The Letoon deposit; Lycian Coinage, Rhodian plinthophori, and Pseudo Rhodian drachms from Haliartos (yet again) and Asia Minor more

The Letoon Deposit Lycian League Coinage, Rhodian Plinthophori, and Pseudo- Rhodian Drachms from Haliartos (yet again) and Asia Minor. R.H.J. ASHTON AND A.R. MEADOWS The Hellenistic Letoon, the largest of three temples within the sanctuary near Xanthos that takes its name therefrom, was built directly upon the site of an earlier sacred building. This predecessor, approximately 8x5 m in size, has been dated by its excavators, on the basis of potsherds from the fill of its foundation, to the late 5lh or early 4"' century BC, and the initiative for its construction tentatively attributed to the great Xanthian dynast Arbinas.1 At some point during the Hellenistic period, a significant redevelopment of the whole Letoon complex took place. New structures were commissioned to replace not only the Letoon itself, but also the two temples immediately to its east, dedicated to Artemis and Apollo. In all three cases the area of the earlier sacred building was enclosed within a new building. The new Letoon consisted of a 16x31m peripteral temple in the Ionic order with 6x11 columns, and was constructed around its predecessor in such a fashion that the earlier building 'could have remained in use until the completion of its successor'.2 This peculiarity had an important effect upon the structure of the second Letoon: while the area of the stylobate running around the new building had a stone-paved floor, the area within the cella did not.3 Initially this important fact was not realised by the excavators, and when in 1975 they excavated a group of 81 coins from within the fill of the cella, while noting that the paving in this area had apparently 'disappeared', they concluded for their coin find that Tl s'agit a coup sur d'un depot de fondation.'4 Although at this stage they lacked a detailed study of the coins that had been found, the bulk of the coins clearly appeared to be Rhodian plinthophori and Lycian League citharephori, and from this they concluded a burial date of between 185 and 150 for the 'hoard'.5 This date in turn became an important means for dating the construction of the temple.6 There 1 The first discussion of the earlier temple by Hansen and Le Roy 1976 has been supplemented by Hansen 1991 and Le Roy 1991. : Hansen 1991. p. 323. For a plan of the Letoon temple and its predecessor see Des Courtils and Laroche 1999. p. 397. For an overview of the site. eid. 1998. p. 72. ' The initial publication of Hansen and Le Roy in 1976 suggested the existence of paving with the cella (p. 325. and see further below). However, subsequent excavation has made it clear that there was no paving within this area. See e.g. Des Courtils and Laroche 2002, p. 329 and. especially, eid. 2003. p. 451. where the further excavation that yielded the third group of coins (see below) "confirme Fabsencc de dallage interieur." A Hansen and Le Roy 1976. p. 321. ' Ibid., pp. 324-5. 6 Ibid. Cf. Le Roy 1991, pp. 348-9. 112 R.I I .1. ASIITON and A.R. MEADOWS matters rested until, in 2001, the French excavators returned to the cello as part of the project to reconstruct the Letoon. In the course of clearing this area a further 44 lUMIa VVCll. UISCUVCICU lllal iCClllCCl ctl U1M LLKIIKv. MIIII Ull IU UIC d3c>CI 1 lUlaiiC ICCUVCICU a quarter of a century earlier. In the following year further excavation in the same area yielded 17 coins, again of similar appearance to the two earlier discoveries.8 In a stimulating and wide-ranging article Marie-Christine Marcellesi has now provided a full and welcome publication of all three of these groups of coins (Marcellesi 2007). They may be summarised as follows: 1975 2001 2002 Lycian dynastic 1 Pscudo-Rhodian issues 3 Rhodian Plinthophori Group A 2 3 Rhodian Plinthophori Group B 33 29 7 Rhodian Plinthophori Group C 2 Rhodian Plinthophori Group D I 1 1 Rhodian Plinthophori unc. groups 6 Lycian League I (AE) 8 2 Lycian League 11 (AR) 2 1 Lycian League III (AE) 11 1 Lycian League IV (AR) 1 1 Lycian League V (AE) 4 2 Antiphellus 1 Roman imperial AR I Roman AE (4lh cent. AD) 2 Roman prov. issue 1 Illegible 1 1 Total 81 44 10° Marcellesi's discussion of the nature of the deposit and of some of the Lycian League, Rhodian, and pseudo-Rhodian material merits examination. We begin by questioning some of the revised chronologies, relative and absolute, that Marcellesi has offered for issues excavated from the cella, and for other coinages related to them. We conclude by suggesting that a return to some of the more 'orthodox" dates for these issues may suggest that the Letoon deposit(s) is (are) more homogeneous than Marcellesi allows, and may yet contribute to the dating of the construction of the Hellenistic Letoon. In what follows Meadows is primarily responsible for Sections 1 and 4, Ashton for Sections 2 and 3. ~ Des Courtils and Laroche 2002, p. 329. * Des Courtils and Laroche 2003. p. 452. '' Sic. The discrepancy betw een the total of 17 coins given in the report of the find (above, n. |8j) and the 10 coins described by Marcellesi is not explained. THE LETOON DEPOSIT 113 SECTION 1. LYCIAN LEAGUE QUINARII (ARM) Marcellesi has joined the debate over the date of the 1st century Lycian League silver (Troxell's Period IV), which consists of didrachms, drachms and hemidrachms.'" The didrachms of this period all have the portrait of Octavian or Augustus on the obverse. On stylistic grounds Troxell (pp. 178-9) dated them to the broad period c.28/27- c. 19/18 BC. The drachms, which were subdivided by Troxell into seven series, consist of a large group (Troxell's Series 1-6) struck at a higher weight standard, and a small group (Series 7) struck at a lower standard. The higher-standard drachm series were accompanied by hemidrachms. Troxell associated the latest of the higher- weight drachms with the didrachms, and assumed that her Series 1-6 belonged to the period of the 40s, 30s and 20s BC. In 2002 T suggested a revised chronology for this silver coinage on three grounds." First, there is a marked stylistic similarity in the treatment of the obverse dies of Troxell's Series 1 and some of those of the Rhodian plinthophori of Jenkins' Group E.': These are the dies that have in the past been perceived as reminiscent of the treatment of the portrait of Mithradates VT. Despite the doubts that have been expressed about the nature of the relationship between the Rhodian and Mithradatic coins (see the discussion below), it does seem legitimate to regard this treatment in the Lycian and Rhodian coinages as a phenomenon likely to belong to a particular period, and as grounds for thinking that Troxell's Series 1 and Jenkins' Group E are roughly contemporary. Whether we use this stylistic idiosyncrasy to assign an absolute date of the 80s BC to these coins is a separate argument (see Section 2B below). But in the context of this latter argument, one must question why, if, as Marcellesi has suggested (p. 75), this distinctive style had been available for imitation since the late 4th century, the die-cutters of Rhodes and Lycia suddenly adopted it in the 1st century BC. What was the stimulus? To my mind it remains likely that this is likely to be a phenomenon associated with the 80s BC, and that the beginning of Troxell's Period TV should be moved back to around this time. My second reason for moving the start-date of this coinage back to the 90s or 80s BC was metrological. Troxell had noted the similarity of the weight-standard employed for the drachm coinage of her Period IV, Series 1-6, to that of the Roman quinarius of the latter half of the Is' century BC. Re-examination of Troxell's weight tables led me to suggest that the standard of the Lycian drachms of Series 1 -6 was somewhat higher than that suggested by Troxell, and that this conformed rather to the Roman quinarius of the early lsl century BC.IJ Combined with the argument from style, 1 suggested, the weight standard might imply a beginning for this coinage in the context of the Mithradatic War of the 80s BC. Marcellesi has criticized the argument from weight standard on the grounds that 'the silver Lycian coinage followed an 10 For the correct identification of these denominations see Meadows 2002, p. 127 n. 72; cf. Marcellesi 2007. p. 86. 11 Meadows 2002, pp. 127-9. 12 Compare Troxell pis. 12 and 15. 13 King 2007. esp. pp. 21 and 28, has subsequently re-examined the evidence for the Roman quinarius and reaffirmed the pattern of weight reduction. In the earlier period the quinarius weighed in excess of 1.97g. in the later it was reduced to c. 1.75g. I 14 R.H.J. ASH TON and A.R. MEADOWS evolution of its own that seems entirely independent of that of the quinarii. which scarcely circulated in the east Mediterranean of the Is' century BC, in contrast to the denarii' (p. 87). Neither of these objections carries weight. One cannot speak of the development of weight standards in evolutionary terms. The weight of the Lycian League drachms plummeted from around 3g in Period II (Troxell, pp. 34-5) to around 2.1 g in Period IV. Series 1-6 (Meadows 2002, pp. 127-8). Such changes do not occur by spontaneous mutation, but through human agency. A decision was taken to lower the weight from the local plinthophoric standard to another that has no obvious local analogue. It certainly bears no relation to the development of the weight standard at Rhodes. Either the new Lycian weight standard was entirely sui generis, a possibility, or it was designed to conform to another weight standard. Troxell and I have both suggested that this might be the standard of the Roman quinarius. Marcellesi's second objection, that the quinarius did not circulate in any great quantity in the eastern Mediterranean misses the point. The Lycians would have been accommodating their coinage not to a predominant circulating denomination, but to a standard. This, of course is the standard of the Roman denarius, and there can be little doubt that the denarius and its standard would, by the 80s BC, have been familiar in south-western Asia Minor. The Lycians were presumably impelled to strike at a lower denomination than the denarius by the levels of payment for which their coinage was intended. The third reason for suggesting an earlier date for the beginning of the Period IV coinage was the hoard evidence apparently offered by CH 4. 72 and 4. 78, which suggests the contemporaneity of parts of this period and the Rhodian plinthophori of Jenkins Group E. This evidence has been laid out in Section 2B below by Ashton. If we maintain, as Ashton suggests, the traditional early date (c.SOs BC) for Rhodes Group E, then elements of Lycia Period IV are likely to belong there too. Marcellesi has added a fourth element to the debate. As noted above, in 2002 1 suggested that the drachms of the first six Series of Period IV were all struck at a higher weight standard (c.2.1 g) than Troxell had suggested (c. 1.85 g). On this basis I further suggested that the didrachms of this Period, which Troxell had associated with Series 6, were in fact too light (at c.3.6-3.7g) to belong with this Series, or with any of the earlier Series of Period IV. Instead, they are more obviously related to the 'reduced-weight' drachms of Troxell's Series 7, which were struck at a weight of e. 1.7-1.8 g. Marcellesi first confuses matters by wrongly suggesting that I had associated the didrachms with the drachms of Series 5. Against this association she asserts: kthe association between the didrachms and the drachms of series 6 is based not just on the weights of the two denominations, but also on common symbols* (p. 87). If true, the existence of common symbols across the Series 6 drachms and the didrachms would also raise a strong objection to the arrangement that I did suggest: the contemporaneity of Series 7 and the didrachms. But matters are not so straightforward. Troxell, in fact, ruled out in general the admissibility of such an assertion: Tt is not safe to assume contemporaneity between Lycian League issues of different denominations merely on the basis of identical symbols' (p. 173). As we THE LETOON DEPOSIT 115 116 R.H.J. ASHTON and A.R. MEADOWS can see from Table 1, where the symbols present on all of the silver of Period IV are summarized, the picture is far from simple. The di drachms exhibit a broad range of control marks. Despite this, there is in fact only one coincidence between the symbols of the didrachms and those of Series 6: the tripod that appears on Troxell 110 and 115. There is similarly one coincidence between the didrachms and Series 5: the branch of Troxell 105. 108 and 111. On the other hand there are three cases where the same symbols appear on didrachms and reduced weight drachms of Series 7: the corn ear of Troxell 122, 143 and 149; the branch and star of Troxell 113, 145 and 156; the aphlaston of Troxell 116, 118 and 151. While the first of these symbols is relatively common on the Period IV coinage, the latter two occur only on the didrachms and drachms of Series 7. Thus, if the symbols are to be used as indicators of contemporaneity, and 1 remain cautious in this matter, then they suggest that Series 7 and the didrachms are the contemporary issues. SECTION 2. THE RHODIAN PLINTHOPHORI (RHJA) A. argyriou rodiou kainou plinthophorou Marcellesi and I are in agreement over a high date for the start of the Rhodian plinthophori, perhaps in a reorganisation sparked by the Peace of Apameia of 188 BC as suggested by Louis Robert nearly 60 years ago, perhaps a couple of years earlier. The evidence is both epigraphic and numismatic (Ashton 2005, p. 86; Marcellesi 2007, pp. 69-72), and there is no need to repeat it here. However, there is need to discuss again the phrase argyriou rodiou kainou plinthophorou, 'new Rhodian plinthophoric money', used in a recently-found inscription from the Letoon to designate the currency in which an indemnity of 25 talents was to be paid by Tlos to the Termessians at Oinoanda. The inscription has been dated variously to shortly after 166, 163/2 and 155/4 BC. In 2005 1 argued that the word kainou in the sense of 'new-fangled' or 'newly-introduced' would sit oddly in an inscription dated a quarter of a century or more after the introduction of the plinthophoroi, and that the adjective was in any case mildly redundant given the presence of the word plinthophorou. These difficulties would be resolved if kainou were translated 'fresh', i.e. uncirculated and of full weight. Marcellesi, pp. 70-1, will have none of this. She maintains that, on its own, kainos cannot have the meaning 'fresh' in monetary contexts (which would be expressed by an adjective based on neos) and always has the semi-technical meaning of 'newly introduced'. However, firstly, pace Marcellesi, there is no doubt that kainos in non- monetary contexts often means 'fresh' or 'recent', as is shown by glances at LSJ, .v.v. [I], and indeed at Chantraine 1999 (s.v., pp. 479-80, which she cites in support of her thesis14). Secondly, Marcellesi ignores the passage which 1 cited from Theophrastos, Characters, Petty Ambition 21.5-6, in which the character pays back a loan of one mna in fresh {kainon) coin. Thirdly, the phrase kalon kai kainon is well attested as describing coinage of good appearance in papyri from the third century BC onwards (NC 2005, p. 87 n. 12); whether or not, as Marcellesi maintains, kalon is the more IJ See also Pieard 1988. pp. 94-5; Aupert 1982. pp. 267-8; Robert 1951, p. 169. I HE LETOON DEPOSIT 117 important adjective in this phrase, the fact remains that the adjective kainon is here used in the context of fresh coinage. Fourthly the Letoon inscription is not a technical accounting document, but a treaty settling border disputes. Thus, while one can allow that in technical monetary contexts kainos may usually mean 'newly-introduced' rather than 'fresh', it would seem a little dogmatic to insist that it must always have the former sense in monetary contexts, even when the documents involved are not concerned with accountancy and when 'fresh' rather than 'newly-introduced' makes the reading easier (as also, for example, in the inscription discussed by Meadows 2005). Alain Bresson15 and 1 have wondered whether the authorities at Tlos would have gone to the trouble of obtaining 25 talents of Rhodian plinlhophoric silver (150,000 drachms), and suggested that at least part of the indemnity might have been paid in Lycian League silver coinage, by hypothesis recently inaugurated, which clearly drew its plinthophoric format and weight standard from the Rhodian coinage. Again. Marcellesi will have none of this. She correctly notes that the Lycian League silver coins are officially referred to in inscriptions as citharephori, and points out that Rhodian plinthophoric coinage circulated extensively in Lycia, as the Letoon deposit demonstrates. She does not believe that the drafters of the treaty would have been so careless as to describe Lycian League coinage as 'new Rhodian plinthophoric'. However, Bresson and I argued that the word argyriou seems to refer to the weight-standard of the coins which the city of Tlos was to pay to the Termessians at Oinoanda, not necessarily to a specific coinage. The Termessians at Oinoanda expected to receive 25 talents of full-weight silver coin on the Rhodian plinthophoric standard, or money equivalent in weight to 25 talents on that standard: this could well have embraced Lycian League citharephori as well as Rhodian plinthophori. Note, however, that Meadows in Section 4 below gives reasons for supposing that the Lycian League citharephori began at some point well into the second half of the second century: in this case we would have to accept that the indemnity was probably meant to be paid in Rhodian currency or the equivalent weight in bullion. B. The dating of Groups C, D and E of the plinthophori Marcellesi rightly follows Jenkins in using the Naxos 1926 hoard (TGCH 255). probably buried around 125 BC, to show that at least part of Group C of the plinthophori was circulating at that time, and that Group C is unlikely to antedate 150 BC, where Troxell, on the basis of the 'high' dating of the Athenian stephanephori in the hoard, had placed it. The Delos 1964 hoard (IGCH 336) shows that plinthophori of Group D/D' were in circulation by 88 BC, and, like Jenkins, Marcellesi rightly sees no reason to accept the significant chronological gap between Groups A-C and D postulated by Troxell. It is difficult to date Groups A, B and C with any precision after the start of the series as a whole in c.190, but it would not be unreasonable to suppose that Group C, apparently the smallest of the Groups to judge from numbers of moneyers' names, had ceased by around 120 BC or earlier. This would leave plenty of room to fit Group D into the 30-40 years before the First Mithradatic War 15 Bresson 1998, pp. 83-6. IIS R.I U. ASHTON and A.R. MEADOWS of 89-85 BC,16 and would allow the final Group E to be assigned to the period of the war and to Mithradates' siege of Rhodes, as Troxell, Jenkins and 1 have argued in the past. Marcellesi proposes a radical alteration to this schema. She accepts that the succeeding 'Attic weight' drachms of Rhodes with full-blown rose on the reverse should be downdated from their traditional span of c.88-43 BC, and that they ended in the period of Augustus, as A.-P. Weiss and 1 had argued in 1997. We had suggested that some of these Attic weight issues, not necessarily early ones, might have been used for reconstruction work after the destruction wrought on the island by Cassius and Cassius Parmensis in 43 and 42 BC, but we did not propose a definite starting- date. However, Marcellesi, p. 76, asserts that we proposed a starting-date in 43 BC or nearby, and she is worried at the implied 40-year gap in minting between the end of the plinthophori and the start of the Attic weight drachms. In this she follows Bresson 1997, who marshals a formidable array of evidence to demonstrate Rhodes" undiminished naval activities and continuing power after the First Mithradatic War. She might, however, have been less worried if she had read the final p. 40 of Ashton with Weiss 1997 (an Addendum, which is easy to overlook), in which we took account of Bresson's arguments, and were content to reaffirm that the Attic weight drachms may well have begun before 43 BC and that the gap may have been only a couple of decades or so. The gap could be further reduced if, as would be perfectly possible on the current hypothesis, Group E of the plinthophori extended for a few years beyond the end of the First Mithradatic War. In 1997 Weiss and I suggested that the gap might be explained by dislocation in silver supplies caused by the Sullan indemnities or the increased activities of the Cilician pirates, not suppressed by Pompey until 67 BC; we speculated that the Rhodian administration might have made necessary payments during such a gap with local coinage still in circulation, with foreign coinage, or with instruments of credit. Marcellesi's solution to the gap problem is more drastic. She asserts that Troxell's principal reason for assigning Group E of the plinthophori to 88-84 was the undoubted similarity between the heads of Helios on the drachms, and the idealised heads of the monarch which appear on the coinage of Mithradates VI. She notes that, if one series was inspired by the other, it could equally be that Mithradates' die-cutters were inspired by Rhodian coin rather than vice versa, so that a direct connection with the events of the 80s need not be postulated; one is justified in dating a connection, if there were one, only vaguely to the first third of the first century. In any case, she argues, the style may simply derive from a general fashion of the time.17 She rightly notes that the evidence of the Delos 1964 hoard would allow the hypothesis that Group D continued to be struck after 88 BC, and suggests that Group E may have begun in the 80s and continued to the middle of the first century, thus filling in the gap between the start of the 'Attic weight' coins. In fact, given that Group E may 16 Jenkins, p. 105, notes that, despite the considerably larger number of issues (name + symbol combinations) found in Group D compared with those in the three preceding Groups. Group D is unlikely to have lasted significantly longer than A. B. or C. for its total of 29 moneyers* names is only marginally greater than the tally for Group A. 17 These arguments had already been used on p. 62 of Ashton 2001b. See further below. THE LETOON DEPOSIT 119 have been the shortest-lived of the plinthophoric Groups, having only 12 moneyers, it would strengthen her hypothesis if she allowed Group D to continue throughout the 80s and beyond, and postulated a start for Group E as late as, say, the 60s (on p. 77 she suggests perhaps the second quarter of the first century BC for Group E). She notes that Group E coins rarely appear in hoards with coins of Groups A-D, perhaps because of a chronological gap, or because Group E was struck to a reduced weight standard compared with the preceding Groups. Now comes Marcellesi's most ingenious proposal: that the 'Attic weight1 drachms are not of Attic weight at all, but are didrachms on the reduced plinthophoric standard of the preceding Group E piinthophori. This, she believes, would solve the problem as to why Rhodes should suddenly have adopted at so late a date the Attic standard, would explain the late hoards in which Group E piinthophori occur in the company of "Attic weight' drachms, and would allow resolution of the famous statement in an inscription from Kibyra of c.AD 72/73 that the Roman denarius was worth 16 assaria while the Rhodian drachm at Kibyra was worth only 10. Ex hypothesis the "didrachms* follow the Group E piinthophori chronologically, so that it is not particularly cogent to raise objections on the grounds of their very different style and format, the absence of moneyers' names in common, and the apparently different system of organising the emissions.,s Moreover one might bolster Marcellesi's thesis by noting that new formats in Greek coinages often flag up the introduction of a new denomination. Marcellesi's theories however are not without their difficulties. Firstly, the recorded weights of the Group E piinthophori are scattered over an extraordinarily wide range (Jenkins 1989, p. 115), but there seems to be a rough peak broadly around 2.3 - 2.6g. The weights of the 'didrachms' vary less wildly, and there seems to a rough peak at around the 4.0 - 4.2g mark (Ashton with Weiss 1997, p. 20). If the latter were meant to be didrachms on the same weight standard as the Group E piinthophori, they weigh too little, and would thus contradict the usual Hellenistic practice whereby fractions weigh less than their theoretical full weight, although this admittedly applies to coinages struck simultaneously rather than consecutively. It is conceivable that the metal of the 'didrachms' was finer than that of the Group E piinthophori, but no analyses have been carried out and it would be unwise to rely on this as an explanation. On the face of it, the lighter weight 'didrachms' should have driven the Group E piinthophori out of circulation by the operation of Gresham's Law, but the hoards show that this did not happen. On the other hand, there are a couple of non-conclusive objections to regarding the larger coins as Attic weight drachms: (a) there is no obvious reason why Rhodes should suddenly have adopted this standard at this late date, though other Attic weight coins were being struck around the middle of the first century at, for example Athens, Chios and Smyrna (Ashton with Weiss 1997, pp. 36-7), and a series of Side-type tetradrachms all (probably ) struck for Amyntas at a so far unidentified mint in southern Asia Minor (Meadows 2006, pp. 171-3); (b) if the larger Rhodian coins were Attic weight drachms, they are of remarkably 18 Group E of the piinthophori was signed by 12 names, and no die-links have been detected among them. The 'Attic weight drachms' I "didrachms" were struck in clusters in the names of mostly three to five moneyers sharing a common symbol and often die-linked together (Ashton with Weiss 1997. p. 22). 120 R.l I J. AS! I TON and A.R. MEADOWS good weight for this late period (compare the weight tables for the Side-type coins in Meadows 2006. pp. 164 and 168), though the tetradrachms of Athens itself at this late date still maintained a high weight standard (Thompson 1961. pp. 645 and 648. on the assumption that the 'low' dating is accepted). Secondly, it is true that coins of Groups D and E rarely appear together in hoards, but then there is not much hoard evidence at all. Marcellesi makes no mention of the most important hoard. CH 4. 72, published in detail in 1991 and containing 15 hcmidrachms of Group D and 29 of Group E. all in similar state of wear.|y The two hoards in which Group E drachms and the "didrachms'/ "Attic weight drachms' are found together are both late and both from the Near East: one from Beth Likiah near Jerusalem containing a denarius of Augustus, the other from Sakha in Egypt closing with coins of Trajan (Ashton with Weiss 1997, pp. 24-6 hoards, C and E [CH 9. 586 and 700]). In these hoards the Rhodian silver clearly functioned as bullion, and their owners will certainly not have recognised the Rhodian coins as drachms and didrachms which corresponded w ith one another. The occurrence of Group E coins without Group D coins in these late hoards is better explained by the assumption that by then the lighter Group E coins had driven the heavier Group D coins out of circulation under the operation of Gresham's law, rather than by the hypothesis that there was a significant chronological gap between them. Thirdly, Marcellesi makes no mention of the unprecedently large bronze coins which seem to have accompanied the Group E plinthophori (Ashton 2001b). They were perhaps intended as trihemiobols or diobols, struck to accompany the Group E drachms and hemidrachms at a time when supplies of silver were too low to meet demand. Troxell, pp. 82-4. has noted the low and widely scattered weights of the Group E silver coins, their careless striking and debased style. They seem to form a fairly compact, stylistically similar Group, with relatively few (12) magistrates. But it was a heavy striking: Jenkins identified 73 obverse dies from 85 specimens, so that many more dies remain to be identified, and he observed no die-links between issues. The marked proliferation of symbols related to Isis on both the large bronzes and the silver bring to mind the story that Isis intervened to destroy Mithradates' great siege engine during his siege of the city of Rhodes in 88 BC (Ashton 2001b, p. 64). Group E thus bears some of the hallmarks of an emergency coinage, and there is some evidence, though not conclusive, to link it to the First Mithradatic War. In the absence of any convincing evidence favouring a later date. \ should prefer to leave Group E in the 80s BC, rather than linking it to a later crisis such as the campaigns ''' Ashton 1991. The assemblage also included 31 Lycian League silver coins of Troxell Period IV. Series 5. 6 and 7, which in 1991, under the influence of Troxell's low dating, I regarded as a separate hoard. CH A. 78 = Troxell. pp. 129-30. and as amalgamated in modern times (there were other extraneous coins in the original lot). As we have seen in Section 1 above. Meadows" backdating of most of the Lycian coins allows one to assume that the Lycian and Rhodian coins circulated at about the same time, and were hoarded together after sev eral decades of circulation: the coins had come from a common Turkish source, traces of earth on both Rhodian and Lycian coins looked very similar, and most of the coins. Rhodian and Lycian. had seen a considerable amount of circulation. A problem with this reconstruction is that the hoard contained two Lycian League Period 4 series 7 drachms in considerably worn condition; Meadows 2002, p. 129. suggests that they, and the other five drachms in the Lycian League lot. were intrusions in what would otherwise be a uniform group of 24 Series 6 hemidrachms. THE LETOON DEPOSIT 121 against the pirates or the Roman Civil Wars, as favoured by Marcellcsi. p. 77. This does not of course preclude the notion that Group E may have continued for some years beyond the end of the war. Finally, let us examine Marcellesi's proposal that the reduced-weight Group E drachms and the following 'Attic-weight drachms" / 'didrachms' with full-blown rose were the basis of the Rhodian drachm mentioned in a famous inscription of AD 72/73 as being worth at Kibyra 10 assaria,20 i.e. five eighths of a denarius. In AD 72/73, after Nero's reform, the denarius weighed 3.36g.21 This would make the Rhodian drachm concerned weigh 2.1g. Yet, as we have seen, the weights of the Group E plinthophoric drachms, though widely scattered, seem to produce a rough peak at 2.3-2.6g, well above the level of the Rhodian drachm described at Kibyra (though the 'Attic-weight drachms' / 'didrachms' with full-blown rose, which are, as we have seen above, of proportionately lower weight, could be made to fit this schema). Moreover, it seems improbable that the Rhodian drachm of the inscription would refer to a coinage struck a century or more earlier. Furthermore, in the interval between the 'Attic-weight drachms'/ 'didrachms' and AD 72/73, probably in the reign of Augustus, Rhodes struck a series of drachms with the same types but on a weight standard of about 2.8-2.9g, which were presumably intended to pass as cistophoric drachms:22 if the inscription were referring at all to a physically existing Rhodian silver coinage, it would surely be to these coins rather than to their predecessors. However, these late Rhodian drachms seem to have constituted a relatively small issue struck at least a half-century before the inscription, and, crucially, are also too heavy to fill the bill. The answer may lie in Melville Jones' perceptive observation that the perpetual loan (in effect a gift) to Kibyra of 400,000 Rhodian drachms by the benefactor Q. Veranius Philagrus, which the inscription commemorates, would, in AD 72/73, have most probably been paid in Roman denarii. 'Tn that case, 250,000 denarii would have been given (which in the language used to describe them by the Romans would have been called a million sestertii). This gives us a round figure which is very believable as the amount actually donated by a very rich man as an act of euergetism designed to enhance his prestige. The use of the term "Rhodian drachma" would then be an anachronism, an out-of-date expression retained for traditional purposes.'23 By 'anachronism', Melville Jones refers to the late Rhodian drachms of the Augustan period weighing c.2.8-2.9g, but, as we have seen, these are much too heavy for the purpose. The expression in the inscription need not, however, be anachronistic if we take into account the large sestertius-size Rhodian bronzes struck between 20 Melville Jones, TNI and II no. 374 = IK 60, Kibyra 1 (ed. T. Korsten, Bonn. 2002), 42D, II. 8-12. 21 Duncan-Jones 1994, p. 234. Marcellcsi. p. 77, and Melville Jones. 77VII. p. 210, assume c.3.40g, bin this makes little difference to the argument. 22 Ashlon with Weiss 1997, pp. 37-9. citing the well-known passage of Festus to the effect that the Attic talent comprised 6000 denarii, the Rhodian and cistophoric only 4500: Melville Jones, 77VI and II. no. 586. As the bulk of Festus' work is an epitome of Vermis Flaccus, tutor of Augustus' grandchildren, the passage presumably reflects the position at that period. ^ Melville Jones, 77V II, no. 374. 122 R.I I..I. ASIITON and A.R. MEADOW'S the reigns of Augustus and Nero.24 It seems almost certain that these coins were tariffed as Rhodian drachms, but, although Philagrus' gift was explicitly made "in this Rhodian drachm', it does not seem likely that he would have made physical delivery of 400.000 of these coins, which, at about 25g each, would have weighed some 10 tons. We might, however, suggest very tentatively that Philagrus offered the value of 1 million sestertii, i.e. 250,000 denarii in cash, which translated into the value of 400,000 Rhodian bronze drachms. This would have the surprising, though perhaps not inconceivable, consequence that at Kibyra in AD 72/73 a Rhodian bronze drachm was worth 2.5 sestertii. SECTION 3. THE PSEUDO-RHODIAN DRACHMS (RHJA) The three pseudo-Rhodian drachms in the Letoon deposit, all with the usual head of Helios three-quarter facing left or right on the obverse and a rose on the reverse, have on their reverses respectively (a) the name MOYSAIOI above the rose, a caduceus in the right field and the numeral mark T to the left; (b) the name NIKOITPATOI above the rose and no symbol; and (c) the name in the genitive AIOKAEOYS above the rose, a thunderbolt beneath the rose, and the sign El to the right. A. MOYIAIOI + caduceus This series was first discussed in detail in Ashton 1987. There it was noted that of the nine specimens which had some sort of provenance, seven came from the eastern side of the Aegean, including one bought in Marmaris and two from a dealer on Rhodes. Only two came from mainland Greece, both from the Athens market. It was argued furthermore that, of the seven countermarks applied to coins of the series, four w ere applied in Lycia and one probably at Iasos in Caria. Since then, no fewer than 21 Mousaios drachms have come to light with probable or certain provenance in south-west Asia Minor. Thirteen occurred in a hoard of 16 pseudo-Rhodian drachms which appeared in 1992; since one of them has the Lycian chimera countermark (and one of the three non-Mousaios drachms in the hoard has the probably Lycian lyre countermark), it seems likely that the hoard came from south-west Turkey (CH 8, 427). Eight further examples were noted in Fethiye Museum out of a total holding of 20 pseudo-Rhodian drachms. Fethiye, ancient Telmessos, lies on the border between Caria and Lycia, and its catchment area is broadly western Lycia and south-eastern Caria. In 1987 1 had very tentatively suggested Mylasa as the mint; Price, Alexander, p. 308, then proposed Alabanda; but the holdings in Fethiye Museum suggested a mint further to the east (NC 1995, p. 10, n. 8, apparently overlooked by Marcellesi). The new drachm from the Letoon, with its impeccable provenance, provides some welcome corroboration, though the identity of the mint is still unknown.25 :J Ashton 1991, p. 76 and nos. 97-125: Rl'Cl, nos. 2746-2767. Coins of similar size reappeared under Domiiian and. retariffed explieitly as didraehms, under Nerva and Trajan (RPC II. pp. 179-80 and nos. 1190-1194). :5 In NC 1987, p. 12, I remarked thai the name Mousaios did not occur on any other Rhodian coins. Since then some very rare plinlhophoric chalkoi w ith the contracted form Mousais have been identified: see Ashton (forthcoming). the letoon deposit 123 As for the dale of the Mousaios drachms, there are no very clear pointers. They do not occur in any of the cluster of hoards from mainland Greece of the time of the Third Macedonian War in which so many other pseudo-Rhodian drachms occur in fresh condition, and there is no reason to suppose that, like them, they were minted to service the needs of one side or the other in that conflict (on this, see below). The control-numbers alpha to stigma which occur on them, whether or not they have any chronological significance, are of no help. The occurrence in CH 8, 427 of a pseudo-Rhodian drachm with Demokles + dolphin, which 1 would date to the late 170s (see further below), suggests that the Mousaios drachms may date around that time. But, in truth, they could have been minted at any time between the late third century and the mid-second. Note that Gary Reger and 1 have recently argued that the pseudo-Rhodian drachms of Mylasa, with an eagle on the cheek of Helios, began as early as the early 180s; they continued for some 30-35 years. Reger's radical backdating of the well-known Mylasean 'lease' inscriptions allows one to argue that the eagle-on-cheek drachms were inaugurated precisely to service those transactions and constitute the 'drachms of light Rhodian weight' specified in the texts.26 The Mousaios issue may likewise have had some kind of local, domestic purpose. B. AIOKAHZ + 0, and NIKOZTR4TOZ without symbol: Haliartos yet again Here we enter more contentious territory. In 1992 (with supplementary evidence in 1997) 1 proposed that the pseudo-Rhodian drachms signed by Diokles with the El marking should be attributed to Haliartos in Boiotia, the El representing the epichoric aspirate found on archaic silver coins from Boiotia of federal type. The context would be the support given by the city to Perseus during the Third Macedonian War, which led to the siege and sack of Haliartos by Roman and Pergamene troops in 171 BC. (The archaic silver coins with the aspirate had traditionally been assigned to Haliartos, but in 1976 Etienne and Knoepfler had proposed transferring them to Hyettos north of lake Kopais, and had argued that in the archaic period the name of Haliartos was not aspirated.) I argued that several other issues of pseudo-Rhodian drachms with a similar pattern of distribution and countermarking, signed by Demokles, Eubios, Pytheas, Lyson (all with dolphin symbol) and Nikostratos (no symbol), should be attributed to a nearby mint, possibly Larymna, given the letters A - A flanking the rose on some dies of the Eubios issue and the countermark of a dolphin + IT found on some of them. In 1999 Denis Knoepfler argued that the archaic silver coins with El should remain at Hyettos, and suggested that the Diokles and other issues should be assigned elsewhere, perhaps to the central mint of the Boiotian koinon in the years leading up to the Third Macedonian War. I reasserted the case for Haliartos in 2000 with arguments which do not convince Marcellesi. She prefers to leave open the question of where these issues were struck and to leave their date imprecise. Let us examine the question afresh. The arguments are a little intricate, but they tell a consistent story. 26 Ashton and Reger 2006. 124 R.H.J. ASHTON and A.R. MEADOWS The date Marceilesi, pp. 64-5, wishes to leave the dates of most of the pseudo-Rhodian issues more vague than I have proposed, arguing that it would be prudent simply to assign them to the first third of the second century, and perhaps a little later. She argues that the large numbers of pseudo-Rhodian drachms in a relatively large number of hoards from central and northern Greece buried at the time of the Third Macedonian War risk skewing the picture by causing them to be associated with the war, when it would be more prudent to assert simply that such coins circulated widely in central and northern Greece in the company of coins of Philip V and Perseus in the first third of the second century. But this takes no account of the condition of the coins in the hoards buried around 170 BC (the date of the hoards is often determined by the presence of post-reform coins of Perseus struck from c. 172 BC). A glance at plates illustrating the hoards or coins from them reveals that virtually all the pseudo-Rhodian drachms, including those from the issues under discussion here, are in consistently good condition and had seen little, if any, circulation. The obvious conclusion is that they had been struck not long before burial, and that their purpose was to service the needs of one or other side in that conflict. They are markedly absent from hoards concealed after the 160s, perhaps because they disappeared from circulation as a result of the wrath of Rome which Rhodes had incurred because of her ambiguous stance during the war (see NC 2002, p. 66 n. 6). Place of minting The picture from find-spots is ambiguous. In 1995 T recorded 21 coins from these issues with provenances in mainland Greece, from as far south as Attica to Acarnania, Thessaly, Epiros and Macedonia. Since then 1 have noted a further five with provenances in central or northern Greece.27 In 19951 recorded 12 examples from east of the Aegean, including eight in Fethiye Museum and two from the Marmaris market, to which can now be added the two pieces from the Letoon, a Demokles drachm in CM 8, 427 (overlooked by Marceilesi), and a Eubios drachm in the Kalymna 1932-34 hoard (IGCH 1320), which 1 had overlooked.28 Two further pieces may well have been found in Turkey.29 These figures give totals of 26 found west of the Aegean, and 18 certainly or probably from east of the Aegean. The recorded provenances of some further pseudo-Rhodian drachms which T would also assign to Haliartos (some with letters A - P flanking the rose, others with palmbranch symbol: see further below) are Acarnania, Thessaly (3 pieces), mainland Greece, and Fethiye Museum (see NC 1995, p. 15nos 118, 119; p. 20 nos 129, 131; NC 1997, p. 189, A 27 Two Diokles drachms with provenances given respectively as Thessaly and central Grcecc/Thessaly; two Demokles drachms with provenances recorded respectively as Phokis and central Grcece/Thcssaly; and a Nikostratos drachm reportedly found in Thessaly. 2S See NC 1996, pp. 278-9 and NC 1998, pp. 227, n. 14: though this coin and a second pseudo- Rhodian or Rhodian drachm (with a chimera countermark - sec next but one paragraph) in the hoard seem to be intrusive, an origin in the Dodecanese or the mainland opposite is likely. 29 A Lyson drachm which appeared on the market in 2003 in a large lot of coins from western Asia Minor, and a Demokles drachm in the Sadberk Hanim Museum in Istanbul (Tckin 2003, no 273) for which a provenance within Turkey might be expected. THE LETOON DEPOSIT 125 and B), to which can be added two pieces of these issues on the market in 1997 and 1999 with provenances reported respectively as Phokis and Thessaly/central Greece. The totals for all these issues would thus be 33 from west of the Aegean, and 19 certainly or probably from east of the Aegean. Marcellesi, p. 63, asserts that such statistics were what prompted me in 1995 to assign our issues to central Greece, and she notes that more of these coins hav e been found in south-west Asia Minor than in central Greece. This is misleading. Pseudo- Rhodian drachms in general, including those under discussion here, occur in hoards from all over central, western and northern Greece, and clearly circulated alongside one another irrespective of their place of origin. In 1995 I cited the statistics above only to show that at some stage significant quantities of these issues had crossed the Aegean, and warned explicitly that the larger number of coins from mainland Greece was not necessarily a reliable guide, given that nine of these coins came from a single deposit (the Metsovo hoard). I did not use them to argue for an origin in central Greece of the issues under discussion, an hypothesis for which 1 used other arguments, as we shall see. Was the transfer of our coins from east to west or west to east across the Aegean? Marcellesi, p. 63, asserts that, if the countermarks found on our issues were applied in the region where the coins themselves were struck, this would favour south-west Asia Minor as the origin of the coins, it being common ground that most of the countermarks concerned were applied in Lycia or Carta, and that all the known findspots of coins with these countermarks are in south-west Asia Minor (NC 1995. p. 10 Table 4. to which add a chimera countermark on a second Rhodian or more likely pseudo-Rhodian drachm in the Kalymna 1932-34 hoard mentioned above, and a chimera countermark on the Diokles drachm from the Lctoon). However, it is far from necessary to assume that the countermarks were applied in the region of the coins' origin, and indeed a large proportion of the Rhodian-type drachms recorded with the Lycian countermarks chimera and lyre are quasi-official coins minted on Crete with the name Ainetor and symbol caduceus (see NC 1987, pp. 22- 4).3U Marcellesi ends (p. 64) by asserting that the only certain fact is that our issues circulated at the same time in mainland Greece and western Asia Minor, and that, in the absence of more clear-cut evidence, it would be prudent not to attempt to attribute them to one region or another. There /.$', however, some clear-cut evidence and it indicates firmly that the movement was from mainland Greece to Asia Minor. Firstly, it is noteworthy that, in all cases where the provenances of the coins to which the Lycian-Carian countermarks were applied are known, they are east of the Aegean. None of the more numerous coins with provenances west of the Aegean bear the Lycian/Carian countermarks. This strongly suggests that the coins had to travel west-east over the Aegean to receive these countermarks. Secondly, and overlooked by Marcellesi, there is a marked difference in the distribution patterns of coins countermarked with a dolphin or dolphin + IT on the These Cretan coins are found in large numbers in hoards from mainland Greece from the period of ihe Third Macedonian War; like the drachms under discussion, they may have been brought to south- west Asia Minor by Pergamene troops returning from Greece in 171 BC: sec below. 126 R.H.J. ASHTON and A.R. MEADOWS one hand, and of coins with countermarks agreed to be Lycian or Carian on the other.31 Coins with the Carian/Lycian countermarks are recorded only from south- west Turkey, whereas the coins with these dolphin countermarks are recorded only from mainland Greece: see NC 1995, p. 10 Table 4. If the dolphin which occurs as a symbol on most of the issues under discussion has the same reference as the dolphin of the countermarks (this is corroborated by the occurrence of /T on two examples of the countermark, and the letters A - A flanking the rose on some of the Eubios dies), then the mint which struck the issues with dolphin symbols (and perhaps also the Nikostratos issue) will have been responsible for the countermarks. Since the dolphin countermarks seem to have been applied in mainland Greece, that is where the mint will be, and the transfer of these coins across the Aegean will have been west to east rather than east to west. Thirdly, it can be pointed out that from the two large issues of pseudo-Rhodian drachms which by common consent were struck in south-west Asia Minor, the eagle-on-cheek drachms of Mylasa and the Mousaios drachms, only two coins have ever been recorded from west of the Aegean (two Mousaios drachms on the Athens market). Otherwise the numerous recorded provenances are all from the eastern side of the Aegean, and mostly in south-west Asia Minor. The Mousaios issue seems smaller, to judge from the number of recorded dies, than the Diokles, dolphin and Nikostratos issues under discussion, but the Mylasa eagle-on-cheek issue is much larger. The contrast with the Diokles. dolphin and Nikostratos issues, with their preponderance of provenances west of the Aegean, is very marked. The overwhelming probability thus seems to be that the Diokles. dolphin and Nikostratos coins travelled west-east rather than east-west, and that their mints were on the western side of the Aegean. Where were these mints? Marcellesi, p. 62, explains the sign E3 on the Diokles coins as a monogram composed of letters such as HTE, H0 or even HE and representing the first letters of a personal name. This cannot of course be formally excluded, but it seems very improbable, for the fact remains that as it stands the sign looks like a single letter and, more precisely, like an epichoric aspirate or eta, as Tmhoof-Blumer had been the first to see;32 moreover, monograms are extremely rare on pseudo-Rhodian coins (except for the special case of the eagle-on-cheek Mylasean drachms). Tf one wanted to represent HTE, H0 or HE in a monogram, forms like T£, hB and hE would surely have been more likely. Apart from its apparent use (in the form B) as a symbol on coins of Argos (Imhoof-Blumer 1871, pp. 391-409) and a control on some coins of Seleukos 1 (SC nos 134.3 and 135), the only other occurrence of E3 on coins seems to be that on the archaic silver coins from the Boiotian League which have been traditionally given to Haliartos, but which Etienne and Knoepfler give to Hyettos. There is no need to repeat here the arguments which I made in NC 1995, pp. 12-14 " The countermarks with dolphin or dolphin + IT appear to have no connection with a countermark, mentioned above, with dolphin and widely separated letters 1 - A which occurs on two Mousaios drachms, one of them acquired from the dealer Zitelli on Rhodes. It may well have been applied at Iasos (NC 1987, p. 9 no. 8. p. 10 no. 20. and p. 17). 32 1871. pp. 409-11, even though his interpretation of the coin in question was mistaken: NC 1995, p. 11 n. 12. THE l.ETOON DEPOSIT 127 and NC 2000, pp. 95-7. justifying the return of these archaic coins to Haliartos, not least because Marcellesi, while expressing little faith in them (p. 62 n. 30), makes no attempt to refute them. It is however worth pointing out that the philological arguments deployed by Etienne and Knoepfler to justify the non-aspiration of Haliartos in the archaic and classical period are scarcely 'tires solides' (Marcellesi, p. 62): respectable and argued with characteristic verve, yes; proven, far from. Moreover, there is a further complicated but plausible argument linking the Diokles drachms and their, ex hypothesis epichoric aspirate symbol to Haliartos, which again Marcellesi does not address, although it was set out in detail in NC 2000, pp. 94-5. The letters A - P flank the rose on some pseudo-Rhodian drachms signed by an Apollodoros. and this name recurs on a further small group of pseudo- Rhodian drachms with palm branch symbol, which are also signed by a Diokles and a Thrasykleidas. Haliartos was originally spelt with rho instead of lambda in its first syllable, and ethnics beginning AP and AA in epichoric and Ionic script occur on coins of Haliartos from the fifth and fourth century (my assumption is that at some time after the archaic period and before the adoption of the Ionic alphabet in the fourth century, the authorities at Haliartos had begun to drop the notation of the aspirate in epichoric documents, as occurred elsewhere). Diokles and Apollodoros are of course common names, but they do not occur on any other pseudo-Rhodian coins (except for a unique piece with Diokles and ?ivy-leaf as symbol - NC 1995, p. 19 no. 128 ), and the name Diokles thus links two sets of pseudo-Rhodian drachms with, respectively, a symbol which looks like the epichoric aspirate found on the archaic coins traditionally attributed to Haliartos. and the letters AP, which are the first letters of the earlier form of the ethnic used on fifth and fourth century coins of Haliartos. (Note also that the palm branch group has a broad distribution on either side of the Aegean similar to that of the El, dolphin and Nikostratos issues.) This would be a very odd coincidence, and, though the case is not of course proven beyond doubt, it is attractive to argue that the authorities at Haliartos, when they felt the need to strike a coinage after some two centuries during which the city had apparently issued nothing at all, harked back to the traditional forms of the ethnic used on the archaic and classical coinages. As for the dolphin and Nikostratos issues, 1 have suggested nearby Larymna as the mint, though with no great confidence (see above). There is moreover a plausible occasion for the emission of the Diokles/ Apollodorus/Thrasykleidas drachms - Haliartos' adherence to Perseus during the Third Macedonian War, which prompted the Romans to besiege and destroy it in 171 BC (NC 1995. p. 15 with reft"). The same events might explain the presence of a significant number of the coins in south-west Asia Minor, for a contingent of 2000 Pergamene troops took part in the siege and almost certainly went back to Asia Minor at the end of 171. If they were posted to Telmessos. an enclave of Pergamene territory surrounded by lands controlled by Rhodes, with which a frontier dispute had broken out, they may well have put into local circulation pseudo-Rhodian drachms which they had picked up before and after the siege of Haliartos (NC 1995. p. 18 with reff). R.II.J. ASHTON and A.R. MEADOWS As for the countermarking of these coins in Lycia, in 1987 I suggested that it may have been a temporary expedient whereby the Lycians, in revolt against Rhodes, re-issued as their national currency the coinage of, or coinage which imitated that of, Rhodes, and that perhaps the countermarked coins were valued more highly than uncountermarked coins of Rhodes. Marcellesi. p. 67. makes the interesting observation that old-style Rhodian-type drachms clearly circulated alongside Rhodian plinthophoric drachms in Lycia. and suggests that the countermarks were applied to give the old-style drachms a new value, perhaps to equate them with the (heavier) plinthophoric drachms. This could be right, but it is noticeable that none of the countermarked coins is a product of the Rhodian mint: all are either pseudo- Rhodian coins or (in the case of the Ainetor + caduceus drachms) quasi-official coins struck on Crete. No regular Rhodian coin is known to have been so countermarked, and all of the countermarked pseudo- or quasi-Rhodian drachms weigh significantly less than the c.2.8g normal for the pre-plinthophoric old-style Rhodian drachm. The countermarks may thus have been applied to equate the pseudo-Rhodian old-style drachms with authentic old-style Rhodian drachms. In keeping with her desire to decouple at least a significant part of the pseudo- Rhodian drachms circulating in mainland Greece from the events of the Third Macedonian War (see above for counter-argument), Marcellesi, pp. 65-6, is keen to stress that Rhodian and. she suggests, pseudo-Rhodian drachms played a major and non-military regional role in western Asia Minor, citing the use of 'old" (i.e. pre-plinthophoric) Rhodian drachms in the terms of the well-known treaty between Milctos and Hcraklcia-by-Latmos in the period between 185/4 and 182/1, i.e. well before the Third Macedonian War: and the use of Rhodian drachms, probably pre- plinthophoric, in inventories at the Milesian Didymeion of the 170s to 150s as the weight-standard of reference for the evaluation of certain offerings. But this is a straw man. an Aunt Sally. No-one wishes to deny the ubiquity of Rhodian coinage in south-west Asia Minor (for discussion of Rhodian coin circulation see Ashton 2001a, pp. 94-6 with reff.), or its influence on neighbouring states in non-military contexts. Whether or not local pseudo-Rhodian drachms from western Asia Minor, which are usually lower in weight than authentic Rhodian drachms, played a similar regional role outside the borders of the states which issued them is more open to doubt. If one regards the El, dolphin, and Nikostratos issues of pseudo-Rhodian drachms as belonging to mainland Greece (see above), the largest issues of pseudo-Rhodian drachms struck east of the Aegean are the eagle-on-cheek drachms of Mylasa and those with the name Mousaios. 1 have suggested in the past a military role for part of the Mylasean drachms and for part of the Mousaios drachms (the campaign of Rhodes against Mylasa and Alabanda in 167). The eagle-on-cheek drachms of Mylasa are now identified with the 'drachms of light Rhodian money' specified in the iease'- inscriptions of Mylasa, and seem to have been introduced in the early 180s in order to service the 'leases' (see above). Since these coins were struck over a period of at least 30-35 years, some of them may have funded military expenditure in the uprising of 167. but this is entirely uncertain. The probable migration of the mint of THE LETOON DEPOSIT 129 the Mousaios drachms eastwards from Mylasa andAlabanda renders their association with the uprising of 167 implausible, and there is no evidence for the purpose for which these coins were struck (see above). As for the other pseudo-Rhodian drachms attributable to south-west Asia Minor, there is no evidence for what role the unique drachm of Kaunos played in c.167 (Ashton 1988). The very rare pseudo-Rhodians of Miletos have no provenances and cannot yet be dated with any precision; I have suggested (NC 2002, p. 72 n. 20) that they may have represented a contribution to one side or the other in the Third Macedonian War in response to the delegations sent to the islands and Asia Minor by Perseus and the Romans in 172/1, but I would certainly not place a great deal of weight on this idea. The pseudo-Rhodians of Kos are a different case: no fewer than ten of these rare coins are recorded from the Oreus 1902 hoard (IGCH 232) buried c. 170 BC, and the five coins which can be traced are all in fresh condition (NC 1998, pp. 224-5); it is difficult to believe that these were not contributions to one side or the other in the Third Macedonian War. A couple of further pseudo-Rhodian drachms which may belong to Kos occur in good condition in the Oreus hoard and the Metsovo hoard (IGCH 231) of about the same date (NC 1998, pp. 227-8, and /VC2002, pp. 65-7). SECTION 4. THE NATURE OE THE LETOON DEPOSIT (ARM) As the archaeologists have now clearly established, the cella was not paved, and thus the layer of fill within, even if it had remained undisturbed since antiquity, cannot be said to have been sealed at the time of the Letoon's construction. In fact, there has clearly been disruption to the context of the coin finds in later periods. Ceramic evidence from within the foundations of the Letoon's predecessor make it clear that the cella had been disturbed by treasure-hunting as early as the 7lh century AD.33 In the circumstances, Marcellesi is rightly cautious of designating the assemblage as a single hoard or deposit: disruption of archaeological context aside, the coins presented range from the 5,h century BC (no. 83) to the 4"' century AD (nos. 73-4). She concludes that 'the "hoard" discovered in the Letoon is thus difficult to interpret. Contrary to what one might expect from the find-spot, it is not a closed assemblage, nor a foundation deposit. We cannot know whether the presence of the coins in the cella is ancient, or whether it is connected to pillage of the temple, or whether the coins are the remnants of offerings stored in the temple, or whether they were abandoned at a time after they had ceased to be used.' This summary may be unnecessarily bleak. The basic pattern of representation of identifiable coins can fairly easily be schematized thus (Table 2): 3:,See LeRoy 1991, p. 345. 130 R.I I.J. ASHTON and A.R. MEADOWS 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 , ■ 1 . . 1 . A' Table 2. Conspectus of coinages from the Letoon excavations To be sure, there are some strays among the coins excavated from within the cella, but the identity of these is fairly clear. The dynastic issue of the 5th century BC is an obvious outlier, predating even the construction of the earlier temple. Setting it aside, the earliest coins present are probably the pseudo-Rhodian issues of the 170s BC (see section 3 above) and the lone - and rare - bronze of Antiphellos, which may tentatively be dated to 3rd or 2nd century BC.34 At the other end of the chronological scale are two late Roman bronzes of the 4lh century AD, three provincial bronzes and a denarius of the 1st century AD (Cat. nos. 73-4, 123-124, 126 and 125), along with a very small quantity of Lycian League coinage of the mid-late 1st century BC (Cat. nos. 68-71 and 122 [AE] and 67 and 121 [AR]).35 But the bulk (86%) of the coinage comes from Rhodes and Lycia, and from a period spanning Jenkins' plinthophoric groups A-D at the former mint, and TroxelPs Periods T-ITT at the latter. Particularly to be noted are the absences of Rhodian plinthophori of Group E, and the first century silver drachms of the same mint with full-blown rose viewed from above. Absent too are the silver Lycian coins of TroxelPs Period II series 2, which Troxell argued, on the basis of their weight standard, to be contemporary with the Rhodian Group E. Also remarkably underrepresented is the substantial Lycian League coinage of the districts (TroxelPs Period IV), for which we would maintain a date range of c.80s-the reign of the Augustus. The silver of this productive period in Lycia accounts for less than 2% of the total identifiable finds from the cella. If this collection of coins did represent, as Marcellesi seems tempted to believe, a reflection of dedicatory practice M Cat. no. 72. Cf. A.T. Tek, 'Hellenistik ye erken Roma imparatorluk donemlcrinde Likya'da basilan otonom §ehir sikkeleri", The IllrciInternational Symposium on Lycia 07- W November 2005 Antalya. Symposium Proceedings (Antalya. 2007). pp. 769-87. al 770. 15 Strikingly, the excavators noted the discovery of one of these pieces (no. 67) 'au dessus du remblai. dans la couche de destruction." (Hansen and Le Roy 1076. p. 321). the letoon deposit at the sanctuary of Leto over the course of the Hellenistic and early Roman periods, then this pattern of representation would be odd indeed. The absence of lsl century material might, as Marcellesi suggests (p. 89), be indicative of a reduction in visitors to the sanctuary, but this is hardly in line with other archaeological or epigraphic evidence for the use of the sanctuary.36 It is no less difficult to believe Marcellesi's other proposed explanation (pp. 78 and 89), that the absence of later, lower-weight coinage is caused by the desire of donors to provide silver coinage of good weight, rather than reduced: how then are we to explain the remarkably high proportion of bronze of the second century, but comparative lack for the lsl century? In fact, the overall impression is that the bulk of this coinage was assembled over a relatively short period, perhaps around the time that the Rhodian plinthophoric series B and C and Troxell's Period II, series 1 silver and Period III bronze were the dominant issues in circulation. Conceivably, the three pseudo-Rhodian coins, which presumably arrived in Lycia during the first half of the 2nd century BC, and the bronze of Antiphellos, may also be counted within this group. In total, these coinages account for almost 90% of the eel la deposit, and constitute a perfectly plausible single deposit or hoard, or a group of deposits or losses made within a relatively limited time-frame, such as the period of the temple's construction. If we pursue this line of reasoning, then we must ask when the(se) deposit(s) is (are) likely to have been made. The relatively poor representation of the substantial Jenkins group D for Rhodes, and of Troxell's period II for the Lycian League, may suggest that both of these coinages were only just beginning to enter circulation at the time of deposit. Hoard evidence suggests that Jenkins group D began to be produced only around the last quarter of the 2nd century, and certainly before c.88 BC.37 There is no hoard evidence for the date of the earliest Lycian League silver included in the cella finds. We can say only, on the basis of its design and weight standard, that Period II series 1 must have been struck during the period that Rhodian plinthophori of Groups A-D1 were being produced, thus between c. 190 and c.88 BC. In fact, if we take the evidence of the Letoon cella as chronologically significant, then this may provide an important relative chronology between the Rhodian and Lycian mints. As we have seen, Rhodian plinthophori of Groups A-D are present, but only a handful of the last Group, which may suggest that they had not long been in production. Equally, only a small quantity of Lycian League silver was present. The most straightforward interpretation of this evidence would be that the Lycian League coinage of period II series I is broadly contemporary with the Rhodian plinthophori of group D, and thus did not enter production until well into the second half of the 2nd century BC. 36 As yet there is no study of the Hellenistic ceramics from the Letoon: see Laroche et al. 2007, p. 333. However, epigraphic evidence demonstrates that during the V cent. BC, for example, the Romaia were drawing an international crowd to the sanctuary: see Robert 1978. For the early imperial period there is ample evidence of pottery from the first century AD onwards from an area of fill at the north peribolos wall of the sanctuary: Des Courtils and Laroche 2004, pp. 328ff. 37 As has been noted above (Section 2) they are absent from the Naxos 1926 hoard of the 120s BC (IGCH 255) and present in the Delos 1964 hoard (IGCH 336). 132 R.M.J. ASHTON and A.R. MEADOWS This is considerably later than has often been assumed, but there is no strong evidence against such a proposition. As Marcellesi has noted (p. 81), the new evidence from the Letoon suggests that the Lycian bronze coinage of Troxell's Period I is larger than had previously been thought. It may thus have been in use for a number of years after its beginning, perhaps in the 170s.38 A date in the second half of the second century BC for Troxell's Period II, Series 1 in fact suits well the stylistic similarity that Troxell noted between certain obverse dies of this series and the depiction of Apollo on the 'cistophoric' coinage of Alabanda in Caria. The Alabandan coinage is dated and belongs most probably to the period c. 166-133 BC.34 The obverses bearing the closest similarity to the Lycian silver, with corkscrew locks descending in an inverted 'V from behind the ear, seem to date to the years c.155 and later (compare Troxell plate 12, F and, e.g., plate 3, 12.1-13.1). They would thus be contemporary with the Lycian League silver on the later chronology proposed here. If the Letoon deposit is an accurate reflection of circulation at around the time of the introduction of Jenkins group D, then it shows how the silver circulation pool of the region was dominated by Rhodian coinage, and that of the bronze by Lycian.4" Conceivably a substantial part of this plinthophoric coin supply had entered Lycia while it still belonged to Rhodes, 188-167 BC. I have suggested elsewhere that the reason for the commencement of the Lycian League plinthophoric silver may have been a tailing-off of supply of Rhodian plinlhophori to the province. Pace Marcellesi, such an interpretation is certainly not ruled out by the Letoon evidence.41 Finally, we may suggest that the coins found in the cella of the Letoon seem to have been accumulated essentially shortly after and shortly before the middle of the 2nd century BC. If we are correct in assuming that this coinage was deposited during the building of the Letoon, then this suggests that the temple was perhaps begun, as has often been suggested, after the Lycian acquisition of independence in the 160s BC, and was perhaps completed early in the final quarter of the 2nd century BC. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS Ashton 1987 R. Ashton, 'Pseudo-Rhodian drachms and the beginning of the Lycian League coinage1, NC 147, pp. 8-25 Ashton 1988 R. Ashton, -A pseudo-Rhodian drachm from Kaunos', SM 8/1988, pp. 67-70 Ashton 1991 R. Ashton. 'A hoard of late Rhodian plinthophoric hemidrachms (CH 4, 12)\NC 151. pp. 202-4 Ashton 1992 R. Ashton, 'The pseudo-Rhodian drachms of Mylasa', NC 152, pp. 1-39 ?s On the date: Ashton 1987, p. 19 ?9 Troxell, p. 95 n. 198. accepting a later date for the Alabandan issues. For the period c. 166-133 BC" see most recently Meadows 2008. 40 Bronze of Troxell period I was still in circulation, but issues of period of 111 seem already to have begun to appear. This is somewhat earlier than Troxell (pp. 107-8) allowed, but by no means impossible. Insofar as it possible to tell from the photographs, all of the period III issues from the Letoon are of Troxell's style A. and thus from the earlier part of this coinage. 41 Meadows 2001, p. 56; Marcellesi 2007. p. 79. THE LETOON DEPOSIT 133 Ashton 1995 R. Ashton. 'Pseudo-Rhodian drachms from Central Greece', NC 155, pp. 1-20 Ashton 1997 R. Ashton, 'More pscudo-Rhodian drachms from central Greece', NC 157, pp. 188-91 Ashton 1998 The pseudo-Rhodian drachms of Kos', NC 158, pp. 223-8 Ashton 2001a R. Ashton, 'Rhodian coinage 408-C.190 BC in A. Meadows and K. Shipton (eds). Money and its Uses in the Ancient Greek World {Oxford), pp. 79-115 Ashton 2001 b R. Ashton, 'Rhodian bronze coinage and the siege of Mithradates VI', NC 161, pp. 53-66 Ashton 2002 R. Ashton. -Clubs, thunderbolts.NC 162, pp. 59-78 Ashton 2005 R. Ashton. 'Recent epigraphic evidence for the beginning of the Rhodian and Lykian League plinthophoroi', NC 165, pp. 85-9 Ashton R. Ashton, 'The only recorded name on Rhodian plinthophoric chalkoi' forthcoming (in a forthcoming festschrift) Ashton and Reger R. Ashton & G. Reger, 'The pseudo-Rhodian drachms of Mylasa revisited' in R 2006 van Allen (ed.), Agoranomia. Studies in Money and Exchange presented to John H. Kroll (New York), pp. 125-50 Ashton with R. Ashton with A.-R Weiss 'The posl-plinthophoric silver drachms of Weiss 1997 Rhodes', NC 157, pp. 1-40 Aupert 1982 R Aupert, 'Une donation lagide et chypriote a Argos', BCH 106, pp. 264-77 and 643. Bresson 1997 A. Bresson, 'La monnaie rhodienne au ler s. a.C. Nouveautes et interrogations', Topoi 7, pp. 11-32 Bresson 1998 A. Bresson, 'Rhodes, Cnide et les Lyciens au debut du iie siecle av. J.- C.\ REA 100/1-2, pp. 65-88. Chantraine 1999 R Chantraine, Dictionnaire etymologic/tie de la langue grecque (Paris) Des Courtils and J. Des Courtils and D. Laroche, 'Xanthos - le Letoon. Rapport sur la Laroche 1998 campagne de 1997', Anal. Ant. 6 (1998), pp. 457-77 Des Courtils and J. Des Courtils and D. Laroche, 'Xanthos - le Letoon. Rapport sur la Laroche 1999 campagne de 1998', Anal. Ant. 7 (1999), pp. 367-99 Des Courtils and J. Des Courtils and D. Laroche, 'Xanthos et Letoon: rapport sur la Laroche 2002 campagne de 2001', Anat. Ant. 10 (2002), pp. 297-333. Des Courtils and J. Des Courtils and D. Laroche, 'Xanthos et Letoon: rapport sur la Laroche 2003 campagne de 2002', Anat. Ant. 11 (2003), pp. 423-56. Des Courtils and J. Des Courtils and D. Laroche, 'Xanthos et Letoon: rapport sur la Laroche 2004 campagne de 2003', Anat. Ant. 12 (2004), pp. 309-40. Hansen 1991 E. Hansen, 'Le Temple de Leto au Letoon de Xanthos', RA 1991, pp. 323-37 Hansen and Le E. Hansen and C. Le Roy, 'Au Letoon de Xanthos: les deux temples de Roy 1976 Leto', RA 1976, pp. 317-36 Imhoof-Blumer R Imhoof-Blumer, 'Anaktorion Argos - Lepsimandos. Tempelschlussel 1871 auf Miinzen', NZ3, pp. 388-418 R.H.J. ASHTON and A.R. MEADOWS Jenkins G.K. Jenkins, 'Rhodian plinthophoroi - a sketch' in G. Le Rider et al. (eds). Kraay-Morkholm Essays (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1989), pp. 101-119 King 2007 C.E. King, Roman Quinarii from the Republic to Diocletian and the Tetrarchy (O x fo rd) Laroche et al. D. Laroche et al., 'Rapport sur les travaux de la mission archeologique du 2007 Letoon en 2006', Anat. Ant. 15 (2007), pp. 325-34 Le Roy 1991 C. Le Roy, 'Le developpement monumental du Letoon de Xanthos', RA 1991, pp. 341-51 Le Roy 1996 C. Le Roy, 'Une convention entre cites en Lycie du Nord', CRAI 1996, pp. 961-80 Marcellesi 2007 M.-C. Marcellesi, 'Le "tresor" du temple du Letoon de Xanthos (1975- 2002). Les monnaies rhodiennes et la circulation monetaire en Lycie a la basse epoque hellenistique", RN 163, pp. 45-90 Meadows 2002 A. Meadows, 'Stratonikeia in Caria: the Hellenistic city and its coinage', NC 162, pp. 79-134 Meadows 2005 A. Meadows, 'Ptolemy VI, VIII, Cleopatra II, Cyprus and Argos: an enigmatic monetary transaction of the 2nd century BC\ NC 165, pp. 91-7 Meadows 2006 A. Meadows, 'Amyntas, Side, and the Pamphylian Plain' in P. van Alfen (ed.), Agoranomia. Studies in Money and Exchange presented to John H. Kroll (New York), pp. 151 -75 Meadows 2008 A. Meadows, Alahanda in Caria. A Hellenistic City and its Coinage. Unpublished DPhil thesis (Oxford) Melville Jones, J. Melville Jones, Testimonia Numaria (Vol. 1, London, 1993; Vol 11, 77VI and 11 London, 2007) Picard 1998 O. Picard, 'Les momiaies de compte de Delphes a apousia" in D. Knoepfler (ed.), Comptes et inventaires dans la citegrecque, Actes du colloque de Neuchdtel en I 'honneur de Jacques Treheux (Neuchatel - Geneva), pp. 91-101 Robert 1951 L. Robert, Etudes de numismatique grecque (Paris) Robert 1978 L. Robert, 'Catalogue agonistique des Romaia de Xanthos', Rev. Arch. 1978, pp. 277-90 Tekin 2003 O. Tekin, Sadherk Hanim Milzesi Antik Sikkeler Katalogu / Catalogue of the Ancient Coins in the Sadherk Hanim Museum (Istanbul) Thompson 1961 M. Thompson. The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens (New York) Troxell H. Troxell, The Coinage of the Lycian League (ANSNNM 162, New York, 1982)