The Chian Revolution: Changing Patterns of Hoarding in 4th-Century BC Western Asia Minor more

The Chian Revolution: Changing Patterns of Hoarding in 4th-Century BC Western Asia Minor Andrew MEADOWS American Numismatic Society RÉSUMÉ Cette étude est consacrée à l’Ouest de l’Asie Mineure depuis le début du monnayage en argent jusqu’à la conquête d’Alexandre. À partir de la centaine de trésors connus dans la région pour cette période, elle établit que le schéma de la circulation monétaire s’est modifié, en relation étroite avec les modifications des schémas de production. Tandis que la majorité des trésors de la fin du VIe et du Ve s. ne comptent qu’un petit nombre d’ateliers ou que, dans le cas d’un grand nombre d’ateliers, ils comprennent des fractions, dans les trésors du IVe s. on constate un accroissement du nombre des ateliers. Ce phénomène du IVe s. semble bien être la conséquence d’une mutation dans la production de la monnaie, qui voit la majorité des ateliers de la région adopter l’étalon chiote. Cela n’aboutit à rien d’autre qu’à une révolution dans la circulation monétaire et marque un changement fondamental dans les comportements économiques. This paper focuses on the area of western Asia Minor from the beginning of silver coinage to the conquest of Alexander the Great. Using the one hundred known hoards from this area and period, it establishes a changing pattern of coin circulation which appears closely correlated to changing patterns of coin production. Whereas, during the late 6th and 5th centuries BC, hoards tend to contain coins of relatively few mints or, when several mints are present, these tend to be represented by fractional issues, during the 4th c. BC hoards tend to contain higher numbers of mints. This 4th-century phenomenon appears to be the result of a fundamental shift in coin production which saw the majority of mints in the region converting to the use of the Chian weight standard. The result was nothing less than a revolution in coin circulation, and marks a fundamental change in economic behaviour. η παρούσα μελέτη αναφέρεται στην περιοχή της δυτικής Μικράς Ασίας από την περίοδο της εισαγωγής της αργυρής νομισματοκοπίας μέχρι την κατάκτηση του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου. εξετάζοντας εκατό γνωστούς έως σήμερα «θησαυρούς» της περιοχής με χρονολογία απόκρυψης την παραπάνω περίοδο, διαπιστώνεται ένα μεταβαλλόμενο μοτίβο νομισματικής κυκλοφορίας το οποίο είναι στενά συνδεδεμένο με τα μεταβαλλόμενα μοτίβα της νομισματικής παραγωγής. Αν και, κατά τη διάρκεια της περιόδου ανάμεσα στα τέλη του 6ου αι. και τον 5ο αι. π.Χ., οι «θησαυροί» περιείχαν νομίσματα από μικρό σχετικά αριθμό νομισματοκοπείων –ή από μεγαλύτερο αριθμό σε περίπτωση που περιλάμβαναν μικρές υποδιαιρέσεις– οι «θησαυροί» του 4ου αι. π.Χ. περιέχουν νομίσματα ενός μεγάλου αριθμού νομισματοκοπείων. Αυτό το φαινόμενο του 4ου αι. π.Χ. φαίνεται να είναι το αποτέλεσμα μίας σημαντικής μεταβολής στην παραγωγή των νομισματοκοπείων της περιοχής με την υιοθέτηση του «χιακού» σταθμητικού κανόνα. Το αποτέλεσμα της παραπάνω μεταβολής σηματοδοτεί μία επανάσταση στη νομισματική κυκλοφορία και μία σημαντική αλλαγή στην οικονομική συμπεριφορά των νομισματοκοπείων. SUMMARY περιληψη BCH Suppl. 53 274 Andrew MEADOWS The focus of this study is the whole of western Asia Minor from the beginning of silver coinage down to the arrival of Alexander the Great.1 It seeks first to demonstrate that there was a major change in the pattern of circulation of silver coinage in this region, which began around 400 BC (the «revolution») of my title; second to show that this revolution in circulation mirrors a similar revolution in production at a significant number of mints within the region and, as it happens, outside it; third, to try to explain what caused this change; and finally to suggest that this revolution may in fact be observable in contemporary documentary evidence. I. A REVOLUTION IN CIRCULATION Some explanation of the geographic parameters is necessary by way of introduction: we are concerned with western Asia Minor. For the purposes of this paper, this includes the regions known in antiquity as Mysia, Troas, Aeolis, Ionia and Caria. To these is added Lydia since it is politically and economically connected to the neighbouring regions, and since coinage was produced there. Excluded are the Phrygias, where coinage was not produced at this period and barely circulated, and also Lycia, which existed as its own separate circulation area for much of the period under consideration, but in any case ceased to produce coinage after the arrival of Hecatomnid control.2 To this area, in the period in question (ca 550-320 BC), 100 hoards can be attributed. This total is based on the hoards included in IGCH and CH vols. 1-10. I have included those hoards with a firmly attested find-spot within this area, those hoards described as from «western Asia Minor» (vel sim.), and also those described in IGCH or CH as having an unknown find-spot but which contain only coins produced within this region. To these have been added two further hoards: the first of these was found in excavation at Zeytintepe, near Miletus, and has now been published by Bernhard Weisser (2009); the second appeared in commerce in London in 2009, and has not yet been published (I am grateful to Richard Ashton for information on this hoard’s contents). I have excluded three hoards: IGCH 1183 and 1227 because IGCH expresses reservations on their status as hoards, and suspects the record of their contents of being corrupted, and IGCH 1185 as a result of Kagan’s convincing demonstration that its record is dubious and find-spot quite uncertain.3 I question whether the equally curious and poorly attested IGCH 1182 should similarly be removed from this region, but for now have left it in. 1. My thanks are due to Prof. Olivier Picard and Marie-Christine Marcellesi for the invitation to present this paper at the conference in Athens. I am also grateful to the staff of the French school, not just for their hospitality during the conference, but also for their generous tolerance of continued presence during the period of post-conference volcanic eruption. The paper itself, as will be clear, has grown out of a number of years’ discussion and collaboration, most particularly with Richard Ashton and Philip Kinns. In its penultimate stage, it has benefited from the comments of colleagues at the conference, as well as of Peter Van Alfen and Ute Wartenberg at the ANS. To all I am grateful. In addition to items included in the bibliography, two non-standard abbreviations will be used throughout: «Hecatomnus» = R. ASHTON, Ph. KINNS, K. KONUK, A. MEADOWS, «The Hecatomnus Hoard», CH 9 (2002), 95-158; «Pixodarus» = R. ASHTON, N. HARDWICK, Ph. KINNS, K. KONUK, A. MEADOWS, «The Pixodarus Hoard», CH 9 (2002), 159-243. 2. For a survey of the hoard evidence for Lycia see VISMARA 1999, esp. 44-47. See KEEN 1998, 174 on the end of coinage. 3. KAGAN 1992. BCH Suppl. 53 THE CHIAN REVOLUTION: CHANGING PATTERNS OF HOARDING IN WESTERN ASIA MINOR 275 Some words of explanation are also necessary concerning the designation «Chian». With this term I am referring to the weight standard of Chios, with a tetradrachm of ca 15.3 g, and drachm notionally of ca 3.8 g, although in reality often somewhat lighter than that. Confusingly, this standard is often referred to in the older literature as «Rhodian» (so, for example, in both the Traité and HN). However, as more modern treatments rightly insist, Chian is the more appropriate designation since it was on Chios that the standard originated, not on Rhodes.4 With these preliminary remarks behind us, we may turn to look at what this hoard evidence shows us. In Fig. 14 are listed all 100 hoards on the horizontal axis, in approximate chronological order. On the vertical axis is the number of different mints included in the hoard. These in turn are colour-coded. Mints represented by coins of hemidrachm size or larger are coloured grey. Mints represented by smaller fractions are coloured white. Persian sigloi are coloured black. For the purposes of comparison we may subdivide the hoards into three chronological sections. The first section we may define as «archaic», and contains the hoards with probable burial dates between ca 550 and 480 BC. The second period contains the hoards buried in the remainder of the fifth century, down to 400 BC. Finally there is the fourth century down to ca 320 BC. There are a couple of trends that we may start by highlighting here. The first concerns a difference in behaviour among the fractional coins. These are more commonly found in hoards that pre-date 400 BC. We can see this clearly if we look at the average numbers of fractional mints included in each hoard across the three periods (Fig. 1). 1,4 1,2 1 0,8 0,6 Fractions/hoard 0,4 0,2 0 550-480 480-400 400-320 Fig. 1. – Average number of mints represented by fractional coinage per hoard. 4. ACGC, 247 n. 1. EHC, 9-10. ASHTON 2001, 79. BCH Suppl. 53 276 Andrew MEADOWS 40% 60% Large Fractions Fig. 2. – Ratio of fractions to larger denominations in mixed hoards before ca 400 BC. 37% Large Fractions 63% Fig. 3. – Ratio of fractions to larger denominations in single mint hoards before ca 400 BC. BCH Suppl. 53 THE CHIAN REVOLUTION: CHANGING PATTERNS OF HOARDING IN WESTERN ASIA MINOR 277 Simply put, fractional coinages drop out of circulation in the 4th century BC. The second thing to note about the fractional coinages is that they are far more likely to be found in mixed hoards than are the larger denominations. Down to 400 BC 25 of the 60 hoards (42%) contain more than one mint, or are mixed. Within those 25 hoards the ratio of fractional to larger denominations is 3:2. On the other hand, of the 35 hoards containing just one mint, 22 of these (62%) are made up of large denominations. We can see the contrast clearly in these two pie charts (Fig. 2-3). Again, to put it simply, in the first two periods (ca 550-480 and 480-400 BC) mixed hoards contain more fractions than larger denominations. Unmixed hoards are more likely to be made up of hemidrachms or larger denominations. Conversely, in the period after ca 400 BC, only four of the 40 recorded hoards contain fractions. This being the case, we might expect to find fewer mixed hoards after 400 BC, but this is not the case. As is quite clear from our main chart (Fig. 14), the number of mixed hoards increases dramatically after 400 BC. Two more graphs serve to reinforce the point. The first (Fig. 4) charts the percentages within each period of hoards containing just a single mint. Two lines are plotted: one for all types of hoard, and a second that excludes siglos and Croeseid hoards (which tend to be single mint hoards), to demonstrate that the distribution of these is not skewing the numbers. In the second (Fig. 5) are plotted the numbers of hoards containing 2, 3, 4 and 5 and more mints as a percentage of the total number of hoards in each period. 70 60 50 40 %age of single mint hds. Excluding siglos hds. 30 20 10 0 550-480 480-400 400-320 Fig. 4. – Percentages of single mint hoards across the three periods. BCH Suppl. 53 278 30 Andrew MEADOWS 25 20 15 550-480 480-400 10 400-320 5 0 2 mints 3 mints 4 mints 5+ mints Fig. 5. – Percentages of hoards containing 2, 3, 4 and 5+ mints across the three periods. The patterns are clear enough: across the first two periods the percentage of single mint hoards remains relatively constant but drops dramatically in period 3 (Fig. 4). Similarly, the percentage of hoards containing multiple mints is consistently higher in period 3 than in the earlier two periods. We may further nuance this by noting that the number of hoards containing 5 or more mints increases sharply in periods 2 and 3 (Fig. 5). Again to put this simply, not only is there a greater percentage of mixed hoards after 400, but the degree of mixture increases too. In general, more coins of more mints are deposited together in individual hoards. And to reiterate our earlier conclusion, this is nothing to do with fractional coins. In this third period, the mixed hoards are made up predominantly of larger denominations. Period three looks very different. Having established the picture of the change in numbers of mints in hoards, we may now turn to consider the question of weight standards. An overview is provided in another chart (Fig. 15). The hoards remain the same along the horizontal axis, but this time there are plotted on the vertical axis not the number of mints in the hoards, but the total number of weight standards present in the hoards. Across the entire period, 72 of the hoards (72%) contain coins of just a single weight standard. Eighteen (18%) more contain coins on just two weight standards. Seven (7%) contain coins on three standards and three (3%) contain coins of more than three weight standards. So the BCH Suppl. 53 THE CHIAN REVOLUTION: CHANGING PATTERNS OF HOARDING IN WESTERN ASIA MINOR 279 majority of hoards in this area across this period contain coins of just a single standard. How does this pattern compare across our three periods? 80 70 60 50 %age of total Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 No. of standards/hoards 3 Over 3 Fig. 6.– Percentage of hoards in each period containing 1, 2, 3 or more weight standards. As is clear from Fig. 6, the percentage of single standard hoards remains almost constant across the three periods. The percentage of hoards with two standards is slightly higher in period 3 than in the earlier periods. However, the pattern reverses for hoards containing three or more standards: these are much rarer in period 3. When we compare these results with those of our analysis of Fig. 15, an intriguing contrast emerges. Fig. 7 presents the trends of mints per hoard and standards per hoard. It is clear that while the average number of mints per hoard goes up over the course of the three periods, the average number of standards per hoard in fact declines. So, although the coins of more different cities are circulating alongside each other, there is in fact increased homogeneity of weight standard. To explain this phenomenon, we may turn to a third large chart (Fig. 16). Once more the hoards, on the horizontal axis, are the same. But this time on the vertical axis are plotted the identities of the different weight standards included in each hoard, which are differently coded, as indicated in the legend.5 5. The absence of any colour indicates uncertainty as to the weight standard of the issues contained in a hoard. BCH Suppl. 53 280 Andrew MEADOWS 3,5 3 2,5 2 Mints/hoard 1,5 Stds./hoard 1 0,5 0 550-480 480-400 400-320 Fig. 7. – Average number of mints per hoard and of standards per hoard in each period. We may break down the chart into the three periods (Fig. 8, 9 and 10). In period 1 (550-480 BC: Fig. 8) there is no obviously dominant standard. Persian, Milesian and Aeginetan are all well represented, as they should be, since all of these standards were being used by mints in the region.6 In period 2 (480-400 BC: Fig. 9), the pattern is not so very different. No one standard is dominant, and Persian, Milesian and Aeginetan are the most common. The third period, from ca 400-320 BC (Fig. 10), looks entirely different to what has gone before. There is virtually no Aeginetan, a very little Milesian (due essentially to the mint of Miletus and the early issues of the Carian dynast Hecatomnus). Persian continues to appear, entirely in the guise of Persian sigloi.7 But the overwhelming majority of coins included in these hoards were minted on the Chian weight standard. Just to emphasize this point, we may compare the proportion of Chian weight mints in hoards before 400 and after in two pie charts (Fig. 11-12). 6. For a survey of the weight standards in use in Asia Minor during the archaic and classical periods see CAHN 1965. 7. The clumping of sigloi hoards towards the end of the period is most likely a misleading false impression caused by the difficulty of dating these hoards in anything other than general terms (e.g. «late 4th century»). BCH Suppl. 53 THE CHIAN REVOLUTION: CHANGING PATTERNS OF HOARDING IN WESTERN ASIA MINOR 7 281 6 5 4 Other Attic Chian Persian Milesian Aeginetan 3 2 1 0 8, 9 8. 10 8. 14 9. 34 2 11 63 11 64 10 .2 09 11 65 8. 22 8. 36 11 66 11 67 11 68 11 69 11 70 11 71 11 72 11 73 11 74 11 75 10 .2 10 1, 1 7, 8 3, 5 Fig. 8. – Period 1 (ca 550-480). 12 10 8 5, 2 Other Attic Chian Persian Milesian Aeginetan 1, 3 6 4 2 0 Fig. 9. – Period 2 (ca 480-400 BC). BCH Suppl. 53 7, 14 11 78 11 79 11 80 11 81 11 82 8, 47 11 84 11 86 11 87 8. 11 4 4, 14 4, 17 11 88 11 89 1, 23 11 90 10 .2 15 8. 11 1 8. 11 2 8. 50 8. 54 8. 68 11 91 11 93 7, 11 11 95 11 96 11 97 8, 8 282 12 Andrew MEADOWS 10 8 Other 6 Attic Chian Persian Milesian Aeginetan 4 2 0 Fig. 10. – Period 3 (ca 400-320 BC). Other 13% Fig. 11. – Representation of weight standards in hoards deposited before ca 400 BC. BCH Suppl. 53 7, 14 11 78 11 79 11 80 11 81 11 82 8, 47 11 84 11 86 11 87 8. 11 4 4, 14 4, 17 11 88 11 89 1, 23 11 90 10 .2 15 8. 11 1 8. 11 2 8. 50 8. 54 8. 68 11 91 11 93 7, 11 11 95 11 96 11 97 Aeginetan 20% Attic 10% Chian 7% Milesian 21% Persian 29% THE CHIAN REVOLUTION: CHANGING PATTERNS OF HOARDING IN WESTERN ASIA MINOR 283 Attic Other Aeginetan 1% 4% 3% Milesian 6% Persian 8% Chian 78% Fig. 12. – Representation of weight standards in hoards deposited between ca 400 and 320 BC. II. A REVOLUTION IN PRODUCTION At first sight, such an extreme swing towards the Chian weight standard is startling. But it should come as no surprise. It has been clear for a long time that the Chian standard came to dominate in Asia Minor during the 4th century. The phenomenon was examined as a whole by Percy Gardner almost a century ago in his History of Ancient Coinage.8 Obviously, new material has appeared in the intervening period, and opinions have changed about the chronologies and in some cases the standards in use, but the evidence essentially still suggests a massive adoption of the Chian standard by mints throughout the region. Assembled below (Fig. 13) is a list of what seems to me the current state of our knowledge, and the picture is impressive. Whereas prior to ca 408 BC the island of Chios alone had used the Chian standard, during the 4th century BC all of the following mints struck coin on the Chian standard: 8. GARDNER 1918, 298-311 ; 1920, 169 ff. BCH Suppl. 53 284 Region and Mint Thrace Byzantium (ca 405–335)9 Thasos (ca 400–330) Bithynia Chalcedon (ca 405–340) Cius (ca 350-345) Paphlagonia Cromna (4th cent.) Sesamus (4th cent.) Mysia Cyzicus (ca 400–340) Proconnesus (ca 400-380) Troas Abydos (ca 400-335) Assos (ca 400) Neandria (4th cent.) Scepsis (4th cent.) Tenedos (4th cent.) Aeolis Cyme (4th cent.)10 Larissa Phriconis (4th cent.) Ionia Colophon (ca 400–350) Ephesus (ca 405–325) Erythrae (ca 350–342) Leucae (ca 383/2) Magnesia (ca 340–325) Miletus (ca 360–320 BC) Phygela (ca 360) Priene (ca 330-320) 12 Traité (nos.) 1532-37 1143-58 2882-88 2857 2939-40 2933-34 2811-15 2837-39 2454-63 2302 2383-87 2356-57 2401-08 Other references Andrew MEADOWS SCHÖNERT-GEISS 1970. LE RIDER 1963, 45-50. PICARD 2000, 306-9; MEADOWS, in «Pixodarus», 161-166. Recueil, 292-293; pls. 45, 25-28 and 46, 1-6. LE RIDER 1963, 45-50. Recueil, 313, no. 5; pl. 49, 27. LE RIDER 1963, 31- 32. Recueil 2, 183-184, no. 1; pl. 21, 23-25. Recueil 2, 198, nos. 1-2; pl. 24. 1-2. FRITZE 1914. MEADOWS, «Pixodarus», 167-171. THOMPSON 1965. ROBINSON 1921, 11-13. LAZZARINI 1983, 10-11. KAGAN 1984, 17. KAGAN 1984, 17. 2064 1915-20 1882-89 Cols. 1141-42 11 MILNE 1940, 135. WROTH 1902, 332 no. 6; ROBERT 1951, 47. KINNS 1980, 273-302, 559-570; 1989, 187-188; «Hecatomnus», 97; «Pixodarus», 171-172. KINNS, «Hecatomnus», 98-105; «Pixodarus», 172-206. KINNS 1980, 16-22, 25-35, 424-426; 1989, 186. KINNS forthcoming. KINNS 1989, 190; «Pixodarus», 194. DEPPERT-LIPPITZ 1984, period I; KINNS 1986; MARCELLESI 2004, 172, nos. 2-4; MEADOWS, in «Pixodarus», 206-209. REGLING 1921; KINNS 1989, p. 189. KINNS 1989, 190-191. 1758-61 1856 9. For Byzantium and Chalcedon, Le Rider follows Robinson in assuming that the Chian weight issues follow on from the ΣΥN coinage; the initial date provided here is adjusted on the basis of the revised chronology for the ΣYN coinage discussed below. The terminal date derives from the Thasos 1953 hoard (IGCH 723). 10. Milne dates the start of the series to ca 320, but notes that the style of some seems somewhat earlier. 11. The Chian weight issues are dated by Babelon to after 330. For an earlier date (ca 350-340 BC) for the first series of silver see KINNS 1989, 186. 12. Kinns suggests a date of ca 350-340 for the beginning of Priene’s silver. The evidence of IGCH 1213, in which the coins of Priene are the freshest and in mint state suggests to me that the date may be somewhat closer to the end of the 4th century. For the date of this hoard see below n. 39. BCH Suppl. 53 THE CHIAN REVOLUTION: CHANGING PATTERNS OF HOARDING IN WESTERN ASIA MINOR 285 Smyrna (ca 400–390) Teos (ca 400–330) 13 Chios (ca 340) Samos (ca 405–380) Caria Cnidus (ca 405–350) Halicarnassus (ca 400–385) Iasos (ca 405-390) Idyma (ca 410–400) Cos (ca 395–340) Rhodes (408/7–320) Hecatomnid Satraps (ca 392–385, ca 375–334) Lydia Sardis? (ca 350–330) 1953-55 1964-65 1812-52 KINNS 1980, 276-277; 1989, 184. KINNS 1980, 163-192, 502-513; 1989, 187. HARDWICK 1991; «Pixodarus», 212-216; MEADOWS, «Hecatomnus», 105. BARRON 1966; MEADOWS, in «Hecatomnus», 106-113; «Pixodarus», 217-220. ASHTON, in «Hecatomnus», 115-20; «Pixodarus», 220-221. KONUK, in «Hecatomnus», 121-122. ASHTON 2007, 50-52. ASHTON, in «Hecatomnus», 122-5. ASHTON, in «Hecatomnus», 128-32; Meadows, «Pixodarus», 229-40. ASHTON 2001; «Hecatomnus», 133-6 and 140-158; «Pixodarus», 241-3. KONUK 1998a; «Hecatomnus», 125-128; «Pixodarus», 229. 1631-53 1668-71 1676-77 1654-57 1743-51 1695ff 82-3, 90-116 pl. 91 MEADOWS, in «Pixodarus», 210-212. Fig. 13. – Mints employing the Chian weight standard during the 4th century BC. III. EXPLAINING THE CHANGE How are we to explain this massive shift in behaviour in the mints and circulation of Asia Minor in the 4th century BC? Colin Kraay tried in the following terms: «Since Sparta, the new dominant Greek power, had no economic system of her own, the choice lay between standards already current in Asia Minor – the Aeginetan, the Chian, the Samian or the Persian. The fact that most mints opted for the Chian, even though it was not their traditional system, suggests that the imposition of the Attic standard upon the allies of Athens had at least demonstrated the advantage of a uniform monetary system. The Chian system had the additional advantage of an easy relationship with the Aeginetan, to which the Spartans and their allies were accustomed…».14 There are two questions that we need to ask first, and it seems to me that Kraay’s discussion does not provide satisfactory answers to either of them. These are (1) why did all of these states begin to strike on the same standard in the 4th century, when they had not in the 5th? (2) Why did they choose the Chian standard? Kraay’s answer to the first of these is that the various cities appreciated 13. If the date of ca 407 proposed by BALCER 1968 for the last issue of Aeginetan weight coinage is accepted, then this becomes the terminus post quem for the start of the Chian weight coinage. Kinns is agnostic. 14. ACGC, 247-248. BCH Suppl. 53 286 Andrew MEADOWS the benefit of the common standard as a result of Athens’ imposition of one during the 5th century BC. The obvious objection to this assumption lies in the charts that we have just been examining. As we have seen (Fig. 16), there is no indication from the hoard evidence of any period of uniformity of weight standard before ca 400 BC. Specifically, there is, quite remarkably, minimal evidence for the circulation of Attic weight coinage in Asia Minor. Attic coinage was plentiful in the later 5th century: literally millions of Athenian coins were produced from the 450s to the 430s BC.15 Moreover, these were not peaceful times. If Attic coinage had come to dominate to the extent that it created a change in monetary behaviour along the entire western seaboard of Asia Minor, we should expect to observe this in the hoard record. But we do not.16 The pattern that we have established on the basis of the hoard evidence (Fig. 14-16) suggests that the homogenization of weight standard began only after ca 400, and that it began with the Chian, not the Attic standard. So it is difficult to believe Kraay’s explanation that this was a habit adopted under Athens. Let us look instead at the choice of the Chian standard. Kraay’s explanation for this choice is that the Chian standard had the «advantage of an easy relationship with the Aeginetan».17 But this raises an obvious question: if ease of conversion to the Aeginetan standard was an attractive proposition, why was the Aeginetan standard itself not chosen by these states? After all, the Aeginetan standard was not unknown in western Asia Minor during the 5th century, when it was used at Teos, Knidos and Kaunos.18 The Aeginetan was also the more common standard in the Aegean islands, as well as being that most familiar to Sparta and her allies in the Peloponnese.19 The Chian standard, by contrast, was just that: the epichoric standard of Chios. So again I do not think Kraay’s explanation will suffice. The answer to these two questions, why now and why this standard, can be found, I believe, in consideration of the chronology of the coinages of the earliest adopters of the Chian standard, which has become much clearer on the basis of recent hoard and die studies. The key mints are 15. On the quantities concerned see KROLL 2009. 16. From the period after the beginning of the mass striking of Athenian coinage ca 454 BC, we have only one instance of Athenian coinage in 5th century hoards: IGCH 1189 (ca 450 BC in IGCH, although conceivably earlier) contained a single fraction of Athens. In fact, the only recorded discovery of Athenian tetradrachms in Asia Minor during the 5th century comes in the suspicious IGCH 1182 (ca 460 BC in IGCH), which apparently contained «many tetradrachms» alongside a number of other coinages that do not seem on the whole to have circulated in Asia Minor. During the 4th century Athenian coins are known from just 3 hoards: IGCH 1203 (Chalki, Rhodes, ca 380 BC) contained one triobol; IGCH 1210 and CH 10.232 contained 5 and 7 tetradrachms respectively. However both hoards were discovered at Urla (ancient Clazomenae), the site of the only mint of Attic weight coinage in 4th century Asia Minor. Otherwise, these 2 hoards contained almost exclusively Attic weight coinage of Clazomenae (CH 10.232 contains in addition just one coin of Chios), suggesting that they reflect a localized use of Attic coinage within an Attic weight commercial zone at Clazomenae. 17. The relationship between the Aeginetan and Chian standards had, of course, been noted before. See e.g. GARDNER 1920, 163-164. 18. BALCER 1968 for Teos; CAHN 1970 for Knidos; KONUK 1998b for Kaunos. Overview in CAHN 1965, 20-21. 19. ACGC, 45 (islands) and 95 (Peloponnese). On the dominance of the Aeginetan standard in the Peloponnese during the Peloponnesian War see now WARREN 2009, 12. BCH Suppl. 53 THE CHIAN REVOLUTION: CHANGING PATTERNS OF HOARDING IN WESTERN ASIA MINOR 287 those of Ephesus, Samos, Cnidus, Rhodes and Cyzicus. All of these mints seem to have adopted the Chian standard very early, and all have another characteristic in common: they minted issues of the so-called ΣΥΝ coinage. Thirty years ago Stefan Karwiese (1980) suggested that these issues were connected with the campaigns of Lysander in Asia Minor in 405-404 BC, and the publication of the Hecatomnus hoard in CH 9 has made it all but certain that he was correct.20 The evidence of the Hecatomnus hoard, combined with that of the Pixodarus hoard has, furthermore, made it possible to establish better the relationship between the ΣΥΝ coins of the five mints in question and their Chian weight issues. At Ephesus the work of Philip Kinns has made it clear that the ΣΥΝ issues belong stylistically with the very earliest coins of Chian weight at that mint (a compact issue of didrachms, drachms and fractions).21 The ΣΥΝ coinage thus stands at the beginning of the Chian weight coinage at this mint. For Cnidus, Richard Ashton has argued convincingly on the basis of wear that the ΣΥΝ issues contained in the Hecatomnus hoard were struck before the first Chian weight «civic» tetradrachms also contained in the hoard.22 For Samos, Barron (1966) had suggested that the ΣΥΝ issues were stylistically contemporary with his fifth magistrate, Hegesianax, while Karwiese (1980) thought them contemporary with Barron’s first magistrate. In practice, what both scholars are correctly insisting is that the ΣΥΝ coins of Samos belong stylistically with the earliest civic tetradrachms. In fact, as in the case of Cnidus, the Hegesianax issues from the Hecatomnus hoard look considerably fresher than any of the ΣΥΝ issues.23 Again it seems likely that the ΣΥΝ issues predate the civic issues.24 Rhodes may be the exception to the pattern that is otherwise emerging. Although the relative chronology of the earliest issues of the mint has been debated, the most plausible reconstruction sees the first civic issues of the mint being struck on the Chian standard from 408/7, followed shortly thereafter by the ΣΥΝ issues.25 For Cyzicus, I can say only that having assembled a die-study of the civic Chian-weight tetradrachm series for the publication of the Pixodarus hoard,26 I am confident that these issues began around the late 5th/early 4th century BC and continued down to the middle of the 4th century, but can see absolutely no point at which the ΣΥΝ issues can be inserted in the sequence. I would tentatively conclude that the ΣΥΝ issues thus predate the civic series. It thus seems likely that, with the probable exception of Rhodes, the adoption of the Chian weight standard by the ΣΥΝ mints for their civic issues accompanied or followed soon after the Chian weight ΣΥΝ issues. The ΣΥΝ coins are thus pivotal in this initial spread of the Chian standard beyond the island of Chios. If Lysander was indeed the instigator of the ΣΥΝ coinage, 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. For discussion see «Hecatomnus», 136-138. «Hecatomnus», 99-100. «Hecatomnus», 120. «Hecatomnus», pl. 10, nos. 1-3. «Hecatomnus», 110-111. ASHTON 2001, 80. «Pixodarus», 167-171. BCH Suppl. 53 288 Andrew MEADOWS then we may begin to see how the Chian standard was lifted beyond epichoric status. In the first place, Chios was a major naval ally of the Spartans from 412 onwards: μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τοῦ αὐτοῦ θέρους οἱ Χῖοι, ὥσπερ ἤρξαντο, οὐδὲν ἀπολείποντες προθυμίας, ἄνευ τε πελοποννησίων πλήθει παρόντες ἀποστῆσαι τὰς πόλεις …27 The island served as a naval base, a supplier of men and ships,28 but also as a source of coinage. In 411 BC the Spartan admiral Mindaros received παρὰ τῶν Χίων τρεῖς τεσσαρακοστὰς ἕκαστος Χίας.29 Similarly, in 406 BC Callicratidas received ἐκ Χίου πεντεδραχμίαν ἑκάστῳ τῶν ναυτῶν ἐφοδιασάμενος.30 But just as importantly, the Chian standard bridged easily, not just with the Aeginetan, but also with the Persian. Indeed, the ΣΥΝ coins, apparently issued during the period of Lysander’s campaigns, were denominated at the bridging point, serving simultaneously as a tridrachm on the Chian standard and a double siglos on the Persian.31 The Persian standard, of course, was particularly significant to Lysander, perhaps more than to any other Spartan commander, on account of the huge subsidies he received from Cyrus from 406 onwards.32 It was, I would therefore suggest, the creation of Lysander’s symmachy and the ΣΥΝ coinage that provided the impetus for the rise of the Chian standard. Certainly, the Symmachic coinage stands chronologically at the beginning of this rise. And we can place Lysander physically close to a significant number of the early adopters of the standard: Ephesus, Iasos, Rhodes, Cnidus, Abydos, Byzantium, Chalcedon and Samos.33 But this is not to claim that this brief political episode can serve as the entire explanation of the Chian revolution. As we can see from the list above (Fig. 13), a number of the mints that adopted the standard during the course of the 4th century did so only later. Miletus provides an interesting example. Here the Chian standard was probably not adopted until the 350s, and Marie-Christine Marcellesi has suggested that the Milesian adoption was under the influence of the move to this standard by the Hecatomnids.34 This sounds entirely plausible, and creates a picture of a gain in momentum in the production of Chian weight coinage, starting 27. Thucydides, VIII 22,1 : «After this, in the same summer, the Chians, as they had from the start, spared no effort and even without the Peloponnesians were present in sufficient numbers to cause cities to revolt (sc. from Athens)». 28. On the use of Chios as a naval base, and the military contributions of the Chians see Thucydides, VIII 17-24 with GOMME et al. 1945-81, V, 27-28. Cf. Thucydides, VIII 28-34; 55-56; 61-63; 100-101. 29. Thucydides, VIII 101, 1. For a survey of the attempts to make sense of this statement in numismatic terms see HARDWICK 1996. 30. Xenophon, Hellenica I 6, 12. 31. ACGC, 249. 32. Xenophon, Hellenica I 5, 1-7. Cf. KARWIESE 1980, 11-12. 33. On taking up his command in 405 he made directly for Ephesus (Xenophon, Hellenica II 1,10). From here he sailed round into the Ceramic Gulf to attack Cedreae (Ibid. II 1, 15), probably calling in to take Iasos on the way (Diodorus, XIII 104, 7). From there he sailed on to Rhodes (Xenophon, Hellenica II 1, 15), unavoidably via Cnidus, before returning up the coast of Ionia via Abydos to Lampsacus (Ibid. II 1, 17). Lampsacus then formed his base before and after the battle of Aegospotamoi (Ibid. II 1, 18-30). After the battle, Lysander then sailed on Byzantium and Chalcedon where he installed Sthenelaus as harmost (Ibid. II 2, 1-2). Having played his part in the reduction of Athens in 404 BC, Lysander then crossed back over to besiege and capture Samos (Ibid. II 3, 6). 34. MARCELLESI 2004, 64-65. BCH Suppl. 53 1,1 8,9 8.2 2 8.5 4 7,11 1,2 9 116 3 117 8 116 8 117 2 118 2 118 8 119 8 120 2 120 5 121 0 121 5 118 7 120 0 121 6 9.4 63 8.5 8 10. 210 10. 215 9.3 71 BCH Suppl. 53 Sigloi <Hemidrs. >=Hemidrs . 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 THE CHIAN REVOLUTION: CHANGING PATTERNS OF HOARDING IN WESTERN ASIA MINOR 0 Fig. 14. – Silver hoards of Western Asia Minor to ca 320 BC: numbers of mints contained. 289 290 Andrew MEADOWS BCH Suppl. 53 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fig. 15. – Silver hoards of Western Asia Minor to ca 320 BC: numbers of weight-standards contained. 1,1 7, 8 8,9 8 .1 4 116 10 3 .2 0 9 8 .2 2 1 1 66 116 8 1 170 117 2 11 7 10 4 .21 0 5 ,2 1 178 118 0 1 18 2 118 4 11 87 4,1 4 11 88 1,2 3 1 0.2 15 8.11 2 8.5 4 119 1 7,11 11 96 119 8 119 9 1 Z eyti 200 ntep e 1 202 9.3 70 1 205 120 7 12 10 9.3 76 1,2 10. 9 240 121 10. 5 241 121 6 12 18 9 .46 3 122 4 8.5 1 0. 8 229 9. 371 123 3 1,1 8,9 0 7,11 0 8.54 8.22 117 2 116 3 116 8 117 8 118 2 118 8 118 7 119 8 1,29 120 120 2 120 5 121 0 121 5 121 6 9.46 3 8.58 10.2 1 10.2 15 9.37 1 BCH Suppl. 53 Other Attic Chian Persian Milesian Aeginetan 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 THE CHIAN REVOLUTION: CHANGING PATTERNS OF HOARDING IN WESTERN ASIA MINOR 0 Fig. 16. – Silver hoards of Western Asia Minor to ca 320 BC: numbers of mints and identities of weight-standards contained. 291 292 Andrew MEADOWS from a strong nucleus of major Greek cities, spreading to the Hecatomnid satrapy in the early 4th century, and ultimately to the majority of Greek cities and even the Achaemenid mint at Sardis by the middle of the century.35 To a certain extent we can test this pattern of production against the evidence that we have assembled for circulation. Another glance at the end of the chart of weight standards (Fig. 16, enlarged above, Fig. 10), does suggest to me a developing of pattern of circulation within the 4th century, rather than a static one. The early part of the third period, down to around the middle of the 4th century saw some mixture of weight standard remaining in the hoards. Only with CH 1. 28-29 and IGCH 1212 does the Chian standard come fully to dominate the hoard record. So in circulation terms, there was a sudden, though not exclusive, shift towards the Chian standard around 400 BC. Over the course of the following half century, Chian weight coinages «gathered momentum» until by ca 350 BC the hoard evidence suggests that little else was circulating, and that the coins of different mints were circulating indiscriminately alongside each other. If we may use this circulation evidence to inform our understanding of the production decisions that were being taken over the same period, this is certainly compatible with suggesting, as I would, that the move to production of Chian standard coinage had a strong external stimulus that caused a major shift at a number of mints, and that this in turn had a «snowball» effect on other mints in the region. IV. THE GREEKS HAVE A WORD FOR IT The «revolution» that I have been discussing was massive. It affected the monetary behaviour of cities and kingdoms in a profound way throughout western Asia Minor and beyond. It seems more than likely that we should be able to observe some trace of it in the ancient documents, and I will conclude briefly by suggesting that we can.36 The documents are in fact well-known, and have often been discussed in the past. They consist of a group of inventories from Didyma from the late 4th century BC, combined with a building inscription from Colophon, of similar date.37 The inventories describe the weights of various precious metal objects with the term «symmachic drachma» (e.g. IDidyma no. 437, ll. 2-5: σταθ[μὸ]ν ἄγει συμ[μαχικοῦ δραχμὰς — εἴ]|κοσι, ἀνάθημα τῶι θεῶι Ἐ[— Μακε]|δόνος φιάλη ἀργυρῆ λ[έη — σταθμὸν ἄγει] | συμμαχικοῦ δραχμάς). The Colophonian inscription includes among the list of subscriptions (ll. 151-4): Κρόνιος Μένωνος Μιλήσιος | χρυσοῦς τριηκοσίους | ἀργυρίου συμμαχικοῦ δραχμὰ|ς τρισχιλίας. In both cases, as always when such a qualification is given of «drachma», the point is to specify the weight standard being used. So what might the «Symmachic» weight standard be? Marcellesi has discussed this matter at length recently and, to my mind rightly, discarded the various other interpretations of this term in favour of seeing the standard as being the local standard in use at 35. For the Achaemenid issues see «Pixodarus», 210-212. 36. I owe the idea to Philip Kinns (pers. comm.). 37. IDidyma no. 434-437; MAIER 1959, no. 69. For discussion of the chronology of these texts see MARCELLESI 2004, 27-29. BCH Suppl. 53 THE CHIAN REVOLUTION: CHANGING PATTERNS OF HOARDING IN WESTERN ASIA MINOR 293 Miletus. I would suggest that we might modify her proposal in the light of the evidence we have been considering above for the production and circulation of the Chian weight standard in the 4th century BC. In the late 4th century, the period of these inscriptions, Milesian coinage was still, I think, being produced on the Chian standard.38 If it was not still being produced, it was, as IGCH 1213 (Samos 1946) clearly demonstrates, still circulating.39 But the circulation evidence shows us very clearly that Milesian silver coinage did not circulate by itself in the 4th century.40 The circulation pattern that we have clearly adumbrated above, is one of similar weight (Chian) coinages circulating alongside each other. «Symmachic», then, is the Greek term for the Chian standard of the 4th century BC. The origin of this designation, I would suggest, lies in the origin of this standard’s rise to domination: the symmachy of Lysander with its ΣΥΝ coinage. CONCLUSION What I have tried to show in this paper is that the hoard evidence for silver coinage in Western Asia Minor down to the arrival of Alexander the Great reveals a number of fundamental shifts in monetary circulation. Down to 400 BC coins tended to circulate in civic «silos». When coins from different mints did circulate together, the coins that did so tended to be fractions, denominations smaller than a hemidrachm. Around 400 BC a significant shift in circulation occurred, as civic coins, as well as satrapal and ultimately royal coins broke out of their silos and began to circulate together. These were now larger denominations, since at this point fractions disappear from the hoard record. Yet, while this change was occurring, the composition of hoards in one important respect remained constant. The number of weight standards represented in any one hoard tends to be low throughout the entire period. I have sought to explain this change in the pattern of mints coupled with consistency of standards, by matching the pattern of circulation to that of production at mints in Western Asia Minor. It is the rise of the Chian standard that explains this apparent paradox. A powerful political impetus, I have suggested, gave rise to an economic imperative. 38. DEPPERT-LIPPITZ 1984 dates the end of her Period I ca 323 BC, but it is now clear from the Pixodarus hoard that all of her Period I, series III and IV issues must postdate ca 340 BC, so it is possible that the Chian weight coinage ended a little later than she allows. 39. The date of 340 BC assigned to this hoard in IGCH is certainly too early. See KINNS, in «Pixodarus», 199-200, for a date in the 320s. The Milesian issues in this hoard run down to Deppert-Lippitz’s Period I, series IV (ΔιΟπΟΜπΟΣ [Athens] and πρΟΞεΝΟΣ [ANS cast], in fresh condition). 40. Note IGCH 1213, 1215, 1217, CH 9.421, 9. 463, Commerce 2009. BCH Suppl. 53 294 Andrew MEADOWS B IBLIOGRAPHY R. H. J. ASHTON 2001, «The Coinage of Rhodes 408–c. 190 BC», in A. MEADOWS, K. SHIPTON (eds), Money and its Uses in the Ancient Greek World, p. 79-115. R. H. J. ASHTON 2007, «The Pre-Imperial Coinage of Iasos», NC 167, p. 47-78. J. M. BALCER 1968, «The Early Silver Coinage of Teos», SNR 47, p. 5-50. J. P. BARRON 1966, The Silver Coins of Samos. H. A. CAHN 1965, «Étalons monétaires en Asie Mineure jusqu’au Ve siècle», in Congresso Internazionale di Numismatica Roma 11-16 Settembre 1961. Atti II, p. 19-23. H. A. CAHN 1970, Knidos. Die Münzen des sechsten und des fünften Jahrhunderts v. Chr., AMUGS 4. B. DEPPERT-LIPPITZ 1984, Die Münzprägung Milets vom vierten bis ersten Jahrhundert v. Chr., Typos 5. H. VON FRITZE 1914, «Die Silberprägung von Kyzikos. Eine chronologische Studie», Nomisma 9, p. 34-56. P. GARDNER 1918, A History of Ancient Coinage, 700-300 B.C. P. GARDNER 1920, «The Financial History of Ancient Chios», JHS 40, p. 160-173. A. W. GOMME, A. ANDREWES, K. J. DOVER 1945-81, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, 5 vol. N. M. M. HARDWICK 1991, The Coinage of Chios from the 6th to the 4th Century B.C., Diss. Oxford. N. M. M. HARDWICK 1996, «The Solution to Thucydides VIII 101.1 : the “Chian Fortieths”», NAC 25, p. 59–69. IDidyma = A. REHM, Didyma II. Die Inschriften (1958). J. KAGAN 1984, «Hellenistic Coinage at Scepsis after its Refoundation in the Third Century B.C.», ANSMN 29, p. 11-24. J. KAGAN 1992, «IGCH 1185 Reconsidered», RBN 138, p. 1-24 St. KARWIESE 1980, «Herakliskos Drakonopnigon», NC 140, p. 1-27. A. G. KEEN 1998, Dynastic Lycia: A Political History of the Lycians and Their Relations with Foreign Powers, c. 545-362 B.C., Mnemosyne, Bibliotheca classica Batava 178. Ph. KINNS 1980, Studies in the Coinage of Ionia. Erythrae, Teos, Lebedus, Colophon, c. 400-30 B.C., Diss. Cambridge. Ph. KINNS 1986, «The Coinage of Miletus», NC 146, p. 233-260. Ph. KINNS 1989, «Ionia: the Pattern of Coinage during the Last Century of the Persian Empire», REA 91, p. 183-193. Ph. KINNS forthcoming, «The Coinage of Leukai», in Festschrift for Elaine Matthews. K. KONUK 1998a, The Coinage of the Hekatomnids of Caria, Diss. Oxford. K. KONUK 1998b, «The Early Coinage of Kaunos», in Studies Price, p. 197-223. BCH Suppl. 53 THE CHIAN REVOLUTION: CHANGING PATTERNS OF HOARDING IN WESTERN ASIA MINOR 295 J. H. KROLL 2009, «What About Coinage?», in J. MA, N. PAPAZARKADAS, R. PARKER (eds), Interpreting the Athenian Empire, p. 195-209. L. LAZZARINI 1983, «L’inizio della monetazione di Assos e una nuova ipotesi su Aioleis (Troade)», RIN 85, p. 3-15. G. LE RIDER 1963, Deux trésors de monnaies grecques de la Propontide, IVe siècle avant J.-C. F. G. MAIER 1959, Griechische Mauerbauinschriften. M.-Chr. MARCELLESI 2004, Milet des Hécatomnides à la domination romaine. Pratiques monétaires et histoire de la cité du IVe au IIe siècle av. J.-C., Milesische Forschungen 3. J. G. MILNE 1940, «The Mint of Kyme in the Third Century BC», NC 20, p. 129-137. O. PICARD 2000, «Les monnaies», in Y. GRANDJEAN, Fr. SALVIAT (eds), Guide de Thasos, SitMon 3. K. REGLING 1921, «Phygela, Klazomenai, Amphipolis», ZfNum 33, p. 46-67. L. ROBERT 1951, Études de numismatique grecque. E. S. G. ROBINSON 1921, «Greek Coins from the Dardanelles (Lately Acquired by the British Museum)», NC, p. 1-25. E. SCHÖNERT-GEISS 1970, Die Münzprägung von Byzantion 1, Autonome Zeit, Griechisches Münzwerk. M. THOMPSON 1965, «The Coinage of Proconnesus», RN 7, p. 30-34. N. VISMARA 1999, Ripostigli d’epoca pre-ellenistica (6.-4. sec. a. C.) con monete della Lycia arcaica: aspetti e problemi di distribuzione e di circolazione : catalogo dei ritrovamenti di Lycia 1972 e Lycia 1973, Materiali, studi, ricerche 6. J. A. W. WARREN 2009, «Sikyon: a Case Study in the Adoption of Coinage by a Polis in the Fifth Century BC», NC 169, p. 1-13. B. WEISSER 2009, «Funde aus Milet XXIII. Ein Hort in Milet mit Silbermünzen aus dem frühen 4. Jh. v. Chr.», AA 2009/1, p. 151-158. W. WROTH 1902, «Greek Coins Acquired by the British Museum in 1901», NC, p. 313-344. BCH Suppl. 53