large ptolemaic bronzes in third-century egyptian hoards / catharine c. lorber

8/20/2019 Large Ptolemaic bronzes in third-century Egyptian hoards / Catharine C. Lorber

1/41

/';-=09 )(8*

=-0/']

This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 11:28:49 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions


2/41


3/41

CONTENTS

James A.

Schell. Observations

n the

metrology

f

the

precious

metal

coinage

of

Philip

II

of Macedón: the Thraco-

Macedonian tandardor the Corinthian tandard?

1

Peter G. van Alfen. The owls from he 1973 Iraq hoard 9

Melíh

Arslan

and

Ayça

Özen.

A

hoard

of

unpublished

ronze

coins of

Ptolemy

Ceraunus

59

Catharine C. Lorber.

Large

Ptolemaic bronzes

n

third-century

Egyptian

hoards

67

Brian

Kritt,

Oliver D.

Hoover,

and

Arthur

Houghton.

Three

Seleucid

notes

93

Michael L.

Thomas.

An imitative nsealed semis

fromnorthern

Etruria 113

Martin

Beckmann. The

early gold coinage

of

Trajan's

sixth

consulship

119

David

Woods.

Julian,Gallienus,

nd the solar bull

157

Stuart D. Sears. An Abbāsid revolution oard

from

he

western

Jazīra

al-Raqqa?)

171

L. A.

Saryan.

An

unpublished

ilverdouble tram of Gosdantin

(1298-1299),kingof CilicianArmenia 195

Warren

C.

Schultz

and Haim Gitler.

A

Mamluk

bronze

weight

in

the Israel

Museum,

with further ommentson

this rare

metrological pecies

205

John M.

Kleeberg. Three notes

on

the

private gold coinage

of

the

United States

215

BOOK REVIEWS

Ian Carradice, Greekoins N. K. Rutter, TheGreek

oinages f

southern

taly

and

Sicily

CarmenArnold-Biucchi 239



4/41

SoHEiR

Bakhoum, ed.,

Sylloge

nummorum

raecorum rance

4

Département

es

monnaies,

médailles t

antiques,

Alexandrie .

Auguste-Trajan.

William E.

Metcalf

247

Philip

Grierson,

Catalogue

of

the

Byzantine

coins

in the

DumbartonOaks collection

nd

in the

Whittemore

ollection,

volume 5. Robert

Hallman

249

Philip Grierson and Lucia Travaini, Medieval European

coinage,

with

catalogue

f

he

oins

n the

itzwilliam

Museum,

Cambridge

4:

Italy

(III) (South

Italy, Sicily,

Sardinia

.

William R.

Day,

Jr.

254

ACQUISITIONS

FOR 1999 IN THE

AMERICAN

NUMISMATIC

SOCIETY

COLLECTION

Greek.Carmen

Arnold-Biucchi

261

Roman and

Byzantine.

William E. Metcalf

265

Islamic

and East Asian.

Michael L. Bates

266

Medieval.

267

Medals and decorations.

269

Modern,

atin

American,

nd

US.

JohnM.

Kleeberg

270



5/41

A

JN

Second Series

12

(2000)

pp.

67-92

©

2001

TheAmerican

umismatic

ociety

LARGE PTOLEMAIC BRONZES IN

THIRD-CENTURY EGYPTIAN HOARDS

(Plates

12-17)

Catharine

C. Lorber*

In recent

years

two

major

findshave

enlarged

our

already

significant

inventory fEgyptianhoardscontaining arge third-centurytolemaic

bronzes. Both of the new hoards were unearthed

in the

course

of

archaeological

excavations

in

Egypt,

and thus their

integrity

s

assured.

A

pot

hoard of 456 Ptolemaic

bronzes,

hidden beneath the

foundations f the settlementwall

of

Area 5 at

Saqqâra,

was

published

in

1988

by

Martin Price

(Price

1988:66-70).

Following

Price,

we shall

refer o this

important

ind as the Anubieion hoard.

A

hoard of 679

Ptolemaic

bronzes,

discovered

n the stairwellof Ptolemaic House D

at

Elephantine,

was

published

in 1993

by Hans-Christoph

Noeske

(Noeske 1993:206-208). These new finds, consideredtogetherwith

eight

hoards

published previously,

fferfreshevidence for the chro-

nology

of

Ptolemaic bronze

currency

n

the third

century,

nd for the

denominations f that

currency.

Of

the

eight

earlier

hoards,

two

passed

through

ommercial hannels

before

being analyzed by

numismatic

cholars: hoard

reportedly

rom

Lower

Egypt

(

1GCH

1691),

published by

Edward T.

Newell,

and a

hoard

in

the J. Paul

Getty

Museum,

published by

Paolo Visonà

(Newell

1935:51-67;

Visonà

1978-79:153-162).

The

remaining

six

hoards receivedmoresummary reatment.J. G. Milnebriefly ecorded

*

5450Fenwood

venue,

Woodland

ills,

A

91367,

SA.

67



6/41

68 Large Ptolemaic Bronzes

three

hoards

of

uncertain

Egyptian provenance

stored

in the

Cairo

Museum

(

GCH

1696-98) (Milne 1908:32).

Three additional

hoards

came to

light

through

controlled xcavations:

a hoard found in the

walls of the

temple

of Ramesses at Thebes

(

GCH

1699)

(Quibell

1896:13;

Newell

1935:64-67),

a

pot

hoard from Birabi near

Luxor

(

GCH

1700),1

and a

funerary ffering laced

beneath

the floorof the

vestibule of a brick-vaulted omb at

Birabi

(Carnarvon

and Carter

1912:43-45).2The last find was describedby its excavators as new

coinage

that

is,

coinage unusually

fresh or

Upper Egypt

(Carnarvon

and Carter

1912:46).

Its interment

an

be

placed,

at

least

approxi-

mately,

by

two demotic

papyri

found

n a

nearby

tomb,

both

dated

to

year

4 of

Harmachis,

hat

is,

202/1

BC.3

These ten hoards

comprise

a solid

body

of

evidence,

more than

usually

reliable because of the known

provenance

and

archaeological

pedigree

of five of the

ten.

It is notable that fourof

the

provenances

are

Upper Egyptian

and the otherMiddle

Egyptian.

Thus these

hoards

reflect onditions n the south,and the conclusionsdrawn from hem

may

not

necessarily

be

applicable

to Lower

Egypt.

In this

respect

these hoards resemble he

papyrological

vidence,

which

also

originates

outside

the Delta.

In the absence of an established

erminology

or Ptolemaic

bronzes,

the hoards under consideration

here were classified

using

several

different

pproaches.

Newell referred

o

heavy

and

light

units and

halves

(Newell

1935:65).

Price identified

our denominations

which he

labelled with Roman

numerals -IV

(Price

1988:66).4

Other

authors

providedweightsand diameters,or simplycited catalogue numbers

from

Svoronos

or

SN G

Copenhagen

Svoronos

1904-08;

Kromann and

Morkholm

977).

In order to

compare

all

the hoard

contents,

we shall

make use

of the

following

bbreviations

to

indicate coins

of similar

1

Unfortunatelyispersed

romhe

Metropolitan

useumf

Art,

eaving

nly

partial

ecordn the

photo

iles

f heAmerican

umismatic

ociety.

R.A.

Hazzard

indly

rew

my

ttentiono this

ittle-known

oard.

3

Pestman

1967:44)

ated

Harmachis'

irst

egnal

ear

o

205/4.

4

In

addition,

rice

erformed

metrologicaltudy

nthe

Anubieion,

ewell,

nd

Getty oard oins1988:69). hesmall able 1988:68) ontrastingheweightsf

these

enominations

nder tolemies

I and

III is inconsistent

ith rice's

isto-

grams

1988:69)

nd hould

e

overlooked.



7/41

Catharine e. Lorber 69

diameter nd

weight,

hat

is,

coins

presumably

f

the same denomina-

tion. The

weights

re idealized to

facilitate

ecognition

f the

metrolog-

ical

relationships.

module A

c. 45

mm,

c.

96

g

module B

c. 40-43

mm,

c. 72

g

module

C c. 38

mm,

c. 48

g

module

D

c. 35-36

mm,

c. 36

gmoduleF c. 30

mm,

c. 24

g

module G

c.

27-28

mm,

c. 18

g

module I

c. 24

mm,

c. 12

g

RELATIVE

CHRONOLOGY

The Anubieion

hoard had an earlier

closure than the

comparable

hoards known t the time of itspublication.Price used the comparison

to

demonstrate hat three

bronze series

represented

n

the Anubieion

hoard one

unmarked

Svor. 1002ff.),

ne

marked with the

letter

E

and its

variants

E

and

t

(Svor. 974ff.),

nd one

marked with the

letterA

(Svor. 1166ff.)-

had to

precede

the

familiar eries of

Ptolemy

III

marked with the

monogram

&

(Svor.

964ff.).

By analogy

with

the

precious

metal

coins,

he

proposed

the

following equence

of

controls:

unmarked,

E and

variants,

A

(no

precious

metal

equivalent),

and

&

for

Ptolemy

II;

and ZE

(with

variants 2E and

Z)

followed

by

Al

(and

Al) forPtolemy V (Price 1988:68,70).

The

Elephantine

hoard,

in

contrast to

the others

cited

here,

consisted

predominantly

f bronzes

of

Ptolemy

II

belonging

to

the

expanded

denominational

ystem

ntroduced

fter c. 261

BC.5

It

had

an earlier

closure than

even the Anubieion

hoard

(see

Table

1).

The

only

coins

in

the

Elephantine

hoard later

than

Ptolemy

II

were

markedwith

the control

etterA

between the

legs

of the

eagle

on

the

5

For a

conspectus

f this

oinage,

ee

Morkholm

1991:105);

ee

also Hazzard

(1995:64).



8/41


Table 1.

Control

Module

Elephantine

nubieion Newell

Getty

No. f

pecs.

at.

o(s).

Cat.

o(s).a

Cat.

o(s).b

Ptolemy

I,

reformed

oinage

Unmarked

,

c. 72

g Sv.

13)

5

F,

c.24

g

Sv. 15)

4

A

B,

c. 72

g

Sv. 22)

28

F,c.24g Sv. 23) 6A B,c. 72

g

Sv. 37) 88

early

group

F,

c.24

g

Sv. 38)

29 1-7

I,

c. 12

g Sv.

39)

8

E

B,

c.

72

g

Sv. 47)

8

F,

c.24

g Sv.

49)

13 13-15

F,

c.24

g

Sv.

49

ar.)

2

3)

16

1É)

I,

c. 12

g Sv. 50)

2

Z

F,

c.

24

g

Sv. 58)

2

0

A,

. 96

g

Sv. 62)

2

VW)

B,c. 72g Sv. 63) 83

F,

c.24

g Sv. 65)

14 8-12

I,

c. 12

Sv.

67)

5

0

-

ME

B,

c.

72

g

Sv. 64)

19

F,

c.24

g Sv.

66)

4

A

B,

c. 72

g Sv.

79)

116

3

W)

F,

c.

24

g

Sv. 81)

5

I,

c. 12

g

Sv. 82)

3

O

B,

c. 72

g Sv

)

26

F,

c. 24

g Sv

)

5

P B,c. 72g Sv. 97) 95 4-5W,G)

F,

c. 24

g

Sv. 98)

2

y

F,

c. 24

g

3

Y

B,

c. 72

g

28

X

B,

c. 72

g

Sv. 14)

35

Ptolemy

II

A

A,

.96

g Sv.

78)

355-356

29

VG)

a

Newell's

ndicationsf ondition

re bbreviateds

follows:

W

=

very

orn ;

W

= worn ; = good ; G= very ood; = fine.b

Parenthetical

ntries

epresent

he uthor's

ount

feach

variety

nd estimate

f

average

ear,

which

ary lightly

n some

ases rom

hose fVisonà.



9/41


C,

. 48

g

Sv. 166)

357-386 130-132

(4,

worn)

D,

c. 36

g

Sv. 167)

26 388-409 133

- )

G,

.

18

g Sv.

169)

13 410-438

E

A,

. 96

g

Sv. 46)

19-34

8-20

4-11

(7W,

G,

VG) (8,

ome

ear)

C,

. 48

g Sv.

74)

35-185 21-24 106-123

(2W, G) (15,

ome

ear,

tending

o

worn)

D,

c. 36

g

Sv. 44a)

186

G,

. 18

g

Sv. 75)

187-217 134

(1, ome ear)

E

A,

. 96

g

218-219

E

C,

. 48

g

220-313 25-28 124-129

(IG, VG) (10,

ome

ear,

tending

o

light)

£

C,

. 48

g

314-323

G,

. 18

g

324-325

Unmarked

,

. 96

g Sv. 12)

1

G)

1-3

(3,

ome

ear)

B,

c. 72

g Sv. 002)

35

1,

light

ear)

C,

. 48

g

Sv. 172)

104-105

(1,

l.-some

ear)

G,

.

18

g Sv )

18

£ B, . 72g Sv. 64) 30-371W,G, 12-2817. light

2VG,

F)

wearo

fresh)

D,

c. 36

g

Sv. 65)

38-39

29-33

(1VG,F)

(5, lightear)

F,

c.

24

g Sv. 66)

34

1,

ome

ear)

Ptolemy

V

B,

c. 72

g

Sv. 126)

40-41 55-63

(1VG,

F) (9,

ome

ear)

Al

D,

c.

36

g

Sv. 128)

42-43

IG,

F)

64-66

3,worn)

Al

B,

c.

72

g Sv. 125)

44-57

36-50

(1W,G, F) (18,

ome

ear)D,c. 36g Sv. 127) 51-53

(4,

lightear)

2

B,

c.

72

g Sv. 92)

66-69 89-100

(2G,

VG,

F) (10,

light

o ome

wear)

D,

c. 36

g

101

(1, light

o

some

ear)

I

B,

c. 72

g Sv. 92)

58-60

F)

67-76

9,

light

o

some

ear)

D,

c. 36

g Sv. 93)

77-81

(4, lightear)

IE

B,

c. 72

g Sv. 92)

61-65

82-87

(IG,

VG,

F)

(6, lightear)

C, . 48g Sv. 148-49) 102-103

(2,

light

ear)

D,

c. 36

g Sv. 93)

88

(1, lightear)



10/41


reverse.6

This

suggests

that Price

placed

the A series too late

in his

sequence

of controls or

Ptolemy

II.

The

present

uthor

found

confir-

mation n her reexamination f

the

Getty

hoard,

deeming

he coins of

the

A

series

to be more

worn,overall,

than

any

other

component

f

the

hoard.

The series marked

E

and

E

(with

variants)

showed somewhat

less

wear,

and the unmarked eries

appeared

to be

yet

more recent.7

The * series

s

confidently

ttributed

by

all

authorities

o

Ptolemy

III, because its control is shared by Attic-weight entadrachmsof

Berenice

II in

gold

and silver

Svor.

962-963).

This

series s

decidedly

the freshest

omponent

f

the

Getty

hoard,

a fact that on

its surface

would

seem to

suggest

that the

£ series was

that last issued

before

deposit

of the

hoard. Yet the

Getty

hoard

contains coins

from eries

generally

attributed to the fourth

Ptolemy.

Visonà

attempted

to

account for

he

discrepancy y

characterizing

he later

coins as

a

circu-

lation

component

within a

savings

hoard

(Visonà

1978-79:156-157).

The Newell hoard

seems to

present

similar

nomaly.

Newell

assigned

comparablegradesto the * series and to later components ttributed

to

Ptolemy

IV. But a

glance

at Newelťs

plates

reveals

more wear

on

the

coins

of

Ptolemy

V than on

the coins

(Newell

1935:pl.

ix, 41,

42, 49,

63,

and

pl.

viii, 30,

39),

all described

s fine.

Price wrote

of

the dramatic

improvement

n the

style

and

alloy

of the *

bronze

series,

which

he characterized

s a reform

Price

1988:68).

A

superior

alloy

might

ndeed

help

to account

forthe

rather

brilliant ondition

f

this

group

n

the

Getty

and Newell

hoards.

6 Noeske1993:207)ave his eries oPtolemyV,with heresulthatmost f

the

Elephantine

oard

oinswere ttributed

o

Ptolemy

I,

and

small

emainder

o

Ptolemy

V. As

possible

xplanations

or he emarkable

bsence

f oins

f

Ptolemy

III,

not

only

romhehoard ut

also from

he ndividual

oin

finds,

e

suggested

(1993:208)

hat he coins

f

Ptolemy

II were

perhaps

ather

cantily roduced;

that

heymay

nothave

had time

o travel rom

lexandria

o

Upper

gypt;

r

thatthere

may

have been

political

easons t

Elephantine

or

xcluding

hem.

When

he contents

f the Anubieion

oard

re taken

nto

ccount,

eattribution

seems

hemost

atisfactory

olution

o the acuna.

The author's

rading ielded

lightly

ifferent

esults

romhat

f

Visonà,

ho

employed

numerical

ystem

rom to

6,

with

representing

east

wear nd

6

representingostwear.Accordingo Visonà'system,he various ronzeeries

display

he

followingegrees

fwear:

series,

v.

4;

A

series,

v.

3.5;

E

series,

v.

3.2;

and

unmarked

eries,

v.

3.



11/41


Price's relative

hronology

or he bronze ssues of

Ptolemy

V is also

open

to

question.Assuming

hat

Philopator

mployed

consistent

lloy

forhis bronze

coinage,

the relativewear of different

eries

n the

Getty

hoard

suggests

the

following

equence:

Al, Al, 2, 2E,

IE. Newell had

already rejected

the notionthat the controls f the bronze

coinage

ran

strictly arallel

to those of the

precious

metal

coinage,

nsisting

hat the

style

of the bronze coins must

preclude placing

2E

before

Al

(Newell

1935:63-64).Visonà recorded hreedie linksamongtwelve coinsof the

Al

series,

and two links

among

fifteen oins of the 2E series

(Visonà

1978-79:156).

These links

confirm hat these series re

among

the latest

represented

n

the

Getty

hoard,

but are

probably

inconclusive

with

respect

o the

relative

hronology

f the

two

controls.

The

hoard evidence s not

perfectly

onsistent,

ut on a whole seems

to

support

revision

of Price's

sequence

of

emissions s follows:

A, E,

E

and

variants,unmarked,&, Al,

Al, 2, 2E,

2E.

THE BRONZE DRACHM

This

group

of hoards

raises

questions

about the

largest

bronze coin

ever

struck

by

the

Ptolemies,

ur module

A,

with

a

weight

of about 96

grams.

The

obverse

type

is a

head

of

Zeus Ammon

right,

and the

reverse

type eagle

with

spread wings

standing

left on

thunderbolt,

head

reverted.The

elements of the

legend

are

transposed

fromtheir

usual

positions,

with the

kingly

title on the left

and

the

royal

name

on

the

right. Only

a handful of

emissions of module A

have been

recorded:unmarked Svor. 412); issues marked withthe control etter

E

(Svor. 446)

and its

variants

E

(

Anubieion

18-219),

t

(Mit

Rahineh

hoard,

IGCH

1714,

photo

in

ANS

photo file),

and

(observed by

the

author n

the

Getty

hoard);

and issues

marked

0

(Svor. 462),

A

(Svor.

478),

and 2

(Svor.

[addenda]

502a).

The

last,

in

fact,

must be

consid-

ered

questionable.

The

only

example

recordedthus

far

Hunter

II,

p.

364,

17)

has a

quite

worn

control etter.

Macdonald's

reading

of

2

can

be

accepted

only

provisionally, pending

publication

of a better

preserved

pecimen.8

8

Possibly

he

riginal

orm

f he ontrol

as

E

or

C.

However .D.Bateson

as



12/41


Svoronos

ttributed ll

then-known arieties f module

A

to the

reign

of

Ptolemy

I. However no

example

of

this module was included

n the

Elephantine

hoard,

the

only

one of our

ten hoards formed

argely

under

Philadelphus.

Close

study

of the Lower

Egypt

hoard

prompted

Newellto

reassign examples

of module

A

marked

A and

E

to

Ptolemy

III. He

observed

that

they

were

of

distinctly

etter

verage

condition

han

the hoard coins

listed under

Ptolemy

II,

which

he described s

very

muchworn ndeed. Newell noted that the same argument ould apply

to the

unmarked

pecimen

of module A in the

hoard,

but that

stylistic

considerations

had caused

him to leave

it

among

the issues of

the

second

Ptolemy,

whereas affinities f

style

and execution drew

the A

and

E issues

into

relation

with

other

bronzes of

Ptolemy

III

(Newell

1935:58-59).

Also included

in the hoard

was a

single specimen

of

module

A marked

with

0,

the

only example

of

its denomination

hat

displayed

heavy

wear consistent

with

n

attribution o

Ptolemy

I.

The

Anubieionhoard

too

displayed

a clear divide between

an

early

group,showing onsistentwear, and a largergroupof fresh oins that

had

apparently

circulated

only briefly

Price

1988:67).

Module

A

was

not

represented

n

the

early group,

but

specimens

marked with

A, E,

and

E

were included

in the second

group.9

Further evidence comes

from he

Getty

hoard,

whose

specimens

f module

A

(unmarked

nd

E

series)

were

the

only

coins attributed

o

Ptolemy

I

by

Visonà.

They

do

not

in

fact

stand out

as more worn

than the rest

of the hoard contents.

This

hoard was

actively

marketed

before

oming

to rest at

the

Getty,

so we cannot

be certain

of its

original

contents;

but if

specimens

of

module A were sold off, heywere likelythe freshest xamplesof the

denomination.

The

Getty

hoard as

now

constituted

reflectshoard

formation

eginning

nly

under

Ptolemy

III. This is consistent

with

the

makeup

of the

remaining

hird-century

ronze hoards

summarized

in Table

2.

kind

nough

o examine

he coin

nd

pronounces

imselfnclined

o

agree

with

Macdonalďs

eading

(note

f9 June

997).

Price

1988:68) ypothesized

reformf

hebronze

oinage

nder

tolemy

II,

in which heweightftheheaviestenominationas ncreasedrom. 96g to c.

105

g.

This

upposed

eight

ncrease

s not onfirmed

y

Price's wn

metrological

datacollected

n

p.

69 and

hould e

rejected.



13/41


Table

2.

Coin

Luxor8 RamesseumGCH IGCH

IGCH

Carnarvon

emissions

(Birabi) (Thebes,

1697b 1696b

1698b

c(Birabi)

IGCH

near

uxor)

1700 IGCH

1699

Ptolemy

II

A

C,c. 48g (Sv. 1166) V 1 V V V V

D,

c.

36

g (Sv. 1167)

7

G,

c. 18

g (Sv. 1169)

y/

E

A,

c. 96

g (Sv. 446)

2

C,

c. 48

g

(Sv. 974)

V

13

V V V

V

t

C,

c. 48

g

(Sv. 974v)

7

Unmarked

A,

c. 96

g (Sv.

412)

3+ 2

Ie

*

B,

c. 72

g (Sv.

964

7

8 5 10 24

J

D,

c.

36

g

(Sv. 965)

J

5 9

8

21

V

8

TheLuxor

oardwas

pot

hoard

rom

xcavations,

omprising

57

oins;

t found

its

way

o the

Metropolitan

useum

nd was

subsequentlyispersed.

he

contents

reported

ere re based n

photos

ffifteenoins n file

with

he

ANS,

but

precise

numbers

bviously

annot

e

specified.

b

FromMilne

1908:32).

Milne's rief

ynopsisumpedogetherpecimens

fmodule

C with he controls and E. The

totals

were

GCH

1697, 3;

IGCH

1696, 3;

IGCH1698, 0.c

Carnarvonnd

Carter

1912)

recorded

he hoard oins

y

denomination,

isting

controlarieties ithout

pecifying

hebreakdown.

hey eported

6

specimens

f

module

,

which

hey

ubdividednto wo

groups,

newith n

average eight

f73

g

and n

average

iameterf42

mm,

he ther

ith

n

average eight

f67

g

and

an

average

iameterf 40.5 mm.Module

was

represented

y

17

specimens,

f

which

he

ne llustratedn

fig.

3

with

ontrol

)

was

visibly

oreworn

han he

other hree

enominations

llustrated,

ll ofwhich ore he ontrol

Specimens

f

module totalled 4.

d

This ontrol

asrecordeds A

by

Quibell

1896).

heA

reading

as

uggested

y

Newell

1935:65).

e Apparentlyhecontrolsn this oinwere llegible. ilne1908:32)isted hree

possible

eferences,

vor.

12,446,

or

462,

orresponding

o

the

unmarked,,

and

0

emissions.



14/41


Coin

Luxor

RamesseumGCH

IGCH

IGCH

Carnarvon

emissions

(Birabi)

(Thebes,

1697 1696

1698

(Birabi)

IGCH

near

uxor)

1700 IGCH

1699

Ptolemy

V

Alf

B,

c.

72

g

(Sv. 1125)

8 5

6 14

J

D, c. 36g (Sv. 1127)

5

6 6 9

VIe

B,

c.

72

g

(Sv. 992v)

V

D,

c. 36

g (Sv.

993v)

V

ZE

B,

c. 72

g

(Sv. 992)

V

11 5

6 7

V

D,

c. 36

g (Sv.

993)

V

13

5 8

6

'

Milne

1908:32)umpedogether

heAl andAl

emissions,

vor. 125-28.

8

Not

distinguished

rom

E

by

Svoronos

nd

by

most

fthe

early

oard

eports.

Theexceptions Carter'sescriptionf heCarnarvonoard.

The controls

and

2 were

employed

only

under

Ptolemy

I,

while

the

hoard

evidence

suggests

hat

all

the other varieties

of module

A were

issued

under

Ptolemy

II.

This is

a reattribution

f some

consequence,

because

module

A was

identified

y

J.

G.

Milne as

the bronze

drachm,

and

some

subsequent

scholarship

has

reiterated

this

opinion

(Milne

1938:204;

Thompson

1951:366;

Hazzard

1995:65).

Since

only

a

few

issues were struck,the corollaryhas been that the weightstandard

was

subsequently

educed,

so

that module

B became

the

new bronze

drachm

Hazzard

1995:65;

Weiser

1995:42,

48-52

[placing

the

reduc-

tion

n 256

BC],

cf.

p.

30,

19-21;

Maresch

1996:52-55).

This reconstruc-

tion becomes

fairly

implausible

if the

bronze

drachm,

a

key

denomination

f

the Ptolemaic

currency

ystem,

was

struck

for

only

two

of

the

numerous eries

ssued

under

Ptolemy

I.10

Worse,

of

these

10

One

eries

as unmarked

Svor.

13-418).

he others

mployed

he

ontrols

(Svor. 22-427), (Svor. 31-431a), (Svor. 37-442), (Svor. 47-453), (Svor.

457-458),

©

(Svor.

462, 463,

465,

467-470),

-

PE

(Svor.

464,

466),

I

(Svor.

472-474),

(Svor.

79-485), (Svor.

91,

Köln

1),

O

(Elephantine

oard,

urium



15/41


Table 3. Bronze denominations f

Ptolemy

I

and

Ptolemy

II

by

series

A E

E,

etc. Unmarked

fc

AI AI I Z IE

Ā Ā Ā

Ã

B

(scarce)

B B B B B B

C C C C

CC

DD D D D D D D D

F

FF F F F

G

G

G G

III

I I

K

L L L L L

M

N

Note:

n

addition

o themodulesefinedn the

ext,

his

able ists mallerenomi-

nations hich o not ccurnthehoards:module , c. 20-21mm, . 6 g;module,

c. 17-20

mm,

. 4-4.5

g;

module

M,

c. 16

mm,

.

3

g;

and

module

,

c.

13

mm,

.

1.5

g.

two

emissions,

only

one was

substantial;

as noted

above,

module A

marked

with

the control etter2 has thus far been

recorded

n

only

a

single,

doubtful

xample.

The author has

urged

elsewhere that

module

B,

produced

abun-

dantly

under

Ptolemy

II,

must

have been the bronze

drachm,

and

that module A must

have

represented

a bronze octobol

(Lorber

1995-96). But the sequence of emissions derived fromthe hoard

evidence

presents

problems

for this

interpretation

s well

(see

Table

3).

Module B

was

not minted for the

series marked with

A, E,

or

E

(and

variants).

Examples

of

module B

fromthe unmarked eries are

very

rare.

The

single specimen

in the

Getty

hoard seems closer in

style,

fabric,

nd

condition o the

&

series

than to the otherunmarked

coins in

the hoard

(Visonà 1978-79:156);

conceivably

t

represents

later

cycle

in

the

minting

f the

unmarked eries.

Beginning

with

the

excavations),Svor. 97-501), (Svor. 02a, . Hustonoll. modules and ]),T

(Svor. 04-507),

(

Köln

3-24, 8,

Elephantine

oard),

(Svor. 09-511), (Svor.

514-516),

ndQ

(Svor. 19).



16/41


series,

whose

style

and

alloy suggest coinage

reform,

module

B

was

restored

o

regular

production

nd

reigned again

at

the head of the

bronze

currency ystem.

The

impression

hus

gleaned

from he

hoards

is

frankly

nelegant:

module B was the

largest

and

presumably

standard bronze coin

during

most

or

all

of the latter

reign

of

Ptolemy

II.

Under

his

successor,

t least in the first alf of his

reign,

he

largest

and

presumably

tandardbronze coin was

module A. Later

in

the

reign

module B was reintroduced,eplacingmodule A as theprincipal ronze

coin

of the

monetary ystem.

Do these

phenomena

eflect ctual

changes

n the

weight

tandard

of

Ptolemaic bronze

coinage?

Or

was

monetary roduction

implyorgan-

ized

in

cycles

that

emphasized

different

denominations,

without

entailing

changes

in

the

weight

standard?

The smaller denominations

associated

with

modules

A

and

B in the hoards

argue

in favor

of the

former

nterpretation

see

below under

Metrological

Biases ).

Final

judgment

must nevertheless e

suspended

pending

a

thorough

eview

ofEuergetes'coinage.

Any attempt

to

explain

the

apparent

ncrease

n the bronze

weight

standard

under

Ptolemy

Euergetes and/or

his later return

to the

standard

of his father re

merely

peculative,given

the

present

tate

of our

knowledge.

The economic

dislocations

resulting

rom he failed

Nile inundations

f 245 and 241

may

have

inspired

djustments

o the

monetary ystem.

The

temporary

estoration

f

the Attic standard

for

gold

and silver

coinage

n the name of

Queen

Berenice

may represent

corresponding

djustment

n the

precious

metal

coinage.

The

congru-

ence betweentheweightof moduleA and the Egyptiandeben,if not

simply

fortuitous,

may

make

more sense

under

Euergetes

than

under

Philadelphus11:

he famineof 245

provoked

rebellion

n the

country-

side

severe

enough

to recall the

king

from

his

foreign

war,

and

his

subsequent

religious-dynastic

olicies

showed a

new solicitude

for the

native

population.12

ventual

depletion

of the

kingdom's

ilver

supply

11

On the

orrespondence

f he

argest

tolemaic

ronze

o the

deben,

ee Picard

(1998),

iting

arlier

iterature,

orkholm

1991:11,

05),

ndHazzard

1995:65

ith

n.23).

Ptolemy

II

and

Berenice

I,

the

Theoi

uergetai,

ere

dded

o the

Egyptian

ruler ult

n

238,

naugurating

he

worship

f he

iving

tolemies

y

heir

gyptian



17/41


forced

greater

reliance

on bronze as

opposed

to silver

coinage.13

his

shift

may

somehow

be associated

with the eventual

reversionto

a

lighter

ronze

weight

tandard.

METROLOGICAL

BIASES

The

Elephantine

hoard is

composed

almost

exclusively

f

module B

and its thirds and

sixths,

modules F and

I;

only

under

Ptolemy

III

were differentractions

dded,

modules

D

and

G,

the half and

quarter

of module B.

The

absence

of module

A

may perhaps support

the

hypothesis

hat

this denominationwas

produced

only scantily

under

Ptolemy

II.

Its

half

denomination,

module

C,

is

also

excluded,

again

perhaps reflecting

imited

production

under

Ptolemy

II.14 While

it is

far from conclusive

evidence,

the

makeup

of this hoard would be

more consistent

with dentification f module

B

rather han

module A

as the bronze drachm.

The Anubieionhoard shows

a

metrological

ias

in favorof module A

and

especially

ts half

denomination,

module C. Modules

D

and

G,

if

their

ideal

weights

are reckoned

slightly

ower,

at c. 32 and c.

16

grams,

could have

passed

as the thirdand sixth of module A.

Only

a

single

denomination f

Ptolemy

II

(module F)

found ts

way

into the

hoard,

perhaps

as the

quarter

of module A. Module B does not fit

comfortably

nto this

metrological

system

and this

presumably

accounts for ts absence from he hoard: either t had been officially

withdrawn rom

irculation,

r it was

excluded

by

the

hoarder.

subjects.

he

Theoi

uergetai

eremade vwaoi

temple

ssociates)

ith ll

Egyp-

tian

ods hroughout

he

kingdom;

heir ameswere dded o the itles f ll

Egyp-

tian

priests,

nd a new class of

Egyptian riests

as

created

or heir

worship

(Koenen 994:52f).

natural

orollary

as increased

upport

or

Egyptian

ults

and

templesyPtolemy

II.

13

For the textual

vidence,

ee Hazzard

1995:80-81)

nd Maresch

1996:56,

76-80).

14Svoronosecordedpecimensfmodule for hefollowingeries: nmarked

(Svor.

14,

listed), (Svor.

48,

listed), (Svor.

80,

1

listed),

and Y

(Svor.

505,

listed),

(Svor.

09,

listed),

nd

X

(Svor.

15,

1

listed).



18/41


The

remaining

hoards all seem to reflect

n

original

metrological

emphasis

on modules

A

and C

in

the earlier

tages

of hoard formation

(although

module

A

itself s

typically

weakly represented,

ven

absent

from

ome

hoards),

superseded

by

a

preference

or module

B and its

half

denominationD. To a

considerable

degree

the

hoards reflect

he

modules

actually

minted in

particular

series. A

possible

exception

occurs

with the last

series,

those marked

2E and

2E,

which included

modules B, C, D, and F, all reasonablyabundant. For some reason

only

B and

D

were selected

by

the

hoarders,

lthough they

had set

aside

many examples

of module

C

struck

by Ptolemy

II.

It is notable that the introduction

f

module A as

the standard

bronze coin seems

to have renderedmodule

B

either

unavailable

or

undesirable

for the Anubieion

deposit,

whereas

the later

reintroduc-

tion of

module

B

as

the standard bronze

coin

did not have

the

same

effecton

module

A,

to

judge

from the contents

of

the

eight

later hoards

reviewedhere.

This contrast

may support

the

hypothesis

that the two denominations alternated as the bronze drachm:

modules

A

and

B stand

in

a

metrological

elation of

4:3. If module

A was

the

bronze

drachm,

module B did

not

represent

n established

fractional

enomination.

f module

B

was

the bronze

drachm,

module

A

might

function

s an

octobol,

an

unusual

denomination

nly rarely

struck

in

silver

by

a small

handful

of

states,

notably

at

Ephesus

during

he

third

century.

THE

HOARDS

AS

EVIDENCE FOR

MONETARY

REFORM

UNDER

PTOLEMY

IV

The most

striking

eature

f this

group

of hoards

s

that

eight

of the

ten

close

at

precisely

the same

point

in the

reign

of

Ptolemy

IV.

Conceivably,

as Newell

suggested,

he simultaneous

oss

of so

many

hoards could

be

attributed

o the

very

serious

nternal

roubles

nd

rebellions

which

broke over

the

kingdom

n the course

of

Philopator's

reign Newell 1935 66f).Newell'sexplanationgains

credence

from

he

fact

that all

of the later

hoards

with

documented

findspots

re

from

Upper

Egypt,

a center of

the

disaffection.

lternatively,

.G.

Milne



19/41


wroteof a

complete

break n Ptolemaic bronze

hoards,

o be associated

with

a

reformof the

currency.15

hree

aspects

of the numismatic

evidence

point

toward a

monetary

eform t this

uncture:

1. The coin

types represented

n the hoards describedhere

are almost

completely

absent from later hoards.

Thus the

phenomenon

under

study

is not

merely

the simultaneous oss of

many

hoards,

but the

disappearance

of

major

categories

f

coinage

from

irculation.

2. An episode of countermarkingccurred t roughly he same time

as

the

closure

of these hoards. A

cornucopiae

countermark

as

applied

to

selected coins from he

reign

of

Ptolemy

IV.16 This countermark

s

overwhelmingly

oncentrated

n module

C,

not

only

in the 2E and

IE

series

Svor.

1145,

1149)

but also on issues

of module C with the

mono-

grammatic

ontrols

TřE,fi,

and

f

(Svor.

1140, 1142,

1144).17

Within

the IE

series module

F

(Svor.

994, 1146,

1151)

is

occasionally

counter-

marked

with the

same

cornucopiae,

but

modules

B and D

appear

to

have been

exempt.

The

cornucopiae

countermark

ccurs

only rarely

on coins of the Al series and has so far not been recordedfor the Al

series;

neither f these series ncludesmodule C.

15

Milne

1938:205-206)

as

clearly eferring

o the samebreak n the hoards

documented

ere,

hough

is

chronology

as different.ilne ated he break o

the

arly

econd

entury

nd ssociated

t with

currency

eformffectedometime

before82.

16

Noeske

1995:203)

ates he

pplication

f he

ornucopiae

ountermarko

the

early eignfPtolemy I. Weiser1995:86, 40) eems oagreewith his atebut

opens

he

possibility

hat he ountermarkas

applied

efore 80.Noeske elieves

that ll

cornucopiae

ountermarksere

pplied

n

a

single pisode,ncluding

hose

on

Svor.1375.

Jungfleisch1947-48:57-58)istinguished

wo

episodes

f counter-

marking

ased n the

tyle

fthe

tamps,

hecarewithwhich

hey

were

pplied,

and he oins

ffected.

ungfleisch's

bservations confirmed

y

hoard vidence.

he

first

pisode

s

associated ith hebreaknthehoards nder

tolemy

V,

cited ere.

For

more etailed

xploration

f he

econd

pisode,

ee Price

1981:159-160).

rice

argued

hat he

ountermarking

f

Svor.

375 nd

Necropolis

oard

68-72,

which

he

placed

arly

n the

reign

f

Ptolemy

I,

probably

evalued hese oins nd

enabled

hem o circulates

the

equivalents

f the

familiar

ouble

aglevariety

Svor. 424,which ollowedn thenext mission.

17

Noeske

1995:198)

ites 3

publishedxamples

fmodule

with he

ornuco-

piae

countermark,

nd

his Korrekturzusatz

1995:206)

dds11 more.



20/41


3.

A

bronze hoard in

commerce

n autumn

1992

(

CH

VIII,

413)18

included

many specimens

of

module C from the

2E, IE, TřE,

nd

ft

series

Svor.

1145, 1148-49, 1140,

1142),

all

of them

countermarked.

The

later hoard contents

comprised arge

denominations

f

Ptolemy

V,

notably

he double

eagle

varietiesSvor.

1423

and

1424,

which

ppa-

rently represent

successive

reductions of module C. With

average

weights

of c. 40 and

c.

29

g,

their

metrology

does not fit into the

patternofweights een in third-centuryoards.

In

light

of

these

facts,

we

may

now venture an

interpretation:

major

reform

of the

bronze

coinage

occurred under

Ptolemy

IV.

Modules

B

and

D

were demonetized.Savers who had hoarded these

denominationswere at a

disadvantage,

unable either o

spend

them n

private

transactions r to

redeem

them for he

new

currency.Recently

minted

specimens

of

module

C, however,

could be validated for

continuedcirculation

by countermarking,

o doubt

in

exchange

for a

fee.

This

accounts

for

their almost

complete

absence from he third-

centuryhoards. The exception s the Gettyhoard,whose fulloriginal

contents re unknown

but

which

presently

ncludes

two

examples

of

module

C

from

he IE series

Svor.

1148);

significantly,hey

are not

countermarked.

PAPYROLOGICAL

EVIDENCE AND

HISTORICAL

INTERPRETATION

There are few financial documents

securely

dated to the

reign

of

Ptolemy III, and papyrologistsgenerally assume that prices and

wages

remained t the levels documented

for

Ptolemy

I.19 The crises

associated

with the failed Nile inundations

f 245 and 241 warn

against

accepting

this

assumption

uncritically.

We

may speculate

that an

increase

n

the

bronze

weight

tandard

early

in the

reign

of

Euergetes

helped

to stabilize the bronze

currency,

whereas

his ultimatereversion

18

Coin

Hoards

III,

413 s a

portion

f hehoard

eported

n

Stephen

. Huston

FPL

130,

May

1994,

.

1 and4. Thehoard

will e

published

ore

ully y

C. Lorber

andS. HustonnNumismatichronicle2001).19

This

ssumption

s

implicit

n the

hronological

ivisions

mployed

y Clary

se

andLanciere

1989)

ndMaresch

1996).



21/41


to an earlier and

lighterweight

tandard

would have tended to shake

confidence n the bronze

currency

nd

may

have contributed

o infla-

tion under his successor.

By

the

early reign

of

Ptolemy Philopator

economic

affairs n the

chora

were

normally

transacted in

bronze,

apparently

because

of a

shortage

of

silver.

The

established

relation between silver and bronze

currency

eased

to

obtain,

as the silver stater

tetradrachm ) egan

to exchange for significantlymore than four drachms in bronze

(Maresch

1996:70-77).20 Papyrological

sources

suggest

a

sharp

rise in

commodityprices

and

wages expressed

n terms

of

bronze

currency.

Based on an

approximate doubling

in the

penalties

for

breach

of

wheat contractsdated

c.

214,

and on a

very

few additional

papyrolog-

ical

data,

T.

Reekmans

hypothesized doubling

n the

face

values of

Ptolemaic bronze

coins

in

the

first

half of

Philopator'sreign,

reform

he believed was

effected etween 221

and 216 without

any

recall

of

coinage

or external marks of its new value

(Reekmans

1951 61-

69).21

ThoughReekmans'opinionbecame virtualorthodoxy mong papyrol-

ogists

for

over

four

decades,

it

is

extremely nsatisfactory

s a basis for

numismatic

nquiry

because

it is

essentially

unverifiable.The

most

recent

studies,

by

Klaus Maresch and

by

Hélène Cadell and

Georges

Le

Rider,

see market

forcesbehind both silver-bronze

xchange

rates

and

these

early

increases

n

price

levels

(Maresch

1996:4, 27, 58-59,

70-74;

Cadell and Le

Rider

1997:74-86).22

20

Mareschites B XVIII 14013

5

June

22)

as evidencehat his

rocess

as

underwayat thevery utset f thereign. he earliestnambiguousvidences

UPZ

I

149,

ine

32,

which ecords

price

f sixteen rachms

plus gio)

for ne

silvertater

tetradrachm ).

hisdocument

as dated

y

tseditor o the

reign

f

Philopator

nd would

ppear

o

precede

he

ntroductionf the so-called

opper

standard. he

price

f

the stater

ltimately

eached

wenty

rachms

Maresch

1996:36-37,8,

72-73,

2).

According

o

Mareschhis

evelopment

s indicated

y

demotic

apyri

romhe urn

f he

entury,.g.

P. Berlin 3593

Elephantine,

98

BC),

andcan

perhaps

e identified

s

early

s

214/3

n P.

KölnVI 269.

Segrè 1942:178)

ypothesized

quadrupling

f the

facevalues f Ptolemaic

bronze

oins,

ased n the

xchange

ate

ecorded

n

UPZ

I

149,

ine 2

(see

note

20).

Reekmans

xplained

his ate

s theeffectf

100%

inflationn combination

with hedoublingf henominalalues f hebronzeoinage.22

Hazzard

1995:82)

escribesn

officialeform

f the

exchange

atewithout

mentioninghanges

n the

bronze

urrency.



22/41


Truly extraordinary rice

increases are

recorded n other

primary

documents,

ome

arguably

datable

to the

reign

of

Ptolemy

V,

others

securely

fixed n

the

reign

of

Ptolemy

V. For

example

the

price

of an

artaba of wheat

rose from n

average

of 5-6 drachms n

the earlier

reign

of

Ptolemy

IV

to 150-180

drachms a

thirty-fold

levation

(Cadell

and Le Rider

1997:60).

The

extremity

f

the increases led

papyrologists

o deduce

that

the

original ystem

of

reckoning,

with

a

silver stater ( tetradrachm )divisible into four drachms or twenty-

four

obols,

was

ultimately

replaced by

a new

system

of

reckoning

( the

copper

standard )

based on a

very

small

theoretical

unit,

the

copper

drachm

or

drachm of

account

(Heichelheim

1930:12-13;

Reek-

mans

1948:17-23,

1951:69-75;

Maresch

1996:1-7,

21-23).23

F.M.

Heichelheim

placed

the

transitionfrom the old to

the new

system

between

214

and

210

(Heichelheim 1930:16-18).

Reekmans

sought

to

date the first

ntroduction f the new

system

very precisely,

o 13

April-2 July

210

(Reekmans 1951:19-23).

Maresch

has

reaffirmedhe

position hat it was in use perhapsas earlyas 214 or 213.24According

to this

school

of

thought,

he new

reckoning

id not

supplant

the old

either

mmediately

r

universally.

Occasional small transactionswere

reckoned on the silver standard

at least

as

late as 209.25 And use of

the new

system

cannot be

clearly

documented

for

Upper Egypt

until

considerably

ater,

leading

to

the

suspicion

that

it

was

adopted

only

after the

collapse

of the rebel

state.26

Experts

in

papyrology

re not

normally

in

a

position

to determine for themselves whether the

23

For recent iscussionn

English,

ee Hazzard

1995:83-84

ith .

53).

Allof

these

cholars

ypothesize

ratio f 1:60betweenhe

original

ronze rachmnd

the

reformedr so-called

opper

rachm. he traditionalerm

opper

rachms

somewhat

nfelicitous,

n

that

t

may

eem o

mply

change

n

alloy;

heGerman

term

echendrachmon,

rachm

f

ccount,

eems

referable.

24

Maresch

1996:21, 2-73)

ites . KölnVI 269 as

possibly

heearliest ocu-

ment o

employ

henew

ystem

f

reckoning.

Maresch

1996:6,

1

n.3)

ites . Heid.

VI 383

8]

and20

209

BC)

for

wheat

price

n the ilvertandard.

26

This deawasfirst

roposedy

E. Révillout

n

1891

Reekmans

948:23 .

1).

Reekmans1951:80 .l) cites ontinuedseof he ilver tandardor mall umsn

O. Tait.

39

207

or 190

BC)

andO. Tait.

96

181-180

C).

Forrecenteiterations

of his

iew,

ee

Clarysse

ndLanciers

1989:119-120)

ndMaresch

1996:39).



23/41


change

in

accounting practices

was

accompanied

by

changes

in the

coinage,

but

generally

have assumed

that

it was not

(Reekmans

1951

72).27

The dates

proposed

for he earliest

ntroduction

f the

new

system

f

reckoning

epend

on controversial

atings

of

a

group

of

ostraka

from

Philadelphia

in the Arsinoite

nome

(

BGU

VII,

1500-1562)

which

to

the extent

that

they

bear

dates at

all

record

regnal years

without

specifying he reign. Cadell has criticallyreassessed the documents

relating

to

grain

transactions

between

c. 305

and

173,

arguing

that

the

price

evels attested

n

BGU

VII

1505, 1532,

and

1536 are incom-

patible

with

grain prices

securely

dated

to the

reign

of

Philopator

but

consistent

with those

fromthe

early

second

century;

n

consequence

she dates these ostraka

to the

180s

(Cadell

and

Le Rider

1997:47-49).

She

tentatively

uggests

date c.

208-206

forthe first lear

indication

of a

rupture

n the fixed relation

between

silver and bronze

currencies

(Cadell

and Le Rider

1997:52-56).

But

Cadell

and

Le Rider

reject

the

notion of a copperstandard or a new systemof reckoning, ubmit-

ting

that

the

price

increases

under

Ptolemy

IV and

V can be

under-

stood

in

terms

of

natural,

f

extreme,

pulses

of

inflation ue

to forces

of

supply

and demand

Cadell

and

Le Rider

1997:59-64,

70-86).

As we have

seen, however,

hoard

evidence

points unequivocally

o a

demonetizationof

circulating

bronze

currency during

the

reign

of

Ptolemy

IV.

So

extreme

a measure can

hardly

be unrelated

to the

perturbations

ecorded

n

papyri

and ostraka.

The numismatic

ecord

thus vindicates

papyrologists

who have

surmised ome sort

of mone-

tary manipulation t the root of these sharp price increases,though

the

specifics

f theirclaims

may

be

unacceptable.

The demonetization

cannot be dated too

early

n

Philopator's

reign

because of the

quantity

of bronze

coinage

that

preceded

it: the

substantial ssues marked

Al

and

Al;

further ubstantial ssues

marked

2, 2E,

and

IE;

and the issues

with

monogrammatic

ontrols

TřE, t,

and

I*1

Svor.

1140, 1142,

1144),

not

represented

n our hoards

but

definitely rior

to the

episode

of

27

The recent

ollaboration

f the

papyrologist

aresch nd

the numismatist

Weiser lso seems otto posit ny significanthysicalhangen thecoinage f

Ptolemy

V

(Weiser

995:58-63).

azzard

1995:83)

discusseshis reform

s a

change

n

accountingractices

ithout

pecific

llusiono the oins nvolved.



24/41


countermarking.28

he

papyrologists'

ates

of

c.

214/3-210

for ntro-

duction of a new

system

of

reckoningpermit

a

possible

correlation

with

the

demonetization

ttested

by

the

hoards,

but

require

us to

posit

intensebronze

production

rom he

beginning

f

the

reign

to the

time of the reform.

ronically,

t

is the cautious

chronology

f

Cadell

and Le Rider that best fits our

data,

because

it

allows

virtually

he

entire

reign

of

Ptolemy Philopator

for

production

of this extensive

bronze coinage. The demonetization an tentativelybe placed in the

period

c.

208-206,

assuming

some relation

to

the abandonmentof a

fixed ratio between silver and

bronze

currency.

A

gap

in

the sources

leaves us

ignorant

f the immediate ffect n

prices

and

wages,

but a

thirty-fold

ncrease in

prices

is

apparent

in

documentsfrom he 190s

and 180s.29Full

publication

of

CH

VIII,

413

may

shed some

light

on

the

intervening evelopments.

The evidence

of our hoards

supplements

he documents n

another

way, showing

that

Philopator's

reformswere effected

throughout

Egypt: of the eighthoards that close in the reignof Ptolemy V, the

three

with

ndisputably

nown

findspots

ail from

Upper Egypt,

which

seceded as

a

separate kingdom

n

205.

Note Added

in

Proofs

More

supporting

vidence comes

fromNoeske

(1998).

Noeske added

two new

hoards,

Egypt

before1914 and Xios 1995

(his

nos. 9 and

10),

which closed

in

the

reign

of

Ptolemy

V

at the same

point

as the

eight

latest hoards cited above. Noeske's

nterpretation

ifferedn

important

respectsfrom hat presentedhere.

APPENDIX:

THE

COST

OF REFORM

We have

speculated

on the face values

of modules

A

and

B in our

hoards,

hypothesizing

hat module

B served as

the bronze drachm

28

Newell

1935:64)

oted heoccurrence

f countermarks

n these ssues.Milne

(1908:32)tated hat hese arietiesrecommon,hichwouldmplymissionsf

some izefor

hese s well.

This

gap

s

emphasized

y

Cadell nd

Le Rider

1997:75).



25/41


under

Ptolemy

II

and from the latter

reign

of

Ptolemy

III,

while

module

A

was the drachm n the invervalbetween.We can

thus

calcu-

late

hypothetical

ash values

of most

of

the

hoards under considera-

tion:

Elephantine

hoard

(intact):

580

drachms,

Va

obols

Anubieion

hoard

(intact):

134

drachms,

obols

Newell hoard

(incomplete):

7

drachms,

obols

Gettyhoard (incomplete):115 drachms, Vaobols

Ramesseum hoard

(intact):

53

drachms,

1

obol

IGCH

1697: 35 drachms

IGCH

1696:

41

drachms,

obols

IGCH

1698: 89

drachms,

obols

Carnarvon

hoard

(intact):

34

drachms,

obols

We have no

way

to estimate the

original

size of

the Newell and

Getty

hoards,

but the

otherhoards that closed in the

reign

of

Ptolemy

IV,

presumably

ecause of a

currency

eform,

ave

less value than

the

twohoardsdepositedunderPtolemy II.

The losses

ncurred s a resultof

currency

eform an

perhaps

be

put

into

perspective

hrough omparison

with

some

monetary igures

rom

daily

life.

Pestman has

calculated that an adult could survive on ten

artabai

of

wheat

per year (Pestman

1993:347-349). Through

much of

the

third

entury,

he

average

price

of wheat was about

1.5-2 drachms

per

artaba,30

meaning

hat 15 to

20 drachms

per year

could

provide

a

bare

subsistence. n the

same

period,

he

wage

of a laborer

ranged

from

2.5 to 5

drachms

per

month,

or 30 to

60 drachms

per year (Clarysse

and Lanciers 1989:117). The values of the Elephantinehoard and of

the

Anubieion

deposit

are

multiples

of these

figures. By way

of

contrast,

rom he

inflationary

eriod

under

Ptolemy

V,

before ntro-

duction

of the new

system

of

reckoning,

wheat

prices averaged

5-6

drachms

per

artaba

(Cadell

and

Le

Rider

1997:60).31

Probably

a subsis-

tence income for

a

single

person

now

lay

in

the

range

of 60 to 75

30

Clarysse

nd

Landers

1989:117)

alculatedn

average

f 1.5

drachms.adell

and

Le Rider

1997:59)

ropose

mean

rice

f2 drachms.

Maresch1996:181)itesUPZ I 149, 4 for price f7.5 drachmser rtaba,

but

Cadell

nd

Le Rider

1997:52-53)rgue

hatthe

passage

oes not refer o

wheat,

ut o

bread.



26/41


drachms

per year.

The hoards abandoned

in this

period represent

ums

in this

generalrange

some

slightly

more,

most

rather

ess.

It

goes

without

aying

that these hoards were

not

amassed

by people

living

at subsistence

evel,

and thus their losses did

not

represent

year's

livelihood. But the losses were still far from

negligible.

Could

the benefits f

currency

eform

ave been

great enough

to

compensate

for ndividual osses

on this

scale,

or did such losses fuel the disaffec-

tion that culminated n armed revolt against the Crown? From his

study

of

the

documentary

vidence,

Reekmans concluded that intro-

duction

of the

copper

standard halted

rampant

nflation nd restored

the balance

between

prices

and

wages (Reekmans

1949:333).

Curiously,

he

alleged

that

only

the

working

lasses had

suffered rom

nflation,

though

t seems self-evident hat the value

of

savings

had also

eroded,

a

matter of obvious interest

to our hoarders. Reekmans also docu-

mented

apparently asting

damage

to the

availability

of credit and to

investment,

hough

he credited

he introduction f the

copper

standard

for a partial normalizationof social conditions as protest banditry

subsided

(Reekmans

1949:327-329, 332,

338).

In addition to these

economic

and social

effects,

t is

possible

that the

currency

reform

offered

ompensation

on a

strictlymonetary

evel,

if the

counter-

marking

f module C associated

with the closure

of these hoards

repre-

sented an increase

in value

large

enough

to

offset he loss of these

demonetized

avings.

KEY TO PLATES

The

coins

llustrated re

examples

of the varieties

represented

n the

hoards,

but are not

actually

from

he hoards described

n this article

unless so indicated.

Plate

12,

Ptolemy

I

1. Module

A:

ANS

(Newell)

1944.100.75948

2. Module

B:

ANS

(Newell)

1944.100.76002

3.

Module C: ANS

(Newell)

1944.100.76309

4. Module I: ANS (Newell) 1944.100.75967

Plate

13,

Ptolemy

II,

A series

5.

Module A: ANS

(Newell)

1944.100.76324



27/41


6.

Module C: ANS

(Newell)

1944.100.76306

7. Module

D: ANS 1935.117.1094

8. Module G: ANS

(Newell)

1944.100.75966

Plate

14,

Ptolemy

II,

E series

with variants)

9. Module A:

ANS

(Newell)

1944.100.76281 ex Lower

Egypt

hoard

(

GCH

1691)

10. Module C: ANS

(Newell)

1944.100.76292

11. Module C: ANS (Newell) 1944.100.76302 ex Lower Egypt

hoard

(

GCH

1691)

12. Module C: ANS

(Newell)

1944.100.76303

13.

Module I: ANS 1974.26.5539

Plate

15,

Ptolemy

II,

unmarked nd

&

series

14. Module A: ANS

(Newell)

1944.100.75944

15. Module

B: ANS

(Newell)

1944.100.76336

16. Module

B: ANS

(Newell)

1944.100.76316

17. Module D:

ANS

(Newell)

1944.100.76321

18. Module F: ANS (Newell) 1944.100.76325

Plate

16,

Ptolemy

V,

Al

and Al series

19. Module B:

ANS

(Newell)

1944.100.77229

20. Module D: ANS

(Newell)

1944.100.77230

21. Module B:

ANS

(Newell)

1944.100.77222

22. Module D:

ANS

(Newell)

1944.100.77234

Plate

17,

Ptolemy

V,

IE and 2E

series

23.

Module B: ANS

(Newell)

1944.100.77238

24. Module C: ANS

(Newell)

1944.100.77254

25. Module D: ANS (Newell) 1944.100.77248

26. Module

B: ANS

(Newell)

1944.100.77240

27. Module B:

ANS 1974.26.5583

28.

Module D: ANS 1952.142.462

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am

indebted to B.A.

Hazzard,

who read this

article

in

several

stages

and

made invaluable

suggestions

or ts

improvement,

ithout

necessarily ndorsing he conclusionspresentedherein.My thanksto

Marit

Jentoft-Nilsonf

the

Getty

Museum

for the

opportunity

o re-

examine the

Getty

hoard.



28/41


REFERENCES

Cadell,

H. and

G. Le Rider. 1997. Prix du

blé et numérairedans

rÉgypte agide

de 305 à 173

Papyrologica

Bruxellensia 0.

Brussels:

Fondation

Egyptologique

Reine Elisabeth.

Carnarvon,

Earl of and H. Carter.

1912. Five

years exploration

t

Thebes a record fworkdone 1907-1911. London: OxfordUniver-

sity

Press.

Clarysse,

W. and

E.

Lanciers.

1989.

Currency

and

the

dating

of

Demotic

and Greek

papyri

from the Ptolemaic

period.

Ancient

Society

0:117-132.

Hazzard,

R. A. 1995. Ptolemaic

oins an introduction

or

ollectors.

o-

ronto:

Kirk

&

Bentley.

Heichelheim,

F. M. 1930.

Wirtschaftliche

chwankungen

er Zeit von

Alexander

is

Augustus.

Jena:

Gustav Fischer.

Jungfleisch,

. 1947-48.

Réflexionsde

practicien

ur les monnaies

ptolémaïques

n bronze. Bulletinde T nstitut

Égypte

30:47-60.

Koenen,

L. 1994. The Ptolemaie

king

as

a

religious

figure.

n: A.

Bulloch,

E.

S.

Gruen,

A. A.

Long,

and

A.

Stewart, eds.,

Images

and

ideologies self-definition

n the

Hellenistic

world

pp.

25-115.

Berkeley

nd

Los

Angeles:

University

f California

ress.

Kromann,

A. and

O.

Morkholm.

1977. S

ylloge

nummorum raecorum.

The

royal

collection

f

coins and

medals,

Danish

National

Museum.

Egypt:

thePtolemies.

Copenhagen:

Munksgaard.

Lorber,

C.

C. 1995-96.

Review

of Hazzard

(1995)

and Weiser

(1995).

AJN 7-8:266-267.

Maresch,

K. 1996.

Bronze und

Silber:

papyrologische

eiträge

zur

Geschichte

er

Währung

m

ptolemäischen

nd

römischen

Ägypten

bis zum

2. Jahrhundert

.

Chr.

Papyrologica

Coloniensia

XXV.

Opladen:

Westdeutscher

erlag.

Milne,

J. G.

1908. The

copper

coinage

of

the Ptolemies.

Annals

of

Archaeology

nd

Anthropology

:30-40.

Milne,

J. G.

1938.

The

currency

nder

the Ptolemies.

Journal

of

Egyp-

tian

Archaeology

4:200-207.

Morkholm,O. 1991. Early Hellenisticcoinage fromthe accessionof

Alexander

o

thePeace

of Apamea

(336-186

B.C.),

P. Grierson

nd

U.

Westermark,

ds.

Cambridge:

Cambridge

University

ress.



29/41


Newell,

E. T.

1935. Hoard of

Ptolemaic bronze coins.

In: Five

Greek

bronze

oin hoards

pp.

51-67. ANS Numismatic

Notes and

Mono-

graphs

68.

New York:

American

Numismatic

ociety.

Noeske,

H.-C.

1993.

Prämonetäre

Wertmesser

und

Münzfunde

aus

Elephantine.

Mitteilungen

es

Deutschen

Archäologischen

nstituts

(Kairo)

49:203-209.

Noeske,

H.-C.

1995.

Gegenstempel

uf

ptolemäischen

Bronzemünzen.

Mitteilungendes Deutschen Archäologischen nstituts (Kairo)

51:195-206.

Noeske,

H.-C. 1998.

Ein

frühptolemäischer

ronzeschatz

n deutschem

Privatbesitz.

n: U.

Peter, ed.,

Stephanos

nomismatikos

Edith Schö-

nert-Geiss

um 65.

Geburtstagpp.

491-502. Berlin:

Akademie

Verlag.

Pestman,

P. W. 1967. La

chronologiegyptienne

t

près

les textes

émo-

tiques

(332

av. J.-C.

-

453

ap.

J.-C.).

Papyrologica

Lugduno-

Batava

15. Leiden:

Brill.

Pestman,

P. W. 1993. The archive

of

the Theban

choachytes.

euven:

Peeters.

Picard,

0.

1998.

Remarques

sur la monnaie de

bronze dans

l'Egypte

lagide.

In: J.-Y.

Empereur,

d.,

Commerce

large ptolemaic bronzes in third-century egyptian hoards / catharine c. lorber

Documents