Ptolemy VI, VIII, Cleopatra II, Cyprus and Argos: an Enigmatic Monetary Transaction of the 2nd century BC more

Ptolemy VI, VIII, Cleopatra II, Cyprus and Argos: an Enigmatic Monetary Transaction of the 2nd Century BC A.R. MEADOWS In the course of the French excavations at Argos in 1981, three blocks of limestone were brought to light which together formed part, or perhaps the whole, of a single, intriguing inscription [Inv. Thermes 929 and Epigraphie 321). It was published with commendable dispatch by P. Aupert in 1982.1 The text was initially printed by Aupert as follows: Col. I Col. II [BaaiAEijt;] n[ToAE^i]cuog 1 [icai. a! tioAelc ax ev KJuttqcul [icai. pa<TtA]ei3c nToAejaaiofc] 2 [ —c.8-9 —] AAAM-IC [6 d&eAcbo]c icai j3aau\taa[a] 3 [KaQ]naoElc. AAAAf- ZZ [KAEOTcajxoa r\ d&eAcbr] 4 EaAajaiviOL HHTimz [jjvaLEia] Eiicoot icaivd 5 Kouoietc; H0AAH?]fIZ [...c. 6-7...]IOKANxouaoO [?] 6 A|_ta0oi3aioi. AAAArCZ [...c. 7-S...] ?%ovoov 7 AAAtM-Z [------?] vacat 8 ToAyEic AAAAFZZ vacat 9 Kitielc HHTimZf?) 10 ndcbLOL H 'King Ptolemy [ and King Ptolemy [ his brother and Queen | Kleopatra their sister | twenty ka'ma [mnaieia] | [---] gold [---] | [......] gold .... [and the cities in Cyprus] | [......]: 33 drachmas and 2 obols | [Kar]paseis: 41 drachmas and 4 obols | Salaminioi: 208 drachmas and 2 obols j Kourieis: 172(?) drachmas and 4 obols | Amathousioi: 41 drachmas and 4 obols |Tamasseis: 33 drachmas and 2 obols | Golgeis: 41 drachmas and 4 obois | Kitieis: 208 drachmas and 2 obols | Paptiioi: 100 drachmas.' P. Aupert, 'Une donation lagide ct chypriote a Argos', BCH 106 (1982), pp. 264-277 with addendum, ibid., p. 643 {SEC 32, 371). Cf. J. and L. Robert, Bulletin Epigrapluque 1983, 192; K. Bringmann and H. von Steuben (cds), Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechixche Stadle und Heiligtiimer I (Berlin, 1995), p. 94, no. 47. I am indebted to Dr. Celine Marquaille for discussion of the Cypriot context of this inscription. 92 A.R. MEADOWS The co-regency mentioned in Col. I obtained in Egypt from 170 - 164 BC and provides a relatively precise context for the engraving of the stone. However, the exact nature of the document is far from clear, and rests in part on the interpretation of two monetary aspects of the text. Two features of this stone in particular have attracted numismatic comment. Aupert (p. 267), in justifying his restoration of Col. 11.5 discussed the use of the adjective kaina (kcuv&). favouring the interpretation of the word as 'un terme technique du vocabulaire monetaire', referring 'a un nouveau type monetaire, qui s'oppose... a un type ancien'. As Ashton has argued,2 however, the adjective seems more normally to have been used in a technical sense to refer to fresh coinage. This latter interpretation perhaps suits the context of this stone better than the former. The mnaieia {\xvaisXa, if correctly restored) must, as Aupert saw, equate to the Ptolemaic gold 100 drachma coins.3 It is difficult, however, to see to what a new monetary type of these might refer. From the reign of Ptolemy II down to the end of the production of gold mnaieia under, most probably, Ptolemy VI, the weight of these pieces remained constant. Aupert noted two issues of mnaieia produced on Cyprus at the mints of Saiamis and Kition with the numbers 13 and 14 respectively, which were interpeted by Svoronos as belonging to year 13 (169 BC) and year 14 (168 BC) of Philometor, and on this dating fall within the chronological range that can be assigned to the inscription."' However, Svoronos' dating of these issues is surely wrong, since there were no officially recognised years 13 and 14 of the reign of Philometor. He ruled for ] 2 years before the dating system was changed to one based on the joint regency between him and his brother and sister. This began again in 170 BC at year 1 and ran to year 7. Following Philometor's restitution to the throne in 163 BC his reign was again calculated from the beginning of the previous sole regency, the first year of his restitution being counted as his 18Ih year.5 The two Cypriot gold issues are thus best reattributed to the reign of Epiphanes, and ■ Above pp. 87-9. I am grateful to Richard Ashton for discussion of these matters and his comments on an earlier draft of this paper 3 They are often wrongly described as octadrachms. In fact their weight (Uke then- name) was dictated by their equivalence in value to 100 drachmas of silver at a gold:silver ratio of 1:12.8. See- G Le Rider, 'Histoire economique et monetaire de 1'Orient hellenistique', Anmiaire du College de France 1997-8. Resume des Cours 98 (5998), pp. 783-S09 at 795 {= id., Etudes d'Histoire Monetaire et Fmanciere du Monde Grec. Ecrils 1958-1998. Ill, p. 1139) ' Aupert, op. cit. (n. I), p. 268. J. Svoronos, Ta Nomismata tou Kratous ton Ptolemaion (Athens, 1904), nos. 1452 and 1470. 5 This reconstruction, which is based on the papyrological evidence, seems to apply equally to the silver coinage. See T.C. Skcat, The Reigns of the Ptolemies. Mfmchener Beilrage zur Papynisforschung tmd Antiken Rechtsgeschichte 39 (Munich, 1954), and I. Ntcolaou and O. Morkholm, Paphos I. A Ptolemaic Coin Hoard (Nicosia, 1976). AN ENIGMATIC MONETARY TRANSACTION OF THE 2N0 CENTURY BC 93 we are left with no Ptolemaic gold coinage that could in any sense be described as 'new' in the joint regency of the kings and queen. It is, however, perfectly possible that the Ptolemaic kings retained a supply of fresh mnaieia from which they disbursed 20 coins around 170-164 BC. To this extent the Argive inscription supports the interpretation of the qualification kainos suggested above by Ashton. The second monetary aspect to this inscription to have attracted attention is the list of sums of money in Col. II. which received detailed treatment from O. Picard in an appendix to the original publication of the text.6 Following a suggestion of J. Bousquet. Picard converted all the sums listed into obols and noted that nine out of the ten figures when divided by 12.5 produced whole numbers, viz. Saiamis and Kition: 1250 ob / 12.5 = 100 Paphos: 600 ob /12.5 = 48 Amathus, Golgoi and Karpasia: 250 ob / 12.5 = 20 Tamassos and [--] 200 ob /12.5 = 16 By restoring the figure in Col. II1. 5 as 172 drachmas and 5 obols, and reading that as 172 drachmas and 5.5 obols, he produced another whole figure for Kourion: Kourion: 1037.5 ob / 12.5 = 83 The process of dividing by 12.5 was taken by Picard to be the conversion of Ptolemaic weight tetradrachms (in which a donation from Cyprus would have arrived in Argos) to the obol in use at Argos at this period (oh the weight standard of the Achaean League) according to a ratio of 1 Ptolemaic tetradrachm : 12.5 Achaean obols. This suggestion is far from satisfactory, however, on a number of counts. First, as Picard himself, noted, the ratio of 1 : 12.5 for the Ptolemaic tetradrachm : Achaean obol bears little relation to the actual weights of these coins at this period. The former weighed c.34.2g, the latter c.0.S5g, producing a ratio closer to I : 17. The figures for numbers of tetradrachms that are yielded look odd too. Did two cities really decide to send only 16 coins to Argos. and one (Kourion) the odd number of 83 (totalling 332 drachmas)? This last figure is in fact doubly worrying, since to arrive at it Picard was forced to read one figure on the stone (172 drachmas and 5 obols) and assume another (172 drachmas 5.5 obols) for his calculation. Yet, examination of the photographs (and indeed the drawing) provided by Aupert in his publication suggest that, if one element of the figure 6 O. Picard, 'Note sur le taux de change de la donation Chypriote', BCH 106 (I9S2), pp. 278-S0. 94 A.R. MEADOWS in Co! II. I. 5 is secure, it is the number of obols, which seems clearly to read ZZ (4). Aupert, in fact, in the light of this difficulty, subsequently re-examined the traces of this line and suggested a different reading: HGJAAAAHZ.7 The resulting sum of 191 drachmas and 4 obols is divisible by 12.5, yielding a sum of 92 'Ptolemaic1 tetradrachms. It is, however, far from clear that the traces on the stone support such a reading. Aupert himself reported: 'Le quatrieme delta est relativement lisible parmi les defauts de la pierre. U implique la lecture du troisieme, qui a ete regrave sur un chiffre anterieure sans doute et s'en trouve beaucoup plus malaisement discemable.' A diagonal stroke is visible on the stone at the right hand side of where a fourth delta might end, but its angle implies a very thin letter indeed, quite unlike the form of this letter elsewhere on the stone. I can discern no traces of a third delta on the published photographs of stone and squeeze. Epigraphic problems aside, we must also question the likelihood of sums having been converted in this way. If Aupert is correct in his assumption that the figures represent a Ptolemaic donation of some description then there was certainly no imperative to convert the sums as there might have been in a commercial transaction. The temple inventories of Delos, for example, show clearly that donations were often simply recorded in terms of the currency in which they were made.8 The resulting patchwork of currencies and weight standards that emerges in such accounts offends the modern eye more than it did the ancient. If it is correct to see in this text an essentially Ptolemaic payment, then the contribution of the Cypriot cities is likely to have been inspired by, perhaps legislated by, the central Ptolemaic administration. Certainly there is good evidence for the active financial exploitation of the cities by the Ptolemaic governors of the island in the period immediately prior to the engraving of our stone. During the early part of Philometor's sole reign, the governor of Cyprus, Ptolemaios Makron was able to turn over a considerable sum of money to the King (rrAf]0oc lkocvov xQqfjdTOJv: Polyb. 27. 13. 3). Revenues exacted from the cities and peoples of the Ptolemaic Empire were generally based on quantities produced of particular commodities and expressed as proportions of production. These could be converted into monetary amounts, and the amounts due to the state or other beneficiary expressed as a quotient of the total. Is it possible that the curious figures of column two have been derived by such a process of proportional calculation? Re-examination of the problematic Col. II. 1. 5 offers just such a rationale for the calculation of the contributions from the Cypriot cities. Taking the figure of four obols as secure, the figures for the drachmas reading from the left are, in 7 Aupert, loc. cit., p. 643 (addendum). " For a discussion of some of the different coinages, see e.g. L. Robert, Eludes de Numismatique Grecque (Paris, 1951), pp. 143-78. AN ENIGMATIC MONETARY TRANSACTION OF THE 2nd CENTURY BC 95 the first places, a clear H (100) and 0 (50). There then follows an oblique stroke moving upwards from left to right into the crack between the two fragments of stone. This letter is probably (so Aupert) to be read as delta (A). Thereafter the traces are ambiguous. There are only three letters that could follow the first delta: another delta, a pi (II) or a P. The next letter appears to begin with a similar oblique to that of the first delta which might suggest (as it did to Aupert) that a second delta followed. But this oblique stretches well above the height of the other letters in the line and may also be interpreted as a scratch. Moreover, immediately abutting what would be the right hand edge of this second delta is a strong vertical mark, with a horizontal element extending leftwards and rightwards at the top of it. The marks are certainly not inconsistent with the presence of a broad letter pi, such as mat in Col II 1. 9, and we might assume a larger than normal gap between this pi and the preceding delta (not unexpected, in this otherwise shoddy piece of engraving) within which an oblique scratch- has later intruded. Thereafter follows a relatively clear P (so, initially, Aupert). This reading of the line yields the figure 166 drachmas and 4 obols. Returning to the figures for the individual cities we might now explore the hypothesis that these numbers are not the results of multiplying smaller numbers by 12.5, but rather the result of dividing larger numbers by 6: Salamis and Kition 208 dr, 2 ob x 6 = 1250 dr Paphos 100drx6 = 6 00dr Amathus, Golgoi and Karpasia: 41 dr, 4 ob x 6 = 250 dr Tamassos and [—]: 33 dr, 2 ob x 6 = 200 dr Kourion: 166 dr, 4 ob x 6 = 1000 dr (Total 5250 > dr) While these figures look comfortingly round, we must ask whether having produced them we are any closer to having understood the function of this inscription or the nature of the payments (if such they are) from the Ptolemaic rulers and the cities of Cyprus. If it is correct to see the Cypriot figures as the result of a division by six, one obvious suggestion presents itself. One-sixth payments are familiar to us from the Ptolemaic Empire, and particularly so in the context of a donation to a deity. From Egypt there is the one-sixth portion of the vintage that was taken by the Ptolemaic state in Egypt for the temples, and subsequently specifically for the deified Arsinoe Philadelphos. This one-sixth portion was known as the apomoira, and there is substantial evidence from Egypt for its operation.9 There is evidence for the existence of this in Ptolemaic territories outside Egypt too. At Telmessos in Lycia we hear of an apomoira 9 For discussion of this sec C. Preaux, L Economic Royale des Lagides (Brussels, 1939), pp. 177- 81. 96 A.R. MEADOWS exacted on the grain, millet, pulse and sesame crops, which was abolished by Ptolemy of Telmessos in the mid 3rd century in favour of a tithe.10 From Cyprus itself an apomoira is attested in a fragmentary inscription from the city of Arsinoe (Marion).11 If the figures for the Cypriot cities do represent one-sixth payments of this type, it is possible that the payments listed represent annual contributions as part of an ongoing commitment. If it is also the case that, like the apomoira in Egypt, they represent one-sixth of the value of a particular agricultural product, this may help to explain why the varying levels of payment contributed by the different cities bear no apparent relationship to their relative size. The sums would reflect the levels of production of a particular product (a function perhaps of topography), rather than the relative size or prosperity of the individual cities. On the hypothesis that these payments represent a sixth part payment analogous to the apomoira, we might perhaps move a little further in suggesting the nature of the payments made at Argos. Aupert's suggestion that these might represent payments towards a temple or cult of an Egyptian deity becomes attractive. We must be cautious however, for it seems that even in Egypt the apomoira destined in theory for the temples of the Royal cult could sometimes be diverted for other purposes.12 Finally, we should note another consequence of the proposition that this text attests a continuing contribution on the part of the royal house and the Cypriot cities to Argos or one of its temples. The payment recorded in our inscription need not necessarily have been the first in the series, merely the record of one of a number. This might solve another of the mysteries of this text. Why were the Ptolemaic house and the cities of Cyprus making such curious payments to Argos? Even if it were safe to assume that these were for the benefit of the Egyptian cult, there is little evidence from the rest of the Greek world that such cults were actively supported by Alexandria. It is perhaps worth dwelling, however, on the relationship between one particular Argive and the Ptolemaic court in the late S^-early 2nd century BC. Polykrates of Argos had, from fairly humble position, risen to the top of the Ptolemaic administrative hierarchy.13 He 10 OGIS 55, 11. 14-17. For discussion see R.S. Bagnall, The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions Outside Egypt (Leiden, 1976), p. 109. " P. Le Bas and W.H. Waddington, Voyage Archeologique en Grece et en Asie Minetire (Paris, 1847-70), no. 2783. For discussion and bibliography see Bagnall, op. cit., p. 78 with n. 163. u See Preaux, op. cit, pp. 179-81. Cf. M. RosIovtzefF, Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World {Oxford, 1941), p. 283: 'No doubt part of the revenue was spent for the purpose for which it was collected. If the cult of Arsinoe was introduced into all the temples of Egypt, as is probable, each temple would receive its share. If not, the money would be spent on the new temples of the new goddess. In any case, if there was a surplus, the government would spend it as it please, and in fact did so.' 13 On the career of Poiykrates see F.W. Walbank,^ Historical Commentary on Polybius I (Oxford, 1957), p. 589; Bagnall, op. cit., pp. 253-5. AN ENIGMATIC MONETARY TRANSACTION OF THE 2nd CENTURY BC 97 was heavily involved in the military preparations for the Battle of Raphia in 217 BC and commanded the Libyan and Egyptian cavalry in the battle itself (Polyb. 5.64-65; 5.82-84). As Polybius was subsequently to put it, during the reign of Ptolemy Philopator, 'this man, even though still young, was second to no-one at court, either in loyalty or activity, and he continued to be so under his successor [Ephiphanes].' (Polyb. 18.55.5) The influence of the family of Polykrates at court continued for another two generations in the persons of his son and grandson. Polykrates himself was still in Ptolemaic military service in 186/5 BC when he was instrumental in the suppression of an Egyptian revolt in the Delta (Polyb. 22.17). In the meantime he had served as the strategos, or governor of Cyprus, whence, like his successor Ptolemaios Makron (above, p. 94), he brought a sizeable sum for Epiphanes on his return to Alexandria. As Polybius explains: 'For, having been entrusted with Cyprus and its revenues in dangerous and difficult times, he had not only protected the island for the young king, but had also collected a sizeable quantity of money.'14 If the gifts to Argos from the Ptolemies and the cities of Cyprus had come about as part of the remarkable influence of Polykrates, it would come as no great surprise to Find them still being made a decade or two later. M Polyb. 18.54.6: 7iicn:eu0Ek yap ttjc Kutidou kcu tgjv iv xavtr\ TtQoad&ajv ev Kaicou; ETtia(baAECu icai TtouciAoic, ou [jovov OLEthuAalie xai nm&l xryv vf|oov, dAAct ica! rtAfjOoi; Lkovov fj0rjOLaE XQnMaTClJV-