Stratonikeia in Caria: the Hellenistic City and its Coinage more

Stratonikeia in Caria: the Hellenistic City and its Coinage A.R. MEADOWS [PLATES 19-30] This article1 has two aims. First it serves as a republication of the Mugla 1965 hoard (IGCH 1357). To this end the details of the coins of Stratonikeia that may be attributed to the hoard are published in the catalogue below (part I), while those of Rhodes are listed in the commentary to that catalogue (part II). The com- mentary also contains discussion of the contents of the hoard, its date and the implications of this for the dating of the coinage of Stratonikeia. Appendix A gives an account of what can be pieced together of the story of the hoard since its discovery, including its prior publication history. At another level, however, this article is about the history of the Hellenistic city of Stratonikeia and its coinage, and constitutes an investigation of how the latter can inform the former. For these purposes an account of all the precious metal coinage of the city has been attempted, and a brief survey of the Hellenistic bronze is provided in the commentary to the catalogue, followed by an account of the history of the city from its foundation in the third century bc to the end of the first century bc, with an attempt to integrate the evidence provided by the coinage into that emerging from other sources (part III). PART I: CATALOGUE In addition to the coins from the Mugla hoard, the catalogue contains specimens recorded in the British Museum photofile together with the coins in the collections 1 For comments on earlier draughts of sections of this article I am grateful to John Ma. Rict van Bremen. Richard Ashton and Philip Kinns. The following abbreviations are used: von Aulock = H. von Aulock. 'Zur Silberpragung des karischen Stratonikeia". JNG 17 (1967), pp. 7-15; RDGE = R.K. Sherk. Roman Documents from the Greek East ( Baltimore. 1969): Debord, Questions = P. Debord. 'Questions Stratonicecnnes" in A. Bresson and R. Descat (eds). Les Cites d'Asie Mineure Occidental? au //' Steele a.C. (Bordeaux. 2001). pp. 157-172. Robert. Stratonkee = I.. Robert. Etudes Anatoliennes (Paris. 1937). pp. 516-566 (inscriptions de Stratonicec"). Aphrodisias and Rome = J. Reynolds. Aphrodisias and Rome. JRS Monograph 1 (London. 1982). The relevant sections of the works of F. Imhoof-Blumer arc referred to as follows: Karische Miinzen - "Karische Miinzen'. NZ45 (1912). pp. 206-8: ZGRMK = "Zur Griechischen und Romischen Miinzkunde'. SNR 13 (1905), pp. 256-7: KIM = Kleinasiatische Miinzen (Vienna, 1901). pp. 152-5; MGr - Monnaies Gtecqiies (Paris/Leipzig. 1883). pp. 315-16: GrM = GHechisclie Miinzen (Munich. 1890). pp. 674-5. 80 A.R. MEADOWS at the British Museum, the American Numismatic Society, Berlin, Brussels. Cambridge, Fethiye, Mugla. Oxford. Paris, Princeton and Vienna.2 Group 1 Tridrdchm Obv. Head of Zeus laureate r. Rev. Hecate standing facing, torch in I. hand, howl in r.: around XTPATONIKEHN ME[AA]N0IOI. All within wreath. l.Ol/Rl a. 10.73 0° Berlin 1887/382. Drachms Obv. As last. Rev. Hecate standing facing, torch in 1. hand, bowl in r.; in lower r. field, altar. IT - PA; AE - HN. Dotted border. l.ol/rl a. 3.39 0° BMC 23. Chipped. 2. ol/r2 a. 3.15 0° Berlin 1921/33 ex Naville 1 (1921, Pozzi) 2617 3. o2/rl a. 3.44 0° Paris 916. Waddinglon 2548. Chipped. 4. o2/r2 a. 3.76 0° Ratto 4.iv. 1927, 2051. H. Weber 6561 Group 2 Drachms Obv. Head of Hecate r. Rev. Nike advancing r., holding wreath in r. hand and palm over 1. shoulder; above, magistrate's name; in lower r. field, symbol; to either side. CT-PA; all within shallow incuse square. AHMHTPIOC + aphlaston l.Ol/Rl a. 3.00 0° SNG vA 8124. BM 1979-1-1-547. JNG 17 (1967) pi. 1.1, Mugla hd. MHNOAOTOC + fulmen. 2.01/R2 a. 2.96 0° SNG vA 8125. BM 1979-1-1-548. JNG 17 (1967) pi. 1.2. Mugla hd. b. 2.91 Hirsch 182 (1994)293. EKATfiN + bipennis 3.01/R3 a. 2.73 0" ANS 1967.144.2. Mugla hd. b. 2.95 Hirsch 182(1994) 294. : To the curators in these various institutions who either admitted me to their collections or pro- vided casts or photographs I here offer my thanks: Carmen Arnokl-Biuechi, Bernhard Weisser. Francois de Callatay, Koray Konuk. Chris Howgego and Henry Kim. Michel Amandry, Brooks Levy and Gunlher Dembski. To Richard Ashton I am endebted for photographic assistance, and for infor- mation on the holdings of Fethiye Museum. To Tolga Tek I am grateful for casts of coins in the museum at Mugla. STR ATONI KEIA IN CARIA S! nAlflNIOC +dolphin 4.01/R4 a. 3.02 0° ANS 1967.144.3. Mugla hd. HPAKAE1AHC + caduceus 5.01/R5 a. 2.89 Hirsch 181 (1994) 268. AHMHTPIOC (?) + cornucopia. 6.02/R6 a. 2.95 0" ANS 1967.144.4. Mugla hd. Hemidrachms Obv. Head of Zeus laureate r. Rev. Eagle standing on thunderbolt r. or 1.. wings open: below, in front of eagle, symbol: above, magistrate's name: in 1. and r. field, first letters of ethnic; all within shallow incuse square. Group A ACKAHniAAHC + aphlaston. C-T. l.ol/rl a. 1.28 330' 2. ol/r2 a. 1.12 AIONYCIAjQPOC + trident. C-T. 3. ol/r3 a. 1.36 0° 4.o2/r3 a. 1.45 0° IAIHN + lion-head. IT. 5. o3/r4 a. 1.11 0° b. 1.27 0!: 6. o4/r4 a. 1.32 b. 1.38 0° c. 1.33 30 d. 1.34 7. o4/r5 a. 1.23 0° MHNOAOTOC + fulmen. C-T. 8.o5/r6 a. 1.36 0° b. 1.40 c. 1.40 d. 1.27 0° AHMHTPIOC + aphlaston. C-T. 9. o5/r7 a. 1.37 b. 1.30 0° SNG vA 8131. BM 1979-1-1-554. JNG 17 (1967) pi. 1.8. Mugla hd. GM 90(1998)367 ANS 1966-288-4. Mugla hd SNG vA 8134. BM 1979-1-1-557. JNG 17 (1967) pi. I. 11. Mugla hd. BM 1967-4-2-1. Mugla hd. Berlin 1875/68. Monatsber. Akad. Berlin 1879. p. 36.3. Imhoof-Blumer, KIM, p. 153 Mugla hd. Paris 902. Waddington 2552 Vienna 36. 035 (Prowe) MM AG FPL 274 (1967) 29. Mugla hd. SNG vA 8138. BM 1979-1-1-561. JNG 17 (1967) pi. 1. 15. Mugla hd. BM 1967-5-5-2. Mujjla hd. Mugla hd. Hirsch 183 (1994)475 Vienna 36. 461 Hirsch 162 (1989) 278. Mugla hd. Berlin 1900 (Imhoof-Blumer). Imhoof- Blumer. KIM, p. 152, 1. 82 A.R. MEADOWS MENEAAOC + helmel. C-T. IO.06/1-8 a. 1.26 Muglahd. b. 1.34 Muglahd. c. 1.48 Hirsch 139 (1983) 67. Mugla hd. d. 1.31 0° ANS 1966-288-7. Mugla hd e. 1.16 0° Winterthur 3534 ANTHIATPOC + snake-staff. C-T. H.o6/r9 a. 1.40 0° b. 12.06/rlO a. 1.22 13.06/rll a. 1.14 0° 14.07A-9 a. 1.40 SNG vA 8126. BM 1979-1-1-549. JNG 17 (1967) pi. 1.5. Mugla hd. Classical Arts (New Orleans) FPL 14 (Summer 1969), 510 Hirsch 191 (1996) 496 Paris 899. Waddingion 2549 Pcus 343 (1995) 151 EKATflN + bipennis. C-T. 15.06/12 a. 1.31 0° BM 1967-5-5-5. Mugla hd. b. 1.35 330° Princeton (Firestone) 92-55 CHCTPATOC + crab. C-T.3 16. o6/rl3 a. 1.31 0° BM 1967-5-5-3. Mugla hd. nAIHNIOC + dolphin. C-T. 17. o8/rl4 a. 1.38 0° Brussels II, 56.955 AIOrNHTOX + cornucopia. Z-T (rl6, 17) or AlOrNHTOC + cornucopia. C-T (r!5). 18. o8/rl5 a. 1.2 0° Princeton (Firestone) 93-71 19. o9/rl6 a. 1.22 0° Schenk-Behrens 46 (1983) 34. SNG Keckman 251. Mugla hd. 20. o9AT7 a. 1.20 0° Cambridge acq. 1939. SNG 4731 b. 1.37 0° BMC 3 KAEHC0EN + owl. C-T. 21. o9AT8 a. 1.50 Hirsch 182 (1994) 292, 187 (1995) 512. 22. o9/rl9 a. 1.25 0° SNG Cop 411. 23. o9/r20 a. 1.63 Mugla hd. b. 1.26 Mugla hd. c. 1.18 0° Berlin 1906 (Lobbecke). Pierced. 24. o9/r21 a. 1.31 0° Cambridge (Lewis) SNG 911. RN 1864, p. 259 25. ol0/r20 a. 1.39 Mugla hd. 1 On this name and symbol combination see Appendix C. STRATON1KEIA IN CARIA 83 EYBOYA + palm. I-T. 26. ol0/r22 a. 1.29 0° SNG vA 8135. BM 1979-1-1-558. JNG 17 (1967) pi. I. 12. Muglahd. b. 1.35 1 &n° 1 ow RM 1 Qfi7_£i-5—f\ Mni»la hd MENEKAHI + torch. Z-T. 27. o9/r23 a. 1 .zo Mugla hd. b. 1 .j Hirsch 184 (1994) 269 c. 1 .Zo u UMC 4 28. ol0/r24 a. 1 A 1 .4 V.tp« 1 ^5 (1QA61 189 29. ol 1A-25 a. 1.44 \IiipIh hd itiucici iiu. b. 1.28 Mugla hd. c. 1.32 Hirsch 14"' f1984) 56 Mupla hd. 30. oll/r26 a. 1.38 Coin Galleries MB 8.ix.95, 65 IACQN + helmet. C-T 31. ol0/r27 a. 1.07 \ I iiolfi h r 1 b. 1.79 lVTiiola hfl c. 1.60 (YTuola Hfl 1> 1 LlillCl iiu. d. 1.20 \T110ln hfl 32. ol2/r27 a. 1.39 ^■timui 1 li^_v gyui b. 1.38 Hir-a-h 1 R3 <\ L)Q4) 474 APTEMlAHP(OZ + chelys. Z-T 33. oll/r29 a. 1.05 b. 1.36 Mugla hd. c. 1.35 Mugla hd. d. 1.34 Mnalii hii 34. oll/r30 a. 1.36 n° U J. ill! •'«.!! I.' \1~W.j, JLYllUUovH.'V/LIll *\Nfl Cnn Alf\ OlvKJ v^UfJ. 35. ol2/r30 a. 1.41 n° \j ^Nn vA RHO RM 1Q7Q-1 -1 ij/vu vr\ 01 ju. uivi isis i i -'~> (1967) pi. 1.7. Mugla hd. b. 1.31 0° Vienna 35. 364 a. 1.10 Imhoof-Rlumer MGr 81 APAKON + bipennis. Z-T. 36.ol2/r31 a. 1.33 RM 1Q4S-11-V795 IGCH H55 I) ivi i y~+o i i _> / c.^>, iw«-ii b. 1.4 niiscii loi v I j./*+) i.u\). 37. ol2/r32 a. 1.17 0° ANS 1946-62-1. IGCH 1355? b. 1.25 0° BM 1947-4-6-449. nAM<MAOZ + dolphin. Z-T. 38.012A-33 a. 1.25 Mugla hd. (no photo) 39. ol3/r33 a. 1.17 Mugla hd. (no photo) b. 1.42 03 BM 1967-5-5-7. Mugla hd. 40. ol3/r34 a. 1.45 0° SNG vA 8149. BM 1979-1-1-572 (1967) pi. I. 26. Mugla hd. .VI A.R. MEADOWS APIXTEAI + club. I-T. 1 . uiz/i j j <x> 1 ? 5 KMK 65 (1996) 110 42. ol2/r36 a. 1.46 Mugla lid. 43. ol4/r37 a. 1.47 Mugla hd. b. 1.35 0° SNG vA 8128. BM 1979-1-1-551. (1967) pi. 1.4. Mugla hd. 44. ol5/r37 a. 1.31 (V Brussels II. 62. 548 AEONTI? + bipennis. C-T. 45.ol6/r38 a. 1.08 Hirsch 183(1994)477. 191 (1996) (1997)337 APICTEAC + bee. CT-PA.4 46. ol7/r39 a. 1.34 Mugla hd. b. 1.39 0° ANS 1966-134-3. Mugla hd 47. ol8/r40 a. 1.32 ()- P;iris 896 b. 1.4 Kress 156(1973) 316 c. 1.23 0° ACNAC Dewing 2373 d. 1.15 Naville 1 (1921, Pozzi) 2616. 48.018/r41 a. 1.48 Hirsch 184(1994) 270 b. 1.56 0° ANS 1966-288-2. Mugla hd Uncertain5 + torch. I-T. 49. ol9/r42 a. 1.46 0° SNG vA 8152. BM 1979-1-1-575. (1967) pi. I. 29. Mugla hd. b. 1.46 Mugla hd. APIXTEAI + bipennis. Z-T. 50. o20/r43 a. 1.25 30° SNG vA 8127. BM 1979-1-1-550. (1967) pi. 1.3. Mugla hd. 51.o20/r44 a. 1.30 0° Paris 900. Waddington 2550. Blumer, MGr. 79. IACQN + owl. C-T 52. o21/r45 a. 1.37 0° SNG vA 8139. BM 1979-1-1-562. (1967) pi. I. 16. Mugla hd. b. 1.16 0° Berlin 1875 (Prokesch-Osten) c. 1.3 Hirsch 37 (1963) 263 d. Kress 138 (1967)402 e. 1.31 SNG vA 2653 f. 1.39 0° Brussels II, 56. 951 I inhoof- 1 It is probably this combination thai was read by lmhoof-Blumer (MGr. p. 315, 80) as APICTEAC + flower. CT-PA. 5 Read by von Aulock as *IABOY. by Price in his notes (see Appendix A) as <t>IAIAOY. Neither reading scorns compelling. STR ATON I KHIA IN CARIA 85 MENECTPAITOC' + torch and quiver. 53. o21/r46 a. 1.34 30 b. 1.33 c. 1.34 d. 1.34 e 1.35 l. 1.35 0° ii &• 1.26 0° h. 1.22 0° i. 1.25 30 AIONYCIOC + grapes C-T. 54. o21/r47 a. 1.40 30 b. 1.37 o 1.18 30 XPYCAflP + star. C-T. 55. o21/r48 a. 1.38 b. 1.36 56. o21/r49 a. 1.32 0° b. 1.25 c. 1.19 30 MEAANOOY + harpa. I-T 57. o22/r50 a. 1.27 30 58. o23/r51 a. 1.49 b. 1.25 c. 1.41 m 59. o24/r51 a. 1.36 60. o25/r51 a. 1.52 b. 1.3 0° 61.o26/r51 a. 1.22 b. 1.25 c. 1.43 d. 1.33 e. 1.27 0 Cambridge 86-1967. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. SNG vA 8146. BM 1979-1-1-569. JNG 17 (1967) pi. I. 23. Mugla hd. ANS 1966-288-8. Mugla hd. Paris 904. Waddington 2554 BMC 5 Cambridge 85-1967. Mugla hd. SNG vA 8133. BM 1979-1-1-556. JNG 17 (1967) pi. I. 10. Mugla hd. Winterthur 3535. lmhoof-Blumer, ZGRMK. 96,2. GM 58 (1992)413 Mugla hd. SNG vA 8158. BM 1979-1-1-581. JNG 17 (1967) pi. I. 35 Mugla hd. Hirsch 177 (1993) 330 Winterthur 3536. lmhoof-Blumer, Karische MUnzeri, p. 206, 90. Cambridge 87-1967. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Brussels II, 56. 953 Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Mugla Museum, inv. 2.1 Boston 1991 Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Mugla hd.. No photo. SNG vA 8142. BM 1979-1-1-565. JNG 17 (1967) pi. I. 19. Mugla hd. 5 Read by Head (ad BMC 5. followed by lmhoof-Blumer. KIM. p. 154) as MENOITIOC. For the cor- rection see von Aulock. p. 9 n. 2. 86 A.R. MEADOWS MENEAHMOI + wreath and t'ulmen. I-T. 62. o23?/r52 a. 1.26 63.o24/r52 a. 1.13 30° b. 1.28 0° 64. o26/r53 a. 1.39 b. 1.48 0° CNG 8 (1989) 117 H. Weber 6553. BM 1922-4-25-34 Paris 903. Waddington 2553 Myers 5 (1973) 206. Mugla hd. SNG vA 8145. BM 1979-1-1-568. JNG 17 (1967) pi. I. 22. Muglahd. OYAIAAIOIY + wreath. No ethnic. 65. o26/r54 a. 1.44 0° BM 1967-5-5-11. Mugla hd. 66. o27/r54 a. 1.25 0° SNG vA 8148. BM 1979-1-1-571. JNG 17 (1967) pi. I. 25. Mugla hd. CTPATHN? + Isis-crown. C-T. 67. o28/r55 a. 1.29 68. o28/r56 a. 1.14 b. 1.53 c. 1.44 0' Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Myers FPLix/72. 85. Mugla hd. SNG Tiibingen 3464. AHMHTPIOC no symbol. I-T 69. o29/r57 a. U 3 0° Peus 320 (1987) 1121. SNG Keckman 248. Mugla hd. b. 1.17 Mugla hd. 70. o30/r58 a. 1.25 Muglahd. 7i.o31/r58 a. 1.55 Muglahd. AHMHTIPI + lotus. No ethnic 72. o30/r59 a. 1.34 2I():; Kurpfalzische MH 14 (1978) 94. Knopek 17 (1981) 177. SNG Keckman 247. Mugla hd. b. 1.39 Mugla hd. c. 1.7j CNG 37 (1996) 544 73. o30/r6() a. 1.36 Muglahd. b. 1.41 Muglahd. 74. o31/r60 a. 1.71 Muglahd. b. 1.31 Mugla hd. c. 1.56 Muglahd. d. 1.45 0° ANS 1966-288-5. Mugla hd. 75. o3 l/r61 a. 1.22 NFA 17 (1980) 55. Mugla hd. b. 1.42 Mugla hd. AHMHT + lotus. C-TP 76. o32/r62 a. 1.40 330° SNG vA 8132. BM 1979-1-1-555. JNG 17 (1967) pi. 1.9. Mugla hd. b. 1.30 0" Cambridge 88-1967. Mugla hd. 77. o33/r62 a. 1.39 Muglahd. b. ?? SKB FPL 25 (1978) 113 STRATONIKH1A IN CAR1A 87 APTEMI + grapes. CT-PA 78. o32/r63 a. 1.40 79. o33/r63 1.39 1.52 1.32 1.20 330° SNG vA 8129. BM 1979-1-1-552. JNG 17 (1967) pi. 1.6. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. 0° ANS 1966-288-3. Mugla hd. Aufhauser2 (1985) 102 0° Berlin. 1900 (Imhoof-Blumer). Rev. die uncertain. APTEMI (upward in r. field). CTP? In upper 1. corner 80. o34/r64 81. o35/r65 1.25 1.14 1.47 0 Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Brussels II, 56. 949 AE[-1 + torch? C-T 82. o36/r66 a. 1.03 Berlin 10512 AEfiN + grapes?. No ethnic? 83.o37/r67 a. 1.44 84. o38/r68 a. 1.47 AEHN + uncertain symbol. C-T Mugla hd. Malter FPL (JNFA) I. 10 (1973) S75. Poindessault-Vedrines 29.xii.84, 68 (name uncertain). 85. o37/r69 a. 1.33 Mugla hd 1.34 Mugla hd. 86. o39/r69 1.25 Mugla hd. XAIPHMflN + crescent I-T. 87. o40/r70 a. 1.45 0° BM 1967-5-5-9. Mugla hd. h. 1.38 330° SNG vA 8153. BM 1979-1-1-576. JNG (1967) pi. I. 30. Mugla hd. 88. o4 l/r71 a. 1.33 Hirsch 75 (1971) 205 b. 1.46 0° ANS 1966-288-11. Mugla hd. 0APIYT + scales . I-T. 89. o42/r72 a. 1.41 0° ANS 1966-288-6. Mugla hd. 90. o42/r73 a. 1.25 270° Vienna 28. 357 b. 1.44 330° SNG vA 8137. BM 1979-1-1-560. JNG (1967) pi. I. 14. Muglahd. 91. o40/r73 a. 1.33 Mugla hd. 92. o43/r73 a. 1.58 Mugla hd. b. 1.34 Mugla hd. 93. o44/r73 a. 1.52 0° Lanz 22 (1982) 392. Mugla hd. 94. o45/r73 a. 1.34 Mugla hd. b. 1.54 Mugla hd. c. 1.42 Mugla hd. d. 1.45 Mugla hd. 95. o45/r74 a. 1.44 96. o45/r75 a. 1.36 b. 0.97 AEflNIA + palladion. Z-T. 97. o45/r76 a. 1.63 b. 1.47 NIKOAAOZ + star. Z-T. 98. o46/r77 a. 1.58 b. 1.28 c. 1.42 d. 1.34 e. 1.43 f. 1.18 g. 1.40 h. 1.46 MENEAH + star? C-T. 99. o47/r78 a. 1.11 100. o47?/r79 a. 1.15 EYMENHC + thyrsus. CTIPIA 101.o48/r80 a. 1.34 MENAN + crook. CT-RA 102. o48/r81 a. 1.35 b. 1.51 c. 1.35 d. 1.37 103. o48/r82 a. 1.35 b. 1.29 c. 1.35 d. 1.46 MENANAP + crook. C-T 104. o49/r83 a. 1.32 b. 0.97 105. o50/r84 a. 1.25 b. 1.25 106. o50/r85 a. 1.37 a.r. meadows Mugla hd. 30° H. Weber 6552. BM 1922-4-25-33. 0° Paris 901. Waddington 2551. Corroded. Mugla hd. 30° SNG vA 8141. BM 1979-1-1-564. JNG 17 (1967) pi. I. 18. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. 30° SNG vA 8147. BM 1979-1-1-570. JNG 17 (1967) pi. I. 24. Mugla hd. 0° ANS 1966-288-9. Mugla hd. 0° BMC 2 0° Vienna 36. 857 Weber 6555. 0° Brussels II, 56. 954 180° SNG Cop 478 0° Berlin 1900 (Imhoof-Blumer). Imhoof- Blumer, MGr, p. 315, 83. 0° SNG vA 8136. BM 1979-1-1-559. JNG 17 (1967) pi. I. 13. Mugla hd. 0° Cambridge 89-1967. Mugla hd. 0° Berk 71 (1992) 164. Princeton (Firestone) 92-25. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. 0° SNG vA 8144. BM 1979-1-1-567. JNG 17 (1967) pi. I. 21. Mugla hd. NFAMB, Fall 1988, 321 Mugla hd. Myers FPL ix.72, 86. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. 0° SNG Cop. 479. Broken Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. straton i keia in caria b. 1.45 c. 1.18 107. o51/r84 a. 1.48 XPYCAHP + snake-altar. C-T. 0 108. o49/r86 109. o49/r87 110. o50/r87 111. o51/r87 112. o50/r88 113. o50/r89 114. o50/r90 1.43 1.44 1.23 1.36 1.34 1.32 1.31 nYOEAC + Isis crown. C-T (eagle r.). 115. o50/r91 116. o50/r92 1.39 1.34 1.44 1.31 1.36 I1Y0EAZ + Isis crown. I-T (eagle 1.). 117. o52/r93 118. o52/r94 119. o52/r95 120. o53/r95 121. o54/r96 122. o55/r97 a. b. c. d. a. a. b. a. b. a. b. c. a. 1.25 1.34 1.34 1.46 1.37 1.47 1.33 1.43 1.43 1.22 1.22 1.17 1.23 0° 330€ 330c 0° 0° MEAANTIXOZ + pileus. Z-T (eagle 1.). 123. o52/r98 a. 1.32 b. 1.24 330c c. 1.43 330° 124. o52/r99 125. o55/r99 1.35 1.42 NFA MB Fall, 1990, 789. Mugla hd. Berlin 4299 Mugla hd. BM 1967-5-5-4. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. SNG vA 8157. BM 1979-1-1-580. JNG 17 (1967) pi. 1.34. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Berliner Miinzkabinetl 9 (1979) 46. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Myers FPL iii.74, 84. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Hirsch 157 (1988) 143. SNG Keckman 250. SNG vA 8150. BM 1979-1-1-573. JNG 17 (1967) pi. I. 27. Mugla hd. Superior FPL 1969, 254. ANS 1966-288-10. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Brussels H, 56. 952 Mugla hd. Mugla hd. SNG vA 8151. BM 1979-1-1-574. JNG 17 (1967) pi. I. 28. Mugla hd. Peus 304 (1982) 131. Mugla hd. MMAG FPL 527 (1989) 88 Mugla hd. Cambridge 91-1967. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Vienna 36. 034 (Prowe) Mugla hd. BM 1967-5-5-1. Mugla hd. SNG vA 8143. BM 1979-1-1-566. JNG 17 (1967) pi. I. 20. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. 90 a.r. meadows 126. o54/rl00 127. o54/r!01 128. o54/r102 129. o55/rl02 1.11 1.48 1.29 1.41 1.5 130.056A102 a. 1.48 Mugla hd. Cambridge 90-1967. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Hirsch 182 (1994) 291 Hirsch 184(1994)268, 185(1995)316, (1995) 513. Ponterio 117 (2002) 310. Mugla hd. 87 AEflN + snake. Z-T (eagle 1.). 131.o52/rl03 a. 1.39 132. o53/rl()4 a. 1.46 b. 1.40 133. o54/rl05 a. 1.18 b. 1.35 134. o54/r!06 a. 1.14 b. 1.4 c. 1.04 135. o55/rl04 136. o55/rl06 137. o55/rl07 d. 1.39 e. 1.45 a. 1.36 b. 1.45 a. 1-26 b. 1.29 c. 1-23 d. 1.22 a. 1-17 b. 1.4 330° 330c SNG vA 8140. BM 1979-1-1-563. JNG 17 (1967) pi. I. 17. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Weber 6554 Kress 159(1974)450 Berlin 1900 (Imhoof-Blumer). Imhoof- Biumer. MGr.p. 315, 84. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. BMC I Brussels II. 56. 950 Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Oxford 1947 (Oman) Mugla hd. Kress 135 (1966) 190 XAlPHMflN + star. A-P or AP-IC 138. o57/rl08 139. o58/rl08 140. O59A108 141.o59/rl09 142.o59/rll0 143. o59/rlll a. a. b. c. d. a. b. a. a. a. 144. o59/r!12 a. b. 145. o58/rll3 a. b. 1.38 1.37 1.31 1.36 1.58 1.34 1.35 1.36 1.50 1.35 1.39 1.26 1.22 1.43 (no ethnic, eagle 1.). Mugla hd. 30° 30° 330° Winterthur 3537 Mugla hd. SNG vA 8155. BM 1979-1-1-578. JNG 17 (1967) pi. I. 32 Mugla hd. BM 1965-8-6-1. Mugla hd. Lanz 44 (1988) 220. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. SNG vA 8154. BM 1979-1-1-577. JNG 17 (1967) pi. I. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. 31. Mugla hd. stratonikkia in caria Ml 146. o59/rll3 a. 1.52 b. 1.33 147. o59/rll4 a. 1.19 b. 1.34 148. o60/rll4 a. 1.12 b. 1.41 c. 1.38 d. 1.41 e. 1.43 t 1.82 149. o61/rl!4 a. 1.53 b. 1.27 c. 1.39 d. 1.02 330° 0° 0° 300c Berk 45 (1986) 200. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. BM 1967-5-5-10. Mugla hd. Brussels II, 56. 948 Mugla hd. SNG vA 8156. BM 1979-1-1-579. JNG 17 (1967) pi. I. 33. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Fethiye Museum inv. no. 5352. Mugla hd. Mugla hd. Peus 307 (1983) 100. Mugla hd. Ratto 26.iv.09 (Froehner). 4116. Uncertain 150. o62/rl 15 a. 1.30 Hirsch 183 (1994)476, 191 (1996)495,211 (2000) 1366. — o?/r? a. 1.39 Hirsch 113 (1978) 543. (symbol: aphlaston) Group 3 Drachms Obv. Head of Hecate r. Rev, Nike advancing r., holding wreath in r. hand and palm over 1. shoulder; above, magistrate's name: in lower r. field, symbol; to either side, C-T: all with- in shallow incuse square. AITEAAHC + star l.OI/Rl a. 1.92 2.01a/R2 a. 1.82 0° BM 1922-7-18-*2- 0° Berlin 1920/749 TAIOC + serpent-staff 3.02/R3 a. 1.78 0° b. 1.87 4.02/R4 a. 1.69 0° Paris 909. Waddington 2556 Spink, NCirc. iv.2000, 1345. SNG Aberdeen 296 AnOAAUJNIIAHC + torch 5. 02/R5 6. 03/R6 1.2 1.76 2.14 300° Vienna 28. 607 300° Paris 908. Waddington 2555. Chipped. Hirsch 182 (1994) 295, 184 (1994) 271. APICTEIAC + star 7.04/R7 ; 8.04/R8 ; 9.05/R9 i 1.55 1.15 1.80 0° 0° Berlin 1900 (Imhoof-Blumer). Imhoof- Blumer, MGr, p. 315. 78; KIM, p. 152. 3. Paris 905. Broken. Vienna 31.435 92 a.r. meadows AIONYCIOC + caduceus 10. O5/R10 a. 1.66 0° BM 1938-10-7-130 b. 1.71 0° Berlin 1920/748 c. 1.50 0° ACNAC Dewing 231'4 AINEAC + corn ear 11. 06/R11 a. 1.91 Winterthur 3524. Imhoof'-Blumer, Karische Mimzen. p. 206. 93. APTEMIAIUJPOC no symbol 12.06/R12 a. 2.14 13. 067/RI3 2.23 2.06 Winterthur 3525. Imhoof-Blumer. ZGRMK. 97 SNG Cop 470 ANS 1983-51-555 AHMOC0ENHC + uncertain symbol 14. 07/R14 a. 1.98 0° 15.08/R15 a. 1.55 16.087/R16 a. 1.56 0° 17.09/R17 a. 1.60 0° Paris 910. Waddington 2557 H. Weber 6558 Vienna 27.752 Vienna 32.730. Chipped AlOrNHITOC + uncertain symbol 18. O10/R18 a. 1.29 0° AlOKAHC + torch + Kl 19. 011/RI9 a. 1.84 0° ALUPI<t>U)N + torch 20. O11/R20 a. 1.64 0 AlOKAHC +KO 21. 012/R21 a. 1.40 0° 22. 012/R22 a. 1.54 0° b. 1.47 0° 23. 012/R23 a. 1.62 0° AIONYCIOC + grapes 24. 013/R24 a. 1.85 0 25. OI3/R25 a. 1.73 Berlin 1877/829 Berlin 1900 (Imhoof-Blumer). Imhoof- Blumer. GrM 448 Oxford 1926 (Milne) Winterthur 3527 Vienna 32.723 SNG Cop. 471 Berlin 1900 (Imhoof-Blumer). Imhoof- Blumer. KIM. p. 153. 8. ANS 1968-57-114 J. Hirsch 13 (1905, Rhousopoulos) 3925 MEAANOIOC + snake staff 26.013/R26 a. 1.96 Cambridge. McClean 8506 AIONYCIOC + uncertain symbol 27.014/R27 a. 1.56 0° ANS 1983-51-556. Chipped. stratonikeia in caria 99 28.014/R28 a. 1.88 0° 29. 015/R29 a. 1.95 b. 1.63 0° I v-IUL T lUILIl 30.016/R30 a. 1.86 0° 3I.016/R3I a. 1.55 30° h i). 1.62 0° c. 1.40 0° 32.016/R32 a. 1.97 0° AlOfTNlHC + uncertain symbol (pileus 33.017/R33 a. 1.58 0° EY0Y + cornucopia 34.018/R34 a. 1.67 0° HPAKAEITIOC + hand 35.019/R35 a. 1.60 0° JO. UiUmjD d. 1.40 0° 37. O20/R37 a. 1.77 0° 38.020/R38 a. 1.48 0° AEUJN + caduceus 39.021/R39 a. 1.59 0° 40.022/R40 a. 2.12 30° MENEAAIOC + torch 4I.023/R41 a. 1.80 0° MHNOAOTIOC + uncertain symbol 42.024/R42 a. 1.79 330° MYUJNIAHC + SEIA 43.025/R43 a. 1.24 330° b. 1.57 330° 44.026/R44 a. 1.21 0° b. 1.67 0° 45.026/R45 a. 1.54 0° 46.026/R46 a. 1.61 0° FIAMWAOC + corn-ear 47.027/R47 a. 1.60 0° 48.028/R48 a. 1.47 0° Princeton (Firestone) 93-33 Cahn 68(1930) 1476 Vienna 35.823 Vienna 33.585 BMC 8 Berlin 1900 (Imhoof-Blumer). KIM. p. 154. SNG Cop. 473 SNG Cop. All Berlin 1906 (Lobbecke) SNG Cop. 474 Berlin 1900 (Imhoof-Blumer) Vienna 32.731. Chipped. Paris 911. Waddington 2558 Oxford 1946 (Robinson) BM 1947-4-6-447 (with © in bottom 1. corner of rev.?) Winterthur 3526. Imhoof-Blumer, KIM, p. 152, 3 (note). H. Weber 6557. BM 1922-4-25-32 Paris 906 Vienna 35. 312. Chipped and counter- marked. Paris 907. Waddington 2559. Pierced. Vienna 28.668. Chipped Kastner 7 (1973) 139. Chipped BM 1920-6-11-271. Broken. Winterthur 3528 Vienna 30.738 Berlin 1906 (Lobbecke) 94 a.r. meadows <t>ANIAC +cornucopia 49. 029/R49 a. 1.43 0° 50.030/R50 a. 1.78 0° SNG Cop. 475. Imhoof-BIumer. Karische Mi'm-en. p. 206, 94 (this coin?). SNG vA 2655. BM 1979-1-1-546 Hemidrachms Obv Head of Zeus laureate r. Rev. Eagle standing on torch r., wings open: below, in tront of eagle, symbol; above, magistrate's name: in 1. and r. field, first letters of ethnic; all with- in shallow incuse square. APICTEAC + corn ear I. ol/rl a. 0.79 b. 0.62 c. )° BMG2123 180° Paris 897. Chipped. Hirsch 37 (1963) 264 AELUN + caduceus 2. ol/r2 a. 0.78 b. 0.90 0° Berlin 1900 (Imhoof-BIumer). Imhoof- BIumer. KIM. p. 152, 3. 30° Princeton (Firestone) 95-36 3. ol/r3 a. 0.83 0° 4. o2/r4 a. 0.92 0° XPYCOr + owl? 5. o3/r5 a. 0.95 0° h. 0.80 0° c. 0.73 0° riAMM + uncert tin symbol 6. o4/r6 a. 0.73 0° b. 0.62 0° Berlin 1873 (Fox) Berlin 1900 (Imhoof-BIumer). KIM. p. 152, 2. Princeton (Firestone) 92-26. ex Berk 71 (1992) 165 Vienna 34.286 Berlin 1900 (Imhoof-BIumer). Imhoof- BIumer, MGr, p. 315, 85; KIM. p. 154 SNG Cop. 480 Paris 898 APICTANIAP (no symbol) 7. o5/r7 a. 0.89 APXEAHIMOC (no symbol) 8. o6/r8 a. 0.79 30 Winterthur 3539 Wintcrthur 3538 A-E1UJ-N (magistrate's name in four corners; no ethnic; no symbol) 9 o7/r9 a. 0.89 330° Princeton (Firestone) 95-4 10.o8/rl0 a. 0.80 0° SNG Cop. 481 stratomkeia in caria 95 CTRAT(O) (no magistrate"* name or symbol) 11. o9/rIl a. 0.77 30° H. Weber 6556. BM 1922-4-25-35 12.ol0/rl2 a. 0.80 Cahn 68 (1930) 1475 % 0.74 0° ANS 1983-51-557 Uncertain issues 13. oll/rl3 a. 0.75 0° Vienna 32.734 14.ol2/rl4 a. 0.81 300° ANS 1983-51-554 Group 4 Type A Didrachm Type i Obv. Bust of Hecate r.; to 1., magistrate's name. Rev. Zeus Panamaros on horseback r- beneath horse. ITPA. XfinYPOZ 1. — a. 3.40 Vatican. Imhoof-BIumer, GrM. pp. 674-5, 449; cf. KIM, p. 155. Type ii Obv. Male head laureate r.: above, magistrate's name. Rev. Zeus Panamaros on horseback r.; beneath horse, CT. EYMENHC. RPC I 2775 2. Ol/Rl a. 2.81 0° SNG vA 8161. BM 1979-1-1-1081. Broken. Drachms Obv. Head of Hecate r.; above, magistrate's name. Rev. Nike advancing r., holding wreath in r. hand and palm over I. shoulder: lo I. and r.. I-TIP-A (rl) or C-TIP-A (r2 and r3) ; all within shallow incuse square. ANTIOXOC 1. ol/rl 1.86 1.70 1.58 1.51 1.47 1.41 1.66 30c 0° 30 Hirsch 214(2001) 1427 Winterthur 3530. Imhoof-BIumer. Karische Miinzen, p. 206, 91. CNG 43 (1997) 587 J. Hirsch 13 (1905. Rhousopoulos) 3924 Paris 912. Waddington 2560. Broken. BM 1902-6-10-17 GM 90 (1998) 368 EYMENHC. RPC I 2776 2-o2/r2 a. 1.36 330° b. 1.48 330° Wiiuerthur 3531 Oxford 1924 (Milne), ex Ready sale, lot 465. 96 a.r. meadows MENEAAOC. 3. o3/r3 1.25 Vienna 32.733 type B Didrachms Obv. Male head laur.r. Rev. Zeus Panamaros on horseback r.; above, magistrate's name; in exergue. CTPAT. AP1CTEAC - XIAPIDN. RFC I 2777 l.Ol/Rl a. 2.92 330c 2.02/R2 a. 3.31 3.0?/R? a. 3.12 SNGvA 2663. BM 1979-1-1-1080 Berlin 69/1875 Berlin 1900 (Imhoof-Blumer). Imhoof- Blumer, GrM 449a KAAYAIOC - 0EOJ>ANHC. RPC I 2779 4.03/R3 a. 2.52 0° Berlin 653/1910 Drachms Obv. Head of Hecate r.; above, magistrate's name. Rev. Nike advancing r., holding wreath in r. hand and palm over 1. shoulder; above, magistrate's name; to 1. and r., C-TIP-A; all within shallow incuse square. APICTEAC - X1APUJ[N1 (rev. to.l. and r., stars). RPC I 2778 1. ol/rl 1.39 Berlin 1900 (Imhoof-Blumer). Imhoof- Blumer, KIM. p. 153, 5. BUJPANAEYC - APIZTEAC 2. o2/o2 a. 1.53 3. o2/r3 1.67 0EO4>ANHC - KAAYAIOC. RPC I 2780 4. o3/r4 i 1.20 1.56 Berlin 1906 (Lobbecke). ZfN 10 (1883). p. 78, no. 32. Broken. Boston 1992 Ratto 4.iv.l927, 2050. H. Weber 6559 Berlin 1900 (Imhoof-Blumer). Imhoof- Blumer. KIM.p. 153, 6 nOAE - AEUJN 5. o4/r5 1.48 0° Vienna 36.466 1.53 30° Wintertluir 2532. Imhoof-Blumer, Karisclu Miinzen, p. 206, 92. 1.26 0° Oxford 1923 (Griffith). Holed. AEUJN - KAPPE1C 6. o5/r6 a. 1.52 330c Wintertluir 2529 stratonikeia in caria 97 CUJCANAPOC - ZtUIAOY 7. o6/r7 a. 1.42 (I 8. o6/r8 a. 1.59 0 9. o6/r9 a. 1.32 0 10. o7/rl0 a. 1.27 (i Type C SNG Keckman 252 Paris 914. Waddington 1562 Oxford 1947 (Oman) BMC 7. Chipped. Tetradrachm ? Obv. Male head laur.r. within wreath. Rev. Zeus Panamaros on horseback r.: in front, altar; above, magistrate's names; below. CTPATO|NIKEUJN] [-IBEINIANOCf - |EAC. RPC I 2781 l.Ol/Rl a. 6.40 30° BMC 33 Drachm Obv. Head of Hecate r.: to 1.. magistrate's name; to r., patronymic*?). Rev. Nike advancing r., holding wreath in r. hand and palm over 1. shoulder; to 1. and r. downwards, CTPATO- NIKEUJN; all within shallow incuse square. *ANIAC - KIOAP 1. ol/rl a. 1.16 0° Berlin 1900 (Imhoof-Blumer). Imhoof- Blumer, GrM448a 2. ol/r2 a. 1.58 Hirsch 209 (2001) 139 3.ol/r3 a. 1.38 KM 73 (2000) 59 EKATAIOC - CUJCANAPOY a. 1.16 H. Weber 6560 b. 1.45 0° Lanz 58 (1991) 262 c. 1.39 0° SNG vA2656. BM 1979-1-1-582 d. 1.00 0° SNG Cop. 469. Broken e. 1.25 0° Paris 913. Waddington 2561. Chipped f. 1.50 0° Berlin 1871/59 g- 1.35 Cahn 68 (1930) 1477 h. 1.41 0° BMC 6. Pierced and broken. j- Ebay 1318395414. January 2002. a. 1.41 0° Vienna 27.732 Group 5 Didrachm Obv. Head of Antoninus Pius r.. laureate; [AV K]AI T AIA AAPIANOC ANTLUNINOC: around, border of dots. Rev. Zeus Panamaros on horseback r.; in front, altar?; 4>A APIITOAAOC; around, border of dots. Ol/RI a. 2.09 180° BMC 49 (Lcnnep. 1894). Countermark, bee?(G/C 841) OS A.R. MEADOWS Obv. As last Rev. As last: KAAY APICTEAC. 2. — a. Mionnct iii, p. 378 no. 440. Countermark. uncertain.7 Drachm Obv. Head of Hecate r.; to L and r., CTPATO-NIKEUJN. Rm. Nike advancing r.. holding wreath in r. hand and palm over I. shoulder: in inner r. held, AlB; to I. and r., CTPATO- N1KEUDN: all within shallow incuse square. l.ol/rl a. 1.07 180° Winterthur 3533. Imhoof-Blumer, Karische Miinzen. p. 206. 95. 2. o2/r2 a. 1.04 180° Hirsch 211 (2000) 1367. Countermark, bee? (C/C 841) PART II: COMMENTARY ON THE CATALOGUE Group 1 Among Ihe silver coins produced by the mint of Stratonikeia, this small group stands out from the rest, both for its designs and weight standard. The obverse features a head of Zeus, laureate and facing to the right. The reverse shows a female figure standing facing, holding a torch in her left hand and a bowl in her right. Atop her head is a polos surmounted by a crescent moon, leaving no doubt that she is Hekate. On the two sides of the coins we thus find represented the deities of the two principal sanctuaries in Stratonikeia's territory: Zeus at Panamara and Hekate at Lagina.8 Two denominations are extant. Drachms were struck in the name of the mag- istrate AEflN from at least two obverse and two reverse dies. On these the mag- istrate's name and the abbreviated ethnic are positioned to either side of the fig- ure of the goddess. In the lower right field is depicted a small oblong object, gen- erally described as an altar. This may form part of the main reverse design; how- ever the absence of this feature from the larger denomination, struck by a differ- ent magistrate, may suggest that this symbol is an adjunct to the magistrate AEflN. in the same manner as symbols accompany magistrate's names on the plinthophoric coinages of groups 2 and 3. The whole reverse design of the drachm is surrounded by a border of dots. The weight standard of these drachms is difficult to gauge with precision. The most complete, though partially corroded coin (no. 4) is the heaviest at 3.76 g. The remaining three are chipped to varying degrees, but their current weights (3.39, 3.15 and 3.44 g) suggest that they may originally have been struck, like no. 4, to a standard of c. 3.8-4.0 g. The larger denomination is known from just one specimen, struck in the name of a different magistrate. MEAAN01OI. His name together with the ethnic in full ' lmhoof Blumcr. KIM. p. 156. cautiously suggests that Mionnerts inference may in fact be lo BMC 49. H A similar depiction of the goddess appears on imperial period issues of the city. See eg. RFC II. 1196 (reign of Titus): SNG vA 2665 (Septimius Severus). 2687 (Caracalla and Geta). CI'. L1MC vi. p. 1007. Conceivably this is a representation of the cull-statue of the goddess at Lagina. STRATONIKEIA IN CARIA 99 is inscribed around the main design in a circle, a manner uncommon on Greek civic coinage before the imperial period. The whole reverse design, in contrast to that of the drachm, is further encircled by a laurel wreath. This last, distinctive feature is surely connected with the weight and denomination of the issue. The one known specimen weighs 10.73 g. Although they were struck by different magistrates, it is certain on grounds of both type and style that the larger denom- ination and the drachm are closely connected to one another. There seems little option but to interpret the larger denomination as a tridrachm on the same stan- dard as the drachms. Given a standard of c.3.8-4.0 g for the drachms, and allow- ing for the tendency of Hellenistic mints to strike smaller denominations at slightly less than their theoretical weight, the tridrachm on this standard should weigh approximately 12-12.5 g. Our specimen is thus a little light but, particularly since it has suffered damage around the edges, not disturbingly so.9 At first sight the combination of a tridrachm and drachm looks odd. but in fact a parallel for a tridrachm of similar weight, accompanied by a didrachm on the same standard, lies at hand in the issues of nearby Alabanda.10 There too, the issues, uniquely for that mint, are characterised by a wreath around the reverse design and an ethnic legend deployed in a circular pattern. The coincidence is remarkable. It is perhaps not surprising that the two cities chose to mint a denom- ination with a weight of c. 12-12.5 g. These coins could no doubt have passed for tetradrachms on the cistophoric standard employed in the Attalid kingdom, and later the Roman province of Asia, just to their north." Far more curious is the decision of both mints to treat this denomination as a tridrachm within their own denominational systems, for such must be the implication of the existence of coins weighing one third and two thirds of the larger denomination. The date of the tridrachms and drachms of Stratonikeia remains to be consid*. ered. We are hampered by the absence of any hoard evidence for these issues. A small advance may be made by consideration of the weight standard. If it is cor- rect to see the large denomination as influenced by the cistophoric system, its issue must post-date the introduction of that system. The date of the introduction of the cistophorus has long been disputed, but opinion now seems to be harden- ing in favour of a date around 190 BC.12 Group 1 at Stratonikeia will thus not * Von Sallet. ZfN 16 (1888), p. 5, regarded the larger denomination as a didrachm. However, he did not know of the existence or weight of the drachms, which render such an interpretation highly unlikely. For similar reasons Head's description of the piece as a tetradrachm (BMC Carta, p. Ixx) is to be rejected. 1(1 Eg. BMC Alabanda 10 (tridrachm) and 11 (didrachm). Weights of the 33 Alabanda tridrachms known to me ranee between 11.20 and 12.15 g. The two known unbroken didrachms weigh 7.30 and 7.76 g. 11 A similar decision to mint coins with civic types on this standard was taken by Cibvra: see e.g. flA/CCibyra 1-5. 1 For the numismatic evidence, see the summary by G. Le Rider. 'La politique monetaire du roy- aume de Pergame apres 188'. JS 1989, pp. 163-89 at 164-9. For a date shortly prior to 190 on the evidence of Livy see K. Harl, "Livy and the Date of the Introduction of the Cistophoric Tctradrachma". Classical Antiquity 10 (1991). pp. 268-97. For epigraphic evidence for a terminus ante quern of 181 sec R.H.J. Ashton, "The Attalid Poll-lax-. ZPE 104 (1994). pp. 57-60. 100 A.R. MEADOWS predate c.190 BC. Further advances in the dating of this group may be obtained from consideration first of the issues of Alabanda to which they seem close, and second of the place of group 1 within the overall history of production at the Stratonikeia mint. The comparable issues at Alabanda are, as we have seen, the cistophoric issues, which were classified by Waggoner as series 5.13 There is no hoard evidence for this series. Its date can only be inferred from the relationship of series 5 to the Alexander-type coinage also produced by Alabanda (Waggoner series 3). Both types were marked with dates according to an era that has thus far eluded identi- fication. However, the hoard evidence for the series 3 Alexanders suggests that they entered production around the 160s bc.14 The latest date known on the series 5 coinage is year 33. A date range of c.160s-130s for Alabanda series 5 is thus suggested, and may perhaps be inferred for Stratonikeia group 1. The obvious characteristic that distinguishes group 1 from the remainder of the silver coinage produced before the imperial period is the nature of the reverse design. All coins issued in the drachm or hemidrachm denominations in groups 2, 3 and 4 have a plinthophoric reverse; group 1 does not. The significance of this difference was noted by Head, who suggested that Stratonikeia followed the example of Rhodes in switching from plinthophoric to non-plinthophoric coinage in the first century bc (BMC Caria, pp. lxx-lxxi). Head had far less material than is now available, however. As we shall see below, the plinthophoric style was maintained on the coinage of Stratonikeia much later than at Rhodes. To maintain the position of the group 1 non-plinthophoric coinage after the end of the plinthophoric style would now entail dating the former to the mid first century ad. This is out of the question on stylistic grounds, and makes little sense on metro- logical, since the cistophorus was not by this point being produced in the province of Asia in significant quantities. An obvious alternative to placing the non- plinthophoric group 1 after the plinthophoric groups would be to place it before them. As we shall see, the first plinthophoroi (group 2) must belong somewhere in the period between c. 188 and 125 bc, with a likely start-date no earlier than the 140s. There is certainly nothing to rule out the hypothesis that group 1 occurred towards the beginning of that period, after the introduction of the cistophori whose standard it adopts, but before the introduction of the plinthophoric type copied from Rhodes. This would require that Stratonikeia took up the minting of cistophori fairly soon after the appearance of that denomination in the Attalid kingdom, which might seem a little odd for a city not within the Attalid kingdom, and thus outside what is generally regarded as the closed currency system applied there. But the parallel case of Alabanda suggests that this may have been possi- l! N. Waggoner, 'A New Wrinkle in the Hellenistic Coinage of Antioch/Alabanda', in G. Le Rider. K. Jenkins, N. Waggoner and U. Westermark (eds). Kraay-M&rkhalm Essays. Numismatic Siudies in Memory of CM. Kraay and O. Mdrklwlm (Louvain. 1989). pp. 283-90. 14 A full discussion of the chronology of these issues is beyond the scope of this article. I am cur- rently preparing a die-study of the Hellenistic coinage of Alabanda. STRATONIKEIA IN CARIA 101 ble in the context of the withdrawal of Rhodian control over Caria in 166. On the other hand, there are stylistic grounds for suggesting that the group I coinage may not predate group 2, but rather coincide with part of it. The style of the Zeus heads on the obverses of group 1 find their closest comparanda not in the earliest dies of the group 2 hemidrachms, but rather in a cluster of dies that seem to occur towards the end of the series (Group 2C : obverse dies 49, 50 and 51). It is cer- tainly possible that the cistophoric group 1 and the plinthophoric group 2 were partially contemporaneous. However, style is not always the best guide. Until bet- ter evidence emerges it seems best to place group 1 at the beginning of the mint's activity. Group 2 The coinage assembled here as Group 2 constitutes the largest coinage struck by the city of Stratonikeia. It consists of drachms and hemidrachms distinctive both for their plinthophoric design and their plinthophoric weight, in both aspects imi- tating the coinage of Rhodes of the second century bc. As can be seen from the weight tables (figs. 1 and 2), both denominations aimed at the full plinthophoric weight, c.3 g or a little above for the drachms, and c.1.5 or slightly less for the hemidrachms (see further below). However, the pattern of production of the two denominations at Stratonikeia differed from that at Rhodes. The latter mint began with the production of drachms only (Jenkins group A), followed by a period in which both drachms and hemidrachms were stuck, though only two magistrates struck both (group B). The Rhodian mint then reverted to the production of drachms only (group C), before the hemidrachm reappeared and became the^ dominant denomination towards the end of the second century (group D). At Stratonikeia, by contrast, the issue of drachms seems to have been fleeting indeed. Only two obverse dies have been observed in eight known specimens produced by six different magistrates. Of these six individuals, at least four seem to have struck hemidrachms simultaneously, to judge from the reappearance of their names on the latter denomination in combination with the same symbol as on the drachms: AHMHTPIOZ + aphlaston; MHNOAOTOZ + fulmen; EKATHN + bipen- nis; riAinNlOI + dolphin. The hemidrachm issues are far more numerous. 50 firm name + symbol combinations, using a total of 62 obverse dies, have been recorded. It is not until the large Jenkins group D that such a volume of hemidrachm production is seen at Rhodes. It thus seems most likely that the drachms stand at the beginning of the activ- ity of the Stratonikeian plinthophoric mint, but that they quickly gave way to the hemidrachm that took over as the principal denomination for the remainder of this phase of the mint's activity. This arrangement finds support in the conclu- sions that Martin Price drew about the relative chronology of the hemidrachms on the basis of their relative wear within the Mugla hoard (see Appendix A). The issues of AHMHTPIOZ + aphlaston and MHNOAOTOZ + fulmen were among the 102 A.R. MEADOWS 3.0 -i 2.5 - 2.0 ■ 1.5 - 1.0 - 0.5 - 0.0 - - 2.71- 2.75 2.81- 2.85 2.91- 2.95 3.01 - 3.05 □ Group 2 drs. FiG. 1. Group 2 drachms: weight table. 70 n Fig. 2. Group 2 hemidrachms: weigh! lable. most worn in the group, and were placed by him at the beginning of the series. In this arrangement he was followed by von Aulock. This being the case, it is possible to begin to establish a relative chronology for the hemidrachms. Their beginning can be defined by relationship to the drachms. Coincidence of name and symbol pairings on both drachms and hemidrachms places the issues of'MHNOAOTOC + Oilmen, AHMHTPIOC + aphlaston. EKATflN + bipennis and nAIHNlOC + dolphin at the head of the series (see the table of die- links, p. 134 below). Obverse die-links tie in a further 15 issues to this group: ACKAHniAAHC + aphlaston. AIONYCIAHPOC + trident. IAIHN + lion-head. MHNOAOTOC + Oilmen. AHMHTPIOC + aphlaston. MENEAAOC + helmet. ANTIflATPOC + snake-staff, EKATflN + bipennis. CHCTPATOC + crab. STRATONIKEIA IN CAR IA 1113 llAinNIOC + dolphin. AlOrNHTOZ + cornucopia. KAEHCOEN + owl, MENEKAHI + torch, APTEMIAjQP(OI) + chelys. nAMWAOZ + dolphin, APAKflN + bipennis, APIITEAZ + club, IACQN + helmet, EYBOYA + palm. The group of 19 magistrate and symbol combinations thus created, and designated in the catalogue as group 2A, includes all of those issues assigned by Martin Price (followed by von Aulock [p. 11]) to his earliest group. Group 2A is also distinctive stylistically. There are close similarities between obverse dies 6, 7 and 8. which were perhaps all cut by the same hand, and also between obverses 9, 10. 11, 12, 13 and 14 and obverses 1. 3 and 4, and 12 and 18. The final issues of hemidrachms are also relatively straightforward to isolate with the help of the Mugla hoard. On the basis of wear within that hoard. Price regarded the issues in the name of XAIPHMflN APIC + star as the latest issues which it contained. Two further facts support this position. The coins of Chairemon are, with 24 recorded specimens, the most numerous within the hoard and therefore likely to have been among the most recently struck at the time of deposit. These issues are also unique in the appearance of what appears to be a patronymic in place of an ethnic on the reverse (A-P or AP-iC).ls This feature is matched by the distinctive style of the obverse dies used for Chairemon's coinage, which marks it out from almost all other hemidrachm issues: note par- ticularly the distinctive hook-like curls along the bottom of the beard. This last feature is shared by the obverse dies of a die-linked group of magistrates: F1Y0EAC + Isis crown. MEAANTIXOI + pileus and AEHN + snake. Indeed, the similarity between obverses 58 and 56 is so close as to suggest that same hand was responsible. One further characteristic links these magistrates with Chairemon; uniquely among the hemidrachms of group 1. they have a left-facing eagle on the reverse. Working backwards from this group of magistrates, the small die-linked group comprising MENANAP + crook. XPYCAHP + snake-altar and riYOEAC + Isis crown (eagle r.) may be placed immediately before it on the assumption that the issues of I1YOEAC + Isis crown with eagle r. and eagle 1. belong together. It should be noted, however, that there is no die-link or obvious stylistic continuity between right- and left-facing issues. On a similar basis we may extend the series a stage further back, through the coincidence of the issues of MENANAP + crook with those in the name of MENAN + crook. Again the equa- tion of the two individuals seems obvious, but is not supported by die-link or style. With MENAN + crook belongs EYMENHC + thyrsus. linked by obverse die 48. The issues that may be linked in this way, from XAIPHMflN APIC + star back to EYMENHC + thyrsus are designated group 2C in the catalogue. Between groups 2A and 2C must belong the remaining 19 known issues of hemidrachms. Although a number of these issues die-link into small groups, it is impossible on the present state of the evidence to propose a firm relative 15 Though il is possible that the OY Of OYAIAAIOIY + wreath is likewise patronymic, rather than the termination ol the magistrate^ name: cl. Debord. Questions, p. 171. 104 A.R. MEADOWS chronology for them. The issues of this central group (here designated group 2B) exhibit a wide stylistic variety, suggesting that they may be the product of sporadic production over a number of years, or if close in time, the result of hasty die-cutting by a number of different individuals. The four issues linked by the highly distinctive obverse 21, for example, sit in complete stylistic isolation from the rest of the series. As to the absolute chronology of group 2, it is necessary first to examine von Aulock's hypothesis that these are coins of the early first century bc. Von Aulock (pp. 14-15) identified two aspects of the coins of Stratonikeia as indicators of date. (1) The reverse type of the drachms, Nike, suggested to him a reference to a recent victory achieved by the city. He suggested two possibilities: first, the Roman victory over Aristonicus in early 129 bc when Aristonicus himself was finally captured by the Romans at a city called Stratonikeia; second the victory of Rome in the first Mithridatic War, during which Carian Stratonikeia had suffered badly at the hands of the king.16 However, our knowledge of the history of Stratonikeia is far from perfect and the temptation to attach this coin type to a known event merely because it is known is best resisted. Moreover, it is now clear that the Stratonikeia at which Aristonicus was captured was the city in Lydia, not the Carian Stratonikeia.17 (2) Following the preliminary arrangement of the series by Price into three groups, von Aulock regarded the issues of Chairemon as sequential and as coming in the last group: XAIPHM + crescent, XAIPHMHN AP + star, XAIPHMHN APII + star. Adopting a suggestion of Price, von Aulock saw in the symbols crescent and star a similarity with the symbols on the reverse of the coinage of Mithridates VT. He thus dated the coins of Stratonikeia with these symbols to the period of Mithridatic control of the city. It is clear, however, that Price and von Aulock had missed the obverse die-link between the XAIPHM + crescent issue and the 0APIYT + scales issue (obverse die 40). XAIPHM + crescent thus falls into group 2B and must be detached from the XA1PHMHN AP + star, XAlPHMflN APII + star issues, from which they are in any case stylistically distinct. We may in fact question whether these are the same man. The APII must be a patronymic, as von Aulock (p. 10) saw; it may well have been added to distinguish the later Chairemon from the earlier. Moreover, cres- cent and star symbols also occur on the plinthophoroi of Rhodes, the latter as early as Jenkins group A (no. 9), the former only in Jenkins group C (Jenkins no. 67). It is impossible to link these Rhodian issues to the activities of Mithridates VI, and the link is also to be rejected at Stratonikeia. These symbols were simply drawn from a repertory of such marks used to identify different issues. "' See part HI. 17 For a recantantion of his previous insistence on the Carian city in favour of the Lydian, see L. Robert. Villes d'Asie Mineure2 (Paris, 1962), pp.48. 261-2. with previous bibliography. For the cistophori that clinched the identification see now F.S. Kleiner and S.P. Noe. The Early Cistophork Coinage (New York, 1977), pp. 104-6. STRATONIKEIA IN CARIA 105 In fact there is one obvious feature of the Stratonikeian plinthophoroi of group 2 that strongly suggests that they were produced before 88 bc: their weight stan- dard. As has already been noted, from the frequency tables of the drachms and hemidrachms (figs 1 and 2) it is clear that the standard of the Stratonikeian plinthophoric drachm was about 3.00-3.05 g, while that of the hemidrachm was slightly under half that at around 1.45-1.50 g. This is surely the full Rhodian plinthophoric standard of Jenkins groups A-D, with a drachm of c.3.05 g.18 The Jenkins period E plinthophoroi which followed at Rhodes from c.88 bc, were minted at a lower standard, probably of about 2.50-2.60 g. In Lycia, where the kitharephoroi of the Lycian League seem to have followed the development of the Rhodian plinthophoroi, there was a reduction in standard across the region which mirrored the reduction on Rhodes.19 At Stratonikeia there is no obvious reduction in weight such as we might have expected to see in the series had it still been in production after 88 bc, and after the introduction of group E on Rhodes. This serves as further confirmation that all the coinage of group 2 must have been minted before 88 bc. To achieve further precision in the dating of group 2 we must make better use of the evidence provided by the Mugla hoard. As Ashton has already noted, the date of this hoard, and thus that of the Stratonikeian coinage, must rather be derived from the Rhodian plinthophoroi included therein.20 The following cata- logue lists the coins of Rhodes that can be attributed to the hoard with confi- dence:21 Drachms Obv. Head of Helios radiate r. Rev. Incuse square within which rose, magistrate's name above and symbol to 1. Jenkins Group A 1 AITMAXOZ + Aphlaston 2 APTEMHN + Isis-crown 3 ZTAZIfiN22 + Snake-altar & star MMAG FPL 264 (May 1966), 329 MM AG FPL 264, 330 MMAG FPL 264, 334 18 For the plinthophoric standard at Rhodes see Ashton, op. cit. (n. 12). p. 59. " For the drop in weight standard between Lycian League period 11 series 1 and 2 see H. Troxell, The Coinage of the Lycian League (New York, 1982). pp. 84-5 20 SNG Keckman s.v. Stratonikeia. 21 The list is derived from that provided by von Aulock (pp. 12-13). in conjunction with his cor- respondence with Price regarding the hoard. Von Aulock only acquired a single Rhodian coin from the hoard (no. 5). but noted all the magistrates present. 22 Slasion with this symbol is not recorded by Jenkins on a plinthophoros; Stasion is only other- wise known on coins of group A however, and the combination Stasion + snake-altar is known on an old style tetradrachm of the period immediately preceding (Jenkins, p. 116 no. 43 ex Marmaris hoard). I Of, A.R. MEADOWS Jenkins Group B 4 0PAZYMENHZ + Rising sun 5 ©PAZYMENHZ + Thunderbolt MMAG FPL 264, 332 (PI. 12) MM AG FPL 264. 333 Jenkins Group C 6 AAMOKPATHZ + Torch MMAG FPL 264. 331 Hemidrachms Obv. Head of Helios radiate facing. Rev. Incuse square within which rose, magistrate's name above and symbol to 1. Jenkins Group B 7 AEZIKPATHZ + Caduceus 8 ©PAZYMENHZ + Sun 9 AEZArOPAI + Grapes 10 ANAIIAOTOZ + Pileus 11 AIONYZIOZ + Cornucopia 12 AOANOAflPOZ + Caduceus 13 APTEMflN + Club 14 AEZIKPATHZ + Isis-crown 15 AEZIKPATHZ + Trident 16 0PAIYMENHI + Torch 17 APTEMHN + Aphlaston Jenkins Group D 18 MEAANTAZ + Grapes 19 ANTirENHZ + Grapes 20 AKXNHTOZ + Torch MMAG FPL 264. 343 MMAG FPL 264. 346 MMAG FPL 264. 340 MMAG FPL 264. 336 MMAG FPL 264, 345 Noted by Von Aulock-"' MMAG FPL 264. 339 MMAG FPL 264. 342 MMAG FPL 264, 341 MMAG FPL 264, 347 (PI. 12) MMAG FPL 264. 338 MMAG FPL 264. 348 MMAG FPL 264, 337 MMAG FPL 264, 344 Some 85% of the Rhodian plinthophoroi are from Jenkins groups A-C. Of the three coins from group D only one (no. 19) belongs to Jenkins" die-linked sequence, and this belongs to the early part (Jenkins no. 98). It seems likely that the hoard was deposited shortly after production of the substantial group D coinage had begun on Rhodes. Precise dates for Groups A-D are still not avail- able. The beginning of the plinthophoroi, it now seems clear, falls shortly before or after the Peace of Apameia in 188 bcv4 The end of group D appears from the 23 Von Aulock. p. 12 (2a) reported seeing a hemidrachm of the magistrate Alhanodoros. but did not note the symbol. The only hemidrachm of this magistrate noted hy Jenkins is his group B no. 43 with symbol caduceus. 24 The cpigraphic case lor this dale was originally made hy L. Robert, Eludes de numismatique erecque (Paris. 1951). pp. 166 -76. Numismatic and further epigraph ic arguments have subsequently been brought to bear by R.H.J. Ashton: see most recently 'The Coinage of Rhodes 408-c.lW in A. Meadows and K. Shipton (eds). Money and lis Uses in the Ancient Greek World (Oxford. 2001). pp. 79-115. at p. 89 with n. 52 and references. STRATONIKKIA IN CAR1A 107 Dclos hoard (IGCH 333) to have occurred by c.88 BC. The first four Rhodian groups were thus issued over the course of almost 100 years. The only other hoard to shed light on their date is the Naxos hoard (IGCH 255) buried probably c. 126/5 bc, which contained group C but not group D.25 As Ashton (SNG Keckman. loc. cit. [n. 20]) notes, 'Most of the Rhodian content of the [Mugla] hoard would thus date to roughly the second and third quarters of the second cen- tury bc, and it seems likely that the bulk of the Stratonikeian material in the hoard belongs to the same period.' With the benefit of the die-study of the Stratonikeian material we can now extend that conclusion to the whole of the group 2 drachm and hemidrachm coinage, since every issue seems to have been included in, or linked to issues included in, the Mugla hoard. A terminus ante quern of c. 125-110 for the whole coinage may safely be assumed. The beginning of the Stratonikeian coinage is more difficult to pin down. It must surely belong after the beginning of the production of Rhodian plinthophoric coinage on which it is modelled, that is to say after about 190 bc (above, n. 24). but how soon thereafter is difficult to say. In principle, there is no reason why the first issues could not have been produced fairly quickly after the introduction of the Rhodian plinthophoroi. while Stratonikeia was still subject to Rhodes. However, the evidence of the Mugla hoard is firmly against such an early date for the Stratonikeian issues. The latest issues included in the hoard were in a very fresh condition; the earliest exhibit only a light degree of wear. It is unlikely that they had seen more than 10-20 years' circulation at most by the time of deposit. Even if we take the earliest likely date for the deposit of the hoard (c. 120s bc), it is difficult to place the beginning of the Stratonikeian plinthophoroi earlier than the 140s bc at the earliest. They must certainly belong after the end of Rhodian control of Caria and Lycia, as most probably do the first plinthophoric issues of the Lycian League,20 and may not have started until the 130s. Group 3 The coinage here classed as group 3 maintains, for the most part, the types of group 2. There are obvious differences in style and fabric, however, and, as is clear from the weight tables (figs 3-4). a substantial reduction in standard. In the absence of hoard evidence, the issues have been arranged in the catalogue in alphabetical order, except where the evidence of die-links permits the association of magistrates. Considerably more material is required before a full die-study will be possible. The drachm type remains substantially unaltered. On the obverse is the head of Hekate. The depictions are now smaller and of cruder style than the two dies 3 The date is based on the Athenian content of the hoard. The latest issue present is a New Style drachm of AYIAN-rAAYKOI. to be dated e. 127/6 on the low chronology. -'' For the date of the commencement of Lycian League silver, see R.H.J. Ashton. "Pseudo-Rhodian Drachms and the Beginning of the l.ycian League Coinage-. JVC 147 (1987). pp. 8-25. at 19-20. i ok A.R. MEADOWS i - n 1.26- 1.30 1.46- 1.50 1.66- 1.70 1.86 1.90 i ' i'' r—r-r—i 2.06- 2.26- 2.10 2.30 Fig. 3. Group 3 drachms: weight table. |~~| Group 3 drs. □ Group 3 hcmidrs. 0.61 0.65 0.66 0.70 0.71 0.75 0.76 0.80 0.81- 0.85 0.86- 0.91- 0.90 0.95 Fig. 4. Group 3 hemidraehms: weight table. known for group 2. The reverse maintains the design of Nike moving to the right, though the design is more cramped within its incuse square than in group 2. As a result the longer magistrates' names run over the top line of the die and are par- tially inscribed down the right-hand side. The hemidraehms continue to use the laureate head of Zeus right on the obverse. Again these heads are in general smaller than their group 2 counterparts. On the reverse there occurs a small but significant change in design. In group 2 the eagle stands on a thunderbolt or on nothing at all; in group 3 the eagle perches invariably upon a torch. Whether this change in design has specific iconographic motivation is unclear. Perhaps it had STRATONIKF.IA IN CARIA 109 a practical purpose, making readily apparent by a feature of design the fact that the issues of group 3 are on a lower standard. The group 3 hemidraehms also see a new development in the appearance of a small group of anonymous issues (nos 11-12). Another small but important difference between groups 1, 2 and 3 can be found in the letter-forms of their legends. Where group 1 had used the four-bar sigma and group 2 both the four-bar and lunate sigma. both denominations of group 3 use only the lunate form. In group 3 we also find for the first time the use of the cursive omega. While group 3 thus bears superficial similarities to group 2, there are three dif- ferences. First, group 3 seems to be the product of fewer magistrates than group 2: 47 name and symbol combinations are recorded for group 2; for group 3 only 31 have been identified. Despite this difference in the number of personnel involved, the overall volume of the two coinages appears to have been remark- ably close: group 2 consumed 2 drachm and 62 hemidrachm dies (33 drachm- equivalent dies); group 3 used 31 drachm and 12 hemidrachm (37 drachm- equivalent dies). Second, the pattern of denominations issued is reversed. In group 3 drachms (25 magistrate and symbol combinations) are more common than hemidraehms (eight combinations plus one anonymous issue). Third, group 3 was minted on an entirely different weight standard. As can be seen from the weight tables (figs. 3 and 4) the drachms appear to have aimed at c.2.00-2.10 g, the hemidraehms at slightly under half of this at c.0.95 g.27 In the absence of hoard evidence for group 3, this weight standard must form the main criterion for dating the coinage. The first point to note is that this standard is not the reduced plinthophoric stan- dard used for the Jenkins group E issues after c.88 BC on Rhodes, and followed by the Lycian League. Another possibility to be dismissed is that these might have been hemidraehms and trihemiobols on the reduced Attic weight standard.28 The continuation of types from group 2 strongly suggests that the Hekate/Nike coins were intended as drachms, and the Zeus/eagle coins as hemidraehms. However, the example of Lycia suggests another possibility for the interpreta- tion of Stratonikeia group 3. Probably during the 80s bc, the Lycian league dropped its silver weight standard further from the reduced plinthophoric to bring it into line with the Roman quinarius of the period at c.2.00-2.10 g.29 Stratonikeia group 3 was clearly minted at the same standard as the Lycian 'quinarii', sug- gesting that the two coinages may have been contemporary. This would bring group 3 into the context of the Mithridatic War of the 80s bc, in which we know Stratonikeia played a part. The historical implications of this will be considered below. 27 In interpreting these tables, it should be born in mind that the specimens from which the data have been drawn have almost all seen a noticeable degree of wear, in contrast to the recorded coins of group 2. many of which derive from the Mugla hoard and are in a relatively uncirculaled state. 2S For the use of this standard in the mid-late first century bc at Rhodes see now R.H.J. Ashton with A.-P.C. Weiss, The post-plinthophoric silver drachms of Rhodes'. NC 157 (1997). pp. 1-40. 29 For this interpretation of the Lycian League quinarii of Troxell period IV. see appendix B. A.R. MEADOWS Group 4 The superficially disparate issues here categorised as 4A, B and C have been grouped on the basis of two clear unifying features. First, they all have a legend on the obverse. This feature, a clear sign of the creeping Romanisation of coin design in the late first century bc, establishes the place of these coins after the earlier Hellenistic issues of groups 1-3, which all have reverse legends only. Second, the weight standard of group 4 appears more or less consistent across the three sub-groups (fig. 5) and to be a reduced version of that of group 3. The com- parative rarity of these coins, together with their rather fragile fabric, which often results in breakage or chipping, makes the standard difficult to gauge with accu- racy. Allowing that the weight table (fig. 5), even with broken and chipped coins removed, probably slightly underestimates the standard originally aimed at, it seems that the drachm of group 4 weighed c. 1.80 g. The table suggests that there may have been a slight reduction from group 4A to 4B to 4C, but given the poverty of the evidence this cannot be regarded as certain. At c. 1.80 g these drachms, which carry over the basic drachm types of Hekate/Nike from groups 1 and 3, seem to be equivalent to Roman quinarii on the late first century standard. This standard was in use in Lycia from the second half of the 1 st century bc onwards,30 and it is no surprise to find it also in use at Stratonikeia. In the absence of any other evidence for the dale of these issues, this weight provides a terminus post 2 1 1 - ~2 Group 4A | Group 4B Q Group 4C .21- 1.25 1.31- 1.35 1.41- 1.45 1.51— 1.55 1.61- 1.65 1.71- 1.81- 1.75 1.85 Fig. 5. Group 4 a-c drachms: weight table. '" Troxeli Period IV, series 7. See appendix b. STRATONIKEIA IN CARIA i I 1 quern for their issue. Sub-groups 4A and 4B are also linked by an innovation, the introduction of a larger denomination. Group 4A The drachms of this group are distinguished by the appearance on the obverse of a single name of the issuing magistrate. Three are known: ANTIOXOC. EYMENHC and MENEAAOC. The reverse is also changed from preceding groups. In the absence of the magistrate's name the letters of the ethnic have room to spread to two lines. In addition to the drachms a larger denomination was pro- duced, with two different types and two different magistrates' names. Type (i) in the name of XfinYPOZ has as its obverse type a bust of Hekate. Type (ii) in the name of EYMENHC has as its obverse type a male head. Both types are known from a single specimen. The coins weigh 3.40 g and 2.81 g, the latter broken, and should probably be regarded as didrachms on the same standard as the drachms, with an original weight of c.3.6 g, and thus capable of passing as a denarius. The occurrence of the name EYMENHC on one drachm issue and one didrachm sug- gests that they are related to one another. As already noted, the weight of the drachms and their relationship to the Roman quinarius suggests a date in the latter part of the first century bc for this group. Further precision may come from consideration of the types of the didrachms. Both mark a radical departure for the mint of Stratonikeia. The eques- trian figure of Zeus Panamaros31 on the reverse is distinctive and new in the coinage of the city; it would become the standard depiction of the god on the coinage of the imperial period. It is tempting to suggest that the appearance of this new type on the coinage of the city may have a special significance. The obverse, by contrast, carries what appears to be a laureate portrait head. The editors of RPC tentatively suggest the identification of this head as Augustus. This seems likely; but in any case the appearance of the portrait of a Roman on the coinage of a Greek city certainly cannot predate the period of the second triumvirate. The group 4A didrachm may therefore be no earlier than the 30s bc. It is tempting to suggest that in the adoption of the portrait head, as well as the rather monumen- tal reverse type, the Stratonikeian mint was coming under the influence, not for the first time, of the contemporary cistophoric coinage. This restarted under Augustus in 28 bc. However, historical considerations and the nature of the reverse design may suggest an alternative, earlier chronology (see part III). Group 4B The designs of this group are in essence identical to those of group 4A. The sin- gle difference is the appearance on the reverse of a second name in addition to the name on the obverse. Six such pairs are known: " On the identity of the figure see Head, BMC Caria, p. lxxii. Cf. LIMC viii.l. p. 381 no. 116. 112 A.R. MEADOWS APICTEAC BUJPANAEYC APICTEAC XIAPUJN KAAYAIOC ©EO<t>ANHC AEUJN nOAE AEUJN KAPPEIC CUJCANAPOC ZUJIAOY As Robert demonstrated, the second name that now appears on these coins is not the name of a second magistrate as had previously been assumed, but is rather a further element of the first name, intended to clarify the identities of the individ- uals concerned, all of whose names are extremely common in the area of Stratonikeia. BUJPANAEYC refers to a village of origin (Boranda). XIAPUJN is a surname*34 ZUJIAOY is clearly a patronymic, as perhaps is the shortened l~10AE. In OEO<t>ANHC we find a cognomen applied to a nomen. The precise nature of KAPPEIC is unclear but is perhaps, as Robert suggests, a 'surnom'.33 The dating of these issues depends in part on that of group A which they appear to follow. Otherwise, the only criterion is again the portrait on the obverse. On the four extant didrachms the execution of this portrait is so poor as to render pre- cise identification impossible. The tentative suggestion in RPC of 'Augustus or Tiberius (?)' for APICTEAC XIAPUJN and 'Claudius? (Nero?)- for KAAYAIOC 0EO<i>ANHC no doubt provides a probable range of dates for these issues. It seems unlikely however that this small coinage spanned that entire range. Group 4C No didrachms are known for this group. Two small issues of drachms are known from just two obverse dies. These drachms see a further progression in design. The two names both occur on the obverse. On the reverse the ethnic now appears in full, disposed vertically rather than horizontally. Again it seems clear that we are dealing with the issues of single magistrates identified by two names. <t>ANIAC KI0AP seems to be another case of an man identified by a nickname or surname, such as KI0APIC, while EKATAIOC CUJCANAPOY uses a patronymic. In the absence of accompanying didrachms of these magistrates with imperial por- traits these drachms are at first sight difficult to date. However, while there are no didrachms known, a unique coin in the British Museum may belong with these issues. Weighing 6.40 g, but having suffered very heavy wear, it appears to be a tetradrachm on the same standard as the drachms, issued by a magistrate whose name is only partially legible, but who is clearly neither 4>ANIAC KI0AP nor EKATAIOC CUJCANAPOY. Its types are close to those of the didrachms of groups 4A-B, with two marked differences. The portrait on the obverse is surrounded by 52 On the significance of this name see further Appendix C. i3 Robert. SttUtonteie, pp. 564-6. STRATONIKEIA IN CARIA a wreath; on the reverse the ethnic appears to be written in full - certainly the first five letters are visible. This latter feature suggests that this denomination may belong with the drachms of group 4C, which are the only other issues of the mint which are both signed by magistrates and marked with the full ethnic. The por- trait on the tetradrachm exhibits considerable stylistic improvement over those of group 4B. and is clearly to be identified either as Claudius, or the young Nero. A date for group 4C of cad 41-68 is thus suggested. Group 5 After a gap of the best part of a century, the mint of Stratonikeia resumed the pro- duction of silver coinage for one final time in the reign of Antoninus Pius (ad 138-61). The didrachm of this group now has a legend identifying the emperor, as well as a portrait of reasonable quality. The reverse maintains the design of the issues of a century earlier and bears the magistrate's name. Two are known: <t>A APIZTOAAOC and KAAY APICTEAC. One minor design feature stands out as new: the appearance of a dotted border around both obverse and reverse designs. The weight standard is now much reduced. The BM specimen weighs 2.09 g. With these didrachms belongs a small issue of drachms. In this denomination too the standard drachm types reappear, on the obverse the head of Hekate, on the reverse the figure of Nike still in the plinthophoric style incuse square. The drachms, however, are not signed by magistrates. Instead, the ethnic in full appears on both the obverse and reverse. In addition, on the reverse the letters A and B also occur, of unknown significance. Four features tie the drachms firmly to the didrachms. First the appearance of a dotted border around the obverse design, a feature otherwise only known on the group 5 didrachms. Second, they were struck with a die-axis of 180 degrees, in contrast to the majority of issues of the mint which were struck at 0. Third, the weights of the two known drachms (1.07 and 1.04), are clearly related to the didrachms of group 5 and to no other issues of the mint. Fourth, the specimen of the drachm that has recently appeared in commerce (Hirsch 211, 1367) has been stamped with the same countermark (GIC 841) as the British Museum didrachm. THE BRONZE COINAGE The Hellenistic bronze coinage of Stratonikeia presents a particularly intractable problem. There is no hoard evidence that can help to order the issues or provide an absolute chronology. None of the bronze is signed by a magistrate, thus mak- ing it impossible to tie the bronze coinage to the silver on any grounds other than basic stylistic and typological considerations. For these reasons, no attempt is made here to offer a catalogue of the bronze issues. A stylistic and typological overview alone is provided.34 " The presentation of ihis material follows the method adopted in RPC. 114 A.R. MEADOWS Group A a. 16 mm, 4.38 g (3). Axis: 0 Obv. Head of Hekate r. Rev. Pegasus flying r.; above and below, ITPATOINIKEflN BMC 27; SNG Cop 492; SNG Tubingen 3483. b. 16 nun, 3.49 g (14). Axis: 0 Obv. Head of Hekate r. Rev. Pegasus flying L; behind, B; above and below, ITPATOINIKEHN BMC 28-30; SNG Cop 491; SNG Tubingen 3479-82; SNG von Post 270; SNG Keckman 257-8; SNG vA 2658; H. Weber 6563-4. c. 14 mm, 2.08 g (4). Axis: 0 Obv. Head of Zeus r. Rev. Forepart of Pegasus flying r.; above and below, ITPATOINIKEHN BMC 25-6; SNG Cop 494; Aufhauser 10 (1993) 213. Group B d. 11 mm, 1.55 g (25). Axis: 0 Obv. Head of Zeus r. Rev. Eagle standing r. on torch; C-TIP-A; all within incuse square. BMC 10-14; SNG Cop 484-7; SNG Tubingen 3465-71; SNG vA 2654; SNG von Post 271 - 6; Winterthur 3540; H. Weber 6562. e. 11 mm, 1.27 g (9). Axis: 0 Obv. Head of Hekate r. Rev. Torch; to r. and 1. vertically, XTPATOINIKEflN: all within incuse square. BMC 15-18; SNG Cop 482-3; SNG Tubingen 3472; SNG vA 2657; SNG von Post 281. f. 9 mm, 1.08 g (7). Axis: 0 Obv. Torch; border of dots. Rev. Torch; to r. and 1. vertically, ITPATOINIKEHN; all within border of dots. BMC 19-22; SNG Cop 495; SNG vA 2657; SNG von Post 282-3. Winterthur 3542; H. Weber 6565. Group C g. 19 mm, 6.08 g( 15). Axis: 0 Obv. Head of Hekate r. Rev. Nike advancing r.; above and below, CTPATOINIKEUJN BMC 31-2; SNG Cop 488-90; SNG Tubingen 3476-8; SNG von Post 277-8; SNG Keck/nan 255; SNGAarhus 781; SNG Switzerland [I. 978; Hunter 3; Lindgren III. 440. h. 15mm, 3.17 g (6). Axis: 0 Obv. Head of Zeus r. Rev. Eagle standing r. on torch; above and below, XTPATOINIKEUJN BMC 9; Winterthur 3541; SNG von Post 279-80; Hunter 1-2: Lindgren A664A On the basis of types and style, the bronze coinage of Stratonikeia can be divided into three distinct groups. The first group, here designated group A, is unified by the appearance on the reverse of a winged horse. Of the three types thus marked (a, b and c) type (a) appears to be the earliest. On the obverse appears a head of Hekate of style comparable to that on the silver drachms of Group 2. However, STRATONIKEIA IN CARIA 115 she is missing one attribute that subsequently becomes canonical in the depiction of this goddess at Stratonikeia: the crescent on top of the polos. Two distinctive features of the reverse also suggest an early date. First, the legend is disposed in a circular fashion around the edge of the coin, in a manner reminiscent of the sil- ver of group 1. Second, the omicron of the legend is small and seems to hang from the top of the line, rather than to be centred. Again this is a feature of the legends of the group 1 tridrachm and the group 2 drachms. It is tentatively sug- gested here that type (a) is contemporary with or follows shortly after group 1, around the middle of the second century. The second type of group A, type (b), carries the same designs as type (a) with four important differences: Hekate now has her crescent; the winged horse is flying left instead of right; the legend is now disposed in a straight line across the coin; a letter B is added to the reverse. This last feature may be connected to a further difference. The coins of type (b) are, with an average weight of 3.49 g, lighter than those of type (a), with an average of 4.38 g. One possible interpretation of the letter B is as a denominational mark, signifying that the coins are tariffed at two chalka. It may have been necessary to mark these issues in this way in order to make it clear that the lighter coins were worth the same as the typologically similar, though heavier, and presumably ear- lier type (a). Type (b) may perhaps also have been contemporary with group 1 or the beginning of group 2 of the silver. If types (a) and (b) are to be regarded as dichalka, then type (c) with its smaller module and lighter weight, and forepart only of winged-horse reverse, is certainly to be regarded as a chalkous. Whether it accompanied type (a) or type (b) is unclear. However, the two specimens in the BM are of such radically different modules (14 mm and 11 mm), that it is possi- ble that chalkoi of different sizes accompanied the two early issues of dichalka. Group B also consists of three types (d, e and f) unified by stylistic features and types. Two types (d and e) have the incuse square plinthophoric design familiar from the silver. Two types (e and f) are united by the similar, distinctive vertical disposition of their legends and the shared reverse type of a torch. The precise interrelationship of these three types remains unclear. They have been arranged here on the basis of their weights, in descending order. If these were all intended to be the same denomination, presumably the chalkous, then they were perhaps issued in that order. In both module and weight, type (d) closely resembles the plinthophoric chalkoi of nearby Rhodes. Given their differing types, however, it must be open to question as to whether types (d), (e) and (f) were all intended to pass as the same denomination at different periods. The mint of Stratonikeia was otherwise highly conservative in its choice of designs. If, however, these coins were all contemporary, then we are faced with the uncomfortable requirement either to accommodate two subdivisions of the chalkous, or to make the even more implausible assumption that the coins of type (d) with an average weight of just 1.55 g were tetrachalka, and that types (e) and (f) were dichalka and chalkoi respectively. It seems best to suspend judgement on this question pending the appearance of further specimens. The date of these coins also remains unclear. 116 A.R. MBADOWS Their plinthophoric character may suggest contemporaneity with this type of bronze at Rhodes and elsewhere in southwest Asia Minor in the later second and first centuries bc.35 One feature of all three types of group B may suggest a date in the earlier part of that range: the cursive form of the omega which is prevalent in the silver issues of group 3 does not yet occur, perhaps suggesting that these bronzes predate the 80s bc. By contrast it is the appearance of this letter-form that makes a later first cen- tury date for the group C bronzes inevitable. This epigraphic point confirms the arrangement one might otherwise have made on stylistic grounds. Types (g) and (h) mark the end of the Hellenistic bronze issues of Stratonikeia. The style of both obverse and reverse has become much coarser, reminiscent now of some of the poorer issues of group 3 and 4 silver. A date for these bronzes of the mid to late first century bc may thus be suggested. PART III: HISTORICAL ANALYSIS 'Stratonikeia', according to Strabo, 'is a settlement of Macedonians, and this city too was adorned with expensive building works by the kings'.36 The identity of these royal benefactors of the city is unclear, but the act of foundation itself will certainly have been undertaken by one of the Seleucids: the city was named after Stratonike, wife of Antiochus I.37 The date of this foundation is unclear, but is cer- tainly no earlier than the reign of Antiochus II (261-246), and conceivably was the work of Seleucus II (246-226/5): there is otherwise little evidence for Seleucid control of western Caria before the reign of this last monarch.38 The precise nature of the Seleucid foundation act remains unclear. Strabo clearly believed that Macedonian settlers lay at the core of the new city, and the 35 Compare, e.g., the plinthophoric bronzes of Aphrodisias (D.J. MacDonald. The Coinage of Aphrodisias [London. 1992J, Types 29-30: 'iirsl cenlury bc') and the Lycian League (Troxell period HI: 'not... before ca. 100 bc') 36 ^TpaTOi'tKEia 5" earl KaToiKia MaKf.oovcov- EKoo-p,t|()t| be Kai coj'tti KaTarrKEuais tto\we\e(jiv \mo twv BamAEcov (14.2.25, C660). 37 Steph. By/, sv. ^TpaToviKeia. iK For the sources and earlier bibliography on (he foundation of Stratonikeia see G.M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands and Asia Minor (Berkeley. 1995). pp. 268-73. Further discussion and a lowering of the dale of foundation is provided by J.T. Ma. Antiochus 111 and the Cities of Western Asia Minor (Oxford. 1999), pp. 277-8. For the status of Caria in the Ihird century. ibid., p. 42. Ptolemaic claims in the area were still alive in the early years of the Third Syrian War (see most recently the letter of 246 bc from the Ptolemaic sirategos Tlepolemos to the Carian community at Kildara published by W. Bliimel. 'Brief des Ptolemaischen Ministers Tlepolemos an die Stadt Kildara in Karien' EA 20 [19921, pp. 127-132). and it is highly unlikely that any Seleucid foundation could have occurred at Stratonikeia before that point. Stephanus' description of the city. k£k\t|toll 8e and STpaTowKTis tt|<; 'Avtioxou yuvatKos (loc. cit., last note), in no way implies that the city was founded by the queen's husband or son. Stratonike's name was still evocative in the reign of her grandson. Seleucus II: note OGIS 229, 7-10: 6 BaoxXrus £e\£Uko<; ... £Tip.t|0"£v tt|p. TToXlV T|p,a)v 5ld i t£ ttjv tou OT|p,OV evvouxv Kai ipiAoTipia v T|v £ttolt|TO cis to- Trpd'yu.aTa ai/rov Kai Sid to Top, -rraTflpa avToii 8c6v 'Ai>tloxov Kai tt|v tov TraTpos Qeav STpaTovtKT|i' i8pikr0ai Trap' t|p,iv Ttp.wp.elvous Tip-aiq a^ioA^ou;. STRATONIKEIA IN CARIA 117 Greek nomenclature that is found in the inscriptions of the city for institutions such as the denies and phylai, have traditionally led scholars to talk in terms of an essentially Greek city deposited in its Carian landscape. More recent studies, however, have begun to stress the apparent continuity between pre-existing Carian communities in the vicinity of the sanctuaries of Panamara and Lagina, and the constituent elements of the new city. The creation of Stratonikeia seems to have been neither a straightforward settlement of Macedonian colonists, nor a standard case of synoecism.39 Each citizen within the new city appears to have belonged to one of a number of demes. By the end of the second century bc, the names of citizens are record- ed in the form name, patronymic, demotic. The last is regularly given in abbrevi- ated form: KZ for Koranza, KO for Koliorga, KfL for Koraia, IE for Hierakome, and AO for Lobolda. In at least one case in the first century, such a demotic may occur in conjunction with a name on coins: group 3 drachms in the name of AIOKAHI KO. The new foundation of Stratonikeia did not remain Seleucid for long. By 201 bc the city had become the property of Rhodes, for most probably in this year it was wrested from the Rhodians by Philip V of Macedon. Certainly by 197 bc, Rhodian forces under the command of Pausistratus were fighting their way, prob- ably from the Ceramic Gulf, towards Stratonikeia in an attempt to recapture it.40 In fact, by this point they had probably been campaigning for four years already under another commander, Nikagoras. A group of inscriptions from this period, two set up by, and one honouring, the Rhodian commander Nikagoras,41 show that he was strategos in the Peraea for four successive campaigning seasons dur- ing the course of which he recaptured (avaKTT]aau,evos) the land and fortresses of Pisye, Idyma and Kyllandos, most probably the territory at the north of the easternmost reaches of the Ceramic Gulf. It is generally assumed that these cam- paigns immediately preceded those of Pausistratus, since the four seasons of Nikagoras fit neatly the four previous years of Philip's activity in Caria 39 For the Carian elements in the city's make-up, see in particular the studies by P. Debord. 'Stratonicee en Carie", Melanges Pierre Leveque 8 (Paris. 1994). pp. 107-21 and R. van Bremen. 'The Demes and Phylai of Stratonikeia in Karia'. Chiron 30 (2000). pp. 389-401. ■'u Rhodii cpioque ad vindicandam a Philippo continentis regionem (Peraeam vocantj possessam maioribus suis. Pausistratum praetorem cum octingentis Achaeis pedilibus, mi lie et octingentibus fere armatis, ex vario genere auxiliorum collectis, miserunt; Galli et Mniesulae et Pisuetae el Tarmiani et Theraei ex Peraea et Ixmdiceni ex Asia erant (Livy 33.18.1-3. For the text see J. Briscoe, A Commentary on Livy Books XXXI-XXXIII [Oxford, 1973], pp. 280-1). 41 The best preserved comes from Lindos: NiKa-yopas nap-cpvM5[a] Kafl* voOerrLav o£ NiKa7opa lo"TpaTa7T|0"a<; £v tool Tfspuv Kara Tr6Xeu,ov ek irdvTcov efjav T£Tpd[Kis] I Kai Tdv te x^>Pav KaL Ta tppoupia a TrapeXaBf TrdvTa 5ia<FiAd£;a'; twl odp,io[i] I Kai dvaKT-qodp-Evos Tdv te riio-UT|Tiv x<«Jpav Kai rav 'Iovpiav I Kai Tdv KuWavoiav Kai to ev atrrois <ppoi)pia. (I.Lind. 151. Cf. IG XII.1.1036 [SIC 586] . the text of which, being apparently identical to that of I.Lind. 151, is to be revised in the light of it. and I.Rhod.Per. 551 [A. Bresson, Recueil des Inscriptions de la Peree Rhodienne. Peree Integree [Paris, 19911, no. 6]. honours for Nicagoras for unspecified £ovoia towards the people of Cedreae. Further testimonia in LGPNl. s.v. Nikagoras no. 120. MS A.R. MEADOWS (201-198), and the territory concerned is precisely that from which Pausistratus drew his Carian support in 197. Despite their concerted efforts, it seems that the Rhodian commanders were unsuccessful in recapturing the city. As Livy goes on to explain, 'they were only able to recover it some time afterwards through the agency of Antiochus'.42 In this act of Antiochus III, undoubtedly in the context of his invasion of Caria in 197/6, has been seen the basis for the Rhodians' subsequent claim in 166 before the Roman Senate. 'Stp(xtovCk£lo(v £\aBou,£v ev px-vaX/rii x«Plti Trap' ' Avtioxov kcil XeXevKov' (Pol. 30.31.6). Given the strength of Antiochus' position in Caria in 197/6 it is highly unlikely that he needed to recognise (and indeed help) the Rhodian claim to repossess a Seleucid foundation unless a Seleucid king had sanctioned the original possession. J. and L. Robert accepted a suggestion of A. Aymard that Trap' 'Avtloxov kcxI SeXevKou 'designent Antiochus III, qui a repris la ville aux Macedoniens pour la donner aux Rhodiens et. anterieurement (ordre regressif) son pere Seleukos II auteur d'une premiere donation.'43 But, as J. Briscoe has pointed out, a far more likely candidate for the Seleucus in ques- tion is the future Seleucus IV, not yet (in 197) associated with his father on the throne, but clearly established as the viceroy of Asia Minor to the west of the Taurus.44 The Rhodians, then, had originally come to possess Stratonikeia at some point between its foundation and 197, but the manner of this original acquisition is unrecorded by surviving sources. The city must have been a Seleucid grant to Rhodes, that much seems clear; but how did a Seleucid king come to slice off a portion of his kingdom, including a recent and geographically highly important foundation such as Stratonikeia. and hand it over to Rhodes? Furthermore, how did Rhodes find herself in a position to accept from a Seleucid king a portion of land that had previously belonged to her close friends and allies, the Ptolemies? The answer to both must be weakness: first on the part of a Seleucid king, and second on the part of a Ptolemaic one. The first grant of Stratonikeia to Rhodes belongs to a period when the political situation in Caria was so unsettled that the best way of guaranteeing that the city, and the important routes it controlled, remained in friendly hands was to give it to the strongest, friendliest power in the region, not to attempt to hold it oneself. At the same time, this gift must have occurred after effective Ptolemaic claims to inland Caria, still alive in 246 (above n. 38), had ceased to be entertained at Alexandria. The traditional choice of Seleucus II as original grantor is thus out of the question. Seleucus left his own representative (Olympichus) in charge in inland Caria, and apparently laid down nee recipi nisi aliquanto post per Antioehum potuit (33.18.22) «? L. and J. Robert. 'Deux Inscriptions de Carie'. Melanges Ididore Levy (Brussels, 1955), pp. 553-68. at 565 n. 2. 44 For discussion see J. Briscoe. A Commentary on Livy Books xxxi-.xxxiii (Oxford. 1973). p. 283. On Seleucus' position in 197, Livy 33.40.6: F. Walbank. Historical Commentary on Polybius ii (Oxford. 1967). p. 622. The Rhodians thus refer in 166 only to their most recent (and thus relevant) legal claim to the city. STRATONIKEIA IN CARIA M9 the principles by which he was to govern, before returning east. The next occa- sion on which a Seleucid king was present to administer a settlement of Caria between Seleucus II in the 240s and Antiochus III in 197/6 was in 204/3, when Antiochus and his general Zeuxis seem to have advanced into central Caria to reclaim the area from Antigonid control:45 Amyzon and Alinda certainly, and Labraunda probably were all absorbed into Antiochus' kingdom.46 There is no positive evidence about Stratonikeia, but this is surely the most likely occasion, with Caria in turmoil, and with more trouble anticipated, for a gift of such impor- tance from a Seleucid king to Rhodes. The reaction of Rhodes to this upheaval in her hinterland is unrecorded. She was by this time locked into a cold war with Philip V over Crete: it is unlikely that any tears were shed on Rhodes over the dismantling of his nominal Carian province. Moreover if Antiochus was prepared to cede a section of the province close to the Ceramic Gulf to Rhodes, both to cement relations with the island and to strengthen his own position by weakening Philip's, then this presents a very attractive circumstance for the Rhodian acquisition of Stratonikeia and the land behind it towards the Ceramic Gulf. It is interesting, and perhaps significant, that we find the Rhodians using precisely the same (spurious) claim as Antiochus in 197 to possessions in Caria: reclaiming ancestors' land. Much in this case is hypothetical, but on this reconstruction the Carian conflict between Rhodian and Macedonian forces in the war of 201-197 is easily explained.47 Another phenomenon that can now begin to be explained is the comparatively late adoption of coinage by the city of Stratonikeia. Nearby Alabanda, for exam- ple, also subject to Seleucid colonisation in the third century bc under the new name of Antiocheia, was quicker to issue coins, having begun by the 190s bc to issue Attic weight tetradrachms 48 It cannot be that Stratonikeia was less wealthy, or had less infrastructure to maintain than her neighbour. Monumental architec- ture had undoubtedly been furnished by 'the kings': inscriptions of the period describe the city's streets and districts, presupposing the existence of a formal city layout.49 A theatre may have been constructed as early as the third century bc. We hear also from inscriptions of a tripylon, a Serapieion, a Samothrakion and a Herakleion.50 When the Rhodians later came to plead for the right to the city at 45 For further discussion of the nature of Seleucid activity in Caria at this period, sec P. Derow. J. Ma and A. Meadows. \RC 38 (Amyzon) Reconsidered', ZPE 109 (1995). pp. 71-80. * Amy/on and Alinda: J. and L. Robert, Fondles d'Amyzon en Carie I (Paris, 1983). esp. nos 9 and 13. For Seleucid troops at Labraunda. probably in 203. see LLabraunda 46 with J. and L. Robert. Bulletin Bpigraphique (1970). 553. 4' For further evidence of Rhodian acquisitiveness on the mainland in the last quarter of the third century, see A. Meadows, 'Four Rhodian Decrees. Rhodes, lasos and Philip V Chiron ~>(> (1996) pp. 251-66. 48 For the coinage see Waggoner, op. cit. (n. 13). series 1. For the evidence for Alabanda's refoun- dation sec Cohen (above n. 38), pp. 248-50. 49 For the kings benefactions see above. On the streets and town planning implied by /. Strut 1003 and I (MM, see Robert. Stratonicee, pp. 534-5. 50 For sources and discussion of the urbanisation of Stratonikeia see further Debord. Questions pp. 158-62. 120 a.r. meadows Rome, they described how the combined revenues they had received from Stratonikeia and Kaunos amounted to 120 talents per year.51 It is easy to see why the Rhodians were so keen to recapture the city from Philip V. Although Stratonikeia generated a serious amount of wealth before 167 bc, the city produced no coinage. The explanation for this is perhaps to bc sought instead in the status of the city. Stratonikeia was from its foundation until its emancipa- tion in 167, a possession - first of the Seleucids. then Rhodes, then of Philip V. then of Rhodes again. Alabanda, though certainly within the Seleucid apx"h.. and indeed subject to some hardship at the hands of hungry Antigonid troops (appar- ently with tacit Seleucid support), remained a free city, probably even during the period of Rhodian control of Caria.52 But it is not simply a question of one city being free to coin, and the other not: there is no evidence that the Rhodians or anyone else ever suppressed the coinage of subject cities. Rather, the different status of the two cities created different needs for coinage. Stratonikeia was with- out question fortified and garrisoned under Philip V. and subsequently by the Rhodians.51 The security of the city, whether the Stratonikeians liked it or not, was being paid for by others. By contrast, for a free city such as Alabanda, once war had broken out in Caria in 201 bc. responsibility for repairing the walls and manning them lay at home. The need for such civic expenditure created a need for coinage. We may now being to see why coinage did not come to Stratonikeia until the middle of the second century or later; and also why it began when it did. In 167 bc the Roman Senate, annoyed by anti-Roman activity of the Rhodians in the Aegean, deprived the island of its mainland possessions in Caria and Lycia. Thus was marked the point aip* ou |K|apes Ti\fv0epa)6t|o-av;:'4 the time from which Stratonikeia first found itself without a royal protector, the Seleucids having been banished from Caria by the Peace of Apameia in 188, and without a direct ruler and garrison. For the next thirty years Caria lived in relative peace, free from but in the shadow of the neighbouring Attalid kingdom. To this period, the numis- matic evidence suggests, belongs the city's first silver coinage on the Attalid cistophoric standard (group 1). The Stratonikeians were now in control of their own streets and walls: with property ownership come the bills, and there was no 51 Pol. 30.31.7: Koti trapa Tovrru>i> tcop iroKeiov apipoTEptui" BKOtTOV k«L eikooi TaXuira TO) 5f|p<l) TTpOOOOOS f TflTTTE KOtfl" EKOIOTOV ETOS. - On the position of Alabanda and its its treatment by the army of Philip V in the autumn of 201 see Pol. 16.24.6-8 with J. and L. Robert. Amyzon. p. 179. For Alabanda's status as a free city note the arguments of A.11.M. Jones. Chics of the Eastern Human Provinces (Oxford. 1937). pp. 53-4 with n. 37. 53 For late 3rd/carly 2nd century inscriptions naming two of the towers of the city, see Robert. Stratonicee. pp. 529-31: for a third see K. Varinlioglu. "La fortification hell^nistique de Stratonicee. archcologie et epigraphie". REA 96 (1994). pp. 189-91. For the Rhodian i'tturT&Trfi honoured by the koinon of Panamara see BCH 17 (1893), p. 54 = M. Holleaux. Etudes d'fipigrdphie et d'Histoire Grecques i (Paris. 1938). p. 411. with the discussion of P.M. Fraser and G.E. Bean. The Rhodian Peraea and Islands (Oxford, 1954). p. 127. u For the designation of this era see J. and L. Robert. Amyznn no. 51. STRATONIKEIA IN CAR IA 12] one now to turn to for munificence. Nonetheless, in times of peace the bills were not large, and nor. apparently was the coinage of this period. In 133. however, the peace was shattered by the death of Atlalus III. Though he had left his kingdom to the Roman people, a pretender to the throne. Aristonicus, rose in a revolt that was not quelled until 129. In the intervening period war broke out throughout western Asia Minor, including Caria. The sources for this war are fragmentary, though have recently been augmented. We know that Colophon. Samos and Myndos were captured, and that Bargylia and Halicarnassus resisted. An important new inscription from Bargasa in the Harpasos valley makes it clear that the effects and expenses of the war were felt by communities inland too. Moreover, while Aristonicus himself was eventually penned up in Phrygia by Manlius Aquilius. the Roman general was sufficiently concerned about the state of Caria to leave a commander and troops in the area while he advanced on Aristonicus for the kill.55 We have no direct evidence for Stratonikeia's role in this war. but the city is unlikely to have been wholly oblivious to the military activity elsewhere in Caria. Whether Aristonicus harassed the city is unknown. However, a later document is suggestive. In c\81 BC the Roman dictator Sulla wrote to Stratonikeia to thank it for its loyalty during the Mithridatic War:56 T am not unaware of all the just acts you carried out towards our hegemony from the time of your ancestors, and that on every occasion you have conscientiously preserved your loyalty towards us. and that in the war against Mithridates you were the first of the cities in Asia to stand up to him ..." The nature of the previous, ancestral displays of propriety and loyalty towards Rome is obscure. It is difficult to think of any other test of these qualities prior to the Mithridatic irruption in the 80s. apart from the Aristonicus revolt. If Sulla did have this episode partly in mind, it seems likely that Stratonikeia had remained steadfastly in the Roman camp during this earlier con- flict. There is some evidence to suggest that nearby Alabanda may have behaved similarly.57 Whatever Stratonikeia's precise stance, however, it is highly likely that precautions were taken in this time of uncertainty. The revolt continued for almost four years and. as we have seen, the years 133-129 certainly fall within the possible period of production of the larger group 2 silver coinage. The " The literary and epigraphie sources for this episode have been collected by L. and J. Robert. Clams I. Dccrets HeUenistiqiies fuse. I (Paris, 1989). pp. 29-34. For the new inscription from Bargasa. honouring Apollonios Aristokratou. apparently for securing leniency from Manlius Aquilius in the matter of billeting soldiers, see P. Briant. P. Brun and E. Varinlioglu. "Une inscription inedite de Carie et la guerre d'Aristonicos'. in Bresson and Descat (op. cit. n. I). pp. 241-59. m [ovik a7vooOp.fi' opus] ota Trpo["y|6vtoi' irai»Ta to oiKotia I [trpos ir\v T|u.£TEpa|v T|7» plOv]u«l' Tf ETfOlT|KOTOS Kttl EV I fTTO MTL Kaiptol TT|i> TTpOS "qlpaS UllO'lTU' CiXlKptVUS TFTT)pT|KOTOS I [<EV TE TCi)l TTpOS MlOpOtfitt]TT)v TT|ol\fU.lOl TTptOTOUS TOJV t'v TT|l I |*Ao"iat avriT£To:7pf vous (ROGL 18. II. 3-6) ,7 Sec C. Marek. 'Karien im ersten Mithridatischen Krieg'. in P. Kneissl and V. Loseman (eds). Alte Geschichte und Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Festschrift fiir Karl Christ (Darmstadt. 1988). pp. 285-308. who redales an honorific decree of Alabanda {BCH 10 (1886). pp. 299-344) to the first century BC and an embassy described therein, renewing friendship and making an alliance wiih Rome, to the period of the Aristonicus War. 122 A.R. MEADOWS hypothesis must be considered that this coinage financed Stratonikeia's activity - passive though it may have been - at the time of Aristonicus* revolt. The group 2 coinage consumed 33 drachm equivalent dies (2 drachm and 62 hemidrachm dies). They would have struck roughly the same amount of silver as 8 tetradrachm dies. This certainly need be no more than four years* production for an active city mint, and might conceivably represent less. The quelling of the Aristonicus revolt restored peace to Caria; it may also have brought annexation of the area into the new Roman province of Asia.58 It was also at around this time, as the MugMu hoard suggests, that the silver coinage of Stratonikeia group 2 ceased. To this period of peace, lasting forty years after Aquilius' victory, we can plausibly assign only the bronze coinage of group B, though with no great precision. We hear nothing more of the history of Stratonikeia until the city took its glorious stand in the war against Mithridates VI of Pontus. The later account of Appian gives just a stark summary of Mithridates' capture and punishment of the city by fine, and his installation of a garrison.50 The fact that he felt moved to punish the city hints at the trouble it gave him. and from the document cited above, it is clear that Stratonikeia's resistance to the king was spirited and appreciated by Sulla and the Senate: 'they preserved', wrote Sulla, 'their continuing goodwill, loyalty and alliance towards the Roman people arranging their own affairs in accordance with the policy of the latter, and they made war on Mithridates and they showed their own courage in their spirited opposition to the king's force and power Not only that, but they 'sent in time of war ambassadors to the other cities in Asia, and even to those in Greece'.60 There was undoubtedly a flurry of diplomatic activity, and intense military prepa- ration at the city of Stratonikeia, prior to its capture by Mithridates. Such are the circumstances in which we might expect to find a city increasing its output of coinage, and again the numismatic evidence suggests that it was at around this time that the third silver coinage of the city was produced (group 3). The size of this coinage was not significantly different to that of its predecessor (group 2). 37 drachm equivalent dies were consumed (31 drachm and 12 hemidrachm), com- pared to the 33 of group 2. The two groups may thus have had a similar duration: if. as suggested above, this was in the order of 2-4 years, group 3 perhaps coin- cides with Stratonikeia's period of activity in the Mithridatic War. w There still exists no firm evidence for the date of Curia's annexation by Rome. For an account of the possibilities see Aphrodisias and Rome. pp. 2-3. For argument that annexation had certainly happened by the late 80s bc see Marek, op. cit. (last note), pp. 303-8. 54 riraftwy 8e ek tt|>; 'Ionia <; -TpaToviKEiav eiXe ml e£t|u.uikje xP"hM-ao"L KCtL fpoupdi> es tt]V ttoXiv Eo-rj-yo^c. {Mithr. 21) o ot]P-os [ owe TT)pT|0"Ei' Ct£L vx\v UTTdpxowui' airrcoi] I Eih'oiav Kai m[o"Tiv] Kai mj(x|x«xir«f "rrpos tov Sf||xov tov 'Piop,atan>. Td i|l|8ia irpd^p-OTu k[aTa t]t|v TrpoatpEOXv a[imbv 8ioiKT|o-a<;. Kai MiOpaodTT|i.| I ttoXejjlov ETfo[iT|a£, Kaji tov l5loi> tVnJXaMTa*; Bup.6v irpoDuu-OTaTa ai'7ETdx('t|) I tt)l Puo~iXiKf)i (3li|ai Kai 5wd|xta (RDGE 18. II. 44-8): Kai ev TCdl too Tf0Xf;|u.ou Kaipibl TTpOS 7E I |T«S dXXaS TT)<; 'AoiaS Tf6XElS TTETTplECTpEVKOTaS Kai rrpfo|s I [7d<; Ti|<; EXXd&os —] (ibid.. DL 12-14). STRATONIKEIA IN CARIA 123 It is worth pausing briefly to consider the implications of this coinage and its form if it was produced to finance the resistance to Mithridates. Other cities held out against the king, and individual citizens of those cities played prominent parts in the resistance.''1 We know, moreover, of at least one instance of Mithridates' learning of the pro-Roman actions of an individual and offering a substantial reward (40 talents) for the capture either of the individual himself or his sons. The man in question. Chairemon of Nysa, was perhaps taken by Mithridates' forces in Ephesus and put to death.''2 Clearly, to be implicated in the resistance to the king carried risks. We should perhaps look with renewed admiration at the names of those who dared, in relatively unambiguous terms, to sign the civic coinage of Stratonikeia at this period. The gamble, if such it was, paid off. As we have seen, the Roman dictator Sulla was lavish in his praise of the city. Of more practical benefit were the rewards to the city confirmed by the senate in the Senates Consultant that accompanied Sulla's letter: 'They were to be allowed to keep Pcdasos. Themessos. Keramos. the lands, villages and harbours and the revenues from the towns, which Lucius Cornelius Sulla had added and granted to them tor the sake of their courage and honour; the long-revered sanctuary of Hekatc. most illustrious and greatest goddess, was to be declared inviolable. Concerning the losses they had incurred during the war. the Senate would send instructions to the gov- ernor setting out for Asia to give particular attention to this matter, so that he look care to return to them what was theirs, saw to it thai their men taken prisoner be restored, and that all other matters be handled justly.'01 Thus began what must have been the most prosperous period Stratonikeia had yet seen. The city now controlled land all the way southwards to the sea. and with it the lucrative harbour revenues of Keramos. If the group 3 coinage has been cor- rectly dated to the period of the Mithridatic War, it is striking that no precious metal coinage continued to be produced at this point. If, on the other hand, the group 3 coinage did continue into this later period of prosperity, it is equally sur- prising how small a coinage it is. We are forced to assume that the majority of monetary exchange within the enlarged territory of Stratonikeia at this period " Note lor example the role of Artemidoros at Aphrodisias: Aphrodisias and Rome, document 2b. P. 8-10 with p. 16. 62 The episode is recorded in a famous document discovered at Nysa: 5/G" 741 (cf. Welles. RC 73 and 74). [ll-r|oao"6i> re'!.] (H)Ep.t|o-o,6i>, KepaLLOf. xtopiu Ku>p.as Xillevus TrpoooJI |5o\»s TE twv] TroXi'tov. <j)v Aevkios Kopv[t)Xio<; SvXXas aoroKpdTtop] i [tt)s 70\'rriov] dpE7f)c; KaTaXo7T|<; 7£ e[ V£KEV TTpOOdjpuTEV OUl>ex««>pT|lffrEI>. OTfWS TjaUTtt atrroiS fbX&tV e£[T)i ) i [TO U'pOV 7T)Sl 'Ek6(7T|»; £irupav£OTalTT)«; Kai u.£7t<r7T)<; tk'as. £K TroX]l[Xo\i TE 7i]p.6)p.£v»)r' Kai TroXXaf-J I |7o 7e T£'|JL£v]Q5, ottids 7ou7o do~u[Xov irrrdpxT|l'] i [iTEpi 7E tfi)V d]TrloXu)X)o7[tov airrois £i> "ax, ttoXeu-om.. oTra>>;] I t) a"h-ry)KXfT|7os 7coi dpJxov7|i 7)u>i Et$ 'AoidtV Troptfopxi'an. ciToXds i Sail, iwx ippo| i'7io"]T|i Kai EmoTpotpTp' Troif|0"T|7ai. duces 7d Efjupaiifi I airrois aTroSoBfii'ai cppoi^7io"t|l. 7oix; 7E aixp.aXcb7ous i Kou-iaojin"aL TrEpi te tojv [X]oiTrwv iva tuxukti tcov BiKaiwv (RDGE 18.11. 53-64). 124 a.R. meadows took place either in foreign coin, or perhaps in the new group C bronzes, which seem lo post-date the group 3 silver. Again Stratonikeia was able to settle into a half century of peaceful existence. The upheaval of the last decade of the Roman Republic did not leave the city unscathed, however. In 40 bc the Roman renegade Q. Labienus. a former legate of the tyrranicides Brutus and Cassius, arrived in Asia Minor at the head of the Parthian army. From two sources it seems clear that, true to form, Stratonikeia again came under attack, and again resisted. In describing a much later embassy lo Rome in ad 22. Tacitus Annals 3.62 notes Aphrodisienses posthac et Stratonicenses dictatorls Caesatis <>!> vetusta in partis merita et ret ens divi Augnsti da return adtulere, Uuulati quod Parthotum inruptionem nihil mutate in populum Romanian constantia pertulissent. sed Aphrodisiensium civitas Veneris. Stratonicensium lovis et Trivide religionem tuebantur. The fragmentary remains of a Senatus Consultum dated 39 bc undoubtedly preserve part of Rome's response to the Stratonikeians' request for recognition for their loyalty.6"1 At least ten ambassadors were sent by the city on this mission, with the result, most probably, that asylia was granted, this time to the sanctuary of Zeus Panamaros. The pattern was by now becoming familiar in Stratonikeia: invasion, resist- ance, embassy to Rome, reward. But what about coinage? On the two previous occasions when war had come to the city, in 133 and 88, a silver coinage may have been the result. Can a silver coinage of the city be assigned to the Labienus War? The beginning of the group 4 silver coinage cannot be firmly dated, as we have seen. At first sight it might seem that the type (ii) didrachm of group 4A with its probable portrait of Octavian/Augustus could not have been produced as early as 39 bc. However, a case for an early date of some of group 4A can be made. First it should be noted again that the link between the didrachm and drachms is through just a single name. It is by no means certain that the two denominations were precisely contemporary. It is possible, therefore, that the tiny issue of drachms was produced in the context of the brief Labienus War. If the didrachms did slightly post-date the drachms, and the same individual signed both denomi- nations, the interval between them will not have been great. Could the portrait of Octavian have appeared on the coinage of Stratonikeia as early as the 30s bc? This might seem unlikely, particularly as the city was within the triumviral ambit of Mark Antony, not Octavian. Yet there is evidence from elsewhere in the same area and period of cities turning to Octavian rather than Antony for patronage. Aphrodisias famously sought to rekindle the relationship it had enjoyed with Julius Caesar, and was not disappointed. Octavian took a particular interest in the city, despatching a covering letter with a Senatus Consultum confirming Aphrodisias' privileges in the aftermath of the Labienus War. He also wrote to m Sherk, RDGE 27. On the import of" the SC de Panamara for the sanctuary see Robert. Stratonicee. p. 520. str atonikf.ia in caria 125 other cities on Aphrodisias' behalf.65 Octavian's interests were not confined to his "special relationship' with Aphrodisias: Rhosus in Syria was in correspondence with the triumvir in the 30s bc.66 We also learn from these documents that Octavian corresponded with Tarsus. Antioch and Seleukeia in the mid 30s bc. He also wrote to Mylasa in response to an embassy from the city. The date of this inscription is uncertain: while it is commonly assumed to be from 32/1 bc. a date sometime between 39 and 34 bc cannot be ruled out.67 It is thus quite possible that Stratonikeia too entered into correspondence with Octavian as early as the early-mid 30s. From Tacitus Annals 3. 62 (quoted above), we learn that, like Aphrodisias. Stratonikeia had established some sort of tie with Julius Caesar, and had benefited from Octavian or Augustus' intervention subsequently.''- The possi- bility certainly exists that the SC de Panamara also came with a covering letter from Octavian. The remarkable new types of the didrachm may indeed suggest a link between Octavian/Augustus and the cult of Zeus. The depiction of Zeus on horseback, which had not appeared previously on Stralonikeian coinage, was conceivably a reference to the epiphany of the god that was reported to have occurred almost certainly during the Labienus War.69 Could the appearance of the portrait of Octavian(?) be a reference to Octavian's interest in the cult, perhaps reflected in the SC? The striking, for the first time, of a didrachm (denarius?) at the city has the air of the commemorative about it. as indeed do the subsequent imperial silver issues of the city. Certainly silver coinage never reached the practical quantity in the Imperial period that it had earlier in the Hellenistic. In this last case, we have crossed the boundary from assigning coinage to a specific event on the basis of a numismatically derived chronology, to allowing a perception of the historical context to govern when we date the coins. This asso- ciation of the coins of group 4A with the Labienus war remains therefore a hypothesis. Further numismatic evidence will be required to prove or disprove it. CONCLUSION Much in this investigation remains, it must be admitted, a matter for speculation. The state of the evidence is still not good enough for certainty. Nonetheless, the broad lines and approximate dates offered for the coinage of Stratonikeia are unlikely to be much altered by new evidence. As they are presented here, the 65 On Octavian's relations with Aphrodisias see Aphrodisias and Rome, pp. 41-106 passim. 66 Sherk. RDGE 58. On the implications of this dossier for Octavian's eastern interests, see F. Millar. -Triumvirate and Principate". .IRS 63 (1973). pp. 50-67, at 57. " Sherk. RDGE 60. For the date see Millar, op. cit. (last note), p. 58 n. 52. 68 For acceptance of Tacitus' words see Aphrodisias and Rome, p. 80. For caution note Robert. Stratonicie, p. 521 n. 4. 69 For the epiphany of Zeus while the sanctuary was under armed attack sec the famous miracle decree published by P. Roussel, 'Le Miracle de Zeus Panamaros'. BCH 55 (19311, pp. 70-116. with pp. 91-5 on the date and circumstances. 126 A.R. MEADOWS following basic principle applies. During periods of foreign control civic coinage of Stratonikeia did not exist. Once the city became free, coinage was struck in dif- ferent forms in different circumstances, as need arose. During times of war and upheaval silver coinage was issued on standards borrowed from the powerful neighbouring states of the day. As such, coinage prov ides us with a glimpse into the directions in which the boule and demos of Stratonikeia were looking at different periods. First, the Attalid kingdom and Rhodes, then Rome. During periods of peace, such coinage as was needed was produced in bronze. The civic authorities sought not to produce a coinage that could be used beyond the city's borders, but merely to meet its commitments within its own territory. If correct, these are interesting conclusions. Silver coinage becomes an index not of prosperity but of financial drain and emergency, as well as a sign of the fiscal pol- icy of the state (such as it was) being controlled from the outside, not within. Bronze coinage, by contrast, is the sign of a city peacefully going about its busi- ness. Whether the numismatic evidence for other cities of this period and area supports a similar reconstruction remains to be seen. APPENDIX A: THE DISPERSAL AND PUBLICATION OF THE MUGLAHOARD The Mugla hoard was apparently discovered in the region of Mugla (ancient Mobolla), in south-western Turkey (ancient Caria) in 1965. The precise findspot remains a mystery. The town of Mugla, which has lent its name to more than one Greek coin hoard, is a provincial capital, and thus a focal point for antiquities found in a wide surrounding area. It should not, therefore, be taken for granted that the hoard was discovered in the immediate environs of the modern town. The hoard was apparently split soon after its discovery, and was first noted in com- merce in Beirut and Istanbul where it was seen by Hans von Aulock.70 Von Aulock selected a representative sample of the issues of Stratonikeia and a single coin of Rhodes for his own collection.71 In addition he took notes of the names of all the magistrates of both mints represented in the hoard. Shortly thereafter, the rest of the hoard was dispersed. In late 1966 a large parcel, containing only coins of Stratonikeia, arrived on the market in London where it was recorded and photographed by Martin Price, who had in that year joined the staff of the British Museum. Eleven pieces were at that stage acquired by the British Museum (1967- 5-5-1 to 11); seven by the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge. Meanwhile, in May 1966 a group of Rhodian plinthophoroi from the hoard appeared for sale in 7" Von Aulock, p. 7. 71 The coins of Stratonikeia were published in the Supplement volume to the Sylloge as SNG \A 8124-8158. with the exception of one coin (catalogue no. 139d) which von Aulock presented to the BM. However, neither of the two plinthophoroi of Rhodes published in the same volume are of mag- istrates recorded by von Aulock as present in the hoard. The late of the coin of Rhodes thus remains a mystery. STRATONIKEIA IN CARIA 127 Basel (MMAG FPL 264: above, pp. 105-6). Meanwhile, a parcel of issues of Stratonikeia, separate from those seen by Price in London made its way to the USA, where 14 coins of that mint were acquired in 1966-7 by the American Numismatic Society. A number of other coins that appeared on the market at around this time or a little later in Germany and in the United States may well also derive from the hoard. Having acquired his coins, von Aulock began work on the article that would appear in JNG 1968. During the course of writing he became aware that Price had seen and studied a large parcel of coins in London, and wrote to him for clarifi- cation on certain readings. Price, who had himself begun work on a study of the coinage of Stratonikeia. stopped work and sent the notes and commentary he had made to von Aulock. As von Aulock acknowledges in his article the preliminary division of the coinage he makes into groups is based largely upon the observa- tions of wear and die-links identified by Price. APPENDIX B: THE DATE OF LYC1AN LEAGUE QUINARII* H. Troxell in her study of the Lycian League coinage separated the 'quinarius coinage' of the first century bc into seven series (Period IV. series 1-7). The first six were minted to a common weight standard, with perhaps a slight reduction towards the end: the seventh to a substantially reduced standard. Her identifica- tion of the weight standard of series 1-6 formed the basis for her dating of these issues. The drachms 2 of series 1-6 she regarded as being minted at a weight of c. 1.8 g. that is to say the standard of the Roman Republican quinarius of the lat- ter part of the first century bc. The Lycian coins of this weight could thus be no earlier than the first Roman quinarii issued at this weight in the 40s bc. Series 7 at the reduced weight standard would be later still, on her view c. 19/18 bc -ad 43. It is here argued that her date for all seven series is too low. There are three criteria to be considered. I. Weight standard From examination of the weight lables provided by Troxell (pp. 118-19, figs 7-8 and p. 122. fig. 10) it is clear that she underestimated the weight of series 1-6. The crucial element to appreciate in her fig. 7 is the weights evinced by the spec- imens known from the Marmaris 1976 hoard (CH 3. 83). These coins were par- ticularly fresh and give the clearest indication of the intended weight standard. There can be little doubt that the drachms certainly of series 1-5, and perhaps of 72 Somewhat perversely. Troxell refers to this denomination as a hemidrachm. It is clear from the continuation of the types Apollo head/lyre in incuse from the earlier plinthophoric drachms that these later coins too must have been regarded as drachms within Lycia. The denominations termed 'quarter drachm" and "drachm' by Troxell. and weighing respectively half and twice as much as the drachm are thus to be regarded as a hemidrachm and a didrachm. A.R. MEADOWS series 6 were aiming at a standard of c.2.1 g, not 1.8 g. This has profound impli- cations for TroxelTs argument, since the standard of c.2.1 g is that of the Roman quinarius of the 90s bc, not the later one that Troxell had assumed. Series 7, on the other hand, which quite clearly was produced at a lower standard than its predecessors seems to be aiming at the c.1.8 g quinarius standard. On this crite- rion, therefore, the series 1-6 drachms seem to belong sometime in the period c.90s-50s bc, and series 7 to the 40s or later. The didrachms with portrait of Augustus which appear to have been minted at just over twice the weight of the series 7 drachms (c.3.7 g), which Troxell assigns to series 6, will in fact either coincide with the later part of series 7 or post-date it. 2. Hoard evidence In April 1977 R. Ashton acquired a group of 81 silver coins held by a single deal- er in Switzerland that to all appearances formed a single hoard. It consisted of 50 Rhodian plinthophoric hemidrachms and 7 drachms and 24 hemidrachms of the Lycian League. Similar patination and traces of earth on some of the Lycian and Rhodian coins strongly suggested that the coins formed part of a single find. Ashton communicated the details of the group to Troxell who insisted, on the basis of her dating of the Lycian 'quinarii' (derived solely from her view of the weight standard), that the Lycian and Rhodian issues could not have formed part of the same hoard. Under her influence the two groups were thus listed separately as CH 4. 72 (Rhodes) and CH 4. 78 (Lycian League). The Rhodian issues have now been published by Ashton" and break down as follows: Jenkins group D: 15 hemidrachms Jenkins group E: 29 hemidrachms Jenkins group D, D1 or E: 6 hemidrachms As Ashton notes, the coins had seen a considerable amount of wear: a date for deposit of the hoard perhaps 20-40 years after the production of the last coins (Jenkins group E, c. 88-84 bc) seems likely. The hoard may thus have been buried in the 60s or later. This being the case, and given the possible dale range for the Lycian 'quinarii' suggested above, there seems no need now to call into question the integrity of the hoard. Patina and earth traces suggest that the Lycian and Rhodian material form a homogenous group, and the apparent dislocation of the dates which forced Troxell to disassociate the coins of the two mints turns out to have been a mirage. We may thus cautiously accept the hoard's evidence and apply it to the dating of the Lycian League coinage. The group contained Lycian League issues as follows: 73 R.H.J. Ashton, 'A Hoard of late Rhodian Plinthophoric Hemidrachms {CH 4. 72)', NC 151 (1991). pp. 202^1. The Rhodian group seen by Ashton in fact consisted of 61 coins. Eleven of these are clearly intrusions, however. Similarity of wear and patina guarantees that 50 coins at its core had formed a hoard in antiquity. STRATONIKEIA IN CARIA 129 Troxell series 5: 4 drs Troxell series 6: 1 dr Troxell series 7: 2 drs Troxell series 6: 24 hemidrs. Like the Rhodian issues, most of the Lycian coins had seen a fair degree of wear, suggesting that the issues of both states had been minted at around the same time. For the Lycian coinage of Troxell series 5 and 6, as we have seen, a date as early as the 80s bc is no longer a problem. More problematic are the two coins of series 7. Both had seen considerable wear (see Troxell pis. 29, 142.7 and 30. 150.2). Conceivably these coins, and perhaps the other Lycian drachms are intrusions in what otherwise might be regarded as a hemidrachm hoard. Nonetheless it seems highly likely that there is, as in the case of the Rhodian issues, a core of coins that originally derived from a single hoard. If, as patina and deposits on the coins sug- gest, at least part of the Lycian group is from the same hoard as the Rhodian group, then those Lycian coins must belong in the period between c.88-84 (the date of the last plinthophoroi of Rhodes) and c.60^10 (the probable date of deposit of the hoard). 3. Style The head of Apollo on the drachms identified by Troxell as the earliest of the quinarii of the Lycian League (her series 1) bears a remarkable resemblance to the portrait of Mithridates VI on some of the later issues of his tetradrachms of so- called realistic-style. A similar stylistic phenomenon can be observed in the plinthophoric coinage at Rhodes. As Troxell herself noted, some of the heads of Helios on the plinthophoroi of Jenkins group E also bear a marked resemblance to the portrait of Mithridates (pp. 83-4 with n. 162). It is certainly the case on Rhodes that this stylistic episode occurred, for whatever reason, during the period of the Mithridatic War c.89-85 bc. It now seems likely that the parallel phenomenon in Lycia occurred at the same time. conclusion On grounds of weight standard, style and, tentatively, hoard evidence it seems virtually certain that the 'quinarii' of the Lycian League had begun in the 80s bc, and were thus approximately contemporary with the group E plinthophoroi of Rhodes. The duration of series 1-6 is impossible to gauge on the basis of current evidence. During the 40s bc the weight standard was reduced to that of the quinarius then being produced by Rome. Shortly thereafter, during the reign of Augustus the didrachm or denarius with imperial head was introduced. On this reconstruction the pattern of production for the Lycian League appears to run broadly in parallel with that of the mint of Stratonikeia. The 'quinarius' 130 A.R. MF.ADOWS denomination was introduced at both mints around the 80s bc using the same types as for the previous plinthophoric coinage. The adoption this early of the 'quinarius' standard by mints in Asia Minor seems at first surprising. Yet there is no obvious other interpetation of the standard chosen by Stratonikeia and the Lycian League. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that this was a time when both states were siding with Rome against Mithridates. During the forties bc the weight standard was reduced to match the new Roman quinai ius of the civil wars. Under Augustus the innovation of a didrachm (or denarius) was introduced with an imperial portrait on the obverse. APPENDIX C: THE MAGISTRATES AND SYMBOLS In their use of the combination of a personal name + symbol, the plinthophoroi of Stratonikeia follow the model of the plinthophoroi of Rhodes. The precise import of these symbols on both of these coinages, and indeed whether they are used similarly on the two coinages, remains to be discovered. However, it emerges from the die-study of the Stratonikeian issues that the symbols on these issues seem to be specific to individuals. There are no obvious cases of obverse die-linked magistrates sharing symbols, such as we might expect if the symbols designated particular 'boards of magistrates', or any other grouping structure among the issues, as seems to be the case, for example, in the near contemporary issues of Myndos.74 In fact, two particular cases among the issues of Stratonikeia may confirm the personal nature of the symbols. t. Richard Ashton points out to me the coincidence of the combination Sostratos + crab on a group 2 hemidrachm (no. 16) and the appearance of the same name and symbol on an issue of pseudo-Rhodian drachms that he has attrib- uted to the island of Cos.75 Since the attribution of these issues to Cos, as well as their date of 170, seems certain, it is difficult to believe that these could have been produced by the same man who signed the issues of Stratonikeia around forty years later. However. Sostratos is a common name on Cos, and it seems quite plausible that the appearance of the crab symbol on the Stratonikeian issue was intended to identify that Sostratos as a Coan, or of Coan descent. If this inference is correct, then the symbol in this case is serving as a 'badge', or supplementary identifier for the individual whose first name appears on the coinage. 2. A second instance may confirm that this inference is correct. Among the hemidrachms of group 3 occurs an issue signed by Aristeas + corn-ear (no. 1). Aristeas is a common name at Stratonikeia, and without further identification there is little possibility of identifying the family of this individual. However, a later issue of drachms of group 4B is signed by another Aristeas with the surname 7J For the use of name and symbol combinations on the drachm coinage of Myndos see B. Zabel and A. Meadows. "The "Myndos" 19% Hoard (CH 9. 522)'. CH 9 (2002), pp. 244-52. 75 See R.H..I. Ashion, The Pseudo-Rhodian Drachms of Kos\ NC 158 (1998). pp. 223-8. p. 224. no. 10. STRATONIKEIA IN CARIA 131 XIAPflN. As L. Robert pointed out, the surname is taken from toasted corn grain.7'1 It may tentatively be suggested that the corn-ear taken as his symbol by the Aristeas of group 3. stood for such a surname, and thus, like the crab taken by Sostratos, served to clarify the magistrate's identity. If it is correct to see in these symbols a pictorial form of surnaming. then the disappearance of the symbol in the coinage of group 4 can bc explained, for it was this period of coinage that saw the appearance of the magistrate's second name in the coin inscription: written out. rather than pictorialised. INDEX OF MAGISTRATES' NAMES AND SYMBOLS AINEAC + corn ear ANTIOXOC ANTiriATPOC + snake-staff aiteaahc + star AnOAAUJNIAHC + torch apictanap no symbol apicteac + bee APIITEAI + bipennis APIITEAZ + club APICTEAC + corn ear APICTEAC + star APICTEAC BtUPANAEYC APICTEAC xiapujn APTEMI no symbol APTEMI + grapes APTEMIAUJPOC no symbol APTEMIAnP(OI) + chelys apxoahmoc no symbol ACKAWIIAAHC + aphlaston TAIOC + serpent-staff AHMHTP1 + lotus. ahmhtpioc no symbol. AHMHTPIOC + aphlaston AHMHTPIOC (?) + cornucopia. AHMOC0ENHC + uncertain symbol AIOTENHC + uncertain symbol AlOrNHTOC + uncertain symbol AlOrNHTOZ + cornucopia AIOKAHC +KO AIOKAHC + torch + Kl AIONYC1AHPOC + trident AIONYCIOC HO symbol? AIONYCIOC + caduceus Group 3 dr.: II Group 4A dr.: I Group 2 hemidr.: 11-14 Group 3 dr.: 1-2 Group 3 dr.: 5-6 Group 3 hemidr.: 7 Group 2 hemidr.: 46^18 Group 2 hemidr.: 50-51 Group 2 hemidr.: 41-44 Group 3 hemidr.: 1 Group 3 dr.: 7-9 Group 4B dr.: 2-3 Group 4B didr.: 1-3; Group 4B dr.: I Group 2 hemidr.: 80-81 Group 2 hemidr.: 78-79 Group 3 dr.: 12-13 Group 2 hemidr.: 33-35 Group 3 hemidr.: 8 Group 2 hemidr.: 1-2 Group 3 dr.: 3-4 Group 2 hemidr.: 72-77 Group 2 hemidr.: 69-71 Group 2 dr.: I; Group 2 hemidr.: 9 Group 2 dr.: 6 Group 3 dr.: 14-17 Group 3 dr.: 33 Group 3 dr.: 18 Group 2 hemidr.: 18-20 Group 3 dr.: 21-23 Group 3 dr.: 19 Group 2 hemidr.: 3-4 Group 3 hemidr.: 3-4 Group 3 dr.: 10 6 Robert, Strutonkee. p. 565. 132 a.r. meadows AIONYCIOC + grapes AlONYCiOC + grapes AIONYCIOC + torch APAKflN + bipennis AU)PI<t>UJN + torch EKATAIOC OUCANAPOY EKATHN + bipennis EYBOYA + palm EYOY + cornucopia EYMENHC EYMENHC + thyrsus znnYPOi HPAKAEIAHC + caduceus HPAKAEITOC + hand 0APZYT + scales. IACQN + helmet IAZHN + lion-head. IACHN + owl KAAY APICTEAC KAAYAIOC 0EO4>ANHC KAEflCOEN + owl. AE[-] + torch? AEONTI? + bipennis AEftN AECUN + caduceus AEHN + grapes?. AEON + snake. Z-T AEUJN KARREIC AELUN nOAE AEHNIA + palladion. MEAANOIOI MEAAN0OY + harpa MEAANTIXOI + pileus. Z-T MENAN(AP) + crook. MENEAH + Stat? MENEAHMOZ + wreath and fulmen MENEKAHX + torch. MENEAAOC. MENEAAOC + helmet. MENEAAOC + torch MENECTPATOC + torch and quiver. MHNOAOTOC + uncertain symbol MHNOAOTOC + fulmen MYUJNIAHC + ZEA NIKOAAOZ + star. OYAIAAOY + wreath. riAinNIOC + dolphin Group 2 hemidr.: 54 Group 3 dr.: 27-29 Group 3 dr.: 30-32 Group 2 hemidr.: 36-37 Group 3 dr.: 20 Group 4C dr.: 4-5 Group 2 dr.: 3: Group 2 hemidr. 15 Group 2 hemidr.: 26 Group 3 dr.: 34 Group 4A didr.: 2; Group 4A dr.: 2 Group 2 hemidr.: 101 Group 4A didr. I Group 2 dr.: 5 Group 3 dr.: 35-38 Group 2 hemidr.: 89-96 Group 2 hemidr.: 31-32 Group 2 hemidr.: 5-7 Group 2 hemidr.: 52 Group 5 didr.: 2 Group 4B didr.: 4; Group 4B dr.: 4 Group 2 hemidr.: 21-25 Group 2 hemidr.: 82 Group 2 hemidr.: 45 Group 1 dr.: 1-4: Group 3 hemidr.: 9- Group 3 dr.: 39: Group 3 hemidr.: 2 Group 2 hemidr.: 85-86 Group 2 hemidr.: 131-137 Group 4B dr. 6 Group 4B dr.: 5 Group 2 hemidr.: 97 Group 1 tridr.: 1 Group 2 hemidr.: 57-61 Group 2 hemidr.: 122-130 Group 2 hemidr.: 102-107 Group 2 hemidr.: 99-100 Group 2 hemidr.: 62-64 Group 2 hemidr.: 27-30 Group 4A dr. 3 Group 2 hemidr.: 10 Group 3 dr.: 41 Group 2 hemidr.: 53 Group 3 dr.: 42 Group 2 dr.: 2; Group 2 hemidr.: 8 Group 3 dr.: 43-46 Group 2 hemidr.: 98 Group 2 hemidr.: 65-66 Group 2 dr.: 4; Group 2 hemidr.: 17 stratonikeia in caria riAMM + uncertain symbol nAM<l>IAOC + corn-ear nAMWAOZ + dolphin nYOEAC + Isis crown CTPAT.QN? + Isis-crown ODCANAPOC ZUJIAOY ODCTPATOC + crab. MANIAC + cornucopia 4>ANIAC KIOAP <t>IA ... + torch *A APICTOAAOC XAIPHMflN + crescent XAIPHMHN APIC + star XPYCAHP + snake-altar XPYCAHP + star XPYCOr + owl? HBEINIANOCI - |EAC Group 3 hemidr.: 6 Group 3 dr.: 47-48 Group 2 hemidr.: 38-40 Group 2 hemidr.: 115-121 Group 2 hemidr.: 67-68 Group 4B dr.: 7-10 Group 2 hemidr.: 16 Group 3 dr.: 49-50 Group 4C dr.: 1-3 Group 2 hemidr.: 49 Group 5 didr.: 1 Group 2 hemidr.: 87-88 Group 2 hemidr.: 138-149 Group 2 hemidr.: 108-114 Group 2 hemidr.: 55-56 Group 3 hemidr.: 5 Group 4C tetradr.: I A.R. MEADOWS Table Group 2 Dif.-i.inks AHMHTPIOC + aphlaston mhnoaotoc + fulmen. ekathn + bipcnnis riAinNIOC + dolphin HPAKAEIAHC + caduceus ahmhtpioc (?) + cornucopia. ACKAHI~1iaahc + aphlaston. C-T. aionyciahpoc + trident. C-T. iazhn + lion-head. I-T. MHNOAOTOC + fulmen. C-T. AHMHTPIOC + aphlaston. C-T. MENEAAOC + helmet. C-T. ANTiriATPOC + snake-staff. C-T. ekathn + bipennis. C-T. CnCTPATOC + crab. C-T. riAinNIOC + dolphin. C-T. AlOrNHTOI + cornucopia. kae17c0en + owl. C-T. MENEKAHZ + torch. I-T. APTEMIAHPtOZ) + chelys nAM*IAOZ + dolphin. Z-T. apakhn + bipennis. Z-T. APIZTEAZ + club. Z-T. lACfiN + helmet. C-T EYBOYA + palm. Z-T. APICTEAC + bcc. C-T-PA. APIZTEAZ + bipennis. Z-T. iac.QN + owl. C-T MENECTPAITOC + torch and quiver. C-T. aionycioc + grapes.C-T. XPYCAHP + star. C-T. MEAANOOY + harpa. Z-T MENEAHMOZ + wreath and fulmen. Z-T. oyaiaaioiy + wreath, (no ethnic) AHMHTPIOC no symbol. Z-T AHMHTIPI + lotus. No ethnic APTEMI + grapes. C-T-pa APTEMI aehn + uncertain XAIPHMHN + crescent. z-T. OAPZYT + scales. Z-T. aehnia + palladion. Z-T. NIKOAAOI + star. Z-T. MENEAHMOC + star EYMENHC + thyrsus. CTIPIA MENAN + crook. C-T-PA XPYCAfiP + snake-altar. C-T. IIYOEAC + Isis crown. C-T (eagle c), MEAANTIXOZ + pileus. Z-T (eagle I.) AEflN + snake. Z-T. XAIPHMflN + star. A-P or ap-IC (no ethnic DRACHMS HKMIDRACHMS (drachm links) PLATE 2 1 34a 35a 36a 37b |9b 40a 41a 42a /I - 0 43a 43b 44a 45a 46a 46b 47a 48b g 4% 40b 50a 51a 52a 53a 53b 53c I; 53d 53e 531' 53c 54a 54b 55b 56a It 0) 01 B 9 MEADOWS, STRATONIKEIA IN CAR1A (3) PLATE 22 r 57a 58a 58b 59a 60a 61b 61c 61d 62a 63a 64a 64b 65a 66a 67a 68a m 68b 69a 69b 70a 7Ja 72a 72b m ft fi I i # • 4> 73b 74a 74b 74c 74d 75a 75b 76a MF.ADOWS, STRATOMKEIA IN CAR1A (4i PLATE 23 ######## 76b 77, 78a 79a 79b 8Ua 80b gla ######## 82a m 84a 85a 85b 8fta 87a 87b 88b 89a 9()b 91a 92a cpb m 94a y4b y4d ^ 96a 97a 97b 98a • ##•(»### MEADOWS, STRATON1KEIA IN CARTA (5) PLATE 24 § 99a 100a r 101a 102a 102b 106a 106b 107a 108a I09a 110a Hla 112a ###### 113a ||4a 115a 115b 115c 116a 117a I 17b MEADOWS, STRATONIKEIA IN CARTA (6) PLATE 25 117c 118a H9a 119b 120a 121a I2ifa I21g #<| #### ab 122a 123a 123b 123c 124a 125a 126a 127a $ # % # a o '# e 127b 128a 129a 130a 131a 132a 132b 133a 4^ /*" 133b 134d 134c 135a 136a 136b 136c 137a MEADOWS, STRATONIKEIA IN CARIA (7) 138a 13% 139c 139d 140a 140b PLATE 26 M 141a % # ^ d $ # #•# • 142a 143a 144a 144b 145a 145b 146a 146b 147a 148a 148b 148c I48d I48e mm m 149a 149b 149c 150a MEADOWS. STRATONIKF.IA IN CARIA (8) PLATE 2 7 GROUP 3 hi 2a -^l"1 5a f>a 7a MEADOWS. STRATON1KEIA IN CARIA (9) PLATE 28 29b 30a 31b 32a 33a 34a 36;i 37a 38a 39a 40a 41a 42a 43a 44a 45a 46a 47a 48a 49a MEADOWS. STRATONIKEIA IN CARIA (10) PLATE e» n„ i flu 1 la 1 Ik 53 va *"« M» i^a 14a group 4A MEADOWS. STRATONIKEIA IN CARIA (II) la 9 GROUP 5 la la GROI.P4C 2a 3., 2a STRATONIKHIA BRON/H PLATE 3 0 5a RHODES (ex HiCH 1357) a. {BMC 27) b. (SNC vA 2658) e. fflA/C 25) d. (BMC 13) e. (BMC 16) r. (BMC 19) 0 # g. (BA-/C 31 5. (Lindgren A664A) MEADOWS. STRATONIKEIA IN CARIA (12)