The Eras of Pamphylia and the Seleucid Invasions of Asia Minor more

© 2009 The American Numismatic Society AJN Second Series 21 (2009) pp. 51–88 The Eras of Pamphylia and the Seleucid Invasions of Asia Minor Plates 5–7 Andrew Meadows* This article attempts to identify eras by which the Pamphylian cities dated their posthumous Alexander coinage of the late third and early second century. The following start dates are suggested: Perge – c. 223/2 BC; Aspendos – c. 213/2; Phaselis – c. 213/2. It is argued that the beginning of the issues of Perge and Aspendos, as well as of their eras, are connected with Seleucid military activity in Pamphylia. The same reason is suggested for the over-representation in hoards of certain issues of the mints of Perge and Aspendos. A connection between the arrival of Antiochus III in Asia Minor in 203 is further proposed as the possible context for the beginning of the coinage of Side with autonomous types. The posthumous Alexander coinage of Phaselis is suggested, on the basis of its pattern of hoarding, to be a different phenomenon, to be regarded as more truly civic in nature. The Seleucid coinages of Seleucus III and Antiochus III previously given to Seleucia ad Calycadnum (SC 916 and 1016) are reattributed to Termessos. The posthumous Alexander coinage produced in the region of Pamphylia in southern Asia Minor poses a familiar problem.1 The issues in question form part of the *meadows@numismatics.org. The following standard abbreviations are used: IGCH = M. Thompson et al., Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards (New York, 1973); CH = Coin Hoards; SC = A. Houghton, C. Lorber et al. Seleucid Coins vols. I and II (Lancaster, PA, 2002 and 2008); CSE = Coins of the Seleucid Empire from the Collection of Arthur Houghton vols I and II (New York, 1983 and 2007); Price = Price (1991). Where numbers appear in parentheses after the names of coin hoards these refer to entries in IGCH or CH. 1. I must here express my sincere thanks to Cathy Lorber, Andrew McIntyre and Oliver 51 52 Andrew Meadows broader phenomenon of the posthumous Alexanders of the late third and early second centuries BC, but distinguish themselves by the appearance thereon of a series of sequences of numbers, generally identified as years of civic eras, attributable to a number of issuing cities. The two most readily identifiable are the issues of Phaselis (with mint mark Φ) and those of Aspendos (mintmark ΑΣ) Plate 5, nos. 1–2).2 A third large mint used no mint mark, but is generally regarded (since its treatment by Seyrig)3 to be that of Perge (Plate 5, no. 3). Three other mints have also been identified as Sillyon (mint mark ΣΙ), Magydos (Μ) and Termessos (Τ) (Plate 5, nos. 4–6), and a fourth, identified by a Φ in combination with o, will be discussed by Andrew McIntyre in a forthcoming study, but these last will not concern us here (Plate 5, no. 7).4 The issues of Perge run from year 1 to 33 (with gaps in years 3, 5 and 6); those of Aspendos from year 1 to 29, (gap in year 13); those of Phaselis from year 1 to 33, (gap in year 29).5 Given the general stylistic similarity of the issues, the geographic proximity of the cities and the similar spans covered by their eras, it is a priori tempting to regard all of these eras as identical, and to recognize the Pamphylian era as something of significance beyond the merely civic. Such indeed was the assumption of earlier scholars, including Seyrig. But the hoard evidence, as has been clearly demonstrated by Christof Boehringer, Martin Price and most recently Andrew McIntyre, tells a different story. Between the eras of Perge and Aspendos there is, without a shadow of a doubt, a difference of 10 years, the era of Perge having begun first.6 The evidence for Phaselis emerges less clearly, but has seemed in the past to suggest that its era began shortly after that of Perge, and a little before that of Aspendos; we shall return to this question below. But if this much is clear, Hoover who have generously provided me with unpublished material and who have all read this paper in an earlier version, provided me with detailed reactions and saved me from a number of errors. For those that remain, mea culpa. 2. A die study of the Alexanders of Phaselis is included in Heipp-Tamer (1993). To date no such study of the mint of Aspendos has been published. 3. Seyrig (1963). The key to attribution was the appearance on issues dated to year 20 of a mint mark depicting a sphinx, bearing stylistic similarities to that which appears on the bronze coinage of Perge. For a die-study and commentary see Colin (1996), pp. 17–33. 4. For Sillyon see Price (1991), pp. 366–367, nos. 2976–2981 (years 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 are recorded). The evidence for the ‘Magydos’ issues has now been collected by McIntyre (2007), but the attribution remains uncertain. For Termessos see McIntyre (2006) and below. 5. For a summary see Price (1991), p. 348; for the gap in year 3 at Perge see also McIntyre (2007), p. 93, n.3 (where, however, there is a mistake in the discussion of years 1 and 2. Both are attested by a single obverse die; it is the second die attributed by Colin to year 1 not year 2, for which Colin records only one die, that is to be regarded as a forgery). 6. The difference of 10 years, at minimum, emerges from the study of shared dies by McIntyre (2007). The hoard evidence, as we shall see, suggests that it is highly unlikely to be longer. The Eras of Pamphylia 53 the absolute chronology of when these eras began and ended remains uncertain. Two reconstructions currently vie for consideration. The first is that proposed by Christof Boehringer who in 1972 collected the evidence for known specimens of the Alexanders of Perge and noted what appeared to him to be a falling-off of production after year 29. This fact he combined with the limited hoard evidence, which also showed a group of four hoards closing with Perge year 29. To these observations he added the hypothesis that the battle of Magnesia, which he dated to November/December 190 BC, was the historical event behind these two patterns. From this he was able to posit a start date for the era of Perge 29 years before 190. The era thus began in 219/8. Based on the probable gap of 9–10 years between the eras of Perge and Aspendos, he further posited a start date for the latter city’s era in 210/209 BC.7 Martin Price, on the other hand, while accepting the approximate dates of Boehringer’s reconstruction, did not believe such precision was possible on the basis of the hoard evidence, and instead sought an answer, like Seyrig before him, in immediate political events near the beginnings of the supposed eras. Like Seyrig, he alighted upon the aftermath of the death of Ptolemy Euergetes in 222 BC, and a hypothesized Ptolemaic loss of Pamphylia in the following year, as the start date of the era of Perge.8 For Aspendos he suggested ‘a date in the period 214–210 BC, following the defeat of Achaeus’ (p. 353). Both of these reconstructions seem plausible, yet both rely in part on inferences from supposed historical circumstances, rather than numismatic evidence for their absolute dates. It is not, therefore, easy to choose between them. To resolve the matter new evidence is clearly needed, and in fact appeared over ten years ago with the publication of two important new hoards from the Levant. In Part I of this article, I shall discuss the ramifications of this new evidence and re-examine some of the older hoard evidence with a view to establishing a chronology for the Pamphylian eras that is based first and foremost on the numismatic evidence. In Part II, I shall investigate how this hoard-derived chronology fits with what is otherwise known of the history of Pamphylia in the late third and early second centuries BC, and what additional light the evidence of the coinage may throw on the matter. Part I. The Hoard Evidence The first ‘new’ hoard referred to above had in fact previously been noted under the title ‘Syria 1971’ as CH 2. 81. Details of the group had been recorded in commerce by P. Girardi and preserved in the interim by A. Houghton. The publication by Le 7. Boehringer (1972), pp. 52–56 (Perge) and 59 (Aspendos). Cf. Le Rider (1972), pp. 254– 255, Mørkholm (1978), pp. 69–70 and Price (1991), p. 347 for summaries. 8. Price (1991), p. 347; cf. Seyrig (1963), pp. 41–42. 54 Andrew Meadows Rider (1998) now allows the following summary of its contents: Syria 1971 Antigonus Doson 1 tetradr. (Poseidon/Apollo on prow) Philip V 1 tetradr. (Shield/club in wreath) Posthumous Alexander tetradrs. Megalopolis 1 (Price 752) Sinope 1 (Price 1257) Heraclea Pontica 1 (Price 1281) Pergamum 1 (Price 1490) Miletus 2 (Price 2171, 2180) Chios 3 (Price 2393, -,-. Bauslaugh [1979] 50A, -,-) Samos 2 (Price 2446–7) Rhodes 4 (Price 2511, 2517–8, 2520; Kleiner [1971], III, XI, XII, XIII) Phaselis 5 (to Yr. 19) Aspendus 3 (to Yr. 18) Perge 6 (to Yr. 26) Aradus 5 (to Yr. 195/4 BC) Gerrha 3 (Price 3957) Uncert. Mints 3 Ephesus 3 drs. Kinns (1999) Class F? Alabanda 1 tetradr. (Series 1, ΤΙΜΟΚΛΗΣ) Side 22 tetradrs. Syria Antiochus I 2 (SC 308a; 379.6a) Antiochus II (SC 587.4b) Antiochus Hierax 3 (SC 835.6; 855.1; 879.4) Antiochus III 11 Uncert, mint 49 (Phrygia) 1 (SC 1004) Soli 2 (SC 1019.2a; 1021.2) Tarsus 1 (SC 1031.2) Laodicea ad mare 1 (SC 1071.2) ΔΙ mint 2 (SC 1112) Uncert. Mint 67 (N. Mesopotamia) 1 (SC 1132.6) Uncert. Mint 68? 1 (SC 1137) Egypt Ptolemy II 2 Ptolemy IV 1 Ptolemy V 2 The Eras of Pamphylia 55 The hoard is remarkable in a couple of respects and the full ramifications have yet to be appreciated. The appearance of Ptolemaic issues in a hoard otherwise composed of Attic weight coinage is not unique, but certainly out of the ordinary and is, as Le Rider noted, strongly suggestive of a provenance on the borders of Seleucid and Ptolemaic territory.9 This likely provenance is further supported by another component of the hoard, the posthumous Alexanders from the mint of Arados. As, again, Le Rider noted, the hoard contained five such coins, all marked with the city’s era, which began in 259 BC. Years 61 (1 specimen), 64 (1 specimen) and 65 (3 specimens) were all represented: ‘étant donné le peu d’abondance du monnayage de cette époque, la présence dans le trésor de cinq exemplaires d’années voisines n’est peut-être pas sans intérêt pour la détermination du lieu de trouvaille’.10 He went on to suggest a find-spot within the Aradian Peraea or close to its borders. There can be little quarrel with this analysis of the hoard, but having established the likelihood of a provenance from the Aradian Peraea or its environs, we can surely take a step forward in the determination of the date of the deposit of this hoard, and thereby clarify the chronology of some of its contents. If the hoard was indeed found in the Aradian Peraea, then the issues of Aradus should be the most recently produced coins present. The pattern of representation of Aradian issues, with three of the five consecutively dated specimens having been struck in year 65, strongly suggests a date of deposit in 195 or 194 BC. We may begin by noting that this is a good general fit with the Seleucid contents of the hoard, amongst which were two issues of the mint of Soli, which can only have opened after the capture of this city by Antiochus III in 197 BC, and the ΔΙ mint, active in Syria from around the same date.11 The tetradrachm of Philip V, which had traveled furthest of all the coins in the hoard had been struck perhaps a little before 197 BC.12 The hoard also contains issues of the dated Alexander coinages of Phaselis (to year 19), Perge (to year 26) and Aspendos (to year 18). The latest years of both Perge and Aspendos are represented by two coins each (compared to one for all other years), and the latest two coins of Perge were struck probably from the same obverse die. It is likely, therefore, that the latest coins of these two mints were produced fairly close to the date of the hoard’s deposit. Taking the date of deposit 9. Two analogous hoards, Dniye 1952 (IGCH 1538) and Ras Baalbek 1957 (IGCH 1593), are from 15 miles E and 50 miles SE of Aradus respectively. 10. Le Rider (1998) 95–6. 11. The hoard also contained an issue of uncertain mint 68 (N. Mesopotamia), SC I. 1132.6. The opening date of this mint is also given in SC as 197 BC, however the style of the coins may suggest an earlier date of issue. 12. Boehringer (1972), pp. 116–8. 56 Andrew Meadows for the hoard as 195/4 BC, we can see that the era of Aspendos must have begun by c. 212/1 BC at the latest, while that of Perge, which, as McIntyre (2007) has demonstrated, started 10 years earlier had begun by 222/1 BC at the latest. Since the coins were moving from Pamphylia to Phoenicia, we can, of course, only take these dates as termini ante quos for the beginning of the two eras. In any case, it seems that Boehringer’s low dates of 219/8 and 210/09 must be ruled out. The second new piece of hoard evidence applies less directly to the Pamphylian coinage but has, as will become clear, considerable significance for the dating of a number of other hoards, on which the dates of the Pamphylian issues rest. To clarify this significance it will be necessary to focus briefly on the Seleucid coinage of Antioch. E. T. Newell divided the coinage of Antioch under Antiochus III into four groups. The dates of these he assigned on historical grounds, and essentially without the benefit of hoard evidence. In 1972 C. Boehringer assembled the hoard evidence then available and noted that this evidence suggested a somewhat later series of dates for the beginnings of Newell’s second, third and fourth groups. In SC I, the lowering of dates was resisted partly on stylistic grounds.13 However, in his die-study of the mint of Antioch, published in 1999, G. Le Rider had noted the important evidence of a new hoard found in excavation at Oylum Höyüğü in northern Syria (Kilis province, in modern Turkey).14 The latest coins in this hoard are probably a fresh Alexander of Perge of year 19, and an equally fresh autonomous coin of Side, of one of the city’s earlier issues. The publishers of the hoard arrived at a terminus post quem for burial of c. 200 BC, on the basis of the issue of Perge, and assuming Boehringer’s chronology. We may allow, on Price or Seyrig’s chronology a date a couple of years earlier, or on the chronology that will be proposed in this paper, a terminus post quem of 205 BC. But this last date is the earliest that could be tolerated for the burial of the Oylum Höyüğü hoard. As Le Rider pointed out, the value of this hoard lies in its circumstances of discovery: it is certainly complete, and this fact allows us to make some inferences concerning the Seleucid content with some confidence:15 It is notable... that the hoard contains no tetradrachms of Antioch of series II nor of series III or IV. While the composition of hoards must be interpreted with care, it would seem that Boehringer was right to lower a little for each series the dates proposed by Newell. Series III and IV ought not to have begun much before 200, and their beginning could be connected with the preparations for the campaign that ended with the victory at Panion 13. Newell (1941), pp. 134–155; Boehringer (1972), pp. 8–9 and 95–97; SC I, pp. 358–9 and 394–6. 14. Le Rider (1999), pp. 157–8; Özgen and Davesne (1994), pp. 45–64 (CH 9. 501). 15. Le Rider (1999), p. 158, my translation. The Eras of Pamphylia over Ptolemy (V) in 200, and the annexation of Phoenicia and Coele Syria. Another explanation would be that this coinage was inaugurated in anticipation of the great expedition of Antiochus III in Asia Minor, of which the first act took place in 198. Table 1. Proposed dates for Antiochus III’s issues at Antioch Series I II III IV SC Nos. 1041–2 1043 1044 1045–6 Obv. dies 11 8 17 22 Newell 223–213 213–208 208–200 200–187 SC 223–211/10 211–208 204–197 197–187 Boehringer 223–208 208–203 203–195 195–187 Le Rider 223–208 203–198 198–187 57 The absence of the substantial series II, III and IV from a hoard just to the north of Antioch is surely significant, and Le Rider is correct to push the dates of these series downwards. If we are to fit all three series in the period after c. 205–203 BC, then the second of the alternative reconstructions that he proposed seems most likely to be correct. A synopsis of the various proposed dates for these groups is presented in Table 1. The net effect of Le Rider’s down-dating is to lower the start dates of groups II and III. When combined with the new evidence for the beginning of the Pamphylian eras, this will have a significant impact on the dating of a number of hoards, as we shall see. Not least, it makes sense of the Seleucid contents of a group of hoards conventionally dated to the late 190s, but which contain issues only down to Antioch series III.16 With this new evidence summarized, we may now turn back to the identity of the Pamphylian eras. To achieve further precision in the assignment of dates to these eras, it will be necessary to take a closer look at two categories of hoard evidence: first, a group of fairly closely dateable hoards that do not contain the Alexanders of Perge and Aspendos, and second a group of similarly dateable hoards that are the earliest to contain them. The first of these groups is summarized in Table 2. Before beginning to interpret this table, it is important to bear in mind the point, recently highlighted by McIntyre, ‘that Perge produced very little Alexander coinage before year 7.’17 We must allow for the fact that the absence from the hoard record of the first 6 years or so of Perge’s era may be due to the relative absence of these issues from circulation. 16. See for example: Mektepini (IGCH 1410: 190 BC, to Ser. II); Sardis Pot (IGCH 1318: 190 BC, to Ser. III); Pisidia (IGCH 1411: 190 BC, to Ser III); Kosseir (IGCH 1537: 190 BC, to Ser. III). Further discussion of these hoards and their (revised) chronology will be found below. 17. McIntyre (2007), p. 1, n.3. 58 Hoard Tartous (1530) ‘Seleucus IIIa Syria? (1531) Asia Minor/N. Syria (1.74) Gordion V (1405) Homs (1532) Syria (1533) Syria (1535) Basra ‘A’ (1786)b ‘Antiochus IIIc a b Andrew Meadows Date 229–220 225/224 225–220 215–210 217–210 Dateable content Price 2509 (Rhodes); Aradus Yr. 23 (237) SC 921; SC 928 (225/4 BC?) Ant. Doson (Poseidon/Apollo+prow) SC 1042 (223–208) SC 1042 (223–208); SC 1160 (220–211/10); Aradus Yr 43 = 217 220–210 SC 1042 (223–208); SC 1069 (223/210) 216–210 SC 1042 (223–208); SC 1025 (216–213) 220–210 SC 1042 (223–208) 210 SC 1041 (223–208); SC 1162 (211/10) 196 SC 1044 (198–187); SC 1164 (211/10) Table 2. Late third–early second century hoards with no Pamphylian Alexanders SC II.2, pp. 142–150. On the two separate parcels that make up the listing in IGCH, and the need to separate them see SC II.2. pp. 126–127. c SC II.2, p. 150. See Lorber and Houghton (2009) for a full publication of the hoard and discussion of burial date (c. 196 BC) and contents. The general conclusion that we may draw from this table is that Pamphylian Alexanders tend to be absent from hoards in Asia Minor and the Seleucid kingdom that were deposited in the period c. 229–210 BC. In two cases at least, this absence is likely to be significant. The massive Seleucus III hoard deposited in 225/4 would surely have contained Pamphylian Alexanders had they existed at this time.18 The Gordion V hoard, buried at some point between 217–210, may also be significant, since the slightly later Gordion I hoard, buried c. 210 BC (see Table 3 below), did contain Pamphylian issues. Given the relatively light striking of Pergaean issues in years 1–6, the absence from Seleucus III can suggest to us only that the era of this city is unlikely to have begun before c. 231 BC. On the other hand, the absence from Gordion V, if pressed, suggests a somewhat later terminus post quem of c. 224 BC. This latter date sits comfortably enough with the evidence of the Syria hoard discussed above, which provides a terminus ante quem of 222/1. The period c. 224–221 BC begins to look promising as the period within which the era of Perge may have begun. Against this background it is worth considering for a moment the picture that emerges from the other hoards in Table 2 from which the Pamphylian issues are absent. By 215 BC at the latest, Pergaean issues were being produced with regular18. As Cathy Lorber points out to me, it contained earlier coins of Perge, in the form of 5 tetradrachms of Artemis Pergaia type. On the date of this hoard, see Lorber and Houghton (2009). The Eras of Pamphylia Table 3. The Earliest hoards containing Pamphylian Alexanders Hoard Syria (1535) Diyarbakir (1735) Gordion I (1406) Asia Minor (1426) Pergamum (1303) ‘Achaeus’f Oylum Höyüğü (9.501) Date Perge Phaselis Aspendos Sillyon Aradus Seleucid content 1 1042 (223–208) 210–205a 13 205–200b 10 210–205c 14 2 11 44 = 216 1041 (223–208) 42 = 218 1042 (223–208); 1162 (211/10) 44 = 216 Uncertain 59 215–205d 15 210–205e 15 1161 (220–211/10) 9 2 53 = 207 1206 (223/2) 1042 (223–208); 1160 (220–211/10); 1063 (205–200) 204–199 20 205–200g 19 a Boehringer (1972), p. 158 dated this hoard to ‘the last decade of the third century’ but, as Houghton and Lorber point out (SC I.2, p. 101), the Seleucid content might suggest a date no later than 210 BC. With the revision of the dates of the Antioch mint suggested above, we may bring this date down to 208 or shortly after. b The date is based on the inclusion of a Rhodian Alexander (Price 2522), the production of which is likely to be connected to Rhodian military activity c. 205–200 BC. Seleucid content, as well as that of Side, suggests that a later date is unlikely. c For the date, derived from the Seleucid content, see SC I.2, p. 88. d The date is based on the fresh, dated specimen of Aradus. e The date is based on the Seleucid content and the presence of just the earliest issues of the mint of Side, and none of the later Alexanders of Rhodes. f For a provisional listing of the hoard’s contents see SC II.2, pp. 150–151. Full publication will follow in CH 10. The terminus post quem for burial of the hoard is provided by the Aradian issue. The meager representation of coinage of Antiochus III suggests that it cannot date much later. If this hoard was deposited in Western Asia Minor, as the presence of Achaeus’ issues suggests, then it is likely to have been buried before, or perhaps in the context of, Antiochus’ campaign of 203. See further Meadows and Lorber (forthcoming). g The contents of this hoard bear a similarity to those of the Pergamum hoard (above, [n. e]), however the presence of issues of the mint associated with Antioch (SC 1063) in Oylum Höyüğü may suggest a slightly later date. ity, yet we find a series of seven hoards that might have been deposited after this year, but which contain none. Most, if not all of these hoards were deposited to the east of Pamphylia, either in Syria, or further east still.19 It seems, therefore, that at this early period in Pamphylian production, coins were not circulating widely, and not moving eastwards in significant quantities. 19. The exception is perhaps the Antiochus III hoard, which may have been deposited in N.W. Asia Minor. See Lorber and Houghton (2009). 60 Andrew Meadows Examination of the earliest hoards to contain Pamphylian Alexanders suggests that this pattern changed only gradually (Table 3). First we must note the pattern of distribution of the hoards from this phase of Pamphylian production. In all likelihood, four of the seven hoards were concealed to the north or west of Pamphylia. Just three provide evidence for eastward movement. An interesting anomaly also emerges. At this period, there is no evidence for the circulation of the issues of Phaselis, which are entirely absent from these hoards, even though on the conventional chronology, which sees the era start shortly after that of Perge, the mint is likely to have been producing coin throughout this period.20 This may suggest that the Phaselite issues, at least in this period, constitute a different phenomenon from those of Aspendos and Perge; it may also suggest that we should re-examine the chronology of the Phaselite era. The hoards in Table 3 seem for the most part to have been buried within the decade 210–200 BC.21 Ostensibly they span ten years of production too, from years 10–20 at Perge and 1–9 at Aspendos. They also span at least the decade of years 42–53 (218–207 BC) at Aradus. Combined, these three decades provide us with another range of possible dates for the start of the Pergaean era. If 210 equated to year 10 of Perge, then it would suggest a start in 220. If 218 BC equated to year 10, then it produces a start in 228. The range of 228–220 certainly does encompass the period that we have derived above by other means, but caution is required. This new range is based in part upon approximations of hoard burial dates combined with the presence of coins within hoards that have travelled some distance from their points of origin. Of more help perhaps is the observation that emerges from consideration of the four hoards that contain Seleucid issues of the mint of Antioch: none apparently contain any issues that postdate c. 208 BC: specifically, series II, III, and IV of this mint, struck c. 208–198 and c. 198–187 BC on the chronology proposed above (Table 1), are all absent. This impression is bolstered by the representation of issues of the mint of Seleuceia on the Tigris in three of the hoards, which seem to cease around 210 BC. It may have taken a while for the later Seleucid issues to enter circulation, particularly further west where the Pamphylian Alexanders were circulating and a number of these hoards were deposited. But it seems highly unlikely that any of these hoards belong after the campaign of Antiochus III into Asia Minor in 203 BC.22 In fact it is tempting to suggest that a number of these hoards represent 20. However, we should note that one of the important results of McIntyre’s (2007) detachment of the ‘omicron’ issues from the main sequence of Phaselis’ Alexanders is to reduce the size of the latter issues considerably. For the first 15 years of production Phaselis used on average just one die per annum. 21. The only possible exception is the Asia Minor hoard (IGCH 1426), but our record of this so incomplete as to render it almost worthless as a chronological indicator. 22. For discussion of this campaign see further below, Part II. The Eras of Pamphylia 61 Table 4. Later hoards containing Pamphylian Alexanders deposited during the probable period of their production Hoard Perge Latakia (1536) Syria (2. 81) 26 Mektepini (1410) 29 Sardis pot (1318) 29 Pisidia (1411) 29 Ayaz-In (1413) 29 Unknown 2000a 29 Cuenca (8. 375)b 29 Kosseir (1537) 20 a Phaselis Aspendos 10 19 18 18 19 5 20 25 18 26 20 24 20 24 19 Aradus 61 = 199 65 = 195 64 = 196 62 = 198 43 = 217 63 = 197 65 = 195 65 = 195 69 = 191 Seleucid SC and date 1121 (213–203); 1112 (197–187) 1019 1132 (197–187) 1043 (203–198); 1063 (205–200) 1044 (198–187); 1063 (205–200) 1044 (198–187); 1063 (205–200) 1045 (198–187); 1020 (197–187) 1046 (198–187); 1021 (197–187) 1041 (223–208) 1044 (198–187) For a summary see SC II.2, pp. 77–8, where the hoard’s findspot is designated as ‘Pamphylia or Cilicia,’ an inference based on contents. I am grateful to Oliver Hoover for a full listing of this hoard prior to publication, which will occur in CH 10. Hoover includes in his listing an issue of Seleucus IV (SC 1298), which seems to me to be intrusive. b Alicante (8.411), with identical contents to the Cuenca hoard (8.375) published by Villaronga (1984), appears to be a doublet included in CH 8 in error, and should consequently be deleted. Interestingly, the bulk of the Roman Republican content of this hoard seems to predate 200 BC, on Crawford’s chronology (denarii to RRC 128 with one example of RRC 171). The burial date of the hoard is in fact determined by the Aradian (and Pergaean) content (Villaronga, loc. cit., pp. 136–7). deposits made in anticipation of, or in reaction to the beginning of this campaign, and thus reflect circulation down to as late as 204 or 203 BC in areas that had fallen out of direct Seleucid control. This is particularly attractive, as has been noted above (page 59, table note f), in the case of the Achaeus hoard, the only hoard known to have contained coins of the usurper, which otherwise seem to have been purged from circulation within the Seleucid realm. Therefore, in place of the ranges 210–205 suggested above for a number of these hoards, we might more reasonably substitute c. 210–203 BC. That being the case, we produce a range of dates for the beginning of the Pergaean era of c. 230–223 BC. If we set this possible range of c. 230–223 BC, which emerges from consideration of the hoards in Table 3, alongside the range of c. 224–221 BC that we deduced from consideration of Table 2, then we see that the years 224 and 223 BC emerge as the most likely for the commencement of the Pergaean era. With this possibility in mind, we may turn to a second group of hoards containing Pamphylian Alexanders, and perhaps begin to view some old friends with new eyes (Table 4). This table presents an overview of hoards that seem likely to have been buried within the 190s BC, and thus within the period in which, on any chronology that has been proposed for the Pamphylian eras, the Alexanders of Perge, Aspendos 62 Andrew Meadows and Phaselis were all still in production. We may start with some general observations. First, setting aside the Latakia hoard (1536), which may be slightly earlier than the rest,23 an interesting pattern emerges. All hoards but one end either with year 29 of Perge or the contemporary year 19 of Aspendos. The remaining hoard, Syria (2.81), ends with year 18 of Aspendos. Second, all but one (5 of 6) of the hoards that end in years 29 or 19 with identifiable find-spots were buried to the north and/or west of Pamphylia. The question is, how to interpret this intriguing pattern? Prima facie, it might appear that all of these hoards closed at the same time and are to be linked to a single event such as a battle or invasion. But two facts argue against this hypothesis. First, the hoards are not all from the same region: one is from Spain (Cuenca), two are from Phrygia (Mektepini and Ayaz-In), one is from Lydia (Sardis), one from Pisidia and one from Syria (Al-Qusayr). Second, it is only the issues of Aspendos, Perge and (as we shall discuss), Aradus that give this impression of contemporaneity. As can be seen very clearly from Table 4, the Seleucid content of the hoards shows a clear chronological progression that strongly suggests that the hoards from Mektepini through to Unknown findspot 2000 were buried over a period of time, not within a single year. A similar impression emerges from the Sidetan content. Mektepini contains only issues signed by AP, A, and ΔI that had appeared in the earlier Pergamum Asklepieion (1303) and Oylum Höyüğü (9.501) hoards included above in Table 3, and belonging most probably to the last few years of the third century. Unknown findspot 2000 and Ayaz-In both contain later issues struck by ΔΕΙΝΟ, ΔΙΟΔ, and ΣΤ (with variants). If these hoards were not buried at the same time it seems that the Aspendian and Pergaean contents of these hoards are skewed and the explanation for the homogeneity of content of these two mints across such a broad geographical area is to be sought not in the circumstances of burial of these hoards, but rather in the phenomenon of circulation of these particular Alexanders. Whereas these coins had enjoyed only limited circulation during the early years of their production, right down to the last years of the 3rd century BC (Table 3), suddenly, and during a period that apparently ends in year 29 of Perge = 19 of Aspendos, there was a release of coin of these mints into circulation such that they penetrated into Asia Minor and even as far as Spain, but also moved back eastwards to Syria. Put another way, year 29 = 19 did not see an increased instance of hoarding, rather it marks the end of a period of enhanced circulation of Pamphylian coinage. 23. Seyrig (1973) inclined on the basis of the three coins of Aradus ‘en excellent état et l’absence des années 62, 63 et 64, pourtant commune’ to date the hoard c. 198, but was pulled towards a later date by the inclusion of Alexander issues of Rhodes with full magistrate’s names. These latter issues were probably not as late as Seyrig thought, however, and a date of c. 198 BC appears more likely. The Eras of Pamphylia 63 Significantly, this pattern of overrepresentation which has been deduced here from the end date of Pergaean content across a number of hoards from disparate regions, finds full support in the study of this mint by Colin (1996). From his die study of the Alexanders we may produce the following figure detailing survival rate of coins of each year, expressed as a ratio of known specimens to observed dies (Figure 1). The result is startling, but not unexpected. 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Figure 1. Number of known Perge Coins obverse die by era year (Years 1–33) From a clear peak in years 26–29, representation of coins per die plummets in year 30. In fact, the number of obverse dies remains fairly constant across this period (Figure 2), yet many more coins survive today from this four year period leading up to year 29.24 In fact, on the basis of Figures 8 and 9 in the Appendix to this paper, we can put this rather more forcefully. In the 17 hoards tabulated there, deposited between the 190s and the 140s BC, not a single coin of year 30 of Perge has been recorded. Yet Colin has recorded the same number of obverse dies for this year as for year 29.25 The absence of year 30 not only from the hoards in Table 4, but also from 24. The relative scarcity of surviving specimens of years 30 and 31 had been apparent to Seyrig (1963), p. 48 and Boehringer (1972), p. 54. The significance in terms of the representation of numbers of dies was later pointed out by Boehringer (1999), p. 71, on the basis of Colin’s die study: ‘Die Zahl der für die 3 Jahre ΚΘ-ΛΑ = 29–31 geschnittenen Vorderseiten-Stempel blieb mit 2 pro Jahrgang konstant, ein gleichmäßiger Prägeausstoß war also zumindest beabsichtigt.’ 25. Two dies from two specimens for year 30. Both coins are in the ANS collection: 1952.44.35 and 1956.108.5. The former coin was bought in the same year and from the same dealer (Poladian) as were the ANS coins from the Tell Kotchek hoard. However, no 64 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Andrew Meadows 29 30 31 32 33 Year Figure 2. Recorded obverse dies per year at Perge (Years 25–33) 25 26 27 28 the large group of hoards that postdates the 190s (Appendix, Figure 9), makes it absolutely clear that for some reason the circulation of Pergaean Alexanders was dramatically curtailed in this year. In the absence of a die study, the picture for Aspendos cannot be painted with such clarity. Nonetheless, Figure 10 in the Appendix does suggest a comparable spike in the presence of issues of year 17–20 in the Table 3 hoards, and a tailing-off in year 20. Figure 11 for the later hoards also produces a spike in year 19 and a dip in years 20–21 before Aspendian issues appear again in significant quantities from year 22 onwards. The representation of Alexanders of Aradus in the hoards of Table 4 also requires some commentary. It is no less uniform than that of the Pamphylian mints, containing, with the exception of the Pisidian hoard (1411), dates ranging from years 61–69 (199/8–191/0 BC), with a clear concentration in year 65 = 195/4 BC (4 hoards). The ranges for Perge and Aspendos are also of 9–10 years: 20–29 and 18–20 respectively.26 We must ask, therefore, whether the same phenomenon may underlie this Aradian representation as has been hypothesised above for the Pamphylian: an unusually large release of Aradian Alexanders into circulation in the period leading up to year 65 (195/4 BC). provenance is recorded with the Pergaean year 30, and this year is not mentioned in Seyrig’s listing of the hoard. 26. Cuenca (8.375) is a clear outlier with year 3 only of Aspendos. The Eras of Pamphylia 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Die nos. Figure 3. Recorded coins per die at Aradus (206/5–191/0 BC) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 196/5 195/4 194/3 193/2 192/1 Figure 4. Recorded Aradian Alexanders struck from D38, by year 65 Recorded specimens Specimens Rev. dies A summary of the representation of known coins per die recorded in Duyrat’s (2005) study of the Aradian mint provides an interesting point of comparison with the Pergaean evidence. The continued use of dies over a number of years makes the picture slightly more complex, but a familiar pattern emerges (Figure 3). There is a smaller spike for Dies 31–33, which were used in years 200–199 BC, and a large spike for Die 38, in use through the years 196–192. A closer look at the activity of this last die shows two disparities (Figure 4). Not only are a greater number of specimens known for years 196/5 and 195/4 BC, but also the ratio of 66 Andrew Meadows observed specimens to reverse dies is higher for these two years than later. Irrespective of the pattern of production at Aradus, this evidence suggests that a proportionally high number of Aradian coins of these two years survive today. As with the case of the Pamphylian issues, it appears that there was an unusual release of Aradian coinage culminating in year 195/4 BC. We must, therefore, consider the possibility that these similar phenomena might be contemporary. If so, then year 65 at Aradus (195/4 BC), equates with year 29 and 19 at Perge and Aspendos. This would suggest start dates for the two Pamphylian eras of c. 223 and 213 respectively. In this case, the reconstruction on the basis of Table 4 fits perfectly the range for Perge of 224–223 that we have suggested above on the basis of Tables 2 and 3. If this picture of the circulation history of the Pamphylian and Aradian mints is correct, then it has important consequences for the dating of the hoards in Table 4. With the exception of the hoards found within close proximity of one or another of these areas (essentially Syria [2.81] and Kosseir [1537], both probably from the hinterland of Aradus), as already noted above, we can no longer assume that these issues provide precise dates of deposit as, for example, Boehringer did with the Mektepini (1410) and Sardis Pot (1318) hoards.27 Rather, the Pamphylian and Aradian issues included provide only a terminus post quem. With this in mind, it is worth taking a brief look at the hoards in Table 4 to see the effects for the dates generally assigned to them, and to ask what evidence remains for their chronology. Clearly, a key element is now the Seleucid content, our understanding of which has been placed on a new footing by the recent work of Houghton and Lorber, and specifically the issues of Antioch, for the chronology of which, as we have seen above, significant new evidence has become available. The chronology of this mint has now become our best indicator of both the relative and the absolute chronologies of a subset of the Table 3 hoards, and presents the following picture (Table 5): Table 5. Relative chronology of some hoards of the 190s Mektepini (1410) Sardis pot (1318) Pisidia (1411) Ayaz-In (1413) Unknown 2000 SC 1043 (203–198); 1063 SC 1044 (198–187); 1063 SC 1044 (198–187); 1063 SC 1045 (198–187) SC 1046 (198–187) The evidence is first and foremost suggestive of a relative chronology, but also of differences of circumstances of deposit for at least some of these hoards. Of particular interest is the Mektepini hoard (1410), the date of which, generally assumed to be c. 190 BC, has become canonical in the chronology of early 2nd century coinages. The Seleucid material in this hoard strongly suggests that it must be 27. Boehringer (1972), p. 59. The Eras of Pamphylia 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 2 3 67 Figure 5. Ratio of known specimens to known dies for Phaselis detached in time from the Ayaz-In hoard (1413), also found in Phrygia, and must be dated somewhat earlier. The Antiochene content, which stops with Series 2 (203–198 BC), must make it unlikely that the hoard can be very much later than its latest coin of Perge (year 29 = 195/4 BC, assuming a start date of 223/2). This chronology would suggest that the hoard may have been buried in the context of the early years of Antiochus’ invasion of western Asia Minor, which began in 198 or 197. The Ayaz-In hoard, on the other hand, which contains issues of Antioch series 4, may well belong to the period around the Seleucid defeat at Magnesia in 190 BC. This overall picture is reinforced by the hoard representation of the  mint (SC 1063). Specimens are known only from Oylum Höyüğü (9.501), Mektepini (1410), Sardis pot (1318) and Pisidia (1411), which seem to span the period c. 205–195 BC, where they accompany SC 1042–1044. SC 1063 is absent from Ayaz-In. If this reconstruction is correct, it has important consequences for our understanding of the dated coinage of Phaselis. As we have already noted, the era of Phaselis has proven in the past somewhat trickier to pin down than those of Perge and Aspendos. The assumption, based on the limited hoard evidence, has generally been that it began around three years after that of Perge.28 With the advantage of McIntyre’s forthcoming disentanglement of the two separate series (and eras) of the coinages previously attributed to Phaselis, it is possible to return to Heipp28. Boehringer (1972), pp. 60–61 thought the two eras contemporary, on the basis of their identical durations (33 years) and the assumption that the missing year 29 at Phaselis coincided with 190/89 BC. Price (1991), p. 348, interpreted the hoard evidence to suggest that Phaselis’ era started approximately 3 years later than that of Perge. 4 5 6 8 9 68 Andrew Meadows Tamer’s (1993) die study and construct a figure similar to that offered above for Perge, for the ratio of the number of surviving coins of Phaselis to the number of recorded dies (Figure 5). There is little evidence for a period of overrepresentation as there is with Perge and Aradus. From this we may confirm the conclusion that the pattern of circulation of the Phaselite issues was different from that of their Pergaean counterparts. As we have noted above, such a difference was also suggested by the hoards of the period covered by Table 3 (c. 210–200 BC). This difference will be important to bear in mind when it comes to considering the historical circumstances of these issues. More specifically, the apparent lack of skew in the distribution in the coins of Phaselis renders them potentially more useful in the derivation of relative chronology for the hoards in which they occur. Whereas the Pergaean (and Aspendian) contents are dominated by year 29 (and 20/19), the Phaselite is more likely to reflect a regular progression into circulation. With this in mind we may turn back to our group of hoards from the 190s and compare their Phaselite content: Hoard Mektepini (1410) Sardis pot (1318) Pisidia (1411) Ayaz-In (1413) Unknown 2000 Table 6. Phaselis in some hoards of the 190s Last issue of Phaselis 18 5 25 26 24 The evidence is thin, but seems to support the case for viewing Mektepini as earlier than the Pisidia or Ayaz-In hoards. In conclusion, one should note a further corollary of this apparent difference in circulation pattern between Perge and Phaselis. The Mektepini hoard, which we have suggested was deposited in the environs of 196 or 195 contained Perge of year 29 and Phaselis 18. This may suggest that the Phaselis issue was some 10 years behind that of Perge. This would (in part) help to explain the absence of Phaselis from the hoards of Table 3, deposited c. 210–203 BC. Part II. The Historical Background In the remainder of this paper I shall explore the ramifications of the higher chronology for the eras of Perge and Aspendos and the lower chronology for the era of Phaselis for the possible historical circumstances of the production and apparently uneven circulation of the Pamphylian Alexanders. First we may begin by applying the absolute chronology proposed above to the various eras with which we have been concerned. As we have seen above, on the basis of Tables 2 and 3, 224–223 The Eras of Pamphylia Table 7: Absolute Dates and Civic Eras Year 223/2 222/1 221/0 220/19 219/8 218/7 217/6 216/5 215/4 214/3 213/2 212/1 211/0 210/09 209/8 208/7 207/6 206/5 205/4 204/3 203/2 202/1 201/0 200/199 199/8 198/7 197/6 196/5 195/4 194/3 193/2 192/1 191/0 190/89 189/8 188/7 187/6 186/5 185/4 184/3 183/2 182/1 181/0 Perge 1 2 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Aspendos Phaselis Sillyon 3 4 5 6 Aradus 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 33 11 70 Andrew Meadows seems the likeliest range for Perge year 1, and on the basis of Table 4, 223 seems the more likely. Strong circumstantial support for this year will be offered below. In Table 7, therefore, 223/2 has been proposed as the start date for Perge, and the eras of Aspendos and Phaselis are assumed to start 10 years later. (a) The beginning of Pergaean coinage c. 223 BC and the campaign of Seleucus III In the early summer of 223 BC Seleucus III set out from Syria on an expedition against, according to Polybius, the Pergamene king Attalus I, who had been helping himself to Seleucid territory in Asia Minor. He crossed the Taurus and reached as far as Phrygia, before he was treacherously poisoned by two of his courtiers, Galatians named Apatourios and Nicanor, perhaps in 222 BC.29 The meager content of the literary sources for this campaign may be supplemented slightly by the numismatic evidence. In addition to the standard array of mints that struck for Seleucus III In Syria, Mesopotamia, Media and Susiana, three extraordinary groups of coinage have been connected by various commentators with Seleucus’ ambitions in Asia Minor. First there is the remarkable, and apparently co-ordinated group of dated coinages produced at the Phoenician mints of Gabala, Carne, Marathus, Simyra (Plate 6, nos. 8–11) and perhaps Aradus, all struck in the year 225/4. The first three of these mints, and perhaps Aradus, struck with the types of Alexander the Great (SC I. 927–931 = Price 3433, 3431–3432, 3453 and 3380); Simyra alone produced coin of Seleucid type (SC I. 931).30 As Duyrat (2002) has now shown, these specific coinages of 225/4 are to be set against a broader background of co-ordinated monetary production in smaller denominations (both silver and bronze) within the Aradian Peraea in the 220s BC.31 She hypothesises that a military build-up may explain both the tetradrachm issues (soldiers’ pay) and the smaller denominations (for a corresponding increase in the frequency of ‘day-to-day’ transactions). Following 29. Cf. Plb. 4.48.8 and Appian Syr. 66. A summary of the story as told by Porphyry of Tyre survives in the Armenian translation of Eusebius (FGrHist 260 F32.9 = Eusebius 1. 253 Schoene) and Jerome’s commentary on Daniel (FGrHist 260 F44). For the chronology see Schmitt (1964), pp. 2–3. Seleucus’ own campaign had probably been preceded by an unsuccessful one in the previous year, perhaps under the command of Andromachus, father of Achaeus. See Ma (1999), p. 55 with n. 8; Allen (1983), pp. 35–36. For the death of Seleucus in 222 see SC II.1, p. 682. 30. The evidence has now been collected in detail by Duyrat (2005) for Aradus and (2002) for the other mints. She has been unable ([2005], p. 40 with n. 66) to confirm the existence of the Aradian issue, which was originally recorded by Müller and was included by Price and in SC. Hoover (2006), p. 46 notes that it is possible that that these issues were instigated by Seleucus II who, as Babylonian sources now suggest, lived until December or January 225/4. 31. Hoover (2006) has subsequently argued for the attribution of additional Seleucid bronze coinage of the Peraea (SC I. 72–73) to this period. The Eras of Pamphylia 71 Seyrig, Duyrat suggests that the circumstance of this extraordinary production was the preparation for a campaign against the Ptolemaic possessions in southern Phoenicia but rightly expresses caution, given that there exists no evidence for this expedition having taken place.32 Price, on the other hand, in discussing the Alexander issues, has associated them with preparations for the more firmly attested campaign to Asia Minor in 223, connecting them with the simultaneous elevated period of production at the Antioch mint that Newell similarly connected with this campaign.33 In fact this would also seem to be the more natural reading of Jerome’s summary of events than that proposed by Seyrig. The passage reads as follows: Post fugam et mortem Seleuci Callinici duo filii eius Seleucus cognomento Ceraunus et Antiochus qui appellatus est Magnus, provocati spe victoriae et ultione parentis, exercitu congregato adversus Ptolemaeum Philopatorem aram corripiunt. Cumque Seleucus maior frater tertio anno imperii esset occisus in Phrygia per dolum Nicanoris et Apaturii…. (FGrHist 260 F44) The campaign on which Seleucus III died in Asia Minor seems here to follow logically from the decision to wage war on Ptolemy, and if the coinage of the Phoenician mints is to be connected with this passage, as Seyrig suggested, then it was perhaps intended to fund the naval element of Seleucus’ campaign. This is an attractive suggestion, particularly since at this point the alternative Seleucid naval base of Laodicea was still in Ptolemaic hands. If correct, it strongly suggests that Seleucus’ strategy consisted not just of a land campaign, but also of naval expedition, to which the Phoenician cities contributed, and for which they struck coin.34 If so, in this sense, Seleucus’ campaign was a forerunner of Antiochus III’s similar land and sea campaign of 197 BC. The second coinage to be connected with the campaign of 223 is of Seleucid types, and with control marks ordinarily characteristic of Antioch (SC I. 915, Plate 32. Duyrat (2002), pp. 54–6. Seyrig (1971), pp. 7–11, relying upon Porphyry as transmitted by Jerome, FGrHist 260 F44 (see below). 33. Price (1991), p. 432, following Newell (1941), p. 132 who points out a remarkably ample bronze coinage for Antioch. Note also SC I.1, p. 327 on the exceptional gold octadrachms of the mint of Antioch, of which the two extant specimens have Phrygian findspots, and Le Rider (1999), p. 103 on the increased production of silver at Antioch under Seleucus III compared with that of Seleucus II. 34. Houghton (1999), p. 181 has pointed out that earlier, in the 240s BC, the beginning of the production of Aradian Alexanders coincides with the cessation of production at the Seleucid mint of Laodicea (due the capture of the latter city by Ptolemy III). Cf. Duyrat (2005), pp. 231–232 on the Aradian issue: ‘Celles-ci durent le même nombre d’années que la troisième guerre de Syrie et pouvaient donc bien être des dépenses militaires’. See also Duyrat (2003), pp. 30–32 and 37–38: ‘on peut meme se demander si la réoverture de l’atelier aradien n’est pas le fruit d’une tractation entre la cité et le souverain’ (p. 31). 72 Andrew Meadows 6, no. 12). However the curious style of these pieces led Mørkholm to suggest that this coinage was struck by mint personnel transferred from Antioch, perhaps in a city in Phrygia. He has been followed in this hypothesis by the authors of SC.35 The third coinage that appears to be linked to Seleucus’ campaign consists of a small pair of issues associated by the appearance of a forepart of a running horse as a control mark (SC I. 916.1–2, Plate 6, no. 13). The two issues were attributed by Newell to Seleucia on the Calycadnus, on the basis of the existence of a first century autonomous bronze coinage of this city that also bears a horse forepart (as SNG Levante 690ff.). On the other hand, Houghton’s assembly of the evidence for the activity of this mint from the reign of Antiochus III to that of Seleucus VI has demonstrated that at other times the Seleucid mint at this city consistently used a reed-like plant as its symbol, and he has questioned the attribution of the horse-forepart issues to Seleucia.36 The authors of SC have cautiously preserved the attribution, but it seems most unlikely that the mint should have used two different mint symbols in adjacent reigns, and the civic bronzes adduced by Newell must be at least a century later in date than the coins in the name of Seleucus III. In fact another obvious candidate now exists for the mint, thanks to the work of Ashton and McIntyre to clarify the nature of a small series of Alexanders of a similar period, which also bear the mint mark of the forepart of a running horse. These coins, all struck from a single obverse die, but with a number of different reverses bear in addition to the horse a letter T and, since the first example was published, have been firmly attributed to Termessos in Pisidia (Price 2986, Plate 5, no. 6).37 Although originally believed to be marked with dates of a civic era, McIntyre has now demonstrated clearly that it is not, and we must fall back on hoard evidence for its chronology. Examples are recorded from the Gordion V and I hoards (for which dates of c. 217–210 and 210–205 have been suggested above), and from the Asia Minor 1963 hoard (IGCH 1426, deposited c. 215–210), which is to say that they predate the appearance of the neighboring Pamphylian Alexanders in the hoard record, and may have been struck not long after the demise of Seleucus III. Termessos must, therefore, be a strong candidate for the mint of the issues of Seleucus with horse forepart (SC I. 916), as well as for those later struck in the name of Antiochus III (SC I. 1016, Plate 6, no. 14).38 The reattribution of this Seleucid issue to Termessos, if correct, would contribute a significant piece of evidence for the route taken on Seleucus’ expedition 35. Mørkholm (1969), pp. 14–15; cf. SC I.1, p. 331 and Ma (1999), p. 55. 36. Houghton (1989) and CSE I., p. 42 n.1. 37. For a full collection of the evidence and discussion of earlier bibliography, see Ashton (2005) and McIntyre (2006). 38. See SC I.1, p. 386, suggesting a date in the last decade of the third century for the coins of Antiochus, on the basis of portrait style. The Eras of Pamphylia 73 in 223 BC. From Syria there were two obvious approaches to Phrygia. One ran overland through the Syrian Gates, across flat Cilicia then via the Cilician Gates through Lycaonia to Laodicea ad Lycum.39 The other route, both shorter and faster heading westwards, was to take ship as far as Pamphylia and then go inland N.W. either by the route that would later be taken by the road of Manlius Aquillius, also emerging in Phrygia at Laodicea, or via Termessos and Kibyra, once more arriving at Laodicea, the route taken (in reverse) by Cn. Manlius Vulso in 188 BC.40 This latter route, it seems, was also that taken by Seleucus. Two objections may be raised to this reconstruction. First, the region of Pamphylia is generally assumed to have been Ptolemaic at this period. Second, it may be objected that Seleucus could not have undertaken such a transhipment without the cooperation of at least one Pamphylian city. To the first, response is easy: we have no evidence for the status of Pamphylia in the first half of the 220s BC. 222 BC, or shortly thereafter, is often assumed as the date of the Ptolemaic loss, since that is the date of Ptolemy Euergetes’ death. But there is no compelling logic to this assumption. We may equally assume that Ptolemaic garrisons were withdrawn from the area earlier, or that Seleucus III’s expedition itself brought an end to Ptolemaic rule over the region. The latter, as we have seen, is one possible conclusion to be drawn from Porphyry’s account. Certainly it is clear that by 218 BC Achaeus could act in the area unopposed, and the cities of Perge, Aspendos and Side could all behave as autonomous entities.41 As has long been noted, Antiochus III’s paraplus of 197 BC involved no conquests in Pamphylia, suggesting that there were no Ptolemaic possessions left in the area by that time.42 To address the second objection, we must turn specifically to Perge. When, in 218 BC, Achaeus’ general Garsyeris was sent with an army to relieve the siege of Pednelissos, he established his base in the territory of Perge. It was from here that he sent out ambassadors to Pisidia and Pamphylia. Its centrality within the Pamphylian plain, status as a major port and closest proximity of all the Pamphylian cities to the route north to Phrygia, made Perge an obvious choice. There can be little doubt that it could be regarded as a friendly city. These same factors would have made it an obvious choice of entrepôt for Seleucus III.43 39. The ‘Lycaonian road:’ Mitchell (2008), 176 and 188–189 and Syme (1995), p. 20. 40. For the route of the Aquillian road see Mitchell (1994), pp. 132–133 with fig. 2. For Manlius Vulso, see Grainger (1995), pp. 34–35. 41. αὐτὸς (Garsyeris) δὲ μετὰ τῆς στρατιᾶς εἰς Πέργην κατάρας ἐντεῦθεν ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διαπρεσβείας πρός τε τοὺς ἄλλους τοὺς τὴν Πισιδικὴν κατοικοῦντας καὶ πρὸς τὴν Παμφυλίαν, ὑποδεικνύων μὲν τὸ τῶν Σελγέων βάρος, παρακαλῶν δὲ πάντας πρὸς τὴν Ἀχαιοῦ συμμαχίαν καὶ πρὸς τὴν βοήθειαν τοῖς Πεδνηλισσεῦσιν (Plb. 5.72.9–10). 42. Schmitt (1964), p. 279; Ma (1999), pp. 60–61, n. 31. 43. Note also that Perge was the only Pamphylian city to maintain a Seleucid garrison in 188 BC: Livy 38.37.9: inde ad Pergam ducit (Manlius Vulso), quae una in iis locis regio 74 Andrew Meadows But most important of all, there is now, on the reconstruction offered in Part I of this paper, clear numismatic evidence for a change in the status of Perge around 223 BC, in the form of the introduction of a civic era, and the initiation of an Alexander coinage. It is worth dwelling a moment on the existence of this era, since amid the various debates that have taken place regarding its chronology, the extraordinary fact of its existence at all has tended to go unremarked. Within Asia Minor, it is the first of its kind, an innovation in the administration of coinage. Perge had never used such a dating system before,44 nor had any other mint of posthumous Alexander coinage anywhere, with the single and obvious exception of the Phoenician mints. It is, in fact, a remarkable coincidence that the citizens of Perge chose to begin the production of such a dated Alexander coinage within a year of a similar initiative at a series of Phoenician mints, and that these Phoenician mints in the east and Perge in the west stand at either end of the sea route that Seleucus III seems to have taken in his expedition of 223 BC. It is unlikely that these two phenomena in Phoenicia and Pamphylia are unconnected, and we may perhaps begin to consider interpreting the Pergaean coinage in the same way as has been suggested for the Phoenician: a coinage of ‘civic’ appearance occasioned by Seleucid military needs, the result of a contract between king and city. (b) The Coinage of Sillyon As Boehringer has pointed out, the sole piece of hoard evidence for the dating of the era of Sillyon is a coin of year 11 in the Gordion I (1406) hoard (see above, Table 3). This may suggest that the era of Sillyon began around the same time as that of Perge.45 If this is the case—caution is required here given the poverty of the hoard evidence—all that has been suggested above regarding the circumstances of the issue of first Pergaean coinage may also be applied to that of Sillyon. We may add the further observation that for Sillyon, this short Alexander coinage is the first and only silver coinage of the city. Silver coinage was clearly not the norm at Sillyon, and we are justified in seeking exceptional circumstances or external pressure behind the issue of these Alexanders. Seleucid military activity in the region is a plausible explanation. (c) The recommencement of Pergaean coinage in 218 or 217 and the Campaign of Achaeus Following the expedition of Seleucus III and his death in the late summer of 223, we tenebatur praesidio. 44. The earlier silver coinage of Artemis Pergaia had used control letters running from B-I (with gaps), but these were all struck from a single obverse die, and so it seems unlikely that these letters could represent dates. Colin (1996), p. 37 (Series 1.1, Emissions 11–14). 45. Boehringer (1972), p. 61. Cf. Price (1991), pp. 347 and 366. The Eras of Pamphylia 75 hear nothing further in the literary sources of Pamphylia until the involvement of Achaeus and his general Garsyeris there in 218 BC. It is plain from Polybius’ account that the majority of Pamphylian cities threw in their lot with Achaeus, with the major exception of Side.46 Interestingly, on the chronology of the coinage suggested here, it is perhaps in 217 BC, after Garsyeris’ troops arrived in the region of Perge that the Pergaean Alexander coinage started up again (in year 7) after a two-year gap. (d) The beginning of Aspendian (and Phaselite) coinage in 213 Again, we hear nothing more about Pamphylia for a number of years. However, as we have already noted, Antiochus III’s campaign of 197 BC involved no activity in Pamphylia, and from this it has generally been assumed that Pamphylia was back in Seleucid hands before this time. The obvious circumstance for the return of the region to Seleucid control is the capture and execution of Achaeus at Sardis, probably in the autumn or winter of 214/3.47 Once more we note an interesting coincidence in the chronology of the coinage. It is from the following year that the city of Aspendos seems to have begun to count its era, and to have begun to strike its Alexander coinage. The autonomy that the existence of this era suggests at Aspendos is perhaps evidence for a generous settlement of the region by the victorious Antiochus. If it is correct to suggest that Phaselis began to count its era of autonomy from this same year, then this may also be a sign of a shifting balance of power in the region, with the growing strength of the Seleucid kingdom in Asia Minor, and a readjustment in the administration of Ptolemaic Lycia. Seleucid support may have actively pulled the Phaselites towards Pamphylia at this time, and the formation at around the same period of the Lycian League,48 which the Phaselites did not initially join, may have pushed them in the same direction. (e) The ‘Overrepresentation’ of Pergaean Coinage The phenomenon of overrepresentation of certain years of Pergaean Alexanders among records of surviving specimens has been discussed above. It remains to see what historical background we can suggest for this phenomenon. Colin records 73 obverse dies from 361 specimens for the whole of the coinage, an overall n:d ratio of 4.95:1.49 In just five of the recorded years the ratio rises above 9:1: years 18, 21, 26, 27 and 29 (Figure 6). These equate to 206/5, 203/2, 198/7–197/6 and 195/4. 46. Plb. 5.73.4: Σιδῆται δὲ τὰ μὲν στοχαζόμενοι τῆς πρὸς Ἀντίοχον εὐνοίας, τὸ δὲ πλεῖον διὰ τὸ πρὸς Ἀσπενδίους μῖσος, οὐ μετέσχον τῆς βοηθείας. 47. Ma (1999), pp. 60–61. 48. The earliest evidence for the existence of the league seems now to belong to 212/11 BC: see Domingo Gygax (2001), p. 24 n. 21. 49. Colin (1996), summary on p. 99. 76 15 Andrew Meadows 10 5 0 Figure 6. Surviving coins per die by year for Perge (Figures from Colin [1996]) The last of these years, year 29, has been discussed at length above, but should not be viewed in isolation: years 26–27 are similarly well represented, and the intervening year 28 is also represented above average. The obvious background to this cluster of years spanning the period 198/7– 195/4 is the invasion of Asia Minor by Antiochus the Great, which was certainly under way in 197 and 196 BC, but was conceivably preceded (as was the case with Seleucus III’s campaign) by military activity led by subordinates, in 198 BC.50 The abnormal number of coins which seem to have left Pamphylia and to have been hoarded elsewhere is to be explained, it seems, by the abnormally high level of transit of the Seleucid military through the region during these years. As we have seen above, a similar instance of overrepresentation of Aradian Alexanders occurred in years 196/5 and 195/4 BC. Just as the Aradian Peraea may be connected to Pamphylia in the context of Seleucus’ expedition of 223 (section [a] above), so it appears to be connected again in the mid 190s. Presumably it was once more the position of the two areas at either end of a heavily used naval route from Syria to Asia Minor that created this similarity. A similar case might be made for the other spike in the figure between years 18 and 21 (206/5–203/2). Again this exodus of Pamphylian coinage may have been due to heightened Seleucid military activity in S.W. Asia Minor around 203 BC.51 Finally, we might note another, smaller spike in years 9 and 10 (c. 215/4–214/3). This, perhaps, is to be connected with the campaign of Antiochus to reclaim Asia from Achaeus: Antiochus crossed the Taurus in the summer of 216.52 50. For discussion of the probable Seleucid military activity against the Attalid kingdom in 198 BC (Livy 32.8.9–10), see Schmitt (1964), pp. 269–270. 51. See Ma (1999), pp. 65–70 for a discussion of the evidence. 52. Plb. 5.107.4. Schmitt (1964), p. 264. 3/ 22 2 2/ 22 1 1 22 /0 0/ 1 21 9 9 21 /8 8/ 21 7 7/ 21 6 6/ 21 5 5/ 21 4 4/ 21 3 3/ 21 2 2/ 21 1 1/ 21 0 0/ 0 20 9 9 20 /8 8/ 20 7 7/ 20 6 6/ 20 5 5/ 20 4 4/ 20 3 3/ 20 2 2/ 20 1 20 1/0 0/ 1 19 99 9 19 /8 8/ 19 7 7/ 19 6 6/ 19 5 5/ 19 4 4/ 19 3 3/ 19 2 2/ 19 1 1/ 0 22 The Eras of Pamphylia (f ) The End of Pergaean Coinage, c. 191/0 BC 77 On the chronology proposed here, the Pergaean Alexander coinage ended in 191/0 BC. Why might this have been? And did the end of coinage also coincide with the end of the era? It has been suggested above that the coinage and the era of Perge began with the arrival of Seleucus III’s expedition in 223 BC. The era must be one of freedom, since otherwise the city would have used the Seleucid era. Therefore it follows that the city was free, but closely allied to the Seleucid kingdom (and, for a while, to Achaeus). It has also been suggested above that the Alexander coinage was connected with Seleucid military needs. It was perhaps produced for the king in the ‘civic’ mint. If these suggestions are correct, the cessation of coinage in 191/0 would imply the cessation of military need or the cessation of the supply of Seleucid silver to the civic mint. The cessation of the era, if it did cease, would imply a change in the status of the city. The broader historical circumstances of these years are well known. In 192 the focus of Antiochus III’s activity shifted from Asia and Thrace to mainland Greece, where he clashed with Rome. 191 BC saw a major defeat at Thermopylae and Antiochus’ withdrawal to Asia Minor. In late 190 occurred the further critical defeat at Magnesia, and the beginning of the discussion with Rome of the terms by which Antiochus would vacate western Asia Minor. By early in the year 190/89, therefore, Antiochus was preparing to withdraw his troops from west of the Taurus and to begin the payment of indemnities to Rome and Eumenes II. Pamphylia, moreover, was rapidly becoming the focus of dispute between the Seleucid king and the Attalid (Livy 38.39.17). These, surely, are the cirumstances in which was installed at Perge the garrison of which we hear in 188 BC (Livy 38.37.9). The battle of Magnesia had brought to an end the period of Seleucid sponsored freedom of Perge and, with or without the evidence of the coinage, this is when we might expect the era of freedom to have ended. On the chronology proposed for this era above, the Battle of Magnesia would have occurred, at the latest, early in year 34. No coinage of this year has been recorded. If this correlation is correct then it strongly suggests that the era began in 223/2 and ended in 191/0. (g) The Continuation of Aspendian Coinage after 188 BC. While the coinage of Perge and perhaps also the Pergaean era ceased c. 191/0, the coinage and era of Aspendos carried on for another six years until c. 185/4 BC. An obvious reason for this continuation would be a difference in status of Aspendos in these years compared with Perge. As Livy clearly tells us, Perge was the only city in Pamphylia with a Seleucid garrison in 188 BC.53 In fact, Aspendos had negotiated its own settlement with Rome in the previous year (Livy 38.15.6). Aspendian 53. Livy: 38.37.9 (above n. 43). 78 Andrew Meadows freedom had thus been preserved through the precarious period of 190–188 BC and continued after the Peace of Apamea. If the Aspendian Alexanders had in part been a proxy-Seleucid coinage before 189, then the city’s coinage thereafter must be regarded as true civic coinage. Andrew McIntyre alerts me to a curious feature of the Aspendian Alexander coinage that may indeed indicate a change in nature of the coinage at precisely this time: in year 24 (190/89 BC), the mint of Aspendos began to place symbols on its Alexanders in addition to a date. Year 24 has an an eagle (Price 2903, Plate 7, no. 15), year 25 a wreath (Price 2905), year 26 a spearhead (Price 2907), year 27 a cornucopia (Price 2908–2909), year 28 a sling (Price 2911), and year 29 a horse-forepart (Price 2912). The continuation of the Aspendian era may thus be explained in terms of the status of the city, but why did the coinage stop in 185/4 BC? No clear answer emerges from the history of Aspendos, since we know nothing of it in these years. It is tempting to question whether the cessation of the Aspendian Alexanders at this period has anything to do with the new monetary regime within the Pergamene kingdom. This is not the place to enter into the question of the date of the introduction of the cistophoric system. However, if, as has been argued by Bauslaugh and Ashton, this introduction is to be dated to some time before 181 BC,54 then conceivably it was the appearance of this new, lower-weight coinage that led to the demise of the outmoded, heavier Alexander coinage in Pamphylia. (h) The Alexanders of Phaselis The Alexander coinage of Phaselis, it has been noted above, behaved differently in circulation to the Alexanders of Perge and Aspendos. In the last decade of the third century, it does not appear in the hoards where the other mints are found (Table 3). It also lacks the pattern of ‘overrepresentation’ found for Perge and perhaps Aspendos (Figure 6 and cf. Figures 10–11). To these two anomalies we can add a third, the difference in pattern of cistophoric countermarking on the Phaselite Alexanders (Figure 7).55 If, as Bauslaugh suggests, the countermarks were applied to coin submitted by the Seleucid kingdom as indemnity to Eumenes, this evidence also seems to 54. Before 181 BC: Ashton (1994). 188–183 BC (cistophoric countermarking) and 183– 180 BC (cistophori): Bauslaugh (1990). 55. Numbers are based on the catalogue of Bauslaugh (1990) with the addition of the following specimens: Ma’aret (Mattingly [1993]) no. 336 (Perge yr. 22, Sardis); Gaziantep (Augé et al. [1997]) no. 114 (Aspendos yr. 26, Apamea); CNG 72 (2006) 370 (Perge yr. 23, Tralles); SNG Munich 664 (Aspendos yr. 11, Apamea); Heipp-Tamer (1993), no. 253 (Phaselis yr. 14, Pergamum); Unknown findspot 1991 (Metcalf [1994])), nos. 139 (Phaselis yr. 8, uncertain), 158 (Phaselis yr. 14, Pergamum), 190 (Aspendus yr. 3, Sardis), 224 (Aspendos yr. 19, Synnada), 264 (Aspendos yr. 23, Sardis). The Eras of Pamphylia 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Phaselis Perge Aspendos 79 Figure 7. Cistophoric countermarks on Pamphylian Alexanders suggest that the issues of Phaselis did not behave in the same ‘Seleucid’ fashion as those of neighbouring Perge and Aspendos. The Phaselite issues, on the chronology proposed above, continued in production slightly longer than those of Aspendos. However, we may perhaps seek a similar explanation for their termination c. 181/0 BC: the rise of the cistophoric standard to the north, and the plinthophoric standard in Lycia, now under Rhodian control. Phaselis’ subsequent issues of silver coinage seem largely to have been accommodated to the plinthophoric standard.56 (i) The Coinage of Side Detailed discussion of the coinage of Side falls outside the scope of this article. However, the history of this city is closely tied to that of Perge and Aspendos during the period under consideration, and it is important not to allow the difference in appearance of the contemporary Sidetan coinage to compartmentalize our interpretation of it. Side did, in fact, produce a posthumous Alexander coinage of the late third century, although it is known from just a single specimen and bears no date (Plate 7, no. 16).57 From fabric and style, which is, as Seyrig noted, more closely akin to Ionian than Pamphylian issues, there can be little doubt that Price’s date of c. 210 56. For the ‘pseudo-League’ issues of the city see Troxell (1982), pp. 65–68. The epichoric type coinage of tetradrachms and didrachms seems to have been struck to the same standard: Heipp-Tamer (1993) Series 10, emissions 2 and 3. As Heipp-Tamer notes, the two denominations can also be regarded and 16 and 8 obol coins on the Attic standard. 57. ANS 1944.100.33405 (Price 2975), first published by Seyrig (1963), p. 57. 80 Andrew Meadows BC for the piece is approximately correct.58 It seems, then, that Side may have made its brief foray into Alexander coinage at around the same time as the Aspendians were beginning theirs. Alone of the Pamphylian cities, as we have seen, Side remained loyal to the Seleucid king during the period of Achaeus’ secession.59 Perhaps the Sidetan Alexanders are linked to Antiochus’ reconquest of Pamphylia from Achaeus. In the absence of more specimens and hoard evidence for chronology, only speculation is possible. Of greater size, and much better documented in the hoard record, is the coinage of Side generally regarded as being of autonomous type (Plate 7, no. 17). On the obverse this bears the helmeted head of Athena exactly as she had appeared on the gold coinage of Alexander the Great. On the reverse, again borrowed (though more freely) from Alexander’s gold, was the standing figure of Nike, holding a wreath. The coins bear no ethnic. The mint is identified rather, in a manner reminiscent of Seleucid royal issues in western Asia Minor, by the appearance of a symbol drawn from the iconography of the civic mint, in this case a pomegranate in left field. The hoard evidence is clear: their production began within the last five years of the third century BC.60 It has been suggested above, in the cases of both Perge and Aspendos, that the beginning of their Alexander coinage may be linked to Seleucid military activity that involved the region of Pamphylia, first in c. 223 BC, second in 213 BC, and that both coinages may, to a degree, be regarded as Seleucid proxy coinages, struck perhaps with Seleucid silver in a civic mint within a free city. Could the same be true of the Sidetan coinage? The chronology fits well with the renewed interest of Antiochus III in Asia Minor, following his return from the east in 204 BC. In 203 BC Antiochus himself was in Asia Minor; his presence was felt in Ionia and Caria.61 Moreover, it was at precisely this time, as inscriptions from Asia Minor attest, that Antiochus took Alexander’s title of Megas (‘the Great’).62 Could the autonomous coinage of Side be, in origin, another Seleucid proxy coinage? The chronology, iconography and lack of ethnic all support the suggestion that this was a Seleucid inspired coinage, and one further piece of evidence may be relevant. Two gold issues of Antiochus are known with the types of Alexander, but in the name of Antiochus (SC I. 1014–1015, Plate 7, nos. 18–19). As one of their controls they bear the letters FA, which are almost certainly to be read as first two letters 58. The control letters AΦ that appear on the ANS coin also occur on an issue of autonomous type, which may suggest that the two coinages are chronologically adjacent. See Price (1991), p. 363. 59. Plb. 5.73.4 (above n. 46). 60. For recent tabulation of the hoard evidence see Meadows (2006), pp. 155–156. 61. Ma (1999), p. 66. 62. Ma (1999), pp. 272–276 summarizes the evidence and the previous debate. The Eras of Pamphylia 81 of the Aspendos’ name. Seyrig was inclined to date these coins to the campaign of Antiochus in 203 BC, although his arguments for doing so no longer stand up to scrutiny.63 Nonetheless, the choice of types at a mint very close to Side is a coincidence, and it is tempting to connect both coinages, Aspendian gold and Sidetan silver, with Antiochus’ newly adopted persona, and his arrival in the region in 203 BC.64 III. Conclusion I have suggested (Part I) on the basis of the hoard evidence that the era of Perge began in either 224/3 or, more probably, 223/2 BC. By inference from historical circumstances for the likely start date (Part IIa) and end date (IIf) of the era of freedom of Perge, I have further noted the likelihood that this era and the coinage are coterminous and run from 223/2 to 191/0. It has been observed by others (above n. 6) on the basis of hoard and die evidence that the era of Aspendos started ten years later than that of Perge. I have suggested on historical grounds that this era is likely to have begun in 213/2. Aspendos’ coinage, though not necessarily its era of freedom, ended therefore in 185/4. For Phaselis, on the basis of the hoard evidence, I have suggested a similar start date for the era and coinage to that of Aspendos, and have associated this beginning with a reorganization of the Ptolemaic province of Lycia and the Seleucid espousal of the freedom of Pamphylia at this period. For the Alexanders of Perge, Aspendos and Sillyon (though not for those of Phaselis which exhibit a different circulation pattern), as well as for the Alexanders and autonomous coinage of Side, I have suggested that we should perhaps view these coinages not as straightforward civic issues, but rather as ‘proxy-Seleucid’ issues. These were perhaps produced partly with Seleucid silver at a civically controlled mint. Their nature perhaps accounts for the appearance of these coinages, and only these coinages with cistophoric countermarks. In original function, I have suggested a similarity between the Pamphylian Alexanders and the Alexanders of the Aradian Peraea and posited a connection between the issue of these coinages both in c. 223/2 and c. 197–195 BC during periods of heightened Seleucid military activity in Asia Minor. The new chronology that I have proposed for the Pamphylian eras, combined with Le Rider’s suggested lower dating for the Seleucid mint of Antioch under Antiochus III, has allowed the reconsideration of the deposit dates of a number 63. Seyrig (1963), pp. 52–56. On the fragility of Seyrig’s argument, based on the suggestion that the pieces were struck, along with a gold Philip, at the time of the Syro-Macedonian pact with Philip V, see SC I., p. 386. 64. It is perhaps to these circumstances too that we may attribute Antiochus’ brief issue at Termessos (SC I. 1016), if indeed it belongs there (above n. 38) 82 Andrew Meadows of hoards. Perhaps the most significant among these is the case of the Mektepini hoard, where the raising of the date of burial from c. 190 to c. 195 BC, will have an impact on the chronologies of a significant number of other coinages. References Allen, R. E. 1983. The Attalid kingdom: a constitutional history. Oxford. Ashton, R. H. J. 1994. The Attalid poll tax. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 104: 57–60. ———. 2005. The coinage of Oinoanda. Numismatic Chronicle 165: 65–84. Augé, Ch., A. Davesne, R. Ergeç. 1997. Le début des tétradrachmes d’Athènes du “nouveau style:” un trésor trouvé près de Gaziantep en 1994 45. Anatolia Antiqua 5: 45–82 Bauslaugh, R. 1979. The posthumous Alexander coinage of Chios. American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 24: 1–45. ———. 1990. Cistophoric countermarks and the monetary system of Eumenes II. Numismatic Chronicle 150: 39–65. Boehringer, C. 1972. Zur Chronologie mittelhellenistischer Münzserien 220–160 v. Chr. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Antike Münzen und Geschnittene Steine Bd. V. Berlin. ———.1999. Beobachtungen und Überlegungen zu den Ären der Pamphylischen Alexandreier. In Travaux de Numismatique Grecque Offerts a Georges Le Rider, M. Amandry and S. Hurter, eds., 65–75. London. Colin, H. J. 1996. Die Münzen von Perge in Pamphylien aus hellenistischer Zeit. Tyll Kroha. Domingo Gygax, M. 2001. Untersuchungen zu den Lykischen Gemeinwesen in Klassischer und Hellenistischer Zeit. Bonn. Duyrat, F. 2002. Les ateliers monétaires de Phénicie de Nord à l’époque hellénistique. In Les Monnayages Syriens: quel apport pour l’histoire du Proche-Orient hellénistique et romain? Actes de la table ronde de Damas, 10–12 novembre 1999, C. Augé et al., eds., 21–69. Beirut. ———. 2003. La politique monétaire d’Arados: les Alexandres. In La Syrie Hellénistique, M. Sartre, ed., Topoi Suppl. 4: 25–52. ———. 2005. Arados hellénistique: étude historique et monétaire. Beirut. Grainger, J. D. 1995. The campaign of Cn. Manlius Vulso in Asia Minor. Anatolian Studies 45: 23–42. Heipp-Tamer, C. 1993. Die Münzprägung der Lykischen Stadt Phaselis in Griechischer Zeit. Saarbrücken. Hoover, O. 2006. A second look at the Aradian bronze coinage attributed to Seleucus I, SC 72–73. American Journal of Numismatics 18: 43–50. The Eras of Pamphylia 83 Houghton, A. 1989. The royal Seleucid mint of Seleuceia on the Calycadnus. In Kraay-Mørkholm essays. Numismatic studies in memory of C.M. Kraay and O. Mørkholm, G. Le Rider et al., eds., 77–98. Louvain. ———. 1999. The early Seleucid mint of Laodicea ad Mare (c. 300–246 BC). In Travaux de Numismatique Grecque offerts a Georges Le Rider, M. Amandry and S. Hurter, eds. 169–184. London. Kinns, P. 1999. The attic weight drachms of Ephesus: a preliminary study in the light of recent hoards. Numismatic Chronicle 159: 47–97. Kleiner, F. S. 1971. The Alexander Tetradrachms of Pergamum and Rhodes. American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 17: 95–125. Le Rider, G. 1972. Les tetradrachmes pamphyliens de la fin du IIIe siècle et du début du IIe siècle avant notre ère. Revue Numismatique 14: 253–259. ———. 1998. Un Trésor hellénistique de monnaies d’argent trouvé en Syrie en 1971 (CH II, 81). Syria 75: 89–96. ———. 1999. Antioche de Syrie sous les Séleucides: corpus des monnaies d’or et d’argent. I, de Séleucos I à Antiochos V, c. 300–161. Paris. Lorber and Houghton. 2009. Antiochus III Hoard. American Journal of Numismatics 21: 89–103. Ma, J. T. 1999. Antiochus III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor. Oxford. McIntyre, A. P. 2006. The Alexander tetradrachms of Termessos Major. Numismatic Chronicle 166: 27–30. ———. 2007. The eras of the Alexanders of Aspendos and Perge. Numismatic Chronicle 167: 93–98. Mattingly, H. B. 1993. The Ma’Aret En-Nu’man hoard, 1980. In Essays in honour of Robert Carson and Kenneth Jenkins, A. Burnett and R. Bland, eds., 69–86. London. Meadows, A. R. 2006. Side, Amyntas and the Pamphylian plain. In Agoranomia: Studies in Money and Exchange presented to Jack Kroll, P. van Alfen ed., 151– 175. New York. ———, and C.C. Lorber. Forthcoming. The commerce 2002 (‘Achaeus’) Hoard. Coin Hoards 10. S. Mitchell. 1994. Three Cities in Pisidia. Anatolian Studies 44: 129–48 ———. 2008. Geography, politics and imperialism in the Asian customs law. In The Customs Law of Asia, M. Cottier et al. eds., 165–201. Oxford. Mørkholm, O. 1969. Some Seleucid coins from the mint of Sardis. Nordisk Numismatisk Årsskrift 1969: 5–20 ———. 1978. The era of the Pamphylian Alexanders. American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 23: 69–75. Newell, E. T. 1941. The coinage of the western Seleucid mints from Seleucus I to Antiochus III. New York. 84 Andrew Meadows Özgen, E., and A. Davesne. 1994. Le trésor de Oylum Höyüğü. In Trésors et Circulation Monétaire en Anatolie antique, M. Amandry and G. le Rider, eds., 45–49. Paris. Price, M. J. 1991. The coinage in the name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus. A British Museum Catalogue. London/Zurich. Schmitt, H. H. 1964. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Antiochos des Grossen und seiner Zeit. Historia Einzelschriften 6. Wiesbaden. Seyrig, H. 1963. Monnaies hellénistiques. I–X. Revue Numismatique 5: 7–64. ———. 1971. Monnaies hellénistiques, XVIII–XXI. Revue Numismatique 13: 8–25. ———. 1973. Trésors du Levant anciens et nouveaux. Paris. Syme, R. 1995. Anatolica. Studies in Strabo. Oxford. Troxell, H. 1982. The coinage of the Lycian league. American Numismatic Society Numismatic Notes and Monographs 162. New York. Villaronga, L. 1984. Tresor de la segona guerra púnica de la Província de “Cuenca.” Numismatica e Antichità Classiche 13: 127–137. Key to Plates 1. Silver tetradrachm of Phaselis (Yr. 11 ): ANS 1951.35.37 (Newell, from the Tell Kotchek hoard, IGCH 1773) 2. Silver tetradrachm of Aspendus (Yr. 17 ): ANS 1944.100.32296 (Newell, from the Ain Tab hoard, IGCH 1542) 3. Silver tetradrachm of Perge (Yr. 20 ): ANS 1951.90.30 (from the Propontis hoard, IGCH 888) 4. Silver tetradrachm of Sillyon (Yr. 11 ): ANS 1964.93.2 (A. Kreisberg gift) 5. Silver tetradrachm of ‘Magydos’ (Yr. 14): ANS 1951.90.28 (from the Propontis hoard, IGCH 888) 6. Silver tetradrachm of Termessos: ANS 1965.56.2 7. Silver tetradrachm of uncertain mint (Yr. 2): ANS 1952.44.17 8. Silver tetradrachm of Gabala (Yr. 35): Utrecht 9. Silver tetradrachm of Carne (Yr. 35): Paris 10. Silver drachm of Marathus (Yr. 35): Paris (Seyrig) 11. Silver tetradrachm of Simyra (Yr. 35), reign of Seleucus III: CSE I. 687 12. Silver tetradrachm of Seleucus III, uncertain mint in Phrygia? (from the Asia Minor, 1963 hoard, IGCH 1411) 13. Silver tetradrachm of Seleucus III, mint of Termessos: Paris (De Luynes 3290) 14. Silver tetradrachm of Antiochus III, mint of Termessos: Paris (Valton 487) 15. Silver tetradrachm of Aspendus (Yr. 24 ): ANS 1944.100.32326 (Newell, from the Ain Tab hoard, IGCH 1542) The Eras of Pamphylia 85 16. Silver tetradrachm of Side: ANS 1944.100.33405 (Newell) 17. Silver tetradrachm of Side: ANS 1944.100.50909 (Newell) 18. Gold stater of Antiochus III, mint of Aspendos: Paris (De Luynes 3270) 19. Gold half-stater of Antiochus III, mint of Aspendos: Paris 86 Andrew Meadows Appendix Numbers of Pamphylian Alexanders recorded in Second-century bc hoards 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 Kosseir 2000 Cuenca Pisidia Ayaz In Mektepini Sardis Pot Syria Figure 8. Coins of Perge present in hoards buried during the probable period of striking 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 Urfa Gaziantep 1994 Khan Cheikoun Ain Tab Ma'aret Propontis Aleppo Tell Kotchek Figure 9. Coins of Perge present in hoards buried after the probable period of striking The Eras of Pamphylia 25 87 20 Kosseir 15 2000 Cuenca Pisidia 10 Ayaz In Mektepini Sardis Pot 5 Syria 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Figure 10. Coins of Aspendos present in hoards buried during the probable period of striking 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Urfa Gaziantep 1994 Khan Cheikoun Ain Tab Ma'aret Propontis Aleppo Tell Kotchek Figure 11. Coins of Aspendos present in hoards buried after the probable period of striking 88 Andrew Meadows 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 Kosseir Cuenca 2000 Ayaz In Pisidia Sardis Pot Mektepini Syria Figure 12. Coins of Phaselis present in hoards buried during the probable period of striking 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 Urfa Gaziantep 1994 Khan Cheikoun Ain Tab Ma'aret Propontis Aleppo Tell Kotchek Figure 13. Coins of Phaselis present in hoards buried after the probable period of striking Plate 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The Eras of Pamphylia Plate 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 The Eras of Pamphylia Plate 7 15 16 17 18 19 The Eras of Pamphylia