far as concerns the specimens included in the hoard) almost equaled that of Pergamum, with eleven yearly tetradrachm obverse dies. In the first years of the First Mithridatic War, Tralles thus increased its cistophoric output in order to be in line with the rest of the province, reaching the production levels of Pergamum and Ephesus.

69. Just. 38.3.4. App. Mithr. 12.2.11. See supra, 36–38, 120. 70. While acknowledging the activity of the cistophoric mints of Adramyteum, Sardis, and Smyrna in the years before 90 BC, their production does not appear to be quantifiable. 71. See supra, 44, Fig. 1.6. 72. I do not include Apamea or Laodicea in this calculation, since the number of specimens included in this hoard are too scant to allow a die count.

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 159

3/12/20 12:09 PM

04 Carbone Tralles.indd 160

3/12/20 12:09 PM

Chapter 5

Cistophoric Production at Laodicea

Hoard Catalogue (Plate 138)

I.  (99–89 BC)

On l. ΛΑΟ; above, ; on r., winged caduceus.

SNG von Aulock 8408; Marinescu 1995, nos. 12–18. 1. O1/R1 Obverse of CNG Triton VI (2003), 425 a. 12.59 CNG Triton VI (2003), 425 b. 12.67 c. 12.71 ANS 2015.20.1577 (Witschonke) 2. O2/R1 12.56 ANS 2015.20.1608 (Witschonke) 3. O3/R1 12.71 Dies of SNG von Aulock 8408

Late Cistophoric Production in Context Laodicea, one of the original Attalid cistophoric mints, was located on the south bank of the Lycus and was probably assigned by the Romans to Eumenes as an appendage of Caria Hydrela.1 Although located in Phrygia, Laodicea was considered a Carian city by Ptolemy and Philostratus, reflecting its connection to the Carian region.2

1. ECC Laodicea, 97–99. See supra, 22. 2. Ptol. 2.18; Phil., Lives of the Sophists 1.25.

161

05 Carbone Laodicea.indd 161

3/12/20 2:26 PM

162

Hidden Power

Unlike Greater Phrygia, the region around Apamea and Synnada, which was bestowed upon Mithridates V by Manius Aquilius, the city was annexed to the newly established Roman province right after 133 BC.3 In contrast with Apamea, Laodicea was not only included on the provincial road of Manius Aquilius but also represented a focal point on it, as the city lay at the intersection of the roads that connected Asia to Lycaonia and Pamphylia.4 As one of the assize district centers of provincia Asia and—later on—of Cilicia, Laodicea issued both late and later Republican cistophori. It continued to do so even in the years during which it was part of the province of Cilicia (50–56 BC), as proven by the presence of late Republican cistophori bearing the name of Cicero, who served as proconsul in that province in 51/0 BC.5 The date of the beginning of the Laodicean late cistophoric issues has yet to be firmly determined, although the presence of eighteen varieties in CH IX, 960 (closed ca. 70 BC), hints at a date not so distant from that proposed for Apamea.6 This dating is confirmed by the inclusion of four specimens of Laodicean late cistophori in excellent condition in the 2002 hoard, thus suggesting that the late cistophoric production of the city began in the years immediately preceding the deposition of the hoard.7 The late cistophori of Laodicea have a slightly different appearance to that of the earlier issues. While they maintain the same obverse type, the reverse features the ethnic ΛΑΟ in the left field, in contrast with ΛΑΟΔ on the earlier issues. Moreover, while the early cistophori have different control marks in the right field of the reverse, the late ones always feature a winged caduceus (Figs. 5.1–5.2). Another novelty is the presence of a monogram between the snakes’ heads. Other issues have the name and patronymic of the individuals responsible for the monetary production (Fig. 5.3).8 The four specimens included in the hoard are all part of the same issue (), but present three different obverse dies (Pl. 136). The fact that this issue was produced using three (and presumably more) tetradrachm obverse dies could hint at an increase in production compared with Attalid times. According to ECC, the total early cistophoric production of the city amounted to five observed tetradrachm obverse dies in the years 160–145 BC (i.e., ca. 0.26 tetradrachm dies per year).9 Under the Attalids, Laodicea had thus produced a very small amount of cistophori, amounting to less than 1% of the total early cistophoric production of the kingdom, as shown by Figure 5.4.10

3. Phrygia: Appian Mithr. 8.57: Φρυγίαν δέ σοι Μάνιος ἔδωκεν ἐπὶ δωροδοκίᾳ (Sulla to Mithridates VI). “Manius gave you Phrygia for a bribe” (trans. H. White). As McGing (1980, 8) rightly notes, Appian confuses Mithridates VI with his father Mithridates V, who had acquired Phrygia. For the discussion of the identity of the Mithridates to whom Phrygia was given see Daubner 2006, 232–240; Ryan 2001. For the annexation of Phrygia to provincia Asia, see supra, 19–21, 30. 4. French 2012, nos. 7–8. See supra, 16, 19–21, Fig. 0.2,. 5. For Laodicea as part of the Cilician province see Cic. Ad fam. 13.67: Ex provincia mea Ciliciensi, cui scis τρεῖς διοικήσεις Asiaticas attributas fuisse; Syme 1988, p. 141. For the cistophoric issues of Laodicea: BMC Phrygia, 279–281, nos. 4–14; SNG von Aulock 3798–3801, 8406–8409; SNG Copenhagen 487–493; Marinescu 1995 (late cistophori). Later Republican issues in the name of Cicero: Stumpf 1991, nos. 91–93; Metcalf 2017, Laodicea XV. 6. Marinescu 1995. 7. Three specimens of this issue have been recorded by Marinescu (1995, 326, nos. 12–18) as having the  monogram. Two of these specimens have the same dies as Marinescu 1995, pl. 52, no. 14. 8. Marinescu (1995) records two issues with monograms and eighteen with complete names (usually followed by a patronymic). Gregory Callaghan, in an unpublished study-in-progress on the late cistophori of Laodicea, identifies 21 reverse types bearing a full name between the snakes’ heads, out of which nine issues bear two names, and one issue has three names. For a summary of his study: G. Callaghan, “Cistophoric Mysteries of Laodiceia-ad-Lycum,” ANS Pocket Change (August 8, 2017) (http://numismatics.org/pocketchange/callaghan) (ANS Pocket Change, August 8, 2017). 9. ECC, 97–99. 10. ECC, 97–99; de Callataÿ 2013, 228, table 6.8, after ECC, 97–99.

05 Carbone Laodicea.indd 162

3/12/20 2:26 PM

Cistophoric Production at Laodicea

163

Figure 5.1. Phrygia, Laodicea. Cistophoric tetradrachm, 160–145 BC. Cista mystica from which serpent emerges within ivy wreath / Two coiled serpents around bowcase and bow; on left, ΛΑΟΔ ; on right, forepart of wolf right, below which, turreted head of city goddess. ECC 4.1b; SNG von Aulock 8405. 12.58 g. ANS 1951.5.232.

Figure 5.2. Phrygia, Laodicea. Cistophoric tetradrachm, ca. 90–89 BC. Cista mystica from which serpent emerges within ivy wreath / Two coiled serpents around bowcase and bow; on left, ΛΑΟ; above, between serpents’ heads, ; on right, winged caduceus. SNG von Aulock 8408. 12.51 g. ANS 2015.20.1573 (Witschonke).

Figure 5.3. Phrygia, Laodicea. Cistophoric tetradrachm, ca. 90–68 BC. Cista mystica from which serpent emerges within ivy wreath / Two coiled serpents around bowcase and bow; on left, ΛΑΟ; above, between serpents’ heads, ΖΕΥΞΙΣ ΑΠΟΛΛΩΝΙΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΑΜΥΝΤΟΥ; on right, winged caduceus. SNG von Aulock 3798; BMC Phrygia, 4; SNG Copenhagen 492. 28 mm. 12.27 g. ANS 2015.20.1576 (Witschonke).

The five specimens from three dies included in the 2002 hoard therefore suggest a much higher production for the later period, since one single issue of late cistophori almost equals the total production of early cistophori of the city. This is further confirmed by G. Callaghan’s unpublished work-in-progress, according to which total Laodicean late cistophoric production involved 46 observed obverse dies, a tenfold increase in terms of absolute production from production under the Attalids.11 The combination of the data from Callaghan’s study with that presented in Appendix I allows for the breakdown of late cistophoric production in Figure 5.5.12 The production of the late cistophoric mint of Laodicea represents 7% of the late cistophoric production of provincia Asia, a sevenfold increase in the relative importance of this mint. The soaring monetary production suggested by the late cistophoric specimens included in the hoard and by Callaghan’s study is confirmed for a later period by W. Metcalf ’s study of later Republican cistophori, issued between 58 and 48 BC.13 According to these data, Laodicea became the second mint in order of importance, close to 11. Callaghan 2017. 12. See infra, 2226–227, Tables 11.2–3. For discussion of these data, see infra, 228–232. 13.Metcalf 2017, 48–56.

05 Carbone Laodicea.indd 163

3/12/20 2:27 PM

164

Hidden Power

Figure 5.4. Early cistophoric production in terms of observed tetradrachm dies (ECC).

Figure 5.5. Late cistophoric production in terms of observed tetradrachm dies.

Pergamum and immediately following Apamea, with a production of 21 observed tetradrachm obverse dies (i.e., 8.4 observed drachm obverse dies per year).14 Since Metcalf ’s data suggest that the total cistophoric production of provincia Asia involved 98 observed tetradrachm obverse dies, in the century between the end of Laodicea’s early cistophoric production (around 145 BC) and the end of the later Republican cistophori (48 BC), Laodicean representation soared from ca. 1% to 22% of the total. As Figure 5.6 suggests, the increase in relative importance of the Laodicean mint had already begun at the very beginning of the first century BC.15 In the same period, the city also produced a bronze coinage with Mithridatic symbols (Dionysus and eagle with spread wings), with a denominational system that seems compatible with that of

14. Apamea: 24 tetradrachm obverse dies, Laodicea and Ephesus: 21 obverse dies (source Metcalf 2017). 15. See n. 12.

05 Carbone Laodicea.indd 164

3/12/20 2:27 PM

Cistophoric Production at Laodicea

165

Figure 5.6. Laodicean production in terms of observed tetradrachm dies.

Figure 5.7. Later Republican cistophoric production in terms of observed tetradrachm dies (Metcalf 2017).

Apamea (Figs. 5.8–5.9).16 A small denomination has the head of Dionysus on the obverse and on the reverse a cista mystica with pilei of the Dioscuri surmounted by stars.17 A large denomination weighing around 6 grams has the head of Zeus on the obverse and an eagle with spread wings on a filleted cornucopia on the reverse.18 Other bronze series were produced by the city over the course of the first century BC, possibly along with the two just mentioned, but the lack of archaeological context and of a stylistic dating element prohibit a definitive answer regarding their dating.19 As in the case of Apamea, the increase in the monetary production of the city corresponds to the economic growth of Roman Phrygia over the course of the first century BC.20 16. See infra, 169–171. 17. BMC Phrygia, 286, nos. 50–51. 18. BMC Phrygia, 286, nos. 48–49; SNG Copenhagen 507–508. 19. Diademed head of Aphrodite/filleted double cornucopia: SNG Copenhagen 500; SNG von Aulock 3803. 20. Thonemann 2013c, 24–37, esp. 28–30.

05 Carbone Laodicea.indd 165

3/12/20 2:27 PM

166

Hidden Power

Figure 5.8. Phrygia, Laodicea. Bronze tetrachalkon(?), ca. 90–45 BC(?). Head of Dionysus right / ΛAOΔI/ KEΩN; cista mystica with pilei of the Dioscuri surmounted by stars. BMC Phrygia, 286, nos. 50–51. 3.55 g. ANS 1944.100.50472.

Figure 5.9. Phrygia, Laodicea. Bronze obol(?), ca. 90–45 BC(?). Head of Zeus right, wearing taenia / ΛΑΟΔΙΚΕΩ[Ν]; eagle with spread wings standing left, head right, on filleted cornucopia; below, monogram. BMC Phrygia, 286, no. 48; SNG Copenhagen 507. 6.31 g. Hauck & Aufhäuser 19 (2006), 178.

In Strabo’s words, “being previously a small town, in our time and that of our fathers, [Laodicea] increased in size.”21 Laodicea grew to become the second most important city in Phrygia after Apamea, thanks to the fertility of its soil and to the support of influential citizens such as Zeno, the father of M. Antonius Polemo, the future king of Pontus.22 Once again, monetary production seems to confirm the trends outlined by the literary sources.

21. Strabo 12.8.16. 22. Thonemann 2011, 205–218.

05 Carbone Laodicea.indd 166

3/12/20 2:27 PM

Chapter 5

Cistophoric Production at Apamea

Hoard Catalogue (Plate 138)

I.

 and head of elephant (150–140 BC)



On l.,; on r., head of elephant.



SNG von Aulock 3450; ECC 23. This issue shares one obverse die with ECC Pergamum 54.



1.

II.

ΚΕΛΑΙ (90–89 BC)



On l. ΑΠΑ; above, ΚΕΛΑΙ; on r., double-flute.



SNG von Aulock 3459; Kleiner 1979, VIII, 12e (same dies).



1.

O1/R1

12.27

O2/R2

Early Cistophoric Production in Context Under the Attalids, the Phrygian city of Apamea was the fourth most important cistophoric mint in the kingdom, with 48 identified tetradrachm obverse dies.1 In the same period, the city probably struck a short-lived bronze coinage of a single denomination.2 As noted by R. Ashton, a connection between the early cistophoric production of the city and these bronze issues is suggested by the presence of the pileus on both coinages, but a date in the third century BC cannot be excluded.3 1. ECC, 86–96. 2. Ashton 2003c. 3. Ashton 2003c, 47.

167

06 Carbone Apamea.indd 167

3/12/20 1:06 PM

168

Hidden Power

The only early Apamean cistophorus in the hoard is a very worn specimen part of the ECC 23 series, dated by Kleiner and Noe to 145–139 BC. Ashton places this series in 150–145 BC on the basis of hoard evidence and the die links with Pergamum ECC 20–24f.4 The presence in the Balikesir hoard (IGCH 1326, 135 BC) of a specimen of one of the last series of early cistophoric issues in uncirculated condition suggests that Apamean production stopped around 133 BC, when the province of Asia was established.5 As already discussed, Phrygia was not originally included in provincia Asia, as it was bestowed by Manius Aquilius upon Mithridates V.6 The end of cistophoric production at Apamea in 133 BC thus represents a further indication of the close connection between Attalid—and Roman—centers of administrative power and cistophoric production. At the same time, cistophoric production was not immediately restored after the city was annexed to the Roman province around 119 BC.7 All monetary production at the city then came to a halt until the beginning of the first century BC.8

Late Cistophoric Production in Context The city of Apamea was subject to several earthquakes in the course of the second century BC and suffered a particularly severe one in the late 90s BC.9 The reconstruction works from this earthquake likely prompted the revival of monetary production in the city, both in the form of cistophori and brass and bronze coinages. Mithridates’ gift of 100 talents to the city in 88 BC was to help this ongoing reconstruction work. Kleiner correlated this donation and the inception of the late cistophoric series, dating the beginning of the late series to 88 BC. 10 However, the presence in the 2002 hoard of one late cistophorus from Apamea shifts the starting date of the production of the late cistophori of Apamea from 89/8 BC, the date proposed by Kleiner, to the years immediately preceding the burial date of the hoard, namely 90/89 BC.11 The specimen included in this hoard has the same dies as Kleiner 1979, Group VIII, 12-e. Since the only other coin from Apamea from this hoard belongs to the period before 133, it may be suggested that the Kelainos issue of cistophori was the first, or among the first, of the late cistophori of Apamea, and was struck in or just before 90/89 BC (Fig. 6.1). Moreover, the cistophoric production of Apamea seems, to have been simultaneous with the issue of a very large amount of small-denomination bronze, as the same individual whose name appears on the cistophoric issue in the 2002 hoard also appears on the contemporary bronze coinage of the city with the types of Zeus/Athena Anaïtis (Fig. 6.2).12 4.Ashton 2004, 105. 5. The specimen included in the Balikesir hoard is part of ECC Series 30 and is now part of the ANS collection (ANS 1960.33.33). 6. Phrygia: Appian, Mithr. 8.57. See supra, 19–21, 30. 7. The date of the “restitution” of the region to Rome is based on the dating of the senatus consultum Licinnianum (OGIS 436), generally considered to refer to the annexation of Phrygia: Drew-Bear 1978, 1–8; Ryan 2001; Merola 2001, 44–49. Also supra, 20, 27. 8. Ashton 2016. 9. Strabo 12.8.18. καὶ τῶν ἄλλων δὲ πόλεων Ἀπάμεια μὲν καὶ πρὸ τῆς Μιθριδάτου στρατείας ἐσείσθη πολλάκις, καὶ ἔδωκεν ἐπελθὼν ὁ βασιλεὺς ἑκατὸν τάλαντα εἰς ἐπανόρθωσιν, ὁρῶν ἀνατετραμμένην τὴν πόλιν. “Among the other cities, Apamea was often shaken by earthquakes before the expedition of King Mithridates, who, when he went over to that country and saw that the city was in ruins, gave a hundred talents for its restoration” (trans. H. Leonard Jones). 10. Kleiner 1979, 122. 11. Kleiner 1979, Group VIII; Pinder 1856, no. 11: ΚΕΛΑΙ. 12. BMC Phrygia 72 var; SNG Copenhagen 17; Waddington 5663; Imhoof-Blumer 1901–1902, no. 6; Ashton 2016, Appendix I, Type 2: KEΛAIN(OΣ)/ΛEONT.

06 Carbone Apamea.indd 168

3/12/20 1:06 PM

Cistophoric Production at Apamea

169

Figure 6.1. Phrygia, Apamea. Cistophoric tetradrachm, 90–89 BC. Cista mystica from which serpent emerges within ivy wreath / Two coiled serpents around bowcase and bow; on left, ΑΠΑ; above, between serpents’ heads, ΚΕΛΑΙ; on right, double flute. Obverse double struck. Kleiner 1979, 125, VIII; SNG von Aulock 3459. 27.6 mm. 12.56 g. ANS 2015.20.1518 (Witschonke).

Figure 6.2. Phrygia, Apamea. Bronze diobol, 90–89 BC. Head of Zeus right, laureate or wearing oak wreath/ Cult statue of Artemis Anaïtis facing; to right, downward, ΑΠΑΜΕΩ; to l., downwards, ΚΕΛΑΙΝ(ΟΣ)/ ΛΕΟΝΤ. Ashton 2016, Appendix I, obverse A1. 9.88 g. BNF 417. Waddington 5663.

Figure 6.3. Ionia, Smyrna. Bronze diobol, 115–75 BC. Homereia type. Laureate head of Apollo right/ Homer seated left, holding scroll; scepter behind; to right, ZMYPNAIΩN; to left, MHTPOΔΩPOΣ [Π] AΣIKPAT[OY] to left. BMC Ionia, 246, no. 106. 21 mm. 9.57 g. Roma Numismatics 46 (2018), 185, ex CNG 244 (2010), 576.

The synchronism between cistophoric production and bronze issues over the course of the first century BC is further suggested by several other names attested on the bronze coinage as well as on the late and later Republican cistophori.13 Their simultaneous presence allows us to locate the beginning of both the cistophoric and the civic bronze issues around 90/89 BC. Moreover, the identification of the names on late and later Republican cistophori with ones present on bronze issues points to a continuation of the latter issues throughout the first century BC. As already argued, the substantial continuity of the activity of the Apamean cistophoric mint between the second and first century BC is suggested by die sharing between an Apamean late cistophorus

13. Late cistophori and bronze coinage: ΔIONΥΣIOΥ / KHΦIΣ (cistophorus: Kleiner 1979, Group VI; bronze: Ashton 2016, Appendix I, Type 2; KΩKOΥ (cistophorus: Kleiner 1979,Group IX. Bronze: Ashton 2016, Appendix I, Type 1). MANTIΘEOΣ ΔIODΔOT (cistophorus: Kleiner 1979, Group XIX; bronze: Ashton 2016, Appendix I Types 2–3); MHTΡO KEΛAI (cistophorus: Kleiner 1979, Group IV; Ashton 2016, Appendix I, Type 3); ΦAINIΠΠOΥ (cistophorus: Kleiner 1979, Group XIII; bronze: Ashton 2016, Appendix I, Type 3); ΦAINIΠΠOΥ ΔΡAKONTOΣ, die linked to KΩKOΥ). For the complete chronology of late cistophoric issues and contemporary bronze issues, see Ashton 2016, Appendix II. Later Republican cistophori and bronze coinage: ATTALOΥ BIANOΡOS (cistophorus: Stumpf 1991, no. 21; Pinder 174; Metcalf 2017, 42, Laodicea II; bronze: Ashton 2016, Appendix I, Type 1 ATTALOΥ BIANOΡOS). The name KΩKOY (Ashton 2016, Appendix I, Type 1) is also present on later Republican cistophori (Stumpf 1991, no. 81; Metcalf 2017, 44, Laodicea VIII).

06 Carbone Apamea.indd 169

3/12/20 1:06 PM

170

Hidden Power

with the full patronymic of a Greek magistrate (ΜΑΝΤΙΘΕΟΣ ΜΑΝΤΙΘΕΟΥ) and the proconsular cistophori of C. Fannius.14 Despite the absence of a direct correlation between Mithridates’ gift and the inception of cistophoric coinage, however, Pontic influence on the coinage and a possible connection to Mithridates’ gift of 88 BC is certainly visible in the bronze coinage issued by the city. The Apamean bronze coinage was struck in four denominations.15 Most likely these were diobols, obols, tetrachalka and dichalka, comparable with the denominational structure adopted at Magnesia on the Maeander and with the portrait bronze diobols of Mithridates struck by Smyrna, and all dating to the first half of the 80s BC.16 Despite the hostilities and the siege at the hands of Mithridates in 88 BC, even Rhodes produced unprecedented large denominations that find correspondence with the Pontic bronze denominational system.17 All of these series were thus directly or indirectly influenced by the heavy base-metal Pontic coinage brought into the area by Mithridates VI’s troops in the first half of the 80s BC. Despite their slightly lighter weight (clustering around 8 g), the diameters of the Apamean Zeus/Anaïtis bronzes correspond quite well with those of the Magnesian obols (ca. 20 mm and ca. 9 g) and with those of the very common Apollo/Homer bronze obols of Smyrna, which were struck between 190 and 75 BC (Fig. 6.3).18 Pontic influence can be detected not only in the similar denominational systems adopted by Apamea and several other cities but also in the introduction of brass.19 Brass coins made their first appearance in the Pontic kingdom during the reign of Mithridates VI in the 90s BC. They must have represented a model for the highest denomination in the Apamean bronze series, namely the Athena/eagle type (which is made of brass), while the coins of smaller denominations of the same issue were still issued in bronze.20 Pontic influence can also explain the use of brass in the contemporary issues of other Phrygian cities, like Acmonea, Dionysopolis, Laodicea, Eumenea, and Philomelium.21 Two elements suggest the contemporaneity of these coinages with the brass issue of Apamea: first, the fact that, as a rule, brass is only used for the highest denomination, and second, the presence of Mithridatic symbols such as the eight-rayed stars, eagle on thunderbolt, head of Dionysus, or standing Dionysus.22 Furthermore, the presence on these coins of the names of magistrates with patronymics as on the Apamean issues represents another dating element that strongly advocates for the connection of these coinages with a Pontic presence in the province. Thus, the Mithridatic Wars proved fundamental not only for the process of monetization of the Phrygian cities but also for the connection between Phrygian cities and other regions in provincia Asia, as the bronze denominational system and the adoption of brass was at least partly 14. Kleiner 1979, 130. Later Republican cistophorus of C. Fannius: Metcalf 2017, Apamea XII; Stumpf 1991, no. 57; Pinder 1856, no. 188. See supra, 1. 15. Ashton 2016: Athena/eagle coins: 4.4–12.26 g (with a cluster around 7.0–10 g). Zeus/Artemis Anaïtis coins: 3.24 to 13.44 g (cluster around 6.0–9.5 g and a clear peak at 7.0–8.0 g). Artemis/Marsyas coins: 1.69 to 6.79 g (cluster around 3.0–4.5 g); Zeus/helmet coins: 1.4 to 3.2 g (cluster around 1.6–2.3 g). 16. Magnesia and diobols of Smyrna: Kinns 2006, esp. 42–47. Apollo/Homer bronze obols of Smyrna: Milne 1923/1928 Type J. 17. Ashton 2001, 64–65. 18. Ashton 2016, 425. 19. Smekalova 2009, 237–238. 20. Athena/eagle: BMC Phrygia, 82, nos. 74–75. 21. Acmonea: BMC Phrygia, 4, nos. 1–2, 6; Laodicea: BMC Phrygia, 286, nos. 48–51; Auctiones GmbH E-Auction 50 (2016), 124; Leu Numismatik, Web Auction 4 (2018), 524; Nomos 10 (2018), 302; Dionysopolis: BMC Phrygia, 182, nos. 3–5; Eumenea: BMC Phrygia, 211, nos. 3–6; Philomelium: BMC Phrygia, 353, no. 3. 22. Mithridatic types are also present in the Adramytean bronze and silver coinage of the same years: Bronze coinage: Stauber 1996, nos. 65–91. For the dating of these series to 110–90 BC, see SNG Tübingen 2176–2178; Stauber 1996, 201. See infra,179–180.

06 Carbone Apamea.indd 170

3/12/20 1:06 PM

Cistophoric Production at Apamea

171

Figure 6.4. Cistophoric production at Apamea in observed tetradrachm dies.

“adapted” to the Pontic system at Magnesia ad Maeandrum in Ionia, Pergamum in Mysia, and at Rhodes, as well.23 T. Smekalova understands the process of adaptation to Pontic standards and the introduction of new alloys as a sign of the direct intervention of Mithridates.24 Another explanation seems more viable, however. The passage of the Pontic troops made the production of bronze coins on the Pontic standard economically convenient for the cities. The fact that an important commercial center such as Apamea adopted this standard encouraged other cities to do the same, as shown by the wide circulation area of the Apamean issues and by their mixed circulation with coins from Eumenea, Dionysopolis, Philomelium, and Acmonea.25 Local magistrates who appear on both silver and bronze issues of Apamea began the process of integrating the city into the economic life of the province during the First Mithridatic War and its aftermath. This integration took place through the issue of a largely acceptable bronze coinage based on the Pontic system and through the issue of cistophoric silver, which connected the region to the other cistophoric regions. The whole region, therefore, underwent a process of monetization at the beginning of the first century BC, kick-started by the First Mithridatic War and further bolstered by economic convenience. By the middle of the first century BC, around twenty Phrygian communities were producing more-or-less regular issues of bronze coinage, though not all on the same denominational system.26 As Thonemann has rightly noted, “quite apart from its economic consequences, the ‘small-change’ monetization of Phrygia in the mid-first century BC must reflect a major transformation in social identities in the region.”27 Of course, the process must have been facilitated by the presence of Roman and Italian traders.28 23. For Pergamene brass denominations, see Chameroy 2012, nos. 36–37 (ΑΘΗΝΑΣ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ: head of Athena/ owl and thunderbolt; head of Athena/owl and palm branch). For the connection between brass coinage and Mithridates, see Craddock, Burnett, and Preston 1980. For Mithridates as the authority issuing Pergamene brass coinage, see Smekalova 2009, 237–238; de Callataÿ 2007c. See supra, 81. 24. Smekalova 2009, 239–244. 25. Thonemann 2011, 106, no. 18. 26. The Mysoi Abbaeitai, Acmonea, Aezani, Amorium, Apamea, Appia, Dionysopolis, Eriza, Eumenea, Hierapolis, Hydrela, Cibyra, Colossae, Laodicea, Leonnaea, Peltae, Philomelium, Prymnessus, Sanaus, and Synnada. See BMC Phrygia, xx–cvi; SNG von Aulock, 40–91. 27. Thonemann 2013c, 28–29. 28. For the presence of Roman negotiatores in the area: Thonemann 2013c, 29–31.

06 Carbone Apamea.indd 171

3/12/20 1:06 PM

172

Hidden Power

On the other hand, no surge in the production of silver coinage can be detected for the same period. In his incomplete die study of Apamean late cistophori, Kleiner identified 41 tetradrachm obverse dies.29 The circulation data that will be analyzed in the last section of this study suggest a total production of ca. 47 tetradrachm obverse dies.30 Figure 6.4 shows a slight decline in the absolute numbers of the Apamean production under the Attalids.31 In relative numbers, the cistophoric mint of Apamea seems to have lost part of its importance in the first half of the first century BC, as it became fifth for output after Pergamum, Ephesus, Tralles, and Laodicea.32 In spite of the explosion of its bronze coinage, the Apamean cistophoric production did not surge in the same way, and actually lost part of its relevance in comparison to the Laodicean mint.33 Indeed, the real surge in the importance of the Apamean mint should be placed in the second half of the first century BC, when this city became the most important cistophoric mint of provincia Asia, in spite of the decline of cistophoric production in the entire province.34 The issues of this city, which accounted for 13% of the cistophoric production under the Attalids and for 6% in the first half of the first century BC, represented almost one quarter (24.4%) in the second half of the same century. While keeping in mind the risks involved in directly correlating economic prosperity and monetary production, it is difficult not to see a connection between the increasing economic integration of Apamea in the province of Asia and the rise in its relative importance as a mint.35 By the second half of the first century BC, the increasing presence of Roman and Italian businessmen made the city the most important commercial hub of inland Asia Minor, and the city’s prosperity was still praised by Dio Chrysostom in AD 100.36 Strabo defines the city as the second emporion of Asia after Ephesus, as is suggested by the presence of Cicero’s friend, the negotiator and freedman C. Vennonius Eros.37 The geographer emphasizes that the city was part of “what is properly (ἰδίως) called Asia,” probably to distinguish it from Ephesus, the first emporion of the region, which was a coastal city. The commercial prosperity of Apamea is also testified by the presence of a large Jewish trading community, mentioned by Cicero in the Pro Flacco.38 Finally, the inclusion of the Apamean late cistophoric specimen in the 2002 hoard is seminal because it allows the inception of these series to be dated with certainty to the very late 90s BC, meaning that Apamea’s cistophoric production antedates the city’s surrender to Mithridates VI in 88 BC. Moreover, it also provides a terminus ante quem for the bronze issues of the city, which were previously dated to the mid-80s BC. The undeniable Pontic influence on the coinage of the city thus antedates the beginning of the Mithridatic Wars, even if only by a few years.

29. Kleiner 1979, 124–129. 30. See infra, 226–227, Tables 11.2-3. For the discussion of these data, see infra, 228–232. 31. ECC, 86–96. 32. See infra, 227, Table 11.3 33. See supra, 164–165, Figs. 5.4, 5.5, 5.7. 34. Metcalf 2017, 42–46. See supra, 165, Fig. 5.7. 35. Thonemann 2013c, 29. 36. Thonemann 2011, 99–109; Dio Chrys. 35.13–17. Italian negotiatores: Delplace 1977; Errington 1988; Kirbihler 2007. 37. Strabo 12.8.15: Ἀπάμεια δ’ ἐστὶν ἐμπόριον μέγα τῆς ἰδίως λεγομένης Ἀσίας, δευτερεῦον μετὰ τὴν Ἔφεσον. C. Vennonius Eros: MAMA VI, 202; Cic. Ad Att. 6.1.25, 6.3.5; Ad fam. 13.72.2 (for the dispute between the heirs, settled by a senatus consultum). 38. Cic. Pro Flacco 68.

06 Carbone Apamea.indd 172

3/12/20 1:06 PM

Chapter 7

Cistophoric Production at Adramyteum

Given the lack of specific studies on this cistophoric mint, this section will include not only the contextualization of the single specimen included in the 2002 hoard but also an overview of the city’s cistophoric production over the course of the second and first centuries BC.

Hoard Catalogue (Plate 139)

I.

MEN (133–89 BC)



On l. ; above, MEN; on r., rose.



Unpublished (cf. SNG France 5, no. 29; BMC Mysia, 3, nos. 5–6; SNG Copenhagen, Mysia, no. 9; SNG von Aulock 1053).

1.

O1/R1

12.52

ANS 2015.20.1170 (Witschonke)

Cistophoric Production in Context Under the Attalids, Adramyteum appeared among the cities represented in the so-called “cistophoric countermarks” on Attic-weight tetradrachms from Side and posthumous Alexanders from Phaselis.1 Of the twelve cities represented by these countermarks, seven were also cistophoric mints under the Attalids and two certainly issued cistophori at some point.2 Although Adramytean early cistophori were not included in Kleiner and Noe’s catalogue, R. Bauslaugh proved that Adramyteum should be included among the cistophoric mints, as the ethnic of the city appears 1. Bauslaugh 1990, 45; de Callataÿ 2013, table 6.6. 2. Cistophoric mints: Pergamum, Ephesus, Tralles, Sardis, Apamea, Laodicea, and Adramyteum. Cities that issued a very limited number of cistophori: Synnada and Stratonicea (de Callataÿ 2013, 219).

173

07 Carbone Adramytium.indd 173

3/12/20 1:11 PM

174

Hidden Power

on a cistophoric tetradrachm (Fig. 7.1).3 This specimen is die linked to an early cistophorus from Pergamum dated to 166–160 BC, showing that the mint of Pergamum produced coinage not only for the cities of Apamea and Sardes-Synnada, but also for Adramyteum.4 Another series of Adramytean cistophori with the ethnic ΑΔΡA on the reverse was also struck. On the basis of stylistic similarities to the just-mentioned specimen of an Adramytean early cistophorus, H. von Fritze established that these cistophori should be dated to the very early years of provincia Asia.5 The lack of direct die links between Adramytean cistophori of this series and the cistophoric series from other mints, unfortunately prevents further precision. Some of the obverse dies from this series, however, have the closing hinge of the cista placed on the right, a stylistic element with clear parallels only in the first series in the early cistophoric production of Pergamum and Ephesus.6 Although not conclusive, this detail might suggest that the Adramytean cistophori should be dated to the first half of the second century BC, before the end of the Attalid period. These cistophori are characterized by the presence of names between the serpents’ heads and in the right field of the reverse. Variations in control marks are also typical of these issues.7 Von Fritze was aware of three varieties of these cistophori, to which the collections of the Bibliothèque nationale de France, the Münzkabinett Berlin, and the American Numismatic Society add only one variety. The relative rarity of these coins prevented the author from identifying any die links between the issues, which might hint at the possibility of greater production than the scarcity of the recovered specimens would suggest. The order of these issues is therefore arbitrary, based on that provided by von Fritze (Figs. 7.2–7.6). In the years after the institution of provincia Asia, the Mysian city issued a limited number of low-denomination silver issues on the cistophoric standard, with drachms weighing around 2.90 g and the types Zeus/eagle on thunderbolt (Fig. 7.7).8 Von Fritze placed these issues in the Attalid period, but the presence of a rather worn specimen in a hoard dated to 30/20 BC shows that these issues must date to the very end of the second century BC.9 Moreover, R. Ashton rightly correlates the monograms on these autonomous silver issues to those found on Adramytean cistophori issued after 133 BC.10 The monogram k is shared by the cistophoric drachm included in the hoard studied by R. Ashton, as well as three different issues of cistophoric tetradrachms.11 The same is true for the monogram F, present both on cistophoric drachms and tetradrachms.12 The cistophoric mints of Pergamum, Ephesus, and Tralles issued drachms, didrachms and tetradrachms on the cistophoric standard at the same time, but used standardized cistophoric types for all denominations and for all cities. All cistophoric drachms and didrachms, independently of their city of origin, shared the types of the club of Herakles draped with skin of the Nemean lion on the obverse and a bunch of grapes on the reverse. 3. BNF 3228; Stauber 1996, no. 94. 4. Die link: EEC Pergamum series 6, dies 8–c (plate II, 3). Apamea: ECC, 88. Sardes-Synnada: ibid., 80–81. 5. Von Fritze 1913, 3. 6. Adramyteum: BNF Waddington 6956. Berlin MZ 1934/29; ANS 2015.20.1163 (Witschonke). Pergamum: ECC, Series 1–2, 6–7 (166–160 BC). Ephesus: ECC, Series 1–5 (166–160 BC). 7. Von Fritze 1913, nos. 54–58. 8. Autonomous silver: Zeus/eagle on thunderbolt: von Fritze 1913, nos. 6–9; Stauber 1996, nos. 27–32. 9. Attalid-period dating: von Fritze 1913, 5–6. Inclusion of an Adramytene cistophoric drachm (von Fritze no. 2) in CH 8.544, dated to 30/20 BC: Ashton 1996. 10. Ashton 1996, 30. 11. Cistophoric drachm: von Fritze 1913, nos. 6, 7; Stauber 1996, no. 27. Cistophoric tetradrachms: von Fritze 1913, nos. 58–60; Stauber 1996, nos. 100–102. 12. Cistophoric drachm: von Fritze 1913, no. 8; Stauber 1996, no. 31. Cistophoric tetradrachms: von Fritze 1913, no. 72; Stauber 1996, no. 115.

07 Carbone Adramytium.indd 174

3/12/20 1:11 PM

Cistophoric Production at Adramyteum

175

Figure 7.1. Mysia, Adramyteum. Cistophoric tetradrachm, 166–160 BC. Cista mystica from which serpent emerges within ivy wreath / Two coiled serpents around bowcase and bow; on left, monogram; on right, ear of grain. Stauber 1996, no. 94; SNG France 5, no. 29. 12.21 g. BNF 3228.

Figure 7.2. Mysia, Adramyteum. Cistophoric tetradrachm, 133–100 BC. Cista mystica from which serpent emerges within ivy wreath / Two coiled serpents around bowcase and bow; on left, ΑΔΡΑ; above, between serpents’ heads, ΛΥ; on right, ear of grain. von Fritze 1913, no. 54; Stauber 1996, no. 95. 12.30 g. von Fritze 1913, Taf. I, no. 31.

Figure 7.3. Mysia, Adramyteum. Cistophoric tetradrachm, 133–100 BC. Cista mystica from which serpent emerges within ivy wreath / Two coiled serpents around bowcase and bow; on left, ΑΔΡΑ; above, between serpents’ heads, ΛΥ; on right, monogram and scepter. von Fritze 1913, no. 55; Stauber 1996, no. 96. 11.74 g. BM 1866.1201.3503.

On the other hand, Adramytean cistophoric drachms have local types, so they should be considered autonomous silver issues. While other cities issued their autonomous coinage on a noncistophoric standard during the second and first century BC, Adramyteum was—possibly along with Pergamum and Tralles—one of three cities in the entire province to produce cistophoric tetradrachms and autonomous silver coinage on the same weight standard.13 The simultaneous production of both cistophoric and autonomous silver coinage is an anomaly in the Asian province. The only other city that seems to have followed the same pattern is Smyrna, whose autonomous silver coinage was struck to a reduced Attic standard.14 13. Cistophoric standard before the end of the First Mithridatic War: Alabanda, ca. 167–133 BC (Waggoner 1989, 283–290; Meadows 2008, 163–179; Ashton 2013, 252); Alinda, second half of the second century BC (Ashton 2013, 253–255); Magnesia ad Maeandrum, 88–85 BC (Kinns 2006, 41, 47; Ashton 2013, 250); Stratonicea, after 167 BC (Meadows 2002, 80, Group 1, no. 120; Ashton 2013, 252). Contemporary production of cistophoric tetradrachms and silver autonomous coinage in Pergamum: Marcellesi 2012, 121–122; Le Rider 1973, 71; von Fritze 1906, pl. II, no. 33; BMC Mysia, pl. XXVII, no. 14. Also supra, 83. Contemporary production of cistophoric tetradrachms and silver autonomous coinage in Tralles: Meadows 2014. Also, supra, 152. 14. Milne 1923–1928, Periods XVIII–XVI (190–mid-first century BC). See infra, 187–190.

07 Carbone Adramytium.indd 175

3/12/20 1:11 PM

176

Hidden Power

Figure 7.4. Mysia, Adramyteum. Cistophoric tetradrachm, 133–100 BC. Cista mystica from which serpent emerges within ivy wreath / Two coiled serpents around bowcase and bow; on left, ΑΔΡΑ; above, between serpents’ heads, ΛΥ; on right, monogram and owl. Von Fritze 1913, no. 56. SNG France 5, no. 32. Münstenberg 64; Stauber 1996, no. 97. 10.89 g. BNF Waddington 6956.

Figure 7.5. Mysia, Adramyteum. Cistophoric tetradrachm, 133–100 BC. Cista mystica from which serpent emerges within ivy wreath / Two coiled serpents around bowcase and bow; on left, ΑΔΡΑ; above, between serpents’ heads, ЄΥΠ; on right, ΔIO and owl on ear of grain. Von Fritze 1913, no. 57; Stauber 1996, no. 98. 12.38 g. Berlin, MZ 1934/279.

If the dating of the exceedingly rare Pergamene cistophoric drachms were confirmed, Adramyteum could then be understood to have followed Pergamum and probably Tralles’s lead in issuing both cistophoric tetradrachms and autonomous coinage on the cistophoric standard.15 Table 7.1. Cistophori with ethnic ΑΔΡΑ. Ethnic

Magistrate(s)

Control mark

References

Specimens in museum collections16

ΑΔΡΑ

ΛΥ

grain ear

Pinder 1; von Fritze 1913, no. 54; Stauber 1996, no. 95.

von Fritze 1913, Taf. I, 31 (Fig. 7.2)

ΑΔΡΑ

ΛΥ m (in right field)

scepter

von Fritze 1913, no. 55; Stauber 1996, no. 96.

von Fritze 1913, Taf. I, 32; BM 1866.1201.3503 (Fig. 7.3)17

ΑΔΡΑ

ΛΥ / (in right field)

owl

von Fritze 1913, no. 56; SNG France 5, no. 32; Münstenberg 64; Stauber 1996, no. 97.

BNF Waddington 6956 (Fig. 7.4)

ΑΔΡΑ

ΕΥΠ ΔΙΟ (in right field)

owl over grain ear

von Fritze 1913, no. 57; Stauber 1996, no. 98.

Berlin, MZ 1934/279 (Fig. 7.5)

ΑΔΡΑ

ΕΥΠ Δ (in right field)

owl

von Fritze 1913, –; Stauber 1996, no. 99.

ANS 2015.20.1163 (Fig. 7.6)

15. See n. 13. 16. As it is beyond the goals of this study to provide a complete list of the specimens of late cistophori of Adramyteum in the museum collections, the author limited her perusal to the collections in Paris (BNF), Berlin (Münzkabinett) and New York (ANS). 17. The two specimens share the same obverse and reverse dies.

07 Carbone Adramytium.indd 176

3/12/20 1:11 PM

Cistophoric Production at Adramyteum

177

Figure 7.6. Mysia, Adramyteum. Cistophoric tetradrachm, 133–100 BC. Cista mystica from which serpent emerges within ivy wreath / Two coiled serpents around bowcase and bow; on left, ΑΔΡΑ; above, between serpents’ heads, ЄΥΠ; on right, Δ and owl. Stauber 1996, no. 99. 11.69 g. ANS 2015.20.1163 (Witschonke).

Figure 7.7. Mysia, Adramyteum. Silver drachm, 133–100 BC. Laureate head of Zeus left / ΑΔΡΑΜ[Υ]/ΤΗΝΩΝ; eagle, with wings spread, standing left on thunderbolt. von Fritze 1913, nos. 6-9. Stauber 1996, nos. 27-32. 16 mm. 2.87 g. Savoca Numismatik 25 (2018), 118.

Partial die study of Adramytean late cistophoric specimens with the ethnic  (Plates 139–141)

The late cistophori of Adramyteum have yet to be studied in a comprehensive way. Their almost complete absence from hoards and their rarity in general make the establishment of a chronological sequence of the issues rather difficult. The late cistophori of Adramyteum, characterized by the ethnic , seem slightly more common than the early ones, given the larger number of varieties recorded by von Fritze and found in museum collections.18 In these series, the names of the magistrates are represented either by monograms or by two letters of the name. Varied control marks are present in the right field of the reverse, as in the preceding series. One cistophorus of this series is present in the 2002 hoard. Its worn condition suggests that the coin had been in circulation for some time before the burial of the hoard. This cistophorus, a heretofore unknown variety (MEN and rose), is now in the Richard B. Witschonke Collection at the American Numismatic Society.19 The inclusion of a late cistophoric specimen in this hoard shows that the cistophoric mint of Adramyteum had been active for quite some time by 90 BC. Although it is beyond the scope of this study to provide a complete list of the Adramytean late cistophori in museum collections, I have deemed it useful to provide a partial die study of specimens with the ethnic  in the collections in Paris (BNF), Berlin (Münzkabinett), London (British Museum), New York (ANS), and online databases (CoinArchives).

18. von Fritze 1913, nos. 59–72. 19. ANS 2015.20.1170 ex CNG 63, 21 May 2003, lot 404.

07 Carbone Adramytium.indd 177

3/12/20 1:11 PM

178

Hidden Power

Catalogue I.

On l. ; above, U; on r., winged caduceus.



von Fritze 1913, no. 58; Stauber 1996, no. 100; SNG von Aulock 1054.

1. O1/R1 12.41 ANS 1944.100.37496 2. O1/R2 12.41 BM 1979,0101.173 II.

On l. ; above, U; on r., radiate head of Helios with scepter.



von Fritze 1913, no. 59; Stauber 1996, no. 101.

1. O2/R3 12.22 ANS 1951.5.104 III.

On l. ; above, G; on r., caduceus entwined by serpent.



von Fritze 1913, no. 62. SNG France 5, no. 30; Stauber 1996, no. 104.

1. O3/R4 a. 11.30 BNF 3227 b. 11.49 ANS 1951.5.103

2.

O4/R5

IV.

On l. ; above, H; on r., kantharos.



von Fritze 1913, no. 63; Stauber 1996, no. 105.



1.

O4/R6

12.18

12.15

ANS 2015.20.1167 (Witschonke)

ANS 1953.148.3

2. O5/R7 a. 12.19 ANS 2015.20.1166 (Witschonke) b. 12.38 ANS 2015.20.1165 (Witschonke) V.

On l., ; above, I; on r., scarab.



von Fritze 1913, no. 64. Stauber 1996, no. 107.



1.

VII.

On l.; above, ΣΦ; on r., winged caduceus.



von Fritze 1913, no. 66. Stauber 1996, no. 109.



1.

VIII.

On l. ; above,J ; on r., cornucopia.



Von Fritze 1913, no. 65; Stauber 1996, no. 108.



1.

IX.

On l. ; above, ; on r., eagle.



von Fritze 1913, no. 70; Stauber 1996, no. 113.

O6/R8

O7/R9

O8/R10

12.67

12.38

11.10

ANS 2015.20.1164 (Witschonke)

von Fritze 1913, Taf. II, no. 1

BMC Mysia, 3, no. 6 = BM 1891,1002.19

1. O8/R11 12.26 ANS 1944.100.37497 2. O9/R12 12.5 BMC Mysia, 3, no. 5 = BM 1897,0704.5

07 Carbone Adramytium.indd 178

3/12/20 1:11 PM

Cistophoric Production at Adramyteum

X.

On l. ; above, ΚΑΣ; on r., ear of grain.



von Fritze 1913, no. 68; Stauber 1996, no. 111.



1.

XI.

On l. ; above, ΔΙΟΓ; on r., owl.



von Fritze 1913, no. 69; Stauber 1996, no. 112.



1.

XII.

On l. ; above, G; on r., grapes.



von Fritze 1913, no. 71; Stauber 1996, no. 114.

O9/R13

O9/R14

11.88

11.14

179

BNF 2599 = von Fritze, Taf. II, 2

ANS 2015.20.1171 (Witschonke)

1. O9/R15 11.46 ANS 1959.48.1 2. O10/R16 12.48 BNF 2602 3. O10/R17 11.52 ANS 2015.20.1169 (Witschonke) 4. O10/R18 11.87 ANS 2015.20.1168 (Witschonke) XIII.

On l. ; above, OF; on r., thyrsus entwined by taenia.



von Fritze 1913, no. 72; Stauber 1996, no. 115.

1. O11/R19 11.42 BM 1897, 0104.54 2. O11/R20 10.32 cgb.fr MBS 31, 64 3. O12/R21 11.66 von Fritze, Taf. II, 3 Table 7.2 presents an updated list of the cistophoric issues with the ethnic  in the order suggested by the die study. Some issues were not included because no specimens of them are present in the aforementioned collections. In the absence of specimens in the collections, or of shared obverse dies between issues, the order adopted in von Fritze’s study has been retained. Despite the limited number of specimens (23), the existence of die links between seven issues hints at a rather small production, which could possibly explain the absence of Adramytean cistophori from hoards.20 One of the cistophoric issues that shares the monogram F with autonomous silver issues is part of a die-link sequence between von Fritze’s issue nos. 70–68– 69–72 highlighted by this study.21 As previously argued, these autonomous silver issues should be dated to the very end of the second century BC. Similar dating can be hypothesized for the late cistophori of Adramyteum.22 At the same time that Adramyteum was producing its late cistophoric issues, the city probably also struck a bronze coinage in two denominations (ca. 3 and 5 grams) with the types of Zeus/horseman (Fig. 7.8).23 These issues share the monograms O and F with the cistophoric

20. The specimen in the 2002 hoard is not part of this study, as it does not have recognizable die links with other issues, and it has already been included in the hoard catalogue. 21. von Fritze 1913, no. 72. 22. An issue with a new version of the Adramytean ethnic appeared on a specimen sold by Gorny & Mosch in 2011 (7 Mar. 2011), lot 1595. There are no die links with known issues, so the dating of this coin is rather difficult. The style seems compatible with the later cistophoric issues, so it should probably be dated to the end of the second century BC as well. 23. Zeus/horseman: von Fritze 1913, nos. 12–31; Stauber 1996, nos. 27–64.

07 Carbone Adramytium.indd 179

3/12/20 1:11 PM

180

Hidden Power

tetradrachms and autonomous drachms on the cistophoric standrd.24 The presence of the same names on cistophoric tetradrachms, autonomous silver coins, and bronze issues shows how closely these three different coinages were bound to the civic administration. This scenario is very similar to that envisaged for Apamea by R. Ashton, where the same names are present on cistophoric tetradrachms and civic bronze coins.25 While Apamean cistophoric coinage and related bronze issues probably began in the late 90s BC, Adramyteum’s interrelated issues were probably struck earlier, possibly around the last quarter of the second century BC.26 Table 7.2. Adramytean late cistophori with ethnic . Ethnic

Magistrate(s)

Control mark

References

L

U

winged caduceus

von Fritze 1913, no. 58; Stauber 1996, no. 100; SNG von Aulock 1054.



U

radiate head of Helios with scepter

von Fritze 1913, no. 59; Stauber 1996, no. 101.



U

cornucopiae entwined by serpent

von Fritze 1913, no. 60; Stauber 1996, no. 102.



K

caduceus entwined by serpent

von Fritze 1913, no. 61; Stauber 1996, no. 103.



G

caduceus entwined by serpent

von Fritze 1913, no. 62; SNG France 30; Stauber 1996, no. 104.



H

kantharos

von Fritze 1913, no. 63; Stauber 1996, no. 105.



M

amphora

von Fritze 1913 -; Stauber 1996, no. 106.



I

Scarab

von Fritze 1913, no. 64; Stauber 1996, no. 107



ΣΦ

winged caduceus

von Fritze 1913, no. 66; Stauber 1996, no. 109.



J

cornucopiae

von Fritze 1913, no. 65; Stauber 1996, no. 108.



N

Isis headdress

von Fritze 1913, no. 67; Stauber 1996, no. 110.





eagle

von Fritze 1913, no. 70; Stauber 1996, no. 113.



ΚΑΣ

grain ear

von Fritze 1913, no. 68; Stauber 1996, no. 111.



ΔΙΟΓ

owl

von Fritze 1913, no. 69; Stauber 1996, no. 112.



G

grapes

von Fritze 1913, no. 71; Stauber 1996, no. 114.



OF

thyrsus entwined by taenia

von Fritze 1913, no. 72; Stauber 1996, no. 115.





tripod

von Fritze 1913 –; Stauber 1996, no. 116.



MEN

rose

von Fritze 1913 –; Stauber 1996 -.

24. Monogram O on cistophoric drachms: von Fritze 1913, no. 12; Stauber 1996, no. 36; von Fritze 1913, no. 8; Stauber 1996, no. 31; on cistophoric tetradrachms: von Fritze no. 72; Stauber 1996, no. 115. Monogram F on cistophoric drachms: Stauber 1996, no. 34; von Fritze 1913, no. 8; Stauber 1996, no. 31; on cistophoric tetradrachms: von Fritze 1913, no. 72; Stauber 1996, no. 115. 25. Apamean late cistophori and bronze coinage: ΔIONΥΣIOΥ / KHΦIΣ (cistophorus: Kleiner 1979, Group VI; bronze: Ashton 2016, Appendix I, Type 2; KΩKOΥ (cistophorus: Kleiner 1979,Group IX. Bronze: Ashton 2016, Appendix I, Type 1); MANTIΘEOΣ ΔIODΔOT (cistophorus: Kleiner 1979, Group XIX; bronze: Ashton 2016, Appendix I Types 2–3); MHTΡO KEΛAI (cistophorus: Kleiner 1979, Group IV; Ashton 2016, Appendix I, Type 3); ΦAINIΠΠOΥ (cistophorus: Kleiner 1979, Group XIII; bronze: Ashton 2016, Appendix I, Type 3); ΦAINIΠΠOΥ ΔΡAKONTOΣ, die linked to KΩKOΥ). For the complete chronology of late cistophoric issues and contemporary bronze issues, see Ashton 2016, Appendix II. Laodicean later Republican cistophori and bronze coinage: ATTALOΥ BIANOΡOΣ (cistophorus: Stumpf 1991, no. 21; Pinder 1856, no. 174; Metcalf 2017, 42, Apamea II; bronze: Ashton 2016, Appendix I, Type 1 ATTAΛOΥ BIANOΡOΣ). The name KΩKOY (Ashton 2016, Appendix I, Type 1) is also present on later Republican cistophori (Stumpf 1991, no. 81; Metcalf 2017, 44, Apamea VIII). 26. See Apamea, supra, 169, n. 13.

07 Carbone Adramytium.indd 180

3/12/20 1:11 PM

Cistophoric Production at Adramyteum

181

Figure 7.8. Mysia, Adramyteum. Bronze tetrachalkon(?), 133–100 BC. Laureate head of Zeus left / [ΑΔΡΑ[MΥ]/ TH-N[ΩN]; horseman riding right; below, grain ear; to upper left, monogram. SNG France 6; SNG Copenhagen 1; BMC Mysia 2, no. 2; SNG von Aulock 1050. 17.5 mm, 4.53 g. CNG 405 (2017), 161.

Figure 7.9. Mysia, Adramyteum. Bronze obol, 110–90 BC. ΑΔΡΑΜΥΤΗΝΩΝ; laureate head of Apollo left/ Cornucopia between pilei of the Dioscuri; above and below, NIKO-ΛO/XOΣ and monogram. Von Fritze 1913, nos. 32–39; Stauber 1996, nos. 65–74. 21.5 mm, 8.19 g. CNG 439 (2019), 72.

Figure 7.10. Paphlagonia, Sinope. Bronze tetrachalkon(?), 110-100 BC. Draped and winged bust of Perseus right / ΣΙΝΩ–ΠΗΣ; cornucopia between pilei of the Dioscuri. SNG BM Black Sea 1521–1522. 17 mm, 4.21 g. Numismatik Naumann 55 (2017), 154.

A different series of autonomous bronze coins in three denominations, weighing respectively ca. 7, 2.5, and 1 gram, should probably be dated to the first decades of the first century BC, possibly to the years of the First Mithridatic War (Fig. 7.9).27 The dating of these series to the years of the Mithridatic Wars (or just before) is strongly suggested by the Pontic types on the reverse of the higher denominations, a conucopia flanked by pilei and stars.28 The iconographic similarities to the coinages of the Pontic cities of Amisos, Amasia, and Sinope are striking (Fig. 7.10).29 A very rare small silver denomination, possibly a cistophoric hemidrachm, with the types of Dionysus/ ivy wreath should probably be dated to the same period.30 As we have seen, the cistophoric mint of Adramyteum was already active in the Attalid period. After the establishment of provincia Asia, the city issued cistophori and autonomous silver coinages on the cistophoric standard in the final years of the second century BC. This production may have continued into the first years of the first century BC. At the same time, the city also struck a bronze coinage that seems closely related to the silver cistophoric series. A second series of bronze autonomous coinage, accompanied by a very small issue of silver autonomous coinage, was issued in the first quarter of the first century BC, probably during the Mithridatic Wars.

27. Bronze coinage: Stauber 1996, nos. 65–91. For the dating of these series to 110–90 BC see SNG Tübingen 2176– 2178; Stauber 1996, 201 (contra von Fritze 1913, 4, nos. 16–18, who dates them to the mid-second century BC). 28. Von Fritze 1913, nos. 32–39; Stauber 1996, nos. 65–74. 29. Amisos: BMC Pontus, 19, nos. 64–67; SNG BM Black Sea 1129–1132. Amasia: SNG BM Black Sea 1046–1047. Sinope: SNG BMC Black Sea 1520ff; SNG Stancomb 791; SNG Copenhagen, Pontus, no. 306; SNG von Aulock 231. For Pontic influence on the bronze coinage of Asia, see Smekalova 2009. 30. von Fritze 1913, no. 53; Stauber 1996, no. 92.

07 Carbone Adramytium.indd 181

3/12/20 1:11 PM

07 Carbone Adramytium.indd 182

3/12/20 1:11 PM

Chapter 8

Cistophoric Production at Nysa

Hoard Catalogue (Plate 142)

I.

MO, A, and jugate heads (90/89 BC)



On l. NVΣΑ; above, MO; above l., A; on r., jugate heads.



1.

O1/R1

12.86

ANS 2015.20. 1774 (Witschonke)

Late Cistophoric Production in Context The inclusion of a Nysan cistophorus in mint condition in the 2002 hoard changes the chronology of this series, which is to be considered the first coinage issued by this Lydian city. As already mentioned, the dating era of the Nysan cistophori has been identified by W. Leschhorn (followed by W. Metcalf) with the Sullan Era.1 According to Metcalf, who published a study of the Nysan cistophori, these coins dated from year A (1) to KΔ (24) were issued between 85/4 and 62/1 BC. The new evidence provided by the 2002 hoard allows us to date year 1 earlier, to 90/89 BC, which then establishes an end date for year 24 in 67/6 BC, close to the end date of the Ephesian late cistophoric series. The beginning of cistophoric production at Nysa is then in line with those of the mints of Apamea and Laodicea and fits perfectly into in the generalized spike in monetary production connected to the beginning of the First Mithridatic War.2

1. Leschhorn 1993, 220, 422; Metcalf 2015, 316–317. 2. See supra, 18, 30.

183

08 Carbone Nysa-Smyrna.indd 183

3/12/20 1:13 PM

184

Hidden Power

Figure 8.1. Lydia, Nysa. Cistophoric tetradrachm, 75–74 BC(?). Cista mystica from which serpent emerges; all within ivy wreath/ Two coiled serpents around bowcase and bow; on left, ΝΥΣΑ in coil and date I𐅝 (= year 16); above, ΠΥΘΙΩΝ ΧΑΙΡΕ; on right, Dionysus standing. Metcalf 2015, no. 32, dies 25–30 (this coin); SNG von Aulock 3042. 24.7 mm, 11.86 g. ANS 2015.20.1344 (Witschonke).

Figure 8.2. Lydia, Nysa. Silver cistophoric drachm, 90–68(?). Club, over which a lion’s skin is draped; all within ivy wreath / Bunch of grapes, placed upon a vine leaf; on left, ΝΥΣΑ; above, X-AI. 2.43 g. BNF 1966.453.2796.

I have already noted that Chaeremon of Nysa and of his sons helped the troops of the proconsul C. Cassius in late 89 BC by providing them with 60,000 modii of wheat flour for free.3 Nysan cistophori could have been struck for this occasion, as cistophori were the silver currency overwhelmingly produced and circulating in the province. Supporting the involvement of Chaeremon’s family in the production of cistophori is the fact that ΠΥΘΙΩΝ/ΧΑΙΡΕ is named as a magistrate—an individual almost certainly to be identified as Pythion, the son of Chaeremon (Fig. 8.1).4 The name XAI also appears on a cistophoric drachm of uncertain date and could be identified—even if only hypothetically—with Chaeremon, probably one of the grandchildren of the Chaeremon who helped the Romans (Fig. 8.2).5 It is certainly tempting to establish a direct relationship between the inception of Nysan cistophoric production and the pro-Roman activities of Chaeremon and his family in the course of the First Mithridatic War, but the differing interpretations proposed by Campanile and Rigsby— linking production to a pro-Mithridatic stance—also have some likelihood.6 If the latter interpretation were to be the right one, the cistophori of Nysa would have been used to support Pontic troops, not Roman ones. Independently of the political stance of this city, the earlier beginning of cistophoric production at Nysa is fundamental to show the inescapable relationship between this currency and the presence of Roman power in the province. The cistophori were the means to support and pay for armies and their provisions, regardless of whether they were Roman or Pontic. The relative rarity of Nysan cistophori in hoards (only 25 out of the 2,631 specimens included in cistophoric hoards dated from 105 to 58 BC) would at first sight suggest very low production.7 3. RGDE 48, ll. 6–9: [ὡμ]ολόγησεν καταλογῆς τῆς [συν]κλήτου καὶ δ̣[ήμου] Ῥωμαίων ἐπὶ τοῦ στρατοπέ[δου] δώσειν δῶ[ρον ἀλ]εύρων μοδίους ἑξακισμυρί[ους·]. 4. Cistophorus in the name of Pythion: Metcalf 2015, no. 32 (dated to year 16 of the Nysan era); Thonemann 2011, 206, no. 10; SNG von Aulock 3042. Epigrahic attestations of Pythion: Syll3 741, 741 III; RGDE 48, 260–262; Rigsby 1988, 123, 152; Magie 1950, 991, no. 27, 1102, no. 28; 1130, no. 60. 5. Metcalf 2015, 315, F.; Thonemann 2011, 206, no. 8; Berlin 1900 Imhoof-Blumer; SNG Copenhagen, Lydia, 303. 6. Campanile 1996, 163–164. For a similar attempt at the hands of Ephesus see IK 11, 1 (86 BC), where is recalled “the benevolence of the whole population toward the Romans” (ibid., ll. 0–1); Rigsby 1988 p. 133. See supra, 33. 7. For the complete list of the cistophoric mints, see infra, 226–227, Tables 11.2–11.3.

08 Carbone Nysa-Smyrna.indd 184

3/12/20 1:13 PM

Cistophoric Production at Nysa

185

The 25 specimens are included in only 4 hoards out of the 14 recorded for these years.8 However, according to Metcalf ’s study, Nysan cistophoric production involved 38 observed tetradrachm obverse dies. A. Meadows’s study of four cistophoric hoards includes 15 specimens that have not been included in Metcalf ’s study and adds three additional obverse dies to the total.9 The identification of these new dies together with the high number of singletons in Metcalf ’s sample suggests a much higher production, which could be estimated according to Esty’s formula in an amount comprised between 89 (low) and 222 (high) tetradrachm obverse dies.10 Given the incompleteness of the sample, caution is needed, but these data show that the production of Nysa was not negligible.

8. 2002 hoard (90/89 BC: one specimen); IGCH 1358 = CH V 52 (ca. 75 BC: two specimens); Meadows 2015 no. 3 = CH VIII, 537 (ca. 40 BC: two specimens); Meadows 2015, no. 4A = CH VIII 447 and 525 (c. 58/7 BC: 20 specimens). 9. All the specimens identified by Meadows 2015 and not included in Metcalf 2015 come from the hoard listed in Meadows 2015, no. 4A. Nysan year 13 (MO above, NVΣA to l., warrior (or Dionysus?) to r., IΓ to r. above.): Münz Zentrum FPL 41 (1992), 533. Nysan year 23 (AN/NEΩTE/POΣ above, NYΣA to l., Demeter to r.; KΓ to r. above): Münz Zentrum FPL 41 (1992), 534; Kölner Münzkabinett 55 (1992), 228–229; Giessener Münzhandlung = Gorny & Mosch 58 (1992) 417; Giessener Münzhandlung = Gorny & Mosch 56 (1991), 277 (die not included in Metcalf 2015); Müller 71.1 (1992), 253 (die not included in Metcalf 2015); Rauch 46 (1991), 243; Hirsch 171 (1991), 351 (same die as Giessener Münzhandlung = Gorny & Mosch 56, 277); Hirsch 170 (1991),574 (die not included in Metcalf 2015); Rauch 47 (1991), 171 same die as Giessener Münzhandlung = Gorny & Mosch 56, 277). Nysan year 24 (ΦΟΙΝΙΞ above, NYΣA to l., palm branch to r.; KΔ to r. above): Rauch 49 (1992), 206; Giessener Münzhandlung = Gorny & Mosch 58 (1992), 418; Hirsch 170 (1991), 576. 10. d1(singletons) = 33. Coverage: 54%.

08 Carbone Nysa-Smyrna.indd 185

3/12/20 1:13 PM

08 Carbone Nysa-Smyrna.indd 186

3/12/20 1:13 PM

Chapter 9

Cistophoric Production at Smyrna

Hoard Catalogue (Plate 142)

I.

Monogram, head of Tyche, and B (100/99 BC?)



On l., ZMVP; above, monogram; on r., head of Tyche; above, B.



BMC Ionia, 237, no. 2; SNG von Aulock 2160



1.

O1/R1

12.54

CNG Triton VI (2003), 373

Late Cistophoric Production in Context As already mentioned, the city of Smyrna is the only late cistophoric mint that did not issue cistophori in the Attalid period.1 In the course of the second century BC and until the 70s BC, the city struck Attic-weight silver coins.2 Wreathed tetradrachms were struck in three distinct series 1. See supra, 228, no. 210; 30, no. 233. 2. Smyrnean wreathed coinage: de Callataÿ 2013, 233–36 (with bibliography). For an overview of the issues of autonomous silver coinage, see Milne 1923–1928, with additional notes by Philip Kinns: 1. ca 150–140 BC (Milne Period IX): Wreathed tetradrachms, first series with monogram reverse, consisting of sux issues using nine obverse dies; 2. ca. 125–85 BC (Milne Periods XI–XV): Wreathed tetradrachms, second series with standing lion reverse and magistrate names consisting of 29 issues using 24 obverse dies; 3) ca. 125–95 BC (Milne Periods XI–XIII): Drachms with magistrate names (pre-Mithridatic), consisting of 17 issues using 10 obverse dies, with most issues (12 out of 17) sharing names with tetradrachms in previous group. Similarity of subsidiary monograms may suggest that groups 2) and 3) are in part contemporary with the Smyrna cistophori; 4. ca. 80–70 BC (Milne Period XVII): Wreathed tetradrachms, third series (post-Mithridatic) with reclining lion reverse and magistrate names, consisting of four issues using seven obverse dies; 5. ca. 80–70 BC (Milne Period XVII): Drachms with magistrate names (post-Mithridatic), contemporary with group 4, as shown by shared names, and consisting of three issues using two obverse dies. Dates given are indicative, and diverge slightly from Milne’s chronology. Reliable hoard evidence is available for groups 1 and 2, while the postMithridatic date of groups 5 and 6 is certain.

187

08a Carbone Smyrna.indd 187

3/12/20 1:16 PM

188

Hidden Power

Figure 9.1. Ionia, Smyrna. Silver tetradrachm, ca. 155–145 BC. Turreted head of Tyche right / ΖΜΥΡΝΑΙΩΝ and magistrate’s monogram within oak wreath. Milne 1917, period IX, no. 141; BMC Ionia 4. 34 mm, 16.26 g. ANS 1967.152.450.

Figure 9.2. Ionia, Smyrna. Silver tetradrachm, ca. 80–70 BC. Turreted head of Tyche right / ΖΜΥΡΝΑΙΩΝ; lion right, with raised left forepaw; in exergue, ΗΡΑΚΛΕΙΔΗΣ; all within oak wreath. Milne 1917, period XV, no. 345. 16.39 g. ANS 1944.100.4686.

Figure 9.3. Ionia, Smyrna. Silver drachm., ca. 80–70 BC. Laureate head of Apollo right/ ΖΜΥΡΝΑΙΩΝ; Homer seated left, holding scroll; scepter behind; on left, ΜΕΓΑΚΛ[HΣ] to left. Milne 1917, period XVII, - (cf. nos. 379–380 for the magistrate). 3.89 g. CNG Triton X (2007), 309.

(ca. 150–140, 125–85, and 80–70 BC) using 40 obverse dies, while the Homereia, characterized by Apollo’s head on the obverse and the seated figure of Homer on the reverse, were issued in the years 125–ca. 70 BC using 12 observed obverse dies (Figs. 9.1–9.3).3 At the same time, the city also issued cistophori bearing the dates A, B, E, H, and Z (Fig. 9.4).4 The presence of a specimen in pristine condition dated to year B (2) in IGCH 1459 (closed ca. 98/7 BC) suggests that Smyrnean cistophoric production should be dated to the very end of the second century BC.5 Moreover, the similarity of subsidiary monograms between Attic-weight drachms issued between c. 125 and 95 BC (Milne periods XI–XV) and cistophori also suggests that they were in part contemporary with cistophori. Smyrnean cistophori, therefore, cannot be dated according the Ephesian Era, as initially thought by J. G. Milne.6 Stylistic comparison with Ephesian cistophori suggests that the Smyrnean cistophori dated A (1) to H (8) may correspond to Ephesian years LΔ to M (= 101/0 to 94/3 BC). The 3. Milne 1923–1928,153–154. Number of dies: Kinns 1987, 110–111. 4. A, B, H: Leschhorn 1993, 213–214; E: Çankaya and Köker 2011, no. 21; Z: Nomos, Obolos 11 (Dec. 8 2018), 287. 5. Kleiner 1978, 87–90. 6. Milne 1923–28, 39, 47.

08a Carbone Smyrna.indd 188

3/12/20 1:16 PM

Cistophoric Production at Smyrna

189

Figure 9.4. Ionia, Smyrna. Cistophoric tetradrachm, 110–90 BC. Cista mystica from which serpent emerges; all within ivy wreath/ Two coiled serpents around bowcase and bow; on left, ZMYP; above, between serpents’ heads, monogram; on right, Z (year 7) above turreted head of the Tyche of Smyrna right. Cf. BMC Ionia 1–2 and SNG von Aulock 2160. 29 mm, 12.34 g. Nomos Obolos 11 (2018), 287.

Figure 9.5. Ionia, Smyrna. Cistophoric tetradrachm, 110–98 BC. Cista mystica from which serpent emerges; all within ivy wreath/ Two coiled serpents around bowcase and bow; on left, ZMYP; above, between serpents’ heads, monogram; on right, B (year 2) above turreted head of the Tyche of Smyrna right. BMC Ionia, 237, no. 2; SNG Copenhagen 461. 12.57. ANS 2015.20.1317, ex CNG Triton VI (2003), 373.

Figure 9.6. Ionia, Smyrna. Cistophoric tetradrachm, 110–98 BC. Cista mystica from which serpent emerges; all within ivy wreath/ Two coiled serpents around bowcase and bow; on left, ZMYP; above, between serpents’ heads, monogram; on right, B (year 2) above turreted head of the Tyche of Smyrna right. BMC Ionia, 237, no. 2; SNG Copenhagen 461. 12.28 g. ANS 1944.100.37544.

era of Smyrna is therefore a local one, possibly beginning at the very end of the second century BC, in the same years during which Tralles resumed its production.7 As has already been noted, there is a sharp increase in the cistophoric production of Pergamum and Ephesus in the same period.8 Cistophoric production at Smyrna was therefore in line with an increase in the cistophoric production of the entire province. The excessive rarity of Smyrnean cistophori would at first suggest very limited production, but the study of the specimens seems to indicate otherwise.9 Comparison between the die of the specimen in the 2002 hoard, now in the Witschonke Collection at the ANS, with another specimen of the same year (B = 2) in the ANS collection shows that there were at least two dies and two different monograms for the same year (Figs. 9.5–9.6).10 Milne suggested that Smyrnean cistophori “could have been produced somewhere else,” as was the case 7. See supra, 152–156. 8. See supra, 86, Fig. 2.10 (Pergamum); and 120, Fig. 3.13 (Ephesus). 9. Philip Kinns has recorded ten examples using seven obverse dies, which would indicate a series of greater volume than has been suspected previously. 10. ANS 1944.100.37544 and ANS 2015.20.1317 (Witschonke).

08a Carbone Smyrna.indd 189

3/12/20 1:16 PM

190

Hidden Power

for the early cistophori of Apamea, Sardis, and Synnada. However, there are no obverse die links between the Smyrnean specimens and coins produced in roughly the same years by the mints of Pergamum, Ephesus, and Tralles. In the case of Smyrna, the continued production of cistophoric coinage and local silver on a non-cistophoric standard in Roman times—an absolute exception in provincia Asia—should probably be explained by the highly privileged status enjoyed by the city, due to the close relationship that Smyrna usually maintained with Rome. Indeed, Smyrna had hosted a temple in honor of Roma since 195 BC, and the city, together with Miletus, Chios, Erythrae, and Clazomenae, received special privileges from the Romans following the Peace of Apamea.11 After the foundation of provincia Asia, these privileges were confirmed thanks to the support the city offered to the Romans in the course of the campaign against Aristonicus, thereby allowing the city to continue its autonomous silver issues.12 On the other hand, during the First Mithridatic War the city sided with the Pontic king, as suggested by the bronze issues with Mithridates’s portrait.13 In spite of the betrayal of Rome implied by these Mithridatic issues, the city maintained its privileged status of assize-district center.

11. Temple of Roma: Tac. Ann. 4.56: At Zmymaei repetita vetustate, seu Tantalus Iove ortus illos, sive Theseus divina et ipse stirpe, sive una Amazonum condidisset, transcendere ad ea, quis maxime fidebant, in populum Romanum officiis, missa navali copia non modo externa ad bella sed quae in Italia tolerabantur; seque primos templum urbis Romae statuisse, M. Porcio consule. “The envoys from Smyrna, after tracing their city’s antiquity back to such founders as either Tantalus, the son of Jupiter, or Theseus, also of divine origin, or one of the Amazons, passed on to that on which they chiefly relied, their services to the Roman people, whom they had helped with naval armaments, not only in wars abroad, but in those under which we struggled in Italy. They had also been the first, they said, to build a temple in honour of Rome, during the consulship of Marcus Porcius Cato” (trans. A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb). Privileges after Apamea: Livy 33.38.3ff.; ambassadors of Smyrna and Lampsacus in Rome: Polyb. 18.52. 12. The city supported the Romans in the war against Aristonicus: Tac. Ann. 4.56.2 (dating the support provided to the Romans to the First Mithridatic War) and Aristid. 41.766 (᾽Επιστολὴ περὶ Σμύρνης). See Lewis 1991 for the correct dating of the help provided by the Smyrneans against Aristonicus, instead of during the first Mithridatic War. 13. Milne 1923–1928, period XV, type P.

08a Carbone Smyrna.indd 190

3/12/20 1:16 PM

Chapter 10

Conclusions

The analysis of the 2002 hoard permits us to draw some conclusions regarding the production and circulation pattern of cistophori in the years right before the Mithridatic Wars. While wary of the possibility of relying too heavily on one large hoard, the analysis conducted in the previous pages show that the composition of this hoard is not excessively skewed, with the partial exception of the proportions between specimens of Ephesus and Pergamum’.1 At the same time, with all the caveats deriving from the possibility of skewed proportions, Carter and Esty’s estimates show that the sample is significant.2 Furthermore, it contributes important elements for a better understanding of the role played by this coinage in these years. Finally, this analysis provides a quantitative overview of the production of silver coinage through the entire province, as the cistophorus was the de facto provincial silver coinage.

The Mints The specimens included in this hoard show that in the late 90s BC, the years immediately before the deposition of the hoard, the patterns of cistophoric production in provincia Asia had changed. Pergamum and Ephesus, the only two late cistophoric mints to have been active in the province since the 130s BC, both show a clear increase in their production in 90/89 BC, though to different degrees. The Pergamene mint enhanced its production between 92 and 90 BC, using eleven rather than the previous eight observed tetradrachm obverse dies, while Ephesian production soared from the use of three observed tetradrachm obverse dies to twelve.3 Similarly, the cistophoric mint

1. See supra, 39, Figs. 1.2–1.3. 2. See supra, 45, Table 1.1. 3. See supra, 86, Fig. 2.10 (Pergamum); and 120, Fig. 3.13 (Ephesus).

191

09 Carbone Conclusion.indd 191

3/12/20 1:32 PM

192

Hidden Power

of Tralles greatly increased its production in the same years, reaching a level quantitatively comparable to Pergamum and Ephesus.4 The mints of Phrygian Apamea and Laodicea, previously active under the Attalids, resumed production in these years. Before the discovery of the 2002 hoard, the resumption of the cistophoric production at Apamea had been connected to Mithridates’s gift of 100 talents to the city in 88 BC.5 The inclusion of a late cistophoric specimen from this city in the hoard shows that the inception of this coinage should be dated to the late 90s BC, even if Mithridates’s gift was certainly significant for the prosecution of the issues. Concerning Laodicea, a similar starting date can be hypothesized on the basis of the four late cistophoric specimens from the same issue in the hoard.6 The inclusion of a Nysan specimen in the 2002 hoard allows us to antedate to 90 BC the inception of cistophoric production at Nysa, which also represents the first coinage issued by this city.7 Since it has been argued that cistophoric coinage was closely connected to the administrative importance of cities within provincia Asia, the simultaneous resumption of cistophoric production in the two Phrygian conventus-centers is a further indicator of the increasing integration of the entire Phrygian region into the province at the beginning of the first century BC.8 Although very limited, the cistophoric production of Synnada, another Phrygian conventus-center, points in the same direction.9 The 2002 hoard provides a terminus ante quem for the late cistophoric production of Adramyteum, given the presence of one specimen from this mint that belongs to an unpublished variety, and no die links with other issues have been identified.10 The obverse style bears clear similarities with some previously identified issues, however, showing that the production of the mint was concentrated within a few years, possibly between the end of the second century and the first decade of the first century BC.11 Similar to the situation described by R. Ashton for Apamea, some monograms are shared by cistophoric, autonomous silver, and bronze issues.12 Pontic types such as Dionysus and cornucopia flanked by pilei surmounted by stars are present on Adramytean bronze and autonomous silver issues, but no monogram from these issues is shared by the cistophori.13 While the incomplete state of knowledge of the Adramytean issues precludes certainty, the absence of any connection between the Pontic-inspired autonomous silver and bronze issues and the cistophori suggest that the Adramytean cistophori predate the Mithridatic Wars, something further suggested by the specimen included in the 2002 hoard. In contrast with the other mints discussed, Adramyteum issued cistophori for quite a limited amount of time, most likely before the beginning of the Mithridatic Wars. A terminus ante quem is also provided for the cistophoric production of Smyrna, as one specimen of year B (2) is included in the hoard.14 This cistophoric mint probably began its activity in the very final years of the second century BC, while maintaining a very high production of autonomous silver coinage. 4. See supra, 158, Fig. 4.11. 5. Kleiner 1979, 122. Mithridates in Apamea: Strabo 12.8.18. See supra, 168, 170–171. 6. See supra, 162. 7. See supra, 183–185. 8. See supra, 165–166 (Laodicea); 171–172 (Apamea). Thonemann 2011, 99–109; Thonemann 2013c. 9. See supra, 30, n. 239. 10. ANS 2015.20. 1170 (Witschonke). 11. See supra, 173–177. 12. Apamea: see supra, 169, n. 13 (with bibliography). Adramyteum: see supra, 174, 181 (with bibliography). 13. See supra, 181. 14. See supra, 187–189.

09 Carbone Conclusion.indd 192

3/12/20 1:32 PM

Conclusions

193

The Role of the Cistophorus The difference in starting dates for the late cistophoric issues in each city, along with the presence of the same names on cistophoric as well as autonomous silver and bronze issues, shows that the cistophoric production was—at least to a certain point—controlled by the municipal administration of each city. This also means that cistophoric issues were closely related to the financial needs of each city. Of course, the financial needs of each city could be connected to events on the provincial level (i.e., the Mithridatic Wars), but they could also be explained by specific circumstances on the municipal level (i.e., the punishment inflicted upon Tralles and possibly Nysa) or the specific civic attitudes toward certain events (i.e., the decrease in the cistophoric production of Pergamum during the Revolt of Aristonicus). At the same time, cistophori were only issued by assize-district centers, at least until the Mithridatic Wars. The only exceptions are dated to the years of Aristonicus’s rebellion (Thyatira, Apollonis, Stratonicea) or to the beginning of the First Mithridatic War (Nysa) and have been discussed already.15 As previously argued, it could not have been a coincidence that this coinage was issued exclusively by the cities that were the administrative centers of the province.16 Even more significantly, the cistophorus was overwhelmingly the silver currency to circulate throughout provincia Asia, given the aforementioned absence of Roman currency from the circulation pool until the 40s BC and the fact that all the cistophoric hoards retrieved in the province before 88 BC were unmixed.17 Another factor playing into the function of the cistophorus as the sole silver coinage of the Asian province was the hyperlocal circulation and very scant production of autonomous silver issues.18 Moreover, the Carian region, where the majority of autonomous silver issues was concentrated, was not annexed to the province until the end of the First Mithridatic War, thus further enhancing the importance of the cistophorus as the only coinage produced and circulating in significant quantities in the province.19 The “provincial” late cistophorus therefore maintained the same double nature as the Attalid coin, in that it had a civic appearance but a provincial circulation. This implies that provincia Asia was de facto a closed-currency system, a circumstance that the Roman administration not only must have tolerated, but even fostered. The Roman provincial administration therefore had a clear interest in maintaining a cistophoric supply adequate for the needs of the province (i.e., the raising of armies and the payment of taxes). The increase in production of the cistophoric mints of Pergamum, Ephesus, and Tralles in connection with the arrival of the legati in Ephesus in 91 BC suggests that at least part of the armies assembled for reinstating Ariobarzanes I and Nicomedes IV to their respective thrones must have been paid in cistophori.20 The same was certainly true for the previously discussed spike in cistophoric production corresponding to the Revolt of Aristonicus.21 The relationship between taxation and cistophoric production will become evident after the analysis of the post-89 BC late cistophoric production at Tralles in Appendix I, given the increase in production related to the extraordinary taxation that Sulla imposed upon the city after the Peace of Dardanus in 85 BC.22 15. See supra, 3, 10–14 (Thyatira, Apollonis, Stratonicea); 31–32, 183–186 (Nysa). 16. See supra, 27–32. 17. See supra, 33–34 (with bibliography). 18. Carbone 2014. 19. See supra, 20–21. 20. See supra, 536–38, 86, Fig. 2.10 (Pergamum); 120, Fig. 3.13 (Ephesus).158, Fig. 4.11 (Tralles). 21. See supra, 10–14, 44, Fig. 1.9. 22. See supra, 3, 198–202, 213–216, 218–219.

09 Carbone Conclusion.indd 193

3/12/20 1:32 PM

194

Hidden Power

Quantitative Overview Despite the previously mentioned limitations, the sheer number of specimens included in the 2002 hoard permits an at least indicative quantitative overview of the cistophoric production in provincia Asia. In the years between the end of the Revolt of Aristonicus (128 BC) and 91/0 BC, the cities of Pergamum, Ephesus, and Tralles produced coinage using 317 observed tetradrachm obverse dies. In the single year 90/89 BC, these same three mints issued coinage using 35 observed tetradrachm obverse dies, as shown in Table 10.1. Table 10.1. Cistophoric production in provincia Asia in terms of tetradrachm obverse dies (Esty 2006) Years

n

d

Singletons

Dest

Coverage

s

High estimate

Low estimate

128–90 BC

1,035

317

96

455.22

0.90

26.54

482.53

429.45

90–89 BC

189

35

11

43

0.94

4.22

47.43

38.98

Without discounting the high standard deviation for the data concerning the years 128–90 BC, Esty’s formula permits us to estimate a coverage of ca. 90% and to estimate the total cistophoric production in the province for those years at 455.22 tetradrachm obverse dies (i.e., 1,820.88 drachm-equivalent obverse dies). This translates to an average of 47.91 yearly drachm-equivalent obverse dies per year, a slightly larger amount than that estimated by A. Meadows for the years of the Revolt of Aristonicus.23 The data for 90/89 BC seem even more reliable. According to Esty’s formula, Pergamum, Ephesus, and Tralles issued a total of 43 tetradrachm obverse dies (i.e., 172 drachm obverse dies). This shows a sudden increase in the cistophoric production of the province that can only be explained as related to the military operations of the Mithridatic Wars. Table 10.2. Cistophoric production in terms of drachm-equivalent obverse dies per year (Esty 2006). Years

de Callataÿ 2013

2002 hoard

167–123 BC

51.9

–

128–90 BC 90–89 BC Average 128–89 BC

50.8 50.8

47.91 172 51.09

Table 10.2 compares F. de Callataÿ’s estimates with the data provided by the 2002 hoard.24 His estimates only make a distinction between early and late cistophori, while the die study of the 2002 hoard allows for a more precise distribution of the issues in time. While slightly lower, these estimates are very close to those provided by this study. Finally, since cistophori were overwhelmingly the silver currency circulating in the province up to the 90s BC, it can be inferred that the amount of cistophori that were produced and were circulating in the province represented the great bulk of the silver coinage circulating in provincia Asia. As rightly noted by de Callataÿ and Meadows, the cistophoric issues under the Attalids were integrated with a copious production of Attic-standard coinages.25 On the other hand, autonomous silver issues were scantily produced in provincia Asia and had a localized circulation radius, 23. The relatively low characteroscopic index for the cistophoric production of Pergamum and Ephesus has already been discussed supra, 47, 90 (Pergamum); 124 (Ephesus); 163 (Tralles). Meadows (2013, table 5.8b) calculates that the cistophoric production of the four major mints in the province (Pergamum, Ephesus, Tralles, Apamea) for the years 133–129 BC was 38.75 drachm-equivalent obverse dies per year. 24. de Callataÿ 2013, table 6.12. 25. de Callataÿ 2013; Meadows 2013, esp. 264.

09 Carbone Conclusion.indd 194

3/12/20 1:32 PM

Conclusions

195

as already remarked. The following table provides an estimate of the autonomous silver production of the most relevant mints in provincia Asia. Table 10.3 Production of autonomous silver issues in provincia Asia. Dates

Annual production (tetradrachm obverse dies)

Annual production (drachm-equivalent obverse dies)

180–50 BC

0.27

1.08

175–65 BC

0.16

0.76

Tenedus

100–70 BC

0.70

2.8

Abydus

100–70 BC

1.16

4.64

Smyrna

125–70 BC

0.69

2.7

Chios29

120–86 BC

0.08

0.35

3.26

13.05

Mint Ilium26 Alexandria Troas

27

28

Total

While limited to the most important mints, the figures provided in Table 10.3 show that the annual production of autonomous silver coinage was nowhere near the production of wreathed tetradrachms and post-Apamean Alexanders in Attalid times. Table 10.4 compares the silver coinage supplies of the Attalid kingdom and of provincia Asia until 89 BC, the date of the deposition of the 2002 hoard.30 Figure 10.4. Silver coinage production in provincia Asia in terms of drachm-equivalent obverse dies per year. Cistophori

Autonomous silver issues

Total

167–133 BC

53.1

88.8

141.9

128-89 BC

51.09 (2002 hoard)

13.05

64.14

The data presented here strongly suggest that in the second and first century BC, provincia Asia was operating on roughly half (45.2%) of the amount of silver coinage that had been available to the Attalids in the years after Apamea.31 The reasons for the sharp decrease in the silver coinage supply of the region are further analyzed in Appendix II.

26. Unless otherwise indicated, all data are from Ellis-Evans 2016, 144, table 5. 27. Updating of the former die study in de Callataÿ 1997a, 151–155. 28. Estimate according to Philip Kinns (pers. comm.). 29. Lagos 1999. 30. All data unless otherwise indicated are from de Callataÿ 2013, tables 6.9 (post-Apamean Alexanders: 21.4 obverse dies) and 6.10 (wreathed coinages: 67.4 obverse dies). 31. de Callataÿ 2013, 233–236 (with bibliography).

09 Carbone Conclusion.indd 195

3/12/20 1:32 PM

09 Carbone Conclusion.indd 196

3/12/20 1:32 PM

Appendix I

Late Cistophoric Production at Tralles after 89 BC

The purpose of this appendix is to elucidate the production patterns of the Trallian cistophoric mint in the years after the deposition of the 2002 hoard in 89 BC and the end of the production of late cistophori in the 60s BC, encompassing the momentous years of the Mithridatic Wars and their aftermath. Using a sample of 299 coins, this study adds 233 cistophoric tetradrachms and 66 fractions (41 didrachms and 25 drachms) to those analyzed in the first part of this study.1 The specimens will be ordered in the following catalogue according to the chronological order provisionally provided by hoard evidence. In the absence of die links, the issues within the same time frame have been ordered alphabetically.

Late Cistophoric Production in Context At the beginning of the First Mithridatic War, Tralles was under the tyranny of the sons of Cratippus, who were responsible for the massacre of the Roman residents.2 The good relationship 1. See supra, 123–147. 2. See supra, 151, n. 31. Tyranny of Cratippus’s sons: Strabo 14.1.42. Massacre of Roman residents: Dio 31.101; App., Mithr. 23.90. Τραλλιανοὶ δ᾽ αὐθένται τοῦ κακοῦ φυλαξάμενοι γενέσθαι, Παφλαγόνα Θεόφιλον, ἄγριον ἄνδρα, ἐς τὸ ἔργον ἐμισθώσαντο, καὶ ὁ Θεόφιλος αὐτοὺς συναγαγὼν ἐπὶ τὸν τῆς ὁμονοίας νεὼν ἥπτετο τοῦ φόνου, καὶ τινῶν τοῖς ἀγάλμασι συμπλεκομένων τὰς χεῖρας ἀπέκοπτεν. “The citizens of Tralles, in order to avoid the appearance of blood-guiltiness, hired a savage monster named Theophilus, of Paphlagonia, to do the work. He conducted the victims to the temple of Concord, and there murdered them, chopping off the hands of some who were embracing the sacred images” (trans. B. McGing). The same desire to avoid direct responsibility for the killing of the Italians is present in Dio 31.101: πάντες τοὺς Ῥωμαίους ἐφόνευον κελεύσαντος Μιθριδάτου οἱ Ἀσιανοί, πλὴν καθ᾽ ὅσον Τραλλιανοὶ οὐδένα ἀπέκτειναν, Θεόφιλον δέ τινα Παφλαγόνα ἐμισθώσαντο, ὥσπερ που ἧττόν σφων ἀπόλλυσθαι μελλόντων, ἢ καὶ διαφέρον αὐτοῖς ὑφ᾽ ὅτου σφαγήσοιντο. “Only the people of Tralles did not personally kill anyone, but hired for the purpose a certain Theophilus, a Paphlagonian—just as if they themselves were more likely thus to escape destruction, or as if it made any difference to the victims by whom they were to be slaughtered” (trans. E. Cary).

197

10 Carbone Appendix 1.indd 197

3/12/20 1:50 PM

198

Hidden Power

between the city and Mithridates VI is referred to by Cicero in the Pro Flacco, where Laelius suggests that the king of Pontus would have been “more anxious about adorning Tralles than plundering it.”3 Given the association between Mithridates and Dionysus, a sign of Tralles’s goodwill toward the Pontic king could be found in the appearance of this god as a control mark in the cistophoric series of the 80s BC.4 Dionysus appeared neither on Tralles’s early cistophoric series, nor in the late cistophoric series of other cities. Dionysus’s cult in Tralles is attested epigraphically since the fourth century BC, but the god or his iconography did not appear as a type or as a control mark on Tralles’s coinage, making his appearance during the years of the Mithridatic Wars all the more relevant.5 After the Peace of Dardanus in 85 BC, rebellious Asian cities—Tralles among them—were brought back into Roman dominion and had to pay the enormous amount of 20,000 talents in taxes in order to compensate for the five years of arrears.6 The necessity of paying the tribute to Rome probably led to an increase in cistophoric production in the years after the end of the Mithridatic War and during Lucullus’s praetura.7 With the caution due to a relatively low characteroscopic index, F. de Callataÿ’s estimated that Ephesus employed a minimum of six cistophoric tetradrachm obverse dies per year between 84 and 80 BC, therefore increasing its production in comparison to the previous period.8 The present die study suggests the same increase in production for Tralles.9 The financial difficulties caused to Tralles’s by revenues owed to Rome were such that the celebration of the annual Olympia had to be interrupted. The festival was resumed only in 62 BC.10 Numismatic evidence shows that the cistophoric production of the city soared over the course of the 60s BC, probably in connection to the Third Mithridatic War and its aftermath.11 While cistophoric production at Ephesus abruptly stopped by 67 BC, only to be resumed in 58 BC, it surged at Tralles around the mid-60s BC, possibly in order to replace the Ephesian late cistophori.12 The exploitation of the city’s wealth is made evident by Cicero, who informs us that a certain Falcidius bought the tithes of Tralles (fructus Trallianorum) for the significant sum of 900,000 3. Pro Flacco 59. 4. Association between Mithridates and Dionysus on Asian coins, most recently: Smekalova 2009, 6–7. The Dionysus control mark is present on the series issued by the magistrates ΑΤΤΑ(λος), ΘΕΟΔ(οτος), and ΠΤΟΛ(εμαιος), all late cistophori of Tralles dated between 89 and 75 BC (infra, 207–208, Table 11.4; 210–211 Table 11.6; 214–215, Table 1.9). 5. Epigraphic attestations of Dionysus’s cult: I Tralleis und Nysa 3 (border stone of the Asylum in Dionysus’s sanctuary, copy of the first century BC from an original of the fourth), 5 (dedication of a statue to Dionysus, date uncertain), 13 (dedication of the priest Pausanias, first–third century AD). 6. Asian cities return to Roman dominion: Cic. Agr. 2.15.39: Commodum erit Pergamum, Smyrnam, Tralles, Ephesum, Miletum, Cyzicum, totam denique Asiam, quae post L. Sullam Q. Pompeium consules recuperata sit, populi Romani factam esse dicere. “It will be very convenient to say, that Pergamus, Smyrna, Tralles, Ephesus, Miletus, Cyzicus, and, in short, all Asia, which has been recovered since the consulship of Lucius Sulla and Quintus Pompeius (88 BC), has become the property of the Roman people” (trans. J. H. Freese). Lucullus entrusted of the Asian tribute: Plut., Lucull. 41: ἐπεὶ δὲ συνθηκῶν γενομένων Μιθριδάτης μὲν ἀπέπλευσεν εἰς τὸν Εὔξεινον πόντον, Σύλλας δὲ τὴν Ἀσίαν δισμυρίοις ταλάντοις ἐζημίωσε, προσταχθὲν αὐτῷ τά τε χρήματα ταῦτα πρᾶξαι καὶ νόμισμα κόψαι. “After peace had been made, Mithridates sailed away into the Euxine, and Sulla laid a contribution of twenty thousand talents upon Asia. Lucullus was commissioned to collect this money and re-coin it” (trans. B. Perrin). 7. de Callataÿ 1997a, 171–179. 8. de Callataÿ 1997a, 176–177. The problem of a low characteroscopic index is shared by the mints of Pergamum and Apamea: Kleiner 1978, 78 and 1979, 122. 9. See infra, 214–215, Table 11.9; 218–219, esp. Fig. 11.1. 10. Robert 1937, 426–427. 11. See infra, 216, Table 11.10; 218–219, esp. Fig. 11.1. 12. Ephesus: Backendorf 1999.

10 Carbone Appendix 1.indd 198

3/12/20 1:50 PM

Appendix I

199

sestertii.13 The city had to resort to private loans in order to make its payments, as indicated by the fact that the wealthy banker Castricius was forced to appeal to the propraetor of Asia L. Valerius Flaccus in 62 BC in order to collect a sum owed to him by Tralles.14 In spite of Sulla’s punitive measures, Tralles maintained its administrative prominence during the first century BC, as confirmed by Cicero in Pro Flacco. Here the city is mentioned together with the assize-district centers, Adramyteum, Pergamum, Laodicea, and Apamea.15 The city’s status is also confirmed by a letter of the proconsul of Asia to the κοινὸν τῶν Ἑλλήνων (RDGE 52), addressed to the cities of Ephesus, Tralles, Alabanda, Mylasa, Smyrna, Pergamum, Sardis, Adramyteum, and Miletus, certainly qua conventus-centers.16 That the primary recipients were conventus centers is further suggested by the order to transmit the content of the letter to the smaller cities in each district.17 The most probable date for this missive is 51/0 BC, since there is no mention of the Phrygian conventus (part of the province of Cilicia between 56 and 50 BC) and M. Cicero, the governor of Cilicia in that year, is named at lines 39–40.18 The administrative prominence of Tralles is also implied by the fact that the city issued later Republican cistophori between 58 and 49 BC, along with Ephesus, Pergamum, Apamea, and Laodicea.19 In his study of the later Republican cistophori, W. Metcalf showed that Tralles’s cistophoric production was equal to Ephesus, while smaller than the mints of Apamea, Laodicea, and Pergamum.20 It has been shown in the first part of this study that Pergamum and Ephesus maintained their supremacy as cistophoric mints in Asia up to beginning of the Mithridatic Wars, immediately followed by Tralles.21 The same hierarchy of importance between cistophoric mints seems to have been maintained until the end of the production of late cistophori.22 This makes the shift in the relative importance of cistophoric mints in the 50s and 40s BC all the more significant, as it indicates the growing importance of Roman Phrygia at the expense of the rest of the province. As already mentioned, the increase in cistophoric production at Apamea and Laodicea seems, then, to be closely related to their economic development and integration into provincia Asia.23 In the same way, the diminished relative importance of the cistophoric production of Tralles seems to provide evidence for its decreased economic prominence. In 27 BC, an earthquake caused great damage to Tralles, so that the notables of the city, led by Chaeremon, went to Rome beseeching the emperor to contribute to the rebuilding effort.24 The 13. Pro Flacco 36 [91]. The interpretation of fructus Trallianorum as Trallian tithes is provided by Magie 1951, 1129, no. 53. 14. Pro Flacco 23 [54]. The Castricii were bankers in Smyrna: Pro Flacco 75; Wilson 1966, 131. 15. Cic., Pro Flacco 28 and 68. The point at stake is that Flaccus had confiscated the gold in four assize-center capitals, namely Apamea, Laodicea, Adramyteum and Pergamum. 16. RGDE 52, 43–46: [πρὸς]/[ὑ]μᾶς, Ἐφεσίους, Τραλλιανούς, Ἀλαβανδεῖς, Μ̣[υλ]ασεῖς, Σμυρναίους, Περγαμηνούς, Σαρδιανο[ύς], Ἀδραμυτηνούς. See supra, 26, Table 0.2; 27, n. 206. 17. RDGE 52, 46–47: ἵνα τε ὑμεῖς πρὸς τὰς ἐν τῆι δ[ιοικ]ήσει τῆι ἰδίαι πόλεις διαποστείλησθε. 18. RDGE 52 : Μάρκω]ι Κικέρ[ων]ι̣. This date is suggested both by Sherk in RDGE 52 and by Habicht 1975, 69. 19. Stumpf 1991, nos. 17–20, 31–33, 42, 55–56, 63, 65–67; Metcalf 2017, nos. 301–367. 20. Apamea: 24 observed obverse dies. Laodicea: 21 observed obverse dies. Pergamum: 21 observed obverse dies. Ephesus: 16 observed obverse dies. Tralles: 16 observed obverse dies. 21. See supra, 41–42, Figs. 1.4–1.6, 158, Fig. 4.12. 22. See infra, 226–227. 23. For the economic development of Roman Phrygia in the first century BC: Thonemann 2011, 99–129; Thonemann 2013, 1–40. See supra, 1165–166 (Laodicea); 171–172 (Apamea). 24. Strabo 12.8.18: ἐπηνώρθωσε δ’ ὁ ἡγεμὼν χρήματα ἐπιδούς, καθάπερ καὶ πρότερον ἐπὶ τῆς γενομένης συμφορᾶς Τραλλιανοῖς (ἡνίκα τὸ γυμνάσιον καὶ ἄλλα μέρη συνέπεσεν) ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ καὶ τούτοις καὶ Λαοδικεῦσιν. “Just as his father in earlier times, when the inhabitants of Tralles suffered their misfortune (when the

10 Carbone Appendix 1.indd 199

3/12/20 1:50 PM

200

Hidden Power

family of Chaeremon of Tralles had been known for his loyalty to Rome since the First Mithridatic War, when Chaeremon, grandfather of the Chaeremon of the Augustan age helped the proconsul C. Cassius by providing wheat for free.25 After the earthquake, however, the city, renamed Caesarea in honor of Augustus, the “second founder,” was not conspicuous enough to be a conventus center, as shown by its absence from the lists of capital cities of the province.26 The end of the prosperity of the city is also marked by the rejection of its request to build a provincial temple to the emperor Tiberius.27 After the end of the late Republican cistophoric issues, the city did not issue silver coinage anymore, but only bronze with the legend ΚΑΙΣΑΡΕΩΝ from Augustus to Nero.28 The original name of the city appeared again on the coins issued as ΚΑΙΣΑΡΕΩΝ ΤΡΑΛΛΙΑΝΩΝ from Nero to Domitian and as ΤΡΑΛΛΙΑΝΩΝ from Domitian onwards.29 The late cistophori of Tralles were then issued at an epochal moment, when the city began the economic decline that culminated in its disappearance from the list of conventus centers and in the Tacitean definition of the civic community as parum validi. The study that follows will hopefully shed some light on this poorly known yet fundamental historical moment for Tralles.

The Hoards Out of eleven hoards including Trallian late cistophori, those buried before 90/89 BC have already been discussed.30 The remaining eight hoards are listed below in chronological order. 1. IGCH 1461 (88 BC) Asia Minor 1966 (IGCH 1461), buried in ca. 88 BC, includes two otherwise-unknown varieties of Trallian late cistophori. 31 These issues are as follows: ΔΙΟΝ and ear of grain and poppy head ΠΑΜΜ and ear of grain and poppy head.32 2. IGCH 1358 (75 BC) The Karacabey (ex Mihaliç) hoard, consisting of 271 tetradrachms, was discovered in Mysia in 1929.33 K. Regling, who first published the hoard, established a chronological correlation between gymnasium and other parts of the city collapsed), restored their city, as he also restored the city of the Laodiceans.” (trans. H. L. Jones). Magie 1950, 469, nos. 1331–1332. Augustan intervention: Agathias II.17. Honors to Chaeremon: I Tralleis 70; Jones 2011. 25. RGDE 48, ll. 6–9: [ὡμ]ολόγησεν καταλογῆς τῆς [συν]κλήτου καὶ δ̣[ήμου] Ῥωμαίων ἐπὶ τοῦ στρατοπέ[δου] δώσειν δῶ[ρον ἀλ]εύρων μοδίους ἑξακισμυρί[ους·]. See supra, 32–33, 190. Genealogy of Chaeremon’s family and his relationship to Chaeremon of Nysa: Jones 2011, 110 (with bibliography). 26. Augustus as [κ]τίστης [τῆς πόλεως]in BCH 10 (1886), 516, no. 5. For the absence of Tralles from the list of conventus centers see supra, 25, Fig. 0.2. 27. Tralles’s rejection: Tac. Ann. 4.55: verum Hypaepeni Trallianique Laodicenis ac Magnetibus simul tramissi ut parum validi. “But Hypaepa and Tralles, together with Laodicea and Magnesia, were passed over as inadequate to the task.”(trans. J. Jackson). 28. RPC I, nos. 2633–2650. 29. Καισαρέων Τραλλιάνων: RPC II, nos. 1094, 1102, 1104–1105. Τραλλιάνων: RPC II, nos. 1096–1099. 30. IGCH 1358 (105/104 BC), 1360 (96/95 BC), 2002 (90/89 BC). See supra, 161–162. 31. Kleiner 1978, 93–94. Pergamum group 2: 16; Pergamum group 3: 4; Ephesus: 3; Tralles: 2. Latest Ephesian piece: Kleiner 1972, 26, no. 47 (89/88 BC). 32. Kleiner 1978, 93–94, nos. 24–25. I was not able to find the casts of these coins at ANS, even though they had been studied by F. Kleiner there in 1978. No specimens of these two issues are present in any of the collections included in this study. 33.Regling 1932: Pergamum: 114; Tralles: 90; Apamea: 47; Ephesus: 17; Nysa: 2; Laodicea: 1.

10 Carbone Appendix 1.indd 200

3/12/20 1:50 PM

Appendix I

201

Ephesian late cistophori up to year 56 (79/8 BC) and the Trallian issues of ΠΤΟΛ (included up to year 9 (77/6 BC).34 Table 11.1. Comparison between Ephesian and Sullan Eras in IGCH 1358 (de Callataÿ 1997a, 178). Year

Sullan Era at Tralles

Ephesian Era

Specimens

Date

Specimens

Date

85/4 BC

2

-

-

ΝΑ ΝΒ

84/3 BC

11

Β

3

83/2 BC

8

Γ

5

ΝΓ

82/1 BC

12

Δ

5

ΝΔ

81/0 BC

9

Ε

1

ΝΕ

80/79 BC

10

𐅝

2

-

79/8 BC

4

Ζ

-

-

78/7 BC

3

Η

-

-

77/6 BC

1

Θ

-

-

76/5 BC

-

-

-

-

Total

60

16

Building on this correlation, it is possible to state convincingly that Tralles adopted a Sullan Era beginning in 85 BC, after the Peace of Dardanus.35 The existence of a Sullan Era at Tralles is confirmed by an honorary inscription dated to year ΙΖ (17 = 69/8 BC).36 The issues of ΠΤΟΛ, therefore, which went on for nine years (first issue with no date, then Β to Θ), should be dated to 85–77 BC.37 These years roughly correspond with the period of Lucullus’s power in the province and with the exceptional issues needed to pay the tax arrears ordered by Sulla (Table 11.1).38 The Trallian issues included in the Karacabey hoard (90 pieces in total) are as follows: ΑΠΟΛ and hand with caduceus ATTA and Dionysus ΔΙΟΝ and herm ΘΕΟΔ and Dionysus ΠΤΟΛ and Dionysus holding grapes ΠΤΟΛ B and Dionysus holding a Silenus mask ΠΤΟΛ Γ and Dionysus holding grapes ΠΤΟΛ Γ and Dionysus holding a Silenus mask ΠΤΟΛ E and Dionysus holding a Silenus mask ΠΤΟΛ 𐅝 and Dionysus holding a Silenus mask ΠΤΟΛ Z and Dionysus (with a radiate crown) holding a Silenus mask

34. Latest Ephesian piece (Regling 1932, nos. 129–130): Kleiner 1972, 27, no. 57. 35. Regling 1932. Leschhorn 1993, 209–212. 36. I Tralleis 32. 37. Leschhorn 1993, 489. 38. The presence of Lucullus is important for the cistophoric production of the cities of Asia. The end of cistophoric production at Ephesus is tightly linked to the end of the “Lucullan Era” in Asia (App. Mithr. 13; Dio 36. 15.3; Plut. Lucull. 35.3–8; Livy 98.9). For the connection between Lucullus and Asian issues, see Plut. Lucull. 4.1. Influence of Lucullus over the Ephesian cistophoric production: de Callataÿ 1997, 173–174.

10 Carbone Appendix 1.indd 201

3/12/20 1:50 PM

202

Hidden Power

ΠΤΟΛ H and Dionysus holding a Silenus mask ΠΤΟΛ Θ and Dionysus (non vidi). 39 None of these issues was included in the previous hoards, therefore they can be safely dated between 89 and 75 BC.40 3. Dumancık 2011 (ca. 84 BC) This hoard of 22 cistophoric tetradrachmas, now called the Cistophoric Hoard of Dumancık, was found at Dumancık Mevkii of Başkuyu village of Yeşilova, Burdur, in 2009 and it is now in the Burdur Archaeological Museum.41 The hoard includes only cistophoric tetradrachms: 17 from Pergamum, 3 from Ephesus, 1 from Smyrna and 1 from Tralles. The latest Ephesian cistophorus is dated to 86/5 BC.42 Among the most recent Pergamene issues included in the hoard are BA/ and EΥ/, both included in IGCH 1462, dated to 88 BC.43 Another issue, ΠΕ/, tentatively dated by F. Kleiner to the years 76–67 BC, is here for the first time included in a hoard. This hoard is remarkable for the presence of Smyrnean late cistophori, which are otherwise only present in IGCH 1459, dated to 98 BC.44 The Smyrnean cistophorus included in this hoard is dated to the year E (5) of the Smyrnean era, a local era that has not been connected to any specific event as of yet.45 The already mentioned circumstance of a Smyrnean specimen dated to year B (2) in IGCH 1459, dated to 98 BC, and the good condition of the specimen included in this hoard hint at a dating in the 90s or 80s BC. The only variety of Trallian cistophorus included in the hoard, ΠΤΟΛ, dated to 85/4 BC according to the Sullan Era, supports a closure date in the mid–to late 80s BC.46 This hoard should thus probably be dated around 85/4 BC. 4. CH IX, 560 = Marinescu 1995 (ca. 70 BC) This hoard is extremely interesting for the high number of cistophori of Laodicea, which are rarely attested in other hoards, and for the significant absence of Pergamene and Ephesian late cistophori.47 In the absence of Ephesian cistophori, the dating provided by C. Marinescu is based 39. Regling 1932, 134–138: ΑΠΟΛ and hand with caduceus (BMC Lydia, 330, no. 34); 139–141: ATTA and Dionysus (Münsterberger 1914, 152); 142–144: ΔΙΟΝ and herm (BMC Lydia 35); 145–146: ΘΕΟΔ and Dionysus (BMC Lydia 37); 147–223: ΠΤΟΛ; 147–148: without date but Dionysus holding grapes (BMC Lydia 44); 149–159: B and Dionysus holding a Silenus mask (BMC Lydia 45); 160–167: Γ and Dionysus holding ivy branch on a pedestal (BMC Lydia 46–47); 168–179: Δ and Dionysus holding a Silenus mask; 180–188: E and Dionysus holding a Silenus mask (BMC Lydia 48); 189–198: 𐅝 and Dionysus holding a Silenus mask; 199–202: Z (reverse in 202 is) and Dionysus (with a radiate crown). In his right hand a Silenus mask, in his left a thyrsus; 203–205: H and Dionysus (as in years 2, 4–6) (Pinder 1856, no. 159); 206: Θ and Dionysus (no preserved mask), overstruck on cistophorus; 207: no preserved date, possibly year 2 or 4–6 because of the Silenus mask; 208–212; no preserved date, possibly year 2 or 4–6; 213–220: no preserved date, possibly year 2 or 4; 221: no preserved date, year 2 or 4; 222: no preserved date but Dionysus with grapes, year 1; 223: no preserved date, possibly year 1, 2–6, 8, or 9). 40. See infra, 206–207, Table 11.4. 41. Çankaya and Köker 2011. 42. Çankaya and Köker 2011, no. 20; Kleiner 1972, 26 no. 49. 43. Çankaya and Köker 2011 no. 10 and 12. Kleiner 1978, 95–96, nos. 14–17 (BA/), 22–23 (EΥ/). 44. Kleiner 1978, 87–90, no. 232. 45. Çankaya and Köker 2011, no. 21. Smyrnean era: Leschhorn 1993, 213–214. Supra, 193–195. 46. Çankaya and Köker 2011, no. 22. Çankaya and Köker (2011, 65) date this issue to 134/3 BC on the basis of the so-called Provincial Age, whose existence has been disproved by Rigsby 1979. On top of the arguments already offered in my commentary to the Karacabey hoard, the dating of the Trallian issues of ΠΤΟΛ to the years after the Peace of Dardanus is strongly suggested by the very fine condition of the specimen included in this hoard. This very fine condition is at odds with the dating of 134/3 BC suggested by the authors of this study. 47. Marinescu 1995, 140 (Laodicea), 29 (Apamea), 8 (Tralles).

10 Carbone Appendix 1.indd 202

3/12/20 1:50 PM

Appendix I

203

on the presence of 18 of the 22 varieties of Apamean late cistophori identified by F. Kleiner.48 Since the Apamean late cistophoric issues are dated between ca. 90 and the 60s BC, the burial date of the hoard should be placed close to the end of the sequence of issues (i.e., around 70 BC). Forty-four specimens from this hoard were offered for sale and are fully illustrated in the public auction catalogues of a California numismatic firm.49 Eleven of these are now part of the Richard B. Witschonke Collection at American Numismatic Society.50 While the Trallian varieties included in this hoard were already included in previous ones, they still provide interesting evidence for the survival of older cistophori in the circulation pool. The issue ΑΠΟΛ and eagle is dated to the years immediately before 90 BC.51 The Trallian issues included in this hoard are as follows: ΑΠΟΛ and eagle ΔΙΟΝ and herm ΠΤΟΛ Β and Dionysus holding a Silenus mask All the Trallian issues should be dated between the years immediately before 90 BC (ΑΠΟΛ and eagle) and 84/3 BC (ΠΤΟΛ Β, per the Karacabey hoard). 5. CH VIII, 447 = 525 (58–57 BC) CH VIII, 447 and 525 were mixed-denomination hoards. They were inventoried twice, in error, but are in reality the same hoard.52 Meadows (2015) convincingly argued that CH VIII, 526 and VIII, 539 should be considered part of the same group of coins, as well.53 These three hoards should then be considered part of the same hoard, whose dating is provided by the latest specimen, the proconsular issue of T. Ampius Balbus (58/7 BC).54 I will here follow the organization proposed by Meadows 2015, who—while making a convincing case for the identity of these two hoards—keeps the distinction between them. Concerning Tralles, CH VIII, 447 = 525 includes 26 specimens (out of a total of 258 coins). These are as follows: ΑΠΟΛ and uncertain symbol. ΔΗΜΗ and eagle on thunderbolt ΔΙΟΝ and herm ΠΤΟΛ and Dionysus holding grapes ΠΤΟΛ B and Dionysus holding a Silenus mask ΠΤΟΛ Δ and Dionysus holding a Silenus mask ΠΡΥΤ and cornucopiae TIME and statue of Artemis.55 48. Marinescu 1995, 330–331; Kleiner 1979. 49. Ponterio & Associates, Inc., San Diego, California: Unrestricted Mail Bid Sale 63 (6/22/93), lot nos. 2571–2606; Unrestricted Mail Bid Sale 66 (11/30/93), lots nos. 68–74; Unrestricted Mail Bid Sale 70 (7/12/94), lots nos. 300 and 304). 50. Laodicea: MOC ligate (ANS 2015.20.1600); ΔΙΟΔΩΡΟΥ (ANS 2015.20.1593); ΔΙΟΔΩΡΟΥ Β (ANS 2015.20.1594); ΣΟΣΤΡΑΤΟΥ (ANS 2015.20.1605); ΠΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ (ANS 2015.20.2604); ΤΙΜΗΣΙΛΕΟΥ (ANS 2015.20.1607); ΜΕΝΕΚΡΑΤΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΔΙΟΝΥΙCΟΥ (ANS 2015.20.1617). Apamea: ΜΗΤΡΟ ΚΕΛΑΙ (ANS 2015.20.1514); ΚOKOY (ANS 2015.20.1522); ΤΙΜΩΝΟΣ (ANS 2015.20.1524); ΦΑΙΝΙΠΠΟΥ (ANS 2015.20.1524); ΣΚΥΜΝΟΥ (ANS 2015.20.1529). 51. This dating is confirmed by the presence of this issue in the 2002 hoard. See supra, 127–128, Issue XX.1–3. 52. For a full discussion of the composition of this hoard see Meadows 2015, 293–304. 53. Meadows 2015, 293, 309–310, section 4a. 54. For the date of the first proconsular issues of T. Ampius T. f. Balbus, see Stumpf 1991, 21–23. For the specimen included in this hoard see Meadows 2015, 307 (CH VIII, 526), no. 95; Stumpf 1991, no. 20. 55. CH VIII, 447 = 525 (Meadows 2015, section 4A): ΠΡΥΤ and cornucopiae. BMC Lydia 29 (2 tetradrachms, 1 didrachm): no. 182: Köln Münz Zentrum FPL 41 (1992) 537; no. 183: Hirsch 170 (1991) 577; no. 201: Gorny & Mosch 58

10 Carbone Appendix 1.indd 203

3/12/20 1:50 PM

204

Hidden Power

Three issues (ΠΡΥΤ and cornucopiae; TIME and statue of Artemis; ΔΗΜΗ and eagle on thunderbolt) appear in this hoard for the first time. The absence of the first two issues from the Karacabey hoard and their presence in this hoard allow them to be dated between 75 and 57 BC. The extreme rarity of the issue ΔΗΜΗ and eagle on thunderbolt does not allow us to date it with the same confidence.56 6. CH VIII, 526 (58–57 BC) As shown by Meadows 2015, the group of coins recorded in commerce in London in 1990, and illustrated as CH VIII, 526, have a clear similarity in composition with CH VIII, 447 = 525.57 Consistently with Meadows’s argument, the Trallian late cistophori here included are part of the same issues already recorded in CH VIII, 447=525: ΠΡΥΤ and cornucopiae TIME and statue of Artemis.58 7. CH VIII, 537 (after 48 BC?) This hoard includes at least 234 cistophoric tetradrachms and was on the market in Germany between 1986 and 1989.59 The presence of the later Republican issues of C. Fannius (49/8 BC) makes a burial date in the 40s BC quite likely.60 The 14 Trallian specimens included are as follows: ΑΠΟΛ and hand holding caduceus ΔΙΟΝ and lyre ΘΕΟΔ and Dionysus ΠΤΟΛ and Dionysus holding grapes ΠΤΟΛ B and Dionysus holding Silenus mask ΠΤΟΛ Γ and Dionysus holding grapes ΠΤΟΛ E and Dionysus holding a Silenus mask TIME and statue of Artemis.61 (1992) 422 (didrachm. BMC Lydia 30); TIME and statue of Artemis. BMC Lydia 31 (8 tetradrachms, 1 didrachm): no. 184: Köln Münz Zentrum FPL 41 (1992), 538; no. 185: Köln Münz Zentrum FPL 41 (1992), 539; no. 186: Köln Münz Zentrum 55 (1992), 230; no. 187: Hirsch 176 (1992), 311; no. 188: Gorny & Mosch 58 (1992), 421; no. 189: Rauch 46 (1991), 244; 47 (1991), 172; no. 190: Rauch 47 (1991), 173; 49 (1992), 207; no. 191: Hirsch 170 (1991), 578; no. 204: Rauch 46 (1991), 245 (didrachm); no. 206: Gorny & Mosch 58 (1992), 423; BMC Lydia 33 (drachm); ΔΙΟΝ and herm. BMC Lydia 35 (3 tetradrachms): no. 192: Lanz 60 (1992), 226; no. 193: Hirsch 168 (1990), 299; no. 194: Hirsch 172 (1991), 284; ΠΤΟΛ and Dionysus. BMC Lydia 44 (5 tetradrachms): no. 195: Köln Münz Zentrum 55 (1992), 231; no. 196: Gorny & Mosch 58 (1992), 424; no. 197: Gorny & Mosch 56 (1991), 278; no. 198: Köln Münz Zentrum 71 (1991), 349; no. 199: Hirsch 170 (1991), 579; ΠΤΟΛ and B and statue of Athena. BMC Lydia 45 (1 tetradrachm): no. 200: Köln Münz Zentrum FPL 41 (1992), 540; ΠΤΟΛ and Δ and Dionysus (1 didrachm): no. 205: Hirsch 171 (1991), 355; ΑΠΟΛ and uncertain symbol. Pinder 1856, no. 169 (1 didrachm): no. 202: Köln Münz Zentrum 71 (1991), 345; ΔΗΜΗ and eagle on thunderbolt. SNG von Aulock 3268 (1 didrachm): no. 203: Aufhäuser 7 (1990), 217; name off flan (drachm) and snake on altar: no. 207: Köln Münz Zentrum 71 (1991), 346. 56. See supra, 144, Issue XIII (didrachm); 147, Issue XI (drachm). 57. Meadows 2015, tables 1–2 and fig. 1. For the illustration of CH VIII, 526, see CH VIII, pls. lxxxii–lxxxvii. The hoard is listed in Meadows 2015 as section 4b. 58. CH VIII, 526 (Meadows 2015 section 4b): TIME and statue of Artemis (BMC Lydia 87–92);ΠΡΥΤ and cornucopiae (SNG Copenhagen 93–94). 59. de Callataÿ 1997a, 175, no. 38; Meadows 2015, 283–292. 60. C. Fannius: Stumpf 59; CH VIII, 537, nos. 232–233. 61. CH VIII, 537 (Meadows 2015, 284–292): ΔΙΟΝ and lyre. SNG Copenhagen 657 (3 tetradrachms): no. 191: Lanz 36 (1986), 426; no. 192: Lanz 40 (1987), 317; no. 193: Lanz 42 (1987), 267; ΘΕΟΔ and Dionysus. BMC Lydia 37 (1 tetradrachm): no. 194: Lanz 40 (1987), 319; TIME and statue of Artemis. BMC Lydia 31 (4 tetradrachms): no. 195: Lanz 36 (1986), 427; no. 196: Lanz 36 (1986) 428; no. 197: Lanz 36 (1986), 429; no. 198: Müller 58 (1988) 83; Müller

10 Carbone Appendix 1.indd 204

3/12/20 1:50 PM

Appendix I

205

8. Halicarnassus 1975 (41 BC) The Halicarnassus 1975 hoard, dated to 41 BC, is the first hoard from the Asian province containing a substantial number of denarii (62 out of a total of 99 coins). Its denarii include not only those issued in Asia Minor by Mark Antony and Octavian, but also specimens minted in Rome, Gaul, Sicily, and Greece, suggesting that by the closure date a much more integrated circulation of the denarius within the Roman Empire and a more integrated circulation pattern in Asia.62 Moreover, the Halicarnassus hoard is the first Carian hoard containing cistophori. This should be highlighted as hitherto cistophori did not usually circulate in Caria, where autonomous silver issues dominated, at least up to the Augustan period.63 Among the 36 cistophoric tetradrachms included in this hoard, four are late and 32 are later Republican.64 Overbeck correctly dated the later Republican cistophori and the denarii to 90–41 BC.65 On the other hand, the late cistophori were wrongly attributed to the 120s–110s BC, while they should be placed in the same time-frame as the other coins that composed the hoard. The Pergamene issues ΠΑ/ are part of Kleiner 1978, Group 3, dated to 92–67 BC.66 Specimens with the same monograms are only included in IGCH 1464 (50–45 BC) and Hieraptyna (44–42 BC), so it is plausible to hypothesize that this issue was one of the most recent ones, possibly dateable to the 60s BC.67 The Nysan specimen could be dated to 68/7 BC, as it is dated to year 23 of the Sullan Era.68 The only Trallian late cistophoric issue here included is TIME and statue of Artemis, which suggests that this was one of the last late cistophoric issues of the city.

The Issues In his classic work, R. Münsterberg identified 18 names on Trallian cistophoric issues, of which 14 appear on late cistophoric issues.69 This study identified a total of 20 individual names and 34 issues. Some of the names appear on issues with a different control marks and, in the case of ΠΤΟΛ, also with the indication of the different years of issue.70 Hoard evidence allows a chronological division of these issues, as summarized in Tables 11.2–11.5. The only issue not included in this list is ΔΗΜO and headdress of Isis on two ears of grain crossed (BMC Lydia 38), only attested in one specimen. 60 (1989), 98; ΑΠΟΛ and hand holding caduceus. BMC Lydia 34 (1 tetradrachm): no. 199: Rauch 40 (1988), 153; ΠΤΟΛ and Dionysus. BMC Lydia 44 (2 tetradrachms): no. 200: Lanz 40 (1987), 318; no. 201: Rauch 38 (1987), 66; ΠΤΟΛ B and Dionysus. BMC Lydia 45 (1 tetradrachm): no. 202: Rauch 41 (1989), 284; ΠΤΟΛ Γ and Dionysus BMC Lydia 46 (1 tetradrachm): no. 203: Lanz 36 (1986), 430; ΠΤΟΛ E and Dionysus. BMC Lydia 48 (1 tetradrachm): no. 204: Lanz 36 (1986), 431. 62. Ephesus: Overbeck 1978, nos. 50–60. Asia Minor: Overbeck 1978, nos. 37–44. Rome: Overbeck 1978, nos. 1–16, 19–22, 29–34, 45–49, 61. Gaul: Overbeck 1978, nos. 23–28. Sicily: Overbeck 1978, no. 62. Greece: Overbeck 1978, nos. 35–36. 63. Carbone 2014. 64. Late cistophori: Overbeck 1978, nos. 64–65 (Pergamum: Kleiner 1978, 105); Overbeck 1978, no. 66 (Tralles). Overbeck 1978, no. 67 (Nysa). Later Republican cistophori: Overbeck 1978, nos. 68–99. 65. Overbeck 1978, 172, tables 1–2. 66. Kleiner 1978, 103–105. Backedorf 1999 proved that the closing date of 67 BC for the Pergamene late cistophori is not accurate, so this issue could perhaps be placed in the early 50s BC. 67. IGCH 1464 (Asia Minor 1971): Kleiner 1978, 96–98, nos. 1–2; IGCH 352 (Hieraptyna); Raven 1938; CaramessiniOikonomides and Kleiner 1975, nos. 53–54. 68. For the revised chronology of Nysan cistophori, see supra, 183–185. 69. Münsterberg 1927, 182: Ἀπολ (BMC Lydia 330); Ἀρπα (Rhousopoulos n. 4075); Ἀρτε (Wadd. 6994). Ἀττα (Rev. Suisse VII 29); Βριθ (Kl. M. 186); Δημο (BMC Lydia. 331); διον (BMC Lydia 331); θεοδ (BMC Lydia 331); Μενα (Mt. IV 178); Πρυτ (BMC Lydia 329 ff.); Πτολ (BMC Lydia 332 ff.); Σωχα (BMC Lydia 332); Τιμε (BMC Lydia 330); Φιλι (Rev. Suisse VII, 30). For the issues up to 90/89 BC see also supra, 157, Table 4.2. 70. ΠΤΟΛ issues: Indication of the so-called “Sullan Era”: cf. Karacabey hoard (IGCH 1358) and de Callataÿ 1997a, 178.

10 Carbone Appendix 1.indd 205

3/12/20 1:50 PM

10 Carbone Appendix 1.indd 206

Table 11.2. Trallian late cistophoric issues until 90/89 BC. Issues until 90/89 BC

Control mark

References

Oldest hoard

Specimens in 2002 hoard

Total specimens in sample (including fractions)

ΜΑΡΣ (oldest issue)

owl on amphora

SNG von Aulock 3261; Kleiner 1978, 85 no. 37

IGCH 1458 (105/4 BC)

5

12

ΔΙΟΝ

club

Pinder 1856, no. 152; BMC Lydia 36 (drachm); SNG von Aulock 3259; SNG Copenhagen 657; Kleiner 1978, 92 nos. 24–25

IGCH 1460 (95 BC)

6

8

ΑΘΗΝ

fulmen and caduceus

SNG von Aulock 8284; Kleiner 1978, 92 no. 21

IGCH 1460 (95 BC)

7

13

ΑΡΤΕ

bust of Athena

Pinder 1856, no. 150; BMC Lydia 23; Waddington 6994; Kleiner 1978, 92, no. 22 (drachm)

IGCH 1460 (95 BC)

11

16

ΒΡΙΘ71

crab

Imhoof-Blumer 1901–1902, 186, no. 1; Kleiner 1978, 92 no. 23

IGCH 1460 (95 BC)

–

1

ΠΑΜΜ

trophy

Kleiner 1978, 92 nos. 26–27

IGCH 1460 (95 BC)

3

9

ΣΩΧΑ

bust of Artemis

BMC Lydia 41(didrachm). Imhoof-Blumer 1897, 172, no. 14. Kleiner 1978, 92 no. 28 (drachm)

IGCH 1460 (95 BC)

1

4

ΑΠΟΛ

eagle

Pinder 1856, no. 149

2002 (90/89 BC)

3

6

ΑΡΠΑ

winged caduceus

Münsterberg 1927, 182

2002 (90/89 BC)

2

4

2002 (90/89 BC)

2

4

-

4

2002 (90/89 BC)

10

12

2002 (90/89 BC)

2

2

ΕΠΑ

bust of Athena

ΜΕΝΑ72

herm

ΜΕΝΑ

filleted palm branch

ΜΗΤΡ

humped bull standing on meander

Pinder, 1856, no. 154; Mionnet IV, 178, 1028

ΦΙΛΙ

bee

Imhoof-Blumer 1897, 172, no. 15

2002 (90/89 BC)

5

6

ΔΙΟΝ (most recent issue)

lyre

Pinder, 1956, no. 151; SNG von Aulock 3259; SNG Copenhagen 657

2002 (90/89 BC)

88

130

71. I Tralleis und Nysa I 153.3–4. Bechtel 101. B. Poljakov identifies Βρίθων, the natural father of the Μητρόδωρος of the inscription, with the cistophorus in Imhoof-Blumer, Kleinasiatische Münzen,186, no. 1. For the correct reading of the name on the cistophorus as Βρίθων: Robert 1938, 197. 72. The die link established between a didrachm of this issue with one from the issue MENA and filleted palm (O3) suggest this chronological placement. 3/12/20 1:50 PM

10 Carbone Appendix 1.indd 207

Table 11.3. Trallian late cistophoric issues between 90/89 and 88 BC. Issues of 90–88 BC73

Control mark

References

Hoard

Specimens in hoard(s)

Total specimens in sample (including fractions)

ΔΙΟΝ

ear of grain and poppy head

Kleiner 1978, 94, no. 24

IGCH 1461 (88 BC)

1

0

ΠΑΜΜ

ear of grain and poppy head

Kleiner 1978, 94, no. 25

IGCH 1461 (88 BC)

1

0

Table 11.4. Trallian late cistophoric issues between 90/89 and 75 BC. Issues of 90/89–75 BC74

Control mark

References

Hoard

Specimens in hoard(s)

Total specimens in sample (including fractions)

ΔΙΟΝ

herm

BMC Lydia 35; SNG von Aulock 3260

IGCH 1358 (Karacabey, 75 BC)

3

21

ΑΠΟΛ

hand holding a caduceus

Pinder 1856, no. 149

IGCH 1358 (Karacabey, 75 BC)

5

33

ATTA

standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding grape bunch in his left hand; panther at his feet

SNG Copenhagen 655; Imhoof-Blumer 1897, 171, no. 13

IGCH 1358 (Karacabey, 75 BC)

3

15

ΘΕΟΔ

standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his left hand

Pinder 1856, no. 153; BMC Lydia 37; SNG Copenhagen 659

IGCH 1358 (Karacabey, 75 BC)

2

13

ΠΤΟΛ (85/4 BC)

standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding grape bunch in his left hand

Pinder 1856, no. 156. BMC Lydia 44, 49 (drachm); Imhoof Blumen 1897,172, no. 16

IGCH 1358 (Karacabey, 75 BC)

2

27

ΠΤΟΛ Β (84/3 BC)

standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding a Silenus mask (?) in his left hand

BMC Lydia 45; SNG von Aulock 3262.

IGCH 1358 (Karacabey, 75 BC)

11

25

ΠΤΟΛ Γ (83/2 BC)

standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding a Silenus mask (?) in his left hand

BMC Lydia 46

IGCH 1358 (Karacabey, 75 BC)

8

22

73. This chronological division is based on the absence of these issues from the 2002 hoard and on their presence in IGCH 1461. 74. This chronological division is based on the absence of these issues from the 2002 hoard and from IGCH 1461 and their presence in the Karacabey hoard (IGCH 1358).

3/12/20 1:50 PM

10 Carbone Appendix 1.indd 208

Table 11.4 Trallian late cistophoric issues between 90/89 and 75 BC. Issues of 90/89–75 BC75

Control mark

References

Hoard

Specimens in hoard(s)

Total specimens in sample (including fractions)

ΠΤΟΛ Δ (82/1 BC)

standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding a Silenus mask (?) in his left hand

Pinder 1856, no. 157

IGCH 1358 (Karacabey, 75 BC)

12

26

ΠΤΟΛ Ε (81/0 BC)

standing Dionysus with Pinder 1856, no. 158; BMC Lydia thyrsus in his right hand, 48 holding a Silenus mask (?) in his left hand

IGCH 1358 (Karacabey, 75 BC)

9

9

ΠΤΟΛ ς (80/7 BC)

standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding a Silenus mask (?) in his left hand

IGCH 1358 (Karacabey, 75 BC)

10

7

ΠΤΟΛ Ζ (79/8 BC)

standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his left hand, holding a Silenus mask (?) in his right hand

IGCH 1358 (Karacabey, 75 BC)

3

3

ΠΤΟΛ H (78/7 BC)

standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding a Silenus mask (?) in his left hand

IGCH 1358 (Karacabey, 75 BC)

3

5

ΠΤΟΛ Θ (77/6 BC)76

standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding a Silenus mask (?) in his left hand

IGCH 1358 (Karacabey, 75 BC)

1

0

Pinder 1856, no. 159

75. This chronological division is based on the absence of these issues from the 2002 hoard and from IGCH 1461 and their presence in the Karacabey hoard (IGCH 1358). 76. Regling 1932 does not provide pictures of the coins originally included in the hoard and I was not able to find any specimen of this issue in the course of my research. 3/12/20 1:50 PM

Appendix I

209

Table 11.5. Trallian late cistophoric issues between 75 and ca. 60 BC. Issues of 75–58 BC77

Number of specimens in hoard(s)

Total number of specimens in sample

CH VIII, 447 = 525 (58 BC)

1

6

Control mark

References

Hoards

ΔΗΜΗ

Eagle on thunderbolt

SNG von Aulock 3268

ΠΡΥΤ

Cornucopiae

Pinder 1856, no. 155; BMC Lydia 29–30; SNG Copenhagen 660

CH VIII, 447 = 525, 526 (58 BC)

5

20

ΤΙΜΕ

Artemis standing

Pinder 1856, no. 160; BMC Lydia 31–32, 33 (drachm); SNG von Aulock 8287; SNG Copenhagen 661

CH VIII, 447 = 525, 526 (58 BC)

16

49

78

Control Marks Control marks are usually located on the reverse of Trallian cistophoric issues to the lower right side, usually very close to the body of the coiled serpent. They could be simple, compound (namely one control mark consisting of two or more elements together) or double (composed by the juxtaposition of two different control marks), as in the case of the earlier cistophoric series and in some Ephesian late series.79 The control marks on Tralles’s late cistophori are usually simple or compound, very seldom double. Exceptions to this are the issue ΑΘΗΝ with fulmen and caduceus, ΔΙΟΝ and ΠΑΜΜ with poppy head and ear of grain.80 In the case of the latter two issues, their double control mark is comparable to the last series of ECC at Tralles.81 There are some recurring symbols in the issues of different magistrates, as shown in Table 11.6.

77. This chronological division is based on their absence from IGCH 1358 (Karacabey hoard, 75 BC) and on their significant presence in hoards dated to 58–57 BC (CH VIII, 447 = 525, 526). 78. Possibly connected to the bronze series issued by the magistrate Δημὴτριος: Laureate head of Zeus right / TΡAΛΛIANΩN ΔHMHTΡIOΣ, eagle standing right on thunderbolt, wings spread, beribboned bull’s head in right field. Mionnet IV, 1034; Paris 1588; SNG von Aulock 3275; Hunter 4; SNG Munich 713. 79. Double control mark: ECC Pergamum, Series 1–3 (166–160 BC); 27–31 (135–128 BC); 32–37c (128–123 BC); Ephesus, Series 27–31 (150–140 BC); 33–36 (140–137 BC); 37–39 (137–134 BC); Sardis–Synnada: 15–18 (135–128 BC); Tralles: Series 26–27, 30–32 (155–145 BC); 33–38 (145–140 BC); 39–41(140–135 BC); 42–47 (134–128 BC); Apamea: Series 26–28 (139–135 BC); 29–31 (135–133 BC). Late Ephesian issues with double control mark: Kleiner 1972, 70, nos. 60–61, 66–74 (72/1–68/7 BC); Pinder 1856, nos. 53–54; SNG Fitzwilliam 4436–4437. 80. ΑΘΗΝ: SNG von Aulock 8284; ΠΑΜΜ: Kleiner 1978, 94, no. 25; ΔΙΟΝ: Kleiner 1978, 94 no. 24. Also see supra, 171 (IGCH 1461). Also see supra, 206 (IGCH 1461). 81. Tralles: Series 47, 75 (134–128 BC).

10 Carbone Appendix 1.indd 209

3/12/20 1:50 PM

210

Hidden Power

Table 11.6. Control marks on Trallian late cistophoric issues. Magistrate name

Control mark

Presence in other cistophoric series

ΑΘΗΝ

fulmen and caduceus

No other attestations

ΑΠΟΛ

hand holding a caduceus

No other attestations

ΑΠΟΛ

eagle

ECC Pergamum and Tralles82

ΑΡΠΑ

winged caduceus

ECC Pergamum and Tralles;83 Ephesian late cistophori84

ΑΡΤΕ, EΠΑ

bust of Athena

ECC Pergamum and Tralles85

ΑΤΤΑ, ΘΕΟΔ, all issues of ΠΤΟΛ

standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding grape bunch in his left hand86

No other attestations

ΔΗΜΗ

eagle on thunderbolt

ECC Tralles and bronze civic coinage;87 Ephesian late cistophori88

ΔΗΜO

headdress of Isis on two ears of grain crossed

ECC Tralles;89 Ephesian late cistophori90

ΔΙΟΝ

club

ECC Ephesus, Pergamum, and Sardes-Synnada.91

ΔΙΟΝ

lyre

Ephesian late cistophori92

ΔΙΟΝ, MENA, ΣΩΧΑ

herm

ECC Apamea93

ΜΑΡΣ

owl on amphora

No other attestations94

ΜΕΝΑ

filleted palm branch

No other attestations

ΜΗΤΡ

humped bull standing on a meander pattern

ECC Tralles, civic gold and bronze coinage95

ΠΑΜΜ

trophy/cuirass

ECC Tralles96

ΠΡΥΤ

cornucopiae

ECC Apamea and Tralles.97 Ephesian late cistophori98

82. Pergamum: Series 6, 23 (eagle placed horizontally); Tralles: Series 7, 62 (eagle with spread wings); Series 26, 68 (eagle on cuirass); Series 27, 68 (eagle and prow). 83. ECC Pergamum: Series 37a–b, 37 (128–123 BC). Tralles: Series 29, 69 (155–145 BC). 84. Kleiner 1972, 25, nos. 30–31(years 25–26: 110–108 BC). 85. Pergamum: Series 17, 28 (160–150 BC). Tralles: Series 44, 74 (134–128 BC) 86. The control marks of the different issues of ΠΤΟΛ present slight differences in the objects held by Dionysus (usually interpreted as grape bunch and Selinus’s mask). 87. Ptolemaic symbol. Bronze civic coinage: SNG von Aulock 3273–3275: Laureate head of Zeus / Eagle with open wings and standing on thunderbolt; different symbols; partial name of magistrates; Τραλλιάνων. Tralles: ECC Series 2, 60 (166–160 BC). 88. Kleiner 1972, 27, no. 51 (year 50 = 85/4 BC). 89. Tralles: Series 43, 74 (only headdress with no ears of grain). 90. Kleiner 1972, 26, no. 46 (year 46 = 89/88 BC, only headdress with no ears of grain ). 91. Ephesus: Series 8, 42 (160–150 BC). Pergamum: Series 5, 23 (166–160 BC). Sardis–Synnada: Series 3, 78 (166–160 BC). 92. Kleiner 1972, 24, no. 8 (130–129 BC). Kleiner 1972, 43, no. 27 (113–112 BC). 93. Apamea: Series 4, 87 (166–160 BC). 94. The owl is present as a control mark on ECC Pergamum, Laodicea, and on the Ephesian later cistophoric issues. However, in the late cistophoric series of Tralles it is uniquely associated with an amphora. Owl as a control mark: Pergamum Series 9, 25 (160–150 BC; owl placed horizontally); Laodicea Series 6, 97 (160–145 BC); Ephesian late cistophori: Kleiner 1972, 26, no. 37 (102–101 BC). 95. ECC Tralles: series 15, 64 (155–145 BC). Civic bronze: SNG von Aulock 3271 var.: Head of Zeus right / ΣΕΛΕΥΚΕΩΝ ΑΡΤΕΜΙΔΟΥ and humped bull standing left, all in meander border. Gold stater: Inv. Wadd. Pl. XIV.23: Laureate head of Zeus / Humped bull standing right on meander pattern. Jenkins 1987. 96. Tralles Series 25, 68 (155–145 BC). 97. Apamea: Series 19, 90 (150–140 BC); Tralles: Series 13, 64 (155–145 BC). 98. Kleiner 1972, 25, no. 22 (year 16 = 119/8 BC), no. 24 (year 19: 116/15 BC), no. 55 (year 54 = 81/0 BC).

10 Carbone Appendix 1.indd 210

3/12/20 1:50 PM

Appendix I

211

Table 11.6 (continued). Control marks on Trallian late cistophoric issues. Magistrate name

Control mark

Presence in other cistophoric series

ΤΙΜΕ

Artemis standing

ECC Ephesus.99 Ephesian late cistophori100

ΦΙΛΙ

bee

ECC Ephesus and Apamea.101 Ephesian late cistophori102

In spite of the presence of control marks recurring in different years and in different cities,there seems to be no direct chronological correlation in the use of the same control mark in different cities. On the other hand, some control symbols appear to be directly related to specific historical events. For example, the cornucopiae appeared as a control mark on the Ephesian cistophoric issues of the year 81/0 BC and then—doubled and in combination alternately with an ear of grain, a poppy, a quiver, or a palm branch—for three years in a row in 70–68 BC.103 According to F. de Callataÿ, this symbol could be related to the presence of Lucullus, his attempt to ameliorate the finances of provincia Asia, and the relative prosperity experienced by the city in those years.104 At Tralles, however, the cornucopiae appeared in a simple form only after the 75 BC, without ever developing into the complex Ephesian form.105 Therefore, no direct relationship is detectable between the use of the cornucopiae as a control mark at Ephesus and at Tralles. At the same time, some Trallian cistophoric control marks derived from traditional civic types, such as the humped bull on a meander pattern, present on early and late cistophoric issues, civic bronze, and on the very rare gold staters.106

Another control mark that might be related to Tralles’s political stance during and in the aftermath of the First Mithridatic War is the figure of Dionysus, a god frequently connected to Mithridates VI. Given this association, the use of Dionysus as a control mark in the cistophoric series of the 80s BC may signify Tralles’s good will toward the Pontic king.107 In sum, control marks were a choice of the civic authority issuing the coinage, with no evident relationship to the cistophoric issues of other cities.

99. Ephesus: Series 13, 43 (160–150 BC). 100. Kleiner 1972, 24, no. 11(year 7 = 128/7 BC). 101. Ephesus: Series 16, 44 (bee within wreath), 18, 45 (160–150 BC); Series 40–43a, 53–55 (134–130 BC); Apamea: Series 18, 90 (150–140 BC). 102. Kleiner 1972, 24, nos. 1–3, 5 (years 1–4 = 134–130 BC = ECC Ephesus 40–43a), 26 no. 44 (year 41: 94/3 BC). 103. Kleiner 1972, 27–28 nos. 55 (81/0 BC), 60–74 (71/0–68/7 BC). 104. de Callataÿ 1997a, 173–174; Plut. Lucull. 23, 1–2: Λούκουλλος δὲ τὴν Ἀσίαν πολλῆς μὲν εὐνομίας, πολλῆς δ᾿ εἰρήνης ἐμπεπληκὼς οὐδὲ τῶν πρὸς ἡδονὴν καὶ χάριν ἠμέλησεν, ἀλλὰ πομπαῖς καὶ πανηγύρεσιν ἐπινικίοις καὶ ἀγῶσιν ἀθλητῶν καὶ μονομάχων ἐν Ἐφέσῳ καθήμενος ἐδημαγώγει τὰς πόλεις, αἱ δ᾿ ἀμειβόμεναι Λουκούλλειά τε ἦγον ἐπὶ τιμῇ τοῦ   νδρός, καὶ τῆς τιμῆς ἡδίονα τὴν ἀληθινὴν εὔνοιαν αὐτῷ παρεῖχον. “Lucullus, after filling Asia full of law and order, and full of peace, did not neglect the things which minister to pleasure and win favour, but during his stay at Ephesus gratified the cities with processions and triumphal festivals and contests of athletes and gladiators. And the cities, in response, celebrated festivals which they called Lucullea, to do honour to the man, and bestowed upon him what is sweeter than honour, their genuine goodwill” (trans. B. Perrin). 105. ΠΡΥΤ: Pinder 1856, 155; BMC Lydia, 29–30. SNG Copenhagen 660. See supra, 161. 106. Humped bull and meander motifs on coinage of other cities from the Maeander Valley: Thonemann 2011, 31–48. See supra, 149, 152–153. 107. For the association between Mithridates VI and Dionysus on Asian coins, see most recently Smekalova 2009, 6–7. The Dionysus control mark is present on the series issued by the magistrates ΑΤΤΑ(λος), ΘΕΟΔ(οτος), and ΠΤΟΛ(εμαιος), all dated between 89 and 75 BC. See supra, 198, n. 4.

10 Carbone Appendix 1.indd 211

3/12/20 1:50 PM

212

Hidden Power

Quantitative Overview Analysis of the Issues As already noted and as might be expected, only a few die links have been recorded between the pre-90 BC issues, which suggests a rather discontinuous production.108 A confirmation to the discontinuous minting for the pre-90 BC issues derives from later production, since die links are recorded in the case of the ΠΤΟΛ issues, produced in subsequent years.109 The following tables give the number of observed obverse dies per issue, organized according to the chronological division provided by hoards and die links. The average number of observed yearly tetradrachm obverse dies for 105–95 BC (not including the fractions) is 0.9, less than half of the contemporary production of Ephesus.110 Despite the antiquity of these issues, a characteroscopic index of 5.6 shows a very elevated Esty coverage of 95.1%. This means that the picture sketched out by this study for this period is substantially accurate, and the scant presence of die links between issues for these issues may therefore be related to a very discontinuous production, rather than to the absence of a representative sample. Table 11.7. Late cistophoric issues between 105 and 95 BC including fractions. Issues between 105 and 95 BC

Hoard

Control mark

Number of specimens in sample (tetradrachms)

Number of obverse dies (tetradrachms)

Number of specimens in sample (fractions)

Number of obverse dies (fractions)

ΜΑΡΣ

IGCH 1458 (ca. 105/104 BC)

owl on amphora

8

1

4 (didrachms)

1 (didrachm)

ΔΙΟΝ111

IGCH 1460 (95 BC)

club

8

2

0

0

ΑΘΗΝ

IGCH 1460 (95 BC)

fulmen and caduceus

12

1

0

0

ΑΡΤΕ

IGCH 1460 (95 BC)

bust of Athena

13

2

3 (drachms)

2 (drachm)

ΒΡΙΘ

IGCH 1460 (95 BC)

crab

0

0

1 (drachm)

1 (drachm)

ΠΑΜΜ

IGCH 1460 (95 BC)

trophy

7

2

1 (didrachm) 1 (drachm)

1 (didrachm) 1 (drachm)

ΣΩΧΑ

IGCH 1460 (95 BC)

bust of Artemis

3

1

1 (drachm)

1 (drachm)

Table 11.7 shows that Trallian production remained stable at the levels of 105–95 BC until the beginning of the First Mithridatic War. The pre-ΔΙΟΝ and lyre issues have a relatively low characteroscopic index (2.6) for the pre-ΔΙΟΝ and lyre issues suggest that a significant portion of them were reminted in the war effort, exemplified by the issue ΔΙΟΝ and lyre. On the other hand, the latter issue, which is the latest included in the 2002 hoard, has a very high characteroscopic index of 17.81, showing that the coverage is all but complete.112 In the years leading up to the First 108. The die-linked issues are: ΜΑΡΣ and owl on amphora (SNG von Aulock 3261) and ΔΙΟΝ and club (Pinder 1856, no. 152; SNG von Aulock 3259; SNG Copenhagen 657), which share O18; ΑΠΟΛ and eagle (Pinder 1856, no. 149) and ΑΡΠΑ and winged caduceus (Münsterberg 1927, 182), which share O27. 109. See infra, 214–215, Table 11.9. 110. See supra, 120, Fig. 3.13 (Ephesus), and 158, Fig. 4.11 (Tralles). Also comparable to Pergamene production: 86, Fig. 2.10. 111. Die link with ΜΑΡΣ (O18). 112. One obverse die has been added by the perusal of museum and auction catalogues.

10 Carbone Appendix 1.indd 212

3/12/20 1:50 PM

Appendix I

213

Mithridatic War, the city of Tralles saw a sixfold increase of its cistophoric production, passing from an average of 2.4 yearly observed tetradrachm obverse dies (fractions excluded) for the years 95–90 BC to 12 in the year 90/89 BC. In contrast with the issues of previous years, most of the issues presented in Table 11.8 are closely die linked, and several have Dionysus-related control marks, a possible sign of Mithridatic influence, as already noted.113 Table 11.8. Late cistophoric issues between 95 and 89 BC including fractions. Issues between 95 and 89 BC

Hoard

Control Mark

Number of specimens in sample (tetradrachms)

Number of obverse dies (tetradrachms)

Number of specimens in sample (fractions)

Number of obverse dies (fractions)

ΑΠΟΛ114

2002

eagle

4

1

2 drachms

1 (drachm)

ΑΡΠΑ

2002

winged caduceus

3

2

1 drachm

1 (drachm)

ΕΠΑ(I)

2002

bust of Athena

2

1

2 drachms

1 (drachm)

ΜΕΝΑ115

–

herm

3

1

1 didrachm

1 (didrachm)

ΜΕΝΑ

2002

filleted palm branch

11

2

1 didrachm

1 (didrachm)

ΜΗΤΡ

2002

humped bull standing on meander pattern

2

2

0

ΦΙΛΙ

2002

Bee

6

2

0

ΔΙΟΝ (latest issue)

2002

Lyre

130

12

0

However, despite the similarity in the control marks, there seems to be a clear stylistic distinction between the issues characterized by Sullan Era dates and those without them. Although no direct die links could be established between the ΑΠΟΛ and hand holding caduceus issue and the ΠΡΥΤ issue, struck after 75 BC, there are clear similarities in style.116 While the absence of the ΠΡΥΤ issue from the Karacabey hoard makes the dating of this issue incompatible with a direct die linking, it is remarkable that the dies of the ΠΤΟΛ issues do not bear any resemblance to issues issued in roughly the same years. The most likely explanation for this anomaly is that the ΠΤΟΛ issues—as further suggested by the use of the Sullan Era—were “special” ones, and their dies were hastily cut in order to pay the indemnity imposed by Sulla.117 The very tight interlinking of these issues and the lesser quality of the dies suggest an accelerated pace of production, offering further confirmation for the hypothesis of their very targeted production.118 Another very interesting difference between Sullan Era and non-Sullan Era issues is the very different wear rate of the dies. The non-Sullan Era issues show a much higher rate of die wear than the ΠΤΟΛ issues. This feature may be explained by the longer use of the non-Sullan Era dies, since they lacked dates. The postKaracabey hoard issues (i.e., ΠΡΥΤ and TIME) thus represent a return to Tralles “normal” style after the parenthesis due to the extraordinary taxes exacted by Sulla and Lucullus. 113. See n. 107. 114. Die link with ΑΡΠΑ and winged caduceus (O27). 115. Despite the absence of this issue from hoards, the die links established between a didrachm of this issue with one from the issue MENA and filleted palm suggest this chronological placement. 116. This is especially true in the case of dies O60 (ΑΠΟΛ and hand holding caduceus), O97–O98 (ΠΡΥΤ), and O100– O101 (TIME). 117. See supra, 206–207, Table 11.4. 118. The lesser quality of the die engraving is especially evident in the ΠΤΟΛ issues after 79/8 BC (ΠΤΟΛ Z).

10 Carbone Appendix 1.indd 213

3/12/20 1:50 PM

214

Hidden Power

Table 11.9. Late cistophoric issues between 89 and 77 BC including fractions. Issues between 90/89 BC and 75 BC

Hoard

Control mark

Number of specimens in sample (tetradrachms)

Number of obverse dies (tetradrachms)

Number of specimens in sample (fractions)

Number of obverse dies (fractions)

ΔΙΟΝ119

IGCH 1358 (Karacabey, 75 BC)

herm

21

6

0

ΑΠΟΛ

IGCH 1358 (Karacabey, 75 BC)

hand holding caduceus

25

7

6 didrachms, 2 drachms

ATTA

IGCH 1358 (Karacabey, 75 BC)

standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding grape bunch in his left hand; panther at his feet

15

5

0

ΘΕΟΔ

IGCH 1358 (Karacabey, 75 BC)

standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his left hand

13

2

0

ΠΤΟΛ (85/4 BC)120

IGCH 1358 (Karacabey, 75 BC)

standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding grape bunch in his left hand

20

6

1 didrachm, 6 drachms

1 (didrachm) 4 (drachm)

ΠΤΟΛ Β (84/3 BC)121

IGCH 1358 (Karacabey, 75 BC)

Standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding a Silenus mask(?) in his left hand

24

8

1 didrachm

1 (didrachm)

ΠΤΟΛ Γ (83/82 BC)122

IGCH 1358 (Karacabey, 75 BC)

Standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding a Silenus mask ?) in his left hand

18

6

3 didrachms, 1 drachm

1 (didrachm) 1 (drachm)123

ΠΤΟΛ Δ (82/1 BC)124

IGCH 1358 (Karacabey, 75 BC)

Standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding a Silenus mask (?) in his left hand

24

7

2 didrachms

1 (didrachm)

ΠΤΟΛ Ε (81/0 BC)125

IGCH 1358 (Karacabey, 75 BC)

Standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding a Silenus mask (?) in his left hand

9

4

0

3 (didrachms) 2 (drachm)

119. ΔΙΟΝ and herm is listed first because of the homonymy with the latest issue included in the 2002 hoard (ΔΙΟΝ and lyre). The relative position between ΑΠΟΛ and ATTA is arbitrary, as it is based on alphabetical order. 120. Die linked to ΠΤΟΛ Β (O71, O72, O74), ΠΤΟΛ Γ (O72). 121. Die linked to ΠΤΟΛ (O72, O73, O74) 122. Die linked to ΠΤΟΛ (O72) and ΠΤΟΛ Δ (O80, O83). 123. Die linked to ΠΤΟΛ B (O14). 124. Die linked to ΠΤΟΛ Γ (O80, O83) 125. Die linked to ΠΤΟΛ Γ (O83) and ΠΤΟΛ Δ (O89).

10 Carbone Appendix 1.indd 214

3/12/20 1:50 PM

Appendix I

215

Table 11.9 (continued). Late cistophoric issues between 89 and 77 BC including fractions (continued). Issues between 90/89 BC and 75 BC

Hoard

Control mark

Number of specimens in sample (tetradrachms)

Number of obverse dies (tetradrachms)

Number of specimens in sample (fractions)

Number of obverse dies (fractions)

ΠΤΟΛ 𐅝 (80/79 BC)126

IGCH 1358 (Karacabey, 75 BC)

Standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding a Silenus mask(?) in his left hand

6

3

1 didrachm

1 (didrachm)

ΠΤΟΛ Ζ (79/78 BC)

IGCH 1358 (Karacabey, 75 BC)

Standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his left hand, holding a Silenus mask(?) in his right hand

2

2

1 didrachm

1 (didrachm)

ΠΤΟΛ H (78/7 BC)

IGCH 1358 (Karacabey, 75 BC)

Standing Dionysus with thyrsus in his right hand, holding a Silenus mask(?) in his left hand

4

2

1 didrachm

1 (didrachm)

Despite the absence of observed die links between Sullan Era and non-Sullan Era issues, it is likely that the non-Sullan Era issues (ΔΙΟΝ and herm, ΑΠΟΛ and hand holding caduceus, ATTA and ΘΕΟΔ) should be dated to the years between 89, the year of the burial of 2002 hoard, and 85 BC, the year of the Peace of Dardanus. Given the already mentioned connection between Dionysus and Mithridates, the introduction of Dionysus as a control mark on the issues of ATTA and ΘΕΟΔ suggests a date during the First Mithridatic War.127 This means that between 89 and 85 BC the city produced an average of five observed tetradrachm obverse dies per year (fractions excluded), a clear decrease from the extraordinary production of 90/89 BC, but still considerably higher than pre-90 BC levels. The ΠΤΟΛ issues dated according to the Sullan Era and thus beginning just after the Peace of Dardanus in 85/4 BC, show a renewed increase in production, probably directly related to the extraordinary taxation ordered by Sulla.128 Production reached its peak in the years 84–81 BC, as is suggested by the issue ΠΤΟΛ, ΠΤΟΛ Β, Γ, and Δ. In these years the mint of Tralles reached an average production of seven observed tetradrachm obverse dies per year (fractions excluded). After 81 BC and until the end of the Sullan-Era ΠΤΟΛ issues in 77 BC, production significantly decreased to 2.75 observed)yearly tetradrachm obverse dies (fractions excluded). The data for the late cistophoric issues of 89–77 BC are presented in Table 11.9. TIME is probably the last late cistophoric issue, as it is the only Trallian pre-later Republican issue included in the Halicarnassus hoard.129 The fine condition of the samples from this issue included in CH VIII, 447 and 526, dated to 58 BC, suggests that this issue should probably be dated not long before the deposition of these hoards.130 While all the dies of the ΠΡΥΤ issue bear clear resemblances to the non-Sullan Era issues probably dateable between 89 and 85 BC, only two dies of the TIME issue (O100 and O101) have a similar style. The other TIME dies present a completely 126. Die linked to ΠΤΟΛ Δ (O85) and ΠΤΟΛ E (O91). 127. See supra, 198, n. 4. Association between Mithridates and Dionysus on Asian coins, most recently: Smekalova 2009, 6–7. The Dionysus control mark is present on the series issued by the magistrates ΑΤΤΑ(λος), ΘΕΟΔ(οτος), and ΠΤΟΛ(εμαιος), all dated between 89 and 75 BC. 128. See supra, 206–207, Table 11.4. 129. Overbeck 1978, no. 66. For discussion of the relevance of the Halicarnassus hoard, see supra, 205. 130. For discussion of these hoards, see supra, 203–204.

10 Carbone Appendix 1.indd 215

3/12/20 1:50 PM

216

Hidden Power

different style that is not attested in previous issues and greatly differs from the style of the later Republican cistophori issued by the city between 58 and 48 BC.131 At the same time, the noted stylistic similarities of two obverse dies from this issue to the non-Sullan Era issues dated between 89 and 75 BC suggest a date in the late 60s BC at the latest. Based on the combination of the die study and hoard evidence, the late cistophoric production of Tralles appears to have come to an end with the TIME issue around the end of the 60s BC. This ending date is further suggested by the fact that only three post-Karacabey late cistophoric issues from Tralles are included in hoards. The data for the late cistophoric issues struck between 75 and the 60s BC are presented in table 11.10 Table 11.10. Late cistophoric issues between 75 and ca. 60 BC including fractions Issues between 75 and the 60s BC132

Hoards

Control mark

Specimens in sample (tetradrachms)

Number of obverse dies (tetradrachms)

Number of specimens in later sample (fractions)

Number of obverse dies (fractions)

ΔΗΜΗ

CH VIII, 447 = 525 (58 BC)

eagle on thunderbolt

0

0

3 didrachms, 3 drachms

1 (didrachm) 1 (drachm)

ΠΡΥΤ

CH VIII, 447 = 525, 526 (58 BC)

cornucopiae

12

3

7 didrachms, 1 drachm

2 (didrachms) 1 (drachm)

ΤΙΜΕ

CH VIII, 447 = 525, 526 (58 BC)

Artemis standing

40

9

8 didrachms, 1 drachm

3 (didrachms) 1 (drachm)

The high number of obverse dies of TIME suggests that Tralles’s cistophoric production soared in the mid-60s BC, possibly to replace the Ephesian late cistophori, which abruptly stopped by 67 BC.133 Another element of great interest is represented by the (relatively) large number of obverse dies for cistophoric fractions that characterizes the latest issues of Tralles. This could perhaps be explained by the need for smaller silver denominations in the face of the absence of Roman denarius and of the decrease in production of silver autonomous issues.134 These considerations will be further developed in the last part of this study. The data provided in the die study are analyzed according to Esty’s formula in Table 11.11.135 It shows that the data are highly reliable, with the exception of a few very rare issues.136 Out of a total of 378 cistophoric tetradrachm specimens, the number of observed unique obverse dies is 91. Applying Esty’s formula to the total of the late cistophoric production of Tralles, the total estimated number of original tetradrachm dies is 111± (Esty coverage: 95.7%).

131. Obverse dies O102–108. Later Republican cistophori of Tralles: Metcalf 2017, 33–41, pls. 39–50. 132. This chronological division is based on their absence from IGCH 1358 (Karacabey hoard, 75 BC) and on their significant presence in hoards dated to 58–57 BC (CH VIII, 447 = 525, 526). The caveat represented by the rarity of the ΔΗΜΗ issue has already been noted. 133. Backendorf 1999. 134. For the absence of the denarius from the circulation pool of provincia Asia see Carbone 2017 and Carbone forthcoming. For the disappearance of silver autonomous issues, see Carbone 2014. 135. Esty 2006. 136. ΑΡΠΑ, ΕΠΑ, ΜΗΤΡ, ΠΤΟΛ 𐅝, and ΠΤΟΛ Z.

10 Carbone Appendix 1.indd 216

3/12/20 1:50 PM

Appendix I

217

Table 11.11. Reliability of the data provided by this die study according to Esty 2006. Magistrate

n

d

Singletons

Die estimate

Coverage

s

ΜΑΡΣ

8

1

0

1

1

0.35

ΔΙΟΝ and club

8

2

1

3.42

0.87

2.24

ΑΘΗΝ

12

1

0

1

1

0.21

ΑΡΤΕ

13

2

1

3.25

0.92

1.27

ΠΑΜΜ

7

2

1

2.91

0.85

2.01

ΣΩΧΑ

3

1

0

1

1

0.94

ΑΠΟΛ and eagle

4

1

0

1

1

0.70

ΑΡΠΑ

3

2

1

3.75

0.66

6.84

ΕΠΑ

2

1

0

3

0.50

7.34

ΜΕΝΑ and herm

3

1

0

1

1

0.94

ΜΕΝΑ and filleted palm branch

11

2

0

2.75

0.90

1.17

ΜΗΤΡ

2

2

2

–

–

–

ΦΙΛΙ

6

2

0

2

1

1.6

ΔΙΟΝ and lyre

130

12

1

13.1

0.99

1.03

ΔΙΟΝ and herm

21

6

2

8.84

0.90

3.54

ΑΠΟΛ and hand holding caduceus

25

7

2

8.69

0.92

2.90

ATTA

15

5

1

5.89

0.93

2.69

ΘΕΟΔ

13

2

0

2

1

0.61

ΠΤΟΛ

21

6

0

6

1

1.97

ΠΤΟΛ Β

25

8

0

8

1

2.56

ΠΤΟΛ Γ

19

6

1

7.38

0.94

2.98

ΠΤΟΛ Δ

25

7

0

7

1

2.09

ΠΤΟΛ E

9

4

0

4

1

2.51

ΠΤΟΛ 𐅝

6

3

1

4.8

0.83

4.95

ΠΤΟΛ Z

2

2

2

–

–

–

ΠΤΟΛ H

4

2

0

2

1

2

ΠΡΥΤ

14

3

0

3

1

1.04

ΤΙΜΕ

40

8

0

8

1

1.6

On the other hand, these results do not take into account cistophoric fractions, which were produced especially in quantity at this mint.137 Despite their rarity, the observed number of unique obverse dies for Trallian cistophoric fractions is 21 didrachm and 16 drachm obverse dies, for a total of 57 observed drachm-equivalent (and 14.25 tetradrachm-equivalent) obverse dies (i.e., 13.1% of the observed tetradrachm production of the city). Given their rarity and the relatively high number of singletons, the characteroscopic index for the didrachms and drachms included in the study is quite low, at 2.15 for the didrachms and 1.47 for the drachms (Esty coverage respectively of 82 and 64%). The scant statistical reliability of this sample and the fact that cistophoric fractions from other mints were not included in this study are the reasons that cistophoric fractions are not included in further calculations. It seems extremely important, however, to highlight that the 137. See supra, 148–149, 152.

10 Carbone Appendix 1.indd 217

3/12/20 1:50 PM

218

Hidden Power

cistophoric production of the city was supplemented by fractions, which represented almost 1/5 of the tetradrachm production. As already noted, Tralles was unique in this respect.

Trallian Production in Context The study of the late cistophori of Tralles enables the organization of the production pattern of this important cistophoric mint with sufficient precision. The tetradrachm data set presented up to this point is visualized in Figure 11.11, which is limited to tetradrachms.138 The magistrate issues are organized according to the order adopted for the die study, based on their presence in hoards and die linkage (whenever present). As already remarked upon, a clear increase is noticeable in the quantitative output of the Trallian mint around 90 BC, as shown by the ΔΙΟΝ and lyre issue, which involves 12 observed tetradrachm obverse dies, including the one die not represented in the 2002 hoard. The mint of Tralles produced cistophori for the years 105–90 BC using 1.4 observed tetradrachm obverses (5.6 drachm-equivalent obverses) per issue. Thus the ΔΙΟΝ-and-lyre issue represents almost a tenfold increase in production, using 12 tetradrachm obverse dies (48 drachm-equivalent obverse dies). This surge in production should be connected to the beginning of the Mithridatic Wars.139 While the absolute numbers might differ, the trends in Trallian production seem mostly in line with the Ephesian and Pergamene data derived from the analysis of the 2002 hoard. According to de Callataÿ’s calculations, Ephesian production in the years between the Peace of Dardanus and Lucullus’s departure from Asia in 80 BC amounted to ca. 6.4 observed tetradrachm obverse dies per year. Tralles’s production until 81 BC seems to have slightly surpassed even that of Ephesus, with seven annual tetradrachm obverse dies.140 In the years after 81 BC, Ephesus and Tralles maintained comparable production patterns. The previously mentioned 2.75 yearly observed tetradrachms in Tralles for the years 80–77 BC find an at least partial match in Ephesus’s production, which decreased to 3.66 tetradrachm obverse dies.141 After 77 BC, Ephesus seems to have produced very little coinage until 70/69 BC, when production soared to 13.3 observed tetradrachm obverse dies. This is probably related to Lucullus’s return to Asia, as suggested by de Callataÿ.142 Tralles’s production patterns are quite similar even in this case, as there seems to be a strong decrease in production after the end of the Sullan Era issues in 77 BC. The distance in time between the Sullan Era issues and the latest late cistophoric issues is also suggested by the absence of die links between them. In a way comparable to Ephesus, ΠΡΥΤ, and TIME, the latest Trallian cistophoric issues, show that Tralles’s late cistophoric production increased again in the early 60s BC,

138. The ΒΡΙΘ and ΔΗΜΗ issues are not included in this graph, as only issues of tetradrachms have been considered. 139. See supra, 36–38, 86, Fig. 2.10 (Pergamum); 120, Fig. 3.13 (Ephesus).158, Fig. 4.11 (Tralles). 140. Ephesus: de Callataÿ 1997a, 171–172. Tralles: see supra, 214–215, Table 11.9. 141. See n. 139. 142. de Callataÿ 1997a, 173, based on Plut., Lucull. 23.1–2. Λούκουλλος δὲ τὴν Ἀσίαν πολλῆς μὲν εὐνομίας, πολλῆς δ᾿ εἰρήνης ἐμπεπληκὼς οὐδὲ τῶν πρὸς ἡδονὴν καὶ χάριν ἠμέλησεν, ἀλλὰ πομπαῖς καὶ πανηγύρεσιν ἐπινικίοις καὶ ἀγῶσιν ἀθλητῶν καὶ μονομάχων ἐν Ἐφέσῳ καθήμενος ἐδημαγώγει τὰς πόλεις, αἱ δ᾿ ἀμειβόμεναι Λουκούλλειά τε ἦγον ἐπὶ τιμῇ τοῦ ἀνδρός, καὶ τῆς τιμῆς ἡδίονα τὴν ἀληθινὴν εὔνοιαν αὐτῷ παρεῖχον. “Lucullus, after filling Asia full of law and order, and full of peace, did not neglect the things which minister to pleasure and win favour, but during his stay at Ephesus gratified the cities with processions and triumphal festivals and contests of athletes and gladiators. And the cities, in response, celebrated festivals which they called Lucullea, to do honour to the man, and bestowed upon him what is sweeter than honour, their genuine goodwill” (trans. B. Perrin).

10 Carbone Appendix 1.indd 218

3/12/20 1:50 PM

Appendix I

219

Figure 11.1. Late cistophoric production in Tralles (85–60 BC).

though not reaching the levels of production of the 80s BC.143 As already stated, hoard evidence suggest that production continued only until the late 60s BC. The periods and levels of Trallian production per magistrate are summarized in Figure 11.1

143. See supra, 216, Table 11.10.

10 Carbone Appendix 1.indd 219

3/12/20 1:50 PM

10 Carbone Appendix 1.indd 220

3/12/20 1:50 PM

Appendix II

Cistophoric Production and the Impact of Roman Taxation (105–ca. 58 BC)

Introduction sed ut ad rem, scripsi ad quaestores urbanos de Quinti fratris negotio. vide quid narrent, ecquae spes sit denari an cistophoro Pompeiano iaceamus. (Cic. ad Atticum 2, 6.2) But to keep to the point, I have written to the urban quaestors about my brother Quintus’s business. See what they say, whether there is any hope of (payment in) denarii, or whether we are to be lumbered with Pompey’s cistophorus. (trans. J. R. Melville Jones) In 59 BC, Cicero informed Atticus of his discontent with the idea that his brother Quintus, who had been governor of provincia Asia from 61 to 58 BC, could be paid in “Pompeian” cistophori, probably part of the booty brought back to Rome by Pompey for his 61 BC triumph.1 Asian cistophori were certainly part of the coinage donated to the aerarium by Pompey, and the urban quaestors would have therefore found it appropriate to pay the former governor of provincia Asia with this coinage.2 While this study has focused on cistophoric production in provincia Asia up to the 60s BC— coinciding with the end of the Third Mithridatic War and the end of the late cistophoric issues in 1. Date of the triumph: Pliny, NH 8, 26.98; 33, 15.1; 37,13; Livy, Periochae 103; Dio 37.21.1; Val. Max. 8, 15.8; Plut. Pomp. 45.3: ἀναφέρεται δὲ εἰς τὸ δημόσιον ταμιεῖον ἐν νομίσματι καὶ κατασκευαῖς ἀργυρίου καὶ χρυσίου δισμύρια τάλαντα. “He was bringing into the public treasury in coined money and vessels of gold and silver twenty thousand talents” (trans. B. Perrin). Also Diod. 40.4 and Vell. Paterc. 2.40.3. 2. Melville Jones 1993, no. 358, commentary.

221

11 Carbone Appendix II.indd 221

3/12/20 2:06 PM

222

Hidden Power

the province—the most significant element in the Ciceronian texts is the seemingly inescapable relationship between cistophori and the Asian province that still existed in the mid-first century BC.3 There seems to have been no alternative to paying a governor of Asia in cistophori. As has already been suggested, cistophori were certainly not the only silver coinage circulating in the Asian province in Cicero’s time, but the overwhelming majority of the silver circulating in Asia was cistophoric, with almost no Roman currency present until the 40s BC.4 This means that cistophoric production patterns represent an important tool for estimating the silver coinage production of the province of Asia as a whole. Moreover, the study of the circulation pattern of cistophori, combined with the data deriving from the die studies included in this study, could offer precious insights into the production patterns of the cistophoric mints that are not included in the die study. Appendix 2 therefore presents an analysis of the cistophoric hoards in Asia dated to the years 90–58 BC, as those dated between 133 and 90 BC have been included in the main body of this study. Later Republican cistophoric production began in 58 BC, thereby making this year the reasonable terminus ante quem for the late cistophoric issues.5 While it is extremely likely that late cistophoric production actually ended sometime in the late 60s BC, I prefer to rely on this certain chronological threshold.

Cistophoric Circulation (90/89–ca. 58 BC) This study is based on a sample of 14 cistophoric hoards dated 90 and 58 BC listed in Table 12.1. Although all the hoards assigned to the years between the end of Aristonicus’s rebellion and the beginning of the Mithridatic Wars are composed of cistophori only, as already noted, after 90/89 BC and the beginning of the Mithridatic Wars, mixed hoards composed of both cistophori and silver coinage on different standards began to appear. This phenomenon is to be explained mostly by the turmoil caused by conflict and the passage of armies.6 The hoards have been analyzed in detail in past and forthcoming articles, but here it suffices to say that three of these mixed hoards may be explained by events directly related to the Mithridatic Wars. One of the hoards (IGCH 1383 = CH II 113) was found at Giresun in Pontus and is certainly related to material brought back by the king’s army, although it should not necessarily be interpreted as the booty of a soldier of Mithridates’s army.7 3. Cicero writes again about Quintus’s payment in cistophori in ad Att. 2.6.4 (59 BC), where he again makes clear his discontent at the payment in cistophori: quaestores autem, quaeso, num etiam de cistophoro dubitant? Nam si aliud nihil erit, cum erimus experti, ego ne illud quidem contemnam quod extremum est. “I wonder, are the quaestors still hesitating about the cistophorus? If there is nothing else for it, when we have tried everything else, I will not reject it as a last resort.” (trans. J. R. Melville Jones). For Cicero’s own possessions in cistophori see ad Att. 11.1.2 (January 49 BC): ego in cistophoro in Asia habeo ad sestertium bis et viciens. Huius pecuniae te fidem facile tuebere. “I have in Asia up to 2,200,000 sesterces in cistophoric (coinage). By giving a bill of exchange for this, you will easily protect my credit” (trans. J. R. Melville Jones). 4. Carbone 2017; Carbone forthcoming. 5. See supra, 33–34; Metcalf 2017, 3–9. 6. At the same time, the importance of these mixed hoards should not be dismissed, as the Mithridatic Wars led to some permanent changes in the production and circulation of coinages in Asia, to judge from the adoption of more standardized bronze denominations adapted to the Pontic system. Magnesia and diobols of Smyrna: Kinns 2006, 42–7; Apollo/Homer bronze obols of Smyrna: Milne 1923–1928 (“Type J”); Rhodes: Ashton 2001, 65; Pergamum: App. Mithr. 52 (Mithridates VI entering Pergamum and beginning to strike coins there); Smekalova 2009, 238. For the adoption of brass at Apameia just before Mithridates’s arrival, see Ashton 2016 (pace Smekalova 2009). Most recently, regarding the relationship between wars and coin hoards, see de Callataÿ 2017. 7. Kleiner 1974: the hoard mostly comprises Attic-weight coins (Mithridates VI, 22 tetradrachms; Athens, 18 tetradrachms; Nicomedes II–IV, 7 tetradrachms; Cappadocian kings, 3 drachms; Antiochus VII, 2 tetradrachms), but also includes 3 cistophoric tetradrachms [Giresun hoard, nos 30–32: 30 (Pergamum, Group II, 120–95 BC); 31 (Ephesus,

11 Carbone Appendix II.indd 222

3/12/20 2:06 PM

Appendix II

223

The same war-related explanation could be hypothesized for the Gridia (Chios) hoard, which was probably buried around 75 BC and is one of the first examples of a mixed hoard within the provincial boundaries.8 In his study of Chian coinage, C. Lagos suggests that the Chian drachms included in the hoard could have been deposited during Zenobius’s siege of Chios in 86 BC.9 The Çeşme hoard, buried in ancient Erythrae around 70 BC and containing Chian drachms, seems to be related to the deportation of Chios’s inhabitants to Erythrae, mentioned by Appian.10 As might be expected, these two hoards imply that the Mithridatic Wars brought changes to circulation patterns in provincia Asia. Given the relative abundance of cistophoric hoards over the course of the first century BC, however, it is possible to propose with some confidence that, outside of exceptional circumstances, cistophori circulated unmixed. Roman coinage is almost completely absent from the circulation pool. Indirect confirmation of the unmixed circulation of cistophori within the Asian province is also provided by the hoard found in the Antikythera shipwreck, which consists of 36 silver cistophori and 40 bronze coins.11 This has the unique feature of being the only hoard discovered outside Asia Minor whose silver contents consist exclusively of cistophori. While the presence of cistophori in the Pontic Giresun hoard is explained by the Mithridatic War, the Antikythera hoard found outside the borders of Asia Minor should probably be connected to commercial practices. It is likely that some merchants making trips back and forth to the province of Asia took cistophori with them when sailing from some Asia Minor port, in the expectation that they would use them on their next trip back. This seems to be further confirmed by the mints that issued the bronze coins, which range from Ephesus to Panormus. The presence of cistophori as the only silver coinage on board could therefore suggest that using other silver currency in Asia would have been disadvantageous.12 Thus, whereas the Mithridatic Wars probably made the mixed circulation of different currencies a practical necessity, as different armies were passing through the province,13 the Antikythera wreck hoard suggests that in normal times the cistophorus circulated alone. Table 12.1, including all the cistophoric hoards from 133 BC to 58 BC, shows clearly that cistophori mostly circulated unmixed with other coins.14 Even during the years of the Mithridatic Wars, the vast majority of hoards (10 out of 14) are composed of cistophori only. This indicates that the cistophoric production pattern in provincia Asia provides a fairly accurate tool for estimating silver coin production for the entire province.

year 45 = 90/89 BC); 32 Apameia, 88 BC)]. The hoard probably does not represent the circulation pool at the time of its deposition, but rather was formed from coins accumulated in the course of several years: Kleiner 1974, 8; de Callataÿ 1997, 83 n. 90. 8. CH IX 558: Pergamum, 2 cistophori; Chios, 14 drachms; Athens, 1 drachm; Rome, 1 denarius (RRC 340). 9. Lagos 1999, 210–212 (also with the possible inclusion of a denarius in the hoard). 10. IGCH 1359: Pergamum, 4 cistophori (80–67 BC); Chios, 15 drachms; Athens, 14 drachms; Athens, 2 imitation; Lysimachus, 1 late drachm; Mithridates VI, 1 tetradrachm; Nicomedes II, 1 tetradrachm 11. Tselekas 2012. CH VIII, 521: 36 cistophori (Pergamum 32, 104–67 BC; Ephesus 4, 94–77/6 BC); 40 bronze coins, of which only 6 are identifiable (Katane 2, 187–170 BC; Panormos 1, first century BC; Knidos 1, 250–210 BC; Ephesus 2, 70–60 BC). 12. ad Att. 2.16.4 (59 BC); 11.1.2 (January 49 BC); 12.6.1, all cited supra, 228, n. 3. 13. Kleiner 1974, 17–18; Crawford 1985, 159; Kinns 1987, 112. 14. Out of 38 cistophoric hoards recorded for the years 133–1 BC, only eight are mixed. Five of them (already mentioned) are dated to the years of the Mithridatic Wars or immediately thereafter. Three of them (Overbeck 1978, IGCH 352 = CH II 125 and IGCH 1746 = CH I, 105) are dated to the years of the Civil Wars. See Carbone, forthcoming.

11 Carbone Appendix II.indd 223

3/12/20 2:06 PM

224

Hidden Power

Table 12.1. Cistophoric hoards in Asia Minor 90–ca. 58 BC Hoard reference

Findspot

Date of deposit (BC)

2002 hoard

Asia Minor

90–89

IGCH 1461

Asia Minor

ca. 88

IGCH1462

Asia Minor

ca. 85–80

CH X, 341

Smyrna (Ionia)

89–88

IGCH 1383 = CH II, 113*

Giresun (Pontus)

ca. 80

IGCH 1358 = CH V, 52

Karacabey (ex Mihaliç, Mysia)

ca. 75

CH IX, 558‡

Gridia (Chios)

ca. 75

IGCH 1415

Afyon Karahisar (Phrygia)

70–6015

IGCH 1359*

Çeșme (Ionia)

c. 70–65

CH VIII, 521†

East coast of Antikythera

ca. 75–50

CH IX, 560

Unknown (Mysia)

ca. 70

Çankaya and Köker 2011

Dumancık (Pisidia)

67

CH VIII, 526

Unknown

ca. 65

CH VIII, 447 = 525 = 526?

Unknown

ca. 58–57

* Mixed hoards with silver autonomous issues. † Mixed hoard with bronze coinage. ‡ Mixed hoards with autonomous silver issues and denarii.

Figure 12.2 gives a breakdown by mint of the specimens included in cistophoric hoards from 133 to 58 BC. 16 While the absolute number of specimens preserved in hoards changed over time, the ratio between cistophoric mints stayed substantially the same, as shown by Figures 12.3 and 12.4. The former provides a breakdown by mint for the cistophoric specimens included in hoards dated to 133–1 BC, while the latter shows that the relative proportions between specimens from mints in cistophoric hoards remained substantially stable even during the period 105–58 BC, with a difference of less than 3% between the two graphs for the most important cistophoric mints: Pergamum, Ephesus, and Tralles.

15. The hoard, originally published in Meyer 1876, has recently been downdated by 2015 to 70–60 BC on the basis of the Apameia cistophori dated in Kleiner 1979 (Series XVI–XXII) to 77/76 BC, which represent a terminus post quem. 16. IGCH 1326 (Balıkesir, 135–130 BC); IGCH 1327 (Yeşilhisar, 130 BC); IGCH 1455 (Unknown, 128 BC); IGCH 1328 (Şahnalı, 128 BC); CH II, 94 (Ionia, 130s? BC); CH VIII, 437 (Unknown, 128 BC); CH VIII, 446 (Polatlı, 130 BC); CH IX, 535 (Ahmetbeyli, ca. 120 BC); IGCH 1466 (Asia Minor, 100–50 BC); IGCH 1467 (Asia Minor, 100–50 BC); IGCH 1456 (Asia Minor, 105–100 BC); IGCH 1458 (Asia Minor, ca. 100 BC); IGCH 1459 (Asia Minor, ca. 95 BC); IGCH 1460 (Asia Minor, c. 95–90 BC); 2002 (Asia Minor, 90/89 BC); IGCH 1461 (Asia Minor, ca. 88 BC); IGCH 1462 (Asia Minor, ca. 85–80 BC); CH X, 341 (Smyrna, 89–88 BC); IGCH 1383 = CH II, 113 (Giresun, ca. 80 BC); IGCH 1358 = CH V, 52 (Karacabey, ca. 75 BC); CH IX 558 (Gridia, ca. 75 BC); IGCH 1415 (Afyon Karahisar, 70–60 BC); IGCH 1359 (Çesme, ca. 70–65 BC); CH VIII, 521 (East coast of Antikythera, c. 75–50 BC); CH IX, 560 (Mysia, c. 70 BC); Çankaya and Köker 2011(Dumancık, 67 BC); CH VIII, 447 = 525 = 526? (Unknown, ca. 58–57 BC).

11 Carbone Appendix II.indd 224

3/12/20 2:06 PM

Appendix II

225

Figure 12.1. Cistophoric hoards (133–58 BC).

Figure 12.2. Quantitative overview of late cistophoric issues (number of specimens in hoards).

This stability enables us to validate the figures derived from the hoards buried between 105 and 58 BC. The period 105–58 BC encompasses the approximate start dates of the late cistophoric production of Tralles, Apamea, Laodicea, and Nysa, and the approximate end date of the late cistophoric production of the province, which—as D. Backendorf and hoard evidence suggest—is to be placed in the late 60s or very early 50s BC, not 67 BC.17

17. Backendorf 1999. See supra, 3, 34. For die sharing between late cistophori and later Republican ones see supra, 2, n. 9 (with bibliography).

11 Carbone Appendix II.indd 225

3/12/20 2:06 PM

226

Hidden Power

Figure 12.3. Mint ratio in cistophoric hoards (133–1 BC).

Figure 12.4. Mint ratio in cistophoric hoards (105–58 BC)

Cistophoric Production (105–ca. 58 BC)

While wary of the methodological problems that could derive from the combination of different sets of data from hoard and die studies, it is necessary to highlight here that 1) the data here do not derive from a single hoard, but from fourteen of them, which show substantial continuity in their composition; 2) the data deriving from the combination of hoard composition and the die study of Tralles are confirmed by the independent die study of the late cistophori of Laodicea by G. Callaghan.18 In light of these facts, it seems reasonable to present the following estimate of late cistophoric production in provincia Asia based on the combination of these two groups of data. As noted in Appendix I, the late cistophoric production of the mint of Tralles in the same years encompassed by this hoard survey consists of 111 observed tetradrachm obverse dies.19 Since Figures 12.3 and 12.4 show that the proportions between cistophoric mints in hoards are substantially stable in the years 105–58 BC, the proportions between specimens included in these hoards will be used as a proxy for the proportions between the cistophoric production of the mints that produced these specimens. Given this premise, since Tralles’s production represented 14% of the entire production, it is therefore possible to estimate the total production of the province. The data here is confirmed by

18. See supra, 163–165. 19. The author decided not to include the didrachm and the drachm obverse dies included in the catalogue (see supra, 143–147) for the reasons expressed at supra, 217.

11 Carbone Appendix II.indd 226

3/12/20 2:06 PM

Appendix II

227

Callaghan’s unpublished die study of the late cistophori of Laodicea.20 He calculates a production of 57.96 tetradrachm obverse dies according to Esty’s formula, while the present study suggests 55.49 tetradrachm obverse dies, a figure only slightly lower, and well within the high-low estimate range.21 Table 12.2. Quantitative overview of late cistophoric specimens included in hoards (105–ca. 58 BC). Mint (ca. 105–ca. 58 BC)

Number of specimens in hoards

Percentage of specimens per mint in hoards (out of a total of 2,631 specimens)

Pergamum (105–ca. 58 BC)

1,283

49%

Ephesus (105–67 BC)

590

22%

Tralles (105–ca. 60 BC)

381

14%

Apamea (ca. 90–ca. 60 BC)

162

6%

Laodicea (ca. 90–ca. 60 BC)

192

7%

Nysa (85–62 BC)

22

0.8%

Sardis

13

0.5%

Smyrna

3

0.3%

Adramyteum

1

0.04%

Total

2,631

99.64%

Table 12.3. Late cistophoric production in provincia Asia (Esty 2006). Mint (105–ca. 58 BC)

Percentage of specimens per mint in hoards (out of 2,631 specimens)

Total tetradrachm die estimate (Esty Confidence Interval 95% based on Tralles)

High estimate

Low estimate

Pergamum

49%

388.49

423.18

361.33

Ephesus

22%

174.42

190

162.23

Tralles

14%

111

120.91

103.24

Apamea

6%

47.57

51.81

44.24

Laodicea

7%

55.49

60.45

51.61

Nysa

0.8%

6.34 (64.74)

6.90 (199.32)

5.89 (64.74)

22

Sardis

0.5%

3.96

4.31

3.68

Smyrna

0.3%

2.37 (>7)23

2.59

2.21

Adramyteum

0.04%

0.31 (>12)24

0.34

0.29

Total

99.64

792.85

863.64

737.42

20. Gregory Callaghan (University of Pennsylvania) pursued his die study under my supervision over the course of the ANS Summer Seminar in 2017. 21. For a summary of his study: Callaghan 2017. 22. The data in parentheses derive from Metcalf ’s incomplete die study of the cistophoric production in Nysa. See supra, 183–185. 23. While the lack of a die study does not allow for an estimate of the production of this mint, Philip Kinns reports ten examples with seven different obverse dies, which would indicate a series of greater volume than has previously been suspected. For a discussion of the mint, see supra, 187–190. However, the data for the Smyrnean mint are so incomplete that it is not possible to establish a low and high estimate. 24. In spite of its incompleteness, the partial die study of the Adramytean cistophori included in here (see supra, 177–180) identifies twelve tetradrachm obverse dies, once again indicating a far greater volume of production than previously thought.

11 Carbone Appendix II.indd 227

3/12/20 2:06 PM

228

Hidden Power

A caveat is necessary for the mints underrepresented in hoards, i.e., Nysa, Smyrna, and Adramyteum (and possibly Sardis). The scarcity of specimens from these mints in hoards would at first sight imply a very low production, but the die studies of these mints—though highly incomplete—seem to suggest otherwise. However, the confirmation derived from the independent study of Laodicea shows that the combined data deriving from hoard and die studies has a fair level of accuracy with respect to the major mints, but does severely underrepresent smaller mints. For this reason, the data presented in Table 12.3 for Nysa, Smyrna, and Adramyteum have been integrated with the data deriving from incomplete die studies of these mints. In spite of all these caveats, the late cistophoric production of provincia Asia may then be estimated at between 863.64 and 737.42 tetradrachm obverse dies, which would suggest a likely figure of 792.85 tetradrachm obverse dies, i.e., 16.86 tetradrachm obverse dies per year for the period 105–58 BC. In order to facilitate comparison to F. de Callataÿ’s estimates, the number of dies is calculated in terms of drachm-equivalents in Table 12.4. Table 12.4. Cistophoric Production in drachm-equivalent obverse dies per year (Esty 2006). de Callataÿ 2013

2002 hoard

Hoard and die studies combined (Appendix II)

51.9

–

–

51.09

67.47 (105–58 BC)

167–123 BC 128–90 BC 90–89 BC 89–58 BC

50.8

–

The amount of 67.47 yearly drachm-equivalent obverse dies for the years 105–58 BC is considerably higher than the 50.8 yearly drachm-equivalent obverse dies proposed by F. de Callataÿ, but the years included in the study are different, since my estimate derived from the combination of hoard and die studies only starts in 105 BC.25 However, the study of the 2002 hoard suggests that cistophoric production for the years 128– 89 BC is substantially in line with de Callataÿ’s estimates. In 128–90 BC, the combined production of the three cistophoric mints active in those years (i.e., Pergamum, Ephesus, and Tralles) can be estimated at 47.91 drachm-equivalent obverse dies per year.26 For the year 90/89 BC, the 2002 hoard suggests the very high figure of 172 drachm-equivalent obverse dies per year, which clearly shows the surge in production in the first year of the First Mithridatic War. The average for production in the period 128–89 BC is therefore 51.09 drachm-equivalent obverse dies per year, a figure very close to de Callataÿ’s estimates.27 The Mithridatic Wars thus drastically increased the production of cistophori in provincia Asia. The figure suggested in Table 12.4 for the years 105–58 BC derives from the combination of mine and Callaghan’s die studies with hoard evidence and incorporates the relatively low production of the years 105–90 BC as well as the surge in production highlighted by the 2002 hoard in the first year of the First Mithridatic War. The high number of 67.87 drachm-equivalent obverse dies per year could be explained not only by the increased production of the already functioning cistophoric mints of Pergamum, Ephesus, Tralles, Smyrna, and Adramyteum, but also by the resumption of cistophoric production in Apamea and Laodicea, and by the beginning of the 25. de Callataÿ 2013, table 6.12. 26. See supra, 194–195, Tables 10.2, 10.4. 27. The data derive from 194, Table 10.2.

11 Carbone Appendix II.indd 228

3/12/20 2:06 PM

Appendix II

229

cistophoric production in Nysa.28 This production surge in the years after the Peace of Dardanus could certainly be explained by Sulla’s demand for 20,000 talents of silver from the rebellious cities of Asia, as further suggested by the use of the Sullan Era on the cistophori of Tralles.29 At the same time, it is apparent that cistophoric production, though enhanced and higher than previously thought, could not compensate for the lack of a substantial production of autonomous silver coinage. With the caveats enumerated below, the overall silver production of provincia Asia can be estimated at 60% of the production under the Attalids. In comparison to the quantity of silver coinage issued up to 89 BC, the burial date of the 2002 hoard, coin production increased by more than 15%, as then it represented less than half of the amount produced under the Attalids.30 Financial exactions due to wars and taxes led to the great increase of cistophoric production. On the other hand, autonomous silver coinage continued to decline in terms of quantitative production, in spite of the addition of the Carian mints, still actively minting this kind of coinage. While only partial, the data here presented for silver autonomous issues are indicative of the clear decrease in the proportional representation of these issues.31 As Table 12.5 shows, Rhodian plinthophoric and post-plinthophoric drachms are by far the most commonly represented among the autonomous issues, as they are included in 15 out of 26 hoards (57%) and represent the only currency included in 12 of them (46%). Rhodian silver autonomous production decreased from 18.7 drachm obverse dies per year (250–190 BC) to 9.3 (185–84 BC)32 and ultimately to 4.1 (ca. 75–20 BC).33 The decrease in Rhodian autonomous silver production—by far the most important in the region—is paradigmatic of the decrease of autonomous silver coinage over the course of the first century BC. Thus, while an absolute number for the production of autonomous silver issues in provincia Asia might only be partially accurate, the decrease in the production of autonomous silver issues under the Romans is undeniable.

28. See supra, 161–166 (Laodicea); 167–172 (Apamea); 183–186 (Nysa). 29. See supra, 197–199, 200–201 (Sullan Era on Trallian coinage) and 215–218. Sullan Era on Asian coinage: Regling 1932. Leschhorn 1993, 421–423. 30. See supra, 194–195. 31. For the decrease in the number of mints issuing silver autonomous issues under the Romans see Carbone 2014. 32. de Callataÿ (2013, table 6.11) derives these data from Jenkins 1979. Jenkins’s study provides numbers of specimens and observed obverse dies for each group of plinthophori, but in all cases the index figures are at or below 2 (Jenkins 1979, 102), so that any estimate of the original number of obverse dies must be wholly unreliable. Moreover, a large proportion of Jenkins’s material came from a single hoard “Marmaris 1945” (IGCH 1355), so that the important caveats of Esty regarding the problem of deriving statistical data from a single hoard come into play. The figures for the postplinthophoric Attic-weight drachms of Rhodes are more usable since the index figure is well over 3 (Ashton and Weiss 1997, 19), but even there the fact that most of the data derive from the hoard CH VIII, 546 needs to be taken into account. 33.While pointing out that the production of Rhodian Attic standard coinage should have ended early in Augustus’s reign, Ashton and Weiss 1997 leaves the beginning of these series intentionally vague (possibly dated 80–20 BC, 35–36, Addendum, 40). The lower date is now confirmed by a forthcoming publication on the late sestertius-sized bronzes of Rhodes by R. Ashton. Bresson 1997 concurs that the great economic development of Rhodes and the contemporary Athenian silver issues (ending in the 40s BC) would point toward an earlier date for the beginning in the issue of this coinage.

11 Carbone Appendix II.indd 229

3/12/20 2:06 PM

230

Hidden Power

Table 12.5. Hoards with autonomous silver issues (133–1 BC) (after Carbone 2014, Fig. 3).

11 Carbone Appendix II.indd 230

Hoard references

Findspot

Date of deposit

Cities

IGCH 1335 = CH X, 515 = CH X, 305 (ca. 220 AR)

Caria

150–100 BC

Caunus or Mylasa, Rhodes

CH VII, 466 (16+ AR)

Unknown

130–110 BC

Rhodes

CH VIII, 467* (61 AR)

Unknown?

125 BC

Ephesus

CH VIII, 474* (ca. 521 AR)

Turkey

ca. 120 BC

Miletus, Heraclea

CH I, 90 (75+ AR)

Unknown

125–100 BC

Rhodes

CH I, 91 (266+ AR)

Unknown

125–100 BC

Rhodes

CH IX, 537 (16+ AR)

Gülagizi (Mugla)

125–100 BC

Rhodes

IGCH 1354 (273 AR)

Caria

2nd–1st century BC

Halicarnassus, Myndus

IGCH 1352† (8 AR, 20 AE)

Bodrum (Halicarnassus)

2nd–1st century BC

Halicarnassus, Myndus

IGCH 1336* (ca. 70 AR)

Marmara (Mysia)

ca. 110–100 BC

Cyzicus

CH VIII, 481 (1000+ AR)

Myndus (Caria)

ca. 100 BC

Myndus, Iasus, Mylasa, Halicarnassus, Bargylia

CH VIII, 482 (30+ AR)

Caria

ca. 100 BC

Halicarnassus, Myndus

CH VIII, 485 (274 AR)

Unknown

ca. 100 BC ?

Myndus, Halicarnassus, Cnidus

IGCH 1355 = CH IX, 555

Marmaris (Caria)

100–90 BC

Stratonicea, Rhodes

IGCH 492 = CH I, 90–91?

Turkey

100–75 BC

Rhodes

CH VIII, 495 (68+ AR)

Caria

100–75 BC

Halicarnassus, Myndus, Bargylia

CH VIII, 508 (45+ AR)

Unknown

ca. 90–80 BC

Rhodes

IGCH 1357 (350 + AR)

Mugla (Caria)

84 BC

Stratonices, Rhodes

CH IV, 72 = CH IX, 537 (53 AR)

Turkey

80 BC

Rhodes

CH VI, 46* (18 AR)

Chios

75 BC

Chios

CH IX, 558* (16–18 AR)

Gridia (Chios)

ca. 75 BC

Chios

CH VIII, 524 (ca. 66 AR)

Köycegiz (Caunus, Caria)

ca. 70 BC

Rhodes

IGCH 1359*

Çeşme (Ionia)

ca. 70–65 BC

Chios

IGCH 1360 = CH IX, 570 (30+ AR)

Rhodes?

1st century BC

Rhodes

3/12/20 2:06 PM

Appendix II

231

Table 12.5 (continued). Hoards with autonomous silver issues (133–1 BC) (after Carbone 2014, Fig. 3). Hoard references

Findspot

Date of deposit

Cities

CH IX, 564 (47 AR)

Rhodes

55 BC

Rhodes

CH VIII, 544 (10+AR)

Caria?

30–20 BC

Tabae, Adramyteum

CH VIII, 545 (47+ AR)

Turkey

25–1 BC

Rhodes

CH II, 127 = CH VII, 146 = CH IX, 582 (12+ AR)

Marmaris (Caria)

25–1 BC

Rhodes

CH VIII, 546 = CH IX, 573 (60+ AR)

Unknown

ca. 25 BC

Rhodes

* mixed hoards with cistophori or other foreign currencies † mixed hoards with bronze coinage

Table 12.6 indicates that the wreathed coinages account for the great difference in Asian production between Attalid and Roman times. These coinages, struck between 154 and 135 BC, represent the largest issue of autonomous silver coins by far, although they were short lived.34 It is therefore not surprising to note a decrease in the volume autonomous silver issues after 133 BC.35 Additionally, Roman armies present in the province between 133 and 50 BC had at least part of their expenses paid in cistophori, as suggested by the aforementioned increase in the cistophoric output of the province corresponding with the Revolt of Aristonicus and the beginning of the Mithridatic Wars, and by the cistophoric issues of Fimbria in 85 BC.36 The reduced silver output of the province therefore had to suffice to cover at least part of the expenses incurred by armies stationed in the province and for the tributes imposed by Rome. Table 12.6. Asian production of silver coinage in drachm-equivalent obverse dies per year (167–58 BC). Cistophori

Autonomous silver issues

Total

167–123 BC

51.9

88.837

141.9

128–89 BC (2002 hoard)

51.09

13.05

64.42

105–58 BC

67.47

18.5438

86.01

Without discounting the ongoing academic debate regarding the possibility of quantifying ancient monetary production, Table 12.7 represents an attempt to quantify the cistophoric production of Asia.39 It shows that the late cistophoric production of provincia Asia in 105–58 BC was higher than that of the Athenian New Style tetradrachms and (ca. 3.4 tons of silver) and the 34. S. Psoma and F. de Callataÿ have convincingly related these issues to the support offered by Eumenes II to Alexander Balas in 153 BC against Demetrius I: Psoma 2013; de Callataÿ 2013, 233–236. The same idea was already put forward by Kinns (1987,107) and Hoover and MacDonald (1999–2000). 35. For other reasons for this decrease, see Carbone 2014, 16–23. 36. See supra, 10–14, 36–38, 86, Fig. 2.10 (Pergamum); 120, Fig. 3.13 (Ephesus); 158, Fig. 4.11 (Tralles). Fimbria’s issues: Witschonke and Amandry 2004–2005. Most recently, de Callataÿ 2016; de Callataÿ 2017. 37. Estimates of cistophoric production: de Callataÿ 2013, table 6.12. Autonomous silver coinage: de Callataÿ 2013, tables 6.9 (post-Apamean Alexanders: 21.4 obverse dies) and 6.10 (wreathed coinages: 67.4 obverse dies). 38. These data are derived from the integration of the data presented supra, 195, Tables 10.3–10.4, with those related to the production of Rhodes and of the Carian cities of Aphrodisias and Stratonicea. Rhodes: 144.2 drachm obverse dies (ca. 75–20 BC, de Callataÿ 2013, table 6.11); Aphrodisias: 30.9 drachm obverse dies (first century BC, de Callataÿ 1997b, 221); Stratonicea: 57 drachm-equivalent obverse dies (Meadows 2002, Group 3, dated to the 80s BC). 39. For the most recent overview of the debate on the matter see Callataÿ 2011b and Buttrey 2011.

11 Carbone Appendix II.indd 231

3/12/20 2:06 PM

232

Hidden Power

tetradrachm output of the Seleucid kings between ca. 300 and 235 BC (ca. 2.1 tons of silver) as estimated by F. de Callataÿ.40 Table 12.7. Comparison between Attalid, late cistophoric, and later Republican cistophoric production. Cistophoric production

Total output (tetradrachm obverses)41

Total output (drachmequivalent obverses)

Annual output (drachmequivalent obverses)

Total cistophoric teradrachms (with a die output average of 20,000 coins)

Total silver tons42

Silver tons per year

Total silver talents43

Silver talents per year

Early cistophori (ca. 175–133 BC)44

558

2,232

53.1

11,160,000

139.27

3.31

5,580

132.85

Late cistophori (105–58 BC)

792.8545

3,171.4

67.47

15,857,800

197.89

4.21

7,928.9

168.7

Later Republican cistophori (58–48 BC)46

118

472

47.2

2,360,000

28.792

2.87

1,180

11.8

Between the end of the second century BC and the very late 60s BC, Asia thus issued an unprecedented number of cistophori. This exceptional production was linked not only to the expenses connected to the Mithridatic Wars, but to the extraordinary taxation imposed by Sulla. As shown by the comparison to the early and later Republican cistophori, this level of production was absolutely unprecedented.

The Impact of Roman Taxation In times of peace, Rome extracted from Asia the decuma, plus other direct taxes (vectigalia), such as the scriptura and portorium.47 Like in Sicily, the tithe (decuma), a direct tax in land, in Asia was levied as a percentage of the produce, not as a fixed sum as in Spain or Africa, and, again like in Sicily, this tax was contracted out to tax-farmers.48 However, unlike in Sicily, this was done on a provincial scale.49 In the newly reorganized province of Asia, contracts were farmed for the taxes of the entire province at once.50 Also unlike Sicily, these taxes were, from the outset, farmed out to Roman tax-farming companies, rather than local contractors, as had been the case for the Sicilian

40. de Callataÿ 2011, 21, table 4. 41. Estimates according Esty 2006. 42. With an average weight of 12.48 per cistophoric tetradrachm (derived from the 1,376 specimens of the 2002 hoard). For the later Republican cistophori, the average weight in Metcalf 2017, 69, is 12.20. 43. 1 Talent = 6,000 denarii and 1 cistophorus= 3 denarii. Festus, s.v. “Talentorum”: Atticum (scil. talentum) est sex milium denarium ; Rhodium et cistophorum quattuor milium et quingentorum denarium. 44. de Callataÿ 2013, 13, table 6.12. 45. See supra, 228, Table 12.4. 46. Metcalf 2017. 47. For a summary with bibliography of taxes exacted from Asia see Hollander 2007, 91. Decuma: App. BC 5.4. Cic. Leg. Man. 15. Scriptura: Cic. Leg. Man. 15. Vectigal: Cic. Verr. II 1.89, 3.27; Ad Q. Fr. 1.1.26.; Leg. Man. 15. Portorium: Cic. Att. 2.16; Leg. Man. 15. For the relationship between portorium and the financial administration in provincia Asia, see Corbier 2013, 217–223. 48. Decuma in Sicily (with juxtaposition to that of Asia): Nicolet 1994, 215–221 (with bibliography); Merola 2001, 102–107 (with bibliography). Taxation in Spain: Livy 43.2.1, 2 (17 BC); Van Nostrand 1938, 146; Nicolet 1991, 136–137. Taxation in Sardinia: alterae decumae are attested in 191, 190, 189 and 171 BC (Livy 36.2.13; 37.2.12; 42.31.8). Taxation in Africa: Haywood 1938, 17–21; Plut. Caes. 55. For the discussion of the nature of taxation in Africa see Rickman 1980, 231–235. 49. Kay 2014, 76–77 (with bibliography). 50. Badian 1972, 63; Jones 1974, 163; Kay 2014, 73–76.

11 Carbone Appendix II.indd 232

3/12/20 2:06 PM

Appendix II

233

tithes.51 This represented an enormous gain for the Roman tax-farming companies, as they were now granted the right to bid on the contract to collect the taxes for the entirety of one of the richest province in the empire.52 To the difference from other relatively minor taxes such as the portorium, whose farming relied on a capillary system of customs station (τελὼνια), the exaction of the decuma required a more centralized organization, as it implied the assessment of the production of the province as a whole, probably through pactiones with each city.53 Moreover, the Asian tithe was paid in money to Rome, not in kind, as in the case of Sicily. Scholars disagree on the agency responsible for the conversion of the produce into cash, but there is a consensus on the fact that the decuma was ultimately paid to Rome in cash.54 In order to be compliant with Rome’s tributary demands, the Asian province was therefore in need of a steady supply of currency. F. Kirbihler evaluates the annual tribute exacted by Rome from Asia at between 2,400 and 3,000 talents of silver before the Caesarian reform of 48/7 BC, suggesting that the annual net worth of the province’s production amounted to between 24,000 and 30,000 talents.55 However, the figures proposed in Table 12.7 show that late cistophoric production could not even cover ordinary taxation—and the years of the Mithridatic Wars were not normal years. On top of ordinary taxation, after the Peace of Dardanus Sulla extracted five years of taxes in arrears, plus war indemnities, for a total of 20,000 talents from a region already devastated by the First Mithridatic War.56 Pompey did the same, bringing over 20,000 talents of silver back to Rome for his triumph, as has already been discussed. 57 Contrary to the scholarly vulgata, the Asian tithe thus must have been paid at least partly in kind by the cities, as suggested by Antony’s speech in Ephesus in 41 BC, where it is clearly stated that the decuma represented a “part of the yearly harvest.”58 The publicani would have then be the ones responsible for the conversion of the produce to cash. In his description of the Pompeian triumph, Plutarch clearly states that silver and gold bullion were also included in the booty Pompey brought to Rome.59 The importance of bullion as a mon51. Lintott 1993, 75; Scullard 1970, 35. For the advantages deriving to Sicily from the farming out of the decuma to local contractors see Genovese 1993; Cristiano 2008. 52. Badian 1972, 63; Dufour 2012, 95. 53. Capillary presence of τελὼνια: van Nijf 2008. On the organization of the decuma in Asia: Merola 2001, 77–80 (with bibliography). Most recently, Cottier 2008, 127–133 (commentary to Lex portorii Asiae, ll. 72-74, dated to 75 BC). For the functioning of the pactiones between publicani and municipal institutions in Asia see Merola 2001, 101–113 (with bibliography). 54. Nicolet (1994, 221–222), argues that the publicani collected the decuma in wheat, then paid the amount due to Rome in money. Contra Rickman (1980, 42–45), Pierobon and Benoit (1994) and Merola (2001, 105), think that through the pactiones the cities were responsible for the commercialization of the wheat and that the publicani collected the decuma in cash. 55. Kirbihler 2013, 354–359. For a recent discussion of the taxation system in Republican provincia Asia, see McLeister 2016, 75–82 (with bibliography); Merola 2001, 49–86. 56. Plut. Lucullus 41; Sylla 25, 4–5; App. Mithr. 62.259. 57. Date of the triumph: Pliny, NH 8.26.98, 33.15.1, 37.13; Livy, Periochae 103; Dio 37.21.1;. Val. Max. 8, 15.8. Plut. Pomp.45.3: ἀναφέρεται δὲ εἰς τὸ δημόσιον ταμιεῖον ἐν νομίσματι καὶ κατασκευαῖς ἀργυρίου καὶ χρυσίου δισμύρια τάλαντα. “He was bringing into the public treasury in coined money and vessels of gold and silver twenty thousand talents” (trans. B. Perrin). Also Diod. 40.4 and Vell. Paterc. 2,40.3. See also supra, 227. 58. App. BC 5.4: ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐδέησεν, οὐ πρὸς τὰ τιμήματα ὑμῖν ἐπεθήκαμεν, ὡς ἂν ἡμεῖς ἀκίνδυνον φόρον ἐκλέγοιμεν, ἀλλὰ μέρη φέρειν τῶν ἑκάστοτε καρπῶν ἐπετάξαμεν, ἵνα καὶ τῶν ἐναντίων κοινωνῶμεν ὑμῖν. “But when they became necessary we did not impose them upon you according to a fixed valuation so that we could collect an absolutely certain sum, but we required you to contribute a portion of your yearly harvest in order that we might share with you the vicissitudes of the seasons” (trans. H. White). For a discussion of the percentage of payments in kind over the total amount of tributes, see discussion in Hollander 2007, 91–97. 59. For the monetary value of bullion in the late Republic, see Hollander 2007, 33–39.

11 Carbone Appendix II.indd 233

3/12/20 2:06 PM

234

Hidden Power

etary instrument and—in this case—as a means of tribute payment is made evident by the despair of the Ephesians in 41 BC. Plutarch reports that they were forced to pay the extraordinary tributes demanded by Brutus and Cassius “in plate and ornaments.”60 Whatever the means of payment, the figures just suggested for the annual net worth of Asia’s production show that the extraordinary tributes demanded by these Roman imperatores deprived the province of almost the totality of its annual revenues. Therefore, these represented a major factor leading to the financial crisis that caused the Ephesian mint to stop its production in 67 BC and to the measures enacted in 63 BC by the then-governor of Asia, Valerius Flaccus, who forbade the export of bullion from the province.61 The dire financial conditions of provincia Asia are also suggested by the overbidding of the Asian publicani in 61 BC, and find a correspondence in the probable end of the late cistophoric production in Tralles around the same years.62 Despite the significant role played by payments in kind and in bullion, the impact of the extraordinary exactions of Sulla and Pompey on monetary production is undeniable. It has been argued already that cistophori were used to pay at least part of the expenses of armies stationed in Asia.63 In 89 BC, the Romans raised troops from Bithynia, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, and Galatia to support their own army in Asia under the command of Lucius Cassius.64 According to Appian, each of the four Roman-led armies contained 40,000 men, for a total of 160,000 men. M. Crawford estimates that each man was paid 700 denarii per year, with no distinction between legionaries and mercenaries.65 The army expenditure for 90/89 BC would therefore have been 112,000,000 denarii (i.e., 37,333,333 cistophoric tetradrachms). This would amount to 18,666 talents, very close to the amount of extraordinary taxation exacted by Lucullus after 85 BC, which corresponded to five years of taxes in arrears plus war indemnities. 60. App. BC 5.1.6: Ἕλληνες ἔτι λέγοντος αὐτοῦ ταῦτα ἐρρίπτουν ἑαυτοὺς ἐς τὸ ἔδαφος, ἀνάγκην καὶ βίαν ἐς αὑτοὺς ἐκ Βρούτου καὶ Κασσίου γενομένας ἐπιλέγοντες οὐκ ἐπιτιμίων ἀξίας εἶναι, ἀλλ᾿ ἐλέου, δόντες δ᾿ ἂν τοῖς εὐεργέταις ἑκόντες ἀπορεῖν διὰ τοὺς πολεμίους, οἷς οὐ τὰ χρήματα μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ σκεύη καὶ τοὺς κόσμους ἐσενεγκεῖν ἀντὶ τῶν χρημάτων, τοὺς δὲ αὐτὰ παρὰ σφίσιν ἐς νόμισμα χαλκεῦσαι. “The Greeks, while he was still speaking, threw themselves upon the ground, declaring that they had been subjected to force and violence by Brutus and Cassius, and that they were deserving of pity, not of punishment; that they would willingly give not only their money, but, in default of money, their plate and their ornaments, and who had coined these things into money in their presence.” (trans. H. White). For a comprehensive discussion of Brutus and Cassius’s treatment of provincia Asia see Kirbihler 2013. 61. Cic. Flacc. 67–69. Financial crisis in Asia in the 60s BC, among others: Migeotte 1984, 339–341; Verboven 1993, esp. 289–290; Verboven 1997, esp. 55–56, 61–64. For the most recent overview of the connection between financial crisis and monetary crises, see de Callataÿ 2017. 62. Overbid of Asian publicani: Cic. Ad Atticum 1.17.9: Asiam qui de censoribus conduxerunt, questi sunt in senatu se cupiditate prolapsos nimium magno conduxisse, ut induceretur locatio, postulaverunt. Ego princeps in adiutoribus atque adeo secundus; nam, ut illi auderent hos postulare, Crassus eos impulit. Invidiosa res, turpis postulatio et confessio temeritatis. “The companies which had contracted with the censors for Asia complained that in the heat of the competition they had taken the contract at an excessive price; they demanded that the contract should be annulled. I led in their support, or rather, I was second, for it was Crassus who induced them to venture on this demand. The case is scandalous, the demand a disgraceful one, and a confession of rash speculation.” (trans. E. S. Shuckburgh). Badian 1972, 100; McLeister 2016, 78–81 (with bibliography). 63. See supra, 3, 193, 222–223, 231; de Callataÿ 1997a, 281–282, 397–398; de Callataÿ 2016. 64. App. Mithr. 3.17: ὡς δὲ αὐτοῖς ὅ τε ἴδιος στρατός, ὅσον εἶχε Λεύκιος Κάσσιος ὁ τῆς Ἀσίας ἡγούμενος, ἕτοιμος ἦν ἤδη, καὶ τὰ συμμαχικὰ πάντα συνεληλύθει, διελόμενοι τὸ πλῆθος ἐστρατοπέδευον, Κάσσιος μὲν ἐν μέσῳ Βιθυνίας τε καὶ Γαλατίας, Μάνιος δὲ ᾗ διαβατὸν ἦν ἐς Βιθυνίαν τῷ Μιθριδάτῃ, Ὄππιος δὲ ἔτερος στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ τῶν ὀρῶν τῶν Καππαδοκίας, ἱππέας ἔχων ἕκαστος αὐτῶν καὶ πεζοὺς ἀμφὶ τοὺς τετρακισμυρίους. “As soon as Lucius Cassius, the Governor of Asia, had his own army in readiness and all the allied forces were assembled, they took the field in three divisions, Cassius on the boundary of Bithynia and Galatia, Manius on Mithridates’s line of march to Bithynia, and Oppius, the third general, among the the mountains of Cappadocia. Each of these had about 40,000 men, horse and foot together” (trans. H. White). 65. RRC II, 496–497. Equal pay for legionaries and mercenaries: de Callataÿ 1997a, 405–406.

11 Carbone Appendix II.indd 234

3/12/20 2:06 PM

Appendix II

235

The incredibly high number of cistophori minted in the year 90/89 BC (i.e., 172 drachmequivalent obverse dies)—more than twice the average of the province’s production for the years 105–58 BC—would have sufficed to pay only 3,685 soldiers, not even one-fortieth of the full army assembled by the Romans.66 Even more significantly, after the Peace of Dardanus Sulla imposed upon the cities of Asia a payment of 16 drachms per soldier for 15 days, amounting to a total of 1,000 silver talents, according to F. de Callataÿ’s calculations.67 Not even the heightened production of 90/89 BC could have accommodated such a demand. In his studies of the Seleucid economy, M. Aperghis calculates that in times of peace in the Seleucid Empire new coinage represented only a replacement, equivalent to 1–2% of circulating coinage.68 While this theory has been criticized, it offers us the highest possible estimate for the coinage circulating in Asia.69 According to Aperghis’s theory, the average of 67.47 drachmequivalent obverse dies per year calculated for the period 105–58 BC would represent only a small fraction of the estimated 8,435–16,870 silver talents of coinage circulating in provincia Asia.70 These numbers do not take into consideration the extra expenditures for the Mithridatic Wars, which were partly included in the tribute exacted by Sulla, as suggested above.71 Autonomous silver coinage has not been factored in, as this had very limited circulation and discontinuous production. As already stated, these figures are probably too high to be realistic, but they show that the extraordinary tributes imposed by Sulla or Pompey 1) could not have been entirely paid in coinage, and 2) had a devastating effect on the province. In spite of the fact that it was virtually the only major silver currency circulating and issued in Asia, cistophoric coinage was not enough to pay ordinary tributes, never mind the extraordinary exactions of Sulla or Pompey. The extreme financial demands imposed on provincia Asia over the course of the Mithridatic Wars were the main cause of its financial ruin. As the Ephesians made clear in their plea to Antony, the demands of Brutus and Cassius—the last of a long series of extortions—had deprived them of any sort of valuables. 72 Lastly, the survey of late cistophoric production in Asia has shown that although cistophori represented the province’s de facto sole currency, they were not enough to cover ordinary taxation, but needed to be integrated with payments in kind or bullion. Therefore cistophoric coinage was mostly used only for economic transactions that took place within the province, as might be expected of a reduced-standard currency. Only in exceptional cases—such as that lamented by Cicero to Atticus—were cistophori used to make international payments.73 66. See supra, 194, Table 10.2. 182.6 drachm-equivalent obverse dies = 913,000 cistophoric tetradrachms = 2,739,000 denarii. 67. Plut. Sulla 25.5; de Callataÿ 1997a, 328, no. 27. 68. Aperghis 2001, 92–95; Aperghis 2004, 228–246; Thonemann 2016, 112. 69. Bresson 2005, 56–59. 70. These figures derive from Table 12.7, where the amount of silver produced in provincia Asia for the years 105– 58 BC is calculated to amount to 168.7 talents per year. For the method used to calculate the amount of silver talents from drachm-equivalent obverse dies, see n. 43. 71. See also de Callataÿ 1997a, 325–330. 72. App. BC 5.1.6: Ἕλληνες ἔτι λέγοντος αὐτοῦ ταῦτα ἐρρίπτουν ἑαυτοὺς ἐς τὸ ἔδαφος, ἀνάγκην καὶ βίαν ἐς αὑτοὺς ἐκ Βρούτου καὶ Κασσίου γενομένας ἐπιλέγοντες οὐκ ἐπιτιμίων ἀξίας εἶναι, ἀλλ᾿ ἐλέου, δόντες δ᾿ ἂν τοῖς εὐεργέταις ἑκόντες ἀπορεῖν διὰ τοὺς πολεμίους, οἷς οὐ τὰ χρήματα μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ σκεύη καὶ τοὺς κόσμους ἐσενεγκεῖν ἀντὶ τῶν χρημάτων, τοὺς δὲ αὐτὰ παρὰ σφίσιν ἐς νόμισμα χαλκεῦσαι. “The Greeks, while he was still speaking, threw themselves upon the ground, declaring that they had been subjected to force and violence by Brutus and Cassius, and that they were deserving of pity, not of punishment; that they would willingly give not only their money, but, in default of money, their plate and their ornaments, and who had coined these things into money in their presence” (trans. H. White). For Brutus and Cassius’s treatment of provincia Asia, see Kirbihler 2013. 73. ad Atticum 2.6.2; 2.6.4; 11.1.2.

11 Carbone Appendix II.indd 235

3/12/20 2:06 PM

236

Hidden Power

Conclusions A few conclusions can be drawn from the analysis conducted in this appendix. The study of fourteen cistophoric hoards buried between 90/89 and 58 BC confirms what has already been suggested for the years 133–90 BC, namely that cistophori mostly circulated unmixed until the midfirst century BC, with few exceptions mostly explainable by the Mithridatic Wars.74 The hoard in the Antikythera shipwreck, dated to 75 BC, composed of cistophori and bronze coins from all over the Mediterranean, further suggests that cistophori were the silver currency overwhelmingly used in Asia, as also confirmed by Cicero’s letters. This hoard survey thus enables us to state with an adequate amount of certainty that cistophori accounted for the overwhelming majority of the silver coinage circulating in Asia.75 The combined data derived from the hoard survey with those from the die study of the late cistophoric mints of Tralles included in Appendix I are further confirmed by cistophoric production at Laodicea.76 Based on this data, cistophoric production for the years 105–58 BC could therefore be calculated to 67.47 drachm-equivalent obverse dies per year, a figure substantially higher than the 51.9 estimated by F. de Callataÿ for the Attalid period and the 47.2 calculated by W. Metcalf for the later Republican period.77 The contemporary decrease in autonomous silver issues, however, caused the province’s total production of silver currency to dwindle to 86.01 drachm-equivalent obverse dies from the Attalid total of 141.9.78 Provincia Asia was therefore operating with about 60% (or less) of the silver coinage that had been available to the Attalids and this amount further decreased in the following decade. Rome’s ordinary tax demands were usually satisfied with payments mostly in kind or bullion, however, with only limited impact on the monetary production of the province. Even in a province considered as heavily taxed as Asia, Roman taxes could be considered sustainable per se. On the other hand, the extraordinary exactions of Sulla and Pompey—not surprisingly— caused the financial ruin of the province and led the two important mints of Ephesus and Tralles to end their late cistophoric issues over the course of the 60s BC.79 It is not by chance that in the same years Valerius Flaccus adopted measures against the export of silver and gold bullion from Asia.80 The financial crisis that afflicted Italy in the same years, however, was only resolved by the booty brought by Pompey from Asia, which brought on the ultimate financial ruin of the province and the end of the late cistophoric coinage.81 The analysis of late cistophoric issues pursued in this study thus shows that monetary production can be used to shed light on the ways in which Roman dominion impacted the economic life of this important province.

74. See supra, 33–34, 222–226. 75. See supra, 231, Table 12.6. 76. Callaghan 2017 and supra, 163–165. 77. See supra, 232, Table 12.7 78. See supra, 231, Table 12.6. 79. Ephesus: Backendorf 1999. Tralles: supra, 218–219. 80. Cic. Flacc. 67–69; Verboven 1997, 5. 81. Verboven 1997, 63–65 (with bibliography).

11 Carbone Appendix II.indd 236

3/12/20 2:06 PM

Bibliography

Abbott, F. F., and A. C. Johnson. 1926. Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire. Princeton. Adams, J. P. 1980. “Aristonikos and the Cistophoroi.” Historia 29: 302–314. Ameling, W. 1988. “Drei Studien zu den Gerichtsbezirken der Provinz Asia in republikanischer Zeit.” EA 12: 9–24. Aperghis, G. 2001. “A Model for the Seleucid Economy,” in Hellenistic Economies, edited by Z. H. Archibald and J. Davies, 96–102. London. ___________ . 2004. The Seleukid Royal Economy. Cambridge. Ashton, R. H. J. 1988. “A Pseudo-Rhodian Drachm from Kaunos.” SM 151: 67–70. ___________ . 1990. A New Silver Issue from Mylasa. NC 150: 224–225. ___________ . 1992. “The Pseudo-Rhodian Drachms of Mylasa.” NC 152: 1–39. ___________ . 1996. “A Small Hoard of Coins from Tabai and Adramytion,” in Studies in Ancient Coinage from Turkey edited by R. H. J. Ashton, 29–30. London. ___________ . 1999. “The Hellenistic Hemidrachms of Kaunos.” RBN 145: 141-154. ___________ . 2001. “Rhodian Bronze Coinage and the Siege of Mithradates VI.” NC 161: 53–66. ___________ . 2003a. “Lepsynos at Euromos.” NC 163: 32-36. ___________ . 2003b. “Macedonian Months on Cistophoric Coins of Tralles.” NC 163: 41–45. ___________ . 2003c. “The First Bronze Coinage of Apameia in Phrygia.” NC 163: 46–47. ___________ . 2005. “Recent Epigraphic Evidence for the Start of the Rhodian and Lykian League Plinthophoroi.” NC 165: 85–89. ___________ . 2013. “The Use of the Cistophoric Weight-Standard Outside the Pergamene Kingdom,” in Attalid Asia Minor edited by P. Thonemann: 245–271. Oxford. ___________ . 2016. “The Late Hellenistic Brass and Bronze Coinage of Phrygian Apameia—A Sketch,” in Kelainai-Apameia Kibotos Vol. II, edited by Summerer, L. et al. Bordeaux.

237

12 Bibliography.indd 237

3/12/20 2:29 PM

238

Hidden Power

Ashton, R. H. J., and P. Kinns. 2004. “Opuscula Anatolica III.” NC 164: 71–107. Ashton, R. H. J., and G. Reger. 2006. “The Pseudo-Rhodian Drachms of Mylasa Revisited,” in Agoranomia: Studies in Money and Exchange Presented to John H. Kroll, edited by P. G. Van Alfen, 125–150. New York. Ashton, R. H. J., and P. Weiss. 1997. “The Post-Plinthophoric Silver Drachms of Rhodes.” NC 157: 1–40. Aydemir, P. 1997 “Ripostigli di monete greche,” in Museo di Izmir I, edited by A. Travaglini, 139– 142. Milan. Backendorf, D. 1999. “Ephesos als Spät-republikanischer Prägeort,” in 100 Jahre Österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos, edited by H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger, 195–202. Vienna. Badian, E. 1968. Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic. Ithaca. ___________ . 1972. Publicans and Sinners: Private Enterprise in the Service of the Roman Republic. Ithaca. ___________ . 1983. Publicans and Sinners: Private Enterprise in the Service of the Roman Republic. 2nd ed. Ithaca. ___________ . 1984. “Hegemony and independence. Prolegomena to a Study of the Relations of Rome and the Hellenistic States in the Second Century B.C.,” in Proceedings of the VIIth Congress of the International Federation of the Societies of Classical Studies, 1, edited by J. Harmatta, 397–414. Budapest. ___________ . 1986. “Two Notes on Senatus Consulta regarding Pergamum.” LCM 11: 14–16. Baronowsky, D. W. 1996. “Caria and the Roman province of Asia,” in Pouvoir et “imperium” (3e av.J.-C.-1er ap.J. C.) : actes du colloque tenu dans le cadre du Congrès de la Fédération internationale des études classiques (FIEC) du 24 au 26 aout 1994, à l’Université Laval, Napoli, edited by E. Hermon, 241–248. Naples. Bauslaugh, R. 1982. “The Unique Portrait Tetradrachm of Eumenes II.” ANSMN 27: 39–51. ___________ . 1990. “Cistophoric Countermarks and the Monetary System of Eumenes II.” NC 150: 39–65. Bell, W. H. 1914. Sardis Part I (1910-1914). Leiden Bernhardt, R. 1971. Imperium und Eleutheria. Die Römische Politik gegenüber den freien Städten des Griechischen Ostens. Hamburg. ___________ . 1985. Polis und römische Herrschaft in der späten Republik (149–31 v. Chr). Berlin/New York. ___________ . 1998. Rom und die Städte des hellenistischen Ostens (3.–1. Jahrhundert v.Chr.). Berlin/New York. BMC Caria: see Head 1897 BMC Ionia: see Head 1892. BMC Lydia: see Head 1901. BMC Mysia: see Wroth 1892. BMC Phrygia: see Head 1906. BMC Pontus: see Wroth 1889. Bowersock, G. W. 1991. “La Grecia e le province orientali,” in Storia di Roma, 2, L’Impero Mediterraneo II, I principi e il mondo, edited by A. Schiavone, 409–432. Turin. Brennan, T. C. 1992. “Sulla’s Career in the Nineties: Some Reconsiderations.” Chiron 22: 103–158. Bresson, A. 1993. “La circulation monétaire rhodienne jusqu’en 166.” DHA 19/1: 119–169. ___________ . 1997. “La monnaie rhodienne au Ier s. a. C. Nouveautés et interrogations.” Topoi 7: 11–32.

12 Bibliography.indd 238

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Bibliography

239

. 2005. “Coinage and Money in the Hellenistic Age,” in Making, Moving and Managing: the New World of Ancient Economies, 323–31 BC, edited by Z. H. Archibald, J. K. Davies and V. Gabrielsen, 44–72. Oxford. Broughton, T. R. S. 1937. “A Significant Break in the Cistophoric Coinage of Asia.” AJA 41: 248–249. ___________ . 1951–1952. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. New York. Buttrey, T. V. 2011. “Quantification of ancient coin production: the third element” in Quantifying Monetary Supplies in Greco-Roman Times, edited by F. de Callataÿ, 105–112. Bari. Callaghan, G. 2017. Cistophoric Mysteries of Laodiceia-ad-Lycum. ANS Pocket Change, August 8 2017. http://numismatics.org/pocketchange/callaghan/. ___________ . Forthcoming. The Late Cistophori of Laodiceia ad Lycum. Callataÿ, F. de. 1986. “Les derniers rois de Bithynie: problèmes de chronologie.” RBN 132: 5–30. ___________ . 1997a. L’Histoire des Guerres Mithridatiques vue par les Monnaies. Louvain-la-Neuve. ___________ . 1997b. Recueil quantitatif des émissions monétaires hellénistiques. Wetteren. ___________ . 2007c. “La révision de la chronologie des bronzes de Mithridate Eupator et ses conséquences sur la datation des monnayages et des sites du Bosphore cimmérien in Una koiné pontique (VII s.a.C.–III s. p.C.), edited by A. Bresson et al., 271–308. Bordeaux. ______2011a. “More Than it Would Seem: The Use of Coinage by the Romans in Late Hellenistic Asia Minor (133–63 BC).” AJN 23: 55–86. __________ . 2011b. “Quantifying Monetary Production in Greco-Roman Times: a General Frame,” in Quantifying Monetary Supplies in Greco-Roman Times. edited by F. de Callataÿ: 7–31. Bari. ___________ . 2013. “The Coinages of the Attalids and their Neighbours: A Quantified Overview,” in Attalid Asia Minor, edited by P. Thonemann, 205–266. Oxford. ___________ . 2016. “Monnaies, guerres et mercenaires en Grèce ancienne: un bilan actualisé,” in Guerre, economie et fiscalité,edited by Jean Baechler and Georges-Henri Soutou, 41–54. Paris. ___________ . 2017. “Crises monétaires et crises du monnayage dans le monde gréco-romain. Une vue perspective.” Topoi 21: 173–192. Çankaya, A., and H. Köker. 2011. “Dumancık Kistophor Definesi.” Adalya 14: 63:70. Campanile, M. D. 1996. “Città d’Asia Minore tra Mitridate e Roma,” in Studi ellenistici VIII, edited by B. Virgilio, 145–173. Pisa/Rome. Caramessini-Oikonomides, M., and F. S. Kleiner. 1975. “The Hieraptyna Hoard. A Supplement.” RBN 121: 5-19. Carbone, L. 2014. “Money and Power: The Disappearance of Autonomous Silver Issues in the Roman Province of Asia.” OMNI 8: 10–34. ___________ . 2016. ‘Romanizing’ Asia: The Impact of Roman Imperium on the Administrative and Monetary systems of the Provincia Asia (133 BC–AD 96). Columbia University PhD E-thesis https:// academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8222TP0. ___________ . 2017. “The Gradual Introduction of Roman Currency: Epigraphic Attestations of Denarii in the Provincia Asia (2nd century BCE–1st century CE),” in Proceedings of the XV International Numismatic Congress (Taormina 2015), edited by M. Caccamo Caltabiano, 841–845. Messina. ___________ . Forthcoming. “The Introduction of Roman Coinages in Asia (133 BC–1st century AD),” in Graecia Capta? edited by R.H. J. Ashton and N. Badoud. Fribourg. Carradice, I.A. 1972. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Great Britain VI, Corpus Christi College Cambridge, The Lewis Collection Part I: The Greek and Hellenistic Coins (with Britain and Parthia). Oxford. CH I: see Price 1975. ___________

12 Bibliography.indd 239

3/12/20 2:29 PM

240

Hidden Power

CH II: see Price 1976. CH V: see Price 1980. CH VI: see Price 1981. CH VII: see Price 1985. CH VIII: see Wartenberg et al 1994. CH IX: see Meadows and Wartenberger 2002 CH X: see Hoover, Meadows and Wartenberger 2010. Chameroy, J. 2012. “Chronologie und Verbreitung der Hellenistischen Bronzepraegung von Pergamon: der Beitrag der Fundmünzen.” Chiron 42: 131–181. Christ, K. 1979. Krise und Untergang der Römischen Republik. Darmstadt. Coarelli, F. 2005. Aristonico. Pisa. Cohen, G. M. 1995. The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor. Berkeley. Collins, F. III. 1980. “The Macedonians and the Revolt of Aristonicus.” AncW 3: 83–87. Corbier, M. 2008. “The Lex Portorii Asiae and Financial Administration,” in The Customs Law of Asia, edited by M. Cottier, 202–235. Oxford. Cottier, M. et al. (eds.). 2008. The Customs Law of Asia. Oxford. Craddock, P. T., A.M. Burnett and K. Preston. 1980. “Hellenistic Copper-base Coinage and the Origins of Brass,” in Scientific Studies in Numismatics, edited by W. A. Oddy, 53–64. London. Crawford, M. H. 1974. Roman Republican Coinage. London. (RRC) Crawford, M. H. and J. Reynolds. 1974. “Rome and Tabae.” GRBS 15: 289-299. Cristiano, F. 2008. “Civitates di Sicilia. Il comportamento di Roma.” Instoria 42: 1–8. Daubner, F. 2006. Bellum Asiaticum: Der Krieg der Römer gegen Aristonikos von Pergamon und die Einrichtung der Provinz Asia. Munich. Deininger, J. 1965. Die Provinziallandtage der Römischen Kaiserzeit: von Augustus bis zum Ende des Dritten Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Munich. Delplace, C. 1977. “Publicains, trafiquants et financiers dans les provinces d’Asie Mineure sous la République.” Ktema 2: 233–52. ___________ . 1978. “Le contenu social et économique du soulèvement d’Aristonicos: opposition entre riches et pauvres?” Athenaeum 56: 20–53. Delrieux, F. 2014. “Les alexandres municipaux tardifs de Carie. Notes sur les ateliers d’Eurômos et Mylasa d’après le trésor de “Démétrios Ier,” in First International Congress of the Anatolian Monetary History and Numismatics, 25-28 February 2013, Antalya—Proceedings, edited by K. Dörtlük, O. Tekin et R. Boyraz Seyhan, 197–218. Antalya. ___________ . Forthcoming. “Rome et les monnayages de Carie à la fin de l’époque hellénistique (IIe– Ier siècles a.C.),” in Graecia Capta?, edited by R.H. J. Ashton and N. Badoud. Fribourg. De Martino, F. 1983. “Il Senatus Consultum de agro Pergameno.” PP 210: 161-190. Di Stefano, G. 1998. “Una nuova edizione del Senatus Consultum de agro Pergameno.” RAL 9.9: 707–748. Dmitriev, S. 2000. “Observations on the Historical Geography of Roman Lycaonia.” GRBS 41: 349–375. ___________ . 2005a. City government in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. Oxford. ___________ . 2005b. “The History and Geography of the Province of Asia during its First Hundred Years and the Provincialization of Asia Minor.” Athenaeum 93.1: 71-133. ___________ . 2011. The Greek Slogan of Freedom and Early Roman Politics in Greece. Oxford. Dreher, M. 1996. “Die lex portorii Asiae und der Zollbezirk Asia.” EA 26: 111–27.

12 Bibliography.indd 240

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Bibliography

241

Dreyer, B. and H. Engelmann. 2003. Die Inschriften von Metropolis, T. 1, die Dekrete für Apollonios: städtische politik unter den Attaliden und im Konflikt zwischen Aristonikos und Rom. Bonn. Drew-Bear, T. 1972. “Three Senatus Consulta regarding the Province of Asia.” Historia 21:75–87. ___________ . 1978. Nouvelles inscriptions de Phrygie. Zutphen. Dufour, G. 2012. Les Societates Publicanorum de la République Romaine: Ancêtres des societies par actions? Montreal. ECC = Kleiner–Noe. 1977. Ellis-Evans, A. 2016. “The Koinon of Athena Ilias and its Coinage.” AJN 28: 105–158. Errington, R. M. 1987. “Θεά ‚Ρώμη und römischer Einfluß südlich des Mäanders im 2. Jh. v. Chr.” Chiron 17: 97–118. ___________ . 1988. Aspects of Roman Acculturation in the East under the Republic in Alte Geschichte und Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Festschrift fur K. Christ zum 65. Geburtstag edited by P. Kneissl and V. Losemann. Darmstadt: 140–57. Esty, W. 2006. “How to Estimate the Original Number of Dies and the Coverage of a Sample.” NC 166: 359-64. Faita, A. 2001. “The Medusa-Athena Nikephoros Coin from Pergamon,” in Athena in the Classical World, edited by S. Deacy and A. Villing, 163–180. Leiden. Ferrary, J.-L. 1977. “Recherches sur la législation de Saturninus et de Glaucia.” MEFRA 89.2: 619– 660. ___________ . 1985. “La Lex Antonia De Termessibus.” Athenaeum 63: 419-457. ___________ . 1991. “Le statut des cités libres dans l’Empire romain à la lumière des inscriptions de Claros.” CRAI 135: 557-577. ___________ . 2001. “Rome et le cités grecques d’Asie Mineure au II siecle,” in Les cités d’Asie mineure occidentale au IIe siècle a.C., 93–106. Bordeaux. ___________ . 2002. “La Création de la province d’Asie et la présence italienne en Asie Mineure,” in Les Italiens dans le monde grec—IIe siècle av. J.-C.–Ier siècle ap. J.-C. Circulation, activités, intégration, edited by C. Müller and C. Hasenohr, 133–146. Paris. Ferriès, M.-C. and F. Delrieux. 2011. “Stratonicée de Carie et M. Cocceius Nerva ‘sauveur de l’Asie’.” Topoi 17: 421–467. Freeman, P. 1998. “On the annexation of Provinces in the Roman Empire.” Classics Ireland 5: 30–47. French, D. 1991a. “Sites and Inscriptions Phrygia, Pisidia and Pamphylia.” EA 17: 51–68. ___________ . 1991b. “C.ATINIUS C.f. on a coin of Ephesus,” in Recent Turkish Coin Hoards and Numismatic studies, edited by C. S. Lightfoot, 201–203. Ankara. ___________ . 1997. P”re- and Early-Roman Roads of Asia Minor: The Earliest Roman Paved Roads in Asia Minor.” Arkeoloji Dergisi 5: 179-187 ___________ . 2012. Roman Roads and milestones in Asia Minor. Vol. 3, Fasc. 3. Ankara. Fritze,von H. 1906. “Zur Chronologie der autonomen Prägung von Pergamon,” in Corolla Numismatica. Numismatic Essays in Honour of Barclay V. Head, 47–62. London. ___________ . 1913. Die Antike Münzen Mysiens. Berlin Galsterer, H. 1986. “Roman Law in the Provinces: some Problems of Transmission,” in L‘Impero Romano e le strutture economiche e sociali delle province, edited by M. H. Crawford, 13–27. Como. Geelhaar, C. 2002. “Some Remarks on the lex de provinciis praetoriis.” RIDA 49: 109–118. Genovese, M. 1993. “Condizioni delle civitates della Sicilia ed assetti amministrativo-contributivi delle altre province nella prospettazione ciceroniana delle Verrine.” Iura 44: 171–243.

12 Bibliography.indd 241

3/12/20 2:29 PM

242

Hidden Power

Glew, D. G. “The Selling of a King. A note on Mithridates Eupator’s Propaganda in 88 BC.” Hermes 105: 380–405. Gnischnitzer, F. 1989. “Beurkundungsgebühren,” in Römischen Kaiserreich. Zu IvE Ia 13. Symposion 1985, 389–403. Cologne/Vienna. Göktürk, M. 1996. “A Hoard of Hellenistic Silver Coins of Myndos, Halikarnassos and Knidos,” in Studies in Ancient Coinage from Turkey, edited by R. H. J. Ashton, 5–8. London. Gray, E. W. 1978. “M. Aquillius and the Organisation of the Roman Province of Asia,” in Proceedings of the X International Congress of Classical Archaeology II, 965–967. Ankara. Gruen, E. 1984. The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London. Gürber, E. 1995. “Cité libre ou stipendiaire? À propos du statut juridique d’Éphèse à l’époque du Haut-Empire romain.” REA 108–2: 388–409. Habicht, C. 1975. “New Evidence in the Province of Asia.” JRS 65: 64–91. Haensch, R. 1997. Capita Provinciarum. Mainz. Harris, W.V. 1979. War and Imperialism in Republican Rome, 327–70 B.C. Oxford Hassall, M., M. H. Crawford and J. Reynolds. 1974. “Rome and the Eastern Provinces at the End of the Second Century B.C.” JRS 64: 195–220. Haywood, R. M. 1938. “Roman Africa”, in An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, Volume III, edited by T. Frank, 3–119. Baltimore. Head, B. 1887. Historia Nummorum. London. ___________ . 1892. A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum, Ionia. London. ___________ . 1897. A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum, Caria, Cos, Rhodes, etc. London. ___________ . 1901. A Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum, Lydia. London. ___________ . 1906. A Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum, Phrygia. London. Heil, M. 1991. “Einige Bemerkungen zum Zollgesetz aus Ephesos.” EA 17: 9–18. Hodgson, L. 2017. Res Publica and the Roman Republic: ‘without Body Or Form.’ Oxford. Hollander, D. B. 2008. Money in the Late Roman Republic. Leiden. Hoover, O., and D. MacDonald. 1999–2000. “Syrian Imitations of New Style Athenian Tetradrachms Struck over Myrina.” Berytus 44: 109–117. Hoover, O., A. R. Meadows, and U. Wartenberg. 2010. Coin Hoards. Volume X. New York. Hopp, J. 1977. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der letzten Attaliden. Munich. Hoyos, B.D. 1973. “Lex Provinciae and Governor’s Edict.” Antichthon 7: 47–53. IGCH: see Thompson et al. 1973. Imhoof-Blumer, F. 1897. Lydische Stadtmünzen. Neue untersuchungen. Leipzig. ___________ . 1901-1902. Kleinasiatische münzen. Vienna. ___________ . 1908. Zur griechischen und römischen Münzkunde. Genf. Ireland, S. 2004. “A New Specimen of the KOP Cistophorus.” NC 164: 221–3. Işık, F., H. İşkan and N. Çevik. 2001. Miliarium Lyciae: Patara yol kilavuz anıtı. Vienna. Jones, A. M. H. 1974. The Roman Economy: Studies in Ancient Economic and Administrative History. Oxford. Jones, C. P. 2011. “An Inscription Seen by Agathias.” ZPE 179: 107–115. Kay, P. (2014), Rome’s Economic Revolution. Oxford. Kaye, N. 2012. “The Skeleton of the State:” The Fiscal Politics of Pergamon, 188–133 B.C.E. PhD Diss. Berkeley. Kallet-Marx, R. M. 1995. Hegemony to Empire: The Development of the Roman Imperium in the East from 148 to 62 B.C. Berkeley. Kampmann, M. 1978. “Aristonicos a Thyatire.” RN 6/20: 38–42.

12 Bibliography.indd 242

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Bibliography

243

Karwiese, S. 2016. Die Münzprägung von Ephesos 5.2, Corpus und Aufbau der römerzeitlichen Stadtprägung : Statistiken, Metrologie und Kommentare. Vienna. Kearsley, R. 1994. “The Milyas and the Attalids: A Decree of the City of Olbasa and a New Royal Letter of the Second Century B.C.” Anatolian Studies 44: 47–57. Kinns, P. 1987. “Asia Minor,” in The Coinage of the Roman World in the Late Republic, edited by A. M. Burnett and M. H. Crawford, 105–121. Oxford. ___________ . 1999. “The Attic Weight Drachms of Ephesus: A Preliminary Study in the Light of Recent Hoards.” NC 159: 47–97. ___________ . 2004. “The pre–Imperial coinage of Metropolis in Ionia”. NC 164: 83–88. ___________ . 2006. “A New Didrachm of Magnesia on the Maeander.” NC 166: 41–47. Kirbihler, F. 2007. “Die Italiker in Kleinasien, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Ephesos (133 v. Chr.–1. Jh. n. Chr.,“ in Neue Zeiten—Neue Sitten. Zu Rezeption und Integration römischen und italischen Kulturguts in Kleinasien, edited by M. Meyer, 19–35. Vienna. ___________ . 2013. “Brutus et Cassius et les impositions, spoliations et confiscations en Asie mineure durant les guerres civiles (44-42 a.C.),” in Spolier et confisquer dans les mondes grec et romain, edited by M.-C. Ferriès and F. Delrieux, 345–364. Chambéry Cedex. Kleiner, F. S. 1972. “The Dated Cistophori of Ephesus.” ANSMN 18: 17-32. ___________ . 1978. Hoard Evidence and the late Cistophori of Pergamum. ANSMN 23: 77-106. ___________ . 1979. The late Cistophori of Apameia in Essays in honor of Margaret Thompson, edited by O. Mørkholm and N.Waggoner. New York: 119-130. Kleiner, F. S., and S. Noe. 1977. The Early Cistophoric Coinage. New York (ECC). Knibbe, D. 1972–1975. “Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos IV.“ JÖAI 50: 1–6, no. 1 = BE 1972: 453–454, no. 388. ___________ . 1987. “Zeigt das Fragment IvE 13 das steuertechnische Inventar des fiscus Asiaticus?” Tyche 2: 75–83. Kunkel, W. and Wittmann, R. 1995. Staatsordnung und Staatspraxis der römischen Republik. Munich. Jenkins, G. K. 1978/1980. “Hellenistic gold coinage of Ephesos,” in Festschrift Akurgal, 183–188. Ankara. ___________ . 1989. “Rhodian Plinthophoroi—A Sketch,” in Kraay–Mørkholm Essays, edited by G. Le Rider, K. Jenkins, N. Waggoner, and U. Westermark, 101–119. Louvain-la-Neuve. Leschhorn, W. 1993. Antike Ären. Zeitrechnung, Politik und Geschichte in Scharzmeerraum und in Kleinasien nordlich des Taurus. Stuttgart. Jones, A. H. M. 1971. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. Oxford. Jones, C. P. 2004. “Events Surrounding the Bequest of Pergamon to Rome and the Revolt of Aristonicos.” JRA 17: 469–485. Johnston, A. 1995. “Aphrodisias Reconsidered.” NC 155: 43-100. Lagos, C. 1999. A Study of the Coinage of Chios in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. PhD Diss., Durham University. E-Theses online : http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4848/. Le Rider, G. 1973. “Un tétradrachme d’Athéna Niképhoros.” RN 15: 66–79. ___________ . 1990. “Un groupe de cistophores de l’époque attalide.” BCH 114: 683–670. ___________ . 1991. “Éphèse et Arados au IIe siècle avant notre ère.” NAC 20: 193–212. Le Rider, G., and T. Drew-Bear. 1991. “Monnayage cistophorique des Apaméens, des Praipénisseis et des Corpéni sous les Attalides. Questions de géographie historique.“ BCH 115: 361–376. Leschhorn, W. 1993. Antike Ären: Zeitrechnung, Politik und Geschichte im Schwarzmeerraum und in Kleinasien nördlich des Tauros. Stuttgart.

12 Bibliography.indd 243

3/12/20 2:29 PM

244

Hidden Power

Leschhorn, W. 1997. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Deutschland, Staatliche Münzsammlung, Lydien. Munich. Lewis, R. G. 1991. “Sulla and Smyrna”. CQ 41.1: 126–129. Liebmann-Frankfort, T. 1969. La frontière orientale dans la politique extérieure de la République romaine depuis le traité d‘Apamée jusqu‘à la fin des conquêtes asiatiques de Pompée (189/8–63). Brussels. Lintott, A. W. 1976. “Notes on the. Roman Law Inscribed at Delphi and Cnidos”. ZPE 20: 65–82. ___________ . 1993. Imperium Romanum: Politics and Administration. London. Lo Cascio, E. 1982. “Spesa militare, spesa dello Stato e volume delle emissioni.” AIIN 29: 75–97. Macdonald, D. 1992. The Coinage of Aphrodisias. London. Macro, A.D. 1980. The Cities of Asia Minor under the Roman Imperium. Berlin. Magie, D. 1950. Roman Rule in Asia Minor. Princeton. Mannsperger, D. 1994. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Deutschland, Münzsammlung Universität Tübingen, Karien und Lydien. Berlin. Marcellesi, M.-C. 2012. Pergame de la fin du Ve au début du Ier siècle avant J.-C. Pisa. ___________ . 2017. “Power and Coinage: The Portrait Tetradrachms of Eumenes II.” Opuscula 10: 94–106. Marek, C. 1988. “Karien in ersten Mithridatischen Krieg,” in Alte Geschichte und Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Festschrift für Karl Christ zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by P. Kneissl and V. Losemann, 285–305. Darmstadt. Marinescu, C. A. 1995. “A First-Century BC Hoard of Late Cistophori.” NC 155: 325-30. Martin, R. T. 1985. Sovereignty and Coinage in Classical Greece. Princeton. Martin, R. T. , and E. Badian. 1979. “Two Notes on the Roman Law from Cnidos.” ZPE 35: 153–167. Mattingly, H. 1972. “The Date of the Senatus Consultum De Agro Pergameno.” AJP 93.3: 412–423. ___________ . 1985. “Scipio Aemilianus and the Legacy of Attalus III.” LCM 10: 117–19. ___________ . 1993. “The Ma’aret En-Nu’man Hoard 1980,” in Essays in Honour of R. Carson and K. Jenkins, edited by M. Price, A. Burnett and R. Bland, 69–86. London. Mavrogordato, J. 1917. “A Chronological Arrangement of the Coins of Chios.” NC 17: 207–57. McGing, B. C. 1980. “Appian, Manius Aquilius and Phrygia.” GRBS 21: 35–42. ___________ . 1986. The Foreign Policy of Mithridates V I Eupator King of Pontus. Leiden. McLeister, K. 2016. Publicani in the Principate. PhD Diss., McMaster University. Meadows, A. 2001. Money, Freedom and Empire in the Hellenistic World in Money and its uses in the ancient Greek World, edited by A. Meadows and K. Shipton, 53–63. Oxford. ___________ . 2002. “Stratonikeia in Caria: The Hellenistic City and its Coinage.” NC 162: 79-134. ___________ . 2006. “Amyntas, Side, and the Pamphylian Plain,” in Agoranomia: Studies in Money and Exchange Presented to John H. Kroll, edited by P. G. Van Alfen, 151–175. New York. ___________ . 2008. Alabanda in Caria. A Hellenistic City and its Coinage. DPhil Thesis, Oxford. ___________ . 2013. “The Closed Currency System of the Attalid Kingdom,” in Attalid Asia Minor, edited by P. Thonemann, 148–206. Oxford. ___________ . 2014. ”A New Cistophoric Fraction of Tralles?” NC 174: 17–19. ___________ . 2015. “Four Cistophoric hoards?,” in FIDES: Contributions to numismatics in honor of Richard B. Witschonke, edited by P. G. Van Alfen, G. Bransbourg and M. Amandry, 279–310. New York. ___________ . Forthcoming. “The Penetration of the Denarius and Quinarius Standards into Asia Minor in the 1st Century BC,” in Graecia Capta?, edited by R.H. J. Ashton and N. Badoud. Fribourg. Meadows, A. R. and U. Wartenberger. 2002. Coin Hoards, Volume IX. London.

12 Bibliography.indd 244

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Bibliography

245

Melville Jones, J. 1993. Testimonia Numaria: Greek and Latin Texts Concerning Ancient Greek Coinage: Vol. I. Texts and Translations. London. Merola, G. D. 1996. “Il Monumentum Ephesenum e l’organizzazione territoriale delle regioni asiane.” MEFRA 108: 263–97. ___________ . 2001. Autonomia Locale—Governo Imperiale. Bari. Metcalf, W. E. 2015. “The Late Cistophori of Nysa,” in FIDES: Contributions to Numismatics in Honor of Richard B. Witschonke, edited by P. G.Van Alfen, G. Bransbourg, and M. Amandry, 311–320. New York. ___________ . 2017. Later Republican Cistophori. New York. Mileta, C. 1988. “Eumenes III und die Sklaven. Neue Überlegungen zum Charakter des Aristonikosaufstandes.” Klio 80: 47-65. ___________ . 1990. “Zur Vorgeschichte und Entstehung der Gerichtsbezirke der Provinz Asia.” Klio 72.2: 427–444. Millar, F. 1986. “Politics, Persuasion and the People before the Social War (150–90 BC).” JRS 76. 1–11. Milne, J.G. 1923–1928. The Autonomous Coinage of Smyrna. London. Mitchell, S. 1993. Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor Volume I: The Celts in Anatolia and the Impact of Roman Rule. Oxford. ___________ . 1999. “The Administration of Roman Asia from 133 BC to AD 250,” in Lokale Autonomie und römische Ordnungsmacht in den kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen vom 1. bis 3. Jahrhundert. edited by W. Eck, 17–46. Munich. ___________ . 2008. “Geography, Politics and Imperialism,” in The Custom Laws of Asia, edited by O. Cottier, 164–201. Oxford. Mørkholm, O. 1979. “Some Reflections on the Early Cistophoric Coinage.” ANSMN 24: 47–61. ___________ . 1984. “Some Pergamene Coins in Copenhagen,” in Festschrift für Leo Mildenberg, edited by A. Houghton, S. Hunter, and P. Ehrhardt Mottadeleh, 181–192. Wetteren. Münsterberg, R. 1927. Die Beamtennamen auf den griechischen Münzen: geographisch und alphabetisch geordnet. 3, Teile und Nachtrag in einem Band. Hildesheim. Nicolet, C. 1991. “Frumentum Mancipale: en Sicile et ailleurs,” in Nourrir la Plèbe. Actes du Colloque en hommage à Denis van Berchem (Genève, 1989), edited by A. Giovannini, 119–141. Basel/ Kassel. ___________ . 1994. “Dîmes de Sicile, d’Asie et d’ailleurs,” in Le Ravitaillement en blé de Rome et des centres urbains des débuts de la République jusqu’au Haut-Empire. Actes du colloque international de Naples, 14–16 février 1991, 215–229. Rome. Nicolet-Pierre, H. 1989. “Monnaies de Pergame,” in Kraay–Mørkholm Essays edited by G. Le Rider, K. Jenkins, N. Waggoner, and U. Westermark, 203–216. Louvain-la-Neuve. Nollé, J. 2014.“‘Panegyris coinages’—Eine modern Geisterprägung.” Chiron 44: 285–323. Overbeck, B. 1978. “Ein Schatzfund der späten Republik von Halikarnassos.” SNR 57: 164-173. Özgen, E., and A. Davesne. 1994. “Le trésor de Oylum Höyüğü,” in Trésors et circulation monétaire en Anatolie antique, edited by M. Amandry and G. Le Rider, 45–59. Paris. Papazoglou, F. 1997. Laoi et Paroikoi : Recherches sur la structure de la société hellénistique. Beograd. Passerini, A. 1937. “Le iscrizioni dell’Agorà di Smirne concernenti la lite tra i publicani e i Pergameni.” Athenaeum 15: 252–283. Petzl, G. 1985. “Reste eines ephesischen Exemplars des Senatusconsultum de Agro Pergameno.” EA 6: 70–71

12 Bibliography.indd 245

3/12/20 2:29 PM

246

Hidden Power

. 1987. Inschriften von Smyrna II. Bonn. Pierobon-Benoit, R. 1994. “L’ Asia Minore e l’approvvigionamento in grano di Roma,” in Le Ravitaillement en blé de Rome et des centres urbains des débuts de la République jusqu’au HautEmpire. Actes du colloque international de Naples, 14–16 février 1991, 305–321. Rome. Pinder, H. 1856. Über die Cistophoren, und über die kaiserlichen silber Medaillons der römischen Provinz Asia. Berlin. Pitchfork, C. 2006. “Two Recent Hoards of Cistophori.” JNAA 17: 105–113. Price, M. J. 1975. Coin Hoards, Volume I. London. ___________ . 1976. Coin Hoards, Volume II. London. ___________ . 1980. Coin Hoards, Volume V. London. ___________ . 1981. Coin Hoards, Volume VI. London. ___________ . 1985. Coin Hoards, Volume VII. London. ___________ . 1989. “The Larissa 1968 Hoard,” in Kraay–Mørkholm Essays edited by G. Le Rider, K. Jenkins, N. Waggoner, and U. Westermark, 233–248. Louvain-la-Neuve. ___________ . 1993. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Great Britain, Volume IX, British Museum, Part 1: The Black Sea. London Psoma, S. 2008. “Panegyris Coinages.” AJN 20: 227–255. ___________ . 2013. “War or Trade? Attic-weight Tetradrachms from Second-century BC Attalid Asia Minor in Seleukid Syria after the Peace of Apameia and their Historical Context,” in Attalid Asia Minor, edited by P. Thonemann, 265–300. Oxford. Raggi, A. 2001. “Senatus consultum de Asclepiade Clazomenio sociisque.” ZPE 135: 73–116. Raven, E. J. P. 1938. “The Hieraptyna Hoard of Greek and Roman Coins.” NC 18: 134–158. Regling, K. 1932. “Ein Kistophorenschatz aus der Provinz Brussa.” Frankfurter Münzzeitung 3: 506–510. Reynolds, J. 1982. Aphrodisias and Rome. London. RGDE = Sherk, R. K. 1984. Roman Documents from the Greek East. Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus. Baltimore. Rickman, G. 1980. The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome. Oxford. Rigsby, K. J. 1979. “The Era of the Province of Asia.” Phoenix 33.1: 39–47. ___________ . 1988. “Provincia Asia.” TAPA 188: 123–153. RRC: see Crawford 1974. Ryan, F. X. 2001. “Die Zurücknahme Grossphrygiens und die Unmündigkeit des Mithridates VI. Eupator.” Orbis Terrarum 7: 99–106. Robert, L. 1937. Études anatoliennes: Recherches sur les inscriptions grecques de l›Asie Mineure. Paris. ___________ . 1938. Études épigraphiques et philologiques. Paris. ___________ . 1949. “Le cult de Caligula a Milet et la province d’Asie.” Hellenica VII: 206-238. ___________ . 1962. Villes d‘Asie Mineure : études de géographie ancienne. Paris. ___________ . 1965. Hellenica XIII. Paris. ___________ . 1970. Études anatoliennes. Paris. ___________ . 1982. “Documents d’Asie Mineure.” BCH 106 (1): 309–378. Robert, L., and J. Robert. 1954. La Carie. Histoire et géographie historique, avec le recueil des inscriptions antiques, 2 : Le plateau de Tabai et ses environs. Paris. ___________ . 1989. Claros I, Décrets hellénistiques, Vol. 1. Paris. Robinson, E. S. G. 1954. “Cistophori in the name of King Eumenes.” NC 14: 1–8. ___________

12 Bibliography.indd 246

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Bibliography

247

RPC I = Burnett A. M., M. Amandry and P. P. Ripolles. 1992. Roman Provincial Coinage I: From the Death of Cesar to the Death of Vitellius. London and Paris = RPC I. RRC = Crawford, M. H. 1975. Roman Republican Coinage. New York/Cambridge. Şahin, S., and M. Adak (ed.). 2007. Stadiasmus Pataresis: Itinera Romana Provinciae Lyciae. Istanbul. Sayar, M. H. 2011. “The Via Egnatia on Eastern Thrace,” in Via Egnatia Revisited: Common Past, Common Future, Proceedings VEF Conference, Bitola, February 2009, 43–44. Skopje. Sánchez, P. 2010. “ΕΠΙ ΡΩΜΑΙΚΩΙ ΘΑΝΑΤΩΙ dans le décret pour Ménippos de Colophon: «pour la mort d’un Romain» ou «en vue d’un supplice romain»?” Chiron 40: 41–60. Sánchez León, M. L. 1985–1987. “El fin de la Basileia pergamená y la Crisis en 133 D.C.” Mayurqa 21: 31–44. Santangelo, F. 2007. Sulla, the Elites and the Empire: A Study of Roman Policies in Italy and the Greek East. Leiden/Boston. Schlüsser, B. 1976. “Die Gesandtschaftreise P. Scipio Nasica in Jahr 133/2 v. Chr. und die Provinzialisierung des Königreichs Pergamon.” Chiron 6: 97–112. Scullard, H. H. 1970. From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 BC to AD 68. London. Sherk, R. K. 1966. “The Text of the Senatus Consultum de Agro Pergameno.” GRBS 7: 361–369. ___________ . 1984. Roman Documents from the Greek East. Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus. Baltimore. ___________ . 1992. “The Eponymous Officials of Greek Cities IV. The Register Part III: Thrace, Black Sea Area, Asia Minor (continued).” ZPE 93: 223–272. Sherwin-White, A. N. 1977. “Ariobarzanes, Mithridates and Sulla.” CQ 27: 173–183. ___________ . 1984. Roman Foreign Policy in the East. London. Smekalova, T. 2009. “The Earliest Application of Brass and ‘Pure’ Copper in the Hellenistic Coinages of Asia Minor and the Northern Black Sea Coast,” in Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom, edited by J. M. Højte, Arrhus, 233–248. SNG BM Black Sea: see Price 1993. SNG Copenhagen: Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Copenhgen. The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish National Museum. 1942–1979. Copenhagen. SNG Fitwilliam: Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Great Britain IV, Fitzwilliam Museum, Leake and General Collections, Phrygia. 1965. London. SNG Lewis: see Carradice 1972. SNG München: see Leschhorn 1997. SNG Stancomb: see Stancomb 2000. SNG Tübingen: see Mannsperger 1994. SNG von Aulock: Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Deutschland. 1957–1967. Sammlung Hans Von Aulock. Berlin. Spagnuolo Vigorita, T. 1996. “Lex portus Asiae: un nuovo documento sull’appalto delle imposte,” in I rapporti contrattuali con la pubblica amministrazione nell’ esperienza storico-giuridica, Torino, 17–19 ottobre 1994, 90–115. Naples. Spanu, M. 1997. Keramos di Caria : storia e monumenti. Rome. Stancomb, W. 2000. Sylloge nummorum graecorum. Great Britain, Volume 11, The William Stancomb Collection of coins of the Black Sea Region, edited by A. B. Burnett, A. R. Meadows, K. A. Sheedy, and U. Wartenberg. Oxford. Stauber, J. 1996. Die Bucht von Adramytteion II. Bonn. Stefanaki, V. 2012. Κως Ι (= Cos I). Athens.

12 Bibliography.indd 247

3/12/20 2:29 PM

248

Hidden Power

Stumpf, G. R. 1991. Numismatische Studien zur Chronologie der Römischen Statthalter in Kleinasien. Saarbrücken. Sutherland, C. H. V. 1970. The Cistophori of Augustus. London. ___________ . 1973. “Augustan aurei and denarii attributable to the mint of Pergamum.” RN 15: 129–151. Tan, J. K. 2016. “The Ambitions of Scipio Nasica and the Destruction of the Stone Theatre.” Antichton: 70–79. ___________ . 2017. Power and Public Finance at Rome, 264–49 BCE. Oxford. Thompson, M., C. Kraay, and O. Mørkholm. 1973. An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards. New York. (IGCH). Thonemann, P. 2008. “Cistophoric Geography: Toriaion and Kormasa.” NC 168: 43–60. ___________ . 2011. The Meander Valley. Oxford. ___________ . 2013a. Attalid Asia Minor: Money, International Relations and the State. Oxford. ___________ . 2013b. “The Attalid State, 188–133 BC,” in Thonemann 2013a: 1–49. 
 ___________ . 2013c, Roman Phrygia: Culture and Society, Cambridge. ___________ . 2013d, “Phrygia: An Anarchist History, 950 BC–AD 100,” in Thonemann 2013c: 1–40. ___________ . 2015. The Hellenistic World: Using Coins as Sources. Oxford. Tibiletti, G. 1957. “Rome and the Ager Pergamenus: The Acta of 129 BC.” JRS 47: 136–138. Thompson, M. 1961. The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens. New York. Troxell, H. A. and N. M. Waggoner. 1978. “The Robert F. Kelley Bequest.” ANSMN 23: 1–41. Tselekas, P. 2012. “The Coins,” in The Antikythera Shipwreck, edited by N. Kaltsas, E. Vlachogianni and P. Bouya, 216–227. Athens. Van Nijf, O. 2008. “The Social World of Tax-Farmers and their Personnel,” in The Customs Law of Asia, edited by M. Cottier et al., 279–311. Oxford. Van Nostrand, J. J. 1938. “Roman Spain,” in An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, Volume III, 119–224. Baltimore. Verboven, K. 1993. “La sententia Servilii et l’endettement des cités libres (60 av. J.-C.).” Euphrosyne 21: 285–300. ___________ . 1997. “Caritas Nummorum. Deflation in the Late Roman Republic?” MBAH 16: 40–78. Waggoner, N. M. 1989. “A New Wrinkle in the Hellenistic Coinage of Antioch/Alabanda,” in Kraay-Mørkholm Essays. Numismatic Studies in Memory of C. M. Kraay and O. Mørkholm, edited by G. Le Rider, K. Jenkins, N. Waggoner and U. Westermark, 283–290. Louvain-la-Neuve. Walker, D. R. 1976. The Metrology of the Roman Silver Coinage I. Oxford. Wartenberg, U., M. J. Price and K. A. McGregor. 1994. Coin Hoards, Volume VIII. London. Weiser, W. 1985. “Zur Münzprägung von Iasos und Bargylia,” in W. Blümel, Die inscrhriften von Iasos, 170–185. Bonn. Westermark, U. 1991. “Bronze Coins of Pergamon.” NAC 20: 147–159. Will, E. 1982. Histoire politique du monde hellénistique (323–30 av J. C.), II: Des avènements d’Antiochos III et de Philippe V à la fin des Lagides, 2e édition revue et augmentée. Nancy. Witschonke, R. B., and M. Amandry. 2004/2005. “Another Fimbria Cistophorus.” AJN 16-17: 87–92. Wörrle, M. 2000. “Pergamon um 133 v. Chr.” Historia 30: 543–576. Wroth, W. 1897. A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum, Pontus, Paphlagonia, Bithynia. London. ___________ . 1892. A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum, Mysia. London. Zabel, B., and A. Meadows. 2002. “The ‘Myndus’ 1996 Hoard (CH 9.522),” in Coin Hoards, Volume IX, edited by A. Meadows and U. Wartenberg, 244–252. London.

12 Bibliography.indd 248

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Indices

Names and Abbreviations (on coins) Latin C. Atinius Labeo, 2, 29 n. 220, 114, 119 (Ephesus) C. ATI, N C (monogram), 94–95 (Ephesus) C. ATI, N C F, 94–95, 117 table 3.3 (Ephesus) T. Ampius Balbus, 203 (Tralles)

Cicero, 162 (Laodicea) C. Fannius, 2, 169, 204 (Apamea) C. Flavius Fimbria, 3, 231 C. FABI M F PRO COS, 153 fig. 4.5, 154 fig. 4.6 (Tralles)

Greek ΑΘΗΝ, 128, 146, 156 n. 64, 157 table 4.2, 158 fig. 4.11, 206 table 11.2, 209, 210 table 11.6, 212 table 11.7, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) ΑΘΗΝΑΣ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ, 79, 83–85, 176 n. 23 (Pergamum) see also General Index, Tempelmünzen ΑΙΝΗΑΣ, 114 (Ephesus) ΑΠΟΛ, 127–128, 134–135, 143, 146–147, 150 n. 19, 156 n. 152, 157 table 4.2, 158 fig. 4.11, 201, 202 n. 139, 203–204, 205 n. 61, 206–207, 210 table 11.6, 212 n. 108–215, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles)

ΑΠΟΛΛΩΝΙΟΣ, 114 (Ephesus) ΑΡΚΑΣ, 114 (Ephesus) ΑΡΠΑ, 132, 151, 157 table 4.2, 158 fig. 4.11, 205 n. 69, 206 table 11.2, 210 table 11.6, 212 n. 108, 213 table 11.8, 216 n. 136, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) APTE, 126–127, 146, 157 table 4.2, 158 fig. 4.11, 205 n. 69, 206 table 11.2, 210 table 11.6, 212 table 11.7, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) ΑΣΚΛΗΠΙΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΥ, 83, 85 fig. 2.8 (Pergamum) see also General Index, Tempelmünzen 249

12a indices.indd 249

3/13/20 8:15 AM

250

Hidden Power

ΑΤΤΑ, 135, 198 n. 4, 201, 207 table 11.4, 210 table 11.6, 211 n. 107, 214 table 11.9, 215, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) BA EY, 12 (Aristonicus) ΒΡΙΘ, 146, 156, 205 n. 69, 206 table 11.2, 212 table 11.7 (Tralles) ΔΗΜΗ, 144–145, 147, 203–204, 209 table 11.5, 210 table 11.6, 216 table 11.10 (Tralles) ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΣ, 114–115, 116 fig. 3.12 (Ephesus); 154 fig. 4.6 (Tralles), ΔΗΜΟ, 145, 205, 210 table 11.6 (Tralles) ΔΙΟΓ
, 179, 180 table 7. (Adramyteum) ΔΙΟΝ, 40, 126, 129–134, 156, 157 table 4.2, 158, 200–201, 203–205, 206–207 tables 11.2–4, 209, 210 table 11.6, 212 table 11.7, 213–214 tables 11.8–9, 215, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) ΕΠA, 146, 157 table 4.2, 206 table 11.2, 210 table 11.6, 213 table 11.8, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) ΕΠAI, 128, 213 table 11.8 (Tralles) ΕΡΜΙΑΣ, 114 (Ephesus) ΕΥΗΝΟΣ ΗΡΩΔΟΥ, 2 (Laodicea) ΕΥΘΥΚΡΑΤ, 111 fig. 3.3 (Ephesus) ЄΥΠ Δ, 176 fig. 7.6, 177 table 7.1 (Adramyteum) ЄΥΠ ΔIO, 176 fig. 7.5, 177 table 7.1 (Adramyteum) ΖΕΥΞΙΣ ΑΠΟΛΛΩΝΙΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΑΜΥΝΤΟΥ, 163 fig. 5.3 (Laodicea) ΖΩΠΥΡΟΣ, 114 (Ephesus) ΗΡΑΙΣΚΟΣ, 111 fig. 3.6 (Ephesus) ΗΡΑΚΛΕΙΔΗΣ
, 188 fig. 9.2 (Smyrna) ΗΡΜΙΑΣ
, 116 fig. 3.8 (Ephesus) ΘΕΟΔ, 136, 198 n. 4, 201, 204, 205 n. 69, 207 table 11.4, 210 table 11.6, 211 n. 107, 214 table 11.9, 215, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) ΘΕΩΝ, 114 (Ephesus) ΙΑΣΩΝ, 114, 116 fig. 3.11 (Ephesus) ΚΑΙΣΤΡΙΟΣ, 111 fig. 3.5 (Ephesus) ΚΕΛΑΙ
, 167, 169 fig. 6.1 (Apamea) (See also Proper names, Kelainos) ΚΕΛΑΙΝΟΣ ΛΕΟΝΤ, 169 fig. 6.2 (Apamea) (See also Proper names, Kelainos)

12a indices.indd 250

ΚΑΝΚΑΡΟΥ ΕΓΛΟΓΙΣ
, 155 fig. 4.10 (Apamea) ΚΑΣ
, 179, 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum) KOKOΣ, 116 fig. 3.12 (Ephesus) ΛΥ, 175 fig. 7.2–3, 182 fig. 7.4, 183 table 7.1 (Adramyteum) ΜΑΝΤΙΘΕΟΣ ΜΑΝΤΙΘΕΟΥ, 2, 169 (Apamea) ΜΑΡΣ, 125–126, 143, 155 n. 56, 156, 157 table 4.2, 158 fig. 4.11, 206 table 11.2, 210 table 11.6, 212 table 11.7, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) 
 ΜΕΓΑΚΛ[HΣ]
, 188 fig. 9.3 (Smyrna) ΜΕΝ, 173, 177 (Adramyteum) MENA
, 128, 143, 157 table 4.2, 158 fig. 4.11, 205 n. 69, 206 table 11.2, 210 table 11.6, 213 table 11.8, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) ΜΕΝΑΝΔ, 114 (Ephesus) ΜΗΝΟΦΙΛΟΣ, 115 (Ephesus) ΜΗΝΟΦΙΛΟΥ, 116 fig. 3.10 (Ephesus) ΜΗΘΡ, 159 (Tralles) MHTP, 129, 153 fig. 4.4, 157 table 4.2, 158 fig. 4.11, 206 table 11.2, 210 table 11.6, 213 table 11.8, 216 n. 136, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11 (Tralles) MHTPOΔΩPOΣ Π AΣIKPATOY
, 169 fig. 6.3 (Apamea) ΝΙΚΑΔΑΣ, 114 (Ephesus) NIKOΛOXOΣ
, 181 fig. 7.9 (Adramyteum) ΠΑΜΜ, 127, 143, 146, 156, 157 table 4.2, 158 fig. 4.11, 200, 206–207 table 11.2–3, 209, 210 table 11.6, 212 table 11.7, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) ΠΑΜΜΕΝΗΣ, 153 fig. 4.5 (Tralles) ΠΑΡΘΕΝΙΟΣ, 114 (Ephesus) ΠΟΣΙΔΩΝ, 114 (Ephesus) ΠΟΣΙΔΩΝΙΟΣ, 114 (Ephesus) ΠΡΥΤ, 140–141, 145, 147, 155, 203–204, 205 n. 69, 209 table 11.5, 210 table 11.6, 213, 215, 216 table 11.10, 217–219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) ΠΤΟΛ, 136–137, 143, 147, 201–205, 207 table 11.4, 208 table 11.4, 210 table 11.6, 214 table 11.9, 215, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1; (all issues) 198 n. 4, 205 n. 69, 210 table 11.6, 212–213 (Tralles) ΠΤΟΛ B, 137–138, 144, 206, 207 table 11.4,

3/13/20 8:15 AM

Indices

214 table 11.9, 215, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) ΠΤΟΛ Γ, 138, 144, 147, 207 table 11.4, 214 table 11.9, 215, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) ΠΤΟΛ Δ, 139, 144, 208 table 11.4, 214 table 11.9, 215, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) ΠΤΟΛ E, 139–140, 206, 208 table 11.4, 214 table 11.9, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) ΠΤΟΛ 𐅝, 140, 144, 206, 208 table 11.4, 215 table 11.9, 216 n. 136, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) ΠΤΟΛ Z, 140, 144, 206, 208 table 11.4, 215 table 11.9, 216 n. 136, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) ΠΤΟΛ H, 140, 144, 206, 208 table 11.4, 215 table 11.3, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) ΠΤΟΛ Θ, 206, 215 table 11.9 (Tralles)

251

ΠΥΘΕΑC, 111 fig. 3.1 (Ephesus) ΠΥΘΙΩΝ ΧΑΙΡΕ, 184 fig. 8.1 (Nysa) ΠΥΘΩΝ, 114, 116 fig. 3.9 (Ephesus) ΣΟΛΩΝ, 111 fig. 3.4 (Ephesus) ΣΦ, 178, 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum) ΣΩΠΑΤΡΟΣ, 115–116 fig. 3.12 (Ephesus) ΣΩΧΑ, 127, 146, 156, 157 table 4.2, 158 fig. 4.11, 205 n. 69, 206 table 11.2, 212 table 11.7, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) TIME
, 141–142, 145, 147, 203–205, 209 table 11.5, 211 table 11.6, 213, 215–216 table 11.10, 217 table 11.11, 218, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) ΦΙΛΕΤΑΙΡΟΥ, 77 fig. 2.1, 78, 83 (Pergamum) ΦΙΛΙ

, 129, 157 table 4.2, 158 fig. 4.11, 206 table 11.2, 211 table 11.6, 213 table 11.8, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) ΥΠ, 154–155 fig. 4.8 (Tralles) XAI, 184 fig. 8.2 (Nysa)

Offices Asiarch, 151 ΕΓΛΟΓΙΣ, 155 fig. 4.10 (Apamea) ΕΓΛΟΓΙΣΤ, 155 (Apamea) eklogistai, 155 legati, 6, 9, 20, 36–37, 121, 159, 193 proconsul, 15, 20, 23 n. 175, 27 n. 208, 32, 36–37, 162, 199–200 (see also General Index, Proconsular cistophoric issues)

propraetor, 22, 199 prytaneis, 154–155 publicani, 6 n. 38, 20, 27, 240–241; (societates publicanorum) 157 stephanephoroi, 155 ΣΤΕΦΑΝΕΦΟΡΟΣ, 159 fig. 4.6, 160 (Tralles)

Proper Names Antiochus III, 9, 11 n. 84, 17–18 M. Antonius, 22–24 M. Antonius (Antony), 205, 233, 235 M. Antonius Polemo (king of Pontus), 166 Appian, 6 n. 36, 19, 21, 36–38, 121 n. 51, 162 n. 3, 223, 234 L. Appuleius Saturninus, 151 Ἀπολλὠνιος Ἀττάλου, 9 Ariarathes IV Eusebes, 12 Ariarathes V Eusebes Ariarathes VI, Epiphanes Philopator, 2o Ariarathes IX (son of Mithridates VI), 37

12a indices.indd 251

Ariobarzanes I, Philoromaios, 36–37, 193 Aristonicus, 11–15, 21, 26, 29, 33, 83; (revolt of) 3, 5–10, 11, 14, 28–29, 33–34, 43, 71, 112, 151, 190, 193–194, 222, 231 Attalus II, 112 Attalus III, 1, 4–5, 8–10, 112; (bequest) 1, 4–7, 9–10, 13, 26, 151–152; (death) 8, 12 no. 97, 29, 30, 151 Atticus, 221, 235 Augustus, 80, 200 Bagoas (agent of Tigranes), 36–37 Brutus, 234, 235

3/13/20 8:15 AM

252

Hidden Power

Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus, 151 C. Cassius, 28 n. 211, 32, 38–39, 190, 206, 240, 242 L. Cassius (for C. Cassius), 234 Castricius, 199 Chaeremon of Nysa (and sons), 28, 32, 184; (grandson?) 184 Chaeremon of Tralles, 2199–200; (grandfather) 200 Cicero, 25–26, 36, 152, 172, 204–205, 221– 222, 235–236 (See also Magistrate Names and Abbreviations, Latin) Q. Cicero, 26 no. 202, 36, 221 Claudius (emperor), 15 L. Cornelius Lentulus, 32 Cratippus, sons of, 151, 197 Dio Cassius, 37, 197 no. 2 Dio Chyrsostom, 172 Gn. Domitius (legatus of Manius Aquilius), 21 Eumenes II, 4 no. 26, 9, 11–12, 22, 76, 77 fig. 2.1, 80, 149 no. 18, 161, 231 no. 34 Falcidius, 198 Ti. Gracchus, 4 no. 24, 5–6, 19 G. Gracchus, 14 no. 106, 19–20 Kelainos, 168 Laelius, 152, 198 Lentulus Sphinther, 17 P. Licinius Crassus Mucianus, 9, 21 Licinius Geta, 19 L. Licinius Murena, 22 Livy, 4–5, 6 no. 42, 11 no. 84, 12 no. 92, 17 no. 134, 18, 19 no. 145 and 148, 22 no. 171, 38, 148 no. 9, 190 no. 11, 201 no. 38, 221 no. 1, 231 no. 48, 233 no. 57 Lucullus, 198, 201, 211, 213, 218, 234 Manius Aquilius, 6, 14, 162, 168; (provincial road) 15–32, 16 fig. 0.2, 162; (milestones) 15–17, 18 table 0.1, 19, 23, 27, 28 Manius Aquilius (son of the proconsul?), 36–37, 121 Μηνόδωρος Μητροδώρου, 8, 15 Q. Minucius Thermus, 36 Mithraas (agent of Tigranes), 36–37

12a indices.indd 252

Mithridates V, 6, 14, 19–20, 162, 168 Mithridates VI, Eupator, 3, 18, 21–22, 36–38, 81 no. 41, 152, 162 no. 3, 168–172, 190, 192, 198, 215, 222, 234 no. 64 (letter about Chaeremon of Nysa) 28 no. 211, 32; (gift to Apamea) 174–175, 198; (Mithridatic symbols) 164, 170, 198 no. 4, 213, 215 Nicomedes III, Euergetes, 37 Nicomedes IV Philopator, 36–38, 193 Octavian (See also Augustus), 205 Q. Oppius, 21 n. 158, 37 Pelopidas (ambassador of Mithridates), 38 M. Peperna, 9, 12, 15 Philostratus, 22, 161 Pliny the Elder, 24–26, 221 no. 1, 233 no. 51 Plutarch, 5, 233–234 Pompey, 221, 233–236 Ποσειδώνιος Μενάνδρου, 21 Ptolemy (author), 22, 161 C. Pulcher, 115 (see also later Republican and proconsular cistophoric issues) Pythion (son of Chaeremon), 32, 184 (see also Chaeremon of Nysa above, and Magistrates, Greek, ΠΥΘΙΩΝ ΧΑΙΡΕ) Pythodoros (son of Chaeremon), 32 (See also Chaeremon of Nysa above) Socrates Chrestos (brother of Nicomedes IV), 37 Strabo, 4, 6–8, 9 no. 70, 11 no. 84–87, 12 no. 90, 14 no. 107–108, 15, 17, 18 no. 142, 24, 26–27, 78 no. 26, 148, 151, 166, 168 no. 9, 172, 197 no. 2, 199 no. 24 Sulla, 6 no. 36, 18, 19 no. 148, 20–21, 26 no. 203, 28, 36–37, 155 no. 55, 162 no. 3, 193, 198 no. 6, 199, 201, 213, 215, 229, 232–236 (see also General, Sullan Era) Tiberius (emperor), 200 Tigranes II, of Armenia, 36–37 n. 23 L. Valerius Flaccus, 299, 234, 236 C. Vennonius Eros, 172 Zeno, 166 Zenobius, (siege of Chios) 223

3/13/20 8:15 AM

Indices

253

Control Marks Symbols amphora, 180 table 7.2 Apollo, standing l. holding bow , 153 fig. 4.5 (Tralles) Artemis, bust, 146, 156, 157 table 4.2, 206 table 11.2, 212 table 11.7 (Tralles) Artemis Ephesia , 93–94, 117 table 3.3 (Ephesus) Artemis Ephesia, bust facing, with headdress , 90, 113 table 3.2 (Ephesus) Artemis Ephesia, cult statue, facing , 89, 113 table 3.2 (Ephesus) Artemis standing , 141–142, 145, 147, 204–205, 209 table 11.5, 211 table 11.6, 216 table 11.10 (Tralles) Artemis, statue of, (see Artemis standing ) Athena, bust of , 126–128, 146, 157 table 4.2, 206 table 11.2, 210 table 11.6, 212 table 11.7, 213 table 11.8 (Tralles) bee , 90, 113 table 3.2 (Ephesus) bee , 90–92, 105–106, 113 table 3.2, 118 table 3.3 (Ephesus) bee , 102 (Ephesus) bee , 129, 157 table 4.2, 206 table 11.2, 211 table 11.6, 213 table 11.8 (Tralles) bee within wreath , 89, 110, 113 table 3.2, 118 table 3.3, 119 table 3.4; (without ethnic) 114 (Ephesus) bucranium , 102–103, 118 table 3.3 (Ephesus) bull, humped , 154 fig. 4.6 bull, humped, standing on meander pattern, r. , 154 fig. 4.5 bull, humped, standing on meander pattern, r. , 129, 153 figs. 4.3–4, 153–154, 157 table 4.2, 206 table 11.2, 210 table 11.6, 211, 213 table 11.8 (Tralles) caduceus , 94–95, 99–100, 117–118 table 3.3, 119 table 3.4 (Ephesus) caduceus , (horizontal), 49, 79 table 2.1 (Pergamum) caduceus–club , 53, 84 table 2.2, 85 table

12a indices.indd 253

2.3 (Pergamum) caduceus entwined by serpent , 178, 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum), caduceus, winged , 54–55 (Pergamum); 128, 146, 157 table 4.2, 206 table 11.2, 210 table 11.6, 213 table 11.8 (Tralles); 161–162, 163 fig. 5.2–3 (Laodicea); 178, 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum) candelabrum , 105, 118 table 3.3 (Ephesus) club , 126, 156, 157 table 4.2, 206 table 11.2, 210 table 11.6, 212 table 11.7, 217 table 11.11 (Tralles) club with lion’s skin , 52–53, 79 table 2.1 (Pergamum) club entwined with serpent, 52, 79 table 2.1 (Pergamum) cock , 106, 118 table 3.3, 119 table 3.4 (Ephesus) cock, r. with palm, 115, 116 fig. 3.10 (Ephesus) cornucopia , 100, 101, 121 table 3.3, 123 table 3.4, 218 (Ephesus) cornucopia entwined by serpent, 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum) cornucopia , 50, 79 table 2.1 (Pergamum); 123, 140–141, 145, 147, 150 table 4.1, 155 fig. 4.9, 203–204, 209 table 11.5, 210 table 11.6, 216 table 11.10 (Tralles); 178 (Adramyteum) cornucopiae, double , 90, 113 table 3.2, 218 (Ephesus) crab , 146, 156, 206 table 11.2, 212 table 11.7 (Tralles) Dionysus standing , 184 fig. 8.1 Dionysus, standing with thyrsus in left hand , 136, 201, 207 table 11.3, 214 table 11.9 (Tralles) Dionysus, standing with thyrsus in right hand, 136–137, 143, 147, 201, 203–204, 210 table 11.6, 214 table 11.9 Dionysus, standing with thyrsus in right hand,

3/13/20 8:15 AM

254

Hidden Power

holding grape bunch in his left hand; panther at feet , 135, 201, 207 table 11.3, 210 table 11.6, 214 table 11.9 (Tralles) Dionysus, standing with thyrsus in right hand, holding ivy branch in left hand , 138 (Tralles) Dionysus, standing with thyrsus in right hand, holding Silenus mask in left hand , 137–140, 144, 201–204, 207 table 11.3, 208 table 11.4, 209 no. 86, 214–215 table 11.9 (Tralles) Dionysus, wearing radiate crown, standing with thyrsus in right hand, holding Silenus mask in left hand , 201 (Tralles) dolphin , 50–51, 79 table 2.1 (Pergamum) double–flute,, 167, 169 fig. 6.1 (Apamea) eagle, l.
(horizontal),49, 79 table 2.1 (Pergamum) eagle on thunderbolt , 144–145, 147, 203–204, 209 table 11.5, 210 table 11.6, 216 table 11.10 (Tralles) eagle on thunderbolt , 155 fig. 4.8 (Tralles) eagle , 123, 127–128, 146, 150 table 4.1, 157 table 4.2, 203, 206 table 11.2, 210 table 11.6, 213 table 11.8, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles); 178, 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum) eagle, r., (fulmen and monogram `), 125, 156 table 2.1 (Tralles) eagle, r., fillet in beak, 90, 113 table 3.2 (Ephesus) eagle standing r., head l. , 153 fig. 4.5 (Tralles) ear of corn (see ear of grain) ear of grain , 97, 117 table 3.3 (Ephesus) ear of grain , 181 fig. 7.8 (Adramyteum) ear of grain , 50, 79 table 2.1 (Pergamum); 175 fig. 7.1–2, 176 table 7.1, 179, 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum) ear of grain and poppy head, 206, 207 table 11.3, 216 (Tralles) ear of grain entwined by serpent , 53, 84 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3 (Pergamum)

12a indices.indd 254

elephant, head of , 167 (Apamea) female figure, draped, facing (herm?), 124, 150 table 4.1 (Tralles) female bust ,127 (Tralles) fulmen , 106–107, 118 table 3.3 (Ephesus); (vertical) 125, 150 table 4.1 (Tralles) fulmen (vertical) ,52, 79 table 2.1 (Pergamum) fulmen with caduceus , 126, 156, 157 table 4.2, 206 table 11.2, 209, 210 table 11.6, 212 table 11.7 (Tralles) gorgoneion , 98–99, 117 table 3.3 (Ephesus) gorgoneion , 53, 84 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3 (Pergamum) grapes , 96–97, 101–102, 117–118 table 3.3 (Ephesus) grapes , 50, 79 table 2.1 (Pergamum); 179, 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum) headdress of Isis on two crossed ears of grain , 145 (Tralles) hand holding a caduceus , 134–135, 143, 147, 201, 204, 210 table 11.6, 213, 214 table 11.9, 215, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) Helios , 98, 117 table 3.3 (Ephesus) Helios, bust facing , 125, 150 table 4.1 (Tralles) Helios, head of, radiate with scepter , 178, 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum) helmet , 105, 118 table 3.3, 119 table 3.4 (Ephesus) helmet, crested , 116 fig. 3.7 (Ephesus) helmet, crested , 51, 79 table 2.1 (Pergamum) helmet, griffin–crested , 53, 84 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3 (Pergamum) herm , 128, 133–134, 143, 157 table 4.2, 158 fig. 4.11, 201, 203, 206–207 tables 11.2 and 11.4, 210 table 11.6, 213 table 11.8, 214 table 11.9, 215, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) horseman riding r., 181 fig. 7.8 (Adramyteum) Isis headdress, 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum)

3/13/20 8:15 AM

Indices

Isis headdress on two ears of grain crossed , 145, 205, 210 table 11.6 (Tralles) ivy leaf (vertical) , (downwards) 50, 79 table 2.1; (upwards) 52, 79 table 2.1 (Pergamum) jugate heads , 183 (Nysa) kantharos , 178, 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum) laurel branch, filleted , 90, 113 table 3.2 (Ephesus) lyre , 97–98, 104, 117–118 table 3.3, 119 table 3.4 (Ephesus) lyre , 40, 129–133, 157 table 4.2, 158 fig. 4.11, 204, 206 table 11.2, 210 table 11.6, 212, 213 table 11.8, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles  and owl , 176 fig. 7.4, 176 table 7.1 (Adramyteum) and scepter , 175 fig. 7.3, 176 table 7.1 (Adramyteum) Nike, l. holding wreath , 124, 150 table 4.1 (Tralles) owl , 103, 118 table 3.3, 119 table 3.4 (Ephesus) owl ,177 fig. 7.6, 176 table 7.1, 179, 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum) owl on amphora , 125–126, 143, 156, 157 table 4.2, 206 table 11.2, 210 table 11.6, 212 table 11.7 (Tralles) owl on ear of grain , 176 fig. 7.5, 176 table 7.1 (Adramyteum) palm branch , 101, 118 table 3.3 (Ephesus) palm branch, filleted , 128, 143, 157 table 4.2, 206 table 11.2, 210 table 11.6, 213 table 11.8, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) Perseus, bust of r., draped and winged, 181 fig. 7.10 (Sinope) pileus, 167 (Apamea) pileus and star , 100, 118 table 3.3, 119 table 3.4 (Ephesus) prow , 51, 79 table 2.1 (Pergamum) race–torch (horizontal) , 50, 79 table 2.1 (Pergamum) rose , 101, 118 table 3.3, 119 table

12a indices.indd 255

255

3.4 (Ephesus) rose , 173, 177, 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum) rooster (see cock) round shield , 94, 117 table 3.3 (Ephesus) round shield 124, 150 table 4.1 (Tralles) scarab , 178, 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum) serpent, coiled on cista , 90, 113 table 3.2 (Ephesus); 124, 150 table 4.1 (Tralles) serpent staff , 107–109 (Ephesus) spearhead , 124, 150 table 4.1 (Tralles) stag , 93, 106, 117–118 table 3.3 (Ephesus) stag before palm tree, r., bee below, 111 fig. 3.2 (Ephesus) stag, r. , 93, 113 table 3.2 (Ephesus) star , 94 (Ephesus) star , 90, 113 table 3.2 (Ephesus) star , 103, 117 table 3.3, 119 table 3.4 (Ephesus) star, club below , 124, 150 table 4.1 (Tralles) star, fulmen below , 125, 150 table 4.1, 154 fig. 4.7 (Tralles) star, double cornucopia below , 125, 150 table 4.1 (Tralles) temple key 89, 113 table 3.2 (Ephesus) thyrsus entwined by serpent , 55–76 (Pergamum) thyrsus entwined by taenia , 179, 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum) thyrsus, filleted 51, 79 table 2.1 (Pergamum) torch 95, 117 table 3.3 (Ephesus) torch , 91–109 (Ephesus) trident ,101, 118 table 3.3 (Ephesus) tripod, 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum) tripod , 104, 118 table 3.3 (Ephesus) tripod, filleted , 124, 150 table 4.1 (Tralles) trophy , 127, 143, 146, 156, 157 table 4.2, 206 table 11.2, 210 table 11.6, 212 table 11.7 (Tralles) Tyche , 155 fig. 4.8 Tyche, head of , 187 (Smyrna)

3/13/20 8:15 AM

256

Hidden Power

Tyche, holding cornucopia in l., initials of Macedonian months below , 125, 150 table 4.1 (Tralles) Tyche turreted head of r. , 189 fig. 9.4–6 (Smyrna) uncertain symbol , 50, 52, 156, 203 wolf, forepart r., turreted head of city goddess below , 163 fig. 5.1 (Laodicea) wreath , 102 (Ephesus)

wreath and thunderbolt , 149 fig. 4.1 (Tralles) wreath, fulmen below , 149 fig. 4.2 (Tralles) Zeus holding eagle in right hand, 29 (Sardis) (Tralles) wreath, fulmen below , 154 fig. 4.2 (Tralles) Zeus holding eagle in right hand, 30 (Sardis)

Letters Α , 53, 84 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3 (Pergamum) AM , 72–73, 85 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3, 87 (Pergamum) ΑΡ , 68, 85 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3, 86 (Pergamum) ΑΣ , 52, 56–57, 79 table 2.1, 84 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3 (Pergamum) ΑΣ , (vertical, T), 55, 86, 85 table 2.3 (Pergamum) AC , (vertical, P), 55, 85 table 2.3 (Pergamum) BO , 71–72, 85 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3, 87 (Pergamum) Δ , 54, 79 table 2.1 (Pergamum) ΔΙ , 64–67, 84 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3, 86 (Pergamum) ΔΗ , 55, 67, 84 table 2.2, 84 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3, 86 (Pergamum) ΕΙ , 52, 79 table 2.1 (Pergamum) ΕΡ , 52, 79 table 2.1 (Pergamum) ΕΥ , 69, 85 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3, (Pergamum)

12a indices.indd 256

Ι , 54, 79 table 2.1 (Pergamum) ΙΗ , 85 table 2.3 ΚΑ , 64, 84 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3 (Pergamum) Λ , 53, 84 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3 (Pergamum) ΛΥ , 69–70, 85 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3, 87 (Pergamum) ΜΑ , 70–71, 79 table 2.1, 85 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3, 87 (Pergamum), ΜΕ , 62, 86, 84 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3 (Pergamum) ΜΗ , 52–53, 63–64, 79 table 2.1, 84 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3 (Pergamum) MO , 183 (Nysa)
 Ν, 119 (Ephesus) NI, , 52, 79 table 2.1, 85 table 2.3 (Pergamum) NI, , 67–68, 83, 85 table 2.2 (Pergamum) ΠΑ, 212 (Pergamum) Υ , 55, 84 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3, (Pergamum)

3/13/20 8:15 AM

Indices

257

Ethnics , 173, 177–180 (Adramydeum) ΑΔΡA, 174, 175 figs. 7.2–3, 176–177 figs. 7.4–6 (Adramyteum) ΑΔΡΑΜYΤΗΝΩΝ, 177 fig. 7.7, 181 figs. 7.8–9 (Adramyteum)
 , 167 (Apamea) ΑΠΑ
, 167, 169 fig. 6.1 (Apamea) ΑΠΑΜΕΩ, 169 fig. 6.2 (Apamea) ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ
, 155 fig. 4.10 (Apamea) ΕΦ (obv), 110, 116 figs. 3.7–3.11 (Ephesus) ΕΦΕ , 89–109 (Ephesus) ΕΦΕΣΙΩΝ, 110, 111 fig. 3.2 (Ephesus) ZMVP
, 187, 189 figs. 9.4–6 (Smyrna) ΖΜΥΡΝΑΙΩΝ, 169 fig. 6.3, 188 figs. 9.1–9.2 (Smyrna) ΚΑΙΣΑΡΕΩΝ, 200 (Tralles / Caesarea)

ΚΑΙΣΑΡΕΩΝ ΤΡΑΛΛΙΑΝΩΝ, 200 (Tralles / Caesarea) KOP, 28 (Kormasa) ΛΑΟ, 161–162, 163 figs. 5.2–3 (Laodicea) ΛΑΟΔ, 162, 163 fig. 5.1 (Laodicea), ΛΑΟΔΙΚΕΩΝ, 166 figs. 5.8–9 (Laodicea) NVΣΑ
, 183, 184 figs. 8.1–2 (Nysa) A, 49–76, 80 (Pergamum) ΠΕΡΓΑΜΗΝΩΝ, 80, 82–83 (Pergamum) ΣΙΝΩΠΗΣ
, 181 fig. 7.10 (Sinope), ΣΥΝNA, 30 (Synnada) ΤΡΑΛ , 123–147, 149 fig. 4.2, 153 figs. 4.3– 4, 159 figs. 4.5–7, 160 figs. 4.8–9 (Tralles) ΤΡΑΛΛΙΑΝΩΝ, 149 fig. 4.1, 200 (Tralles / Caesarea) ΤΡΑΛΛΙΑΝΩΝ, 200 (Tralles / Caesarea)

Monetary Types Apollo, head of l. (obv), 181 fig. 7.9 (Adramyteum) Apollo, head of, laureate, r. (obv), 169 fig. 6.3 (Apamea); 188 (Smyrna); 79–77 fig. 2.4 (Pergamum) Artemis Anaïtis, cult statue facing, 161 fig. 4.10, 169 fig. 6.2 (Apamea) Artemis, bust, r. (obv), 114–115 (Ephesus) Artemis, bust, draped, r., 116 fig. 3.7 and 3.12 (Ephesus) Artemis, bust, draped, r., with bow and quiver, 116 fig. 3.7 and 3.10 (Ephesus) Artemis Ephesia, cult statue, facing, 116 fig. 3.7 (Ephesus) Artemis huntress, r. (obv), 115 (Ephesus) Artemis, wearing chiton, running r. holding bow in l. hand drawing arrow with r., dog at feet 116 fig. 3.11 (Epheus) Athena / eagle, 170 (Apamea) Athena / eight–rayed star (chalkous), 77 (Pergamum) Athena, head of, helmeted, r., 77 fig. 2.3, 81 figs. 2.5–2.7, 82 fig. 2.9 (Pergamum) Athena / owl in wreath, 81 (Pergamum)

12a indices.indd 257

Athena / owl on palm, 80–81, 176 no. 23 (Pergamum) Athena seated l. on throne with lion’s legs, 77 fig. 2.1 (Pergamum) Athena / snake (tetrachalkon), 77 (Pergamum) Athena / trophy, 81 (Pergamum) Asclepius, head of, laureate r., 78, 82 fig. 2.8 (Pergamum) bee, 77 (Pergamum); 110 (Ephesus) bee with open wings, in laurel wreath, 116 fig. 3.8–9 (Ephesus) bee with straight wings (obv), 111 figs. 3.1–3.2 (Ephesus) bee with straight wings in border of dots (obv), 110, 111 fig. 3.5 (Ephesus) bee with straight open wings (obv), 111 fig. 3.3 (Ephesus) bee with straight open wings in laurel wreath (obv), 111 fig. 3.4, 3.6 (Ephesus) bull, humped, standing on meander pattern, r. , 149 fig. 4.1, 159 cista mistica with pilei, of Dioscuri, surmounted by stars (rev), 165–166 fig. 5.8 (Laodicea)

3/13/20 8:15 AM

258

Hidden Power

club of Herakles draped with lion skin / bunch of grapes, 174 (all cities); 184 fig. 8.2 (Nysa) cornucopia between pilei, of the Dioscuri, 181 fig. 7.9, 192 (Adramyteum); 181 fig. 7.10 (Sinope) Dionysus, head of, r. (obv), 165, 166 fig. 5.8 (Laodicea) Dionysus / ivy wreath, 181 (Adramyteum) eagle with spread wings, head r., on filleted cornucopia 165–166 fig. 5.9 (Laodicea) eagle with spread wings, standing l. on thunderbolt, 177 fig. 7.7 (Adramyteum) Homer, seated l., holding scroll scepter behind 169 fig. 6.3, 188, (Smyrna) (see also General Index, Homereia) lion r., with raised left forepaw, 188 fig. 9.2 (Smyrna) Medusa, head facing, 77 fig. 2.2 (Pergamum) Nike advancing r., holding palm, 82 fig. 2.9 (Pergamum) owl with open wings on palm, 81 fig. 2.5 (Pergamum) owl in wreath on monogram (E), 81 fig. 2.7 (Pergamum) Philetaerus, head of, laureate, r., 77 fig. 2.1 (Pergamum) serpent coiled around omphalos, 82 fig. 2.8 (Pergamum) snake and temple key, 78 (Pergamum) snake and grapes, 78 (Pergamum) stag before palm tree, r. 110, 111 fig. 3.1, 114,

12a indices.indd 258

116 fig. 3.8 (Ephesus) stag before torch, 114 (Ephesus) stag before torch, head l., 116 fig. 3.9 (Ephesus) stag feeding, r., 115 (Ephesus) stag feeding, r., quiver above, 111 fig. 3.4 (Ephesus) stag, grazing, 21 (Magnesia ad Maeandrum) stag, forepart kneeling, r. , 110, 111 fig. 3.5 (Ephesus) stag, forepart r., with torch, 115, 116 fig. 3.10 (Ephesus) stag, head and neck, r., 111 (Ephesus) stag, head and neck, r., quiver behind, 111 fig. 3.6 (Ephesus) stag, r., quiver behind, 111 fig. 3.3 (Ephesus) stags, two confronting, torch between, 115, 116 fig. 3.12 (Ephesus) thyrsus, filleted, 77 (Pergamum) tripod, 77 fig. 2.4 (Pergamum) Trophy with horned helmet and armor, 81 fig. 2.6 (Pergamum) Tyche turreted head of r. (obv), 188 figs. 9.1–9.2 (Smyrna) Zeus, head of, r. (obv), 149 fig. 4.1 (Tralles); 165–166 fig. 5.9 (Laodicea) Zeus, head of, laureate, l. (obv), 177 fig. 7.7, 181 fig. 7.8 (Adramyteum) Zeus, head of, wearing oak or laurel wreath, 155 fig. 4.10, 169 fig. 6.2 (Apamea)

3/13/20 8:15 AM

Indices

259

Ephesian Dates A / K , 90, 113 table 3.2 A , 90–91, 121, 113 table 3.2 Β , 91, 113 table 3.2 Β , 90, 113 table 3.2 B , 120, fig. 7 Γ , 91–92, 113 table 3.2 Δ , 92, 113 table 3.2 Ε , 92–93, 113 table 3.2 𐅝 , 92–93, 113 table 3.2 Ζ , 93, 117 table 3.3 Η , 93, 117 table 3.3 Θ , 94, 117 table 3.3 Ι , 94, 117 table 3.3 ΑΙ, 121 ΙΑ , 94, 121, 117 table 3.3 ΙΓ , 94–95, 118, 117 table 3.3 ΙΔ , 95, 117 table 3.3 ΙΕ , 95–96, 117 table 3.3 I𐅝 , 96, 117 table 3.3 IZ , (reversed), 96–97, 117 table 3.3 ΙΗ, 121 ΙΘ , 97, 117 table 3.3 Κ , 97, 117 table 3.3 ΑΚ , 97, 121, 117 table 3.3 ΚΑ , 97, 113 table 3.2, 124, 121 table 3.3 BΚ , 97–98, 117 table 3.3 ΓΚ , 98, 117 table 3.3 ΔΚ , 98–99, 117 table 3.3 ΕΚ , 99, 118 table 3.3 ΚΕ , 99, 118 table 3.3, 119 table 3.4

12a indices.indd 259

𐅝K , 99 no. 4, 100, 118 table 3.3 K𐅝 , 99 no. 4, 100, 118 table 3.3, 119 table 3.4 ZK , 100, 118 table 3.3, 119 table 3.4 KH , 101, 118 table 3.3 ΚΘ , 101, 118 table 3.3 Λ , 101–102, 118 table 3.3, 119 table 3.4 ΑΛ , 102, 118 table 3.3 ΛΑ , 102, 118 table 3.3, 119 table 3.4 ΛΒ , 102–103, 118 table 3.3 ΛΓ , 103, 118 table 3.3, 119 table 3.4 ΛΔ , 104, 118 table 3.3, 188 ΛΕ , 104–105, 118 table 3.3, 119 table 3.4 Λ𐅝 , 105, 118 table 3.3 ΛΖ, 121 ΛΘ , 105, 118 table 3.3 Μ , 105, 116 fig. 3.10, 118 table 3.3, 188 ΜΑ , 109–110, 122 table 3.3 ΜΒ , 106, 118 table 3.3, 119 table 3.4 ΜΓ, 121 ΜΔ , 106–107, 118 table 3.3 ΜΕ , 107–109, 121, 118 table 3.3 ΝΑ, 201 table 11.1 ΝΒ, 201 table 11.1 ΝΓ, 201 table 11.1 ΝΔ, 201 table 11.1 ΝΕ, 201 table 11.1 ΝΖ, 121

3/13/20 8:15 AM

260

Hidden Power

Numerals Α (1), 183 (Nysa); 188 (Smyrna) Β (2), 137–138, 144, 201 table 11.1, 203–204, 207 table 11.4, 214 table 11.9, 215, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles); 187–189 figs. 9.5–9.6, 192, 202 (Smyrna) Γ (3), 12 (Apollonis); 138, 144, 147, 201 table 11.1, 204, 207 table 11.4, 214 table 11.9, 215, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) Δ (4), 12 (Apollonis, Stratonicea); 139, 144, 201 table 11.1, 203, 208 table 11.4, 214 table 11.9, 215, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) Ε (5), 139–140, 201 table 11.1, 204, 208 table 11.4, 214 table 11.9, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles); 188, 202 (Smyrna) 𐅝 (6), 29–30 (Sardis); 140, 148, 201 table 11.1,

206, 208 table 11.4, 215 table 11.9, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles) Ζ (7), 140, 144, 201 table 11.1, 206, 208 table 11.4, 215 table 11.9, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles); 188, 189 fig. 9.4 (Smyrna) Η (8), 140, 144, 201 table 11.1, 206, 208 table 11.4, 215 table 11.9, 217 table 11.11, 219 fig. 11.1 (Tralles); 188 (Smyrna) Θ (9), 201 table 11.1, 206, 208 table 11.4, 215 table 11.9 (Tralles) I𐅝 (16), 184 fig. 8.1 (Nysa) ΙΖ (17), 201 (Tralles) ΙΘ (19), 30 (Sardis) Κ (20), 30 (Sardis) KΔ (24), 183 (Nysa)

Place Names Regions / Islands Aeolis, 16 Antikythera (see Coin Hoards, CH VIII, 521) Bithynia, 36–37, 38 no. 25, 235 Cappadocia, 14, 20, 36–37, 38 no. 25, 234 (see also Personal Names, Ariarathes V and VII) Caria, 2, 9 no. 64, 16, 33, 81, 148–149, 152, 161, 205, 229, 230–231 table 12.5; (annexation of) 20–22, 31, 193 Chios, 33, 223–224 table 12.1, 230 table 12.5 (see also, Cities, Chios) Cilicia , 14, 22, 23 no. 175, 24 no. 182, 26 no. 200, 27, 37, 162, 199 Delos, 78 Gaul, 205 Greece, 81, 205 Ionia, 8, 16, 21, 81, 230 table 12.5 Lycaonia, 14, 19–21, 24 no. 183, 27 no. 208, 162; (annexation of) 31 Lycia, 9 no. 64, 14–15, 21–22 (see also General Index, Miliarium Lyciae) Lydia, 3, 9, 10–12, 16, 30, 32, 183 Macedonia, 2, 7, 10–11, 14–15, 119 no. 39, 125, 150 no. 22

12a indices.indd 260

Mysia, 7, 11–12, 18, 21, 23 no. 157, 170, 174, 224 table 12.1, 230 table 12.5 Pamphylia, 16, 17 no. 126, 19, 21–24, 28, 162 Peloponnese, 78 Phrygia, 5–6, 11, 16, 22, 23, 25 no. 194, 27–28, 30–31, 34, 161, 165–167, 170–171, 192, 199, 224 table 12.1; (annexation of) 20–21, 26–27, 162, 168; (Greater Phrygia,) 14, 19, 21, 162 Pisidia, 16, 22, 23 no. 175–176, 224 table 12.1 Pontus, 223–224 table 12.1 (see also Personal Names, Antonius Polemo, Mithridates V and VI) Rhodes 18 no. 138, 148, 236, 230–231 table 12.5 (see also Cities, Rhodes and General Index, Standards, Rhodian) Sicily, 205, 232–233 Syria, 81, 110 no. 5 Tenedus (autonomous silver coinage) 194–195 Troas (Troad), 16–18, 81 (see also Cities, Alexandria Troas) Turkey, 230–231 table 12.5

3/13/20 8:15 AM

Indices

261

Cities Abydus (autonomous silver coinage), 194–195 (Mysia) Acmonea, 170–171 (Phrygia) Adramyteum, 17–19, 24 no. 183, 25 table 0.2, 27–30, 34–35, 36, 43, 46, 80, 159 no. 70, 173–181, 192, 199, 227–228, 231 table 12.5; (autonomous silver coinage) 80, 175–176, 179–181, 192 (Mysia) Afyon Karahisar, 224 table 12.1 (Phrygia) (see also Coin Hoards, IGCH 1415) Alabanda, 21, 24 no. 183, 25 table 0.2, 27, 31, 175 no. 13, 199 (Caria) Alexandria Troas, 17, (autonomous silver coinage) 194–195 (Troas) Amasia, 181 (Pontus) Amisos, 114 no. 30, 181 (Pontus) Antioch on the Maeander, 25 no. 192, 27 no. 208 (Caria) Apamea, 1–3, 19–20, 24 no. 183, 25 table 0.2, 27–28, 30–31, 34, 35–36, 43, 45–46, 50, 81, 152 no. 38, 154 no. 50, 155, 159 no. 72, 162, 164–172, 173 no. 2, 174, 180, 183, 190, 192, 195, 198 no. 8, 199, 203, 225–228; (Treaty of) 111; (earthquakes) 168; (gift of Mithridates) 168, 170–171, 192; (Peace of) 148, 190 (Phrygia) Apollonis, 3, 9, 10 no. 70, 11–13, 28 (Lydia) Bargylia, 21, 230 table 12.5 (Caria) Berytus, 78 Blaundus, 10, 28 no. 210 (Lydia) Bodrum , (see Halicarnassus) Caesarea, 25 table 0.2, 27 no. 208, 200 (Lydia) (see also Tralles, renaming) Caunus, 22 no. 168, 230 table 12.5 (Caria) Callipolis, 17 (Caria) Caria Hydrela, 22, 161, 171 no. 26 (Caria) Çeşme (see Erythrae below and Coin Hoards, IGCH 1359) Chios, 2, 190, 195 table 10.3, 224 table 12.1, 230–231 table 12.5; (autonomous silver coinage) 2, 190 (Chios) Cibyra, 22, 24 no. 183, 27 no. 208, 171 no. 26 Clazomenae, 190 (Ionia)

12a indices.indd 261

Cnidus, 20, 230 table 12.5 (Caria) Colophon, 7, 10 (Ionia) Coryphe, 23 (Pamphylia) Cyzicus, 7, 10, 17, 25 table 0.2, 27 no. 208, 198 no. 6, 230 table 12.5 (Mysia) Dionysopolis, 11, 28 no. 210, 170–171 (Phrygia) Dioskome, 11, 28 no. 210 (Phrygia) Diospolis, 11 (Phrygia) Dumancik (See Coin Hoards, Dumancik 2011) (Pisidia) Ephesus, 1–3, 5, 7–10, 12–13, 24 no. 183, 25 table 0.2, 26–29, 30, 32 no. 256, 34–35, 36, 38, 40–46, 78, 81, 87–121, 148–151, 154, 156, 159, 164–165, 172, 173 no. 2, 174, 183, 184 no. 6, 189–190, 191–194, 198–199, 201– 202, 209, 212, 216, 218, 223–224, 227 table 12.2, 228, 230 table 12.5, 233–236; (naval battle) 8 no. 54; (provincial road of Aristonicus) 15–19; (Ephesian Era) 4 no. 24, 29–30, 188–189, 201 (Ionia) (see also General, Era of Freedom) Erythrae, 190, 223 (Ionia) (see also Coin Hoards, IGCH 1359) Eumenea, 170–171 (Phrygia) Giresun (see Coin Hoards, IGCH 1383 = CH II, 113) (Pontus) Gridia (See Chios above, and Coin Hoards, CH IX 558) Gülagizi, (see Mugla below) Halicarnassus, 21, 25 table 0.2, 27, 33 (See also Coin Hoards IGCH 1352) (Caria) Heraclea, 230 table 12.5 Iasus, 230 table 12.5 Ilium, 17; (autonomous silver coinage) 194–195 (Troas) Karacabey (See Coin Hoards, IGCH 1358) (Mysia) Kazikbağlari, 17–18 table 0.1 Kormasa, 28 Köycegiz , (see Caunus above) Lampsacus, 17, 190 no. 11 (Troas) Laodicea, 2–3, 14 no. 111, 17–19, 22, 25 table

3/13/20 8:15 AM

262

Hidden Power

0.2, 27–28, 30–31, 34, 35–36, 37 no. 17, 43, 45–46, 81, 159 no. 72, 161–166, 170, 172, 173 no. 2, 180 no. 25, 183, 192, 199, 200 no. 27, 202, 203 no. 50, 210 no. 94, 225–228, 236 (siege of) 21 no. 158 (Phrygia) Larisa, (See Coin Hoards IGCH 237) Lycus, (River) 22, 161 Lysias, 11, 28 no. 210 (Phrygia) Ma’Aret, (See Coin Hoards, CH IX, 511) Magnesia ad Maeandrum, 21–22, 170, 175 no. 13, 200 no. 27; (autonomous silver coinage) 31 (Ionia) Magydus, 23 (Pamphylia) Marmara, (See Coin Hoards, IGCH 1338) (Mysia) Marmaris (See Coin Hoards, IGCH 1355 = IX, 555 and CH II, 127 = CH VII, 146 = CH IX, 582) (Caria) Maeander (River) 22, 148 no. 8; (Valley) 17, 149, 153, 159 no. 41, 211 no. 106 Metropolis, 7–9, 17, 18 table 0.1 (Ionia) Mihaliç, (See Coin Hoards, IGCH 1358) Miletus, 25 table 0.2, 27 no. 208, 190, 198 no. 6, 199, 230 table 12.5 (Caria) Mugla, (See Coin Hoards, CH IX 537) Mylasa, 22 no. 168, 25 table 0.2, 27, 148 no. 10, 199, 230 table 12.5 (Caria) Myndus, 21, 22 no. 168, 230 table 12.5 (see also Coin Hoards, CH VIII, 481) (Caria) Mysia Abbaitis, 21 Nysa, 3, 28, 31–32, 36, 43, 45–46, 183–185, 192–193, 205, 225–229, (Lydia) Panormus, 223 (Ionia) Parium, 17 (Troas) Patara, 15–16 (Lycia) Pergamum, 3–19, 20 no. 151, 21, 23, 24 no. 183, 25–29, 31, 34, 38, 40–47, 49–88, 112, 121, 148–151, 154, 159, 164, 168, 170, 172, 173 no. 2, 174–176, 190–194, 198 no. 8, 199–200, 202, 205, 218, 222 no. 6, 224–228; (autonomous silver coinage) 83 (Mysia) Perge, 23 (Pamphylia) Phaselis, 23; (posthumous Alexanders) 173 (Pamphylia) Philomelium,19, 20, 24 no. 183, 25 table 0.2,

12a indices.indd 262

27, 31, 170–171 (Phrygia) Rhodes, 33, 170, 229 no. 32–33, 230–231 table 12.5; (autonomous silver coinage) 229 (Rhodes) Rome, 4–7, 10 no. 70, 11 no. 84, 14 no. 26, 19–21, 32, 36–38, 168 no. 7, 190, 198–199, 200, 205 (See also General Index, Roman currency and Taxation, Roman) Sağlik, 17–18 Sardis, 10–12, 17, 19, 24 no. 183, 25 table 0.2, 27–28, 29–31, 34, 81, 159 no. 70, 173 no. 2, 190, 199, 227–228; (autonomous silver coinage) 31 (Lydia) Side, 16–19, 23, 24 no. 182, 28; (autonomous silver coinage) 23; (“cistophoric countermarks”) 173 (Pamphylia) Sinope, 181 (Pontus) Smyrna, 9 no. 64–65, 10 no. 70, 19, 24 no. 183, 25 table 0.2, 26, 27 no. 208, 28, 30–31, 34, 36, 43, 45–46, 159 no. 70, 169 fig. 6.3, 170, 175, 187–190, 192, 195 table 10.3, 198 no. 6, 199, 202, 222 no. 6, 224–228; (autonomous silver coinage), 2, 30, 190, 194–195; (dating system) 188–189; (privileges from Rome) 190 (Ionia) Stratonicea on the Caicus, 3, 9, 12–13, 20–21, 22 no. 168, 28, 173 no. 2, 175 no. 13, 193, 231 no. 38, 230 table 12.5; (autonomous silver coinage) 21 (Caria) Synnada, 10, 12 no. 97, 19–20, 24 no. 183, 25 table 0.2, 27–28, 30–31, 34, 162, 171 no. 26, 173 no. 2, 190, 192; (Sardes–Synnada) 28 no. 210, 174, 210 table 11.6; (autonomous silver coinage) 31 (Phrygia) Tabae, 20–21, 231 table 12.5 (Caria) Telmessus, 14, 23 (Lycia) Thyatira, 8 Tire, 15 no. 119, 17–18 table 0.2, Tralles, 2 no. 6, 3, 12–13, 17–19, 25 table 0.2, 26 no. 202, 27–29, 35, 38, 40, 43–46, 80, 87–88, 110 no. 8, 119 no. 39, 121, 123–159, 172, 173 no. 2, 174–176, 189–190, 192–194, 197–219, 224–229, 234, 236; (juridical status) 151–152; (massacre) 151, 197; (payments to Rome) 198–199, 213, 229, 234;

3/13/20 8:15 AM

Indices

263

(earthquake) 199–200; (renaming) 200; (autonomous silver coinage) 216 (Lydia)

General Index assize-district centers, 18, 20 no. 151, 24, 26–27, 29–31, 162, 190, 193, 199 Attalid kingdom, 4–7, 9–19, 78, 111, 148–149; (mints and coinage) 1–2, 22, 28–33, 47, 76–78, 110, 114, 148, 152–153, 161–163, 167–168, 172–174, 181, 187, 192–195, 229–232 table 12.7, 236, 238 autonomous silver coinage, 11 no. 83, 33–34, 192–195, 205, 224 table 12.1, 230–231, 235– 236 (See also issues of specific cities above) characteroscopic index, 87, 124, 150, 156, 194 no. 23, 198, 212, 217 διοκήσεις–conventus centers, 14, 24–32, 192, 199–200 Era of Freedom, Ephesian, 1, 5, 8–9, 10 no. 75, 29, 112 no. 23, 114, 119 Esty coverage, 44, 87, 121, 156, 185, 194, 212, 216–217, 227–228 Homereia, 169 fig. 6.3, 188 Kabeiroi, 76 Later Republican cistophoric issues, 2, 163–165, 205, 222, 232; (Tralles) 153–154, 199–200, 216; (Apamea) 169, 180 no. 25; (Laodicea) 180 n. 25; (C. Atinius Labeo) 2; (C. Fannius), 2, 169, 204; (C. Pulcher) 115; (Cicero) 162; (T. Ampius Balbus) 203 lex Aufeia, 19–20 lex portorii Asiae, 4, 5 no. 29, 15 no. 116, 16, 17 no. 135, 18, 23, 25 table 0.2, 27 no. 208, 29 lex de praetoriis provinciis, 20, 23 no. 175, 31 lex Sempronia de provincia Asia or de vectigalibus Asiae, 20 Miliarium Lyciae, 25–16 Mithridatic symbols, 164, 170–171, 192, 211, 213, 215 Mithridatic Wars, 1–3, 31, 114, 170, 181, 191–194, 197–198, 218, 222–223, 228, 231–233, 235, 236; (First) 18, 20–23, 26, 31–34, 36, 38, 40, 81, 87–88, 121, 151–152,

12a indices.indd 263

159, 170–172, 181, 183–184, 190, 197, 200, 211–213, 215, 228; (Third) 198, 221–222 negotiatores, 151, 171 no. 28, 172 no. 36 Nikephoria, 76, 80 (see also Templemünzen below) Peace of Dardanus, 3, 32, 43, 193, 198, 201, 202 no. 46, 215, 218, 229, 233–235 (see also Sullan Era below) Pergamene decree of 133 BC (OGIS 338), 4, 7–8, 11 no. 89, 78 no. 26 Philetaroi, 76, 81 (see also Magistrates, Greek, ΦΙΛΕΤΑΙΡΟΥ) Proconsular cistophoric issues (see later Republican cistophoric issues) Roman currency in Asia, 11, 14, 22, 33, 114–115, 193, 222–223; (denarii) 152 no. 40, 205, 216, 221, 223 no. 8–9, 224 table 12.1, 231 fig. 12.1, 234 SC de agro Pergameno, 20 n. 151, 25–27 SC Licinnianum (OGIS 436), 19, 26, 168 no. 6 SC Popillianum (OGIS 435), 5–10, 26, 29 Seleucid kingdom, 11, 110 no. 5, 149–150, 232, 235 weight standards, 22, 33, 155, 190, 222, 235 Attic, 22, 33, 201; (Side) 23; (Smyrna) 30; (Pergamum) 76; (Ephesus) 110–111, 114; (Tralles) 149–150; (Adramyteum) 173; (Smyrna) 181, 193 cistophoric, 149, 174, 235; (Magnesia ad Maeandrum) 21, 31; (Alabanda, Alinda) 31; (Pergamum) 76–77, 80–81, 180; (Adramyteum) 175–176, 181; (Ephesus) 111, 180; (Tralles) 152, 180; (Smyrna) 190 Pontic, 177 (Apamea) Rhodian (reduced) 22; (Attic) 229 no. 32–33; 148, 150, 152; (epichoric) 149; (plinthophoric) 22, 148–149, 229; (pre– plinthophoric) 148; (post–plinthophoric) 229 quinarius, 21–22

3/13/20 8:15 AM

264

Hidden Power

Sullan Era, 3, 32, 34 no. 275, 183, 201–202, 205, 213–218, 229 taxation, Roman, 3, 17, 27 no. 208, 29, 32, 193, 200, 204, 221–236; (by Sulla) 193, 199, 201, 215, 229, 232–235; (by Pompey) 221, 233–236

Tempelmünzen, 80, 82–83; (of Athena Nikephoros) 76–77 fig. 2.2. (Pergamum); (ΑΘΗΝΑΣ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ) 76–77 fig. 2.2, 80– 82, 170 no. 23 (Pergamum); (ΑΣΚΛΗΠΙΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΥ) 80, 82 fig. 2.8 (Pergamum) Zmyrnaeum conventus, 26

Coin Hoards CH I, 90, 230 table 12.5 CH I, 91, 230 table 12.5 CH II, 94, 11 no. 81, 33 no. 266, 224 no. 16 CH II, 127 = CH VII, 146 = CH IX 582, 231 table 12.5 CH IV 72 = CH IX 537, 230 table 12.5 CH VI, 46, 230 table 12.5 CH VIII, 437, 11 no. 81, 33 no. 266, 224 no. 16 CH VIII, 446, 11 no. 81, 33 no. 266, 224 no. 16 CH VIII, 447 = 525, 152, 156 no. 60, 203–204, 209 table 11.5, 216 table 11.10, 224 table 12.1, 224 no. 16 CH VII, 466, 230 table 12.5 CH VIII, 467, 230 table 12.5 CH VIII, 474, 230 table 12.5 CH VIII, 481, 230 table 12.5 CH VIII, 482, 230 table 12.5 CH VIII, 485, 230 table 12.5 CH VIII, 495, 230 table 12.5 CH VIII, 508, 230 table 12.5 CH VIII, 520 (Didyma), 81 no. 40 CH VIII, 521(Antikythera hoard), 115, 223–224 table 12.1, 224 no. 16, 236 CH VIII, 524, 230 table 12.5 CH VIII, 526,203–204, 209 table 11.5, 224 table 12.1 CH VIII, 537, 204 CH VIII, 539 , 203 CH VIII, 544, 231 table 12.5 CH VIII, 545, 231 table 12.5 CH VIII, 546 = CH IX 573, 231 table 12.5 CH IX, 502, 81 no. 40 CH IX, 319, 81 no. 40 CH IX, 511, 76 CH IX, 535, 3 no. 15, 33 no. 267, 224 no. 16 CH IX, 537, 230 table 12.5

12a indices.indd 264

CH IX, 558 (Gridia), 34 no. 274, 224 table 12.1, 224 no. 16, 230 table 12.5 CH IX, 560 = Marinescu 1995, 2 no. 9, 202– 203, 224 table 12.1, 224 no. 16 CH IX 564, 231 table 12.5 CH X, 333, 81 no. 40 CH X, 341 (Smyrna), 224 table 12.1, 224 no. 16 CH X, 171, 81 no. 40 Dumancik 2011 (Çankaya and Köker 2011), 202, 224 table 12.1, 224 no. 16 Gridia hoard (Chios), 223 Halicarnassus 1975, 34, 205 IGCH 237 (Larisa 1968), 76 IGCH 352 = CH II, 125 (Hierptyna), 205, 223 no. 15 IGCH 492 = CH I, 90–91?, 230 table 12.5 IGCH 663, 81 no. 40 IGCH 1326 (Balikesir hoard), 11 no. 81, 33 no. 266, 168, 224 no. 16 IGCH 1327, 11 no. 81, 33 no. 266, 224 no. 16 IGCH 1328, 11 no. 81, 33 no. 266, 152, 156 no. 60, 224 no. 16 IGCH 1335 = CH X, 515 = CH X, 305, 230 table 12.5 IGCH 1336, 230 table 12.5 IGCH 1352, 230 table 12.5 IGCH 1354, 230 table 12.5 IGCH 1355 = CH IX, 555, 230 table 12.5 IGCH 1357, 230 table 12.5 IGCH 1358 = CH V, 52 (Karacabey hoard) 200–203, 205 no. 70, 207–208 table 11.4, 209 no. 77, 213–215, 216 no. 77, 216, 224 table 12.1, 224 table 12.1, 224 no. 16 IGCH 1359 (Çeşme hoard), 34 no. 274, 223, 224 table 12.1, 224 no. 16, 230 table 12.5

3/13/20 8:15 AM

Indices

IGCH 1360 = CH IX, 570, 230 table 12.5 IGCH 1383 = CH II, 113 (Giresun hoard), 22–224 table 12.1, 224 no. 16 IGCH 1415 (Afyon Karahisar), 224 table 12.1, 224 no. 16 IGCH 1453, 149 no. 15 IGCH 1455, 11 no. 81, 29, 33 no. 266, 224 no. 16 IGCH 1456, 3 no. 15, 33 no. 267, 38 no. 30, 224 no. 16 IGCH 1458, 3 no. 15, 33 no. 267, 38 no. 30, 87 no. 75, 155, 152 no. 35, 157 table 4.2, 206 table 11.2, 212 table 11.7, 224 no. 16  IGCH 1459, 3 no. 15, 28 no. 209, 30 no. 233, 31 no. 250, 33 no. 267, 38 no. 30, 85–86, 188, 202, 224 no. 16

265

IGCH 1460, 3 no. 15, 33 no. 267, 38 no. 30, 127, 152, 156, 157 table 4.2, 206 table 11.2, 212 table 11.7, 224 no. 16 IGCH 1461, 38 no. 30, 200, 207 no. 73–74, 208 no. 75, 224 table 12.1, 224 no. 16 IGCH 1462, 154, 202, 224 table 12.1, 224 no. 16 IGCH 1464, 205 IGCH 1466, 224 no. 16 IGCH 1467, 224 no. 16 IGCH 1552, 110 no. 6 IGCH 1746 = CH I, 105, 223 no. 15 Karacebey hoard, see IGCH 1358 Lebanon 1997a, 110 no. 6 Mihaliç hoard, see IGCH 1358

Monograms Magistrates J, 178, 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum) I, 178, 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum) , 178, 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum) , 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum) N, 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum) F, 174, 179–180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum) O, 179–180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum) k, 174 (Adramyteum)

m, 176 table 7.1 (Adramyteum) /, 176 table 7.1 (Adramyteum) U, 178, 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum) G, 178, 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum) H 178, 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum) M, 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum) K, 180 table 7.2 (Adramyteum)

Control Marks AΣ / , 75–76, 85 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3, 87 (Pergamum) ΒΑ / , 202 (Pergamum) ΔΗ / , 76 (Pergamum) ΕΥ / , 202 (Pergamum) ΠΕ / , 202 (Pergamum) , 53, 84 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3 (Pergamum) Y, 57–59, 83, 85 table 2.3 (Pergamum) c, 57–58, 83 no. 49 (Pergamum) , 57–58, 83 no. 49, 84 table 2.2 (Pergamum) , 61–62, 83, 87 table 2.2, 88 table 2.3 (Pergamum) D, 60, 83, 84 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3 (Pergamum)

12a indices.indd 265

, 161–162, 163 fig. 5.2 (Laodicea) , 77 fig. 2.1 (Pergamum) 5, 13, 68–69, 85 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3, 86 (Pergamum) ; 125, 150 table 4.1 (Tralles) B, 53, 84 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3 (Pergamum) :, 52, 54–55, 82 table. 2.1 (Pergamum) D, 53, 84 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3 (Pergamum) n, 53–54, 84 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3 (Pergamum) C, 53–54, 84 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3 (Pergamum) `, 125, 150 table 4.1 (Tralles) A, 125 (Tralles) A, 61, 84 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3 (Pergamum)

3/13/20 8:15 AM

266

Hidden Power

@ 61–62, 83, 84 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3 (Pergamum) E, 61, 83, 84 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3 (Pergamum)

12a indices.indd 266

IH, 62–63, 84 table 2.2, 85 table 2.3 (Pergamum) É, 125, 150 table 4.1, 154 fig. 4.7 (Tralles)

3/13/20 8:15 AM

Plates

13 Pergamon.indd 267

3/13/20 9:01 AM

13 Pergamon.indd 268

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 1

Pergamum

13 Pergamon.indd 1

O1 R1

O2 R2

O3 R3

O4 R4

O5 R5

O6 R6

O7 R7

O8 R8

O9 R9

O10 R10

O10 R11

O11 R12

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 2

13 Pergamon.indd 2

O12 R13

O13 R14

O14 R15

O15 R16

O16 R17

O17 R18

O18 R19

O19 R20

O20 R21

O21 R22

O21 R23

O21 R24

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 3

13 Pergamon.indd 3

O22 R25

O23 R26

O24 R27

O24 R28

O24 R29

O25 R30

O26 R31

O27 R32

O28 R33

O29 R34

O30 R35

O31 R36

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 4

13 Pergamon.indd 4

O31 R37

O32 R38

O33 R39

O33 R40

O34 R41

O34 R42

O35 R43a

O35 R43b

O35 R44a

O35 R44b

O36 R45

O36 R46

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 5

O37 R47

O38 R51

O40 R55

13 Pergamon.indd 5

O38 R48

O39 R52

O41 R56

O38 R49

O40 R53

O41 R57

O38 R50

O40 R54

O41 R58a

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 6

O41 R58b

O42 R61

O44 R65

13 Pergamon.indd 6

O41 R59a

O42 R62

O45 R66a

O41 R59b

O43 R63

O45 R66b

O41 R60

O44 R64

O45 R67a

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 7

13 Pergamon.indd 7

O45 R67b

O45 R68

O45 R69

O46 R70

O46 R71

O46 R72

O46 R73

O46 R74

O46 R75a

O46 R75b

O46 R76

O47 R77

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 8

O49 R78

13 Pergamon.indd 8

O50 R79a

O51 R81

O52 R82

O53 R85

O54 R87

O50 R79b

O51 R80

O52 R83

O52 R84

O54 R88

O54 R89

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 9

O54 R90

O57 R94

O60 R98

13 Pergamon.indd 9

O55 R91

O55 R92

O56 R93

O58 R95

O59 R96

O60 R97

O60 R99

O61 R100

O61 R101

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 10

O62 R102a

13 Pergamon.indd 10

O62 R102b

O62 R103b

O62 R104

O63 R106

O64 R107a

O62 R102c

O62 R103a

O63 R105a

O63 R105b

O64 R107b

O64 R108

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 11

O64 R109

O65 R112

O68 R116

13 Pergamon.indd 11

O64 R110

O66 R113

O68 R117

O65 R111a

O65 R111b

O67 R114

O68 R115

O69 R118

O70 R119

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 12

13 Pergamon.indd 12

O70 R120a

O70 R120b

O70 R120c

O71 R121

O71 R122

O71 R123

O71 R124

O71 R125a

O71 R125b

O71 R126

O71 R127

O72 R128

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 13

O72 R129

O73 R130a

O73 R131

O73 R132

O74 R134

13 Pergamon.indd 13

O75 R135

O73 R130b

O73 R130c

O74 R133a

O74 R133b

O75 R136

O75 R137

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 14

O76 R138

O76 R139

O76 R140

O77 R142

O77 R143

O77 R144a

O77 R144b

O78 R146

O79 R147a

O78 R145a

13 Pergamon.indd 14

O78 R145b

O77 R141

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 15

13 Pergamon.indd 15

O79 R147b

O79 R148a

O79 R148b

O79 R149a

O79 R149b

O79 R150

O79 R151a

O79 R151b

O80 R152

O80 R153

O80 R154

O81 R155

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 16

O81 R156

O81 R157

O81 R158

O82 R159

O83 R160a

O83 R160b

O83 R161a

O83 R161b

O83 R164

O84 R165

O83 R162

13 Pergamon.indd 16

O83 R163

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 17

O84 R166

O85 R169b

O85 R172

13 Pergamon.indd 17

O84 R167

O85 R169c

O86 R173

O85 R168

O85 R169a

O85 R170

O85 R171

O86 R174

O87 R175a

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 18

O87 R175b

O89 R179

O90 R182a

13 Pergamon.indd 18

O87 R176

O? R177

O88 R178

O90 R180a

O90 R180b

O90 R181

O90 R182b

O90 R183

O90 R184a

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 19

O90 R184b

13 Pergamon.indd 19

O91 R185

O91 R186

O91 R187a

O91 R187b

O92 R188

O92 R189

O93 R190a

O93 R190b

O93 R190c

O93 R190d

O94 R191a

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 20

13 Pergamon.indd 20

O94 R191b

O94 R191c

O94 R193

O94 R194a

O95 R195

O95 R196

O94 R192a

O94 R194b

O96 R197a

O94 R192b

O94 R194c

O96 R197b

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 21

13 Pergamon.indd 21

O96 R197c

O96 R198

O96 R200

O96 R201

O98 R203b

O98 R204

O96 R199a

O97 R202

O98 R205a

O96 R199b

O98 R203a

O98 R205b

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 22

O98 R205c

13 Pergamon.indd 22

O98 R206

O98 R207

O99 R208

O99 R209a

O99 R209b

O99 R210

O99 R211

O100 R212

O100 R213

O100 R214

O100 R215

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 23

O101 R217

13 Pergamon.indd 23

O102 R218

O102 R220

O102 R221

O102 R224

O103 R225

O102 R219a

O102 R219b

O102 R222

O102 R223

O104 R226

O104 R227

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 24

O104 R228

13 Pergamon.indd 24

O104 R229

O104 R230a

O104 R230b

O104 R231

O105 R232

O106 R233

O106 R234

O106 R235

O107 R236

O107 R237

O107 R238

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 25

O107 R239

13 Pergamon.indd 25

O107 R240

O108 R241

O109 R242

O109 R244

O110 R245

O110 R246

O111 R247

O111 R248

O111 R249a

O111 R249b

O112 R250

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 26

13 Pergamon.indd 26

O113 R251

O113 R252

O113 R253

O113 R254a

O114 R254b

O115 R255a

O115 R255b

O115 R256

O116 R257

O116 R258

O116 R259

O117 R260

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 27

O117 R261

O117 R272a

O118 R262a

O118 R262b

O118 R265

13 Pergamon.indd 27

O119 R266a

O117 R272b

O118 R263

O119 R266b

O117 R273

O118 R264

O119 R267

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 28

O119 R268

13 Pergamon.indd 28

O119 R269

O120 R274

O121 R275a

O121 R276

O121 R277

O119 R270

O121 R275b

O121 R278

O119 R271

O121 R275c

O121 R279a

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 29

O122 R279b

13 Pergamon.indd 29

O122 R279c

O122 R282a

O122 R282b

O123 R285

O123 R286

O122 R280

O122 R283

O124 R287a

O122 R281

O123 R284

O124 R287b

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 30

O124 R288

O124 R289a

O124 R291

O124 R292

O126 R295

13 Pergamon.indd 30

O127 R296

O124 R289b

O124 R293

O127 R297

O124 R290

O125 R294

O127 R298

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 31

13 Pergamon.indd 31

O127 R299

O127 R300a

O127 R300b

O128 R301a

O128 R301b

O128 R301c

O128 R302a

O128 R302b

O128 R303

O128 R304

O129 R305

O? R306

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 32

O130 R307

O131 R310

O131 R312b

13 Pergamon.indd 32

O131 R308

O131 R309a

O131 R309b

O131 R311a

O131 R311b

O131 R312a

O132 R313

O132 R314

O131 R312c

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 33

13 Pergamon.indd 33

O132 R315

O133 R316a

O133 R316b

O133 R317b

O133 R318

O134 R319a

O314 R319c

O134 R320

O134 R321

O133 R317a

O314 R319b

O134 R322

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 34

13 Pergamon.indd 34

O135 R323a

O135 R323b

O135 R324

O135 R325

O136 R326

O136 R327

O136 R328

O136 R329

O137 R330

O137 R331

O137 R332

O137 R333a

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 35

O137 R333b

13 Pergamon.indd 35

O137 R334

O137 R335

O137 R336

O137 R337

O137 R338

O138 R339a

O138 R399b

O138 R340

O138 R341

O138 R342

O138 R343a

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 36

O138 R343b

O139 R343c

O141 R345b

O141 R346

O142 R348

13 Pergamon.indd 36

O142 R349

O140 R344

O141 R345a

O142 R347a

O142 R347b

O142 R350

O142 R351

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 37

O142 R352

O143 R356

O144 R360

13 Pergamon.indd 37

O142 R353

O? R354

O143 R355

O143 R357

O143 R358

O143 R359

O144 R361

O144 R362

O144 R363

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 38

O144 R364

13 Pergamon.indd 38

O145 R365

O145 R366

O145 R370

O146 R371

O147 R372

O147 R373b

O147R374

O147 R375

O145 R368

O147 R373a

O147 R376

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 39

O148 R379a

13 Pergamon.indd 39

O148 R379b

O150 R382a

O150 R382b

O151 R385

O152 R386

O148 R380

O150 R383

O153 R387

O149 R381

O150 R384

O154 R388

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 40

O154 R389a

O154 R389b

O154 R389c

O154 R390

O154 R391

O154 R392

O154 R393

O155 R394

O156 R396a

O156 R396b

O156 R395

13 Pergamon.indd 40

O156 R397

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 41

O157 R398

O157 R399

O159 R402

O159 R403a

O159 R405

13 Pergamon.indd 41

O160 R406

O158 R400

O159 R401

O159 R403b

O159 R404

O161 R407

O161 R408

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 42

O162 R409

13 Pergamon.indd 42

O162 R410

O163 R411

O164 R412

O164 R413

O164 R414

O164 R415

O164 R416

O165 R417

O165 R418

O165 R419

O165 R420

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 43

O165 R421

O166 R425a

O167 R428

13 Pergamon.indd 43

O165 R422

O166 R425b

O167 R429a

O165 R423

O166 R424

O166 R426

O166 R427

O167 R429b

O167 R429c

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 44

O167 R430

O167 R433

O168 R437

13 Pergamon.indd 44

O167 R431a

O167 R434

O168 R438

O167 R431b

O167 R432

O168 R435

O168 R436

O169 R439a

O169 R439b

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 45

O169 R440

13 Pergamon.indd 45

O170 R441a

O170 R443

O170 R444a

O171 R445

O171 R446

O170 R441b

O170 R442

O170 R444b

O170 R444c

O171 R447a

O171 R447b

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 46

O171 R448

O173 R452

O174 R454c

13 Pergamon.indd 46

O172 R449

O173 R453

O174 R454d

O173 R450

O173 R451

O174 R454a

O174 R454b

O174 R455a

O174 R455b

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 47

O174 R456a

O174 R458b

O175 R461b

13 Pergamon.indd 47

O174 R456b

O175 R459

O175 R462

O174 R457

O175 R460

O176 R463

O174 R458a

O175 R461a

O176 R464

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 48

O176 R465a

O176 R467

O177 R469

13 Pergamon.indd 48

O176 R465b

O176 R468a

O177 R470

O176 R466a

O176 R468b

O177 R471

O176 R466b

O176 R468c

O177 R472

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 49

O177 R473

O179 R476a

O180 R479a

13 Pergamon.indd 49

O177 R474

O179 R476b

O180 R479b

O178 R475a

O178 R475b

O179 R477

O180 R478

O180 R480

O180 R481

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 50

O181 R482

O182 R485

O183 R489

13 Pergamon.indd 50

O181 R483a

O181 R483b

O181 R484

O182 R486

O182 R487

O183 R488

O184 R490

O184 R491a

O184 R491b

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 51

13 Pergamon.indd 51

O184 R491c

O184 R492

O185 R493

O186 R495

O186 R496

O186 R497

O187 R498b

O187 R499

O188 R500a

O186 R494

O187 R498a

O188 R500b

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 52

O189 R501

13 Pergamon.indd 52

O190 R502

O191 R503a

O191 R503b

O191 R504

O192 R505

O193 R506a

O193 R506b

O193 R506c

O193 507a

O193 R507b

O193 R507c

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 53

O193 R507d

O193 R509b

O193 R512a

13 Pergamon.indd 53

O193 R507e

O193 R508

O193 R510a

O193 R510b

O193 R512b

O193 R513a

O193 R509a

O193 R511

O193 R513b

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 54

O193 R513c

13 Pergamon.indd 54

O193 R513d

O193 R513e

O193 R514a

O193 R514b

O193 R515

O193 R516

O193 R517

O193 R518

O193 R519

O193 R520a

O193 R520b

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 55

O193 R521

13 Pergamon.indd 55

O193 R522a

O194 R524

O195 R525a

O195 R527a

O195 R527b

O193 R522b

O195 R525b

O195 R527c

O193 R523

O195 R526

O195 R528

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 56

O195 R529a

O195 R532

O197 R535a

13 Pergamon.indd 56

O195 R529b

O197 R533

O197 R535b

O195 R530

O197 R534a

O197 R536a

O195 R531

O197 R534b

O197 R536b

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 57

13 Pergamon.indd 57

O197 R537

O197 R538

O197 R539

O198 R541

O198 R542

O199 R543

O200 R545

O201 R546

O201 R547a

O197 R540

O200 R544

O201 R547b

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 58

O201 R548a

13 Pergamon.indd 58

O201 R548b

O201 R549

O201 R550b

O201 R551a

O201 R551b

O201 R553

O202 R554

O202 R555

O201 R550a

O201 R552

O203 R556

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 59

13 Pergamon.indd 59

O203 R557

O203 R558

O204 R559

O204 R561a

O204 R561b

O204 R562

O204 R564

O205 R565

O205 R566

O204 R560

O204 R563

O205 R567

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 60

O206 R568

O206 R571b

O206 R569

O207 R572

O210 R575a

13 Pergamon.indd 60

O206 R570

O208 R573

O206 R571a

O209 R574

O210 R575b

3/13/20 9:01 AM

Plate 61

Ephesus

O1 R1

14 Ephesus plates.indd 61

O2 R2

O3 R3

O3 R4b

O3 R5

O4 R6

O6 R8

O7 R9

O8 R10

O3 R4a

O5 R7

O8 R11

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 62

14 Ephesus plates.indd 62

O9 R12

O9 R13

O10 R14

O10 R15

O11 R16

O11 R17

O12 R18

O13 R19a

O13 R19b

O13 R20

O14 R21

O14 R22

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 63

O14 R 23

14 Ephesus plates.indd 63

O15 R24

O16 R25

O16 R26

O17 R27

O17 R28

O18 R29

O19 R30

O19 R31

O20 R32

O21 R33

O22 R34a

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 64

O22 R34b

O22 R35

O24 R38

O25 R39

O26 R42

14 Ephesus plates.indd 64

O27 R43

O23 R36

O23 R37

O25 R40

O25 R41

O28 R44

O28 R45

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 65

O29 R46

14 Ephesus plates.indd 65

O29 R47a

O29 R47b

O29 R48

O30 R48

O31 R49

O31 R50

O32 R51

O32 R52

O32 R53

O33 R54

O33 R55

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 66

O33 R56

O34 R57

O34 R58

O35 R59

O36 R60

O37 R61

O38 R62

O39 R63

O40 R66

O41 R67

O39 R64

14 Ephesus plates.indd 66

O40 R65

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 67

O42 R68

O44 R72

O45 R76

14 Ephesus plates.indd 67

O43 R69

O44 R70

O44 R71

O45 R73

O45 R74

O45 R75

O45 R77

O46 R78

O47 R79

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 68

O47 R80

O49 R84

O51 R87

14 Ephesus plates.indd 68

O48 R81

O50 R85a

O52 R88

O49 R82

O50 R85b

O52 R89a

O49 R83

O50 R86

O52 R89b

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 69

O53 R90

O55 R93

O59 R97

14 Ephesus plates.indd 69

O54 R91

O55 R92a

O55 R92b

O56 R94

O57 R95

O58 R96

O59 R98

O59 R99

O59 R100

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 70

14 Ephesus plates.indd 70

O60 R101

O60 R102

O61 R103

O61 R104

O61 R105

O61 R106a

O61 R106b

O61 R107

O61 R108a

O61 R108b

O61 R109

O61 R110

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 71

14 Ephesus plates.indd 71

O62 R111a

O62 R111b

O63 R112a

O63 R112b

O64 R113a

O64 R113b

O65 R114

O65 R115

O66 R116

O67 R117a

O67 R117b

O67 R118

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 72

O68 R119a

14 Ephesus plates.indd 72

O68 R119b

O68 R119c

O68 R120a

O68 R120b

O68 R121

O70 R123

O71 R124

O71 R125

O71 R126

O72 R124

O72 R127

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 73

O72 R128

14 Ephesus plates.indd 73

O72 R129

O73 R131a

O73 R131b

O73 R134

O74 R135

O72 R130

O73 R132

O75 R136

O73 R130

O73 R133

O75 R137

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 74

O75 R138

O78 R142

O79 R145

14 Ephesus plates.indd 74

O76 R139

O77 R140

O77 R141

O78 R143

O78 R144

O78 R145

O80 R146

O80 R147

O81 R148

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 75

O82 R149

O83 R150

O84 R152a

O84 R152b

O84 R155a

14 Ephesus plates.indd 75

O84 R155b

O83 R151

O83 R152

O84 R153

O84 R154

O85 R155a

O85 R155b

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 76

O85 R156

O86 R158

O88 R161b

14 Ephesus plates.indd 76

O85 R157a

O85 R157b

O85 R157c

O86 R159

O87 R160

O88 R161a

O88 R162

O89 R163

O89 R164a

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 77

14 Ephesus plates.indd 77

O89 R164b

O89 R164c

O90 R166b

O91 R167

O92 R169

O92 R170

O89 R165

O91 R168a

O93 R171

O90 R166a

O91 R168b

O94 R172

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 78

O94 R173

14 Ephesus plates.indd 78

O94 R174

O95 R176a

O95 R176b

O95 R177

O96 R178

O97 R179

O97 R180

O98 R181

O99 R182a

O99 R182b

O100 R183

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 79

14 Ephesus plates.indd 79

O101 R184

O101 R186

O101 R187

O101 R188

O101 R189

O101 R190

O102 R185

O102 R191

O103 R192

O104 R193

O104 R194a

O104 R194b

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 80

14 Ephesus plates.indd 80

O104R195

O105 R196

O105 R197

O105 R198a

O105 R198b

O106 R199

O107 R200a

O107 R200b

O108 R201

O108 R202

O109 R203

O110 R204

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 81

14 Ephesus plates.indd 81

O110 R205

O111 R206

O112 R207

O113 R208

O114 R209

O115 R210

O115 R211

O116 R212

O117 R213

O118 R214

O118 R215

O118 R216

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 82

14 Ephesus plates.indd 82

O119 R217

O119 R218a

O119 R218b

O119 R219

O120 R220

O120 R221a

O120 R221b

O121 R222

O122 R223

O122 R224

O122 R225

O123 R226

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 83

O123 R227

O124 R228

O125 R229

O126 R230

O126 R231

O126 R232

O127 R233

O127 R234a

O127 R234b

14 Ephesus plates.indd 83

O127 R235

O127 R236a

O127 R236b

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 84

O128 R237

O128 R238a

O128 R238b

O129 R238

O130 R239

O130 R240

O131 R241a

O131 R241b

O133 R244

O134 R245

O132 R242

14 Ephesus plates.indd 84

O132 R243

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 85

14 Ephesus plates.indd 85

O134 R246

O134 R247

O135 R248

O135 R249

O136 R250

O136 R251a

O136 R251b

O136 R252

O137 R253

O137 R254

O137 255

O138 R256

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 86

14 Ephesus plates.indd 86

O138 R257

O139 R258

O139 R259

O139 R260

O140 R261a

O140 R261b

O140 R262

O141 R263

O141 R264

O142 R265

O143 R266

O143 R267

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 87

O144 R268

O147 R272

O148 R276

14 Ephesus plates.indd 87

O145 R269

O? R270

O146 R271

O147 R273

O147 R274

O147 R275

O149 R277

O150 R278

O151 R279

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 88

14 Ephesus plates.indd 88

O153 R281a

O153 R281b

O154 R282a

O154 R282b

O154 R283

O155 R284

O156 R285

O157 R286

O158 R287

O159 R288

O159 R289a

O159 R289b

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 89

14 Ephesus plates.indd 89

O159 R290

O160 R291

O161 R292

O162 R293

O163 R294a

O163 R294b

O163 R294c

O164 R295

O164 R296

O165 R297

O166 R298

O167 R299

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 90

O167 R300

O168 R301

O169 R302

O169 R303

O169 R304a

O169 R304b

O169R305

O170 R306a

O170 R307

O170 R308a

O170 R306b

14 Ephesus plates.indd 90

O170 R306c

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 91

O170 R308b

O171 R309a

O171 R309b

O171 R310a

O171 R310b

O171 R310c

O171 R310d

O171 R310e

O171 R312a

O171 R312b

O171 R311a

14 Ephesus plates.indd 91

O171 R311b

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 92

14 Ephesus plates.indd 92

O171 R312c

O172 R313a

O172 R313b

O172 R314

O173 R314a

O173 R314b

O173R314c

O173 R315a

O173 R315b

O173 R316a

O173 R316b

O173 R316c

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 93

O174 R317

14 Ephesus plates.indd 93

O175 R318

O175 R319

O175 R320

O175 R321

O176 R322

O177 R323

O178 R324a

O178 R324b

O178 R324c

O178 R325a

O178 R325b

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 94

14 Ephesus plates.indd 94

O178 R325c

O178 R325d

O178 R325e

O179 R326

O179 R327a

O179 R327b

O179 R328

O179 R329

O179 R330

O180 R331a

O180 R331b

O180 R332

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 95

O180 R333a

O180 R333b

O180 R334a

O180 R334b

O181 R336a

14 Ephesus plates.indd 95

O181 R336b

O180 R333c

O180 R333d

O180 R335a

O181 R335b

O181 R336c

O181 R337

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 96

O181 R338a

O181 R338b

O181 R338c

O181 R338e

O181 R338f

O181 R338g

O181 R338i

14 Ephesus plates.indd 96

O181 R338j

O182 R339a

O181 R338d

O181 R338h

O182 R339b

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 97

O182 R339c

14 Ephesus plates.indd 97

O182 R340a

O182 R340b

O182 R340c

O183 R341

O184 R342a

O184 R342b

O184 R343

O184 R344a

O184 R344b

O184 R344c

O185 R345

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 98

O185 R346

14 Ephesus plates.indd 98

O186 R347

O187 R348

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 99

Tralles

(Pre-89 BC)

15 Tralles Plates.indd 99

O1 R1

O2 R2

O3 R3

O3 R4

O4 R5

O5 R6

O6 R7

O6 R8

O6 R9

O7 R10

O7 R11

O8 R12

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 100

O9 R13a

15 Tralles Plates.indd 100

O9 R13b

O11 R15

O12 R16

O14 R19

O15 R20

O10 R14a

O10 R14b

O13 R17

O14 R18

O16 R21

O17 R21a

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 101

O18 R22a

O18 R23b

O18 R27

15 Tralles Plates.indd 101

O18 R22b

O18 R24

O18 R28

O18 R22c

O18 R23a

O18 R25

O18 R26

O18 R29

O18 R30a

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 102

15 Tralles Plates.indd 102

O18 R30b

O18 R30c

O20 R32b

O20 R33a

O20 R33d

O20 R34

O19 R31

O20 R33b

O20 R35

O20 R32a

O20 R33c

O20 R36

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 103

15 Tralles Plates.indd 103

O20 R37a

O20 R37b

O20 R38

O21 R39

O21 R40a

O21 R40b

O21 R41a

O21 R41b

O21 R42a

O21 R42b

O21 R42c

O21 R43

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 104

O21 R44

15 Tralles Plates.indd 104

O22 R45

O22 R46

O22 R47

O23 R48

O23 R49

O23 R50a

O23 R50b

O23 R51

O23 R52

O24 R53

O25 R54

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 105

O25 R55

15 Tralles Plates.indd 105

O25 R56

O26 R57a

O26 R57b

O26 R58

O27 R59

O27 R60

O27 R61

O28 R62

O29 R63a

O29 R63b

O30 R64a

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 106

15 Tralles Plates.indd 106

O30 R64b

O30 R64c

O31 R65

O31 R66

O31 R67

O31 R68

O32 R68a

O32 R68b

O32 R69

O32 R70a

O32 R70b

O32 R71a

3/12/20 2:29 PM

Plate 107

O32 R71b

O35 R74b

O36 R77b

15 Tralles Plates.indd 107

O33 R72

O35 R75

O37 R78a

O34 R73

O35 R74a

O36 R76

O36 R77a

O37 R78b

O37 R79

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 108

O37 R80

15 Tralles Plates.indd 108

O37 R81a

O37 R81b

O37 R81

O37 R82

O37 R83a

O37 R83b

O37 R84

O38 R85

O38 R86

O38 R87

O38 R88

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 109

15 Tralles Plates.indd 109

O38 R89

O39 R90a

O39 R90b

O39 R90c

O39 R91a

O39 R91b

O39 R91c

O39 R91d

O39 R91e

O39 R92a

O39 R92b

O40 R93

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 110

O40 R94

15 Tralles Plates.indd 110

O40 R95

O41 R97b

O41 R97c

O41 R98

O41 R99

O41 R96

O41 R97d

O41 R100a

O41 R97a

O41 R97e

O41 R100b

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 111

O41 R101

O41 R105a

O42 R106d

15 Tralles Plates.indd 111

O41 R102

O42 R106a

O42 R106e

O41 R103

O42 R106b

O42 R106f

O41 R104

O42 R106c

O42 R106g

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 112

O42 R106h

O42 R109a

O42 R111a

15 Tralles Plates.indd 112

O42 R106i

O42 R109b

O42 R111b

O42 R107

O42 R110a

O42 R112a

O42 R108

O42 R110b

O42 R112b

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 113

O42 R113

O42 R114d

O43 R116c

15 Tralles Plates.indd 113

O42 R114a

O42 R115

O43 R116d

O42 R114b

O43 R116a

O43 R116e

O42 R114c

O43 R116b

O43 R116f

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 114

15 Tralles Plates.indd 114

O43 R116g

O43 R116h

O43 R116i

O43 R116j

O43 R116k

O43 R116l

O43 R116m

O43 R116n

O43 R116p

O43 R116q

O43 R116r

O43 R116s

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 115

O43 R116t

O43 R116x

O43 R116dd

15 Tralles Plates.indd 115

O43 R116u

O43 R116y

O43 R116ee

O43 R116v

O43 R116z

O43 R116ff

O43 R116w

O43 R116aa

O43 R116gg

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 116

O43 R116hh

15 Tralles Plates.indd 116

O43 R116ii

O43 R116jj

O43 R116oo

O44 R117

O44 R118

O44 R119

O44 R120

O45 R121a

O45 R121b

O45 R121c

O46 R122a

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 117

O46 R122b

15 Tralles Plates.indd 117

O47 R123a

O47 R123b

O48 R124

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 118

Tralles

(Post-89 BC)

15 Tralles Plates.indd 118

O49 R125a

O49 R125b

O50 R129a

O50 R129c

O52 R133b

O52 R134

O49 R126

O50 R130

O52 R135b

O50 R128

O51 R131b

O53 R136

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 119

O54 R138

O55 R142

O57 R144

15 Tralles Plates.indd 119

O55 R139

O55 R140

O56 R143a

O56 R143b

O58 R145b

O59 R146a

O55 R141

O56 R143c

O59 R147a

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 120

15 Tralles Plates.indd 120

O59 R147b

O60 R148a

O60 R148b

O60 R149

O60 R150a

O60 R150b

O61 R151

O62 R152a

O63 R153a

O63 R153b

O63 R153c

O63 R153d

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 121

O64 R154

O64 R155

O65 R156

O66 R157a

O66 R157b

O66 R157c

O66 R158b

O66 R158c

O68 R160

O68 R161

O67 R159a

15 Tralles Plates.indd 121

O67 R159b

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 122

O68 R162a

O68 R163

O69 R165b

15 Tralles Plates.indd 122

O68 R162b

O68 R164a

O69 R165c

O68 R162c

O68 R164b

O69 R166

O68 R162d

O69 R165a

O69 R167a

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 123

O69 R167b

O69 R168

O70 R169

O70 R170a

O70 R170b

O70 R170c

O70 R171

O71 R172

O71 R177a

15 Tralles Plates.indd 123

O71 R177c

O71 R178

O72 R173a

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 124

O72 R173b

15 Tralles Plates.indd 124

O72 R174

O72 R178

O72 R179

O72 R191

O73 R175

O74 R176a

O74 R176b

O74 R180a

O74 R180b

O75 R181a

O75 R181b

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 125

O75 R182

O76 R183a

O76 R183b

O76 R184

O77 R185

O77 R186

O78 R188

15 Tralles Plates.indd 125

O79 R189

O79 R190

O76 R183c

O77 R187

O80 R192a

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 126

O80 R192c

O80 R201b

O81 R196

15 Tralles Plates.indd 126

O80 R193

O80 R202

O81 R197

O80 R194

O80 R201a

O80 R203

O81 R195

O82 R198a

O82 R198b

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 127

15 Tralles Plates.indd 127

O82 R198c

O82 R198d

O82 R198f

O83 R204a

O83 R204b

O83 R205

O83 R217

O84 R200

O85 R207

O83 R199

O83 R206

O85 R208

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 128

O85 R209a

O85 R227

O87 R212b

15 Tralles Plates.indd 128

O85 R209b

O86 R210

O87 R213

O85 R225

O85 R226

O86 R211

O87 R212a

O87 R214

O88 R215

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 129

O88 R218

15 Tralles Plates.indd 129

O89 R216a

O90 R220

O90 R221a

O91 R223

O91 R224

O89 R216b

O90 R221b

O91 R228a

O90 R219

O91 R222

O91 R228b

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 130

O92 R229

O95 R233

O97 R237

15 Tralles Plates.indd 130

O93 R230

O96 R234

O97 R238

O94 R231

O96 R235

O97 R239

O95 R232

O97 R236

O98 R240

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 131

O98 R241

O98 R242

O99 R243c

O100 R244

O100 R245c

15 Tralles Plates.indd 131

O101 R246

O99 R243a

O99 R243b

O100 R245a

O100 R245b

O101 R247

O102 R248

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 132

15 Tralles Plates.indd 132

O102 R249a

O102 R250a

O102 R250b

O102 R252a

O102 R252b

O102 R253

O103 R255a

O103 R255b

O103 R255c

O102 R251

O102 R254

O103 R256

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 133

O104 R257a

15 Tralles Plates.indd 133

O104 R257b

O105 R258a

O105 R258b

O105 R259

O106 R260a

O106 R260b

O106 R261

O106 R262a

O106 R262b

O106 R263

O106 R264

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 134

O107 R265

O107 R266

O107 R269

15 Tralles Plates.indd 134

O107 R267

O107 R268

O107 R270

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 135

Didrachms

O1 R1a

15 Tralles Plates.indd 135

O1 R1b

O1 R1c

O1 R1d

O2 R2

O3 R3

O3 R4

O4 R5

O5 R6

O6 R7

O7 R8

O8 R9

O9 R10a

O9 R10b

O9 R10c

O10 R11

O10 R12

O11 R13

O12 R14

O13 R15

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 136

O14 R16a

O14 R16b

O15 R17

O15 R18a

O15 R18b

O16 R17

O17 R19a

O17 R19b

O18 R20

O18 R21a

O18 R21c

15 Tralles Plates.indd 136

O18 R21d

O19 R21d

O20 R22

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 137

Drachms

O1 R1

O6 R6

O11 R10

O14 R13

15 Tralles Plates.indd 137

O2 R2a

O2 R2b

O3 R3

O4 R4

O5 R5

O7 R7

O8 R8a

O8 R8b

O9 R9

O10 R9

O12 R11a

O12 R11b

O13 R12

O14 R12a

O14 R12b

O15 R14a

O15 R14c

O16 R15

O17 R16

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 138

Laodicea

O1 R1a

O1 R1b

O1 R1c

O2 R1

Apamea

O1 R1

16 Laodicea plates.indd 138

O2 R2

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 139

Adramyteum (Hoard)

O1 R1

17 Adramyttium.indd 139

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 140

Adramyteum (Die Study)

O1 R1

17 Adramyttium.indd 140

O1 R2

O4 R5

O4 R6

O6 R8

O7 R9

O2 R3

O3 R4

O5 R7a

O5 R7b

O8 R10

O8 R11

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 141

O9 R12

O9 R13

O10 R16

O10 R17

O11 R20

17 Adramyttium.indd 141

O9 R14

O9 R15

O10 R18

O11 R19

O12 R21

3/12/20 2:30 PM

Plate 142

Nysa

O1 R1

Smyrna

O1 R1

Uncertain (Ephesus?)

O1 R1

18 Nysa.indd 142

3/12/20 2:31 PM