‘Thasos’/New Style Hoard, 1996 (CH 9. 265) more

‘THASOS’/NEW STYLE HOARD, 1996 (CH 9. 265) A.R. MEADOWS PLATES 51–52 The following group of 22 silver tetradrachms appeared in commerce during 1996. While they give the appearance of having been deposited together, it is unclear whether they form the whole or only part of a hoard. The findspot is unknown but may, on the basis of the Athenian and Thasian contents, be assumed to be from the area of ancient Macedonia or Thrace. Catalogue Athens1 Obv. Head of Athena r. in decorated, crested Athenian helmet; border of dots. Rev. Owl r. standing on amphora lying on side; to l. and r. magistrates’ names; letter on amphora; letters below; ΑΘΕ; all within olive wreath. c. 129/8 1 o417 c. 128/7 2 421d 3 o424 4 o425 c. 127/6 5 430a 6 431b 7 o432 8 o new 9 o & r as last c. 126/5 10 o455 11 o450 12 o as nos. 8–9 c. 125/4 13 465a c. 124/3 14 o530 15 o new c. 123/2 16 o484 17 o487 18 o new 16.75 0 16.85 0 16.59 0 16.71 0 16.80 16.72 16.70 16.79 16.72 0 0 0 0 0 ΔΙΟΓΕ−ΠΟΣΕΙ ΗΓΕΜΑ Ε ΜΑ ΑΧΑΙΟΣ−ΗΛΙ ΚΛΕΑΡΧ Ε ΜΕ ΑΧΑΙΟΣ−ΗΛΙ ΚΛΕΑΡΧ Ι ΜΕ ΑΧΑΙΟΣ−ΗΛΙ ΑΠΟΛΛΟΔΩ Κ ΜΕ ΛΥΣΑΝ−ΓΛΑΥΚΟΣ ΙΕΡΩ Α ΣΩ ΛΥΣΑΝ−ΓΛΑΥΚΟΣ ΝΙΚΩΝ Β ΜΕ ΛΥΣΑΝ−ΓΛΑΥΚΟΣ ΝΙΚΩΝ Β ΣΦ ΛΥΣΑΝ−ΓΛΑΥΚΟΣ ΝΙΚΑΝΩΡ Λ ΣΩ ΛΥΣΑΝ−ΓΛΑΥΚΟΣ ΝΙΚΑΝΩΡ Λ ΣΩ 17.07 0 16.74 0 16.78 0 16.82 0 16.72 0 17.05 0 16.86 0 16.72 330 16.87 0 ΕΠΙΓΕΝΗ−ΣΩΣΑΝΔΡΟΥ ΜΟΣΧΙ Β ΜΕ ΕΠΙΓΕΝΗ−ΣΩΣΑΝΔΡΟΥ ΗΛΙΟΔΩ Ε ΗΡ ΕΠΙΓΕΝΗ−ΣΩΣΑΝΔΡΟΥ ΑΝΤΙΓΟΝ Θ ΠΡ ΠΟΛΕΜΩΝ−ΑΛΚΕΤΗΣ ΘΕΟΔΟΤΟΣ Α ΣΩ ΚΑΡΑΙΧ−ΕΡΓΟΚΛΕ ΚΛΕ Ε ΜΕ ΚΑΡΑΙΧ−ΕΡΓΟΚΛΗΣ ΧΑΙ Θ ΣΩ ΜΙΚΙΩΝ−ΕΥΡΥΚΛΕΙ ΣΩΚΡΑΤΗΣ Ε ΜΕ ΜΙΚΙΩΝ−ΕΥΡΥΚΛΕΙ ΔΗΜΟ Θ ΜΕ ΜΙΚΙΩΝ−ΕΥΡΥΚΛΕΙ ΑΡΕΣΤΟΣ Κ ΣΦ 1 References are to M. Thompson, The New Style Coinage of Athens. Numismatic Studies 10 (New York, 1961). Dates adopted are those of the low chronology. For recent affirmation of this chronology, see C. Habicht, ‘Zu den Münzmagistraten der Silberprägung des Neuen Stils’, Chiron 21 (1991), pp. 1-23. 256 ‘Thasos’/New Style Thasian Imitations Obv. Head of Dionysus r. Rev. Herakles standing l. with club. ΗΡΑΚΛΕΟΥΣ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ ΘΑΣΙΩΝ 19 20 21 22 M rev. die as last 300 300 330 330 16.68 16.80 16.84 16.46 Provenance and Date Given the lack of certainty as to whether this group constitutes an entire hoard, any commentary must be hedged with caution. Nonetheless a few observations seem worthwhile. The appearance of Thasian imitations and Athenian New Style together in isolation is not uncommon. The Gotse Deltchev, 1995 (NC 158 (1998), pp. 228– 236: 25 Athens; 23 ‘Thasian’) and Razlog 1983 (CH 9. 258: 18 Athens; 14 ‘Thasian’) hoards, both from south-western Bulgaria, provide close parallels to our group. Other obvious comparanda also originate from southern Bulgaria.2 We may thus tentatively suggest a findspot for our group in the same region. Again, speculation as to date of deposit is risky: the comparatively fresh condition of the coins may be the result of post-excavation selection, or may indicate that the hoard was deposited soon after its contents were produced. The Athenian coins date from 129/8 to 123/2 (see below), while the Thasian imitations belong to Lukanc’s first phase, dating to the last quarter of the second century.3 A date of c. 123-100 BC would thus suit our group. Pattern and arrangement of Athenian Issues In an article published in 1992, François de Callataÿ pointed out a peculiarity in the representation of Athenian New Style tetradrachms in hoards found in the area of ancient Macedonia.4 Comparing the contents of the Thessalonica, c. 1929 (IGCH 478), Chalcidice, 1976 (CH 4.66), South-western Macedonia, 1981 (CH 7.133), Adam Zagliveriou, 1983 (CH 8.509) and Belitsa 1956 (IGCH 976) hoards, he noted a marked ‘overrepresentation’ of four particular Athenian issues: ΕΠΙΓΕΝΗΣΩΣΑΝΔΡΟΥ, ΠΟΛΕΜΩΝ-ΑΛΚΕΤΗΣ, ΜΙΚΙΩΝ-ΕΥΡΥΚΛΕΙ and ΚΑΡΑΙΧΕΡΓΟΚΛΕ.5 Although caution is required, given our ignorance as to the original size of our new group, its contents seem broadly to conform to the pattern of overrepresentation. Nine of the twenty-two coins (41%) belong to the over-represented groups. However, a hitherto puzzling feature of these groups has been the fact that they are not, on Thompson’s arrangement, consecutive issues. Her order for the issues, which have generally been adhered to by scholars, and the dates now to be assigned to them on the low chronology are as follows6 (over-represented issues marked by an asterisk): 2 See I. Prokopov and F. de Callataÿ, ‘A late Hellenistic hoard from South-west Bulgaria (Area of Gotse Deltchev)’ NC 158 (1998), pp. 228-36, at 235-6. While it may at first sight seem tempting to suggest that our group formed part of the Gotse Deltchev hoard, much of which seems to have been dispersed before recording, coins of comparable date from the 1996 hoard seem markedly less worn than those from Gotse Deltchev. 3 I. Lukanc, Les Imitations des Monnaies d’Alexandre le Grand et Thasos (Wetteren, 1996), pp. 58-9. 4 F. de Callataÿ, ‘Athenian New Style Tetradrachms in Macedonian Hoards’, AJN2 3-4 (1991-2), pp.11-20. 5 To the material collected there by de Callataÿ (op. cit., last note) may be added the Razlog, before 1989 hoard (CH 9. 258) with 56% of its contents from the over-represented issues. 6 Above n. 1 257 MEADOWS *ΕΠΙΓΕΝΗ−ΣΩΣΑΝΔΡΟΥ *ΠΟΛΕΜΩΝ−ΑΛΚΕΤΗΣ *ΜΙΚΙΩΝ−ΕΥΡΥΚΛΕΙ ΑΦΡΟΔΙΣΙ−ΑΠΟΛΗΞΙ ΕΥΡΥΚΛΕΙ−ΑΡΙΑΡΑ *ΚΑΡΑΙΧ−ΕΡΓΟΚΛΕ 126/5 125/4 124/3 123/2 122/1 121/0 As Harold Mattingly has recently pointed out however, this order will no longer do. Issues of ΕΥΡΥΚΛΕΙ−ΑΡΙΑΡΑ are known with an intercalary month N, yet the year to which they are now assigned on the low chronology (122/1) was an ordinary year. ΕΥΡΥΚΛΕΙ−ΑΡΙΑΡΑ must move instead to 121/0, thus dislodging ΚΑΡΑΙΧ−ΕΡΓΟΚΛΕ. Adopting a solution he had first proposed in 1970, Mattingly moves the latter issue back to 124/3, necessarily pushing ΜΙΚΙΩΝ−ΕΥΡΥΚΛΕΙ down to 123/2 and ΑΦΡΟΔΙΣΙ−ΑΠΟΛΗΞΙ down to 122/1.8 This new order is adopted in the catalogue above. As can be seen, Mattingly’s rearrangement of the issues has the interesting result of making the four ‘over-represented’ issues consecutive.9 We must now await the die-link that confirms it. 7 New Die-link The new obverse die shared by coins 8, 9 and 12 provides the hitherto missing link between the issues of ΛΥΣΑΝ−ΓΛΑΥΚΟΣ and ΕΠΙΓΕΝΗ−ΣΩΣΑΝΔΡΟΥ. 7 8 H.B. Mattingly, review of LGPN II, NC 157 (1997) 258-60. Mattingly ibid. pp. 258-9. Cf. eund. ‘Some problems in second century Attic prosopography’ Historia 20 (1971), pp. 40ff. The possibility that this might be the case has already been canvassed by de Callataÿ, op. cit. (n. 4), p.18, who, however, suggested moving ΚΑΡΑΙΧ−ΕΡΓΟΚΛΕ back immediately to follow the other three issues. 9 258