The Hellenistic Silver Coinage of Clazomenae more

Ancient History, Numismatics and Epigraphy in the Mediterranean World Studies in memory of Clemens E. Bosch and Sabahat Atlan and in honour of Nezahat Baydur Edited by Oğuz Tekin in collaboration with Aliye Erol (Offprint/Ayrıbasım) P U B L I C A T I O N S Contents Foreword ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ IX Clemens E. Bosch ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... XI Sabahat Atlan ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... XV Nezahat Baydur ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... XIX Sencan Altınoluk Büyükmenderes (Maiandros) Havzası Irmak Tanrıları ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Michel Amandry Nouvelles découvertes de monnaies provinciales en Gaule ...................................................................................................................................................... 21 Melih Arslan Orhan Altıntuğlu Koleksiyonu’ndaki Sinope Drahmi Definesi 2008 ........................................................................................................................... 27 Murat Arslan Pausanias’ın Byzantion Hâkimiyeti ve ‘Komplo Teorisi’ ................................................................................................................................................................. 51 Ferit Baz Überlegungen zu zwei Münzen aus Hierapolis in Kappadokien und dem dortigen Ma-Kult ............................................... 65 Pınar Bursa Eskiçağ’da Pamphylia Bölgesinde Balık ve Balıkçılık ............................................................................................................................................................................ 71 Kevin Butcher The Euphrates Frontier and the Civic Era of Zeugma Olivier Casabonne De la Cappadoce à la Cilicie: deux notes anatoliennes Thomas Corsten Zwei Inschriften zur frühen Geschichte von Kibyra ....................................................................................................................................................................... 81 85 91 ..................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................ Ahmet Vedat Çelgin Termessos Teritoryumu, Rudolf Heberdey ve Bir Toponim Önerisi Hakkında Değerlendirmeler (Heberdey’in “Klaros”u Gerçekten Yer Adı mı?) .............................................................................................................................. 99 Zeynep Çizmeli Öğün Fare, Veba ve Apollon. Bir Kutsal Alanın Kuruluş Söylence İkonografisi ......................................................................................................... 113 Fabrice Delrieux Un monnayage rare d’Asie mineure occidentale: Les petits bronzes d’Harpagion en Mysie ............................................... 123 Filiz Dönmez-Öztürk König Adaios und seine zwei Münzen mit dem motiv Kypsela oder Kotyle ................................................................................................ 131 IV Werner Eck Rekrutierung für das Römische Heer in den provinzen Kleinasiens: Das Zeugnis der Militärdiplome .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 137 Gürkan Ergin Orbis Romanum and the Isaurians .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 143 Aliye Erol Burdur Arkeoloji Müzesi’ndeki Bronz Amyntas Sikkeleri ....................................................................................................................................................... 147 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert Ein Kistophor von Halikarnassos .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 157 Turan Gökyıldırım Geç Roma Solidus Definesi (2001) .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 161 Stefan Karwiese Die Ephesische Münzprägung unter Macrinus ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 179 Vedat Keleş Parth Sikkelerinde Görülen Kültürel Özellikler Koray Konuk Erbbina in Caria? ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 185 193 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Hüseyin Köker Yeni Bir Aspendos Bronz Sikkesi ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 201 Orkan Köyağasıoğlu Zeus Kesbelios Kült Alanı ve Selge Sikkelerine Yansıması ...................................................................................................................................................... 205 Dinçer Savaş Lenger A Proposito del Grifone sulle Monete d’Asia Minore ..................................................................................................................................................................... 215 Christopher S. Lightfoot An Important Group of Late 7th-Century Coins from Amorium ................................................................................................................................. 223 Hasan Malay and Marijana Ricl Two New Inscriptions Recording Constructions in Dioshieron or Hypaipa ............................................................................................... 227 Rodolfo Martini Monetatizone Bronzea Orientale di Augustus tra Emissioni Imperiali, Coniazioni Provinciali e Produzioni Locali: i “Sesterzi” della Lycia ed i “Dupondi” (?) Della Serie AVGV / STVS (Asia Minor) Alla Luce di Nuove Analisi Metallografiche .................................................................. 231 Andrew R. Meadows The Hellenistic Silver Coinage of Clazomenae ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 247 Sam Moorhead Early Byzantine Copper Coins Found in Britain – A Review in Light of New Finds Recorded with the Portable Antiquities Scheme ................................................................................................................................................................................... 263 Johannes Nollé Die Taurische Artemis im Tauros: Zeugnisse und Überlegungen zum Artemiskult von Termessos in Pisidien ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 275 Sedat Öztopbaş İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri Koleksiyonundan Stephanephoroi Define Parçası ...................................................................................... 291 V Hüseyin Sami Öztürk MÖ III. Yüzyıldan MÖ I. Yüzyılın Başlarına Kadar Doğu Akdeniz ve Küçük Asya’nın Güney Kıyılarında Korsanlık/Haydutluk ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 299 Selene Psoma Agathokles Son of Lysimachos in Thrace and Asia Minor: The Numismatic Evidence Mustafa H. Sayar Marcus Annius Verus ........................................................... 309 321 325 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Marguerite Spoerri-Butcher Magnésie du Méandre et Dionysos: À propos d’une addition au RPC VII 1 ............................................................................................... Sencer Şahin Patara Deniz Feneri: Eleştiriye Eleştiri ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 331 Ahmet Tolga Tek 1971-2002 Yılları Arasında Arykanda Kazılarında Bulunan Pamphylia Bölgesine Ait Sikkeler ...................................... 345 Oğuz Tekin A Hellenistic Hoard of Lysimachean Bronze Coins with Tyche and Lion Type ...................................................................................... 357 Novella Vismara Coni Rilavorati e Produzione Monetale: L’Organizzazione delle Officine Monetali della Lycia tra il VI ed il IV Secolo a.C.: Una Possibile Documentazione Materiale ........................................................................ 365 Oya Yağız Thrak Kralı Kotys’e (MÖ 178-168) Ait Ender Görülen İki Sikke ................................................................................................................................... 375 Ancient History, Numismatics and Epigraphy in the Mediterranean World. Studies in memory of Clemens E. Bosch and Sabahat Atlan and in honour of Nezahat Baydur, Istanbul, 2009, pp. 247-262 THE HELLENISTIC SILVER COINAGE OF CLAZOMENAE Andrew R. MEADOWS * The Ionian city of Clazomenae had been early to adopt coinage in the form of electrum issues of the late 6th century BC, distinguished by the design of the forepart of a flying boar that would become the city’s main type throughout the 5th century BC.1 During the early 4th century BC the city’s coinage developed into one of artistically the finest to be struck in the region. On the obverse of the Attic weight silver and the gold was a facing head of Apollo that would serve as the model for the later, prolific coinages of the Hecatomnid rulers of Caria. On the reverse there appeared a swan flying or standing with its wings open.2 However, by the middle of the 4th century this fine silver coinage had come to an end, and the history of the mint of Clazomenae thereafter is one of fitful activity on a much less ambitious scale. Around 285-280 BC a small issue in the name and with the types of Lysimachus was produced at the city, either by the king himself, or perhaps by the city shortly after his death. Perhaps at around the same time a small issue of posthumous Philip’s was struck. Thereafter, like a number of cities in the region during the 3rd century, Clazomenae produced posthumous Alexander coinage, identifiable through the reappearance of the flying boar as a mint mark.3 A small series seems to have been struck in the first half of the 3rd century BC, an example of which appeared in the Meydancıkkale hoard (CH. 7. 80) of c. 240 BC (Price, Alexander, 1742). A subsequent phase of production occurred perhaps shortly before 225 BC, from which specimens occurred in the Corinth 1938 (IGCH 187) and ‘Seleucus III’ hoards (see SC II.2, pp. 142-50; CH 10, forthcoming).4 This was followed by another small group apparently struck before c. 205. A more substantial group of issues (Price, Alexander, 1744-8) turns up in the Mektepini and Ayaz-In hoards (IGCH 1410, 1413), both of which date to the 190s BC, suggesting that the coinage belongs to the turbulent period around the turn of the century.5 Until comparatively recently the history of silver coinage at Clazomenae seemed to peter out at this point, and with this rather unexceptional and sporadic series of posthumous Alexanders. However, in 1987 this picture was changed by the appearance of a new type of the city in a hoard from Syria. In fact, the type had been known since at least the 1970s, and * Andrew R. Meadows, The American Numismatic Society 75 Varick St, 11th Floor New York, NY 1001. E-mail: meadows@numismatics.org 1 Dengate 1967: period IA (electrum) and IB-G and N (silver). I am very grateful to Philip Kinns and Cathy Lorber for placing unpublished material at my disposal and for commenting on earlier drafts of this paper. I must also thank Peter van Alfen for reading an earlier draft, Christian Habicht for bibliographic assistance, Michel Amandry for information about the Paris collection, and Karsten Dahmen for photographs of coins in Berlin. 2 Dengate 1967: period II: gold octobols and silver tetradrachms, didrachms, drachms, hemidrachms and diobols. A substantial addition to the corpus 3 For the structure and chronology of these royal coinages see the Appendix to this paper. was provided by the Urla 1964 hoard (IGCH 1210) published by the late Silvia Hurter (1966). For criticism of Dengate’s study and a summary of these issues and their sequence, struck over ‘perhaps less than a decade’ see Kinns 1989: 185. 4 Conceivably this coinage is connected to the war between Attalus I and Antiochus Hierax, which saw the former drive the latter out of northern 5 The status of Clazomenae at this period is unknown. However, it is not improbable that, like their neighbours at Smyrna, the Clazomenians clung Ionia during the late 230s or early 220s, or its aftermath. The fate of Clazomenae is not recorded. Perhaps, like Smyrna, the city became a free ally of the Attalids. For the historical background see Ma 1999: 45-6. to a precarious freedom in the years leading up to Antiochus’ campaign of 197 BC. For Smyrna see Livy 33.38.3; Walbank 1957-79 ii: 614. 248 Andrew R. Meadows the publication of a specimen by Henri Seyrig, but the ethnic was missing from his specimen, and he was unable to attribute it to its mint. The existence of the new specimen with a legible ethnic was noted in print both by Philip Kinns and by Martin Price in his catalogue of the coinage of Alexander the Great, and a photograph of the coin appeared on the plates of CH 8, but without any further comment.6 The recent generous donation to the American Numismatic Society of another specimen of this rare type prompts a gathering of the evidence for this intriguing coinage. Four specimens are known to me, all struck from the same obverse die: Obv. Head of Zeus laureate r. Rev. Amazon standing l. holding axe in l. and spear in r.; in inner r. field, ; ΔΙΟΣ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ ΚΛΑZΟ. 1. A1/P1 a. 16.83 0 In commerce. From the Tartous 1987 hoard (CH 8. 471, pl. 64, 1). Cast in the British Museum. c. 16.73 30 New York, ANS 2008.30.1 (Gift of R. Miller). Freeman & Sear FPL 10 (2005), 48. Gemini 2 (2006) 115. Berk 149 (2006) 158 and 152 (2006) 136. From the ‘Demetrius I’ hoard.9 The sequence of issues is clear from the emergence of a prominent crack on the obverse extending from the front of Zeus’s neck on coins 2b and c. In conception and execution this coinage shares characteristics with a number of contemporary civic coinages. The weight standard, which is clearly reduced Attic, and the broadly spread flan both serve to situate the coinage among the similar Attic weight coinages of mid 2nd-century BC Asia Minor and Thrace. The designs too find parallels in these coinages. On the obverse is the portrait head of a deity. On the reverse is found the statuesque representation of a standing figure, together with the name of a deity in the genitive and an ethnic. The overall programme invites close comparison with civic issues such as those of Thasos, Maroneia, Odessus, Alexandria Troas, the Confederation of Athena Ilias, Pergamum and Parion,10 where types and legends have obvious parallels, but also with some other coinages with similarly statuesque reverse types, but without such explicit legends, like those of Mytilene, Cos and Samos as well as the wreathed issues of nearby Myrina, Aegae and Magnesia.11 Clearly the coinage of Clazomenae is part of a broader pattern, but within this it displays an oddity. The obverse depiction is clearly that of Zeus, but the reverse has caused confusion. In other instances where coinages were struck apparently in the name of a god, Obv. As last. Rev. Amazon standing l. holding axe in l. and spear in r.; between spear and leg, palm branch; ΔΙΟΣ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ ΚΛΑZΟ. 2. A1/P2 a. 16.46 b. 16.70 0 0 Paris 1973.1.162. H. Seyrig coll. Seyrig (1971), pp. 24-25, fig. 1 (‘acquise il y a bien des années dans la Syrie du nord’).7 Athens, Alpha Bank coll. inv. no. 5127. Tsangari (2007), p. 248, no. 166. Spink 106 (1994) 68. From the ‘Gaziantep’ hoard (CH. 9. 527).8 6 Kinns 1989: 185, n. 15; Price, Alexander: p. 246. The hoard in question, from Tartous (ancient Antaradus) is CH 8.471. The coin is illustrated on 7 The records of the Bibliothèque Nationale indicate that the coin was purchased by Seyrig in Beirut. I am grateful to Michel Amandry for this 8 The listing provided in CH 9 has turned out to be only part of the story of this interesting hoard, which seems to bear a close relation to a coin pl. 64, 1. information. 10 Thasos: ΗΡΑΚΛΕΟΥΣ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ ΘΑΣΙΩΝ (Mørkholm 1991: pl. xl, 606). Maroneia: ΔΙΟΝΥΣΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ ΜΑΡΩΝΙΤΩΝ (ibid.: pl. 9 This hoard, of unknown find spot, will be published by C. Lorber in CH 10. hoard purportedly found near Gaziantep, portions of which were also seen in Beirut and on the US market. The true find spot is likely to be in southern Turkey or northern Syria. A more detailed publication will be provided by the author and A. Houghton in CH 10. 11 Mytilene: Herm of Dionysus (Mørkholm 1991: pl. xlv, 650). Cos: Asclepius (BMC Caria, pl. xlv, 6). Samos: Hera (CH 4. 55, fig. 7, 1). Myrina: xl, 607). Odessus: ΘΕΟΥ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ ΟΔΗ (SNG BM Black Sea 288). Alexandria: ΑΠΟΛΛΩΝΟΣ ΣΜΙΘΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝ (ibid.: pl. xlv, 656). Ilium: ΑΘΗΝΑΣ ΙΛΙΑΔΟΣ (ibid.: pl. xlv, 652). Pergamum: AΘΗΝΑΣ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ (ibid.: pl. xli, 615). Parium: ΑΠΟΛΛΩΝΟΣ ΑΚΤΑΙΟΥ ΠΑΡΙΑΝΩΝ (Meadows 1998: pl. 15, 10-13). Apollo (HN2: 556, fig. 289). Aegae: Zeus (BMC Troas etc.: pl. xviii, 4). Magnesia: Apollo (HN2: 582, fig. 296). The Hellenistic Silver Coinage of Clazomenae 249 the deity’s name in the genitive accompanies a depiction of that deity (see n. 10 for instances). Always that deity is depicted in statuesque form, suggesting that the artist perhaps drew his inspiration from a statue or perhaps the cult-statue of the deity in the city in question. On our Clazomenian issues the combination of figure and legend is atypical. A standing figure that is clearly female is accompanied by a legend identifying the coin as an issue ‘of Zeus Soter Epiphanes’. Legend and type to do not match. The depiction of Zeus appears instead on the obverse in the form of a standardized portrait of the god. Why might this be the case, and of whom is the depiction on the reverse? In recent auction catalogues, as well as in the publication of the Alpha Bank specimen, the figure has been described as Artemis.12 But she bears none of the usual attributes of the goddess (bow, quiver or hunting dogs, for example). Instead the figure is depicted wearing a short chiton, holding a spear and double-headed axe and probably wearing a sword at her waist. In short she is heavily armed, and Seyrig’s original identification of the figure as an Amazon is surely correct.13 In fact, this identification receives confirmation from the later iconographic treatment of Amazons in the coinage of the region in the imperial period, on which clearly bare-breasted Amazon figures are similarly depicted with spears and double-headed axes,14 or just with axes.15 Although new within the iconography of Clazomenian coin types, the choice of an Amazon is not as surprising as it might seem. The city of Clazomenae is located in the centre of an area that was widely believed to have once been the realm of the Amazons. According to Strabo, citing Ephoros, a citizen of nearby Cyme, τοὺς δ᾽ Ἀμαζῶνας μεταξὺ Μυσίας καὶ Καρίας καὶ Λυδίας, καθάπερ Ἔφορος νομίζει, πλησίον Κύμης τῆς πατρίδος αὐτοῦ· καὶ τοῦτο μὲν ἔχεταί τινος λόγου τυχὸν ἴσως: εἴη γὰρ ἂν λέγων τὴν ὑπὸ τῶν Αἰολέων καὶ Ἰώνων οἰκισθεῖσαν ὕστερον, πρότερον δ᾽ ὑπὸ Ἀμαζόνων, [ὧν] καὶ ἐπωνύμους πόλεις τινὰς εἶναί φασι· καὶ γὰρ Ἔφεσον καὶ Σμύρναν καὶ Κύμην καὶ Μύριναν (12.21 C550). Strabo (Ephoros) lists four cities that supposedly took their names from Amazons – Ephesus, Smyrna, Cyme and Myrina – but the literary and numismatic sources suggest Amazonian connections for a number of others. Diodorus claims that the Amazon Myrina founded Cyme, Pitane and Gryneia, naming them after three of her most important commanders.16 Miletus, Phocaea, Magnesia ad Sipylum, Aegae, and Pitane all depict eponymous Amazons on coinage of the imperial period17 (as, indeed, do Ephesus, Smyrna, Kyme and Myrina).18 There were, in addition, traditions placing the Amazons in the region of Phygela in Ionia and Gryneia in Aeolis, as well as suggesting that Anaia opposite Samos was named for the tomb of an Amazon of that name. In similar vein, there was also a tradition of an area of Samos being named Panaima after the slaughter of Amazons there by Dionysus.19 Where a rationalization for the connection with the Amazons 12 See e.g. Tsangari 2007: 248, and the references to the New York coin (above, 2c) in the Gemini and Berk sales. 13 Seyrig 1971: so too Kinns (above, n. 6) and the Spink cataloguer of specimen 2b. 14 At nearby Smyrna: see Imhoof-Blumer 1908: 8, nos. 1-2, pl. i. 22-3 (cf. RPC 2. 1013; Klose 1987: pl. 5, R4-18 [Domitian]), no. 3, pl. i. 24 (Klose 15 For the 2nd-3rd cent. AD issues at Aegae, Cyme, Myrina and Smyrna see Imhoof-Blumer 1908: 3, nos. 1, 1, 1 and 1, pl. i, 7, 8, 6 and 9. Cf. Klose 16 D.S. 3.55.6 with Klügmann 1870: 543 for the probable emendation from Priene to Gryneia in the text. 1987: pl. 8 R14 [Hadrian?]). 1987: 162-9, no. vii, pl. 9 for Smyrna. Pitane: Imhoof-Blumer 1908: 5, pl. i, 12. 17 Miletus: Franke-Nollé 1997: 130, nos. 1284-1284A (homonoia issue with Smyrna). Phocaea: Imhoof-Blumer 1908: 7 and pl. I, 21. Magnesia ad 18 Ephesus: Imhoof-Blumer 1908: 7 no. 3 and pl. I, 20; ibid.: nos. 1-2 and pl. I. 19, and Franke-Nollé 1997: 26, 29-30, 34, nos. 145-8, 182-5, 191 Sipylum: ibid.: 13, nos. 1-3 and pl. II. 5-6. Aegae: ibid.: 3, nos 1-2 and pl. I, 8; 6-7; Franke-Nollé 1997: 3, no. 22 (homonoia issue with Myrina). Pitane: Imhoof-Blumer 1908: 5 and pl. I, 12; cf. p. 3 on Waddington 988. and 243 (homonoia issues with Smyrna). Smyrna: Franke-Nollé 1997: 105-226 passim; Imhoof-Blumer 1908: 8-10; cf. nn. 14-15 above. Kyme: Imhoof-Blumer 1908: 3, nos. 1-2 and pl. I, 6; Franke-Nollé 1997: 102, nos. 1011-4 (homonoia issues with Myrina). Myrina: Imhoof-Blumer 1908: 3, nos. 1-2 and pl. I, 7; Franke-Nollé 1997: 3, no. 22 (homonoia issue with Aegae). 19 Phygela: Strabo 12.3.22 C551. Anaia: Steph. Byz., s.v. Samos: Plut. Quaest. Gr. 56. For a survey of the literary traditions see Klügmann 1870. 250 Andrew R. Meadows is provided it is generally in terms of a foundation myth, or the supposed burial site of one or more of the mythical women. The identification of the reverse figure as an Amazon, also invites comparison between the Clazomenian tetradrachm and the contemporary coinages of two of the city’s neighbours. To the north, at Cyme in Aeolis, the wreathed tetradrachm coinage has on the obverse a head that is generally identified as that of the eponymous Amazon Cyme.20 In Ionia, the head depicted in a turreted crown on the obverse of the wreathed issues of Smyrna is likely also to be the Amazon Smyrna, legendary founder of the city, who appears similarly crenellated on the imperial issues of the city.21 Significant numbers of Aeolian and Ionian cities claimed connection with an Amazonian past, and some of them were doing so on coinage of the second century. Our new issue suggests that we may add Clazomenae to their number. Nonetheless, we must still ask why an Amazon should have entered Clazomenian iconography for the first time at this period. To this point we shall return. But first we must address another oddity: the appearance of an Amazon alongside a legend explicitly identifying the coin as an issue of Zeus Soter Epiphanes. The appearance of Zeus in both the legend and the obverse type is, in fact, also unusual for the coinage of Clazomenae, and leads us to consideration of the contemporary bronze coinage of the city. Dengate identified as the earliest Hellenistic bronze of the city three denominations which are linked to each other by style and magistrate’s names:22 IV. A. 20-22mm. 6.88g (27) Obv. Head of Zeus laureate r. Rev. Swan standing l. with wings raised; above, ΚΛΑZΟΜΕΝΙΩΝ; below, magistrate’s name. 514. ΤΗΙΑΔΗΣ (cf. BMC 89) 20 Oakley 1982: 3. 515. ΕΡΜΗΣΙΛΟΧΟΣ (cf. BMC 87; SNG Cop. 101) 516-7. ΣΙΜΩΝ (cf. BMC 88; SNG Cop. 102) IV. B. 16-18mm. 4.85g (47) Obv. Forepart of winged boar r.; below, magistrate’s name Rev. Quadripartite incuse square, within which, ΚΛΑZΟΜΕΝΙΩΝ. 521-2. ΤΗΙΑΔΗΣ (cf. BMC 98; SNG Cop. 97) 523-5. ΕΡΜΗΣΙΛΟΧΟΣ (cf. BMC 97) 526-8. ΣΙΜΩΝ (cf. SNG Cop. 96) 518. ΑΠΟΛΛΩΝΙΟΣ (cf. BMC 95-6; SNG Cop. 95) 519. ΠΑΡΜΕΝΙΣΚΟΣ (Jacquier FPL 12 [1990], 149) 520. ΑΡΤΕΜΩΝ IV. F and H. 8-12mm. 1.32g (11) Obv. Forepart of winged boar r. Rev. Quadripartite incuse square, with which, ΚΛΑ. 533 535-45 (BMC 99, SNG Cop. 92-4) From the execution of the Zeus head on the obverse of the largest denomination (Plate I, 3-5) there can be little doubt that this group of bronzes was struck contemporaneously with our silver tetradrachm. The letter forms employed on the bronze also bear a marked resemblance to those on the new tetradrachm, again suggesting close contemporaneity.23 It is tempting which appears on to propose that the monogram reverse die P1 of the silver coinage is to be identified with the ΠΑΡΜΕΝΙΣΚΟΣ of Dengate’s bronze issue 519.24 Dengate noted that in general the types of the Hellenistic bronze coinage of Clazomenae reprise the types of the earlier 5th- and 4th-century coinages, with two noticeable exceptions. The first is the disappearance of Apollo, whose facing head had been a distinctive feature of 4th-century issues. The second is the appearance on the Hellenistic bronze of the head of Zeus. ‘The representation of Zeus on the coins is 21 See Milne 1914: 274 for speculation on the wreathed issues. For the later imperial depictions, above nn. 14 and 15, Imhoof-Blumer 1908: 3 and 22 Dengate 1967: 101-108 (catalogue), 232 ff. (discussion). In fact, there is earlier bronze coinage that can be linked by control marks to the 8-9 and Klose 1987: 27-8. Alexander silver issues of the third century. See Kinns (forthcoming), and the Appendix to this paper. 23 Compare plate I, 8 and 9. Note in particular the form of the zeta ( ), which on later bronze issues appears as Z (plate I, 7). 24 For a similar use of full names on bronze and monograms on silver, compare the practice of the contemporary mint of Smyrna: Milne 1914: 276-7. The Hellenistic Silver Coinage of Clazomenae 251 the only evidence for his worship at Clazomenae’ (p. 232). With, as we shall see, an important qualification, this observation remains true, and we may justifiably question why Zeus supplanted Apollo in this way. The answer is perhaps suggested by our new silver issue. It is now clear that the Zeus of the obverse is to be identified specifically as Zeus Soter. While there is no other evidence for the worship of Zeus Soter at Clazomenae itself, epigraphic evidence does exist for the worship of this deity from within Clazomenae’s wider territory. The stone in question has in fact been known since the 19th century, but was for long assumed to have been found on the island of Makri, opposite Myonnesos, and was published as such in IGRR iv, 1582. In 1960, Louis Robert pointed out that it almost certainly came from the island of Drymoussa.25 It records the dedication of imperial period26 of an altar of Zeus Soter: IErythrae 519 Διὶ Σωτῆρι Κίνναμος ἀπελεύθερος Μάρκου Καικιλίου Κανδίδου καὶ Μάρκου Λαρτιδίου Κέλερος τὸν βωμόν learn from Polybius, the island had not been part of the territory of Clazomenae in the years running up to the peace of Apamea, since by the terms of that settlement the island of Drymoussa was granted as a dorea to the Clazomeneans.28 We might suggest therefore, that the cult of Zeus Soter was specific to the island of Drymoussa, and that the appearance of Zeus Soter on Clazomenean coinage became appropriate after the (re)acquistion of the island in 188 BC. But we should also note that the Zeus Soter of the coins, unlike that of the later dedication, is described as ‘Epiphanes’, or ‘manifest’, suggesting that there had been some form of epiphany of the god. It may well be that this manifestation was in fact connected with the deed of Soteria that is also commemorated in Zeus’ title. Given that the god had made no earlier appearance on Clazomenian coinage and, indeed, that the production of silver coinage of any sort at the city had been sporadic since the 4th century BC, it is possible that the occasion of Zeus’ epiphany and the production of this remarkable coinage are not far removed from each other in time, and may even be connected. The precise occasion of this epiphany cannot, of course, be deduced from the coinage itself. However, we can date the coinage with some degree of precision, thanks to the remarkably full set of provenances we possess for three of the four known specimens. The three hoards from which these coins derive may all be dated relatively closely from their Seleucid contents. The Tartous hoard (CH 8. 471), containing the issue with monogram (1a) as well a coin of the joint reign of Antiochus VIII and Cleopatra Thea, probably dates to the late 120s BC. The Gaziantep hoard (CH 9. 527 and 10, forthcoming) can be dated by its combination of Seleucid issues of SE 169 and Athenian New Style coins of issue 22 to 143 BC. The earliest of the three 4 8 This inscription is now classified as an inscription of Clazomenae on the basis of its findspot, since Drymoussa is thought to have been within the territory of Clazomenae. This inference is made for the Classical period on the basis of the notice in Thucydides that the people of Clazomenae evacuated some of their possessions to the island in the winter of 412/1 BC, where they were plundered by the Persian fleet.27 Yet this cannot always have been the case. In 188 BC, as we 25 Robert 1960: 243-4. The stone had in fact been copied in 1874 by G. Hirshfeld with the provenance ‘von Drymusa’, but this note was not transmit26 Possibly of Hadrianic date: IGRR n.1 ad loc; cf. Robert 1960: 243 n. 3. ted by subsequent editors. 27 Thuc. 8. 31. 3: αἱ δὲ ἄλλαι νῆες κατῆραν ἐς τὰς ἐπικειμένας ταῖς Κλαζομεναῖς νήσους, Μαραθοῦσσαν καὶ Πήλην καὶ Δρυμοῦσσαν. 28 Plb. 21.46.5: Κλαζομενίοις δὲ καὶ δωρεὰν προσέθηκαν τὴν Δρυμοῦσσαν καλουμένην νῆσον. Cf. Livy 38.39.9: Clazomeniis super immu- καὶ ὅσα ὑπεξέκειτο αὐτόθι τῶν Κλαζομενίων, ἡμέρας ἐμμείναντες διὰ τοὺς ἀνέμους ὀκτὼ τὰ μὲν διήρπασαν καὶ ἀνήλωσαν, τὰ δὲ ἐσβαλόμενοι ἀπέπλευσαν ἐς Φώκαιαν καὶ Κύμην. Cf. IACP: 1059. nitatem et Drymussam insulam dono dederunt. 252 Andrew R. Meadows hoards, however, is the ‘Demetrius I’ hoard (CH 10, forthcoming), which contains Seleucid issues down to year SE 162 (151/0 BC) and Athens to the same year. We thus arrive at a firm terminus ante quem for the production of the Clazomenian tetradrachms of c. 151/0 BC. If the hypothesis advanced above about the connection between the restoration of Drymoussa and the introduction of the Zeus type to coinage of Clazomenae has any merit, then a terminus post quem becomes c. 188 BC. But we need not rely on this. Both fabric and overall style of the spread flan silver of Clazomenae independently point to a date after 188 BC. Furthermore, the condition of coin 2c from a hoard deposited c. 151/0 is relatively fresh, and may suggest a tighter range of c. 170-150 BC. Where the silver goes, the apparently accompanying bronze must follow. Within the period c. 188 (or 170) to 150 BC, we cannot construct a connected account of Clazomenian history, and thus cannot identify with any certainty a clear occasion for coinage from historical sources. However, a brief examination of the history of Clazomenae and of its earlier coinage may offer some suggestions as to the circumstances of issue of the second century coinage. The civic centre of Clazomenae was located on an island until, we are told, Alexander the Great ordered a causeway to be built between it and the mainland.29 Nonetheless, the history of the city was one of constant interaction with the nearby mainland.30 In peaceful times, a major concern will have been the adequate supply of food to an island that was not large enough to support its population. Clazomenae was rich in olives but poor in grain, and was forced at times to be fiscally creative to ensure a supply of grain to the city, as a story recounted in the ps. Aristotelian Oeconomica relates.31 In the 380s, we find the city anxious to preserve the ability of its grain ships to enter unimpeded the harbours of nearby Smyrna and perhaps Chios and Phocaea.32 In moments of crisis the Clazomenians would depart the island. In 412/1, during their secession from the Athenian Empire, the Clazomenians moved to a walled site called Polichne on the mainland.33 When they had regained control of the city, the Athenians restored the citizens to the island, but deported the ring-leaders of the revolt to another location on the mainland called Daphnous. By 408/7 the Athenians seem to have been trying to normalize relations between Clazomenae and the exiles in Daphnous.34 The dispatch of settlers from the island to the mainland was also used as a ruse by Clazomenae to claim an area of peraea at the mouth of the Hermus at some point after 383 BC.35 This dual nature of the city, island and peraea, would at times be the cause of crisis too, either through internal conflicts within the polis of Clazomenae,36 or through conflicts with other poleis. At some point 29 Pausanias 7.3.9. For the topography of Clazomenae in general see Cook 1958. 30 For a partial overview of Clazomenian relations with its peraia see Carusi 2003: 237-244. 31 Oeconomica ii.16. 1348b: Κλαζομένιοι δ᾽ ἐν σιτοδείᾳ ὄντες χρημάτων τε ἀποροῦντες ἐψηφίσαντο, παρ᾽ οἷς ἔλαιόν ἐστι τῶν ἰδιωτῶν, 32 GHI ii. 18 (Tod 114), ll. 17-20: the Athenians decree, τῶμ πό]| [λεω]ν ὅθεν σιταγωγο νται Κλαζομέ[νιοι, Φωκάας καὶ Χί]| [ο καὶ Σ]μύρνης, ̑ δανεῖσαι τῇ πόλει ἐπὶ τόκῳ: γίνεται δὲ πολὺς οὗτος ὁ καρπὸς ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ αὐτῶν. δανεισάντων δὲ μισθωσάμενοι πλοῖα ἀπέστειλαν εἰς τὰ ἐμπόρια, ὅθεν αὐτοῖς ἧκε σῖτος, ὑποθήκης γενομένης τῆς τοῦ ἐλαίου τιμῆς. ̑ εἶναι ἔνσπονδον αὐ[τοῖς ἐς τὸς λιμένα]|[ς ἐσπλε]ν. As Rhodes and Osborne note, the sources of Clazomenian grain seem to be close at hand, not in the great markets of the Black Sea or Egypt. οἰκοῦσι πρὸς ἀναχώρησιν. 33 Thuc. 8.14.3: διαβάντες τε εὐθὺς οἱ Κλαζομένιοι ἐς τὴν ἤπειρον τὴν Πολίχναν ἐτείχιζον, εἴ τι δέοι, σφίσιν αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῆς νησῖδος ἐν ᾗ 34 On the Athenians actions of 412/1 see Thuc. 8.23.6; on the subsequent relations with the exiles, GHI i. 88. 35 D.S. 15.18.3. The ‘polis’ is unnamed in Diodorus and presumably was synoecised with the settlement at Leucae that it was founded to capture. 36 As Aristotle noted, στασιάζουσι δὲ ἐνίοτε αἱ πόλεις καὶ διὰ τοὺς τόπους, ὅταν μὴ εὐφυῶς ἔχῃ ἡ χώρα πρὸς τὸ μίαν εἶναι πόλιν, οἷον ἐν The resulting city was the producer, no doubt, of the bronze coinage in the name of Leucae (see further below). Κλαζομεναῖς οἱ ἐπὶ Χύτρῳ πρὸς τοὺς ἐν νήσῳ (Pol. 5. 1303b, 7-10.). It was indeed stasis between the inhabitants of the island and mainland Chyton or Chytron, that gave rise to the Athenian intervention of 387 resolved in GHI ii. 18 (cf. above n. 32). For possible numismatic evidence of stasis at this period see Kinns 1989: 186. The Hellenistic Silver Coinage of Clazomenae 253 after the late 380s BC, Clazomenae found itself at war with nearby Cyme over the recently founded city of Leucae, located between Smyrna and Phocaea on a promontory (formerly an island) near the mouth of the Hermos, to the NE of Clazomenae, and the SW of Cyme.37 This, conflict, it has been persuasively suggested by Philip Kinns, has left its mark in the numismatic record. A surprisingly substantial bronze coinage of Leucae exists, which bears a remarkable typological and stylistic similarity to the 4th century gold and silver coinage of Clazomenae with Apollo/ swan types.38 The existence of both the precious metal coinage of Clazomenae and the bronze coinage of Leucae may be connected, Kinns suggests, with another story recounted in the Ps. Aristotelian Oeconomica: ὀφείλοντές στρατιώταις μισθὸν εἴκοσι τάλαντα καὶ οὐ <δοῦναι> δυνάμενοι τόκον ἔφερον τοῖς ἡγεμόσι τέτταρα τάλαντα τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ: ἐπεὶ δὲ τοῦ μὲν ἀρχαίου ἀπέκοπτον οὐθέν, ἀεὶ δὲ μάτην ἐδαπάνων, νόμισμα ἔκοψαν σιδηροῦν εἰς ἀργυρίου λόγον εἴκοσι ταλάντων, εἶτα διδόντες τοῖς εὐπορωτάτοις ἐν τῇ πόλει κατὰ λόγον ἑκάστῳ ἀργύριον παρ᾽ ἐκείνων ἔλαβον ἴσον. οἵ τε οὖν ἰδιῶται εἶχον εἰς τὰς καθ᾽ ἡμέραν χρείας ἀναλίσκειν καὶ ἡ πόλις τοῦ χρέους ἀπηλλάγη. δεύτερον δὲ ἐκ τῶν προσόδων ἐκείνοις τόν τε τόκον κατέφερον <καὶ> ἀεὶ διαιροῦντες ἑκάστῳ πρὸς μέρος διεδίδοσαν, τοὺς δὲ σιδηροῦς ἐκομίζοντο. (ii. 16. 1348b) On Kinns’ reconstruction, the mercenaries of this story will have been employed by Clazomenae in the context of the war with Cyme. The 4th century silver and gold of Clazomenae, struck briefly and never to be repeated, may have been produced to finance the payment of these mercenaries.39 Remarkably, we possess epigraphic evidence for another war fought by Clazomenae, apparently over a similar area on the mainland in the first half of the 2nd century BC. It is tempting to see if this might be connected to the issue of the Zeus Soter Epiphanes coins. The two relevant documents, inscribed on the same stone, were published in 1979 by Peter Herrman.40 The original find spot of the stele, which is now in Berlin, is unknown but may have been Clazomenae, as Herrmann suggested (p. 249). The two texts, both incomplete, record (Side A) a judgement, in Doric dialect, issued by a panel of six Cnidian judges on a dispute between the cities of Clazomenae and Temnos and (Side B) a joint agreement, in koine, concerning the arbitration of future disputes between the two cities. The Cnidians were clearly faced with considerable hostility between the two cities and spend some time in the judgement insisting that their primary goal was to restore good relations between two previously friendly cities. All had not been well, for the startling fact emerges from this text that the two cities had been at war with each other. For most of the accusations leveled by the two sides against each other, the Cnidians established a general amnesty.41 One accusation that was specifically discussed, but set aside due to lack of evidence, concerned supposed Clazomenian trespass on a sanctuary and graves: κρίνομες δὲ καὶ ὑπὲρ τ[οῦ ἐγ]|[κλήμ]a τος ο ἐνεκάλεσαν Τημνῖται Κλαζομενίοις ὑπὲρ τ[οῦ τε]|[μ]έ[ν]o υς καὶ τᾶν ταφᾶν μὴ ἐνόχους Κλαζομενίους τοῖς ἐγ[κεκλη]| [μ]°nοις … (ll. 22-25). 37 D.S. 15.18.1-2. The foundation of Leucae belongs to the late 380s, the war may have taken place in the 370s or later. On the location of the city see 38 Clazomenae: above n. 2. Leucae: Kinns 1989: 184. Strabo 14.1.38 C 646, Pliny NH 5.31.119, D.S. 15.18.1. The Barrington Atlas places the city on an island, however Diodorus and Pliny explicitly state that the city was on the mainland. 39 Kinns 1989: 185-6. One might, in addition, suggest that the bronze coinage of Leucae was struck by a city resulting from the the synoecism of the 40 P. Herrmann 1979: 249-271 with pls. 68-70 (SEG 29.1130); cf. Bulletin 1980: 438; SEG 36. 1040 (suggested restorations of F. Piejko, MDAI[I] 41 LL. 20-22: διὸ καὶ κρίνομες διαλελῦσθαι τὰς πόλεις περὶ τῶν κατὰ τ[ὸμ] | [πόλεμ]ον ἐγκλημάτων καὶ μὴ ἐξῆ{η}μιν ἔτι ἐγκαλέσαι, ἀλλὰ unnamed polis of Clazomenian settlers and the city of Leucae. 36 1986: 95-7). Ager 1996: no. 71. ὑ[πάρ]|[χειν ἀ]μναστίαν εἰς τόν ἀεὶ χρόνον. 254 Andrew R. Meadows The conclusion drawn by Herrmann from this dispute was that ‘Klazomenai ähnlich wie einige der grossen der Küste vorgelagerten Inseln eine Art Peraia auf der gegenübeliegenden Seite des Golfes von Smyrna gewonnen hatte, wofür sich das Gebiet um die Hermosmündung anbot. Eben dieses Übergreifen kann aber Reibungen mit Temnos und schliesslich sogar den hier erwähnten Krieg herbeigeführt haben.’ (p. 262). If this is correct, then the parallel with the earlier conflict between Clazomenae and Cyme over Leucae is striking: Leucae and Temnos are both situated, within a few miles of each other, on the Hermus valley, and undoubtedly shared borders. Indeed it was perhaps territory in the neighbourhood of Leucae that brought the cities of Clazomenae and Temnos into conflict.42 If this reconstruction is correct, then it is tempting also to compare the function of the isolated 4th century precious metal coinage, which may be linked to the war with Cyme, with that of the isolated 2nd century coinage. The precise date of the second century inscriptions remains uncertain, but Herrmann was of the opinion, based on letterforms, that they belonged within the first half of the 2nd century BC.43 A key element in this dating is the form of zeta, which appears on the Cnidian arbitration (side A) in the later form (Z), but on the koine version (side B, presumably the Clazomenian agreement) with the older form , just as it does on the Zeus Soter Epiphanes tetradrachms. It is thus entirely conceivable that the war between Temnos and Clazomenae that preceded these inscriptions was contemporary with the Zeus/Amazon silver, and that this coinage was struck to fund the military expenses incurred by Clazomenae in its struggle with Temnos. In such circumstances, the choice of Zeus Soter Epiphanes as a coin type may well have had a polemical function within the land-claim being made by Clazomenae. So too, perhaps, did the reference to an Amazonian past.44 If our coins and the War between Clazomenae and Temnos are connected, then the former may serve to date the latter, probably to the period c. 170-151 BC. Within this bracket, it is worth considering the coinage of the other city involved in the conflict. It has long been something of a mystery why the city of Temnos should have produced such a seemingly ample coinage with the types of Alexander the Great, and why this should have been produced as late as it apparently was. Recent hoard discoveries have served to clarify the chronology of this mysterious series, and Cathy Lorber has now pointed out that a significant portion of the Temnian Alexanders may be assigned to the period c. 162-151 BC, somewhat later than had previously been suggested.45 We may conclude, therefore by suggesting that these Temnian issues, along with those of Clazomenae were struck during a period of unrest and territorial squabbling between the two city-states during the uncertain generation after the Roman settlement of Asia Minor. 42 It is intriguing that part of the dispute between the two cities involved τάφοι: τhe modern Turkish name of Leucae is Üç Tepeler. 43 Herrmann 1979: 250 with n. 33. 44 Could the τάφοι in dispute have been similar to the famous grave of Myrina on the plain before Troy (Iliad 2. 811) or that from which Anaia took 45 C. Lorber (forthcoming). I am grateful for permission to cite her article in advance of publication. The issues belonging between the deposit of the its name (above n. 19)? Ma’Aret en-Nu’man hoard of c. 162 BC (CH 6.37, 7.98, 8.433; 9. 511) and the Demetrius I hoard of c. 151 BC are Price 1677, 1680, 1681, 1676 and 1678. Price 1690 is later still, but had been struck by the deposit of the Gaziantep hoard of 143 BC (see above. n. 8). For earlier dates cf. Price 1991 and Le Rider 1974, who suggests (p. 260) that the existence of the Alexanders of Temnos after 188 BC suggest that the city did not form part of the kingdom of Eumenes II. The Hellenistic Silver Coinage of Clazomenae 255 Appendix: Coinage in the name of Lysimachus, Philip and Alexander 1. Lysimachi Only a single issue of Lysimachi has so far been attributed to the mint of Clazomenae. Two specimens are known, both struck from the same obverse and reverse dies: a. 17.02 b. 0 <ILF> Forepart of winged boar; . ANS 1944.100.77591 (Newell <TH> coll.). Thompson (1968), pl. 22 B. As last. Diyarbakir 1955 26 2. Philips A gold coin in the name of Philip II in the British Museum bears as one of its control marks the forepart of a winged boar and seems likely to be the product of the Clazomenian mint: Obv. Head of Apollo laureate r. Rev. Biga r.; between front legs of horses, forepart of winged boar; in exergue, spearhead; ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ. The specimen from the Diyarbakir hoard, which was buried within the last decade of the 3rd century, is heavily worn. The Newell specimen, which is considerably fresher, has no recorded provenance. However, as Thompson has noted, the obverse die from which these coins were struck was also used on an issue attributed to Mytilene.46 This issue of Mytilene was present in the ‘Armenak’ hoard, which seems to have been deposited in the 270s. Thompson was of the opinion that both the Mytilenean and Clazomenian issues were early posthumous, rather than lifetime issues of Lysimachus. The sharing of a die might be more readily explicable if these coins were, in fact, the product of a connected royal system of coin production, rather than of independent civic mints. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that the breakdown of the Lysimachan system led to a movement of mint workers and their dies, and that the issue of Clazomenae represents a hastily struck posthumous issue for civic use in the late 280s. On this basis, a range of c. 285-280 seems appropriate for this coinage. It has been suggested,47 on the basis of the control mark, that this Lysimachan issue is parallel to one in the name of Alexander (Price 1747). Chronologically this seems impossible (see below), and the control marks, while not dissimilar, are not identical. This specimen, which is in very fresh condition, derives from the Maeander Valley 1895 hoard (IGCH 1294), buried at some point during the first half of the 3rd century BC.48 3. Alexanders The appearance of new material and hoard evidence for the Alexander coinage of Clazomenae suggests that Price’s arrangement of these issues may need to be modified. The first group of issues, Price 1740-2, is stylistically homogenous and linked by the use of an obverse die and the appearance of the monogram beneath the throne on all three issues. A date prior to c. 240 BC is guaranteed by the appearance of a specimen of Price 1742 in the Meydancıkkale hoard (CH 7.80) and another in the Plovdiv 1907 hoard (IGCH 869).49 Price’s date of c. 280-275 for this is an inference from the behaviour of ‘other cities in the area’. He does not elaborate on the identity of these cities, but Philip Kinns points out to me the highly unusual configuration of control marks on Price 1740 and 1742, which, he observes, finds a parallel in an issue of Erythrae of c. 290 BC.50 Price’s date of c. 280-275 may therefore be revised upwards, and this small group of issues, struck from just a single obverse die, perhaps belongs 46 ANS 1944.100.45494 (Newell). Thompson 1968: pl. 22 A with discussion at p. 176; ead. 1986: 84, no. 870, pl. 22. 47 By the cataloguer of Leu 22 1979: 78. 48 On the date see Price 1969: 10. Price notes the similarity in condition of some specimens to to others in the Larnaca hoard of c. 300 BC (IGCH 49 The provenance of the latter is not noted in Price. For publication of the coin see now Dimitrov 1999: Pl. 9, 6. 50 On an unpublished tetradrachm linked to Price 1895. He notes also the similarity of configuration of the controls of Price 1741 to that of Price 1472). The posthumous Philip issue of Pella in the Maeander Valley hoard (no. 8), was struck c. 323-315 BC and has seen some wear. See Le Rider 1977: 282. 1895/A (Erythrae) and 2329-30 (Chios). 256 Andrew R. Meadows very shortly after the Lysimachus issues of c. 285-280, and in the environs of the gold Philip (1 and 2 above). The remaining issues of Clazomenae are divided by Price into three groups, each assigned a date range on the basis of hoard evidence. The first (Price 1743) was known to Price from a single issue, present in the Corinth 1938 hoard (IGCH 187), to which a date within the Social War of 220-217 BC has in the past been assigned.51 On this basis Price dated the issue to c. 225 BC. A number of new coins have subsequently come to light which may be attributed to this group, three of them deriving from the ‘Seleucus III’ hoard, which was apparently deposited c. 225 BC. Of these three, two are examples of Price 1743, struck from the same obverse. The third is also struck from the same obverse die, but has as its controls the forepart of a winged boar above a coiled serpent. The date of this group must, on the basis of the Demetrius III hoard, be slightly earlier than the c. 225 suggested by Price: c. 240-225 is more likely to be correct. Two further new specimens also combine the Clazomenian winged boar badge with symbols: a dolphin and facing radiate head. These two coins share an obverse die. Stylistically, and by the similarity of badge + symbol control system, these issues also seem to be related to Price 1746, with the symbol cantharus. The appearance of this coin in the Dniye hoard (IGCH 1538) led Price to associate it with a later group of issues (Price 1744-8), which he dated c. 200 BC, but it perhaps belongs better with the two new issues.52 The date of this newly identified group is provided in part by the inclusion of one specimen in the Achaeus hoard, which seems likely to have been buried c. 205200 BC.53 Thus a date between c. 225-205 BC is suggested for this group. Price’s third and fourth groups are perhaps to be regarded as one group. The system of control marks has changed from a symbol to a monogram, and changes again to the name spelled out in full. Issues from his third group were included in the Mektepini and Ayaz-In hoards (IGCH 1410 and 1413), both of which were deposited in the 190s. The single issue assigned to his fourth group (Price 1749), was dated by Price to c. 180 BC, on the basis of the inclusion of the only known specimen in the Latakia 1759 hoard (IGCH 1544). Stylistically, however, the obverse die of this piece is extremely close to that of the dies used in his third group, for which a date c. 200 BC or earlier is required by the presence of specimens in hoards of the 190s BC. It seems unlikely that a gap of 20 years or more separates them. To the specimens and issues recorded by Price can be added three new coins. One of these, ascribed the reference 1747A by Hersh (1998) in his additions to Price’s corpus, has the monogram , another has a monogram ( ) within a wreath in left field. The third bears a name in full, ΑΠΟΛΛΩΝΙΔΗΣ, and was struck from the same obverse die as a coin in the name of ΒΙΩΝ from the Ayaz-In hoard (no. 16, Price 1748). 51 For recent discussion, favouring a date of c. 220 BC, see Tsangari 2007: 212-4. 52 This is suggested not only by obverse style and the use of a symbol rather than monogram or name as a control, but also by the contemporary 53 For a summary of this hoard see the entry in SC II.2. Full publication will follow in CH 10. I am grateful to Cathy Lorber for information about it. bronze coinage. As Kinns (forthcoming) has pointed out, the series of Clazomenian bronze with profile head of Athena/recumbent ram, dated by Dengate (his group IIIC) to the period 370/60 seems in fact to run parallel with the Alexander coinage of the third century. Amongst the controls occurring on this coinage are a cantharus (Dengate nos. 199-203; see e.g. SNG Fitz. 4395) and a snake (Dengate nos. 204-210; see e.g. SNG Cop. 62). The Hellenistic Silver Coinage of Clazomenae 257 The four groups as reconstructed above may be described thus: c. 280-275 BC 1740 1741 174254 <LF> Winged boar-forepart l., Nike l. <TH> <LF> Winged boar-forepart l., <TH> . . . Sofia (Plovdiv, IGCH 869) Kinns ex Triton 12 (2009) 198 BM ex Bunbury <LF> Wreath, winged boar-forepart l. <TH> . Meydancıkkale 910 ‘Seleucus III’ Corinth 1938 154; ‘Seleucus III’ Kinns ex ‘Seleucus III’ c. 240-225 BC 1743 <LF> Winged boar-forepart l., ΗΡΟΔΟ 1743B 1743A <LF> Winged boar-forepart l., coiled serpent <LF> Winged boar-forepart l., dolphin As last, but drachm Kinns ex 'Seleucus III' Freeman & Sear FPL 8 (2003) 114. ‘Achaeus’ Kinns c. 225-205 BC 1746 1744 1746B 1746A <LF> Winged boar-forepart l., cantharus <LF> Winged boar-forepart l., radiate head facing Dniye 19 CNG 67 (2004) 426 c. 205-190 BC <LF> Winged boar-forepart l., <LF> Winged boar-forepart l., <LF> Winged boar-forepart l., . . . 1745 1747 1747B 1747A 1748 <LF> Winged boar-forepart l., . ANS. Mektepini 295 = SNG Berry 314;55 Ayaz-In 17 Berlin 1875 Prokesch-Osten Paris (non vidi) Berlin 1906 Löbbecke Leu 22 (1979) 78 = DNW 29.ix.08, 5530 1748A 1749 <LF> Winged boar-forepart l., in wreath <LF> ΒΙΩΝ; winged boar-forepart l. <LF> ΑΠΟΛΛΩΝΙΔΗΣ; winged boar-forepart l. <LF> Winged boar-forepart l., ΦΙ. <EX> ΕΥΘΥΔΑΜΑΣ CNG 67 (2004) 427 Tkalec 9.v.05, 36 Kinns ex GM 67 (1994) 110. Hersh (1998), p. 137. Commerce Ayaz-In 16 Kinns ex GM 107 (2001) 123 Paris, Latakia 1759 52 Philip Kinns points out to me two further issues that seem to belong to the mint of Clazomenae. Their date and consequently position within the above sequence remains uncertain: Tetradrachm 4060 <LF> Ram forepart l. Hague Drachm 4061 <LF> Ram forepart l. Paris 54 The specimen listed by Price as ‘ANS’ does not exist. 55 This coin was listed by Price in error as two separate specimens. 258 Andrew R. Meadows Klazomenai’ın Hellenistik Gümüş Sikkeleri Ionia kenti olan Klazomenai’ın ilk elektron sikkeleri MÖ 6. yüzyıl sonuna tarihlendirilmektedir. Bu sikkelerin ön yüzünde uçan bir yabandomuzu protomu vardır ki bu tip, kentin MÖ 5. yüzyıl sikkelerinde ana tip olmuştur. Klazomenai’ın MÖ 4. yüzyıl başlarında ön yüzde Apollon başı, arka yüzde kuğunun tasvir edildiği yeni bir sikke tipi ortaya çıkar. Ancak bu tip uzun süreli olmaz ve bir süre sonra basımı durdurulur. Kent, MÖ 285-280 civarında Lysimakhos adına ve onun tipleriyle, daha sonra da posthumus olarak II. Philippos ve Büyük İskender adına sikke basar. Yazar, Klazomenai sikkeleri hakkında yukarıdaki bilgileri içeren genel bir giriş yaptıktan sonra, atribüsyonu sorunlu bir emisyonu ele almaktadır. Bu yeni tipin ön yüzünde Zeus başı arka yüzünde ayakta duran bir Amazon ve “Zeus Soter Epiphanes” lejandı bulunmaktadır; başka örneklerde silik olan ΚΛΑΖΟ lejandının, ele aldığı örneklerde belirgin olması, onların Klazomenai’a atfedilmelerini kolaylaştırmıştır. Makalede, bu sikkeler, başka sikke tipleri ve Klazomenai’ın diğer kentlerle (özellikle Kyme, Temnos, Knidos) ilişkileri çerçevesinde değerlendirilmektedir. TURKISH SUMMARY / TÜRKÇE ÖZET Bibliography Ager 1996 Cook 1958 S. L. Ager, Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World 337-90 BC, Berkeley, 1996. J. M. Cook, ‘The Topography of Klazomenai’, Arch. Ephem. 1953-4 [1958] ΕΙΣ ΜΝΗΜΗΝ Π. ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΟΥ ii: 149-157. Hurter 1966 S. Hurter, ‘42 Tetradrachmen von Klazomenai’, SNR 45 (1966): 26-50. Imhoof-Blumer 1908 F. Imhoof-Blumer, ‘Die Amazonen auf griechischen Münzen’, Nomisma 2 (1908): 1-18. Kinns 1989 P. Kinns, ‘Ionia : the pattern of coinage during the last century of the Persian Empire’, REA 91 (1989): 183-193. Dengate 1967 J. A. Dengate, The Coinage of Klazomenai. Unpublished University of Pennsylvania PhD thesis, 1967. Carusi 2003 C. Carusi, Isole e Peree in Asia Minore. Contributi allo studio dei rapporti tra poleis insulari e territori continentali dipendenti, Pisa, 2003. Dimitrov 1999 K. Dimitrov, ‘The Greek cities in Ionia, Karia, and the Western Black Sea area during the early hellenitic age’ H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger (eds), 100 Jahre Österreischische Forschungen in Ephesos. Akten des Symposions Wien 1995. OAW Phil.-Hist. Denkschriften 260, Vienna, 1999: 179-184. Kinns (forthcoming) P. Kinns, ‘The Coinage of Leukai’ in Festschrift for Elaine Matthews (forthcoming). Klose 1987 D. Klose, Die Münzprägung von Smyrna in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Antike Münzen und Geschnittene Steine 10, Berlin, 1987. Klügmann 1870 O. Klügmann, ‘Über die Amazonen in den Sagen der Kleinasiatischen Städte’, Philologus 30 (1870): 524556. Franke-Nollé 1997 P. R. Franke and M. K. Nollé, Die Homonoia-Münzen Kleinasiens und der thrakischen Randgebiete. I, Katalog Saarbrücker Studien zur Archäologie und Alten Geschichte Bd. 10, Saarbrücken, 1997. Herrmann 1979 P. Herrmann, ‘Die Stadt Temnos und ihre auswärtigen Beziehungen in hellenistischer Zeit’, MDAI(I) 29 (1979): 239-271. Le Rider 1974 G. Le Rider, ‘Numismatique Grecque’, AEPHE 1973/4 (1974): 251-260. Le Rider 1977 G. Le Rider, Le Monnayage d’Argent et d’Or de Philippe II Frappé en Macédoine de 359 a 294, Paris, 1977. Hersh 1998 C. A. Hersh, ‘Additions and corrections to Martin J. Price’s The coinage in the name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus’ in R. Ashton and S. Hurter (eds), Studies in Greek Numismatics in Memory of Martin Jessop Price, London, 1998: 135-144. Lorber (forthcoming) C. Lorber, ‘Commerce (“Demetrius I” Hoard), 2003’, CH 10 (forthcoming). Ma 1999 J.T. Ma, Antiochus III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor, Oxford, 1999). The Hellenistic Silver Coinage of Clazomenae 259 Meadows 1998 A.R. Meadows, ‘Parion’ in R. Ashton, A. Meadows, K. Sheedy and U. Wartenberg, ‘Some Greek Coins in the British Museum’ NC 158 (1998): 37-51. Milne 1914 J.G. Milne, ‘The silver coinage of Smyrna’, NC4 14 (1914): 273-298. Thompson 1986 M. Thompson, ‘The Armenak Hoard (IGCH 1423)’, ANSMN 31 (1986): 63-106. Tsangari 2007 D. Tsangari, Hellenic Coinage: the Alpha Bank Collection, Athens, 2007. Price 1969 Price 1991 M. J. Price, ‘Greek coin hoards in the British Museum’, NC7 9 (1969): 1-14. M. J. Price, The coinage in the name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus. A British Museum catalogue, London/Zurich, 1991. Tsangari 2007 D. Tsangari, Corpus des Monnaies d’Or, d’Argent et de Bronze de la Confédération Étolienne, Athens, 2007. Robert 1960 L. Robert, Hellenica 11-12, Paris, 1960. Thompson 1968 M. Thompson, ‘The Mints of Lysimachus’ in C. M. Kraay and G. K. Jenkins (eds) Essays in Greek Coinage presented to Stanley Robinson, Oxford, 1968: 163-182. Seyrig 1971 H. Seyrig, ‘Monnaies Hellénistiques XXI. Un tétradrachme énigmatique’, RN6 13 (1971): 24-5 Walbank 1957-79 F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Oxford, 1957-79. 260 Andrew R. Meadows PLATE I 1a 2a 2b 2c 8 3 4 5 6 7 9 2c (x2) The Hellenistic Silver Coinage of Clazomenae 261 PLATE II A B 1740 1741 1742 1743 1743A 1743B 1746A 1746B 1746 1744 262 Andrew R. Meadows PLATE III 1745 1747 1747B 1747A 1748 1748A 1749 4061